Seao Asce 10 25 2006

Oregon Department of Geology & Mineral Industries October 25, 2006
OREGON SEISMIC NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Benson High School, Portland SEAO & ASCE Briefing

October 25, 2006
SEISMIC EVENT OUTCOMES:
Government Hill School, AK 1964 Cyprus Viaduct (Highway 880), Oakland CA 1989
Kobe, Japan 1995 6-story Four Seasons Apartments, Anchorage, AK 1964
ASCE/SEAO Meeting October 25, 2006

Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment 1
OCT 25 SEAO/ASCE BRIEF

STATEWIDE SEISMIC NEEDS ASSESSMENT
• Background & Project Components (DL)

• ‘06 Screening & Communications (NR)
• Current Rehabilitation Projects (YW)
• Where SB2 is Headed (DL)
• Q&A
SEISMICITY RECORD:
U.S. Earthquakes, 1973-2002
Source, USGS. 28,332 events. Purple dots are
earthquakes below 50 km, the green dot is below 100.

SEISMIC HAZARD PERCEPTION:

Mid-1980’s: Oregon thought to have low hazard
High Moderate Low Negligible
SEISMIC HAZARD PERCEPTION:

1992: Oregon still said to have low seismic risk
USGS Fact Sheet 2005-3052; after GAO report GGD-92-62

DATA CHANGES PERCEPTIONS:

• 1993: Oregon seismic hazard increased
CASCADIA SEISMICITY:
• Last CSZEQ: January 26, 1700
A A’
A A’

CSZEQ EVIDENCE:
• Coastal Subsidence (Drowned Forests)
• Submarine Landslides (Turbidites)
• Sedimentary Record (Marine Tsunami Sands)
Tsunami Sands Sites
USGS PROBABILISTIC MAPS:
Oct 2002, Peak Acceleration (%g) with 10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years:

FEMA 154 SEISMICITY REGIONS:

• Oregon Counties are Moderate to High
OREGON SEISMIC NEEDS BACKGROUND:

Ballot Measures
• Nov 5, 2002: Amend
Constitution To Finance Seismic
Retrofit of Public Buildings
– Measure 15 (Public Education)
Senate President
Peter Courtney
D-Salem
District 11
– Yes: 55.6%
– Measure 16 (Emergency Services)
– Yes: 55.8%
Feb 4, 2003: SEAO testified in support of $1.4

million for first phase FEMA 154 data collection

OREGON SEISMIC NEEDS STATUS:

2005 Senate Bills
• August 2005: At Close of Session,

Legislature Passes Seismic Bills:
– Senate Bill 2 (Seismic Needs
Assessment)
– Senate Bill 3 (Seismic G.O. Bonds
Grants Awards Committee)
– Senate Bill 4 (G.O. Bonds For Public
Education Facilities)
– Senate Bill 5 (G.O. Bonds For Public
Services Facilities)
SB 2: STATEWIDE SEISMIC NEEDS ASSESSMENT

July 2005-June 2007
Department of Geology Administers
Develop a Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment Of:

•Buildings With Capacity of 250 Or More And Routinely Used For Student Activities
By K-12, Community Colleges and ESDs
•Hospital Buildings That Contain An Acute Care Facility
•Fire Stations
•Police Stations, Sheriffs’ Offices and Similar Facilities Used By State, County, District
and Municipal Law Enforcement Agencies
The Assessment Shall Consist of Screenings, Ranking Of Screening Results &
Development of GIS Databases Of Survey Data
SB 3: SEISMIC REHABILITATION GRANT PROGRAMS

July 2007-
Office of Emergency Management Administers
Director Appoints Grant Committee That:
•Determines Form and Method of Applying For Grants
•Determines Eligibility Requirements For Grant Applicants
•Determines Funding Scoring System Directly Related To Seismic Needs Assessment
Additionally, The Grant Process May:
•Require Applicant Matching Funds
•Provide Authority To Waive Requirements Based on Special Circumstances
•Provide Separate Rules For Funding Structural and Non-Structural Building Elements
OEM Then Requests Financing Of All Or A Portion Of State Share Of Costs
SB 4: SB 5:
1/5 OF 1% OF SEISMIC REHABILITATION SEISMIC REHABILITATION Article 1/5 OF 1% OF
TRUE CASH VALUE Article XI-M Bonds XI-M Bonds TRUE CASH VALUE
OF STATE ASSETS Public Education Buildings Emergency Services Buildings OF STATE ASSETS
Approx $620M July 2007 – Jan 2032 July 2007 – Jan 2022 Approx $620M
State Treasurer/DAS State Treasurer/DAS
NOTE: SB4 INCLUDES UNIVERSITY SYSTEM BUILDINGS

