FM Global Property Loss Prevention Data Sheets: 1.0 SCOPE

FM Global
Property Loss Prevention Data Sheets 1-2

April 2018
Interim Revision January 2021
Page 1 of 56
EARTHQUAKES
Table of Contents
Page
1.0 SCOPE ................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Changes ............................................................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Hazards ............................................................................................................................................. 3
2.0 LOSS PREVENTION RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 3
2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Construction and Location ............................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Site Considerations ............................................................................................................... 4
2.2.2 Design Standards .................................................................................................................. 4
2.2.3 Other New Design Considerations ......................................................................................... 6
2.3 Equipment and Processes ................................................................................................................ 6
2.4 Occupancy ......................................................................................................................................... 7
2.5 Protection ......................................................................................................................................... 8
2.6 Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................................................. 8
2.7 Human Factor ................................................................................................................................... 8
2.7.1 Earthquake Emergency Response ......................................................................................... 8
3.0 SUPPORT FOR RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 8
3.1 General ............................................................................................................................................ 8
4.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 8
4.1 FM Global ........................................................................................................................................ 8
4.2 Other ................................................................................................................................................. 9
APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF TERMS ...................................................................................................... 11
APPENDIX B DOCUMENT REVISION HISTORY ...................................................................................... 15
APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ...................................................................................... 19
C.1 Earthquakes and Seismicity ......................................................................................................... 19
C.1.1 General ................................................................................................................................ 19
C.1.2 Faults .................................................................................................................................. 19
C.1.3 Seismic Waves ..................................................................................................................... 20
C.1.4 Ground Motion .................................................................................................................... 20
C.1.5 Earthquake Measurement–Magnitude ................................................................................. 22
C.1.6 Earthquake Measurement–Intensity .................................................................................... 23
C.2 Site Specific Geologic Considerations ........................................................................................... 26
C.3 Building Codes .............................................................................................................................. 27
C.3.1 Building Code Design Philosophy ....................................................................................... 27
C.3.2 Building Code Provisions .................................................................................................... 28
C.3.3 Local Code Provisions ......................................................................................................... 29
C.3.4 Enhancing Building Code Provisions to Minimize Seismic Risk .......................................... 29
C.4 Earthquake Performance of Buildings .......................................................................................... 32
C.4.1 General ............................................................................................................................... 32
C.4.2 Foundations ........................................................................................................................ 34
C.4.3 Generic Building Types ........................................................................................................ 35
C.4.4 Effects of Building-Specific Features on Generic Building Performance ........................... 42
C.5 Earthquake Performance and Restraint of Contents ................................................................... 44
C.5.1 Performance of Contents in Past Earthquakes .................................................................... 44
C.5.2 Equipment Restraint ............................................................................................................. 45
C.5.3 Single-Row and Double-Row Storage Racks ..................................................................... 48
C.5.4 Anchorage to Concrete ......................................................................................................... 49
©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of Factory Mutual Insurance Company.
1-2 Earthquakes
Page 2 FM Global Property Loss Prevention Data Sheets
C.6 FM Global Worldwide Earthquake Map ......................................................................................... 52

C.6.1 Scope ................................................................................................................................... 52
C.6.2 General ................................................................................................................................ 52
C.6.3 Earthquake Zones ............................................................................................................... 54
List of Figures
Fig. C.1.2. Types of fault movement ........................................................................................................... 21
Fig. C.4.3.1. The three basic vertical seismic system alternatives (Figure 5-1 from FEMA 454) .............. 36
Fig. C.6.2. Mean recurrence interval (MRI) of earthquakes vs. MRI of damaging ground motion .............. 53
Fig. C.6.3A. World - Western Hemisphere ................................................................................................... 55
Fig. C.6.3B. World - Eastern Hemisphere .................................................................................................... 56
List of Tables
Table C.1.5. Average Number of Earthquakes per Year .............................................................................. 23
Table C.1.6A. Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale ................................................................................. 25
Table C.1.6B. Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale vs. Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) Shindo
Seismic Intensity Scale .......................................................................................................... 26
Table C.2. Site Classification from ASCE 7-16 ............................................................................................ 27
Table C.4.1. Increase in Construction Cost When Incorporating Earthquake Design in Memphis,
Tennessee ................................................................................................................................ 33
Table C.4.3.3. Comparison of Data Sheet 1-2 With FEMA 154 Earthquake Building Types ...................... 42
Table C.5.4.2. Approximate ASD Capacities vs. Earthquake Loading for a Single Post-Installed
Concrete Expansion or Wedge Anchor in 3000 psi (20.7 MPa) Normal Weight Concrete .. 52
Table C.6.1. FM Global Earthquake Zones .................................................................................................. 52
©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

Earthquakes 1-2
FM Global Property Loss Prevention Data Sheets Page 3
1.0 SCOPE
FM Global earthquake zone maps, as well as seismicity and earthquake background material, are presented
in this data sheet. This data sheet also includes recommendations and information related to earthquake
design and past earthquake performance of buildings and equipment.
Numerous other data sheets address earthquake in whole or in part. Most notably, Data Sheet 1-11, Fire
Following Earthquakes, and Data Sheet 2-8, Earthquake Protection for Water-Based Fire Protection Systems.
Most, but not necessarily all, other data sheets having additional earthquake-related recommendations are
listed in Section 4.1. These include Data Sheet 1-42, MFL Limiting Factors; Data Sheet 3-2, Water Tanks for
Fire Protection; Data Sheet 7-7/17-12 Semiconductor Fabrication Facilities; and Data Sheet 10-2, Emergency
Response.
1.1 Changes
January 2021. Interim revision. FM Global earthquake zones have been revised worldwide except for some
small islands, and the FM Global Worldwide Earthquake Map, available online, is now the authoritative
source.
Editorial revisions have been made to align with these changes, as follows:
A. Revised Section 2.1.
B. Revised Appendix C Sections C.6, C.6.1, C.6.2, and C.6.3.
C. Revised Appendix C Figures C.6.3A and C.6.3B.
D. Deleted Appendix C Table C.6.3.
E. Deleted Appendix C Figures C.6.3C to C.6.3I.
1.2 Hazards
An earthquake is a sudden shaking of the earth caused by shifting rock at or beneath the earth’s surface.
Seismic events generate both vertical and horizontal motion, but the horizontal motion usually governs
earthquake performance of buildings and their contents.
Shake damage, typically the largest component of an earthquake-related loss, varies significantly among
sites depending on the intensity of the shaking and the particular characteristics of the facility. Earthquake
ground shaking at a facility can cause minor to moderate damage to many items, but also can include major
damage to just a few items.
The type of building material and earthquake-resisting system used in a structure can have a significant effect
on earthquake shake damage. Improperly protected equipment can move violently during an earthquake,
resulting in toppling, sliding, swinging, or falling equipment, even when structures are not significantly
damaged. A substantial reduction in earthquake shake damage is most cost-effectively achieved by
establishing and applying seismic design criteria for new equipment installation and building construction.
In-place contents and existing buildings can be retrofitted to increase their seismic resistance, but this can
be more costly and at times is impractical.
Similarly, bracing sprinkler system piping, anchoring fire protection system water supply equipment, and
protecting flammable gas and ignitable liquid systems when they are originally installed is the best way to
avoid shake damage and consequent loss from water leakage, fire protection system impairment, and fire
following earthquake. Finally, it is important to develop an effective earthquake emergency response plan that
establishes procedures to repair damage that occurred, to prevent further damage, and to facilitate
resumption of business.
2.0 LOSS PREVENTION RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 Introduction
Recommendations are applicable to FM Global 50-year through 500-year earthquake zones shown in Figures
C.6.3A and C.6.3B in Appendix C and in detail on the FM Global Worldwide Earthquake Map, online at
https://www.fmglobal.com. Appendix C also provides details regarding recommendations.

1-2 Earthquakes
Provide FM Approved equipment, materials, and services whenever they are applicable and available. For
a list of products and services that are FM Approved, see the Approval Guide, an online resource of FM
Approvals (www.approvalguide.com).
2.2 Construction and Location
2.2.1 Site Considerations

2.2.1.1 Assess site seismic hazards and their consequences to facility operation during the initial site selection
to determine the earthquake-related risks and methods to reduce those risks. Consider hiring a qualified
geotechnical engineer to assess the site.
2.2.1.2 Do not locate facilities on sites where the potential for earthquake-caused ground rupture, landslide,
dam failure, etc. is significant.
2.2.1.3 Where new construction cannot be avoided on reclaimed land sites or sites having a significant
liquefaction potential, support structures on appropriate foundations (e.g., deep piles) per the
recommendations of a qualified geotechnical engineer. Install and detail important items located directly in
or on the ground (e.g., tanks, piping and other utilities) to minimize damage from ground settlement or
liquefaction.
2.2.2 Design Standards

2.2.2.1 Have buildings, structures, tanks, equipment, storage racks, piping-system bracing, mezzanines,
non-structural elements, etc., designed by an engineer registered to practice structural design in the
jurisdiction in which the project is located.
2.2.2.1.1 Provide earthquake anchorage details for important occupancy equipment and systems. Important
occupancy equipment and systems may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Electrical power: transformers, switchgear, batteries, independent circuit breakers, bus bars, cable trays.
• Data processing: server racks, UPS, data storage modules, cooling units, raised access floors, cable
trays.
• Process: equipment, tanks, cylinders, piping, in-process storage, conveyors.
• Warehousing: pallet racks, material racks, shelving units.
• HVAC: chillers, boilers, cooling towers, air-handlers, rooftop package units, fans, heat exchangers, piping.
• Plumbing: water heaters, boilers, piping, water tanks.
• Architectural: suspended ceilings, partitions.
• Roof-mounted: antennas, exhaust stacks, pollution control, HVAC, photovoltaic panels (also see Data
Sheet 1-15, Roof Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Panels).
For important items that cannot be adequately assessed using calculations alone (e.g., transformer bushings),
use available data from shake table evaluations (e.g., based on AC 156, Acceptance Criteria for Seismic
Certification by Shake-Table Testing of Non-Structural Components, or IEEE 693, IEEE Recommended
Practice for Seismic Design of Substations).
2.2.2.1.2 Except as amended by other recommendations in this or other data sheets, design buildings and
equipment and content load-resisting elements and anchorage in accordance with the requirements and
design earthquake forces of ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other
Structures, or a building code based on this standard (e.g., the International Building Code). Where
earthquake maps are not provided in ASCE 7 (i.e., for locations outside of the United States, Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, and Guam), determine design acceleration parameters SDS and SD1 for the location based
on information from a reliable source that uses the ASCE 7 methodology. If these parameters cannot be
determined, use the generic values of SDS and SD1 provided below:
• FM Global 50-year earthquake zone: SDS = 1.3 (g) SD1 = 0.8 (g)

Earthquakes 1-2
Where:
SDS = the design spectral response acceleration parameter at a short (0.2-second) period (at 5% damping
and adjusted for Site Class [soil] effects), expressed as a portion of the gravitational acceleration (g).
SD1 = the design spectral response acceleration parameter at a period of 1 second (at 5% damping and
adjusted for Site Class [soil] effects), expressed as a portion of the gravitational acceleration (g).
2.2.2.1.3 Meet the following recommendations for attachments to concrete using post-installed concrete
anchors (e.g., expansion anchors, screw anchors, and adhesive anchors installed in hardened concrete):
A. Use only post-installed concrete anchors that are prequalified for shear and tension in cracked concrete
for seismic applications in regions of moderate and high seismic risk (e.g., Seismic Design Category C
through F in ASCE 7) in accordance with American Concrete Institute (ACI) Standard 355.2, Qualification
of Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete, or Standard 355.4, Qualification of Post-Installed
Adhesive Anchors in Concrete; and designed in accordance with ACI 318 Building Code Requirements
for Structural Concrete and Commentary; or equivalent local building code or standards.
B. Design post-installed concrete anchors and establish quality control procedures (e.g., special inspection,
including torque or tension testing, during installation) based on building code and manufacturers’
requirements.
C. For post-installed concrete anchors, use a minimum nominal (i.e., before the anchor is set) embedment
of at least 7 times the bolt diameter (7•Db) for ¼ in. (6 mm) and ½ in. (12 mm) anchors, and (6•Db) for
other anchors; anchor spacing of at least (8•Db); and distance from concrete edges of at least (12•Db);
unless different values are allowed or required by the manufacturer and the calculated capacity of the
anchor is more than required.
D. In lieu of calculations, Allowable Stress Design (ASD) capacities for expansion or wedge anchors can
be taken from Table C.5.4.2 in Appendix C. Alternatively, calculate the appropriate fastener size based
on ASD capacities for post-installed concrete anchors selected from a manufacturer’s product line meeting
the conditions in Item A through Item C above as well as the following conditions:
1. Establish the shear and tension capacities of an anchor or group of anchors using ACI 318, or a
similar local building code or standard. Reduce the ACI 318 shear and tension capacities to account
for ASCE 7 overstrength (Ω0) and load factors by multiplying ACI 318 Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD) values by 0.42 or by multiplying ACI 318 ASD values by 0.6.
2. The relationship between actual calculated shear and tension loads, and allowable shear and tension
loads, must conform to the following equations:
(SACT/SALL) + (TACT/TALL) ≤ 1.2
(SACT/SALL) ≤ 1.0
(TACT/TALL) ≤ 1.0
where
SACT = calculated actual shear load.
SALL = local governing jurisdiction-approved ASD allowable shear load capacity (including overstrength
[Ω0] and load factor reductions).
TACT = calculated actual tension load.
TALL = local governing jurisdiction-approved ASD allowable tension load capacity (including
overstrength [Ω0] and load factor reductions).
See Appendix C and Data Sheet 2-8, Section 3.1.9, for further information regarding post-installed concrete
anchors.
2.2.2.1.4 Use cast-in-place (CIP) anchors or inserts (i.e., anchors or inserts cast into concrete during
construction) designed in accordance with ASCE 7 and ACI 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete, (including overstrength [Ω0] and load factor reductions); or equivalent local building code or
standard; for use in cracked concrete for seismic application in regions of moderate and high seismic risk
(e.g., Seismic Design Category [SDC] C through F in ASCE 7). Proprietary CIP inserts that are prequalified

1-2 Earthquakes
for use in cracked concrete in regions of moderate and high seismic risk using a combination of testing and
calculations specified by an essentially similar standard (e.g., ICC-ES AC446, Acceptance Criteria for Headed
Cast-in Specialty Inserts in Concrete) are acceptable. See Data Sheet 2-8, Earthquake Protection for
Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, recommendation 2.2.1.3.6.5 and Section 3.1.9 for additional guidance.
2.2.2.1.5 Do not use powder-driven fasteners (see glossary) to attach to steel or concrete elements of the
structure, except as allowed for lightweight acoustical tile ceilings in ASCE 7 and its referenced ASTM
International standards (see Data Sheet 2-8, recommendation 2.2.1.6.2 and Section 3.1.11).
2.2.2.2 Design fire protection water tanks (e.g., suction tanks, gravity tanks) per the requirements, including
the earthquake provisions, of Data Sheet 3-2, Water Tanks for Fire Protection.
2.2.2.3 Design fire protection systems, including piping and fire pump systems (i.e., the pumps and drivers,
controllers, starter batteries, fuel tanks, emergency generators powering fire pumps, etc.) to meet the
earthquake protection requirements in Data Sheet 2-8, Earthquake Protection for Water-Based Fire Protection
Systems. See also 2.5.1.
2.2.2.4 Follow recommendations to prevent fire following earthquake, including pipe bracing, equipment
anchorage, seismic shut off valves, etc., in Data Sheet 1-11, Fire Following Earthquake.
2.2.2.5 Design Maximum Foreseeable Loss (MFL) fire walls to meet the earthquake protection requirements
in Data Sheet 1-42, MFL Limiting Factors.
2.2.2.6 Meet the earthquake requirements specific to certain occupancies or facilities that are contained in
other FM Global data sheets (see Section 4.1 for a list of many, but not necessarily all, of these data sheets).
2.2.3 Other New Design Considerations

2.2.3.1 Design vital buildings and equipment, such as hospital structures, fire stations, and fire protection
suction tanks (as well as those buildings and equipment critical to the facility or processes, even if not
considered “essential” by traditional building code criteria) with increased seismic safety to resist damage and
remain operational during and after an earthquake. This may include use of base isolation or dampening
systems. Incorporate procedures to improve design and construction quality, such as peer review, submittal
review, and frequent site observation by the engineer of record.
2.2.3.2 Where practical, equipment and piping that can leak fluid, corrosive gas, etc. if damaged should be
located so as to limit the consequences of the leak (e.g., away from cleanrooms, valuable and damageable
storage, etc.).
2.2.3.3 Design buildings housing on-premises fire services to be earthquake-resistant and provide them with
very lightweight vehicle doors that are interlocked to automatically open upon warning of strong shaking via
an earthquake early warning system, if available.
2.2.3.4 Provide a single common monolithic foundation pad to support interconnected equipment, such as
drivers and pumps. Where this is not possible, provide connections with sufficient flexibility to accommodate
expected differential movement.
2.2.3.5 When settlement would result in disorientation of equipment that must remain level, plumb, or aligned,
do the following:
A. Incorporate a self-contained manual leveling mechanism into the equipment.
B. Establish a contingency plan for achieving efficient realignment.
2.2.3.6 Prior to making modifications to a structure (such as mounting heavy objects on or suspending them
from roofs, removing braces, or cutting openings in walls), have the structure evaluated by a registered
structural engineer.
2.3 Equipment and Processes

2.3.1 For tanks containing ignitable or corrosive substances, or that could cause extended process interruption
if released, do the following:
A. Provide tank installations; designed using ASCE 7 and the concepts in Data Sheet 3-2, Water Tanks
for Fire Protection, or other appropriate standards; that prevent the release of liquids due to seismic
shaking, including structural failure of the tank or supports, horizontal sloshing forces on the tank walls,

Earthquakes 1-2
and vertical sloshing forces on the tank roof or cover.

B. Provide internal baffles to minimize sloshing forces if necessary to prevent damage to the tank.
C. Provide sufficient freeboard, as calculated using ASCE 7 or other appropriate standard, to prevent
liquid release from sloshing when open tanks are necessary for process reasons. Where this is not practical
due to process reasons, provide secondary containment (e.g., curb or trench drain) or implement other
measures as necessary to minimize the consequences of a spill. Use guidance in Data Sheet 7-2, Waste
Solvent Recovery, Data Sheet 7-32, Ignitable Liquid Operations, Data Sheet 7-83, Drainage and
Containment Systems for Ignitable Liquids and other appropriate hazard or occupancy-specific data
sheets.
2.3.2 For piping containing ignitable or corrosive liquids, or liquids that could cause extended process
interruption if released, do the following:
A. Provide one or more seismic sensors that signal, directly or via a control panel, safety shutoff valves
(SSOVs) installed in the pipe at locations that minimize the hazard of a spill (e.g., near the tank or before
entry into a building). Arrange these for automatic operation to safely shutdown the flow of liquid in the
event of strong ground motion. See Data Sheet 1-11 for information related to seismic shutoff systems.
Where release of liquid does not present a fire-following earthquake hazard, it may be acceptable to signal
SSOV via alerts of approaching strong ground motion from an extensive and reliable regional earthquake
early warning system (EEWS), if available. See Data Sheet 10-2 for information regarding EEWS and
earthquake response. Where a process safety review or guidance in other data sheets indicates that
automatic shutdown would introduce unacceptable new hazards that cannot be mitigated (see examples
in Data Sheet 1-11), automatic shutoffs may be omitted.
B. Provide seismic restraint and flexibility similar to that required for piping in Data Sheet 1-11, including,
but not limited to, flexible couplings, flexibility across seismic joints, sway bracing, clearance and pipe
hangers.
2.3.3 Design internal components of tanks that could cause extended process interruption if damaged (such
as baffles in water treatment tanks) for seismic forces, including those induced by sloshing of liquid.
2.3.4 Provide a safe, remote shutoff for electrical service.
2.3.5 Provide an integrated seismic protection system (i.e., an arrangement of local seismic sensors and/or
a reliable regional earthquake early warning system [EEWS]) that will withstand the effects of a severe
earthquake and function to shut down major equipment in a safe condition in response to strong ground
shaking. See Data Sheet 1-11 for information related to seismic sensors and Data Sheet 10-2 for information
regarding EEWS.
2.3.6 Avoid the use of automatic-starting process equipment.
2.4 Occupancy
2.4.1 Keep heavier items on storage racks on the lower shelves or on pallets on the floor (but not in aisles).
2.4.2 Secure valuable storage kept on open shelves by installing a lip or horizontal barrier of appropriate
height on the shelf.
2.4.3 Chain or fasten valuable or vital equipment used or stored on workbenches to the supporting surface.
Brace or anchor the benches themselves to limit movement.
2.4.4 For portable liquid containers containing ignitable or corrosive substances, or that could cause extended
process interruption if released, do the following:
A. Provide unbreakable containers, located as close to floor level as practical and restrained from falling
from shelves or racks. If glass containers must be used for process reasons, place the glass container
within an outer fixed container constructed of unbreakable material that is restrained from movement.
B. Locate glass containers of corrosive liquids in ventilated cabinets or dedicated rooms to restrict the
spread of fumes.
C. Store chemicals that would react violently with one another in separate rooms or cabinets such that
the release of liquids from containers will not allow the liquids to mix.

