America seems to have an earthquake investment gap, paying billions more annually on average to recover from earthquakes than it invests to prevent losses beforehand. Two large studies for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the US Geological Survey (USGS) offer insight into how well American buildings will resist future catastrophic earthquakes. They suggest that the public prefers new buildings to do more than to assure life safety, which has been the building code’s historic objective. They also suggest that greater resilience would better serve society’s economic interests. People expect to be safe in new buildings and the building code delivers safety. But people also want to use buildings after the Big One. America has a few options for meeting those expectations, including stronger, stiffer construction, with geographically optimized strength and stiffness. Greater strength and stiffness is not the only option to improve resilience, but such an approach offers the advantages that it could be implemented in practice by any structural designer without requiring additional technical expertise, software, of proprietary technology. It would produce a healthier economy and save society an average of $4 for every $1 of added cost. The savings cross property lines, benefiting tenants, owners, lenders, developers, and everyone who does business with them. The added cost would amount to approximately 1%, and experience in Moore, Oklahoma, shows that it would probably affect real estate sales and prices little or not at all. The solution addresses ethical considerations by responding to the public’s expectations for better performance and by optimizing utilitarian outcomes. Other options such as second-generation performance-based earthquake engineering, innovative technologies, and rating systems could complement this approach and further increase resilience.
AagaardBTBlairJLBoatwrightJGarciaSHHarrisRAMichaelAJSchwartzDPDiLeoJS (2016) Earthquake outlook for the San Francisco Bay Region 2014–2043. Fact Sheet 2016–3020 Revised August2016 (ver. 1.1). Reston VA: US Geological Survey, 6 pp. Available at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf (accessed 16 July 2020)
2.
AagaardBTGravesRWRodgersABrocherTMSimpsonRWDregerDPeterssonNALarsenSCMaSJachensRC (2010a) Ground-motion modeling of Hayward Fault scenario earthquakes, part II: Simulation of long-period and broadband ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America100(6): 2945–2977.
3.
AagaardBTGravesRWSchwartzDPPonceDAGraymerRW (2010b) Ground-motion modeling of Hayward Fault scenario earthquakes, part I: Construction of the suite of scenarios. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America100(6): 2927–2944.
American Society of Civil Engineers (2017) Code of Ethics. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. Available at: https://www.asce.org/code-of-ethics/ (accessed 16 July 2020)
6.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Structural Engineering Institute (2016) ASCE/SEI 7 Minimum Design Loads For Buildings and Other Structures. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 800 pp.
7.
Applied Technology Council (2009) Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors (FEMA P-695). Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 421 pp.
8.
Applied Technology Council (2012) Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings Volume 1—Methodology (FEMA P-58-1). Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
9.
Building Seismic Safety Council (2015) NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA P-1050-1). Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 515 pp.
10.
BurianSBrownMVelugubantlaS (2002) Building height characteristics in three U.S. cities. In: Proceedings of the 4th AMS urban environment conference, Norfolk, VA, 20–24 May.
11.
ComerioMC (2006) Estimating downtime in loss modeling. Earthquake Spectra22(2): 349–365.
CzarneckiRM (1973) Earthquake Damage to Tall Buildings (Structures Publication 359). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 125 pp.
14.
DavisMPorterK (2016) The public’s role in seismic design provisions. Earthquake Spectra32(3): 1345–1361.
15.
EllingwoodBGalambosTVMacGregorJGCornellCA (1980) Development of a Probability-Based Load Criterion for American National Standard A58 (Special Publication 577). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards, 222 pp.
16.
EQE International and the Geographic Information Systems Group of the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (1995) The Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994: Report of Data Collection and Analysis, Part A: Damage and Inventory Data. Irvine, CA: EQE International.
17.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2011) FEMA E-74: Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage: A Practical Guide. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 775 pp.
18.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2017) FEMA P-366: Hazus Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 75 pp.
19.
FieldEHArrowsmithRJBiasiGPBirdPDawsonTEFelzerKRJacksonDDJohnsonKMJordanTHMaddenCMichaelAJMilnerKRPageMTParsonsTPowersPMShawBEThatcherWRWeldonRJZengY (2015) Long-term, time-dependent probabilities for the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3). Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America105: 511–543.
20.
FradkinPL (1999) Magnitude 8: Earthquakes and Life along the San Andreas Fault. University of California Press.
21.
HarrisSKScawthornCEganJA (1990) Damage in the Marina District of San Francisco in the October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. In: 8th Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium, Tokyo, Japan, December.
22.
Haselton Baker Risk Group (2018) SP3 Version 2.6. Available at: https://www.hbrisk.com/ (accessed 16 July 2020)
23.
HaseltonCBCookD (2017) White Paper on Resilient Seismic Design Using Prescriptive and Non-prescriptive Design Methods. Chico, CA: Haselton Baker Risk Group, 8 pp.
International Code Council (2018a) International Building Code 2018. Washington, DC: International Code Council, 757 pp.
27.
International Code Council (2018b) International Residential Code for One- and Two-Family Dwellings. Washington, DC: International Code Council, 962 pp.
28.