SENATE BILL 2 DIRECTIVES:
• The State Department of Geology and

Mineral Industries shall develop a
statewide seismic needs assessment that
includes seismic safety surveys,
• In consultation with:
o Seismic Safety Policy Advisory Commission (OSSPAC)
o Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
o Department of Human Services (DHS)
o State Board of Education
o State Board of Higher Education
o Any grant committee established pursuant to
statewide grant program for seismic safety
+ Structural Engineers Association of Oregon
+ American Society of Civil Engineers
SENATE BILL 2 DEFINITIONS:
• Seismic Safety Surveys of:

oBuildings that have a capacity of 250 or
more persons and are routinely used for
student activities by kindergarten through
grade 12 public schools, community colleges
and education service districts;
oHospital buildings that contain an acute care
inpatient care facility;
oFire stations; and
oPolice stations, sheriffs’ offices and similar
facilities used by state, county, district and
municipal law enforcement agencies.

SENATE BILL 2 INSTRUCTIONS:

• Surveys consist of:
• Rapid visual screenings of the buildings specified, in
accordance with FEMA-154, or an equivalent standard;
• The ranking of the rapid visual screening results in risk
categories based on:
o Need
o Importance of the building to the community
o Risk to the building posed by its location
o Risk posed to the community by the collapse of the
building during a seismic event
o Projected cost of the necessary rehabilitation
o Other categories determined necessary by DOGAMI
• The development of geographic information system
(GIS) databases of survey data and the sharing of that
data with interested parties.
SB2 BUDGET:
• Nov 2004 OSSPAC/Agency: $1,300,000 to

Assess Estimated 3,415 Buildings
• SB 2 (2005) Appropriated $500,000 For
Agency to Commence Work
• Agency Instructed to Develop
Prioritization Scheme Concerning
$800,000 Shortfall
• Agency Reported to JAN ’06 E-Board
With Estimate of Additional Funding
Necessary
– Requested & Received Additional $98,000

SOLUTION TO SB2 $ SHORTFALL:

SB 2 Scenarios: Cost versus Survey Number
• MINIMIZE MAJOR 1000

Field Costs
COST ITEM (NEW Base Costs
Needs Assessment Cost ($ 000)

800
RVS FIELD 600
SURVEYS), BY 400
REDUCING THE
NUMBER OF 200
BUILDINGS 0
- 1,090 1,520 2,822
Number of Field Surveys
PRIORITIZATION ASSUMPTIONS:
– NEWEST CONSTRUCTION MORE SAFE
– UTILIZE EXISTING SUPERIOR SURVEYS
– UTILIZE EXISTING AGENCY RVS
SEISMIC ASSESSMENT: WHERE

K-12 Schools
• 198 School
Districts
• 1,660 Schools
– All with street
addresses
– Includes 329 <20
enrolled
• 560,043 Enrolled in
Public Schools as
of Oct 2005

NEW K-12 SCHOOLS:

• Recent $2.8 Billion in G.O. Bonds
– 135 New Schools Built ‘94-’06
– Ex: Oregon City HS
• 324,433 square feet
– 220,000 sq ft addition (2003)
– $41.4 Million
WHY CHOOSE POST 1993:

• 1988-1993: Oregon Seismic Risk Recognized, Hazard
Increased, And Building Codes Enhanced
Oregon
Year UBC Oregon Structural Ex: Corvalis
UBC Seismic Specialty Code (OSSC) Specific
Published Zone Year Seismic Zone Design
1970 1 and 2 No state code nil 2
1973 1 and 2 1974 2 2
1985 1 and 2 1986 2 2
1988 2B 1990 2B 2B
1991 2B 1993 2B and 3 3
1994 2B and 3 1996 2B and 3 3
1997 2B and 3 1998 2B,3 and 4 3
• Considering 1973 for pre-code & 1994 for post-

benchmark

DESIGN FORCES INCREASE:

WOOD FRAME CONSTRUCTION
Seismic Loading Design Base Shear Coefficient
0.12
Design Base Shear Coefficient
0.1
JAN 1993:
0.08
32% Increase
0.06
Seism ic Loading Design Base Shear C oefficient

0.04
1967 UBC 1973 UBC 1976 UBC 1988 UBC 1991 UBC 1997 UBC
(Zone 2) (Zone 2) (Zone 2) (Zone 2B) (Zone 3) (Zone 3,
Service
Level)
Design Code
SUPERIOR STUDIES: K-12 SCHOOLS:
• SCHOOL DISTRICTS’ SUPERIOR SURVEYS

– FEMA 178, ASCE 31 or similar
– Includes Several Large School Districts:
• Portland,
• Beaverton,
• Hillsboro,
• Eugene,
• Salem/Keizer,
• Corvallis,
• Albany
• Gresham
– About 320 Schools Have Seismic Reports

PORTLAND SD SEISMIC RETROFIT:

• K-12 SCHOOLS
– Largely built during 1920’s and 1950’s
– $195 Million in Capital Bonds for Seismic
Upgrades Passed in ’95
– FEMA 178 Surveys Completed by Architectural &
Structural Consultants
– Structural Engineering Firm Normalized
Evaluations & Assigned Relative Hazard Ratings
– Findings used to Prioritize Seismic Upgrades,
Designed to Enhance Ability of Occupants to
Exit Building
– By ’03 Hazard Reduction Upgrades Complete at
54 Facilities (>Half of Schools, Including Those
With Highest Seismic Hazard Rating)
SB2 QUALIFYING K-12 SCHOOLS:

• PUBLIC K-12
– 1,660 Schools
• SELECT SCHOOLS WITH > 200 STUDENTS ENROLLED
– 960 Schools
– 18 Counties With >10% Students Omitted
• ENSURE >90% STUDENTS PER COUNTY
– Adds 118 Schools
• 100% OF HIGH-HAZARD COASTAL SCHOOLS
– Adds 22 Schools
• RESULT:
– All 1,031With >153 Enrolled
– Plus 69 With 24-153 Enrolled
• NET = 1,100 K-12 SCHOOLS

– [>95% OF OREGON PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS
ENROLLED AS OF OCT ‘05]

SB2 QUALIFYING SITES:
SB2 QUALIFYING SITES:

SB2 Site Status (October 15 2006)
Actual New DOGAMI Superior Residual
Type Qual Sites '94-'06 RVS '02-'05 Surveys '06 RVS
K12 1,091 135 31 322 603
Comm College 185 43 104 - 38
Fire 621 54 48 44 475
Police 263 23 10 5 225
Hospital 64 6 4 2 52
SUM 2,224 261 197 373 1,393
Education 1,276 178 135 322 641
Emergency 948 83 62 51 752

FEMA 154-What it is
• Rapid Visual Screening

– Developed for a broad audience
• Purpose is to identify:
– Older buildings
– Buildings on soft or poor soils
– Buildings having performance
characteristics that negatively influence
their seismic response
FEMA 154-What it is not
• RVS are known as Sidewalk Surveys

– “Akin to judging relative health based upon
general factors like age or blood pressure”
• Are Not Engineering Studies (as are
FEMA 178 or ASCE 31)
– “Blood work reviewed by qualified professional”
• Do Not Involve Invasive Tests (as does
FEMA 356)
– “Exploratory surgery performed by experienced
surgeon”

SB 2 GENERAL TIMETABLE:
2006 2007
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
DATABASE CONSTRUCTION
VALIDATE SELECTIONS
RVS FIELD PREP
RVS FIELD SURVEYS
RVS QA/QC REVIEW
BUILD RVS CONSENSUS
WELL LOGS SOILS DATA
OTHER GEOLOGIC FACTORS
CENSUS NEEDS ANALYSIS
COMPILE RESULTS
RANKINGS AUDIT
STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION School Districts, Colleges, Fire Districts, Police, Hospitals OSSPAC, OEM, ODE, DHS, OUS
WEB-BASED GIS INTERFACE
HARD COPY REPORT
OUTLINE
• Pre-Rapid Visual Screening (RVS)
Implementation
• RVS Training
• RVS Implementation
• Where do we go from here?