1-2 Earthquakes
2.5 Protection
2.5.1 Locate fire pumps in a structure that is earthquake-resistant. Provide diesel-powered pumps where
possible. If pumps are electric-powered, furnish an automatically activating emergency power supply that is
properly protected against earthquakes. (See also 2.2.2.2 and 2.2.2.3).
2.6 Operation and Maintenance

2.6.1 Have a qualified person inspect the following at least annually to detect damage and identify needed
repairs or maintenance:
A. Buildings and structures significant for operations
B. Fire protection systems
C. Warehouse storage racks
D. Other equipment significant for operations
2.7 Human Factor
2.7.1 Earthquake Emergency Response

2.7.1.1 Establish an earthquake emergency response team within the overall facility emergency response
team, and a comprehensive earthquake emergency plan to provide guidelines for control of hazards, fire
safety, repairs, and salvage. See Data Sheet 10-2 for specific guidance.
2.7.1.2 Monitor the regional earthquake early warning system (EEWS), where available, to alert personnel
and allow manual or automatic shutdown of critical processes or equipment prior to arrival of strong ground
motion. See Data Sheet 10-2 for further guidance.
2.7.1.3 Implement a building occupancy resumption program (BORP), or back-to-business program, to
facilitate return to business following an earthquake. See Data Sheet 10-2 for further guidance.
3.0 SUPPORT FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 General
Refer to Appendix C, Supplemental Information, for general comments on recommendations.
4.0 REFERENCES
4.1 FM Global
Approval Guide, an online resource of FM Approvals
Approval Standard Class Number 1950, Approval Standard for Seismic Sway Braces for Pipe, Tubing and
Conduit
Approval Standard Class Number 4020, Approval Standard for Steel Tanks for Fire Protection
Country Building Codes Index, Publication P15105
Data Sheet 1-6, Cooling Towers
Data Sheet 1-8, Antenna Towers and Signs
Data Sheet 1-11, Fire Following Earthquakes
Data Sheet 1-15, Roof Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Panels
Data Sheet 1-23, Protection of Openings in Fire Subdivisions
Data Sheet 1-35, Green Roof Systems
Data Sheet 1-42, MFL Limiting Factors
Data Sheet 1-56, Cleanrooms
Data Sheet 1-62/17-16, Cranes
Data Sheet 2-0, Installation Guidelines for Automatic Sprinklers
Data Sheet 2-8, Earthquake Protection for Water-Based Fire Protection Systems
Data Sheet 3-2, Water Tanks for Fire Protection
Data Sheet 3-6, Lined Earth Reservoirs for Fire Protection

Earthquakes 1-2
Data Sheet 3-7, Fire Protection Pumps

Data Sheet 4-2, Water Mist Systems
Data Sheet 5-14, Telecommunications
Data Sheet 5-17, Motors and Adjustable Speed Drives
Data Sheet 5-23, Emergency and Standby Power Systems
Data Sheet 5-32, Data Centers and Related Facilities
Data Sheet 7-7/17-12, Semiconductor Fabrication Facilities
Data Sheet 7-12/17-17, Mining and Ore Processing Facilities
Data Sheet 7-32, Ignitable Liquid Operations
Data Sheet 7-38, Loss Prevention in Ethanol Fuel Production Facilities
Data Sheet 7-39, Lift Trucks
Data Sheet 7-54, Natural Gas and Gas Piping
Data Sheet 7-55, Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) in Stationary Installations
Data Sheet 7-64/13-28, Aluminum Smelting
Data Sheet 7-79, Fire Protection for Gas Turbines and Electric Generators
Data Sheet 7-83, Drainage and Containment Systems for Ignitable Liquids
Data Sheet 7-88, Ignitable Liquid Storage Tanks
Data Sheet 7-101, Fire Protection for Steam Turbines and Electric Generators
Data Sheet 7-106, Ground-Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Power
Data Sheet 7-108, Silane
Data Sheet 8-9, Storage of Class 1, 2, 3, 4 and Plastic Commodities
Data Sheet 8-18, Storage of Hanging Garments
Data Sheet 8-23, Rolled Nonwoven Fabric Storage
Data Sheet 8-33, Carousel Storage and Retrieval Systems
Data Sheet 10-2, Emergency Response
Data Sheet 10-5, Disaster Recovery Planning
Data Sheet 13-10, Wind Turbines
4.2 Other
American Concrete Institute (ACI), ACI 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and
Commentary.
American Concrete Institute (ACI), ACI 355.2, Qualification of Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete
and Commentary.
American Concrete Institute (ACI), ACI 355.4, Qualification of Post-Installed Adhesive Anchors in Concrete
and Commentary.
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and Rack Manufacturers Institute (RMI), ANSI/RMI MH16.1,
Specification for the Design, Testing and Utilization of Industrial Steel Storage Racks.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for
Buildings and Other Structures.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), ASCE 25, Earthquake-Actuated Automatic Gas Shutoff Devices.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), ASCE 41, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings.
American Water Works Association (AWWA), AWWA D100, Welded Steel Tanks for Water Storage.
American Water Works Association (AWWA), AWWA D103, Factory Coated Bolted Steel Tanks for Water
Storage.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), ATC 74, 2007, Collaborative Recommended Requirements for Automatic
Natural Gas Shutoff Valves in Italy.
European Seismological Commission, Luxembourg, 1998, European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FEMA 154, January 2015, Rapid Visual Screening of
Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FEMA 389, January 2004, Primer for Design
Professionals: Communicating with Owners and Managers of New Buildings on Earthquake Risk.

1-2 Earthquakes
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FEMA 412, December 2002, Installing Seismic Restraints
for Mechanical Equipment.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FEMA 413, January 2004, Installing Seismic Restraints
for Electrical Equipment.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FEMA 414, January 2004, Installing Seismic Restraints
for Duct and Pipe.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FEMA 454, December 2006, Designing for Earthquakes,
a Manual for Architects.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FEMA 460, September 2005, Seismic Considerations
for Steel Storage Racks Located in Areas Accessible to the Public.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FEMA 547, October 2006, Techniques for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FEMA E-74, December 2012, Reducing the Risks of
Nonstructural Earthquake Damage - A Practical Guide.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FEMA P-58-1, September 2012, Seismic Performance
Assessment of Buildings.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FEMA P-749, December 2010, Earthquake-Resistant
Design Concepts.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Power Engineering Society, IEEE 693, IEEE Recommended
Practice for Seismic Design of Substations.
International Code Council (ICC), USA, International Building Code.
International Code Council Evaluation Services (ICC-ES), USA, AC 156, Acceptance Criteria for Seismic
Certification by Shake-Table Testing of Non-Structural Components.
International Code Council Evaluation Services (ICC-ES), USA, AC 193, Acceptance Criteria for Mechanical
Anchors in Concrete Elements.
International Code Council Evaluation Services (ICC-ES), USA, AC 308, Acceptance Criteria for Post-Installed
Adhesive Anchors in Concrete Elements.
International Code Council Evaluation Services (ICC-ES), USA, AC 446, Acceptance Criteria for Headed
Cast-in Specialty Inserts in Concrete.
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), USA, Uniform Building Code.
Mercalli, G., 1902, Earthquake intensity scale. Modified by H. Wood and F. Neuman, 1931, and Richter, 1956.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA, NIST GCR 14-917-26, December 2013, Cost
Analyses and Benefit Studies for Earthquake-Resistant Construction in Memphis, Tennessee.
National Research Council (NRC) of Canada, National Building Code of Canada.
Trifunac, M. D. & Brady, A.G., 1975, “On the Correlation of Seismic Intensity Scales with the Peaks of
Recorded Strong Ground Motion,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 65, No. 1.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989-288-913, The Severity of
an Earthquake.
Wald, D. J., Quitoriano, V., Heaton, T. H. & Kanamori, H., 1999, “Relationships between Peak Ground
Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Modified Mercalli Intensity in California,” Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute (EERI) Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 15, No. 3.
Worden, C. B., Gerstenberger, M. C., Rhoades, D. A. & Wald, D. J., 2012, “Probabilistic Relationships between
Ground-Motion Parameters and Modified Mercalli Intensity in California,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society
of America, Vol. 102, No. 1.

Earthquakes 1-2
APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Acceleration: Rate of change in velocity with respect to time resulting from earthquake ground motion.
Accelerometer: A seismograph designed to measure ground motion earth particle accelerations, from an
earthquake or other source.
Active Fault: A fault that has experienced displacements in recent geological time (generally considered to
be within the last 11,000 years but ranges of 10-15,000 years are sometimes used), and the potential for future
displacement is great enough for concern.
Allowable Stress Design (ASD): A method of designing structural members such that computed stresses
produced by normal gravity design loads (e.g., the weight of the building and usual occupancy live loads)
do not exceed allowable stresses that are typically below the elastic limit of the material (e.g., in steel these
are typically well below the yield point). Normal allowable stresses are sometimes increased by a factor (often
a one-third increase is used) when design includes extreme environmental loads such as earthquakes. (Also
called working stress design or elastic design).
Alluvial Soil (Alluvium): Soils carried and deposited by water, such as those found at the deltas of rivers
reaching lakes or oceans.
Amplitude: the distance from a peak to the baseline in a time series.
FM Approved: Products and services that have satisfied the criteria for FM Approval. Refer to the Approval
Guide, an online resource of FM Approvals, for a complete listing of products and services that are FM
Approved.
Attenuation: The decrease in seismic energy, or amplitude of seismic waves, with distance from its source
through absorption and scattering.
Base Shear: Total design lateral force or shear at the base of a building.
Bearing Wall: When a wall carries floor or roof loads, this load-carrying wall is defined as a bearing wall. If
only supporting itself, it is termed a nonbearing wall.
Bond Beam: A horizontal course of U-shaped (lintel) masonry with steel reinforcement embedded in concrete
core fill to provide structural integrity to a masonry wall.
Braced Frame: An essentially vertical truss system having bracing to resist lateral forces and in which the
members are subjected primarily to axial stresses.
Creep: Fault movement without recorded earthquakes.
Damping: The decreasing of ground or building earthquake motions due to friction generated within the earth’s
crust or within a building.
Dead Fault: An inactive fault; a fault that shows no evidence of movement in recent geological time.
Design Acceleration: A specific ground acceleration at a site; used for the earthquake-resistant design of a
structure.
Design Earthquake Ground Motion: A specific seismic ground motion at a site; used for the
earthquake-resistant design of a structure.
Design Spectra: A set of response spectrum (acceleration, velocity and/or displacement) used for design.
Diaphragm, Horizontal: The wood sheathing, concrete slab or fill, or metal deck at a roof or floor capable of
transferring earthquake forces to vertical lateral force-resisting elements (e.g., shear walls, braced frames,
or moment frames).
Displacement: Change in position relative to former position, such as that resulting from earthquake ground
motion or relative movement of two sides of a fault.
Diving Plates: See subduction zone.
Drift (Story Drift): Relative movement between one floor and the floor or roof above it.

1-2 Earthquakes
Ductile Detailing: Special requirements (usually in building codes) needed so that an element remains ductile.
In concrete and masonry, for example, closely spaced hoops around longitudinal reinforcement confine the
concrete core so that it can still resist forces after being severely cracked.
Ductile Element: A (structural) element capable of sustaining large cyclic deformations and stresses
(e.g., beyond the yield point) without any significant loss of strength.
Earthquake: The shaking caused by an abrupt release of elastic energy stored in rocks within the earth.
Elastic: A mode of structural behavior in which a structure displaced by a force will return to its original state
upon release of the force.
Elastic Design: See Allowable Stress Design.
Epicenter: The point on the earth’s surface directly over the focus or hypocenter.
Equivalent Lateral Force Seismic Design Procedure: A simplified method of earthquake design in which a
single seismic response coefficient is determined and multiplied by the building mass to determine the design
base shear. The seismic response coefficient is based mainly on building characteristics (e.g., use, lateral
force-resisting system and natural period) and the design earthquake ground shaking at the site.
Essential Facility: A facility where buildings and equipment are intended to remain operational in the event
of extreme environmental loading from flood, wind, snow, or earthquakes.
Fault (see also active and dead faults): A fracture or fracture zone along which there has been displacement
of the sides relative to one another.
Fault scarp: The cliff formed by a fault.
Focal Depth: The depth to the focus (hypocenter) of an earthquake below the earth’s surface.
Focus: See hypocenter.
Frequency. The number of oscillations (cycles) in a second, expressed in Hertz. The frequency is the inverse
of the period of a cyclic event.
Geologic Hazard: Any geologic process (e.g., landslide or liquefaction) that causes damage to the built
environment.
Gravity (g): Acceleration due to the earth’s gravity (32.2 ft/s2 [9.81 m/s2]).
Hypocenter: The point of origin of an earthquake in three spatial dimensions.
Importance Factor: A factor used in building codes to increase, for example, the usual wind or earthquake
design forces for important or essential structures, tending to make them more resistant to those phenomena.
Inactive Fault: See dead fault.
Inelastic: A mode of structural behavior in which a structure displaced by a force exhibits permanent
unrecoverable deformation upon release of the force.
Intensity: A measure of the observed effects of an earthquake at a specific location (e.g., Modified Mercalli
Intensity and European Macroseismic Scale.
Isoseismal Lines: Imaginary lines connecting points on the surface of the earth experiencing the same seismic
intensities.
Lateral Force-Resisting System: A structural system for resisting horizontal forces due, for example, to
earthquakes or wind (as opposed to the vertical load-resisting system, which provides support against gravity).
Lateral Spread: Landslides that occur on mildly sloping sites due to liquefaction of soil.
Lift Slab Construction: A construction process in which whereby reinforced concrete floor and roof slabs are
cast one upon another, then lifted into place.
Liquefaction: A process in which well-sorted, water-saturated sands or silts rotate out of point-to-point contact
under earthquake shaking, lose their shear strength, and behave as slurrys.

Earthquakes 1-2
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD): A method of designing structural members such that computed
stresses produced by service design loads multiplied by load factors do not exceed the theoretical nominal
member strength multiplied by a strength reduction (resistance) factor. (Also called strength design or
ultimate strength design).
Long Period: A relatively long time period (e.g., greater than about 0.5 s for structural design) to complete
one oscillation of ground motion or building vibration.
Magma: Molten rock material within the earth.
Magnitude: A quantitative measure of the total energy released by an earthquake independent of the place
of observation (commonly designated with “M” as in M6.6). Currently the most commonly used measure
is the moment-magnitude (Mw).
Masonry: Brick, stone, tile, or concrete block bonded together with mortar (with reinforcing steel, it is defined
as reinforced masonry; without reinforcing steel it is defined as unreinforced masonry [URM]).
Mean Recurrence Interval: The average time between events (e.g., earthquakes of magnitude ≥7 on a given
fault).
Moment-Resisting Frame (Moment Frame): A vertical structural frame comprised of beams and columns in
which the members and beam-column joints are capable of resisting lateral forces primarily by flexure (also
called a rigid frame).
Natural Period: The interval of time required for an oscillating body in free (i.e., unforced) vibration to complete
a cycle.
Non-Ductile Elements: Elements lacking ductility or energy absorption capacity due to the lack of ductile
detailing—the element is able to maintain its strength only for smaller deflections and/or fewer cycles (by
comparison to ductile elements).
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA): The maximum amplitude of recorded acceleration at ground level during
an earthquake.
Period: The interval of time, usually in seconds, required for an oscillating body to complete a cycle. The
period is the inverse of the frequency of a cyclic event.
Plasticity: The property of a soil (or other material) which allows it to deform continuously under a constant
load and to retain its deformed shape when the load is removed.
Pounding: The collision of adjacent buildings during an earthquake due to insufficient lateral clearance.
Powder-driven fastener: A fastener that is shot (propelled) into a concrete or steel base, usually by the
explosion of chemicals (e.g., gun powder) in a small cartridge, similar to the process that discharges a firearm.
The end entering the concrete or steel is similar in shape to a wood nail and resists forces via friction between
the fastener and the base material. Also known as a power-driven fastener, an explosive-driven fastener,
a powder-actuated fastener, or a gas-actuated fastener.
Resonance: an abnormally large response of a system having a natural vibration period to a stimulus of
the same frequency.
Response Spectrum: A set of curves calculated from an earthquake accelerogram that plot maximum
amplitudes of acceleration, velocity, or displacement of a single-degree-of-freedom oscillator as a function
of its period of vibration and damping.
Restraint: Elements (e.g., anchors, braces, bumpers, chains, and cables) that prevent equipment, piping,
contents, etc. from excessive movement (e.g., sliding, swinging, and overturning) relative to their supporting
structure during an earthquake.
Rigid Frame: See moment-resisting frame.
Seiche: Oscillations of confined bodies of water due to earthquake shaking.
Seismic: Pertaining to or produced by earthquake or earth vibrations.
Seismic Design Category (SDC): A category used in building codes to classify buildings based on their use
and the expected seismic acceleration at a site. In the American Society of Civil Engineers Standard
SEI/ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, these are designated as Seismic

1-2 Earthquakes
Design Categories A to F (not to be confused with Site Class A to F based on soil type). The building code
provisions for a lower Seismic Design Category (e.g., SDC A) are typically less restrictive than those for
higher categories (e.g., SDC D). Ordinary buildings at sites with small expected accelerations require little
or no seismic design (SDC A and B); facilities at sites with higher expected accelerations require some (SDC
C) or full (SDC D and above) seismic design.
Seismic-Design-Load Effects: The actions (axial forces, shears, or bending moments) and deformations
induced in a structural system due to a specified criteria (time history, response spectrum, or base shear)
of seismic design ground motion.
Seismic-Design Loading: The prescribed criteria (time history, response spectrum, or equivalent static base
shear) of seismic ground motion to be used for the design of a structure.
Seismic Hazard: Any physical phenomenon (e.g., ground shaking, ground failure) associated with an
earthquake that may produce adverse effects on human activities.
Seismic Risk: The probability that social or economic consequences of earthquakes will equal or exceed
specified values at a site, at several sites, or in an area, during a specified exposure time.
Seismic Waves: The vibrations traveling through the body, and along the surface, of the earth, generated
by an earthquake.
Seismic Zone: A generally large area within which seismic design requirements for structures are constant.
Seismograph: An instrument for recording the motion on or within the earth as a function of time.
Seismometer: An instrument for measuring ground motion.
Sensitive (Quick) Clay: A clay soil that has a very low strength when disturbed (e.g., by earthquake shaking)
and so fails or flows.
Shear Wall: A wall designed to resist lateral (e.g., earthquake) forces parallel to the plane of the wall.
Short Period: A relatively short time period (e.g., less than about 0.5 s for structural design) to complete one
oscillation of ground motion or building vibration.
Sinkhole: An underground hole that develops when water-soluble underground rocks (typically limestone)
dissolve. Development of a sinkhole is a non-seismic occurrence, but collapse of the overlying soils into the
sinkhole may be hastened by an earthquake.
Snubbers: Resilient and strong anchored blocks placed next to equipment to prevent earthquake forces from
moving it laterally.
Soft Story: A story of a building significantly less stiff than adjacent stories (some codes define this as a lateral
stiffness 70% or less than that in the story above, or 80% of the average stiffness of the three stories above).
Strength Design: See Load and Resistance Factor Design.
Subduction Zone: A region where one of the earth’s lithospheric plates descends beneath another plate.
Tectonics: Pertaining to deformation of the earth’s crust.
Tilt-Up Construction: Reinforced concrete walls that are cast horizontally, usually on a concrete floor slab,
then lifted (or tilted up) into place.
Tsunami: Long period ocean waves, usually generated by large-scale seafloor displacements associated
with large earthquakes or major submarine slides.
Ultimate Strength Design: See Load and Resistance Factor Design.
Unreinforced Masonry: Masonry construction (e.g., bricks, concrete blocks) that does not incorporate steel
reinforcement.
Velocity: The rate of change in displacement with respect to time resulting from earthquake ground motion.
Vertical Load-Resisting System: The structural system providing support against gravity (as opposed to the
lateral force-resisting system, which resists horizontal forces from earthquakes or wind).
Working Stress Design: See Allowable Stress Design.

