<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Joe, </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Here are the details of the calculations
for a deep, stiff-soil site (assume NEHRP site class D or S2 soil) in downtown
Memphis at 35.15 degrees N, 90.05 degrees W:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">1) For new Memphis code:
Here I am using the procedure described in the Amendment to Section
1615.1 in the Joint Building Code of Memphis and Shelby County, effective
Jan. 1, 2006. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Start with the 1996 hazard map value
for 1.0 sec spectral acceleration (S.A.) with 10% probability of exceedance
in 50 years= 0.067g (BC, firm-rock site condition). I am using 1.0
sec S.A., since the nominal natural period of a typical 10 story building
is about 1.0 sec.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Multiply by NEHRP site amplification
factor of 2.4 for a D site (with an input firm-rock, 1.0 sec S.A. value
of 0.067g; table 1615.1.2 in 2000 IBC) , you get 0.16g</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">2) For SBC (previous code used
in Memphis), the rock-site value for 1.0 sec S.A. is 0.24g,
based on the seismic zone map in SBC (Figure 1607.1.5A in SBC 1999) and
formula 1607.4.1.1 in SBC 1999. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">For an S2 site class, you multiply by
1.2 (table 1607.3.1) to get 0.29g</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">So, according to these calculations
for this site, the new code for Memphis requires 0.16g spectral acceleration
at 1.0 sec, whereas SBC as used in Memphis until 2006 requires 0.29g.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Here I have not included the R (response
modification) factors for particular building types that are used to reduce
the force levels in both the SBC and the new Memphis code (which uses the
R factors in the IBC). These R factors are very similar between Table
1607.3.3 in the SBC and Table 1617.6 in the IBC for most building
types. Thus, these factors will not affect the comparison for most
building types.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I have had a structural engineer check
my results and he concurred with them.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Let me know if you disagree with these
calculations.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">-Art</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Art Frankel<br>
U.S. Geological Survey<br>
MS 966, Box 25046<br>
DFC<br>
Denver, CO 80225<br>
phone: 303-273-8556<br>
fax: 303-273-8600<br>
email: afrankel@usgs.gov</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Joe Tomasello"
<JT@ReavesFirm.com></b> </font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">01/11/2008 12:58 PM</font>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"'Arthur D Frankel'" <afrankel@usgs.gov></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><ceus-earthquake-hazards@geohazards.cr.usgs.gov>,
"'Seth Stein'" <seth@earth.northwestern.edu></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">RE: [CEUS-earthquake-hazards] The balance</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=#1f497d face="Times New Roman">To all:</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#1f497d face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#1f497d face="Times New Roman">In response to Arts
comments:</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#1f497d face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#1f497d face="Times New Roman">Local policy makers
in Memphis were fully aware of both sides of the argument. </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#1f497d face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#1f497d face="Times New Roman">We’ve reviewed a
10 story eccentrically braced system centered in Shelby County and we came
to different conclusions, base shear with 99SBC was less than 03IBC amended
with 10%PE (applied force was greater in 99 SBC compared to 03 IBC). Can
you share your calculations with us?</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#1f497d face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#1f497d face="Times New Roman">In my opinion, the
code amendments adopted by local policy makers efficiently address Memphian’s
seismic safety concerns. </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#1f497d face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size=3 color=#1f497d face="Arial"><b>Joseph Tomasello, PE</b></font>
<br><font size=3 color=#1f497d face="Arial"><b>5880 Ridge Bend Rd.</b></font>
<br><font size=3 color=#1f497d face="Arial"><b>Memphis, TN 38120</b></font>
<br><font size=3 color=#1f497d face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> Arthur D Frankel [mailto:afrankel@usgs.gov]
<b><br>
Sent:</b> Thursday, January 10, 2008 5:53 PM<b><br>
To:</b> Joe Tomasello<b><br>
Cc:</b> ceus-earthquake-hazards@geohazards.cr.usgs.gov; ceus-earthquake-hazards-bounces@geohazards.cr.usgs.gov;
'Seth Stein'<b><br>
Subject:</b> Re: [CEUS-earthquake-hazards] The balance</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
Joe,</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
Due to your efforts with Seth Stein, the building code in Memphis
now allows for non-essential 10-story buildings to be built to a force
level 45% lower than that stipulated in the Standard Building Code that
was used in Memphis up through 2005. This newly allowed design level
is substantially lower than the median ground motions expected for a repeat
of the 1811-12 earthquakes and lower than the intensities reported in Memphis
for the 1843 Marked Tree, Arkansas earthquake (magnitude 6). </font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
So you succeeded in lowering seismic building codes in Memphis.
