the CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project Newsletter

Transcription

1 the CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project Newsletter Earthquake Hazard Mitigation of Woodframe Construction funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency through the California Governor s Office of Emergency Services ASCE Structures Congress Session Devoted to CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project No. 7 March 2002 APRIL 4 SESSION AT ASCE STRUCTURES CONFERENCE On Thursday, April 4, 2002 from 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm in Denver, Colorado at the 2002 ASCE Structures Congress, a theme session devoted to the CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project will be held. The session has been organized by Professor André Filiatrault of UC San Diego will be moderated by Bob Reitherman of CUREE. If you will be attending the ASCE conference, please take this as a personal invitation to attend this session. All aspects of the Project will be represented. Abstracts of the talks are provided on the following pages. The CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project - Overview Professor John Hall, Caltech Testing and Analysis Program Professor André Filiatrault, UCSD Northridge Earthquake Field Investigations Professor G. G. Schierle, USC Preliminary Recommendations for Codes, Standards, and Guidelines Kelly Cobeen, GFDS Engineers Building-Specific Seismic Vulnerability and Loss Estimation Professor Keith Porter, Caltech Education and Outreach Jill Andrews, Caltech Moderator Bob Reitherman, CUREE 2002 MOISSEIFF AWARD TO FOLZ AND FILIATRAULT ASCE has announced that Bryan Folz and André Filiatrault are the recipients of the 2002 Moisseiff Award for their paper, "Cyclic Analysis of Wood Shear Walls," published in the Journal of Structural Engineering, a paper which is based on work they and others accomplished in the Woodframe Project. This prestigious award will be presented during the Friday, April 5 awards luncheon at the ASCE Structures Congress in Denver. the CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project The CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project is funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through a Hazard Mitigation Grant Program award administered by the California Governor s Office of Emergency Services (OES) and is supported by non-federal sources from industry, academia, and state and local government. California Institute of Technology (Caltech) is the prime contractor to OES. Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE) organizes and carries out under subcontract to Caltech the tasks involving other universities, practicing engineers, and industry. CUREE

2 CUREE - Caltech Woodframe Project Overview John F. Hall 1, Ph.D Introduction The CUREE Caltech Woodframe Project was initiated in response to the large amount of damage to wood residential buildings which occurred during the Northridge earthquake. Goals of the investigation are to increase the understanding of the seismic behavior of light woodframe construction and to devise improved methods for design and retrofit. A grant of $5.2 million, provided by FEMA and administered through the California Governor s Office of Emergency Services, was awarded to Caltech in September Caltech has subcontracted the majority of the work to CUREE, Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering. Together with $1.7 million in required matching funds, the total budget of the Project is $6.9 million. The Northridge Earthquake Damage costs to wood buildings from the Northridge earthquake have been estimated to be as high as $20 billion (Kircher et. al., 1997), an extremely high figure considering that the earthquake magnitude was only a moderate 6.7. Although there were relatively few fatalities, of the 25 deaths caused by building damage, 24 occurred in wood buildings (EQE and California OES, 1995). Housing supply was heavily impacted with 48,000 units rendered uninhabitable (Perkins et. al., 1998). Among the most severely affected wood structures were older multistory apartment buildings built over parking garages (Figure 1). Newer structures also suffered costly damage, especially with regard to wall finish materials (Figure2). Project Organization and Status An organizational chart appears in Figure 3. The Project Manager and Project Director represent Caltech and CUREE, respectively. The Advisory Committee consists of members from structural engineering, architecture, home building and wood construction industries, and government and insurance organizations. Investigations are performed through five elements: testing and analysis, field investigations, building codes and standards, economic applications, and education and outreach. Each element is individually managed with coordination at the Project level. The Project has entered its fourth year, a one-year extension of the original 3-year duration. Most of the work in the testing, field and economics elements has been completed, with results being supplied to the ongoing codes and education elements. Each element manager will present separate reports in this session on their respective investigations. For further information, consult the CUREE website at Conclusions The Woodframe Project is providing valuable information which has the potential to significantly lower losses in future earthquakes. Most previous seismic engineering research in the United States has focused on materials other than wood, namely, steel and reinforced concrete and masonry. This imbalance is now being corrected, although much still remains to be done. Needed follow-up work will be discussed in the accompanying presentations. References EQE International and the Governor s Office of Emergency Services. The Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994: Report of Data Collection and Analysis, Part A, p (Sacramento, CA: Office of Emergency Services, 1995). 1 Professor, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. [johnhall@caltech.edu]