Earthquakes 1-2
Yield Point: The stress at which there is a decided increase in the deformation or strain without a
corresponding increase in stress. The strain is inelastic resulting in permanent deformation.
APPENDIX B DOCUMENT REVISION HISTORY

The purpose of this appendix is to capture the changes that were made to this document each time it was
published. Please note that section numbers refer specifically to those in the version published on the date
shown (i.e., the section numbers are not always the same from version to version).
January 2021. Interim revision. FM Global earthquake zones have been revised worldwide except for some
small islands, and the FM Global Worldwide Earthquake Map, available online, is now the authoritative
source.
Editorial revisions have been made to align with these changes, as follows:
A. Revised Section 2.1.
B. Revised Appendix C Sections C.6, C.6.1, C.6.2, and C.6.3.
C. Revised Appendix C Figures C.6.3A and C.6.3B.
D. Deleted Appendix C Table C.6.3.
E. Deleted Appendix C Figures C.6.3C to C.6.3I.
October 2018. Interim revision. Revised FM Global earthquake zones in China. The change is documented
in Table C.6.3 and Figures C.6.3B and C.6.3G. Made editorial changes in Recommendations 2.2.2.1 and
2.2.2.1.1.
April 2018. Made editorial and technical revisions throughout the data sheet. The most significant editorial
and technical revisions include the following:
A. Revised Section 1.0, Scope and added Section 1.2, Hazards. Renumbered all figures and tables, and
renumbered or consolidated some recommendations.
B. Provided new guidance (2.2.1.3) for sites subject to liquefaction.
C. Added guidance (2.2.2.1.1) enumerating equipment that should be restrained for earthquake forces.
D. Consolidated and clarified guidance (2.2.2.1.2) regarding use of the ASCE 7 design standard.
E. Revised and added guidance for anchorage to concrete using post-installed anchors (2.2.2.1.3),
cast-in-place anchors and inserts (2.2.2.1.4) and powder-driven fasteners (2.2.2.1.5).
F. Revised guidance for fire protection tanks (2.2.2.2). Added guidance for other tanks (2.3.1 and 2.3.3),
piping (2.3.2) and portable liquid containers (2.4.4).
G. Revised earthquake emergency response requirements (2.7.1) and moved details previously in
Appendix C (in Section C.6) to Data Sheet 10-2, Emergency Response.
H. Revised Section 4 references and Appendix A definitions.
I. Made revisions throughout Appendix C, Section C.1 (earthquakes and seismicity), to clarify the
information. Included are extensive revisions to Section C.1.6 regarding earthquake intensity (including
Table C.1.6A and Table C.1.6B for Modified Mercalli Intensity).
J. Made revisions throughout Appendix C, Section C.4 (earthquake performance of buildings), to clarify
the information. Included are construction cost of seismic design (Section C.4.1 and Table C.4.1),
strengthening existing buildings (Section C.4.3.2 and Section C.4.3.3), and comparing the generic
earthquake building types from this data sheet with those used in FEMA 154 (Table C.4.3.3).
K. Made revisions throughout Appendix C, Section C.5 (earthquake performance and restraint of contents),
to clarify the information. Included are added information on past earthquake performance of contents
(Section C.5.1); and extensive revisions regarding equipment restraint (Section C.5.2), storage rack
restraint (Section C.5.3) and anchorage to concrete (Section C.5.4 including Table C.5.4.2).
L. Revised earthquake zones for miscellaneous worldwide islands, including: Antipodes Island, Ascension
Island, Auckland Island, Black Rock, Bounty Island, Bouvet Island, British Indian Ocean Territory,
Campbell Island, Christmas Island, Clipperton Island, Coral Sea Islands, Europa Island, Faroe Islands,

1-2 Earthquakes
Gough Island, Jan Mayen, Johnston Atoll, Macquarie Island, Midway Islands, Nightingale Island, Norfolk
Island, Paracel Islands, Saint Helena, South Georgia Islands, South Orkney Islands, South Sandwich
Islands, Spratly Islands, Tristan da Cunha and Tromelin Island; also the southernmost islands of the
Maldives and some Indonesian islands (those near North Maluku and West Papua, and the Sangihe
Islands). The changes have been documented in Table C.6.3 and in Figure C.6.3A through Figure C.6.3I.
April 2016. Interim Revision. Revised FM Global earthquake zones in the continental United States (i.e., the
United States excluding Alaska and Hawaii).
July 2012.Made the following changes related to earthquake zones for the continental United States and
for worldwide islands/island groups:
• Revised FM Global earthquake zones in the continental United States (i.e., the United States except for
Alaska and Hawaii).
• Revised FM Global earthquake zones for thirty-nine worldwide islands/island groups including: American
Samoa, Azores, Baker Island, Bermuda, Canary Islands, Cape Verde, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Cook
Islands, Easter Island, Fiji, French Polynesia, Galapagos Islands, Greenland, Howland Island, Iceland,
Jarvis Island, Kiribati, Madeira, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Federated States of
Micronesia, Nauru, New Caledonia, Niue, Palau, Palmyra Atoll, Phoenix Islands, Pitcairn Islands, Réunion,
Samoa, Seychelles, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viringili Island, Wallis and Futuna.
• Confirmed that no changes to the previous FM Global earthquake zones are needed for the island/island
groups of Guam and Northern Mariana Islands, which remain 50-year zones; and for the Lakshadweep
Islands, which remain a >500-year zone.
• Replaced forty-two maps (Figure 2 through Figure 8D) with nine completely revised maps, including: Figure
2 (World - Western Hemisphere), Figure 3 (World - Eastern Hemisphere), Figure 4 (North America and
Caribbean), Figure 5 (South America and Caribbean), Figure 6 (Europe), Figure 7 (Europe, Africa and
Middle East), Figure 8 (Middle East and Asia), Figure 9 (Australia and Surrounding Area), and Figure 10
(Pacific Ocean Islands).
• Modified Table 3 to document the dates that earthquake zones were revised or confirmed in the countries/
regions noted above. Also removed the Table 3 column showing on which map(s) each country/region
can be found.
Made minor changes and clarifications in Section 2.1, Section 2.2.2.1.3, Section 4.2, Section C.3.3, Section
C.7.1, Section C.7.2 and Section C.7.3.
July 2011. Made the following changes related to earthquake zones in Central Asia and Africa:
• Revised FM Global earthquake zones in the Central Asian countries of Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Nepal, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia (east of 50° longitude), South
Korea, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan; and in the African countries of Algeria, Burundi,
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Libya, Malawi, Morocco and Western
Sahara (including Ceuta and Melilla), Mozambique, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda,
Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
The changes have been documented in Table 3 and in maps showing the rezoned areas including Figure
4 (Africa); Figure 5 (Europe); Figure 5A (Eastern Europe); Figure 5A, Part 3 (Middle East); Figure 6 (Asia);
Figure 6, Part 2 (West Asia); Figure 6, Part 3 (Central Asia); Figure 6, Part 4 (East Asia); Figure 7 (Western
China and Mongolia); Figure 7, Part 2 (Eastern China and Mongolia); and Figure 8 (Oceania).
• Confirmed, and documented in Table 3, that no change to the previous FM Global earthquake zones is
needed for the Central Asian country of Sri Lanka; and for the African countries of Angola, Benin, Botswana,
Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central Africa Republic, Chad, Comoros (including Mayotte), Republic of the
Congo, Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast), Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-
Bissau, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe,
Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland and Togo.
April 2011. For the following countries in Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Africa, and near Australia:
• Revised FM Global earthquake zones in Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Brunei,
Burma, Cambodia, Egypt, Georgia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Laos, Malaysia, Moldova, Oman,
Papua-New Guinea, Philippines, Russia (west of 50°E longitude), Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon

Earthquakes 1-2
Islands, Thailand, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Vietnam and Yemen. Revised Table 3 and maps
showing the rezoned area including Figure 4 (Africa); Figure 5 (Europe); Figure 5A (Eastern Europe);
Figure 5A, Part 2 (East Europe); Figure 5A, Part 3 (Middle East); Figure 6 (Asia); Figure 6, Part 2 (West
Asia); Figure 6, Part 3 (Central Asia); Figure 6, Part 4 (East Asia); Figure 8 (Oceania); and Figure 8A
(Australia) to reflect the change.
• Confirmed that no change to the previous FM Global earthquake zones is needed for Estonia, Finland,
Latvia, Lithuania, Qatar and Timor-Leste, and revised Table 3 to reflect this.
April 2010. The following changes were made:
• Revised FM Global earthquake zones for Australia. Revised the maps showing the rezoned area, including
Figure 6, Part 1 (Asia); Figure 8 (Oceania); and Figure 8A, Part 1 (Australia). Added Figures 8A, Parts
2, 3, and 4 (Australia).
• Revised Table 3 entries for Australia to reflect earthquake zone changes.
• Revised Table 3 entries for Japan to reflect confirmation of current earthquake zones.
• Modified Section 2.2.2.1.3 regarding post-installed concrete anchors.
• Modified Section 2.2.2.2 regarding suction tanks.
• Updated Section 4.0, References.
• Updated Appendix A, Glossary of Terms
• Revised Section C.3.3 regarding equipment/nonstructural component anchorage and post-installed
concrete anchors.
• Revised terminology in Sections C.7.1 through C.7.3.
January 2009. Revised FM Global Earthquake Zones for Taiwan. Revised maps showing the rezoned area
including: Figure 6 (Asia), Figure 6-part 4 (East Asia), Figure 8 (Oceania) and Figure 8C (Taiwan). Revised
Table 3 to reflect the above change.
May 2008. Revised FM Global Earthquake Zones for the following countries/territories in Asia and Oceania:
Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Nepal, New Zealand, North Korea,
Pakistan, Russia (east of 60°E longitude), South Korea, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Confirmed
that no change to the previous FM Global Earthquake Zones is needed for Sri Lanka.
Revised maps showing, or overlapping into, the rezoned countries/territories identified above including: Figure
2 (North America), Figure 5A Part 3 (Middle East), Figure 6 Part 1 (Asia), Figure 6 Part 2 (West Asia), Figure
7 Parts 1 and 2 (China and Mongolia), Figure 8 (Oceania) and Figure 8B (New Zealand). The mapped area
in Figure 6 Parts 1 and 2 has been revised from the previous version of this data sheet.
Added new maps: Figure 6 Part 3 (Central Asia) and Figure 6 Part 4 (East Asia). Deleted maps: Figure 7
Parts 3 and 4 (Eastern China).
Revised Table 3 to reflect the above changes.
July 2007. Revised FM Global Earthquake Zones for the following countries/territories in South America and
the Caribbean: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),
Guyana, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela (all in South America); and Anguilla, Aruba, Bahamas, Cayman
Islands, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Navassa Island, Netherlands Antilles, Puerto Rico, St. Kitts & Nevis,
St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Trinidad & Tobago, Turks & Caicos Islands, and the Virgin Islands
(all in the Caribbean).
Confirmed that no change to the previous FM Global Earthquake Zones is needed for the following
countries/territories in South America and the Caribbean: French Guiana, Suriname and Uruguay (all in South
America); and Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Jamaica, Martinique, and
Montserrat (all in the Caribbean).
Revised maps showing, or overlapping into, the rezoned countries identified above including: Figure 2 (North
America), Figure 3 (South America), Figure 3A (Central America), Figure 3B (Northern South America and
the Caribbean) and Figure 3C (Southern South America). The mapped area in Figures 3B and 3C has been
revised from previous version of DS/OS 1-2.

1-2 Earthquakes
Revised Table 3 to reflect the above changes.

May 2007. Revised FM Global Earthquake Zones for the following countries/territories in Europe and
Asia/Middle East: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Israel (includes Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and West Bank), Jordan,
Lebanon, Romania, Syria and Turkey. Confirmed the FM Global Earthquake Zone (>500-year) determined
previously for the European countries of Finland, Norway and Sweden. Revised FM Global Earthquake Zones
for the following countries in Central America: Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama.
Confirmed the FM Global Earthquake Zone (50-year) determined previously for the Central American
countries of Costa Rica and El Salvador. Revised maps showing, or overlapping into, the rezoned countries
identified above including: Figure 3 (South America), Figure 3A (Central America), Figure 4 (Africa), Figure
5A (Eastern Europe), Figure 5A – part 2 (East Europe), Figure 5A – part 3 (Middle East) and Figure 6 (Asia).
January 2007. The following changes were made for this revision:
• Section 2.2.2.1 – Design requirements have been made more specific and seismic parameters have been
defined that correspond to FM Global earthquake zones. These requirements are the basis for building
and equipment anchorage seismic design.
• Section C3.3 of Appendix C – Technical details used in the design of equipment and storage-rack anchorage
have been added.
• Table 3 - corrected the effective dates of FM Zones for Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg and United Kingdom.
May 2006. Revised FM Global Earthquake Zones for the following countries/territories in Europe: Albania,
Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany,
Gibralter, Greece, Guernsey, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Jersey, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Man
(Isle of), Monaco, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Vatican City. Updated and changed the mapped area shown in
Figure 5, Figure 5B, Figure 5C, Figure 5D, Figure 5E and Figure 5F. Revised Figure 5A and Figure 5A -
part 2. Deleted Figure 5D - part 2. Added Figure 5G. Revised Figure 4 (Africa) and Figure 6 (Asia) where
they show the countries/territories identified above. Revised Table 3 and Section C.7.2.
July 2005. Updated maps for Mexico (including Figures 2, 2D, 3 and 3A), Table 3 and section C.7.2.
March 2005. Updated maps for Canada (Figures 2 and 2B [Parts 1 to 4]), maps for Australia (Figures 8 [Part 1]
and 8A) and Table 3. Made editorial changes.
November 2004. Updated with editorial changes.
September 2004. The previous FM Global zones used to define relative earthquake hazards worldwide have
been replaced by FM Global zones based on recurrence intervals of ground shaking. Legends for all maps
have been revised to reflect the new earthquake zone designations. The map color scheme for portraying
the new zones has also been revised. For most areas, earthquake zones have not been reevaluated. In these
areas, earthquake zone boundaries shown on the maps remain unchanged, but old earthquake zones have
been converted to new zones based on an approximate correlation (see section C.7).
Earthquake zones in the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and the area around Vancouver, Canada
have been reevaluated using a revised methodology and the latest seismicity information available. For these
areas only, earthquake zone boundaries shown on the maps differ from those in the previous version of this
data sheet.
In addition to updating the maps, the text throughout the document has been revised to reflect the new zones
and has also been extensively updated. Sections have been renumbered. Some information previously
missing from Appendix B has been added.
September 2001. Some of the earthquake zones maps were clarified by completing zone hatching where
missing and adding cross-references. Figure 9 and 9A were renumbered as Figures 8 (part 2) and 8D,
respectively. Figure references in C.14.2 were changed to agree with the revised figure numbers of the
redrawn maps for May 2001 revision.
May 2001. All earthquake zones maps were redrawn for improved resolution and mapping accuracy.
January 2001. Revision of earthquake zones for New Zealand and Southeast Canada were added. The
zoning note in Figure 8 was revised.

Earthquakes 1-2
September 2000. The document was reorganized and revisions of earthquake zones for Andorra, Canada,
France, Germany, Monaco, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland were added.
May 2000. Revisions of earthquake zones for the United States, Alaska and Hawaii were added.
1999. Revisions of earthquake zones for Taiwan, Mexico, Venezuela and Colombia were added.
1996. Earthquake zones were revised for much of Europe, Eurasia, and the Middle East, including Albania,
Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Moldova, Norway, Poland,
Romania, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro (Yugoslavia), Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Ukraine, Vatican
City (Holy See), Russia, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Cyprus.
1992. Australia earthquake zones were revised.
February 1987. The following changes were made:
1. A glossary of earthquake related terms was added.
2. Earthquake zones where recommendations apply were added.
APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
C.1 Earthquakes and Seismicity
C.1.1 General
Earthquakes are essentially oscillating ground movements, having horizontal and vertical components,
caused by sudden displacements along faults of adjacent strained rock masses.
The majority of earthquakes are best understood in the context of global plate tectonics. Plate tectonics
explains that the outer layer of the earth (the lithosphere) consists of several large and many smaller plates
that are drifting over the surface of the earth. The propelling force is convection in the mantle, or interior,
of the earth as it slowly cools.
The drifting plates collide with each other. Where collisions occur, two plates may grind laterally against each
other (as in the case of the San Andreas fault), or one plate may dive down under the other in a subduction
zone (as in the Pacific Northwest of the U.S.). About 90% of the world’s earthquakes occur at the boundaries
of adjacent plates.
Shallow-focus (less than about 20 miles [32.0 km]) earthquakes generally occur where plates are sliding
past each other.
Intermediate and deep-focus earthquakes generally occur in subduction zones. The subducting plate
compresses and thrusts upward the overriding plate, forming mountains. Offshore, the subduction zone forms
a deep trench. As the subducting plate descends, it becomes heated. Water and lower melting point minerals
become fractionated and rise to the surface within the overriding plate, producing volcanoes and also large
masses of granite rock intrusions.
Most earthquakes occur at plate boundaries. Some earthquakes occur in plate interiors (“intraplate
earthquakes”). Locations of some intraplate earthquakes within the North American plate are Charleston,
South Carolina; New Madrid, Missouri; and along the St. Lawrence Valley. These earthquakes occur on
ancient faults, driven by stresses transferred from the plate boundaries.
C.1.2 Faults
Nearly all large earthquakes are associated with faults. A fault is a fracture zone along which the two sides
are displaced relative to each other. Most faults are readily recognized by trained geologists or by
seismological methods. Not all faults are active, and there is currently no method of accurately predicting
the future activity of a given fault; however, faults associated with a plate boundary can be expected to have
future activity.
Displacement along a fault may be vertical, horizontal, or a combination of both. Movement may occur very
suddenly along a stressed fault, producing an earthquake, or it may be very slow, the rock undergoing what
is called “creep,” unaccompanied by seismographic evidence. Permanent displacement of the terrain during

1-2 Earthquakes
an earthquake might be several inches (centimeters), or it might be tens of yards (meters). The Assam, India
Earthquake of 1897 produced 35 ft (10.7 m) of vertical displacement; the 1906 San Francisco earthquake
produced 21 ft (6.4 m) of horizontal displacement.
The total area of fault rupture varies with magnitude. Likewise, if the rupture reaches the earth’s surface,
the surface rupture length varies with magnitude. A magnitude (M) 6 earthquake may produce five miles (eight
km) of surface rupture, whereas an M8.8 earthquake may produce 1000 miles (1600 km) of surface rupture.
Faults are frequently described by the way one side moved relative to the other. When there has been no
lateral movement, the fault is “normal,” or “reverse,” according to whether the overlying side slipped down or
was thrust upward. If there has been lateral movement, the fault is termed a “strike-slip” fault. The fault is
“left lateral” if the opposite side moved to the left when the viewer faces the fault. Combinations of normal or
reverse and lateral faults are possible (see Figure C.1.2).
The width of the fault zone varies widely. Major strike-slip systems, such as the San Andreas system, may
be tens of miles (km) wide. Individual faults may be several hundred yards (meters) wide.
C.1.3 Seismic Waves

When a fault ruptures, seismic waves are propagated in all directions, causing the ground to vibrate; much
of the energy is at frequencies ranging from about 0.1 to 30 Hertz. There are two basic wave types: body
waves that travel within the earth, and surface waves that travel along the earth’s surface.
There are two types of body waves: P and S waves, known as compression and shear waves, respectively.
These waves cause high-frequency (greater than 1 Hertz) vibrations, which are more effective than
low-frequency waves in causing low-rise buildings to vibrate. Surface waves are produced by body waves
interacting with the surface. Surface waves may be subdivided into Love (L) waves and Rayleigh (R) waves.
These waves mainly cause low frequency vibrations, which are more effective than high frequency waves
in causing tall buildings to vibrate. Because of the long wavelengths, decay of the amplitudes of low frequency
vibrations require a longer distance to occur than those of high frequency vibrations; therefore, tall buildings
located at a relatively great distance from a fault, e.g., 250 miles (400 km), may be damaged.
The velocity of seismic waves varies with the density and elastic properties of the material through which it
travels. P waves are fastest, followed by S waves, then L waves and then R waves. The hypocenter can
be determined by measuring the time interval between arrivals of the P and S waves on seismographs, or
by inverting the arrival times of a single wave type.
C.1.4 Ground Motion

The ground shaking in an earthquake depends mainly on the strength of the earthquake (magnitude and
related duration), the distance from the fault, and local geologic conditions. The important parameters of
ground vibration due to earthquakes include acceleration, velocity, displacement, and frequency or period.
Acceleration and velocity can be measured directly with seismometers. Displacement can be measured
geodetically, or can be obtained from integrating velocity or acceleration records. A very useful engineering
tool, the response spectrum, can then be derived by plotting spectral values of acceleration, velocity, and
displacement against varying periods to determine maximum peaks at differing levels of damping for a given
natural period of vibration.
Ground acceleration during earthquakes can range from imperceptible to more than two times gravity (g),
depending on the size of the earthquake and proximity to the fault.
Most strong earthquakes will produce accelerations from 10% to 20% of g at considerable distances away
from the fault. Acceleration near the fault can be substantial, from 30% to 50% g or more, but more than 50% g
is infrequent. Damage to individual items will vary, depending on inherent strength, natural frequency, and
built-in damping capability.
Vertical acceleration in most earthquakes is from one-third to two-thirds the horizontal acceleration, and
usually is of higher frequency, or about double the number of horizontal pulses.
Occasional sharp peaks of acceleration can result in a high reported peak ground acceleration, but might
be too short a duration to be damaging. A true measure of damage potential is the area under the
accelerograph curve, which is an indicator of maximum ground velocities. Sustained high acceleration will
produce high velocities, perhaps in excess of 3 ft (1 m) per second. Integrating the acceleration record with
respect to time will give the record of velocity. Peaks of the latter curve will give maximum velocities.

Earthquakes 1-2
Fig. C.1.2. Types of fault movement

(a) Names of some of the components of faults. (b) Normal fault, in which the hanging wall has moved down relative to
the foot wall. (c) Reverse fault, sometimes called thrust fault, in which the hanging wall has moved up relative to the foot
wall. (d) Lateral fault, sometimes called strike-slip fault, in which the rocks on either side of the fault have moved sideways
past each other. It is called left lateral if the rocks on the other side of the fault have moved to the left, as observed while
facing the fault, and right lateral if the rocks on the other side of the fault have moved to the right, as observed while facing
the fault. (e) Left lateral normal fault, sometimes called a left oblique normal fault. Movement of this type of fault is a
combination of normal faulting and left lateral faulting. (f) Left lateral reverse fault, sometimes called a left oblique reverse
fault. Movement of this type is a combination of left lateral faulting and reverse faulting. Two types of faults not shown
are similar to those shown in (e) and (f). They are a right lateral normal fault and a right lateral reverse fault (a right oblique
normal fault and a right oblique reverse fault, respectively).