Perhaps you would like to make this fact clear to the people living
in Memphis and see what their views on this are. </font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
-Art</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> <br>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
Art Frankel<br>
U.S. Geological Survey<br>
MS 966, Box 25046<br>
DFC<br>
Denver, CO 80225<br>
phone: 303-273-8556<br>
fax: 303-273-8600<br>
email: afrankel@usgs.gov</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> <br>
</font>
<p>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=56%><font size=1 face="Arial"><b>"Joe Tomasello" <JT@ReavesFirm.com></b>
<br>
Sent by: ceus-earthquake-hazards-bounces@geohazards.cr.usgs.gov</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font>
<p><font size=1 face="Arial">01/09/2008 12:51 PM</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font>
<td width=43%>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=11%>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="Arial">To</font></div>
<td width=88%><font size=1 face="Arial"><ceus-earthquake-hazards@geohazards.cr.usgs.gov></font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="Arial">cc</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="Arial">'Seth Stein' <seth@earth.northwestern.edu></font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="Arial">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="Arial">[CEUS-earthquake-hazards] The balance</font></table>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<p>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=50%>
<td width=50%></table>
<br></table>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><br>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><br>
Buddy:</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><br>
I’d like to offer the following for your e-mail discussion group:</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><br>
Natural disasters such as earthquakes create complex situations for policy
makers. The difficulty lies in the balance between the costs of mitigation
and the actual risk. Failing this, policy makers could find themselves
dealing with unintended consequences such as those experienced by the hospital
industry in California. If it’s worth the expense in any one region
it would be California; but looking at the hospital industry in California
we don’t see it.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><br>
Earthquake risks in California are, to some degree, statistically predictable;
being a near certainty that a moderate to strong earthquake will occur
somewhere on the west coast during a single generation of the built environment.
California attempted to balance public safety with mandated seismic mitigation
in a knee jerk reaction to the 1994 Northridge earthquake California’s
Legislature passed Senate Bill 1953 (SB 1953). The bill was an unfunded
mandate to retrofit, rebuild, or close; a free lunch for California taxpayer.
However, over the past decade the consequences of the mandate caused a
once sound hospital system transform into one of the nation’s foremost
financial basket cases.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><br>
As in California, policy makers in the New Madrid Seismic Zone are led
to believe that earthquake mitigation costs are small, having little effect
on the built environment. California’s mitigation program entails retrofitting
all acute care hospitals or re-building nearly 70 million square feet.
The pace of construction is limited to approximately 1.5 million to 2 million
square feet per year due in large part to the ability of regulatory agencies
to keep up. Furthermore it takes upward of 10 years to design and build
a new hospital. “The lengthy process for review and approval of
hospital construction and retrofitting projects is far too long. Economic
growth is being thwarted; jobs are being lost; and patient safety is being
compromised.”</font><a href=#_edn1><font size=2 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><sup>[i]</sup></u></font></a><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">
The result is that it will take nearly 30 years to complete all the
construction required by SB 1953. </font><a href=#_edn2><font size=2 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><sup>[ii]</sup></u></font></a><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">
The extended deadline is 2013.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><br>
The size and scope of most of these projects are very large and expensive.
Compliance could cost California hospitals as much as $110 billion
dollars. The original estimate assumed that the number of patients
and the number of beds would generally remain the same. However,
modern design standards are most effective with facilities 35% to 60% larger</font><a href=#_edn3><font size=2 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><sup>[iii]</sup></u></font></a><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">.
Thus, the scope of each construction project will increase as will the
overall cost; perhaps as much as 20%. </font><a href=#_edn4><font size=2 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><sup>[iv]</sup></u></font></a><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">
In California construction costs are rising at an annual rate of more than
14 percent above the Consumer Price Index resulting in construction costs
more than 40 percent higher for comparable facilities in other states.</font><a href=#_edn5><font size=2 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><sup>[v]</sup></u></font></a><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">
In my view this increase is likely to continue do to regulatory oversight,
the limited number of qualified contractors, as well as the annual inflation
of material costs. In California, a fully furnished and equipped acute
care facility (labor and materials) costs $1,000 per square foot. Since
the SB 1953 mandates affect for-profit, non-profit and publicly owned organizations
most all projects will be financed. Depending on the terms of the
loan the cost in current dollars for an acute care facility the square
foot cost can exceed $2,800; comparatively normal office construction in
Tennessee is roughly a third the cost per square foot.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><br>
Looking at FEMA’s annualized earthquake losses</font><a href=#_edn6><font size=2 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><sup>[vi]</sup></u></font></a><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">
we find the relationship of Cost vs. Benefit even more lopsided. FEMA reports
that California will experience a loss of approximately $3,167.5/$Million
of infrastructure each year as a result of earthquakes. Looking at the
same 50 year period, California can expect to lose approximately 15.8%
of the present value of hospitals. Thus, California’s acute care infrastructure,
worth approximately $48 Billion [my estimate - C. Duane Dauner, President
and Chief Executive Officer, California Healthcare Association, Statement
“Heath Care Scene in California,” May 10, 2001, suggested 24 Billion.],
should expect a loss of approximately $7.6 Billion due to earthquake. We
find that California is spending $110 Billion to offset a loss of $7.6
Billion; a cost benefit relationship greater than 14. </font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Over
the past 10 years, we’ve asked FEMA for a </font><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">Cost
vs. Benefit analysis for the New Madrid Seismic Zone. So far we haven’t
seen anything that would come close to suggesting that the public would
benefit spending limited resources. </font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><br>
There are a more subtle negative consequences resulting from forcing acute
care facilities to close because they don’t meet mandated requirements.
California is experiencing a critical closure of hospitals with the
closure of over 50 hospitals in the 10 year period between 1995 and 2005.
More than 3,000 acute care beds have been removed from service between
2001 and 2005. In the five year period prior (1995 to 1999) 23 hospitals
closed. Unfunded mandated seismic requirements are creating a stampede
for funding, usually in the form of bonds. The median credit ratio
of California hospitals had nosed dived to the junk-bond status. The
money needed to retro fit California hospitals is drying up. </font><a href=#_edn7><font size=2 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><sup>[vii]</sup></u></font></a><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">
“Nobody can bear the burden [of SB 1953 unfunded mandate]”</font><a href=#_edn8><font size=2 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><sup>[viii]</sup></u></font></a><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">
Here in the New Madrid Seismic Zone we’re told that the cost is
minimal. <br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><br>
“Seismic upgrades are important. But mandating them during the worst economic
time in the history of California hospitals is like ordering a homeowner
to fix a dilapidated porch on a house that's on fire. Right idea. Wrong
time.”</font><a href=#_edn9><font size=2 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><sup>[ix]</sup></u></font></a><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">
How many doctors and nurses could have been hired in lieu of spending the
money on hospital infrastructure? Just how many lives will be saved? How
many lives will be lost because of the loss of acute care facilities? Who
pays, the bottomless pocket of the taxpayer? Each of the 35 million people
in California will need to pay $3,143 (per capita state and local taxes
were roughly $1,600 in 1996). Are the people of California going
to be willing to forfeit three times their current tax burden? <br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><br>
If the benefits (reduction of earthquake related economic loss or lives
lost) don’t outweigh the costs in California, how can they be justified
in the New Madrid Seismic Zone? <br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=3 face="Arial"><b><br>
Joseph Tomasello, PE</b></font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=3 face="Arial"><b><br>
5880 Ridge Bend Rd.</b></font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=3 face="Arial"><b><br>
Memphis, TN 38120</b></font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> <br>
</font><font size=3 face="Arial"><b><br>
Phone:</b></font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=3 face="Arial"><b><br>
(901) 761-2016 office</b></font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=3 face="Arial"><b><br>
(901) 821-4968 direct</b></font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=3 face="Arial"><b><br>
(901) 412-8217 mobile</b></font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<div align=center>
<br>
<hr></div>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<div align=center>
<br>
<hr></div>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font>
<div align=center>
<br>
<hr></div>
<br><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><br>
</u></font><a href=#_ednref1><font size=2 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><sup>[i]</sup></u></font></a><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">
California Heathcare Association Statement on the Hospital Construction
Plan Review and Area Compliance Process before the California Performance
Review Commission, U.C. Riverside, August 13, 2004.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><br>
</u></font><a href=#_ednref2><font size=2 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><sup>[ii]</sup></u></font></a><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">
Ibid., 4</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><br>
</u></font><a href=#_ednref3><font size=2 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><sup>[iii]</sup></u></font></a><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">
Ibid., 41</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><br>
</u></font><a href=#_ednref4><font size=2 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><sup>[iv]</sup></u></font></a><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">
Ibid., 8</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><br>
</u></font><a href=#_ednref5><font size=2 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><sup>[v]</sup></u></font></a><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">
Ibid., 30</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><br>
</u></font><a href=#_ednref6><font size=2 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><sup>[vi]</sup></u></font></a><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">
FEMA 366 Hazus 99 Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for
the United States, February 2001, 16</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><br>
</u></font><a href=#_ednref7><font size=2 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><sup>[vii]</sup></u></font></a><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">
California HealthCare Foundation, The Financial Health of California Hospitals,
June 2007, 2-13</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><br>
</u></font><a href=#_ednref8><font size=2 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><sup>[viii]</sup></u></font></a><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">
Ibid., (interviews with key unnamed health care leaders), B-6</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">
</font><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><br>
</u></font><a href=#_ednref9><font size=2 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><u><sup>[ix]</sup></u></font></a><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">
The Press Democrat, Another hospital falls, what killed Sutter Medical
Center – and what will it mean to families like mine, January 14, 2007</font><font size=2 face="Courier New">_______________________________________________<br>
CEUS-Earthquake-Hazards mailing list<br>
CEUS-Earthquake-Hazards@geohazards.cr.usgs.gov<br>
http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/mailman/listinfo/ceus-earthquake-hazards</font>
<br>