SENATE BILL 2 TEAM
PUBLIC RELATIONS
• Radio
• Newspapers
• General Obligation (GO) Bond
Task Force Members
• Association of Oregon Counties
• Elementary Schools

PRE- RVS IMPLEMENTATION

ADDRESS CONFIRMATION
FEBRUARY- JUNE
• February 9, 2006-Statewide Email to
Emergency Managers, Hospitals, Schools
–Who I was?
–What is Senate Bill 2 (SB2)?
–Find and confirm addresses @
http://www.oregongeology.com
–Regional Meetings
FEBRUARY 28-MARCH 7:
REGIONAL MEETINGS
–Baker City
–Klamath Falls
–Roseburg
–Eugene
–Portland

FEBRUARY-JUNE:
CONCURRENT ACTIVITIES
Maps, Database, Equipment, Training, Field
Teams
APRIL 12-PUBLIC FEEDBACK
• Addresses correct?
• Are any addresses confidential?
• Years built?
• Seismic Reports or Upgrades completed?
• Obstacles or Permissions needed?

INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC
RELATIONS
• April 17-21, Oregon's Statewide

Seismic Risk Management
Strategy at the 100-year
Anniversary of the San Francisco
Earthquake
MAY 5- PROTOTYPE TESTING:

CENTENNIAL HIGH


CENTENNIAL HIGH

CENTENNIAL HIGH

PUBLIC RELATIONS
• May 23- Draft Address List Email
• June 19- Final Address List Email
RAPID VISUAL SCREENING FIELD

TEAMS (SUMMER 2006)
US Army Corps of Engineers, Portland State

University,
Oregon State University, University of
Oregon, DOGAMI

SENATE BILL 2 SCREENERS:
Prof. Tom Miller, SE, PhD Juan Hernandez, OSU Jerry Mikkelsen, OSU Nathan Wallace, OSU
Oregon State University
Prof. Carol Hasenberg, SE Andy Tibbetts, PSU Bill Burns, CEG DOGAMI
Portland State University
Prof Christine Theodoropoulos,PE Sam Jensen Augustine, Henry Pierce,

University of Oregon U of O U of O
Goals of Rapid Visual Screening Training
• DOGAMI, SB2, FEMA 154

• Field Conduct, Safety and Equipment
• Computer Tablet Operations
• Salem Sites
– Unreinforced Masonry- Church, School
– Reinforced Masonry- Fire Station
– Wood- School
– Steel- Fire Station
– Concrete Structures- Police and Hospital
• Synchronize Tablets to Database in Portland

SENATE BILL 2 SCREENER TRAINING:

June 21-23
Portland and Salem
SB 2 SCREENER TRAINING:
Unreinforced Masonry (URM)

TABLET PC & CAMERA:

• Systematic Data Entry & Photo Capture
PLAN & VERTICAL IRREGULARITY:

• Standardized/Consistent Approach
• Source-FEMA 154, IBC 2003, Screener
Expertise

JUNE 26- IMPLEMENTATION:

Let the Rapid Visual Screening
begin….
Hasenberg:
36
478
22
21 53 17
87 17
23 74 8 28
12
39
100 56 Theodoropoulos: 289
21
53 21 20
19
14 14 11
63
148 60 12
99 Burns:
Burns 69
66 Miller: 624 10
25
13
30 46 84 38
RAPID VISUAL SCREENING SITES

CRITICAL EMERGENCY &

EDUCATIONAL SITES
QUALITY ASSURANCE
CHECKS
• Team leads checked data
• Field checks of all RVS screeners
• Independent field sites in Salem