1-2 Earthquakes
The displacement during an earthquake will vary considerably. Maximum displacement in strong earthquakes
can range from inches (centimeters) to about 50 yards (meters).
Earthquake waves decay, or attenuate, with each vibration cycle. Short-period waves require many cycles
to travel a short distance, and so attenuate quickly as a function of distance. However, long-period energy
does not necessarily quickly attenuate, and acceleration impulses of a long period, e.g., from 1 to 3 seconds,
will be sustained, and potentially damaging, quite some distance from the epicenter. These long-period
accelerations can produce serious damage to any building having a correspondingly long natural period (that
is, the building resonant period coincides closely with that of the long period wave). For example, the 1952
Kern County, California earthquake damaged tall (taller than 5 story) steel and concrete frame buildings in
downtown Los Angeles some 75 miles (121 km) from the epicenter.
Local geologic conditions affect the strength and frequency content of shaking. Generally, soft ground shakes
more strongly than firm soil or bedrock, and thicker sediment layers amplify shaking more than thinner layers.
An extreme example of this exists in Mexico City, Mexico, where unconsolidated lakebed sediments
amplified motions from a distant (about 250 miles [400 km] away) M8.1 earthquake in 1985. Several hundred
buildings collapsed and several thousand buildings were damaged in Mexico City. A large percentage of
the buildings damaged in Mexico City were between 8 and 18 stories high, indicating a resonance effect,
with the long period horizontal ground accelerations exciting motions in the lakebed sediments, which in turn
resonate with the buildings.
Depth of the earthquake also affects surface ground motion in the same way as distance from the fault. Where
soils are homogeneous, ground motions attenuate (decrease) as the distance from the earthquake hypocenter
increases. The difference between the distance to the epicenter and the distance to the hypocenter is not
as great for a shallow earthquake as it is for a very deep earthquake. The deeper the energy release, the less
energy is available per unit surface area. The 1949 and 1965 Puget Sound, Washington earthquakes
(magnitudes 7.1 and 6.5) had focal depths of about 35 miles (56 km) and produced maximum Modified
Mercalli Intensity (MMI) levels of VIII and VII, respectively. The 1971 San Fernando, California, Earthquake
(M6.6) had a focal depth of about 8 miles (13 km), and produced a maximum MMI of XI.
C.1.5 Earthquake Measurement–Magnitude

Historically, the most common quantitative method of measuring earthquakes was the Richter magnitude
scale (also known as the local magnitude [ML]). In 1935 Dr. Charles Richter at Caltech developed the scale,
and he explained it in 1958 as follows: magnitude is intended to be a rating of a given earthquake,
independent of the place of observation. Because it is calculated from measurements on seismograms, it
is properly expressed in ordinary numbers and decimals. Richter magnitude was originally defined as the
logarithm of the maximum amplitude, corrected to a distance of 100 kilometers (62 miles) from the epicenter,
on a seismogram written by an instrument of specified standard type. Because the scale is logarithmic, every
upward step of one magnitude unit means the recorded amplitude is a factor of 10 larger.
The magnitude also can be related to the earthquake’s energy. A 1-unit increase in magnitude corresponds
roughly to a 30-fold increase in energy. The magnitude scale necessarily relates only with energy radiated
as seismic waves. Additional energy is converted into heat by friction along the fault, or moving material
against gravity.
Several kinds of instrumentally-derived magnitude scales have been used by earth scientists (e.g., surface-
wave magnitude [MS], body-wave magnitude [mb] and moment magnitude [Mw]). ML, MS and mb each use
different seismic wave characteristics to measure magnitude, and each has an upper earthquake magnitude
beyond which it cannot measure (i.e., saturates). ML and mb saturate at about magnitude 6.2 to 6.5, and
MS saturates at about magnitude 7.5. Because they saturate, ML, MS and mb will typically underestimate the
magnitude of large earthquakes.
Currently earthquake magnitudes are commonly given in terms of moment magnitude (Mw). This scale is
derived from the seismic moment (which is based on the area of fault rupture, the average amount of slip,
and the force that was required to overcome the strength of the fault). Moment magnitude is uniformly
applicable to all sizes of earthquakes and is the most reliable magnitude scale. For large earthquakes, the
reported Mw is the most accurate. Although magnitude scales are open-ended, the upper magnitude of
earthquakes is limited by the strength of crustal rocks. The largest instrumentally recorded earthquake to
date is the 1960 Chile earthquake of Mw9.6.
The number of earthquakes decreases rapidly as the magnitude increases (see Table C.1.5). Richter found
that, for the world at large, the frequency of shocks at any given magnitude level was roughly 8-10 times

Earthquakes 1-2
that of about one magnitude higher. A later worldwide study by J.P. Rothe covering the period 1953-1965
found this frequency to be roughly 13-22 times, while 2012 USGS data shows it to be roughly 9-15 times
(based on catalogs of M7+ earthquakes since 1900, and of M5 to M6.9 earthquakes since 1990).
Table C.1.5. Average Number of Earthquakes per Year

Average Number of Earthquakes Per Year
Magnitude Richter Study Rothe Study USGS Data
6.0-6.9 150 195 134
7.0-7.9 18 15.5 15
8.0 and over 2+ 0.7 1
Earthquakes of M6.0 or greater generate ground motions sufficiently severe to be damaging to well-built
structures, whereas the threshold for damaging poorly-built structures (e.g., unreinforced masonry walls) may
be as low as M5.0.
C.1.6 Earthquake Measurement–Intensity

Another term commonly used to describe the size of an earthquake is intensity. Intensity and magnitude
are often confused, and it is important to understand the difference.
The severity of ground shaking at a specific location is the intensity. It is often categorized by assigning
intensity values, usually expressed in Roman numerals (e.g., I to XII), based on the observed strength of
shaking and resulting damage to the built environment. Intensity of shaking can also be defined in terms of
peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), or other instrumentally-determined measures
of ground motion.
The earthquake intensity scale presently used in the United States is a 12-level scale (I to XII, from least
to most severe) developed first by G. Mercalli in 1902 and modified at Caltech by H. Wood and F. Neumann
in 1931 and Richter in 1956. It is known today as the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. This scale is
based on the observed effects of earthquakes: the perceptions of persons in the quake-stricken area
determined through interviews, the effect on the built environment determined by damage surveys, and
geologic observations. Because intensity has historically been determined by observers reviewing earthquake
effects, the MMI scale (and other intensity scales) may be subjective and relative. However, use of
nontechnical intensity values continues to be useful since they convert complex ground motions into a few
groupings that convey earthquake damage in a straightforward way.
Although there can be a fair amount of PGA/PGV scatter within areas reported to have the same MMI, rough
conversions of PGA/PGV to MMI have been developed (e.g., Trifunac and Brady 1975; Wald, et al. 1999;
and Worden, et al. 2012 - see Section 4.2 references). Following significant earthquakes such conversions
are useful to quickly develop regional shaking intensity (e.g., MMI) maps from a limited set of recorded
ground motions (e.g., PGA and PGV). These shaking intensity maps allow post-earthquake response to focus
on areas most likely to have significant damage.
In Table C.1.6A, descriptions of shaking and potential damage for each MMI level (taken from the United
States Geological Survey [USGS] publication, The Severity of an Earthquake) are given. The “Definition”
column in the table is from the European Seismological Commission report, European Macroseismic Scale
1998 (EMS-98). The approximations of PGA and PGV in the table are based on Worden, et al. 2012,
“Probabilistic Relationships between Ground-Motion Parameters and Modified Mercalli Intensity in California.”
The Worden, et al. 2012, PGA and PGV vs. MMI relationships are also used to develop USGS ShakeMaps,
which provide near-real-time maps of shaking intensity following significant earthquakes.
Other intensity scales are, or have been, in common usage throughout the world. Several are 12-level scales
(again from I to XII) that are reasonably equivalent to the MMI scale. These include: the 1964 Medvedev-
Sponheuer-Karnik scale (MSK or MSK-64 scale) that is used, for example, in India and Russia, and formerly
in Europe; the 1998 European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98); and the China Seismic Intensity Scale (CSIS)
or China Liedu scale. The Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) Seismic Intensity Scale or JMA Shindo scale
has 10 basic levels (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 lower [5L], 5 upper [5U], 6 lower [6L], 6 upper [6U] and 7). The intensity
using the JMA Shindo scale is reported using Arabic numbers to one decimal point. A rough correlation
between the MMI and JMA Shindo scales is shown in Table C.1.6B.

1-2 Earthquakes
Despite their many shortcomings, intensity scales are an important consideration in areas where no
seismographs have been installed, and they afford the only means for interpreting historical information.
Additionally, expected damage levels can be quickly identified based on post-earthquake isoseismic intensity
maps prepared and issued by various agencies (such as the USGS as described above). Damage to
unreinforced masonry structures, unbraced fire protection sprinkler piping and similar systems built with little
or no consideration for earthquake resistance begins at about MMI of VI (JMA Shindo 5L [4.5-4.9]) and
becomes significant at an intensity of VII (JMA Shindo 5U [5.0-5.4]). As described in Data Sheet 1-11, Fire
Following Earthquake, seismic shutoffs compliant with the 2006 edition of ASCE 25, Earthquake-Actuated
Automatic Gas Shutoff Devices, are expected to actuate at about MMI of VII (JMA Shindo 5U [5.0-5.4]).
Likewise, in the 1994 Northridge, California, USA earthquake (M6.7), most gas fires occurred at MMI VII (JMA
Shindo 5U [5.0-5.4]) or higher according to ATC 74, Collaborative Recommended Requirements for
Automatic Natural Gas Shutoff Valves in Italy. Generally speaking, MMI of VIII (JMA Shindo 6L [5.5-5.9]) is
the threshold of serious damage to well-built structures.
Magnitude and maximum intensity of an earthquake are interdependent to some degree, but there is no
direct correlation between them. For example, an earthquake might have relatively low magnitude but,
because of shallow focus or poor soil condition, it might cause a great deal of damage (i.e., have a high
intensity) at certain locations. A larger earthquake with a deeper focus or that shakes a region of firm soil or
rock may generate lower intensities.
While an earthquake can have only one magnitude, the intensity is a function of location. The intensity is
typically highest near the epicenter and, if geologic conditions are uniform, it gradually decreases as distance
from the epicenter increases. However, intensity may vary considerably at two points that are equidistant
from the epicenter because it is so dependent on the particular ground (i.e., local soil conditions). For this
reason, it is difficult to equate magnitude with estimated intensity.
In order to develop shaking intensity maps for earthquakes that may occur in the future, crude correlations
have been developed for the relationship of an earthquake’s magnitude with the area enclosed by each MMI
isoseismal. These correlations can be complex and depend on variables such as the earthquake magnitude,
the distance to the earthquake hypocenter, the type of faulting (e.g., subduction vs. crustal), the subsurface
bedrock energy absorption (i.e., attenuation) characteristics, and the surface soil type.

Earthquakes 1-2
Table C.1.6A. Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale

Approximate Range of Ground
Motions3
PGA, PGV,
MMI Definition1 MMI Description2 %g in/sec(cm/s)
I Not felt Not felt except by a very few under especially <1.3 <0.25
favorable conditions. (<0.6)
II Scarcely felt Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on
upper floors of buildings. Delicately suspended
objects may swing.
III Weak Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors,
especially on upper floors of buildings. Many
people do not recognize it as an earthquake.
Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibration
similar to the passing of a truck. Duration
estimated.
IV Largely Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the 1.3-4.5 0.25-1.2
observed day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, (0.6-3.1)
doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound.
Sensation like heavy truck striking building.
Standing motor cars rocked noticeably.
V Strong Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some 4.5-8.5 1.2-2.6
dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects (3.1-6.7)
overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop.
VI Slightly Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture 8.5-16 2.6-5.5
damaging moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage (6.7-14)
slight.
VII Damaging Damage negligible in buildings of good design 16-29 5.5-11
and construction; slight to moderate in well-built (14-29)
ordinary structures; considerable damage in
poorly built or badly designed structures; some
chimneys broken.
VIII Heavily Damage slight in specially designed structures; 29-55 11-24
damaging considerable damage in ordinary substantial (29-60)
buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in
poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory
stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy
furniture overturned.
IX Destructive Damage considerable in specially designed 55-102 24-49
structures; well-designed frame structures thrown (60-124)
out of plumb. Damage great in substantial
buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted
off foundations.
X Very Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; >102 >49
destructive most masonry and frame structures destroyed (>124)
with foundations. Rails bent.
XI Devastating Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing.
Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly.
XII Completely Damage total. Lines of sight and level are
devastating distorted. Objects thrown into the air.
Note:
1. “Definition” is taken from the European Seismological Commission report, European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98).
2. “MMI description” is taken from the United States Geological Survey publication, The Severity of an Earthquake.
3. “Approximate range of ground motions” is based on Worden, et al., 2012, “Probabilistic Relationships between Ground-Motion Parameters
and Modified Mercalli Intensity in California.” The low and high values of the range are determined using half of an MMI intensity unit above
and below the MMI in the table (i.e., for MMI VI, the range values are based on MMI from 5.5 to 6.5).

1-2 Earthquakes
Table C.1.6B. Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale vs. Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) Shindo Seismic Intensity
Scale
MMI Approximate Corresponding JMA Shindo Intensity
Less than V 0 to 3 (0.0 to 3.4)
V 4 (3.5 to 4.4)
VI 5L (4.5-4.9)
VII 5U (5.0-5.4)
VIII 6L (5.5-5.9)
IX to X 6U (6.0-6.4)
XI to XII 7 (6.5-7.0)
C.2 Site Specific Geologic Considerations

Unfavorable site-specific geologic conditions include close proximity to known active faults, soft soil
conditions, artificial fill, and high potential for major geologic deformation (e.g., liquefaction, landslide, lateral
spreading, and sinkholes). There are many sources that can provide information on the hazard these
conditions present in a general area. An investigation by a geotechnical engineer is usually needed to confirm
the actual hazard at the site and to determine design parameters (e.g., soil bearing capacities or appropriate
types of foundations).
The best sources for local geological information of a particular occupied or unoccupied site are soil
exploration or foundation reports, prepared by a geotechnical engineer during the site investigation. In some
cases, records of site soil borings are included in the plans or specifications for a building site or development.
Some faults are actually zones of movement that can be hundreds of yards (meters) in width. The hazard
to a site located close to a fault can be higher than the hazard to sites further away. First, sites located directly
over traces of faults can be damaged from the relative movement of the ground on either side of the fault
(due to non-earthquake fault creep or fault rupture during an earthquake). Second, expected intensity of
shaking is higher near the earthquake source.
There are at least two generic types of soil that could lead to settlement or other poor response: alluvium
and loess. Alluvium is clay, silt, sand, or gravel that has been deposited by water or glaciers. Loess is soft
soil deposited by wind. Flat areas of alluvial soil adjacent to rivers, or valleys filled with unconsolidated
alluvium or loess, generally will respond at least one point higher in MMI than otherwise. Highly water-
saturated soft soils may respond two points higher. Tertiary (geologically older) sediments generally are fairly
well consolidated and should give a more favorable response than Quaternary (geologically younger)
sediments. The depth of the soil is also a factor. Shallow soil beds on rock generally give a better response
(i.e., lower shaking intensity) than deep soils.
Soils of man-made fill are very dangerous unless properly engineered and compacted with heavy earth-rolling
equipment. Many such fills have been placed by hydraulic pumping methods, without compaction. They may
settle or lurch during strong earthquakes, thus causing severe damage to buildings. Many waterfront areas
along coastal zones have been enlarged with hydraulic fill, which is a poor building foundation particularly in
seismic areas, and that typically requires the use of deep foundations (i.e., piles). Even when appropriate
foundations are used to support structures, damage to grade-supported items (such as concrete slabs,
asphalt paving, cranes, and utilities) can be great.
Alluvial soils can lose their capacity to support loads if they are nearly or completely water saturated (that
is, the space between individual soil particles is completely filled with water) and are strongly shaken. The
water exerts a pressure on the soil particles that influences how tightly the particles themselves are pressed
together. Earthquake shaking can cause some of the loose soil to compact, displacing and pressurizing the
water in other areas to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each other. This
process, called “liquefaction”, essentially produces quicksand. Buildings may then sink into the soil and settle
differentially, making repairs very difficult. A classic example of soil liquefaction problems was in the 1964
Niigata, Japan, Earthquake, which caused severe building settlements, including one four-story concrete
building that tilted as it sank, ending up on its side.
Alluvial soil should be considered suspect to potential liquefaction when the water table is near the surface.
Short of liquefaction, some alluvial soils may be displaced horizontally (lateral spread) or form cracks,
fissures, and sags during strong ground motion. Structures may suffer from differential settlement.

Earthquakes 1-2
Structures built on hillsides need special consideration, as a landslide could occur to the soil on which they
rest. Retaining walls of concrete, sheet piling, etc. can be utilized to stabilize the foundation soil downhill
of the building, or to prevent a landslide uphill of the structure. The hillside may require dewatering to prevent
landslides.
A geotechnical engineer can determine the soil classification and the potential for seismically induced soil
failures (e.g., liquefaction, landslide, lateral spread, or sinkholes). The site classification is typically based on
Vs30 (i.e., the average shear wave velocity in the upper 30 m of soil) or blow counts (i.e., from a Standard
Penetration Test, the number [N] of blows needed to advance a sample tube 12 in. [300 mm] into the soil). Site
classifications taken from ASCE 7-16 (upon which the International Building Code [IBC] is based) are shown
in the table below (see ASCE 7-16 for more information):
Table C.2. Site Classification from ASCE 7-16

Site Class
(Not to be confused
with Seismic Design
Categories A to F) Soil Profile Name Soil Profile Description (For Unnamed Soil Profiles)
A Hard rock
B Rock
C Very dense soil and soft rock
D Stiff soil
E Soft clay soil
Unnamed More than 10 ft (3 m) of soil having high plasticity, high
moisture content or very low strength
F Unnamed Soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic
loading (e.g., liquefiable, highly sensitive [quick] clays,
collapsible weakly cemented soils)
Peats and highly organic clays greater than 10 ft (3 m) thick
Very high plasticity clays greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) thick
Very thick soft/medium clays (greater than 120 ft [36.6 m])
Sites ideally should be located in areas of firm soils (Site Class A [hard rock] to D [stiff soil]). Soft soil and
soil subject to failure (Site Classes E and F) are very undesirable. Site selection should be made to limit the
potential for damage to the facility due to fault rupture or creep and other soil failures (landslide, etc.).
C.3 Building Codes
C.3.1 Building Code Design Philosophy

Minimum building code provisions are intended mainly to safeguard against collapse or failure that can result
in loss of life in a major earthquake. Minimum code provisions will not necessarily limit damage or limit
business interruption, or allow for easy repair.
The design earthquake ground motion set by building codes has a low probability of occurrence during the
life of the structure. Historically, an earthquake ground motion having a mean recurrence interval of
approximately 500 years has commonly been used as a basis for design. Currently, some codes base design
on more severe earthquake ground motion with approximately a 2500-year return period or, in the case of
ASCE 7, using a 1% in 50-year probability of collapse. When actual design forces are determined, the
theoretical forces from this more severe earthquake ground motion are reduced (e.g., for ASCE 7, design
accelerations are multiplied by a factor of 2/3) and can be fairly comparable to the 500-year return period
earthquake ground motion. In certain cases, the reduced 2500-year (or 1% in 50-year collapse probability)
ground motions are significantly different (usually higher) than the 500-year ground motions.
While it is possible to design a structure to respond in the elastic range for these earthquake ground motions,
building codes are based on the assumption that it is impractical to do so in most cases. The code-required
lateral design forces typically are a fraction of the theoretical forces that would be developed for the design
earthquake ground motion in recognition that this ground motion is a rare event. Because this means buildings
will respond in the inelastic range for the design earthquake ground motion (and possibly for other more
frequent events), building codes also have detailing provisions that are intended to provide the required level
of inelastic capacity. The level of force reduction and special detailing required varies depending on the return

1-2 Earthquakes
period of the design earthquake ground motion (e.g., 500-year, 2500-year), the type of lateral force-resisting
system, the building use, the likelihood that damage to lateral force-resisting elements will result in building
instability (e.g., damage to shear walls that are also bearing walls is more likely to trigger a vertical collapse),
and observed performance of similar buildings in past earthquakes.
C.3.2 Building Code Provisions

Building codes establish the seismic design criteria through formulas and provisions that specify:
• the strength and stiffness of the structural system required to resist the seismic design loading (which is
some fraction of the theoretical maximum forces from the design earthquake).
• the requirements for structural detailing that will allow the expected level of inelastic behavior to occur.
It is the designers’ responsibility to design into the structures sufficient strength, stiffness, and detailing.
Competent structural engineers are aware of the potential effects of strong earthquakes on buildings and
equipment, and will make allowances for the special problem areas in their static or dynamic analyses and
designs.
Many countries develop and enforce their own earthquake code provisions; often these are based on
earthquake requirements in codes established in the United States (e.g., the Uniform Building Code and its
replacement, the International Building Code), Japan (Building Standards Law), New Zealand (Building
Standards Law), and Europe (Eurocode 8).
In the United States, the Uniform Building Code (UBC) was historically the most commonly used code in
seismically active areas prior to 1997 when the last edition of this code was issued. Currently, the Building
Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) develops the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP)
Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures. The NEHRP
provisions are then used to develop the earthquake requirements in the American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE) standard Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE
7). ASCE 7 is then typically adopted (possibly with some revisions) by the actual building codes. The main
United States building codes are the International Building Code (IBC) and the National Fire Protection
Association Building Construction and Safety Code (NFPA 5000); some states also issue their own codes.
Although each individual code has many unique provisions, in general all are based on and incorporate similar
concepts. The following main steps commonly are used to establish code design criteria:
• Determine the appropriate seismic zone or seismic acceleration, typically from a map (more
seismically-hazardous areas will have correspondingly higher accelerations).
• Determine the site soil classification (poorer soils, in general, result in increased design forces).
• Apply basic seismicity modification factors (e.g., increases for “near-fault” locations, reductions when a
2500-year earthquake ground motion is used for design).
• Determine whether the building or equipment is essential or hazardous (essential or hazardous buildings/
equipment typically are designed using increased forces and more restrictive detailing).
• Determine other needed parameters (e.g., natural period of vibration).
• For buildings, determine the appropriate reduction factor to be applied based on the lateral force-resisting
system and system detailing (systems having greater redundancy, ability to dissipate energy without serious
degradation and damping utilize larger reduction factors).
• For equipment, determine appropriate amplification factors (flexible equipment generally amplifies
earthquake shaking) and reduction factors (based on the overstrength and deformability of the component’s
structure and attachments).
• For equipment, determine the location in the building (forces are higher at upper floors than they are at
grade–in the latest IBC, design forces at the roof can be up to three times those at grade).
• Determine building or equipment weight and weight distribution.
• Determine other relevant information (e.g., vertical or plan irregularities, redundancy factors).
• Determine the type of analysis allowed or required (i.e., equivalent static lateral force or dynamic analysis).