3 Charles Kircher, Robert Reitherman, Robert Whitman, and Christopher Arnold, Estimation of Earthquake Losses to Buildings, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 13, No. 4, November 1997, p Jeanne B. Perkins, John Boatwright, and Ben Chaqui, Housing Damage and Resulting Shelter Needs: Model Testing and Refinement Using Northridge Data, Proceedings of the NEHRP Conference and Workshop on Research on the Northridge, California Earthquake of January 17, 1994, Vol. IV, p. IV-135 (Richmond, CA: California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, 1998). Figure 1. Partially collapsed 3-story apartment buildings with tuck-under parking. Figure 2. Severely cracked stucco. This building may also have structural damage. Figure 3. Organizational Chart.

4 CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project Element 1 Testing and Analysis Program Andre Filiatrault 1, Chia-Ming Uang 1, Frieder Seible 1 Introduction The CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project has been underway in California as a combined research and implementation project to improve the seismic performance of woodframe buildings, a need which was brought to light by the January 14, 1994 Northridge, California Earthquake in the Los Angeles metropolitan region. The project, funded by FEMA, has five main elements, which together with a management element have the common objectives advancing the engineering of woodframe buildings and improving the efficiency of their construction technology for targeted seismic performance levels. The main research components of the project are included in the Testing and Analysis Element managed at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). The objective of this paper is to briefly discuss the main results of the research projects in the Element 1 - Testing and Analysis of the CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project. Research Strategy One clear issue that has emerged from a recent Invitational Workshop on Seismic Testing, Analysis and Design of Woodframe Construction (Seible et al., 1999), is the lack of understanding of the seismic behavior of woodframe structural systems. Very few numerical models capable of analyzing the seismic behavior of three-dimensional woodframe structures currently exist. Also, only limited experimental data have been generated at the system level. Recognizing these deficiencies, Element 1 of the CUREE- Caltech Woodframe Project is emphasizing the testing and analysis at both the component and system levels. The research strategy of Element 1 is illustrated in Fig. 1. The plan incorporates five main research tasks (1.1 to 1.5), centering on the shake table tests of large-scale woodframe systems Single -Family House (UC-San Diego) A p a r t m e n t B u i l d i n g (U C -B e r ke le y ) S i m p l i f i e d M o d e l ( B r i t i s h C o l u m i a ) b 1.2 International Benchmark (UC-San Diego) Rate of Loading + Loa ding Protocol Effe cts (UC-San Diego) Testing Protocols (Stanfo rd) Dynamic Characteristics (Cal tech) Anchorage (WJE, USC) Diaphragms (Virginia Tech) Cripple Walls (UC-Davis) Shear Walls (UC -Irvine) Wall Finish Materials (Stanfo rd, San J ose Sta te) Innovative Systems (Washington State) Connections (Bringham Young) (UC-Irvine) (Washington State) Analysis Software Demand Aspects Reliability Analysis Analysis of (UC -San Diego) (Stanford) (Oreg on Sta te) Index Buildings (UC-San Diego) Figure 1. Research strategy of Element 1 Testing and Analysis.

5 Research Task 1.1 Shake Table Tests Given the low weight-to-strength ratio of wood and the availability of high performance shake tables in California, shake table testing was viewed to be the most realistic procedure for testing of woodframe systems. Three different shake table projects were conducted: tests of a simplified full-scale two-story single family house (Task 1.1.1), tests of a full-scale multi-story apartment building with tuck-under parking garages (Task 1.1.2), and tests of a simplified box-type woodframe building model (Task 1.1.3). This last project was being conducted at the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver as part of an already funded research project at UBC. Research Task 1.2 International Benchmark There is a significant amount of research on the seismic behavior of woodframe construction being conducted outside California. It would be most beneficial to the Woodframe Project to tie together these research activities. To foster this collaboration, an International Benchmark was organized in which US researchers and design professionals, inside and outside California, as well as the international community were invited to blind-predict the inelastic seismic response of one of the woodframe buildings tested in Task 1.1. This provided a unique opportunity to assess the capability of available numerical models incorporating widely different levels of sophistication. Research Task 1.3 Testing Protocols The main objective of Task 1.3 was to develop the required testing protocols for the Woodframe Project. The task is composed of one main project on the development of testing protocols (Task 1.3.2) and two supporting projects: Tasks on the loading protocol and loading rate effects and Task on the dynamic characteristics of woodframe buildings. Research Task 1.4 Component Testing This research task was composed of eight different sub-tasks related to the testing of woodframe subassemblages. Research Task 1.5 Analysis The three different projects of Task 1.5 are related to the seismic analysis of woodframe construction. Acknowledgments The work described in this paper was carried out under financial support from the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE) as part of the CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project ( Earthquake Hazard Mitigation of Woodframe Construction ) under a grant administered by the California Office of Emergency Services and funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The financial support provided by these funding agencies is gratefully acknowledged. Opinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors. No liability for the information included in this paper is assumed by the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Federal Emergency Management Agency, or California Office of Emergency Services. References Seible, F., Filiatrault, A., and Uang, C-M. Editors, Proceedings of the Invitational Workshop on Seismic Testing, Analysis and Design of Woodframe Construction, CUREe Publication No. W-01, CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project, Division of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego.