JonesLMBernknopfRCoxDGoltzJHudnutKMiletiDPerrySPonti PorterKReichleMSeligsonHShoafKTreimanJWeinA (2008) The ShakeOut Scenario. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1150 and California Geological Survey Preliminary Report 25. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1150/ (accessed 16 July 2020)
29.
KustuO (1986) Earthquake damage prediction for buildings using component test data. In: Proceedings of the third U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 24–28 August 1986, Charleston, SC, pp. 1493–1504. El Cerrito, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
30.
LucoNEllingwoodBRHamburgerROHooperJDKimballJKKircherCA (2007) Risk-targeted versus current seismic design maps for the conterminous United States. In: Structural Engineers Association of California 2007 convention proceedings, Lake Tahoe, CA, 26–29 September, CA, USA: Structural Engineers Association of California pp. 163–175.
31.
Multihazard Mitigation Council (2017) Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves 2017 Interim Report: An Independent Study (Principal Investigator K Porter; Co-principal Investigators C Scawthorn, N Dash, J Santos; Investigators: M Eguchi, S Ghosh, C Huyck, M Isteita, K Mickey, T Rashed; P Schneider, Director, MMC). Washington, DC: National Institute of Building Sciences. Available at: www.nibs.org/page/mitigationsaves (accessed 16 July 2020)
32.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (1990) Performance of Structures during the Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 17, 1989 (NIST SP-778). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 212 pp.
33.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2020) U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters. National Centers for Environmental Information. Available at: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/ (accessed 30 March 2020).
34.
NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture (2013) Cost Analyses and Benefit Studies for Earthquake-Resistant Construction in Memphis, Tennessee (NIST GCR 14-917-26). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 249 pp. Available at: http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=915569 (accessed 16 July 2020)
35.
NewnanDGLavelleJPEschenbachTG (2004) Engineering Economic Analysis. 9th ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 624 pp.
PorterKA (2016) Not safe enough: The case for resilient seismic design. In: Proceedings of the 2016 SEAOC convention, Maui, HI, 12–15 October. Available at: http://www.sparisk.com/pubs/Porter-2016-SEAOC-Resilience.pdf (accessed 16 July 2020)
38.
PorterKA (2018a) Not safe enough—A survey of public preferences for the seismic performance of new buildings in California and the New Madrid Seismic Zone. In: DetweilerSTWeinAM (eds) The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Engineering Implications. Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5013–I–Q. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey, ch. L, pp. 79–96. Available at: www.sparisk.com/pubs/HayWired-2018-vol2.pdf (accessed 16 July 2020)
39.
PorterKA (2018b) Societal consequences of current building code performance objectives for earthquakes. In: DetweilerSTWeinAM (eds) The HayWired Earthquake Scenario—Engineering Implications. Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5013–I–Q. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey, ch. K, pp. 57–76. Available at: www.sparisk.com/pubs/HayWired-2018-vol2.pdf (accessed 16 July 2020)
40.
PorterKABeckJLSeligsonHASvawthornCRTobinLTYoungRBoydT (2002) Improving Loss Estimation for Woodframe Buildings, Volume 2: Appendices, 304 pp. Available at: http://resolver.caltech.edu/caltechEERL:2002.EERL-2002-02 (accessed 16 July 2020)
41.
PorterKAIshidaHTorisawaKMiyamuraM (2010) Enhancing Nonstructural Fragility Analysis for Essential Facilities. Richmond CA: Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, 88 pp.
42.
PorterKAKiremidjianASLeGrueJS (2001) Assembly-based vulnerability of buildings and its use in performance evaluation. Earthquake Spectra17(2): 291–312. Available at: www.sparisk.com/pubs/Porter-2001-ABV.pdf (accessed 16 July 2020)
43.
RamachandranG (2003) The Economics of Fire Protection. New York: E & FN Spon, 248 pp.
44.
ReithermanRCobeenK (2003) Design Documentation of Woodframe Project Index Buildings (Publication W-29). Richmond, CA: Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, 258 pp.
45.
RSMeans (2015) RSMeans Square Foot Costs 2016. 37th ed.Greenville, SC: The Gordian Group, 500 pp.
46.
SAC Joint Venture (2000) A Policy Guide to Steel Moment Frame Construction (Publication FEMA 354). Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 36 pp.
47.
SamantL (2018) Oral remarks to the PEER-USGS workshop: The HayWired Scenario & Research Needs for Resilient New Buildings. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 17January.
48.
SchollREKustuOPerryclZanettiJM (1982). Seismic Damage Assessment for High-Rise Buildings. URS/JAB 8020, URS/John A. Blume & Associates, Engineers, San Francisco, CA, 321 pp.
49.
ShreveCMKelmanI (2014) Does mitigation save? Reviewing cost-benefit analyses of disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction10(A): 213–235.
50.
SimmonsKMKovacsP (2017) Real estate market response to enhanced building codes in Moore, OK. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction27: 85–93.
51.
SimmonsKMKovacsPSmithAB (2020) State-by-state analysis of benefits to cost from wind-enhanced building codes. Natural Hazards Review21(2): 10.