Earthquakes 1-2
• Analyze the system based on the above parameters and compare to code provisions for strength and
deformation limits.
C.3.3 Local Code Provisions

There is often wide latitude given at the local level (e.g., city, county, or state) with respect to adopting and
enforcing a building code. Often, local authorities having jurisdiction (AHJ) are not required to enforce seismic
design provisions that are established in other consensus documents (e.g., the ASCE 7 Standard). In some
cases, commonly used construction techniques long established as having poor seismic performance (e.g.,
unreinforced masonry buildings) are allowed by the local authorities in seismically active areas. Specifying
that a facility must meet local building code requirements does not necessarily assure even minimal
earthquake performance.
Even when the local building code adopts the seismic provisions of a state-of-the-art consensus document
(e.g., the ASCE 7 Standard), relying only on the minimum earthquake provisions of these building codes
may lead to significant property damage and downtime following a major earthquake.
C.3.4 Enhancing Building Code Provisions to Minimize Seismic Risk

The degree of seismic vulnerability can be lessened by establishing performance objectives that go beyond
code minimums (e.g., using performance-based design), developing project specifications in support of those
objectives, and communicating this performance-based philosophy in a way that the owner and all members
of the design team share a clear understanding of the earthquake performance objectives established for the
completed facility.
Seismic design measures can be taken that mitigate the consequences of many less than desirable conditions
(e.g., using pile-supported structures at sites subject to liquefaction). However, strictly from the perspective
of earthquake performance, it usually is better to minimize or eliminate conditions that have a high probability
of increasing damage in a seismic event rather than designing to accommodate them. Whether or not
minimizing or eliminating objectionable seismic conditions is desirable to the overall project typically is a
matter of comparing the costs and benefits of all options. As a minimum, seismic issues must be considered,
with the goal of lowering the potential for damage during an earthquake.
The owner should include in project specifications requirements for owner involvement in decision-making
if and when provisions intended to minimize potential earthquake damage conflict with other design
considerations. The following items outline some ways to limit the potential for earthquake damage by
minimizing the risk and/or enhancing minimum code provisions:
• Site Selection: When possible, locate the facility at a site that has competent soils (site class A [hard rock]
to site class D [stiff soil] as defined in the IBC) and as far from active earthquake faults as possible. Sites
to be avoided if practical include those:
• crossed by faults
• having a significant potential for soil failures (e.g., liquefaction, landslide, lateral spreading, sinkholes,
etc.)
• having soils classified as site class E (soft soil) or site class F (see definition above)
• that are very close to active faults (i.e., within 6 miles [10 km] of major faults and within 3 miles [5 km]
of other active faults)
• in areas affected by earthquake-related hazards such as tsunamis, debris from adjacent sites subject
to landslides, dam failures, hazardous adjacent sites, etc.
• Design Code: Where the local building code does not adopt or relaxes the requirements of broader
consensus codes containing more restrictive earthquake requirements, the design should be performed in
accordance with a recognized building code that incorporates state-of-the-art seismic provisions. Examples
include the International Building Code (United States), Japan Building Standards Law, New Zealand
Building Standards Law and Eurocode 8.
• Critical Facilities: Examples of typical essential or hazardous facilities in building codes are hospitals,
fire stations, and police stations. Code design provisions for these facilities (and similarly for equipment
that is essential, is needed for life safety, or contains hazardous material) are more stringent than for
‘‘normal’’ facilities. Design forces typically are higher (through the use of an importance factor to increase

1-2 Earthquakes
design forces) and detailing is often more restrictive. Buildings and equipment designed and constructed
incorporating these essential facility criteria will have a lower probability of earthquake-induced loss of
functionality and operability.
In some cases non-traditional methods, such as base isolation or energy dissipating devices installed within
the structure, should be considered for critical facilities. Base isolators are devices added between the
building or equipment and the foundation to separate or isolate the motion of the building or equipment
from the motion of the ground, thus reducing (but not eliminating) seismic forces and deflections. Energy
dissipating devices can be installed within the building to dampen earthquake motions.
Where a corporation considers a facility or building or equipment as essential (although these items may
not be classified as essential or hazardous per building code criteria), or for important one-of-a-kind or
hard to replace items, limiting damage and lessening downtime should be corporate objectives. Using
‘‘essential’’ or ‘‘hazardous’’ facility building code provisions (or possibly even more restrictive owner-
imposed criteria) or using non-traditional techniques (e.g., base isolation), along with peer review and
construction observation (see below), should be seriously considered to meet these objectives.
• Peer Review: Peer review is an independent professional assessment of the design assumptions, analysis,
and construction documents to judge whether the design is adequate to meet the owner-established
performance objective. It is performed by an engineering consultant or consultants having recognized
technical expertise in the design and seismic performance of buildings, equipment, and nonstructural
components similar in configuration to the project being reviewed. The reviewing engineer(s) should be
hired directly by the owner to guarantee impartiality. The final responsibility for the design remains with the
engineer of record, not the peer reviewer. Unresolved issues should be brought to the attention of the
owner for resolution. Independent peer review should be strongly considered for:
• facilities, buildings, and equipment designated by the owner as critical
• buildings having highly irregular or unusual designs
• one-of-a-kind or hard to replace items that are important to production
• facilities located in areas without experienced building officials
• facilities having high overall property and business interruption values;
• Building Design: Symmetrical, regular building configurations incorporating ductility and redundancy
should be used where possible. Uniform, continuous distribution of strength, stiffness, ductility, and energy
dissipation capacity is desirable. Designs that incorporate horizontal or vertical irregularities, such as weak
or soft stories, roofs or floors with abrupt discontinuities, etc., have not performed satisfactorily in past
earthquakes because concentrated forces or drifts tend to occur in buildings having these features. Irregular
structures need to be well engineered and detailed, especially at discontinuities, for satisfactory results.
Some specific considerations with respect to building design include the following:
• Unreinforced masonry should not be used in any way, even if allowed by the local building code–not
as part of the lateral force-resisting system nor as non-structural infill, partitions, or facade.
• When concrete or masonry frames are used, they should be detailed using the most stringent code
ductility requirements (less restrictive detailing such as that allowed for “ordinary” or “intermediate”
frames should not be used).
• Plain or minimally reinforced concrete or masonry walls should not be used.
• Structural irregularities should be avoided (in particular, vertical lateral force-resisting elements should
be continuous to the foundations, weak or soft stories should be avoided, and horizontal diaphragms
having abrupt discontinuities or variations in stiffness should not be used).
• Use of a lateral system that relies on cantilevered column elements for lateral resistance should
be avoided.
• Rigid nonstructural elements that resist forces before more flexible structural elements (e.g., masonry
infill walls that restrict the movement of steel or concrete moment-resisting frames) should not be
used.

Earthquakes 1-2
• Ideally, the maximum span (i.e., the distance between shear walls, braced frames, etc.) and the
maximum span to depth ratios (s:d) of horizontal diaphragms (i.e., roofs and floors) should not exceed
the following:
• 200 ft (61 m) and 3:1 for flexible wood diaphragms (e.g., plywood)
• 300 ft (91 m) and 3:1 for flexible bare metal deck diaphragms or rigid diaphragms of a concrete
topping slab over precast concrete elements
• 400 ft (122 m) and 4:1 for other rigid diaphragms (e.g., cast-in-place concrete or concrete on
metal deck)
• Precast concrete diaphragms without a topping slab should not be used.
• Ideally, straight or diagonal wood sheathing should not be used and plywood, oriented strand board,
or similar sheathing should be at least 1⁄2 in. (13 mm) thick for shear walls and 5⁄8 in. (16 mm) thick
for horizontal diaphragms.
• Use of walls sheathed with lath and plaster or gypsum board as shear walls should be avoided if
possible (if these materials must be used, the wall height to length ratio should be less than one
[i.e., the wall should be at least as long as it is tall]).
• All detailing and design requirements imposed by the building code for buildings with irregular
features should be met.
• Drift should be limited as required by the code and there should be no pounding of adjacent
structures.
• Special attention should be given to the system anchoring concrete and masonry walls to roof and
floor diaphragms (ties from the roof or floors to walls, and all connections within the diaphragm
necessary to develop the anchorage forces into diaphragms and tie each diaphragm together to act
as a unit).
• Equipment Restraint/Location and Nonstructural Component Anchorage: Anchorage of equipment
is an often overlooked item. When anchorage requirements are specified at the time the equipment is
ordered and installed, it is typically a low- or no-cost item. However, it can be costly to anchor equipment
later. Advantageously locating equipment and piping is another low- or no-cost way to reduce the potential
for earthquake-induced damage.
Anchorage of all equipment is strongly recommended, including in those buildings in which base isolation
or energy dissipating devices have been installed. It may be reasonable to leave non-critical equipment
unanchored if it will not overturn, fall from supports or be damaged from swinging or impact, and if
misalignment or utility damage caused by sliding or swinging are not concerns. In addition, anchorage of
some equipment with unusually fragile or sensitive interior components (e.g., steppers and diffusion
furnaces in semi-conductor manufacturing occupancies) may need to account for the unique qualities of
this equipment. In some cases, damage to the internal components may not be preventable; for these items
preventing damage to attached utilities and piping, and preventing gross failure (e.g., overturning, falling)
may be the only practical solution.
An engineering consultant experienced in the seismic performance of equipment and nonstructural
components should base the design of these items on reliable codes and considering the equipment
importance (see discussion above). Anchorage design may be provided by the equipment vendor or
installer but should be confirmed by the engineer of record for the project.
Some specific considerations with respect to equipment anchorage include the following (see Section C.5
for more information):
• Equipment should be located at grade or as low in the structure as possible to avoid the amplified
forces that occur at higher levels in the building.
• It is best to locate equipment and piping subject to leaking away from sensitive areas such as clean
rooms, sterile areas, susceptible high-value storage (e.g., pharmaceuticals), etc.–if this is not possible
it is important to specifically review this equipment and piping for adequacy.
• It is important to specifically review equipment and piping used to store or move hazardous materials.

1-2 Earthquakes
• Items that may pose a fire hazard (e.g., gas-fired equipment, high-voltage electrical equipment that
could arc) should have earthquake protection and seismic shutoff valves per Data Sheet 1-11.
• Fire protection systems (e.g., sprinkler piping, suction tanks, fire pumps and their associated
batteries) should have earthquake protection per Data Sheet 2-8 and Data Sheet 3-2.
• Anchorage of equipment that is expensive or unique and is critical for production, perishable product
storage, or emergency operations merits special attention, particularly if the item will overturn or
fall from its supports, or if sliding or swinging will result in significant damage due to impact or damage
to rigidly connected utilities.
• Site Observation and Review of Submittals: Construction errors caused by misinterpreted drawings
and specifications can result in significant earthquake-induced damage to an otherwise well-designed
structure or equipment item. Observation of the construction by a qualified engineer with a good
understanding of the building design has been determined to be critical to limit construction errors that
could affect earthquake performance. For similar reasons, the design engineer should also review shop
drawings and other submittals during construction to confirm the design intent is being met. Generating
shop drawings should be required only if they are necessary to properly perform the work.
The geotechnical engineer should provide an appropriate level of foundation review/inspection during
construction. The design engineer should review shop drawings, special inspection reports and other
submittals during construction. Structural observation (separate from and in addition to any code-required
special inspection and testing requirements performed by a qualified inspector) should be performed by
the design engineer or another qualified engineer for all buildings and major equipment. Structural
observation by the design engineer during the course of construction should consist of visual reviews of
critical elements of the lateral force-resisting system for general conformance with the approved plans.
Observations should be made at significant construction stages and should be timed to allow for
identification and correction of deficiencies without substantial effort or uncovering of the work involved.
The engineer should provide his written record of the observation to the owner noting conformance or
nonconformance with the approved plans.
C.4 Earthquake Performance of Buildings
C.4.1 General
The objective of the earthquake design is to provide a continuous load path capable of transferring all seismic
loads and forces from their points of origin to the final points of resistance for the building (including
nonstructural elements).
Designing for wind loading will provide very little earthquake resistance in the lateral force-resisting systems.
Except for very light weight buildings (e.g., light metal structures), this resistance is not sufficient to resist
major earthquakes. For common buildings in the most severe seismic zones, today’s building codes with
earthquake design requirements apply an Allowable Stress Design (ASD) static loading in the range of
5%-20% of the building’s mass horizontally (about 7%-28% for Load and Resistance Factor Design [LRFD]).
The percentage varies due to code, zone location, building type, foundation soil, natural period of vibration,
etc. Design forces for taller (i.e., more flexible) buildings and more ductile lateral systems (e.g., well-
reinforced concrete moment frames - see Section C.4.3) are typically lower than design forces for shorter
(i.e., stiff) buildings and less ductile lateral systems (e.g., poorly reinforced concrete moment frames).
An example of the approximate increase in construction cost for buildings designed to resist earthquake,
relative to the cost if they were designed for wind resistance only, is addressed for six typical buildings in the
study entitled Cost Analyses and Benefit Studies for Earthquake-Resistant Construction in Memphis,
Tennessee (NIST GCR 14-917-26, December 2013). The average SDS and SD1 values used in the study
were 0.67g and 0.37g, respectively. These are about midway between the generic SDS and SD1 values, given
in 2.2.2.1.2, for FM Global 100-year earthquake zones and those for FM Global 250/500-year earthquake
zones.
For Memphis, the premium to incorporate seismic resistance (which includes the earthquake lateral system
for the structure as well as detailing of connections and anchorage of building support equipment) relative
to the design for wind only is shown in Table C.4.1. The “structure only” cost includes the structural framing
(beams, columns, floor slabs, shear and perimeter structural walls, braces, etc.) and foundation. The “total

Earthquakes 1-2
building” costs include the structure, non-structural cladding/curtain walls, roofing, stairs, partitions, building
support equipment, etc. but excludes grading, landscaping, parking lots, buried utilities, furnishings and
tenant improvement.
Table C.4.1. Increase in Construction Cost When Incorporating Earthquake Design in Memphis, Tennessee1
ASCE 7-10 Seismic Design Premium Relative to Building
Building Earthquake Lateral Designed for Wind Only
Building Description System Structure Only Total Building
Three-story (54,000 ft2 Stucco and wood-sheathed 4.1% 1.2%
[5015 m2]) wood-framed shear walls
apartment building
Four-story (100,000 ft2 Steel braced frames 19.6% 2.8%
[9290 m2]) steel-framed
office building
One-story (38,000 ft2 [3530 Flexible steel deck roof to 0.6% 0.5%
m2]) concrete tilt-up retail perimeter concrete shear
building walls
One-story (400,000 ft2 Flexible steel deck roof to 2.9% 1.4%
[37,160 m2]) concrete tilt-up perimeter concrete shear
warehouse walls and interior steel
braced frames at an
expansion joint
Six-story with basement Steel braced frames 17.1% 2.5%
(162,000 ft2 [15,050 m2])
steel-framed hospital
One-and two-story (51,200 Concrete slab second floor 4.4% 1.4%
ft2 [4760 m2]) masonry and steel deck roof to
elementary school masonry shear walls
Note:
1
NIST GCR 14-917-26 Study, Memphis, Tennessee (Average SDS = 0.67g; Average SD1 = 0.37g)
Stresses are introduced into buildings and other structures when subjected to forces from earthquake vibration
because of the inertia of the structure (i.e., the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest). Designing
buildings to resist earthquakes requires that ground motions be translated into forces acting upon a building.
Earthquake forces are called lateral forces (and the system that resists these forces is called the lateral
force-resisting system) because their predominant effect is to apply horizontal loads to a building. Vertical
earthquake forces are usually only accounted for in special cases because reserve strength in the vertical
load-resisting system (i.e., the system resisting gravity loads such as the weight of the building, snow, etc.)
normally provides sufficient resistance.
The response of a structure to ground shaking depends on several building characteristics. For this reason,
different buildings can respond differently even if the ground shaking to which they are subjected is exactly
the same. The response of a building depends in large part on its fundamental period of vibration (which
in turn depends on the building height, the structural system stiffness, and the building mass distribution).
Seismic waves are amplified when the building’s fundamental period of vibration is similar to that of the ground
shaking motion. Since earthquake shaking is dominated by high frequency waves, short-period buildings
(e.g., low-rise shear wall or braced frame structures) are designed for higher forces than long-period buildings
(e.g., tall moment frame structures). In some cases, longer period earthquake waves that are more dominant
farther from the earthquake or on softer soils can cause more flexible (e.g., taller moment frame) buildings
to experience amplified forces.
Another important building characteristic is whether the building is regularly or irregularly shaped. Earthquake
force distribution in a simple rectangular building will be fairly uniform. In other buildings having vertical (e.g.,
“soft” stories) or plan (e.g., L-shaped) irregularities, forces will tend to concentrate at the irregularities. The
stiffness of individual structural elements also has an effect. When structural elements having different
rigidities are used in combination, the stiffer elements (e.g., walls) will attract higher forces than the more
flexible structural elements (e.g., moment frames) whether they are part of the lateral force-resisting system
or not.

1-2 Earthquakes
To prevent pounding of adjacent structures against each other, a seismic joint is provided with a clearance
or gap greater than the combined (seismic) displacements of each structure. Seismic joints should not be
confused with expansion joints. Expansion joints are “slip joints” within the structure provided to compensate
for thermal expansion and contraction. They are usually points of damage concentration during earthquakes.
In rare cases a specially designed combination of a seismic and slip joint is utilized.
Finally, though less common, the response of the building to ground shaking can be modified using base
isolation (i.e., devices added between the building and the foundation to separate or isolate the motion of the
building from the motion of the ground) and energy dissipating devices installed within the structure (to
dissipate and dampen earthquake motions).
Additional helpful information regarding design of buildings for earthquake, generic earthquake building types
and retrofit (Section C.4.3), and earthquake irregularities (Section C.4.4) is available in the following United
States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) documents:
• FEMA 454/December 2006, Designing for Earthquakes, a Manual for Architects
• FEMA P-749/December 2010, Earthquake-Resistant Design Concepts
• FEMA 154/January 2015, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards
• FEMA 547/October 2006, Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings
These documents are available for download at: www.fema.gov.
C.4.2 Foundations
The type of foundation is extremely important to the overall earthquake performance of a structure. The lateral
and vertical motion of an earthquake will tend to make the structure rock on its foundation, thus increasing
the pressure on the soil. The foundation must be capable of transferring lateral forces from the structure
to the supporting rock or soil, and preventing excessive settlement. The type of foundation system selected
depends on the soils, loads, and the structural system. Foundations are typically constructed of reinforced
concrete although piles are sometimes wood or steel.
Foundations can be classified in two main groups: shallow and deep.
Shallow foundations are the most common and are generally appropriate for most buildings unless the soils
are poor or column/wall loads are very large. Typical shallow foundations include the following:
• Spread footings: square or rectangular concrete pads, usually reinforced, supporting a single or multiple
columns. The plan dimensions of the footing must be large enough to spread out the load such that the
allowable soil pressure is not exceeded. In some buildings individual footings may be tied together to form
a grid foundation.
• Continuous footings: a narrow concrete pad, unreinforced or reinforced, supporting a wall or a row of
columns.
• Mat foundation (also known as a ‘‘raft’’ or ‘‘floating’’ foundation): generally a thick reinforced concrete slab
designed to spread the structure’s load over the greatest possible area and minimize settlement. Mat
foundations are often used when the soils are relatively poor and the total area of individual spread footings
would constitute a very large percentage of the plan area of the building, or when deep foundations are
not feasible.
Deep foundations are commonly used where soils are poor or foundation loads are high. For example,
structures at sites having soils subject to liquefaction should be supported on deep foundations. The deep
foundations usually are used only to support the building. Concrete slabs, asphalt paving, utilities, tanks, etc.
supported directly on or in the ground may be damaged if soils liquefy. Typical deep footings include:
• Piles: slender vertical structural members that are forced into the ground by impact (from a machine called
a ‘‘pile driver’’). They are driven through poor soils to bedrock or, more commonly, ‘‘to refusal’’ into firmer
soils beneath. Piles distribute their loads at the tip or by friction on the sides of the pile, or a combination
of both. Piles most commonly are made of reinforced or prestressed concrete but can be wood (usually only
in older structures) or steel. As wood needs to be constantly wet or dry for decay prevention, the ground
water table must be above the top or below the tip of wood piles. Piles usually are driven in clusters or
groups, and there is a heavy pad or cap of reinforced concrete placed over their tops to distribute building
loads into the piles.

