by By Scott Cormier — One of the many challenges facility professionals have is identifying and addressing the vulnerabilities and consequences of seismic activity. This is something that organizations often have on their priority list, but don’t necessarily have a clear directive or approach to collecting and analyzing seismic-related data. The structural integrity of a building is usually the first consideration when preparing for earthquakes, but surprisingly, it is often the non-structural components that render facilities unusable and are associated with the greatest level of damage. In order to properly address seismic concerns, many organizations are now looking to facility management experts to conduct seismic assessments. Before getting started, it is important to understand the different aspects of a seismic assessment and how it can provide organizations with a cost-effective, flexible approach to minimize seismic impact.
Structural vs. nonstructural components
Two terms frequently used when talking about the collection and analysis of seismic risk-related data are the structural and nonstructural components of a building.
Seismic assessment—case study
VFA recently completed a comprehensive facility condition assessment for a state agency that incorporated a seismic assessment—which was critical to the state, based on a U.S. Department of Homeland Security mandate.
The assessment team leveraged the FEMA Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) guidelines to collect the necessary seismic-related data about the state’s facilities. Critical to this risk assessment was the initial seismic classification of all the state agency asset types. This classification was done by leveraging VFA assessor experience in conjunction with the criteria outlined by FEMA standards.
Once the buildings were classified, VFA was able to apply a seismic-related ‘S’ score to each building based on a FEMA RVS formula. Utilizing the FEMA guidelines and VFA.facility software, a scoring threshold was then created to highlight assets that fell under a designated score. The state was then able to use this data to quickly analyze its facility portfolio to determine what assets fell into a high seismic risk category.
This allowed them to assign a higher priority to the capital reinvestment work required on these assets, as well as initiate a more detailed structural analysis through a specialized architectural and engineering firm. In most cases, the buildings that fell into this category warranted immediate corrective action to provide seismic-related updates or stabilization in some way.
In addition to the asset classification and scoring, nonstructural seismic requirements and corrective actions were created for each of the assessed buildings. With this data in a centralized repository and access to standard reports, the state was able to review and prioritize all facility requirements. This greatly enhanced the data that was incorporated into the upcoming fiscal year capital planning and budgetary process.
With the assessment project complete, the team generated a final Seismic Findings Report, giving the state agency a holistic view of its portfolio’s seismic-related deficiencies.
As a result, the state agency was able to meet all federal seismic risk requirements and now has a powerful capital planning solution in place to enhance the data management of its facilities.
Structural
The structural portions of a building are those that resist gravity, earthquake, wind and other types of loads. These are called structural components and include columns (posts, pillars); beams (girders, joists); braces; floor or roof sheathing; slabs or decking; load-bearing walls (i.e., walls designed to support the building weight and/or provide lateral resistance); and foundations (mat, spread footings, piles). For buildings planned by design professionals, the structure is typically designed and analyzed in detail by a structural engineer.
Nonstructural
The nonstructural portions include every part of the building and all its contents with the exception of the structure—in other words, everything except for the columns, floors, beams, etc. Common nonstructural components include ceilings, windows, office equipment, computers, inventory stored on shelves, file cabinets, heating, fire protection, ventilation and air-conditioning equipment, electrical equipment, furnishings and lights. Typically, nonstructural items are not analyzed by structural engineers and may be specified by architects, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers and interior designers. Utilizing industry guidelines, these components may also have been installed without the involvement of any design professional after the construction of a building. It is important to note that most of the structural components of a typical facility are concealed from view by nonstructural materials.
Significance of nonstructural damage
When industry professionals think of capturing seismic-related risk data, there is a tendency to focus (sometimes exclusively) on the structural aspects of a building. Of course, this is an important part of the assessment. However, nonstructural components must be addressed with the same level of concern.
Why is nonstructural earthquake damage of concern?
As outlined by the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), there are three types of risk associated with earthquake damage to nonstructural components—life safety, property loss and the interruption or loss of essential functions.
Life safety is the first and most important type of risk. The risk here is that people could be injured or killed by damaged or falling nonstructural components. Even seemingly innocuous items can be lethal if they fall on an unsuspecting victim. For example, if a 25-pound fluorescent light fixture that is not properly fastened to the ceiling breaks loose during an earthquake, the potential for injury is great.
|
|
The second area of risk is property loss, and for most commercial buildings the mechanical, electrical and architectural elements account for 75 to 80 percent of the original construction cost. Contents belonging to the building occupants—such as movable partitions, furniture, files and office or medical equipment—also represent a significant expense. According to FEMA, immediate property losses attributable to the contents alone are estimated to be one-third of the total earthquake losses.
In addition to the life safety and property loss considerations, there is the additional possibility that nonstructural damage will make it difficult or impossible to carry out the functions normally accomplished in a facility. After the serious life safety threats have been dealt with, the potential for post-earthquake downtime or reduced productivity is often a very significant issue.
Addressing the seismic risk
Mitigating seismic risk and accounting for it in facilities capital planning starts with an efficient, standards-based assess-ment of facility assets. Having a clear under-standing of what needs to be done comes with an effective data collection process that drives the necessary planning and execution of corrective actions.
A seismic assessment helps organizations identify seismic-related components that make up their facilities. With this critical data, organizations are empowered to make the best strategic decisions to improve the overall seismic performance of their buildings.
Standards-based assessment methodology
The seismic assessment team ensures that the right data is captured and industry-accepted methodologies are used to calculate seismic-related risk indices. Assessors utilize widely accepted, proven guidelines published by FEMA, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and the CSA. Using these standards allows organizations to retrieve basic structural details and specific nonstructural building components—efficiently identifying and capturing all seismic-related data to generate detailed requirements and their associated corrective actions.
This combination of government seismic standards with assessment experience and dynamic technology provides organizations with a comprehensive, flexible solution to mitigate seismic related risks.
Taking the first step
Even the best seismic planning measures may not prevent damage to facilities. However, having a clear understanding of what needs to be done based on up-to-date facility information can minimize the impact on an organization’s operations. Having accurate information along with a centralized system in place can increase response time and truly affect the days, weeks and even months following a disaster.
From saving lives and minimizing the interruption of business to reconstruction dollars saved, understanding the seismic risk in the asset portfolio is the first major step toward being prepared.
About the author
Scott Cormier is the director of product marketing at VFA, Inc., a provider of solutions for facilities capital planning and spend management. VFA.facility is an award-winning capital planning and management software which empowers organizations with a central source of facility information and provides tools to effectively manage, maintain and leverage data in making optimal decisions about facility spending and capital planning. Cormier may be reached at scormier@vfa.com.