DOGAMI
ON-GOING FIELD SUPPORT
• Public contact/address concerns
• Interview-Salem Statesman Journal
• Sync Computer Tablets
• Quality Assurance incoming data
• Trouble shooting systems
• Provide assistance finding sites
OCTOBER 2- COMPLETION of
RAPID VISUAL SCREENINGS
• Total of 2542 Buildings
• Statewide Email-Emergency Managers,
Hospitals, Schools & GO Bond Task
Force

JULY 2007
SEISMIC ASSESSMENT
DUE
OREGON LEGISLATURE
– Database additions and checks

– RVS Score-Adding Soils Types
– Seismic Assessment Results
Oregon University System (OUS)

Seismic Mitigation Flowchart
• Partners since 2002
• Work Led to SB 2-5
Flowchart
1. Planning stage
2. RVS
3. Prioritization
4. Engineering Study
5. Benefit-Cost Study
6. Fix

University Feedback & Needs

- RVS Too Many At-Risk buildings
- Updates & Improvements needed to
2002 RVS Method
- Developing “E-RVS” method
w/ FEMA & ATC input
- Complete Damage Probabilities
that Legislature can understand
E-RVS Pilot Study Results

Western Oregon University
Questions?
• $5-10k per ASCE 31 study for 20 buildings too expensive

• Government needs to justify spending of scarce funds

Five “Demonstration” Projects

Seismic Rehabilitation of University Buildings
• $5 mil FEMA grants to OEM & DOGAMI
• Four campuses: PSU, OIT, WOU & OSU
• Diverse buildings (URM, concrete, steel)
• Increasing awareness for safer communities
#1. 1916 Montgomery Court:

Major Issues
-URM & tall parapets
-no connections
-unsafe egress
-24/7 occupants
WDY Structural Engineers

Connecting URM Wall to New Roof
Bracing Parapet (& Stairwells)

Wood support
Epoxy Coated Anchor
Steel Bracing
New Roof
material
Plywood Sheets

#2. 1966 Ondine Residence Hall

Major Issues
-Soft Story
-Low shear strength
-24/7 occupants
KPFF Structural Engineers
Rebar Coupler Problem Discovered

Rebar Mapping of
Reinforced Concrete
Column

New Concrete Wall & Steel Plate Installation
Cross Bracing
Installation in Progress

#3. Snell Hall:

Oregon Institute of Technology
Major Issues
-on Fault
-Poor soils
-Immediate use
Precision
Structural Engineers
Strengthen existing foundation,

including Deep Soil Anchors
Soils
Anchors
60-ft depth

Diagonal Rod Bracing
#4. Humanities & Social Science (1964)

Western Oregon University
Major Issues
-Soft Story
-Most Classrooms
-Electricity for Campus

Soft Story on E-W Wing
Communication Rack & Transformer

#5. Nash Hall (1968):

Oregon State University
Major Deficiencies & Issues

• Lift slab construction w/poor connections
• Two extra slabs

under roof
• Pancake-style
collapse
• Biohazards (radioactive materials)

• Heat for several buildings

HazMat Chemical Tanks

& Labs
Pancake-Style Collapse (1987)

L’Ambiance Plaza, Bridgeport, CT
• Entire building fell
in 5 seconds!
• Seven-inch thick
post-tensioned,
concrete slabs and
steel columns
• Progressive slipping
of rod and nuts
initiated the collapse.

SEISMIC NEEDS ASSESSMENT:

Soil Factors-Liquefaction
• Portland
– Without
Liquefaction
Overlay
SEISMIC NEEDS ASSESSMENT:

Soil Factors-Liquefaction
• Portland
– With
Liquefaction
Overlay

SOIL TYPES (UBC):
Limitation: Surficial Data Only
DETERMINING Vs30 SOILS
• OWRD well
logs used to
derive vs30
soil type (A-F)
– 100 ft depth
weighted
average

SOILS EXAMPLE: YONCALLA
Well DOUG 54092
North Douglas Fire & EMS (Doug_fir04)
SOILS EXAMPLE: WELL LOG DATA