Earthquakes 1-2
Building codes usually require pile caps to be tied together with concrete beams in seismic areas to prevent
lateral movement of the pile caps. For example, in ASCE 7-16 the tie design force in tension or compression
is 10% of SDS times the largest factored dead plus live vertical load on any one of the connected pile caps.
• Caissons (or drilled piers): foundations in which deep holes are drilled and then filled with concrete. Steel
reinforcement usually is used for at least a portion of the caisson length. Caissons usually are bigger in
diameter than the columns they support and are larger members than piles. Unlike the pile, which may get
its support from the sides, the caisson depends mainly on its bearing capacity in the soil or rock that
supports it. When caissons rest on soil, they generally are ‘‘belled’’ at the bottom to spread the load over
a wider area. The greater the bell diameter, the larger the area and the greater the bearing capacity.
C.4.3 Generic Building Types
C.4.3.1 Lateral Force-Resisting Systems

Lateral force-resisting systems (i.e., the systems that resist horizontal earthquake forces) typically align with
the major axes of the building. In buildings, lateral forces most often are transferred by roof and floor
sheathing or topping slab (diaphragms) that act like deep beams spanning horizontally between shear walls,
braced frames, or moment frames. Although shear walls, braced frames, or moment frames are often located
at the perimeter of a building as shown in Figure C.4.3.1, they do not necessarily have to be placed there,
as discussed below. The lateral forces in walls or frames are then transferred to foundations and into
supporting soils. Lateral force-resisting systems are sometimes identified by text on structural drawings but
usually must be visualized from observations or structural drawings.
Roof and floor diaphragms are typically divided into those that are “flexible” and those that are “rigid”. Further
divisions, such as “semi-rigid”, also can be made but will not be used here. The diaphragm type is associated
with the floor or roof sheathing or topping slab, not the type of supporting members. Flexible diaphragms
are roofs/floors sheathed with wood (plywood, oriented strand board [OSB], or wood boards), metal deck
without concrete fill, metal deck with insulating concrete fill, and poured gypsum (poured gypsum is fairly rare;
although it is classified for our purposes as flexible, it is sometimes considered to be semi-rigid). Although
not technically a diaphragm, horizontal steel bracing also acts similarly to a flexible diaphragm. A flexible
diaphragm does not transfer significant forces via rotation and therefore must have lateral force-resisting
elements (shear walls, braced frames or moment frames) at or very near each edge of its perimeter. Rigid
diaphragms are roofs/floors of concrete-filled metal deck (not insulating concrete) or concrete slabs. Because
a rigid diaphragm can transfer significant forces via rotation, lateral force-resisting elements (shear walls,
braced frames or moment frames) do not necessarily have to be provided near its perimeter.
Shear walls (i.e., walls that resist lateral earthquake forces) and braced frames often are located at roof or
floor boundaries, at elevator and stair cores, and along interior walls. Moment frames (a.k.a., moment-resisting
or rigid frames) have truss or rigid beam-to-column connections that transfer bending to resist lateral
earthquake forces. They can be located at discrete locations (often near roof or floor boundaries) or can be
distributed throughout the building plan.
C.4.3.2 Strengthening Existing Lateral Force-Resisting Systems

Existing buildings can be strengthened (retrofit) to address some or all of their seismic weaknesses. Generally,
not every weakness can be eliminated, so retrofitted buildings are not usually as seismically resistant as a
new structure. For some buildings discussed in Section C.4.3.3 (e.g., concrete tilt-up buildings with retrofit
roof-to-wall anchors and interior continuity ties) the performance difference may be relatively small. In other
cases (e.g., unreinforced masonry [URM] buildings) with structural elements that are inherently weak, the
retrofit may prevent collapse but not total economic loss in strong ground shaking.
Retrofits should ideally mitigate all weaknesses that could lead to partial or total collapse, or major damage.
Most commonly, retrofits involve adding elements. An example is a building with major irregularities (e.g.,
having soft stories or vertical elements that don’t stack, or having an open front - see Section C.4.4) where
the retrofit involves adding lateral force-resisting elements (shear walls, braced frames or moment frames).
Other retrofits may include locally strengthening elements (e.g., wrapping concrete columns with carbon
fiber/epoxy composite fabrics to confine concrete that cracks during an earthquake), improving connections
between components (e.g., roof-to-wall anchors in concrete tilt-ups), removing components (e.g., replacing
hollow clay tile partitions with gypsum-sheathed partitions), and reducing demand (e.g., by base-isolating
the structure).

1-2 Earthquakes
Fig. C.4.3.1. The three basic vertical seismic system alternatives (Figure 5-1 from FEMA 454)

Earthquakes 1-2
Some guidance regarding appropriate retrofit of generic building types to prevent major damage is discussed
in Section C.4.3.3. Comprehensive conceptual retrofit details are available in FEMA 547, Techniques for
the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. Again, in some cases, such as URM structures, a retrofitted
structure may still experience substantial damage due to the inherent vulnerability of the construction.
A rigorous methodology for determining how structures and equipment should be seismically retrofitted is
provided in the American Society of Civil Engineers standard ASCE 41, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of
Existing Buildings. Building retrofits can be performed to meet a particular performance target (i.e., collapse
prevention, life safety, immediate occupancy, or operational). It is recommended that building retrofits be
made at least to the life safety level, which would entail, according to ASCE 41, “somewhat more damage
and slightly higher life safety risk” as compared to a new code-compliant building. ASCE 41 also has retrofitting
guidance for equipment and non-structural systems - see Section C.5.2.
C.4.3.3 Generic Building Types and Common Retrofits

The building code classification of building lateral force-resisting systems is somewhat complex. For example,
it depends on the type of vertical elements used (shear walls, braced frames, or moment frames), the material
used (concrete, masonry, steel, wood, etc.), whether vertical elements resist only seismic forces or also
resist vertical gravity loads, whether a dual system is used (moment frames combined with another system),
and specific details (how reinforcement is configured, how moment connections are made, etc.). Building
code design forces and detailing requirements are related to these classifications.
As a simplification, the following eight categories can be used to classify most buildings. The categories below,
combined with information on age of the structure and building-specific features (e.g., structural irregularities),
can give a reasonable understanding of the expected building performance in an earthquake. A listing of
common, but not necessarily comprehensive, retrofits is included for each generic earthquake building type.
• Light Metal Structures. Light metal buildings (also known as pre-engineered metal buildings [PEMB] or
all-metal building systems [AMBS] or “Butler” buildings) typically are one-story prefabricated, light-gage
steel structures. Roofs can be flat or pitched. Siding and roof decks most commonly are metal, although
other materials can be used. The vertical load-carrying system typically consists of metal deck supported
by steel beams (often light gage) spanning between steel moment frames.
The lateral force-resisting system in the longitudinal direction typically consists of steel rod or cable bracing
in the roof plane, which acts as a simply supported truss spanning between longitudinal braced frames.
In the transverse direction, the roof deck typically spans between the transverse moment frames along each
column line.
Light metal buildings have generally performed well in past earthquakes, usually experiencing only minor
structural, and often somewhat greater architectural, damage.
Retrofits of light metal structures are not typically required except in unusual cases (e.g., removed braces,
addition of heavy façade). Adding or strengthening steel braced frames or moment frames to properly resist
the forces would likely be the most common retrofits.
• Wood Frame Structures. Wood frame structures typically have vertical load-carrying systems of wood
sheathing (possibly with lightweight concrete fill) over wood framing at the roof and elevated floors,
supported by wood stud walls or columns. The lateral force-resisting system usually consists of the flexible
wood-sheathed roof and floor diaphragms that transfer lateral forces to shear walls sheathed with wood,
gypsum board (drywall), or cement plaster (stucco).
Wood frame buildings, when properly designed and constructed, and properly maintained, are highly
resistant to earthquake damage. This type of structure tends to possess a great deal of redundancy, design
overstrength, and energy absorption capability.
Although most wood frame buildings performed well during the 1994 Northridge, California (USA)
earthquake, a significant number experienced substantial damage. Shear walls using stucco or gypsum
board performed poorly in numerous two- and three-story apartment and condominium buildings. Damage
to wood frame buildings also appears to have occurred due to inadequacies in the design of plywood shear
walls, poor installation of hold-down hardware at the ends of shear walls, and the irregular placement of
shear walls that resulted in diaphragm rotation. Because of the poor performance of some wood frame
structures, some building codes reduced allowable stress values for stucco, drywall and plywood shear

1-2 Earthquakes
walls, and hold-down hardware; disallowed the use of stucco and drywall shear walls in the bottom of
multi-story buildings; and disallowed the use of diaphragm rotation to transfer forces.
Retrofits of wood frame structures commonly address items such as:
• Adding elements to correct significant irregularities in plan and elevation (e.g., tuck-under parking)
• Strengthening inadequate bracing or poorly-designed shear wall systems, especially in buildings
having heavy tile roofing, or in the bottom floor of multi-story buildings
• Strengthening of large wall and floor openings and inadequate connections between floors and
walls.
• Adding bolts from the structure to its foundation
• Strengthening short walls between a slightly raised first floor and the ground (called cripple walls)
that can tip
• Steel Braced Frame Structures. Many different vertical load-carrying systems can be used in a steel
braced frame structure. A common construction is concrete-filled metal floor and roof decks that are
supported on steel beams, girders and columns. Other systems having concrete or wood floors and roofs
are possible.
The lateral force-resisting system typically consists of rigid concrete diaphragms that distribute earthquake
forces to steel braced frames. Wood sheathing or steel bracing at floors and roofs also can serve as flexible
diaphragms to transfer lateral forces.
Braced steel frames are commonly used in mid- and low-rise steel construction. These structures derive
their lateral strength through the presence of bracing between their beams and columns. These braces
resist lateral forces primarily through tension and compression. Braced frame structures tend to be much
stiffer than moment-resisting frames, another common form of structural steel construction, and therefore
are often used in buildings to reduce earthquake and wind-induced swaying. The rigidity inherent in this
system tends to minimize the amount of damage experienced by architectural elements.
Braces commonly will yield and buckle, and may even fracture, during strong ground shaking; however,
such damage is easily repaired. If the braces are not adequately connected to the beams and columns, the
connections themselves may fail at premature load levels. Modern codes (e.g., 1973 and subsequent
editions of the Uniform Building Code [UBC]) usually require that connections be designed to be stronger
than the braces themselves to prevent such failures. Braces that terminated in the middle of a column
(e.g., “K” braced frames) have performed poorly in past earthquakes because they induce large stresses
on critical column elements. Particularly in buildings greater than two stories in height, ‘‘K’’ braced systems
and tension-only bracing (e.g., rods or cables) have performed poorly and usually are not permitted for
earthquake load resistance in modern codes.
Retrofits of steel braced frame structures commonly address items such as:
• Strengthening braced frames or adding new elements (e.g., replacing tension-only bracing,
strengthening connections at ends of braces, or adding braced frames or shear walls)
• Adding elements to correct significant irregularities in plan and elevation (e.g., soft stories)
• Adding collectors in the roof or floor diaphragms to transfer forces at openings or to braced frames
• Strengthening connections of frames to foundations.
• Steel Moment Frame Structures. Steel moment-resisting frames commonly have a vertical load-carrying
system of concrete-filled metal floor and roof decks supported on steel beams, girders, and columns. The
lateral force-resisting system typically consists of rigid concrete-filled metal deck diaphragms that distribute
earthquake forces to steel moment frames at discrete locations at each level in the structure. Typically
only some of the building frames are utilized as moment frames. At these locations the beams are rigidly
attached to columns, and lateral forces are resisted by bending of the beams and columns through the
rigid beam-column joints. Early steel moment frame structures made these connections with bolts; since
the 1950s connections have been made by heavy welds from beams to columns. Moment frames (steel or
concrete) can be designed with various levels of ductility. ‘‘Special’’ (i.e., ductile) moment frames are

Earthquakes 1-2
typically required by current building codes in areas of high seismicity. ‘‘Intermediate’’ (i.e., limited ductility)
and “ordinary” (i.e., little ductility or nonductile) moment frames are usually allowed only in areas of
relatively low seismicity.
Prior to the 1994 Northridge, California (USA), earthquake, steel moment frames were generally considered
by many in the structural engineering profession to be among the most reliable seismic force resisting
systems. During the Northridge earthquake, over 200 steel moment frame buildings experienced cracking
in the welds of the moment connections (located at beam-column joints), which led to further cracking
of beam and column flanges and webs. None of the damaged steel moment frame buildings collapsed
or caused serious injuries or death. However, at least two buildings were subsequently demolished, and
the repairs for the other identified structures were expensive. Some structural engineers believe a larger
earthquake with longer duration would have resulted in at least partial collapse of some of these structures.
Following the earthquake, the industry quickly issued interim guidelines for the design of new moment frame
structures; these guidelines were incorporated into subsequent codes. Newer steel moment connections
(e.g., having a reduced beam cross-section near the column, or employing cover or side plates) have been
developed to mitigate the concern with brittle fracture of welds at beam ends.
Retrofits of steel moment frame structures commonly address items such as:
• Strengthening moment frames (especially the beam-to-column connections) or adding new
elements (e.g., braced frames or shear walls)
• Adding elements to correct significant irregularities in plan and elevation (e.g., soft stories)
• Adding collectors in the roof or floor diaphragms to transfer forces at openings or to moment
frames
• Strengthening connections of frames to foundations.
• Rigid Shear Wall/Rigid Diaphragm Structures. This generic building type includes buildings with
reinforced concrete or masonry walls and concrete diaphragms. Common vertical systems include concrete
slabs supported by concrete framing and columns, or concrete-filled metal deck supported by steel framing
and columns.
The lateral force-resisting system typically consists of the rigid concrete diaphragms that distribute
earthquake forces to reinforced concrete or masonry shear walls. Concrete walls can be cast-in-place or
precast.
The performance of rigid shear wall/rigid diaphragm buildings is highly dependent on the number of
concrete or masonry shear walls, their location within the building, their configuration, the size and number
of openings in the walls, and steel reinforcing details.
Well-designed concrete or masonry walls have adequate reinforcing throughout (both horizontally and
vertically) as well as special reinforcing around openings and at edges. Walls with extensive openings often
are subject to significant cracking and spalling of the masonry units or concrete around openings. For walls
greater in height than width, vertical reinforcing steel at edges typically is provided with horizontal steel
ties that wrap around this steel and the concrete within to hold it together. The pattern in which the masonry
is laid-up also is important. Most concrete masonry is laid-up in a running bond pattern, in which the joints
of the masonry units in each layer are staggered relative to the layers above and below. This is a preferred
form of construction. Walls incorporating a masonry pattern known as stack bond, in which the joints
between units align vertically from the top of the wall to the bottom, will probably suffer a higher level of
damage than walls utilizing running bond.
Rigid shear wall/rigid diaphragm buildings with abrupt changes in lateral resistance often have performed
poorly in earthquakes. Damage tends to be located in weak or flexible stories, or at locations where shear
walls at upper levels do not continue to the foundation level. Buildings with walls distributed primarily at
only two or three sides are subject to large torsional displacements (twisting) and have been severely
damaged in past earthquakes.
Retrofits of rigid shear wall/rigid diaphragm structures commonly address items such as:
• Adding new elements (usually shear walls, sometimes steel braced frames)
• Strengthening existing shear walls (e.g., by concrete overlay)

1-2 Earthquakes
• Adding elements to correct significant irregularities in plan and elevation (e.g., discontinuous shear
walls or soft stories).
• Rigid Shear Wall/Flexible Diaphragm Structures. This generic building type includes buildings with
reinforced concrete or masonry walls and wood-sheathed or metal deck diaphragms. They have historically
had wood roofs in California (USA) and metal roofs elsewhere, but metal roofs are becoming more
prevalent in California. They typically are low-rise structures (less than three stories) and often are one-story
buildings. A common vertical system is wood sheathing supported by wood or steel members/trusses/
columns. In many buildings metal deck without concrete fill (or with non-structural insulating concrete fill)
is supported by steel framing and columns. Concrete tilt-up structures (buildings constructed with large,
site-cast concrete panels that are “tilted-up” to form the exterior walls) are a typical example of this type of
structure.
The lateral force-resisting system usually consists of the flexible wood-sheathed or metal deck roof
diaphragm that distributes lateral forces to concrete (often tilt-up) or masonry shear walls. These walls will
be located at the building perimeter and also can be located at the interior of the building.
The performance of rigid shear wall/flexible diaphragm buildings, particularly those with timber floors and
roofs, is strongly related to the capacity of the wall anchorage to the roof and floor diaphragms. The heavy
concrete or masonry walls tend to separate from the roof framing when subjected to seismic ground shaking
perpendicular to the plane of the walls unless engineered connections (referred to as wall anchors) are
provided to tie them together. When provided with good wall anchorage details, these buildings often
perform well.
Proper wall anchorage was not required by United States codes until after the 1971 San Fernando,
California, earthquake, when many concrete tilt-up and masonry walls separated from their roof
diaphragms. A series of code changes requiring improved anchorage of concrete and masonry walls to
diaphragms was enacted following that earthquake to avoid these failures. Design forces for positive, direct
roof-to-wall anchorage and continuity ties (first required in the 1973 Uniform Building Code [UBC]) were
increased in the 1976 UBC for many structures, and were again increased in the 1991 UBC. In the 1994
Northridge, California earthquake, over 400 late-vintage concrete tilt-up structures experienced either
partial or total collapse of their roof framing systems and the relevant UBC provisions were again revised
in the 1997 edition.
Retrofits of rigid shear wall/flexible diaphragm structures commonly address items such as:
• Adding or strengthening anchorage from concrete or masonry walls to floor and roof diaphragms
(roof-to-wall or floor-to-wall connections), and adding connections between members at the
diaphragm interior (continuity ties)
• Adding collectors in the roof or floor diaphragms to transfer forces at openings or to shear walls
• Strengthening floor or roof diaphragms (e.g., by increasing the nailing of plywood sheathing to
roof members)
• Adding elements (often shear walls or steel braced frames) to correct significant irregularities in
plan (e.g., reentrant corners or open fronts).
• Concrete Moment Frame Structures. Concrete moment frames resist seismic forces by the bending of
their beams and columns through the rigid beam-column joints, similar to steel moment frames. The vertical
load-carrying system often consists of concrete slabs supported by concrete framing (joists, beams, and
girders) and concrete columns. Rigid concrete diaphragms transfer earthquake forces to concrete moment
frames, which may be distributed throughout the building or only in discrete locations.
The performance of concrete moment frame structures in earthquakes is strongly dependent on detailing
of reinforcing steel in beams, columns and connections. Frames that are designed to dissipate energy
from major earthquakes without failure are termed “ductile”. Some concrete frame buildings constructed
without ductile detailing or using precast concrete moment frames have been severely damaged and/or
have collapsed in past earthquakes. Columns with insufficient ties to prevent buckling of longitudinal
reinforcing steel after the concrete cracks and spalls frequently have been the source of major damage.
Few considerations for seismic detailing were incorporated into the design of these structures until the early
1970s. Extensive modifications of code detailing requirements to provide ductility in concrete frames were
made in the 1967 and subsequent editions of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). However, provisions

Earthquakes 1-2
requiring that concrete frames be designed as ductile frames in areas of high seismicity were first adopted
in the 1973 UBC. Good detailing of reinforcement to provide ductility did not become common in California
(USA) until the late 1970s. It is expected that concrete-frame structures designed after adoption of these
criteria will perform substantially better than those designed prior to the more stringent codes. Ductile design
of concrete moment frames may not have been required in other jurisdictions until much later; even today
some allow construction of nonductile reinforced or precast concrete moment frames in high seismicity
areas.
Retrofits of concrete moment frame structures commonly address items such as:
• Adding new elements (usually shear walls, sometimes steel braced frames or concrete moment
frames), especially when existing concrete moment frames are non-ductile or precast
• Strengthening existing non-ductile concrete frame or gravity columns (e.g., using a concrete/steel
jacket or fiber composite wrap)
• Adding elements to correct significant irregularities in plan and elevation (e.g., soft stories).
• Unreinforced Masonry Structures. The “unreinforced masonry” (URM) in this type of structure refers to
building walls, which have no steel reinforcement. A vertical load-carrying system of wood sheathing
supported by wood members and the masonry walls is common. Buildings of confined masonry construction
would also be considered URM structures. In these buildings, unreinforced masonry wall panels (that will
eventually bear loads from concrete floor and roof slabs) are constructed and have horizontal and vertical
reinforced concrete ties (typically about the same thickness as the wall) cast directly against them on all four
sides to confine the masonry. URM construction can also include a building having concrete or steel vertical
load-carrying elements with bearing or infill URM shear walls (in these structures the masonry walls are
constructed after the frame).
Walls constructed without steel reinforcing have consistently suffered severe damage during earthquakes.
Walls can crack extensively due to in-plane shear forces, or can fall away from the building due to forces
perpendicular to the wall. For URM structures without frames or confining ties, only the existence of
numerous wood-frame interior partitions-typical of older brick office and apartment buildings but less typical
in industrial structures has prevented collapse during strong ground shaking. Confined or infilled
unreinforced masonry structures are less likely to collapse than structures where entire walls are URM,
but in-plane cracking or out-of-plane failure of masonry walls can still result in large economic losses.
Construction of URM buildings generally has not been allowed in California (USA) since the 1933 Long
Beach earthquake; however, they may not have been phased out in some seismically-active California,
Oregon and Washington state (USA) localities until the mid-1950s. Later vintage URM construction was
allowed in other regions of the United States (e.g., into the 1970’s in Utah, and into at least the 1980’s
in the New Madrid Seismic Zone [NMSZ] states of Missouri and Tennessee). URM is also one of the least
expensive building techniques and for that reason is still common, particularly confined masonry
construction, even today in some places having a high seismic risk (e.g., Mexico, and Central and South
America). Retrofits of URM structures typically are for collapse prevention only. Unreinforced masonry
buildings located in areas of high seismicity probably will suffer high losses whether they have been
retrofitted or not.
Retrofits of URM structures commonly address items such as:
• Adding or strengthening anchorage from URM walls to floor and roof diaphragms (roof-to-wall
or floor-to-wall connections) and sometimes to partition walls, and adding connections between
members at the diaphragm interior (continuity ties)
• Adding steel (usually) vertical members (strongbacks) or horizontal members (similar to wind
girts) to transfer wall out-of-plane forces to the structure
• Stabilizing or strengthening URM walls with concrete overlay or fiber composite fabric
• Removing non-structural URM partition walls
• Adding new elements (usually shear walls, sometimes steel braced frames)
• Adding collectors in the roof or floor diaphragms to transfer forces at openings or to shear walls
• Strengthening floor or roof diaphragms (e.g., by increasing the nailing of wood sheathing to roof
members or applying plywood over wood boards)

1-2 Earthquakes
• Adding elements (often shear walls or steel braced frames) to correct significant irregularities in
plan (e.g., open fronts)
• Bracing parapets (preventing them from falling - does not significantly reduce the economic loss).
Additional information regarding generic earthquake building types can be found in FEMA 154, which uses
similar building classifications. Table C.4.3.3 correlates the nine categories discussed above (the concrete
moment frame category above is split into reinforced concrete and precast concrete in the table) with FEMA
154 categories.
Table C.4.3.3. Comparison of Data Sheet 1-2 With FEMA 154 Earthquake Building Types
Data Sheet 1-2 FEMA 154
EQ Building Type EQ Building Type Description
Light Metal (LM) S3 Light metal frame
Wood Frame (WF) W1, W1A Light wood frame, residential/commercial,
<5000 ft2/floor (465 m2/floor)
W2 Wood frame buildings, >5000 ft2/floor
(465 m2/floor)
Steel Braced Frame (SBF) S2 Steel braced frame
Steel Moment Frame (SMF) S1 Steel moment-resisting frame
Rigid Shear Wall/Rigid Diaphragm S4 Steel frame with cast-in-place concrete
(RSW/RD) shear walls
C2 Concrete shear wall
RM2 Reinforced masonry with rigid diaphragms
Rigid Shear Wall/Flexible Diaphragm PC1 Tilt-up construction
(RSW/FD) RM1 Reinforced masonry with flexible floor and
roof diaphragms
Reinforced Concrete Moment Frame - C1 Concrete moment-resisting frame
Ductile, Non-Ductile, or Unknown Ductility
(CMF/RC/D, ND, or U)
Precast Concrete Moment Frame PC2 Precast concrete frame
(CMF/PC)1
Unreinforced Masonry (URM)2 S5 Steel frame with unreinforced masonry
infill
C3 Concrete frame with unreinforced
masonry infill
URM Unreinforced masonry bearing-wall
buildings
1. FEMA 154 PC2 might sometimes be a RSW/RD
2. FEMA 154 C3 might sometimes be a CMF/RC
C.4.4 Effects of Building-Specific Features on Generic Building Performance