6 CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project Element 2 Northridge Earthquake Field Investigations: Damage to Residential Woodframe Projects G G Schierle, USC The Field Investigations, part of the CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project, funded by FEMA and administered by the California Governor s Office of Emergency Services, included Statistical Analysis and Case Studies by engineers. The following abbreviations are used for convenience: MFD (multifamily dwellings), SFD (single family dwellings), PGA (peak ground acceleration), PGV (peak ground velocity). Key findings include: 1. Projects built after 1976 have a greater percentage damaged than older ones (Graph 1) 2. Projects built after 1976 have a greater percentage demolished than older ones (Graph 2) 3. These, and similar findings by others, are contrary to expectations, considering the 1976 UBC required more stringent seismic design 4. Apartment projects with tuck-under parking supported by columns with pin joints cost over seven times more to repair than those supported by moment frames (Graph 3) 5. The highest percentage of demolished SFD have 2-stories, whose resonant period of about 0.2 seconds match the Northridge Earthquake predominant period (Graph 4) 6. Damage patterns correlate better with intensity measured in PGA than PGV (Maps 1 & 2) 7. Of 122 demolished SFD, 72 (59%) are on hillsides while only 16% existed on hill sites 8. Of 45 demolished MFD, 14 (31%) are on hillsides, while only 8% existed on hill sites 9. Footings are the most costly items to repair in SFD 10. Chimneys are most frequently damaged items in SFD built before Shear walls are the most frequently damaged and most costly item to repair in MFD 12. Non-structural items are most expensive to repair in SFD and case studies (see table below) Cost as percentage of total [% = 100 (item cost / total repair cost)] Property type MFD SFD CSUN Case study # Non-structural 93% 84% 55% 46% 76% 73% 70% 73% Structural damage 7% 16% 45% 54% 24% 27% 30% 27% Vacancy cost 3% 19% 14% 3% 19% 5% 0% Key recommendations include: 1. Building codes should upgrade shear wall design, the most costly item to repair in MFD. 2. Building codes should upgrade footing design, the most costly item to repair in SFD. 3. Building codes should focus on design of frequently damaged nonstructural items. 4. Designers should be required to observe construction to improve quality control 5. Design guidelines should recommend adapting hillside buildings to the site to minimize fill subject to differential settlement in earthquakes; as demonstrated by the high percentage of damaged hillside structures and case study findings (Fig. 1 & 2)

7 Graph 1. Damaged projects as % of existing Graph 2. Demolished projects as % of existing Percent of existing SFD 0-40 MFD 0-40 SFD MFD SFD MFD Year bui Graph 3. Repair cost by type of parking structure PGA > < 30 Percent of existing SFD 0-40 MFD 0-40 SFD 41-76MFD 41-76SFD 77-93MFD Year bui > < 30 Graph 4. Demolished SFD by number of stories PGA Average cost ($/sq. ft.) $40 $35 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 Concrete GarageMoment Frame No Parking Pin Column Parking structure ty Year bui Percent Year bui 2-Story 1-Story Heigh Map 1. Damaged SFD built on PGV contours Map 1. Damaged SFD built on PGV contours Fig. 1. Differential earthquake fill settlement Fig. 2. Buildings adapted to site To avoid expensive earthquake settlement repair adapt building to site instead of site to building

8 CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project Element 3 Preliminary Recommendations for Codes, Standards and Guidelines Kelly Cobeen, P.E. 1, James E. Russell, P.E. 2, J. Daniel Dolan, Ph.D. 3 Introduction The CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project is a combined research and implementation project to improve the seismic performance of woodframe buildings. This paper presents preliminary recommendations by the Codes and Standards Element, focusing on a limited number of topics, rather than covering the full breadth of the Woodframe Project. These recommendations, when finalized, will be published in a report by the Codes and Standards Element, addressing engineering procedures, modifications to codes and standards, and construction practices. The audience for this report includes designers, builders, building officials, and those involved in code development. Additional research efforts in the Woodframe Project are nearing completion and will be similarly addressed in upcoming recommendations by the Codes and Standards Element. Building Dynamic Behavior Current design and evaluation procedures use an estimation of the building fundamental period as a primary variable in calculating the seismic force and displacement demands for which a building will be designed or evaluated. Woodframe Project research has generated data that permits review of the periods estimated by current procedures, including: Task (Fischer et. al., 2001) shake table testing of a full-scale building with varying building configurations and ground motion levels, Testing Task (Camelo et. al., 2001) data on building period and damping from California Division of Mines and Geology records and using ambient and forced vibration techniques, and Task (Isoda et. al., 2001) analysis of four hypothetical prototype buildings (Index Buildings) created for loss estimation studies. One very important influence on the building period was found to be the building finishes. Shear Wall Anchorage Testing from Task , Anchorage of Woodframe Buildings by Wiss Janney Elstner (Mahaney and Kehoe, 2001), forms the basis for recommended modifications to foundation sill plate anchorage, and shear wall tie downs. The purpose of the testing was to improve the understanding of the seismic performance of sill plate-to-foundation anchorage connections, by evaluating a number of anchorage variables using four anchorage groups and two test setups. Recommendations will be presented based on this testing. Two important influences on the performance of sill plates were found to be the use of larger, thicker steel plate washers on anchor bolts, and the use of uplift restraints at the ends of shear or bracing walls. Loading Protocol Effects Testing Task (Krawinkler et. al., 2000) has developed loading protocols for wood lightframe building components in high seismic hazard areas. The loading protocols include two component test protocols for deformation controlled quasi-static cyclic testing. The first provides a displacement history characteristic of ordinary (non-near-fault) ground motions (CUREE Ordinary Protocol) and the second provides a displacement history characteristic of near-fault ground motions (CUREE Near-Fault Protocol). Task has performed a series of shear wall tests exploring the influence of loading protocol, rate of loading, and presence of finish materials on shear wall behavior (Uang and Gatto, 2001). The loading protocols investigated include monotonic (ASTM E564), CUREE Ordinary Protocol, CUREE Near-Fault Protocol, the Sequential Phased Displacement (SPD) Protocol, and the ISO Protocol. The Task report

9 provides detailed descriptions of the notable variations in strength capacity, deformation capacity and failure mode that occur when varying protocols are used. Recommendations for testing protocol and use of resulting data are made based on this information. Conclusion The information in this presentation is intended to illustrate selected results coming from the CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project. A wealth of testing and analysis information is now available through the CUREE office. In addition, preliminary code, standard and guideline recommendations covering a wide variety of topics are available through the CUREE office. Interested persons are encouraged to log on to the CUREE web site at or contact the CUREE office. Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the work of the managers and researchers whose work is discussed in this presentation and the Codes and Standards Committee, for their participation in development of the recommendations report. The work described in this paper was carried out under financial support from Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE) as part of the CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project ( Earthquake Hazard Mitigation of Woodframe Construction ) under a grant administered by the California Office of Emergency Services and funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The financial support provided by these funding agencies is gratefully acknowledged. Opinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors. No liability for the information included in this paper is assumed by Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Federal Emergency Management Agency, or California Office of Emergency Services. References Camelo, V. S., J.L. Beck and J.F. Hall, Dynamic Characteristics of Woodframe Structures. CUREE, Richmond, California, August Fischer, David, Andre Filiatrault, Bryan Folz, Chia-Ming Uang and Frieder Seible, Shake Table Test of a Two-Story Woodframe Project, CUREE, Richmond, California, January Isoda, Hiroshi, Andre Filiatrault, Bryan Folz, and David Fischer, Report on Research Task CUREE, Richmond, California, under development. Krawinkler, H., F. Parisi, L. Ibarra and R. Medina, Development of a Testing Protocol for Woodframe Structures, CUREE, Richmond, California, Mahaney, James and Brian Kehoe, Laboratory Testing Report, Task No Anchorage of Woodframe Buildings, CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project, CUREE, Richmond, California, Uang, Chia-Ming and Kip Gatto, Loading Protocol and Loading Rate Effects on the Cyclic Response of Wood Shear Walls, CUREE, Richmond, California, Draft June 2001.

10 CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project Element 4 Building-Specific Seismic Vulnerability and Loss Estimation for Woodframe Structures Keith Porter, Ph.D., P.E. 1, Charles R. Scawthorn, Ph.D., S.E. 2, and James L. Beck, Ph.D. 3 Introduction The main challenge for seismic risk mitigation is demonstrating that a loss-reduction measure is cost-effective. That is, a decision-maker knows what strengthening a building or otherwise mitigating its risk will cost, but to determine if it is worth doing the decision-maker also needs to know the benefit in monetary terms. To calculate this benefit requires credible, building-specific relationships between ground motion and repair costs (these relationships are termed seismic vulnerability functions) under as-is and what-if conditions. These vulnerability functions can be used to estimate the cost of future earthquake damage over some period of time. Existing approaches to developing vulnerability functions have relied on historic loss data, expert opinion, or engineering damage assessments that have generally applied to whole categories of buildings. Each of these approaches has shortcomings, which are overcome via a new engineering approach termed assembly-based vulnerability (ABV). ABV is illustrated by application to 19 particular woodframe dwellings studied in the CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project (CUREE, 2001). Details can be found in Porter et al. (2001). Methodology Since US housing is mostly woodframe, practical seismic risk-mitigation measures for housing include stricter, more frequent inspections to ensure high-quality construction; adding foundation bolts and structural sheathing to unbraced unbolted cripple walls; adding structural sheathing to increase the strength and stiffness of new construction above that required by current codes; and installing new shearwalls or moment frames at soft stories such as tuckunder parking in apartment buildings. The costs of these measures are readily estimated, but to assess their benefit requires a seismic vulnerability function of the building with and without the measure. Historical loss data and category-based seismic vulnerability functions developed from expert opinion or engineering calculation typically lack the resolution to distinguish between as-is and what-if conditions. The ABV approach employed here however is building-specific, and offers the needed resolution. It uses well-accepted principles of structural modeling, nonlinear time-history structural analysis, component reliability information developed through laboratory tests, and standard construction cost-estimation principles. These analytical elements are combined in a probabilistic framework to reflect important uncertainties in the loss estimate, including uncertainties in: ground motion, structural characteristics (mass, damping, and stiffness), component damageability, and construction and repair costs. The ABV framework is straightforward and is similar to methodologies proposed in various forms since the 1960s, but novel in its degree of detail, avoidance of expert opinion, and manner and extent to which it treats uncertainty. For the present project, a simulation approach to implementing ABV works as follows: a structural model of the building is created that reflects best-estimate mass, damping, and stiffness (load-deformation, including hysteresis) characteristics. Uncertainties in each parameter are quantified, and a number of simulations of the model are created, reflecting the probability 1 GW Housner Postdoctoral Fellow, Caltech, Pasadena, CA. [ ] 2 Vice President, ABS Consulting, Oakland, CA. 3 Professor of Applied Mechanics and Civil Engineering, Caltech, Pasadena, CA.

11 distribution on each parameter. An historical or simulated ground motion is selected at random from among a large number of available records and scaled to a level of shaking intensity of interest, with due consideration of scaling limits. The ground motions proposed for the SAC Steel Project are used here, and scaled based on the damped elastic spectral acceleration at the building s small-amplitude fundamental period of vibration (S a ). The ground motion is paired with one of the simulated building models, and a nonlinear time-history structural analysis is performed to capture structural responses: story drifts by column line, floor accelerations, etc. The building is modeled as a unique collection of standard assemblies, i.e., a collection of building materials constructed into a recognizable component such as a gypsum wallboard partition, a floor diaphragm, a shearwall, etc. Each damageable assembly in the building is reflected by a set of fragility functions, which provide failure probability as a function of structural response. The specificity of these fragility functions is high, distinguishing between different types of wall finish, framing, sheathing, etc. Test data developed for the CUREE- Caltech Woodframe Project as well as other laboratory test data are used here to create these fragility functions. For each simulation, the structural response to which each assembly is subjected is input to the fragility function, giving a failure probability. A damage state is then simulated in a manner consistent with the calculated failure probability. This determines a simulated damage state for every assembly in the building: that is, which window panes are cracked and need replacing, which wall segments need repair, which rooms must be repainted, etc. Construction costs to perform these repairs are estimated using standard construction costestimation principles by a professional cost estimator, with the addition that uncertainty on these costs is accounted for. The total repair cost is calculated by summing the number of damaged assemblies of each type times the cost per repair. Uncertain contractor overhead and profit is added, resulting in a single simulation of total repair cost at a given level of seismic shaking intensity. The process is repeated many times at the given level of S a to estimate a probability distribution on cost given S a, and then repeated at many levels of S a to compile the probabilistic seismic vulnerability function. The vulnerability function is convolved with the seismic hazard to determine expected annualized loss, which is then brought to present value for a given planning period and discount rate. This process is repeated to calculate present value of future losses under as-is and a variety of what-if conditions. The difference between present value under as-is and what-if conditions is the benefit of the risk-mitigation measure. Summary and Conclusions A new methodology termed ABV was employed to evaluate 19 woodframe buildings. One finding is that construction quality represents a significant difference in seismic vulnerability, typically by 50% or more. All mitigation measures examined made a significant difference: bracing cripple walls; structural nailing of spandrel beams ( waist walls ); designing to abovecode performance objectives, etc., reduced future losses by 16 to 75% or more, relative to as-is conditions. The benefit of some of these measures exceeds the cost; others do not. References Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE), 2001, CUREE- Caltech Woodframe Project, Porter, K.A., C.R. Scawthorn, J.L. Beck, H.A. Seligson, L.T. Tobin, and T. Boyd, 2001, Improving Loss Estimation for Woodframe Buildings, Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, Richmond, CA, in press.

12 CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project Element 5 Education and Outreach Jill Andrews 1 Introduction The CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project coordinates engineering investigations and implementation activities whose objective is to significantly reduce earthquake losses to woodframe construction. This category of construction includes larger-size apartment and condominium buildings as well as houses; non-residential (school, commercial, etc.) as well as residential buildings; and both existing and new construction. The project is funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through a grant administered by the California Governors Office of Emergency Services. The project is divided into five interrelated elements, which are integrated into one coordinated project: 1.Testing and Analysis: Professor Andre Filiatrault, UCSD, Manager 2.Field Investigations: Professor G. G. Schierle, USC, Manager 3.Building Codes and Standards: Kelly Cobeen, GFDS Engineers, Manager 4.Economic Aspects: Tom Tobin, Tobin Associates, Manager 5.Education and Outreach: Jill Andrews, SCEC, Manager Element 5, Education and Outreach, uses all of the other Elements products and serves as a consultant to provide services with the goal of broadly disseminating research results. This Element is the primary vehicle for communication and delivery of products for the Project. Rationale One of the keys to mitigation is to educate owners and residents so that they initiate actions to reduce the risks to life and property posed by hazardous types of existing wood buildings. Specific targets here include older houses on cripple-wall foundations and multi-story apartment or condominium buildings with "tuck-under" parking. For new construction, engineers must be taught the techniques that will be forthcoming from the Building Codes and Standards Element s efforts, and contractors must be instructed in the basics of the components of lateral load resisting systems and why each component is important. Vehicles to meet these goals will include comprehensive eye-catching publications that hold the reader s attention, traveling exhibits at home-care shows and county fairs, and seminars accompanied by carefully prepared notes and videos. Resolution of discrepancies among the messages being given to the public will be a key objective. For example, a common perception is that if one merely retrofits a house with anchor bolts, it follows that it will then have above average seismic performance (e.g., just a few easily repairable cracks after experiencing a severe earthquake), that more extensive measures or diagnoses are not necessary, and that it may not be worth it to purchase insurance. These quick conclusions, or misconceptions, are in conflict with both expert engineering opinion and the Northridge data. 1 California Institute of Technology, MC , Pasadena, CA [jill@erc.caltech.edu]

13 Tasks Target audiences of this Element include: Legislators Government officials concerned with public safety Building designers Building officials, inspectors, plan checkers Code developers Developers and Building Contractors Property owners Insurers (property, casualty); underwriters / rate setters Media reporters and writers Professional associations / organizations with continuing education requirements Educators / academicians Products under development or available now: Instructional materials or enhancement to existing courses or materials for owners, design professionals, contractors; Technical Reports production assistance Products / methods to be used for real estate disclosure purposes Museum / traveling exhibit for education of students and the general public; includes: interactive computer display with tour of the exhibit and instructional materials sample full-scale components for retrofit instructions small shake table small-scale model structures to demonstrate types of buildings and how they react to shaking (using the shake table) posters, small-scale models, and a diorama focusing on safety, engineering principles, earthquake science. photographs, maps, streaming videos middle school, high school, community college related course curricula activities or lessons attached to the displays Communications tools: Newsletter, Website; videos; CD ROMs Database of research results, other resources Additional Resources