Well DOUG 54092
• Example
of a Well
Log Used
To
Estimate
Vs30 Soil
Type

OREGON SEISMIC NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Objective: Position All 2,224 Qualifying Sites
HIGH
HIGHEST NEED
&
HIGHEST RISK
RELATIVE NEED
MEDIUM
LOWEST NEED
&
LOW
LOWEST RISK
LOW MEDIUM HIGH

RELATIVE RISK
A REASON SB3 WILL PRIORITIZE:

SB2 SB4 & 5 For Illustration Purposes:
Qualifying Est Total Calculated

Locations # Buildings Ave $/Bldg*
K12 Schools 1,091 3,200
Comm Coll Bldgs 17 185
OUS 7 150
Education Sum 1,115 3,535 $ 175,389
Fire Stations 621 750
Police Stations 263 300
Hospitals 64 200
Emergency Sum 948 1,250 $ 496,000
* Assumes $620M for SB 4 & 5; Equal funding for every building
Plus:
•Education Buildings Generally Larger, Older and More Complex Structures
Result:
•Education Facilities Will Face Much Greater Competition for Funds

QUALIFYING SCHOOLS 11/05 SB2 K-12 School Sites With Known Built Dates
40
1,049
K-12 of 1,091 1973: UBC Adopted
35 Qualifying K12
Have Dates 1994: Seismic Zone 3
30
25
20
15
10
0
1891
1893
1895
1897
1899
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1927
1929
1931
1933
1935
1937
1939
1941
1943
1945
1947
1949
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
RELATIVE NEED/IMPORTANCE
To Arm The SB3 Committee With

HIGH
Data Prior To Their Prioritizing &

Issuing Award Grants, We Are
RELATIVE NEED
Exploring For Facts:

MEDIUM
•Economic: Household Income

•Quantitative: Number Enrolled/Served
•Demographic: % Age 0-17/65+
•Multi-Task Facilities: Shelters/911
LOW

2 OF THE MANY NEED DIMENSIONS AGI/Return

Oregon Cities: Gross Income vs % 0-17
$105,000
Less Financial Need & Less Financial Need &
Less k-12 Need Lake Oswego More k-12 Need
$95,000
West Linn
Average Gross Income 2004
$85,000
Average Adjusted Gross Income 2004
$75,000
Wilso nville
$65,000 Sherwo o d
Tualatin
Tigard
Hillsbo ro
$55,000
Jackso nville Newberg
P o rtland
B eaverto n
Co rvallis B end Orego n City Canby
A shland OREGON Scappo o se
Eugene A lo ha
Fo rest Gro ve
$45,000
P hilo math
Keizer Tro utdaleSandy
M edfo rd Gresham St Helens
M ilwaukie Salem MAcM innville Eagle P o int
Ro seburg Ho olbany
Gladsto
d River ne Central P oEstacada
Prineville
int Stayto M o lallan
n Silverto
Creswell
Newpo rt Fairview
P endleto n Junctio nDallas
City
No rth B end
A sto ria
M o nmo uth B ro o kings Klamath Lebano
FallsP ass n Redmo nd Co rnelius
Grants
La Grande Hermisto n M adras
Ro gue River The Dalles Co ttage Gro ve
Sweet Ho me Tillamo o k Ontario
$35,000 Seaside Co o s B ay Springfield
Linco ln City M yrtle Creek
B aker City Talent
Sutherlin Wo o dburn
White City
La P ine
M ilto n Freewater
More $25,000
Financial Need & More Financial Need &
Less k-1217.0%Need19.0% 21.0% 23.0% 25.0% 27.0% 29.0% 31.0% 33.0% 35.0% k-1237.0%
More Need
US Census 2000 % Age 0-17
Proportion School-Age Population 2000
RELATIVE FINANCIAL NEED

Woodburn city
1,400
1,200
Oregon Household Income Distribution 1999 1,000
800
Frequency
300,000 Actual
Expected
600
Oregon Households 269,492 400
200
250,000
236,282
-
Woodburn: $33,722
Less than More than More than More than More than More than More than More than More than More than
$10000 $10k, less $15k, less $25k, less $35k, less $50k, less $75k, less $100k, less $150k, less $200k
than $15k than $25k than $35k than $50k than $75k than $100k than $150k than $200k
Household Income
Oregon City city
200,000 2,500
185,595
179,053
2,000
150,000
1,500
129,488
Frequency
Actual
Expected
115,129 1,000
100,000
86,695 87,218 500
Oregon City: $45,531