The previous section provided basic information on performance of generic building types and some
building-specific features that can change the typical performance expected. A discussion of some of the more
common features (termed ″irregularities″) that may modify typical building performance follows. Additional
information regarding building irregularities can be found in FEMA 154, FEMA 389 (Primer for Design
Professionals: Communicating with Owners and Managers of New Buildings on Earthquake Risk, January
2004) and FEMA 454.
• Vertical and Plan Irregularities: Descriptions of vertical and plan irregularities and design requirements
to be applied are commonly provided in building codes. If these irregularities are not properly accounted
for in design, the consequences on performance can be severe. If the design is modified to account for
these features (through special detailing, etc.) the effect of the irregularity on performance can be
minimized. However, damage still may be locally heavier at the irregularity. Common examples of vertical
and plan irregularities are listed below.
Vertical irregularities:

Earthquakes 1-2
• Stories that are significantly weaker/softer than adjacent stories (i.e., ″soft stories″); commonly
occurs in the first story of a building
• Vertical elements (e.g., shear walls) that are not continuous to the foundation, don’t ‘‘stack’’, or
that have radically different lengths in adjacent stories
• Very significant mass changes between adjacent floors (not including lighter roofs)
• Short concrete columns (e.g., at parking garage ramps and where partial height masonry infill
adjacent to columns restricts column movement)
Plan irregularities:
• Torsionally irregular rigid or semi-rigid diaphragm (i.e., the layout of lateral elements [e.g., shear
walls] is such that there will be significant twisting or rotating of the floors or roof)
• Large re-entrant corners (e.g., L- or U-shaped configurations)
• Significant discontinuities or variations in floor or roof diaphragm stiffness or strength (e.g., large
cutouts in the floor or roof interior)
• Vertical elements (e.g., shear walls) not aligned with the major orthogonal axes of the lateral
force-resisting system (i.e., skewed walls)
• Poor condition or modifications: While newer structures may have been built in conformance with
earthquake code provisions, seemingly minor modifications may severely reduce the structure’s ability to
withstand an earthquake if they are performed without the review of a knowledgeable structural engineer.
Such modifications as retrofitted doorways and windows (that may result in removed braces or weakened
shear walls); or added mezzanines, penthouses, and roof-supported heavy equipment would be examples
of this. A large loss in the 1971 San Fernando, California (USA) earthquake was attributed to a
concentration of air-handling equipment added in one corner of the roof. Similarly, poor maintenance of
the structure that results in significant deterioration of structural members may have an adverse effect on
seismic performance of these members.
• URM Partitions/Infill: Non-structural unreinforced masonry (URM) infill or partitions (e.g., hollow clay tile)
most often occur in buildings of similar vintages as discussed for URM buildings in Section C.4.3.3, but
can be found in buildings having any type of building lateral force-resisting system. Often the URM materials
are covered with plaster or stucco, or are painted such that it is difficult to recognize them in an existing
building. During an earthquake the non-structural URM cracks in-plane due to deflections of the building,
and can crack or fail outofplane as well. Extensive cracking of non-structural URM has occurred in
relatively moderate shaking and can require costly removal and replacement of substantial amounts of
URM even if the building structure itself is relatively undamaged.
• Other factors: Several other factors can modify generic performance (for better or worse). Examples
include:
Negative factors:
• Unusually heavy façade, mezzanines, etc. in an otherwise light weight building (e.g., light metal
structure)
• Pounding between adjacent buildings
• Unusually long or narrow roofs or floors
• Incomplete or inadequate lateral load paths
• Poor quality building materials
• Use of relatively earthquake-vulnerable material (e.g., some precase concrete)

1-2 Earthquakes
Positive factors:
• Enhanced design (e.g., utilizing building code criteria for critical buildings)
• Base isolated buildings
• Utilization of energy dissipation devices within a building
C.5 Earthquake Performance and Restraint of Contents

The following information regarding past earthquake performance of contents, design of restraint (e.g.,
anchorage or bracing) for equipment and single- and double-row racks, and post-installed concrete anchors
is intended to provide a brief overview of some more important and common aspects of earthquake
performance and design for these items.
Although most industrial equipment is fairly rugged and will perform well if anchored, some objects may
contain fragile internal components (e.g., steppers or diffusion furnaces in semiconductor fabrication facilities)
that can be affected by strong shaking. Methods to mitigate damage to these fragile components is not
addressed below.
It is not intended that the discussion below will cover all earthquake vulnerabilities, code provisions or
manufacturer requirements. Consult publications documenting past earthquake performance (e.g., by the
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute [EERI] and the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering
[NZSEE]), building codes, publications explaining earthquake design of equipment restraint (e.g., those of
the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]) and manufacturers’ literature for a full
understanding of earthquake design provisions.
Examples of documents showing generic anchorage techniques are the following United States Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) documents:
• FEMA E74/December 2012, Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage
• FEMA 412/December 2002, Installing Seismic Restraints for Mechanical Equipment
• FEMA 413/January 2004, Installing Seismic Restraints for Electrical Equipment
• FEMA 414/January 2004, Installing Seismic Restraints for Duct and Pipe
These documents are available for download at:www.fema.gov.
C.5.1 Performance of Contents in Past Earthquakes

Performance of equipment observed by FM Global in recent earthquakes has been similar to the performance
documented by others (e.g., EERI, NZSEE). Most properly-restrained (i.e., anchored or braced) equipment
has sustained relatively minor damage during strong ground shaking. Equipment is often inherently rugged
due to operational considerations (e.g., pumps, compressors, generators, shop equipment), but most other
equipment (e.g., electrical switchgear and MCC, dry transformers, batteries) has also shown sufficient
internal ruggedness to withstand earthquake shaking. There are, however, some equipment items for which
the equipment itself has been vulnerable to damage during earthquake shaking. Observations from past
earthquakes have demonstrated that:
• Tall narrow objects (e.g., electrical cabinets, computer servers, some shop equipment) are most prone to
overturning, especially when mass is concentrated near the top of the object. Similarly, pedestals of tall
raised access floors may collapse during strong ground shaking, due to a lack of lateral bracing. Damage
to toppled equipment or to items it impacts, and damage to equipment supported on failed raised access
floors, can be very high.
• Low profile equipment typically slides or shifts. Unless it falls from its support (e.g., table, equipment pad,
vibration isolators) or impacts adjacent items, damage to the equipment itself is often minor. However,
loss can become significant if the equipment falls, if movement damages attachments to the equipment
(e.g., piping, conduit, conveyors, rigid connections between batteries) or if large amounts of equipment
require realignment.
• Equipment hung from overhead structures (e.g., suspended ceilings, piping) will swing in an earthquake.
In some cases (e.g., individual runs of welded or soldered piping with short hangers, cable trays with short
hangers, conduit, individual light fixtures), bracing is not necessary to prevent damage as long as vertical

Earthquakes 1-2
support is maintained and the items don’t impact or impose large loads on other equipment. However,
piping systems having threaded or grooved mechanical couplings and smaller pipe branching off larger
pipe (similar to fire sprinkler systems), unbraced suspended ceilings, and items that can swing into other
objects have proven to be highly damageable. Additionally, distribution systems (e.g., piping) that span
across seismic joints or between individual buildings can be damaged if the differential movement between
the structures is not accommodated (e.g., by a flexible pipe loop).
• Vibration-isolated equipment can be particularly vulnerable to earthquake damage. Horizontal forces are
amplified in such equipment and the vibration isolators themselves are often not adequate internally to
resist horizontal forces. In addition, vibration isolators, or independent bumpers, can be tall and narrow.
Forces applied at or near the top of these (i.e., where the equipment is attached or impacts) will tend to
overturn the vibration isolators or bumpers themselves. If they are narrow, this can result in high tension
forces in the bolts that attach the vibration isolator or bumper to the structure.
• Forces are amplified by structures; items at the tops of buildings are more likely to shift, overturn or swing
than items at grade.
• In some cases, the equipment itself may be vulnerable to damage from earthquake shaking such that
rigid anchorage is not a total solution or such that rigid anchorage is not a preferred solution. Some
examples include:
• Tanks - For leg-supported tanks, buckling of legs and damage at their attachment to the tank
sometimes occurs if legs are not adequately braced, or if legs or the tank shell are constructed
of thin steel or weak material (e.g., plastic). For base-supported tanks (e.g., stainless steel wine
tanks) damage to thin shells (e.g., “elephant foot” buckling) or ripping of shell-to-floor plate
connections are common. In addition, tanks can be damaged if pipe is rigidly attached or if access
walkways are rigidly attached between the tanks.
• Storage racks are often marginally designed for earthquake forces. Racks have failed even when
they are anchored, especially when they are heavily loaded or damaged (e.g., from forklift impact).
But, except for providing base anchorage and replacing damaged frames, retrofit of existing racks
themselves is usually not cost effective. Damage to inadequately-designed racks may include
column or brace buckling as well as tearing of beam-to-column connections or column-to-base
plate welds. Retrofit measures to prevent items from falling from racks are often not easily
implemented due to their impact on operations.
• Some equipment is inherently fragile, or has fragile internal components. In certain cases, rigidly
anchoring this equipment may invalidate its warranty (rigid anchorage increases the internal forces
within the equipment) and more complex solutions, like base isolation, are needed to mitigate
earthquake damage (an example might the steppers used in semiconductor fabrication). At times,
the only practical solution to mitigate earthquake losses for equipment incorporating fragile
components may be to stock spare parts (examples are tall porcelain transformer bushings [which
can be qualified for use in seismic zones but may still be seismically vulnerable] and quartz tubes
in diffusion furnaces used in semiconductor fabrication).
C.5.2 Equipment Restraint

All connections should be positive direct connections for good seismic performance. Friction resulting from
gravity loads should not be considered to provide resistance to seismic forces except at the foundation-to-soil
interface as allowed by the geotechnical engineer.
In ASCE 7-16 (i.e., the 2016 edition of ASCE 7), restraint (e.g., anchorage or bracing) of typical architectural,
mechanical, and electrical components and systems (e.g., electrical cabinets and transformers, manufacturing
machinery, piping systems, walls, and access floors) is designed for forces from earthquake shaking using
the following method. Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) and Allowable Stress Design (ASD) are
included in the discussion below. See the Appendix A glossary for full definitions of LRFD and ASD.
Similar to the retrofit criteria discussed in Section C.4.3.2 for structures, ASCE 41 also addresses seismic
retrofit of existing equipment and non-structural systems. For these, the performance levels are life-safety,
position retention and operational. Position retention, according to ASCE 41, “essentially mirrors the
requirements of ASCE 7 non-structural seismic provisions for cases where Ip is taken as 1.0.” By contrast,
the life safety performance level focuses mainly on preventing equipment from falling or blocking egress paths

1-2 Earthquakes
and in many cases will allow significant and costly damage. Therefore, it is recommended that retrofits of
typical equipment be made to at least the position retention performance level (i.e., to the ASCE 7 provisions
discussed below).
Restraint of equipment, piping, etc. is still required in buildings that are base isolated or have energy
dissipating devices installed. Design forces can be conservatively determined as outlined below, or more
detailed calculations per ASCE 7 can be made to establish whether lower design forces could be used.
Restraint design and flexibility provided for elements spanning across the isolation interface (e.g., piping or
stairs) needs to consider expected differential displacements.
C.5.2.1 Determine the Horizontal Equipment Seismic Design Force (LFRD)

The LRFD horizontal seismic design force, which should be applied independently in two orthogonal
directions, is determined using the general equation:
Fp = 0.4·ap (1 + 2 · z/h) SDS · Ip · Wp

Rp
With
0.3 ≤ 0.4·ap (1 + 2 · z/h) ≤1.6

Rp
Where:
Fp = horizontal design force (LRFD, see above) centered at the component’s center of gravity (c.g.) and
distributed relative to component’s mass distribution.
ap = component amplification factor that varies from 1.00 to 2.50 (from ASCE 7 tables).
Rp = component response modification factor that varies from 1.00 to 12 (from ASCE 7 tables).
z = height in structure of point of attachment of component with respect to the base of the building. For items
at or below the base, z shall be taken as 0. The value of z/h need not exceed 1.0 (i.e., z/h=1.0 for locations
on roofs or in roof penthouses that are higher than the average roof height [h]).
h = average roof height of structure with respect to the base.
SDS = the site (soil) adjusted, 5% damped, design spectral response acceleration at a short (0.2- second)
period, expressed as a portion of the gravitational acceleration (g).
Ip (or IE) = component seismic importance factor. The code-required value varies from 1.0 (“normal”
equipment) to 1.5 (essential, life-safety, or hazardous material-containing equipment). Since a higher value
increases the likelihood that equipment anchorage will be adequate, consider using an importance factor
greater than 1.0 (e.g., 1.25 or 1.5) for valuable or important equipment (e.g., storage racks protected by in-rack
sprinklers) even if not code-required.
Wp = component operating weight.
C.5.2.2 Determine the Vertical Equipment Seismic Design Force (LFRD)
Per ASCE 7-16, combine the lateral force determined above with a vertical earthquake design force (Ev) of
± 0.2·SDS·Wp (LRFD).
C.5.2.3 Determine Total Equipment Restraint Design Forces (LRFD or ASD)

Design forces for restraints (e.g., anchors or braces) are determined using appropriate LRFD or ASD load
combinations. Note that the horizontal earthquake force can come from any direction and the design should
be based on the direction that results in the most conservative restraint.
Assuming that there is no live load or snow load (i.e., the only forces on the equipment are from the dead
load of the item and the earthquake forces) anchors are designed for the load combinations given below. Note
that the LRFD horizontal (Fp) and vertical (Ev) seismic design forces are multiplied by 0.7 to determine
equivalent approximate ASD seismic design forces. Also note that for anchorage, Combination B (LRFD)
and Combination D (ASD) likely control since they will result in the maximum tension on the anchor that will
need to be combined with the shear in the anchor.

Earthquakes 1-2
LRFD Combinations:
[Combination A] (1.2 + 0.2·SDS)·Wp + Ωo·Fp
[Combination B] (0.9 - 0.2·SDS)·Wp + Ωo·Fp
ASD Combinations:
[Combination C] (1.0 + 0.14·SDS)·Wp + 0.7·Ωo·Fp
[Combination D] (0.6 - 0.14·SDS)·Wp + 0.7·Ωo·Fp
Where:
SDS, Wp and Fp are as defined previously.
Ωo = overstrength factor used to amplify prescribed seismic forces that varies from 1.0 to 2.5. Where anchors
do not attach to concrete or masonry, take the factor as 1.0. For anchors to concrete or masonry that are
deemed non-ductile (e.g., most post-installed anchors), the overstrength factor (from ASCE 7 tables) is most
commonly 2.0 for LRFD load combinations (and 2.0/1.2 = 1.67 for ASD load combinations). Rather than
applying the Ωo factor to the loads, an equivalent method when all loads on the anchors result from earthquake
would be to reduce capacities of post-installed by the Ωo factor (as has been done in Table C.5.4.2).
ASCE 7-02 (a previous edition of ASCE 7) set a criterion that post-installed concrete anchors should have
an embedment of at least 8 times the bolt diameter (Db) to be considered “deep” anchors that act in a ductile
manner. Later editions of ASCE 7 have modified this criterion such that the embedment depth and other
features necessary for the anchor to be considered ductile require prequalification in accordance with
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Standard 355.2, Evaluating the Performance of Post-Installed Mechanical
Anchors in Concrete. It is unlikely most post-installed concrete (or masonry) anchors would meet the ACI
355.2 requirements for ductility, so the overstrength factor should generally be applied where anchorage is
made to concrete or masonry.
Some components may list capacities based on Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), while others
may list capacities based on Allowable Stress Design (ASD). It is important to understand how capacities are
reported and use the load combinations appropriate for that listing.
Post-installed concrete anchor capacities given in this data sheet are based on ASD.
From ASCE 7-16, for typical non-vibration-isolated (i.e., rigid mount), floor-supported equipment: ap = 1.0,
Rp = 2.5 and Ω0 = 2.0 (LRFD) or 1.67 (ASD) for floor-supported storage cabinets and for substantial items
constructed of high-deformability materials (for example transformers, generators, batteries, manufacturing
and process machinery, wet-side HVAC, chillers, and boilers); and ap = 2.5, Rp = 6.0 and Ω0 = 2.0 (LRFD)
or 1.67 (ASD) for equipment constructed of sheet metal framing (for example motor control centers, switch
gear, air-side HVAC, air handlers and air conditioning units). These two result in essentially the same required
design forces. Fp (LRFD) is (note that for design of non-ductile anchorage to masonry or concrete, the values
below must be doubled, or allowable anchor capacities must be halved, because Ω0 = 2.0):
• 0.3·SDS·Ip·Wp up to 0.4h (i.e., constant in the lower 40% of the building height)
• 0.5·SDS·Ip·Wp at the roof
• determined by linear interpolation between 0.4h and the roof
For equipment that is vibration-isolated with springs, ap = 2.5, Rp = 2.0 and Ω0 = 2.0. The required design
force, Fp (LRFD) is (again, for design of non-ductile anchorage to masonry or concrete, the values below must
be doubled, or allowable anchor capacities must be halved, because Ω0 = 2.0):
• 0.5·SDS·Ip·Wp at or below the base of the building
• 1.5·SDS·Ip·Wp at the roof
• determined by linear interpolation between grade and the roof
Note that for the two cases above, the Fp (LRFD) values would be multiplied by the 0.7 load factor to get
ASD loads. If attachment is to concrete or masonry using non-ductile anchors, the resulting ASD loads would
then be multiplied by the ASD Ω0 of 1.67 (or the allowable anchor capacities would be divided by 1.67 as
they are in Table C.5.4.2).

1-2 Earthquakes
For raised access floors ap = 1.0, Rp = 1.5 and Ω0 =1.5 (LRFD) or 1.5/1.2 = 1.25 (ASD) unless they are
detailed as “special” access floors, in which case ap = 1.0, Rp = 2.5 and Ω0 = 2.0 (LRFD) or 1.67 (ASD).
Special access floors have positive connections (i.e., mechanical fasteners, welds or concrete anchors) from
floor stringers to pedestals, pedestals to floors and at ends of braces. Additionally, floor stringers must be
adequate for the axial force, and bracing and pedestals must be structural or mechanical shapes produced
to specifications that require minimum mechanical properties (e.g., not electrical tubing).
For steel piping that has threaded joints, compression couplings or grooved couplings, design parameters
are typically ap = 2.5, Rp = 4.5 and Ω0 = 2.0 (LRFD) or 1.67 (ASD).
C.5.3 Single-Row and Double-Row Storage Racks

Storage racks and their anchorage can be designed using ASCE 7-16 directly. However, racks can also be
designed, with some modifications (e.g., to use an overstrength factor for anchorage) required by ASCE
7-16, per ANSI/RMI MH16.1-2012 (American National Standards Institute/Rack Manufacturers Institute,
Specification for the Design, Testing and Utilization of Industrial Steel Storage Racks). Additional information
can be found in FEMA 460, Seismic Considerations for Steel Storage Racks Located in Areas Accessible
to the Public (September 2005).
The discussion below is mainly focused on determining appropriate rack anchorage, not design of the racks
(e.g., members, welds) themselves. Additionally, evaluation of deflections is beyond the scope of this data
sheet. The registered engineer responsible for the rack structural design must determine these deflections
(amplifying those calculated using design forces as necessary) and provide clearance adequate to prevent
pounding, etc., based on appropriate analysis. ASCE 7-16 states that the assumed total relative displacement
for steel storage racks should not be less than 5% of the structural height above the base unless justified
by analysis.
C.5.3.1 Racks in Upper Floors: Horizontal Design Forces

Racks located at upper floors in a building are designed, per ASCE 7-16 and ANSI/RMI MH16.1-2012 for
horizontal forces determined using ap = 2.5, Rp = 4.0 in the cross-aisle (transverse) direction or Rp = 6.0 in
the down-aisle (longitudinal) direction, and the equation for Fp as previously discussed for equipment
anchorage. This condition will not be discussed further; for more information see ASCE 7 and ANSI/RMI
MH16.1.
C.5.3.2 Racks Located at Grade: Horizontal Design Forces

Storage racks most often are located at grade and are therefore designed as independent, non-building
structures. Using ASCE 7-16, the general form of the design equation (LRFD) for horizontal forces for racks
at grade is:
V = CS·W
and, for FM Global 50- through 500-year earthquake zones, in most cases,
SDS · I maximum, which can be reduced to SD1 · I but ≥ 0.044 SDS · I
CS =
R T·R
In addition, when S1 ≥ 0.6g (likely only applies in FM Global 50-year zones) the following must also be met:
CS ≥0.5S1·I/R
(Note: the equations above are applicable to most racks at grade; however, there are other ASCE 7 provisions
that could control the design for some racks.)
Where:
V = the total design lateral (horizontal) force or shear (LRFD, see above) at the base (again, to determine
ASD forces, the LRFD forces are multiplied by 0.7 - see load combination section below).
CS = seismic response coefficient.
W = the total gravity load on the rack.
SDS (defined previously).
I (or IE) (defined previously).

Earthquakes 1-2
R = response modification coefficient (= 4.0 for storage racks from ASCE 7-16; allowed in ANSI/RMI
MH16.1-2012 to be 4.0 in the cross-aisle [transverse] direction and 6.0 in the down-aisle [longitudinal]
direction).
SD1 = the site (soil) adjusted, 5% damped, design spectral response acceleration at a period of 1 second,
expressed as a portion of the gravitational acceleration (g).
S1 = the mapped, 5% damped, spectral response acceleration, assuming a soil at the boundary of Site
Classes B and C, for a period of 1 second, expressed as a portion of the gravitational acceleration (g).
T = fundamental period of the rack, in seconds.
The total design lateral force (V) is distributed on the rack based on the formula:
Force at Level “X” (Fx) = Cvx·V
and
k
Cvx = w
n
x hx
Σ wihi
k
i=1
Where:
wx, wi = the weight at Level x or Level i.
hx, hi = the height (above the base of the rack) of Level x or Level i.
k = an exponent related to the fundamental period of the rack (T) that equals 1.0 for T ≤ 0.5 seconds; equals
2.0 for T ≥ 2.5 seconds and is determined by linear interpolation if “T” is between these points.
Where the weight at each rack level is equal and the fundamental period of the rack is 0.5 seconds or less,
the force distribution on the rack will be roughly an inverted triangular shape. In ANSI/RMI MH16.1-2012,
the exponent “k” is always taken as 1.0.
Per ASCE 7-16, steel storage racks are designed for two cases:
A. Weight of the rack plus every storage level loaded to 67% of its rated load capacity.
B. Weight of the rack plus the highest storage level only loaded to 100% of its rated load capacity.
Most racks are fairly light in weight by comparison to their rated load capacity; neglecting the rack self-weight
usually will not introduce large inaccuracies in anchorage requirements.
C.5.3.3 Determine Total Storage Rack Restraint Design Forces (LRFD or ASD)
Design forces for rack anchorage are determined using appropriate LRFD or ASD load combinations. Note
that the horizontal earthquake force can come from any direction and the design should be based on the
direction (cross-aisle [transverse] or down-aisle [longitudinal]) that results in the most conservative anchorage.
Forces are assumed to be applied in either the transverse or longitudinal direction; they are not applied in
both directions simultaneously.
The load combinations in Section C.5.2.3 can also be used for storage rack anchorage. Replace Wp and
Fp in the Section C.5.2.3 load combinations with W and V, respectively, determined for the rack in the previous
section.
ASCE 7-16 modifies ANSI/RMI MH16.1-2012 to require the overstrength factor (Ωo) for storage rack
anchorage be taken as 2.0 (LRFD) or 1.67 (ASD) for anchors to concrete or masonry that are deemed
non-ductile (e.g., most post-installed anchors). For ductile concrete or masonry anchors, and for other anchors
(e.g., bolts to steel) it is suggested that the overstrength factor be taken as 1.3. This is based on the likelihood
that the rack design forces will be required to be increased by a redundancy factor (ρ) of 1.3, and this
increased force should also be used to determine anchorage. If analysis of the racks shows that a redundancy
factor of 1.0 is appropriate, then Ωo = 1.0 can instead be used.
C.5.4 Anchorage to Concrete

Note: see also Data Sheet 2-8, Earthquake Protection for Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, Section
3.1.9, for additional information on anchoring to concrete, especially when using post-installed concrete
anchors.

1-2 Earthquakes
Because cracks will form in concrete during an earthquake, anchors that are cast into the concrete during
construction (i.e., cast-in-place [CIP] anchors) or installed after the concrete is set (i.e., post-installed anchors)
must be designed and/or tested to determine their resistance for the cracked concrete condition. Anchors
must be designed and/or listed for use in regions of moderate to high seismic risk (e.g., ASCE 7 Seismic
Design Category [SDC] C-F; or UBC Zones 2B, 3 and 4). Anchors that are adequate only in ASCE 7 SDC A
and B; or UBC Zones 0, 1, and 2A are not acceptable.
Anchors that are not qualified for cracked concrete and seismic applications should not be used in FM Global
50-year through 500-year earthquake zones.
C.5.4.1 Cast-In-Place (CIP) Anchors and Inserts

The capacity of relatively simple CIP anchors or inserts (e.g., headed bolts or bolt groups) can be determined
using calculations in accordance with ASCE 7 and ACI 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (or international equivalent). In regions of moderate and high seismic risk (e.g., SDC C through F
in ASCE 7), ACI 318 requires the assumption of cracked concrete. Additionally, if the strength of the steel
bolt or yielding of the attachment does not control the design, the LRFD anchor capacity is then limited to 40%
of the strength of the anchor calculated assuming concrete failure.
Proprietary CIP inserts exist (e.g., cold-formed steel) for which determining the capacity is not straightforward.
In these cases allowable capacities are typically determined using calculations (e.g., per ACI 318) in
combination with testing. An example of a standard used to qualify specialty inserts is the International Code
Council Evaluation Services (ICC-ES) standard AC446 - Acceptance Criteria for Headed Cast-in Specialty
Inserts in Concrete.
C.5.4.2 Post-Installed Concrete Anchors

Several different types of post-installed concrete anchors are available, and can be used to resist earthquake
forces only when they have been tested and prequalified for use in cracked concrete in seismic zones.
Anchors that could be included are expansion or wedge, sleeve, shell or drop-in, screws and threaded head
screws, undercut and adhesive.
Powder-driven fasteners (see glossary) are also post-installed anchors, similar in shape to a nail, propelled
into steel or concrete elements. These do not have high allowable capacities, have typically performed poorly
in past earthquakes, and are not appropriate to use in seismic zones).
Some general considerations for post-installed concrete anchors include the following:
A. Not all post-installed concrete anchors are appropriate for use in resisting seismic forces. Testing the
anchors to establish their capacities when installed under ideal conditions, their reliability if installed
poorly, and their performance under service load conditions (such as cyclical seismic forces) is necessary.
In the United States, tests per American Concrete Institute (ACI) Standard 355.2, Qualification of
Post-Installed Mechanical Anchors in Concrete, and Standard 355.4, Qualification of Post-Installed
Adhesive Anchors in Concrete, are used to establish parameters for anchor design. ICC-ES Acceptance
Criteria AC193 (mechanical anchors) and AC308 (adhesive anchors) are largely equivalent to the ACI
standards. When used in FM Global 50-year through 500-year earthquake zones, allowable tension and
shear capacities should be determined in cracked concrete using the seismic tests given in the ACI or
ICC-ES criteria. Anchors should be listed as adequate for use in regions of moderate to high seismic risk
(e.g., ASCE 7 SDC C through F). Anchors are not acceptable if listed only for use in ASCE 7 SDC A and
B. ACI 318 is then used along with information such as concrete strength, embedment depths, etc. to
determine the capacity of an anchor or group of anchors. In areas outside the United States, equivalent
local building code standards may be used.
B. All manufacturers have specific requirements regarding their anchors that must be followed during
design and installation.
C. In order to confirm a quality installation and meet building code requirements, anchors must typically
be installed with special inspection per the manufacturers’ requirements; for other bolts special inspection
is optional. Since the quality of installation is critical to performance, it is strongly suggested that
installation of all post-installed anchors be inspected. Further, it is suggested that, as part of the inspection
process, the torque be verified for 5% of the installed anchors (minimum of 4 per day). Tension testing
these anchors to twice the design load is an acceptable alternative.

Earthquakes 1-2
D. Before installing anchors in precast/prestressed planks or post-tensioned concrete slabs, make a proper
non-destructive evaluation to locate cables, tendons, and/or anchorages so they will not be damaged.
Locate embedded items (e.g., conduit, etc.) prior to anchor installation. Avoid cutting reinforcing steel,
particularly in elevated slabs or beams.
E. Do not use adhesive anchors in areas with conditions that adversely affect their capacity (e.g., ambient
temperatures above 100°F [38°C], substantial radiation, or chemical exposure). Do not use adhesive
anchors in overhead installations supporting gravity loads.
F. A common type of post-installed concrete anchor is an expansion or wedge anchor. Allowable forces
for concrete expansion or wedge anchors often are reported for a service load (i.e., ASD) condition. There
is a great deal of variability in embedment depths, capacities, methods of combining shear and tension
forces to determine adequacy of these anchors, etc. The following conditions, though not universal, are
fairly representative for concrete expansion or wedge anchors:
• Anchor bolt capacities depend on embedment depth, and typically several embedment depths are
listed for each anchor. It is strongly recommended that a minimum embedment depth of 6 to 7 times
the bolt diameter (see Table C.5.4.2) be used to increase the likelihood that the anchor will behave
in a ductile manner as discussed above.
• Currently, determination of allowable shear (VA) and tension loads (TA) is based on a very complex
methodology (e.g., such as that found in ACI 318) and depends on multiple variables (concrete
strength, depth of embedment, edge distance, anchor spacing, placement of steel reinforcement,
etc.). It is therefore difficult to provide generic capacities for post-installed anchors. The reader is
directed to ACI 318 if a complete understanding of the analysis is needed.
• Use of an earthquake increase factor on calculated non-earthquake capacities for tension (designated
as TEI) and shear (designated as VEI) was common in the past, but typically is no longer allowed.
• The anchor stress ratio (SR) usually is determined through an interaction equation accounting for
the actual tension and shear forces on the anchor. In the past, the form of the interaction equation
typically was: (Tactual /[TTE ·TA])Y + (Vactual/ [TTE ·TA])Y ≤1.0. The value of the exponent “Y” varied
from 1 to 2, but commonly was 5/3 for expansion/wedge anchors. Currently, ACI 318 requires the use
of a linear interaction formula of the form (Tactual/TA) + (Vactual/VA) ≤1.2 (with the additional
restriction that neither [Tactual/TA] nor [Vactual/VA] can exceed 1.0). An SR greater than that allowed
indicates an overstress condition.
• Anchors need to be installed an adequate distance from concrete edges. This distance varies based
on the anchor, concrete type, embedment, reinforcement, etc. Use a minimum edge distance of 12
times the bolt diameter unless otherwise allowed by the manufacturer and calculations are provided
to verify adequacy.
• Requirements for spacing between anchors also vary depending on the manufacturer, concrete
strength, etc. Use a minimum spacing of 8 times the bolt diameter unless otherwise allowed by the
manufacturer and calculations are provided to verify adequacy.
• When multiple anchors are installed near each other, the tension and shear allowed for the group
of anchors will be less than the capacity of a single anchor multiplied by the number of anchors used.
There can be significant variation in the reduction factor, but for very close spacing the group
reduction factor on TA or VA could be significant. For an effective group reduction factor of 0.5, if
the capacity of one anchor = TA, the capacity of two anchors may be as little as (0.5)·(2)·TA or the
same as a single anchor. The exact reduction for a group of anchors must be calculated based on
the configuration.
• The thickness of concrete typically is required to be approximately 1.5 times the depth of embedment
of the anchor.
Again, concrete expansion anchors vary in their allowable capacity, but representative average values for
single expansion or wedge anchors are given in Table C.5.4.2.

1-2 Earthquakes
Table C.5.4.2. Approximate ASD Capacities vs. Earthquake Loading for a Single Post-Installed Concrete Expansion or
Wedge Anchor in 3000 psi (20.7 MPa) Normal Weight Concrete1
Nominal Bolt Diameter Minimum Nominal
in. (mm) Embedment2 in. (mm) Tension Allowable3 Lb (kN) Shear Allowable4 Lb (kN)
¼ (6) 1-3/4 (44) 200 (0.89) 250 (1.1)
3/8 (10) 2-1/4 (57) 450 (2.0) 500 (2.22)
½ (12) 3-1/2 (89) 600 (2.67) 1100 (4.89)
5/8 (16) 3-3/4 (95) 900 (4.0) 1500 (6.67)
¾ (20) 4-1/2 (114) 1300 (5.78) 2200 (9.79)
Notes:
1. Table values are for earthquake loading, using Allowable Stress Design (ASD) assuming cracked concrete, for single anchors determined
based on averages across several manufacturers. The table ASD values are based on 0.42 times the normally allowed LRFD capacity,
and so already account for the 0.7 LRFD to ASD load factor adjustment and the 1/1.67 = 0.6 adjustment for the ASD overstrength factor
(Ω0) - see Section C.5.2.3 and Data Sheet 2-8, Section 3.1.9 for more information. Where attachments are made to light weight concrete (e.g.,
light weight concrete-filled metal deck) use 60% of table values.
2. Manufacturers typically supply bolts in many lengths; choose bolts with a nominal embedment (i.e., embedment before the anchor is
set) at least equal to that shown in the table (nominal embedment values should typically be 6 to 7 times the bolt diameter [6Db to 7Db]).
Use anchor distance from concrete edges of at least 12·Db For anchor groups (anchors spaced closer than 18·Db) use an anchor spacing
of at least 8·Db and use 75% of the capacity given in the table (i.e., for a two-anchor connection, take the capacity), as [0.75] ·[2]·[allowable
from table]). Analysis for a specific installation may result in capacities, embedments, edge distances, and / or spacings that vary from those
assumed for this table.
3. Tension allowable assumes a high-quality installation (e.g., achieved by requiring special inspection or by verifying installations by testing
a percentage of installed anchors). If concrete can be demonstrated to remain uncracked, values in the table for tension may be increased
by a factor of 1.4; no other earthquake increase factor is applicable.
4. Shear allowable assumes a distance from concrete edges of at least 12·Db. There is no increase allowed when concrete can be
demonstrated to remain uncracked.
C.6 FM Global Worldwide Earthquake Map
C.6.1 Scope
The FM Global Worldwide Earthquake Map displays zones that convey mean return times of soil-adjusted
“damaging” earthquake ground motions (i.e., sufficient to cause non-trivial damage to structures and contents
that are not properly designed to resist earthquake forces). The FM Global map differs from building code
maps, which display motions (e.g., spectral accelerations) damaging or otherwise for a uniform soil or rock
site condition and a single return period (often approximately 500 years or 2,500 years) or probability of
collapse (i.e., in ASCE 7 earthquake hazard is based on a 1% in 50-year probability of collapse). In other
words, the FM Global map displays earthquake risk (showing the mean return times of damaging ground
motions at a site) while building code maps are earthquake hazard maps (showing underlying bedrock
accelerations, unadjusted for the typically amplifying effects of local soils, for a single return period or
probability of collapse). Although they map different parameters, the underlying science of the hazard
calculation is the same. Table C.6.1 presents the mean return times of damaging ground motions and the
relative risk for FM Global earthquake zones. The table also shows the likelihood that damaging ground
motions will occur at least once for a commonly assumed 50-year facility life (see Section C.6.2 for more
information).
Table C.6.1. FM Global Earthquake Zones

“Damaging” Earthquake Ground Motions
Mean Return Period Approximate Chance of at
FM Global Earthquake Least One Occurrence in
Zone 50-Year Facility Life Relative Risk
50-year 0 to 50 years ≥ 63% Severe
100-year 51 to 100 years 39-63% High
250-year 101 to 250 years 18-39% Moderate
500-year 251 to 500 years 10-18% Moderate
>500-year >500 years ≤10% Low
C.6.2 General
The mean recurrence interval (MRI) of an event (e.g., damaging ground motion) is the average number of
years between successive events. A MRI of 500 years does not imply that successive events will be exactly
500 years apart. Nor does it imply that there is 100% probability of its occurrence in a 500 year period.
(Compare rolling a 6-sided die. There is a one-in-six chance of rolling a “3” [i.e., a “recurrence interval” of

Earthquakes 1-2
6]. However, in six rolls of the die, it is possible that a “3” will not be rolled and it is also possible that a “3”
will be rolled more than once.) The following relationship gives the probability of an event in a given period:
P = 1-exp(-t/T)
where, P is the probability that an event of MRI ″T″ will occur at least once in a time period t.
The probability of a 500-year event occurring at least once in 50 years is:
P = 1-exp(-50/500) = 0.0952 (9.5%).
The probability of a 500-year event occurring at least once in 500 years is:
P = 1-exp(-500/500) = 0.632 (63.2%).
Put another way, there is about a 37% chance that a 500-year event will not occur in a given 500-year period.
However, assuming independence of seismic events, there is also about the same probability that a 500-year
event will occur at least twice in 500 years (i.e., 0.632 × 0.632 = 0.4 [40%]).
The FM Global Worldwide Earthquake Map conveys the MRI of damaging ground motions, not the MRI of
damaging earthquakes, at the site. To distinguish between the two, refer to Figure C.6.2. In that figure, assume
seismic source A and source B produce earthquakes of magnitude 7.5 and 6.7 respectively, at a 500-year
MRI, and the region of damaging ground motions is shown by oval areas surrounding these sources. In the
non-overlapping (green) region, damaging ground motions occur at a 500-year MRI. In the overlapping (tan)
region, the damaging ground motions occur at a 250-year MRI. Further, assume source C produces
earthquakes of magnitude 5.7 at a 125-year MRI and the region of damaging ground motions due to this
source is contained entirely within the region of damaging ground motions due to source A. The annual chance
of damaging ground motions in this region is then: 1/500 (due to source A) + 1/125 (due to source C) =
0.01/year. The MRI of damaging ground motions is 1/0.01 = 100 years (shown by red).
Fig. C.6.2. Mean recurrence interval (MRI) of earthquakes vs. MRI of damaging ground motion
FM Global Worldwide Earthquake map zones are based on the following methodology:
1. Seismic sources that are likely to rupture again are identified.
2. The magnitude of the maximum earthquake in a seismic source is established from fault dimensions,
tectonic considerations, historic earthquake records, or geodetic observations. Geological, historical, and
instrumental data are used to establish the magnitude-frequency relations using a Gutenberg-Richter model,
or a modified version; this defines the rates of earthquakes of different magnitudes. This model assumes
a fault produces earthquakes of different magnitudes at different rates. It produces smaller earthquakes more
frequently than larger earthquakes (as discussed in Section C.1.5).
3. The ground motion prediction relationships appropriate for the region are selected. These relations provide
the variation of ground motion parameters (e.g., spectral accelerations) as a function of distance from the
earthquake, magnitude, type of faulting, and other parameters.

1-2 Earthquakes
4. The magnitude-frequency and ground motion prediction relations are used to generate the ground motions
for uniform site conditions for selected mean return times of 50, 100, 250, and 500 years.
5. The ground motions are adjusted for local site conditions by applying the soil amplification factors. This
gives the surface motions at selected return periods. “Local site conditions” used are established based on
the best available geologic mapping or other site condition proxies over large areas-they may not be
representative of the soils at a particular site.
6. The threshold for non-trivial damage to average weak buildings, derived from a broad range of global
building types and also aligned with shake damage thresholds of non-structural components, is applied to
the free-surface motions (at various mean return times) to identify regions over which a reasonable amount
of damage could occur to structures, to nonstructural systems (e.g., suspended ceilings, raised access floors)
or to equipment (e.g., sprinkler piping, storage racks) lacking seismic protection. The outer zone boundary
represents the threshold ground shaking that can cause reasonable losses; facilities closer to the center of
the zone may experience much higher levels of ground shaking.
For building or equipment design, local building codes, where available, should be followed, with the caveat
that the earthquake protection recommendations included in the data sheets should be used where they
are more stringent. In the absence of local codes with earthquake design provisions, consult an FM Global
earthquake technical specialist for guidance.
C.6.3 Earthquake Zones

An overview of the FM Global Worldwide Earthquake Map is shown in Figures C.6.3A and C.6.3B; more
detail is available online at https://www.fmglobal.com. The map displays, for engineering purposes, FM Global
earthquake zones for the continents and Oceania. FM Global earthquake zones convey the 50-year,
100-year, 250-year, 500-year, and > 500-year mean recurrence intervals of damaging ground shaking.
The FM Global Worldwide Earthquake Map overview provided includes:
Fig. C.6.3A. World - Western Hemisphere
Fig. C.6.3B. World - Eastern Hemisphere

Earthquakes 1-2
Fig. C.6.3A. World – Western Hemisphere
©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved
1-2 Earthquakes
Fig. C.6.3B. World Eastern Hemisphere
©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved

FM Global Property Loss Prevention Data Sheets: 1.0 SCOPE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FM Global Property Loss Prevention Data Sheets: 1.0 SCOPE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FM Global Property Loss Prevention Data Sheets: 1.0 SCOPE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are some of the main considerations for earthquake-resistant construction and design?

What are some of the main considerations for earthquake-resistant construction and design?

What factors influence the intensity and effects of earthquakes?

What factors influence the intensity and effects of earthquakes?

FM Global

Property Loss Prevention Data Sheets 1-2

1.0 SCOPE ................................................................................................................................................... 3

C.6 FM Global Worldwide Earthquake Map ......................................................................................... 52

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

2.0 LOSS PREVENTION RECOMMENDATIONS

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

2.2 Construction and Location

2.2.1 Site Considerations

2.2.2 Design Standards

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

2.2.3 Other New Design Considerations

2.3 Equipment and Processes

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

and vertical sloshing forces on the tank roof or cover.

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

2.6 Operation and Maintenance

2.7 Human Factor

2.7.1 Earthquake Emergency Response

3.0 SUPPORT FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

Data Sheet 3-7, Fire Protection Pumps

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF TERMS

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

APPENDIX B DOCUMENT REVISION HISTORY

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

Revised Table 3 to reflect the above changes.

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

C.1 Earthquakes and Seismicity

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

C.1.3 Seismic Waves

C.1.4 Ground Motion

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

Fig. C.1.2. Types of fault movement

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

C.1.5 Earthquake Measurement–Magnitude

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

Table C.1.5. Average Number of Earthquakes per Year

C.1.6 Earthquake Measurement–Intensity

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

Table C.1.6A. Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

C.2 Site Specific Geologic Considerations

©2018-2021 Factory Mutual Insurance Company. All rights reserved.

Table C.2. Site Classification from ASCE 7-16