50,000 Household Income
22,650 23,507 West Linn city
1,800
1,600
-
1,400
$10000 $10k, less $15k, less $25k, less $35k, less $50k, less $75k, less $100k, $150k, $200k 1,200
than $15k than $25k than $35k than $50k than $75k than $100k less than less than 1,000
Frequency
Actual
$150k $200k Expected
800
600
State ’99 Median HH Income: $40,916

400
200
West Linn: $72,010

Household Income

CURRENTLY:
• Concluding RVS Data Collection
• Completing Soils Data Collection
• Collating Data/Photos in Database
• Commencing Risk & Need Analysis
• Confident in June ’07 Completion
Following July 1 The Real Work Begins:

•Public Education & Emergency
Facilities Will Require Absolute
Determinations of Hazard, Risk, Need
and Cost


Seao Asce 10 25 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Seao Asce 10 25 2006

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

Seao Asce 10 25 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oregon Department of Geology & Mineral Industries October 25, 2006

OREGON SEISMIC NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Benson High School, Portland SEAO & ASCE Briefing

SEISMIC EVENT OUTCOMES:

Kobe, Japan 1995 6-story Four Seasons Apartments, Anchorage, AK 1964

ASCE/SEAO Meeting October 25, 2006

OCT 25 SEAO/ASCE BRIEF

• Background & Project Components (DL)

ASCE/SEAO Meeting October 25, 2006

SEISMIC HAZARD PERCEPTION:

High Moderate Low Negligible

SEISMIC HAZARD PERCEPTION:

USGS Fact Sheet 2005-3052; after GAO report GGD-92-62

ASCE/SEAO Meeting October 25, 2006

DATA CHANGES PERCEPTIONS:

ASCE/SEAO Meeting October 25, 2006

USGS PROBABILISTIC MAPS:

ASCE/SEAO Meeting October 25, 2006

FEMA 154 SEISMICITY REGIONS:

OREGON SEISMIC NEEDS BACKGROUND:

Feb 4, 2003: SEAO testified in support of $1.4

ASCE/SEAO Meeting October 25, 2006

OREGON SEISMIC NEEDS STATUS:

• August 2005: At Close of Session,

SB 2: STATEWIDE SEISMIC NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Develop a Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment Of:

SB 3: SEISMIC REHABILITATION GRANT PROGRAMS

NOTE: SB4 INCLUDES UNIVERSITY SYSTEM BUILDINGS

ASCE/SEAO Meeting October 25, 2006

SENATE BILL 2 DIRECTIVES:

• The State Department of Geology and

SENATE BILL 2 DEFINITIONS:

• Seismic Safety Surveys of:

ASCE/SEAO Meeting October 25, 2006

SENATE BILL 2 INSTRUCTIONS:

• Nov 2004 OSSPAC/Agency: $1,300,000 to

ASCE/SEAO Meeting October 25, 2006

SOLUTION TO SB2 $ SHORTFALL:

• MINIMIZE MAJOR 1000

COST ITEM (NEW Base Costs

Needs Assessment Cost ($ 000)

RVS FIELD 600

SEISMIC ASSESSMENT: WHERE

ASCE/SEAO Meeting October 25, 2006

NEW K-12 SCHOOLS:

WHY CHOOSE POST 1993:

• Considering 1973 for pre-code & 1994 for post-

ASCE/SEAO Meeting October 25, 2006

DESIGN FORCES INCREASE:

Seism ic Loading Design Base Shear C oefficient

SUPERIOR STUDIES: K-12 SCHOOLS:

• SCHOOL DISTRICTS’ SUPERIOR SURVEYS

ASCE/SEAO Meeting October 25, 2006

PORTLAND SD SEISMIC RETROFIT:

SB2 QUALIFYING K-12 SCHOOLS:

• NET = 1,100 K-12 SCHOOLS

ASCE/SEAO Meeting October 25, 2006

SB2 QUALIFYING SITES: