FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA-156 / December 1994

Supersedes 1988 Edition

Second Edition
TypicalCostsfor Seismic Rehabilitation
of Existing Buildings

Volume 1 - Summary

x x4

ZZ
^ AA ^^ AAAAAA
AA..A. ..
^^
^^ AA..AA. .. A. ^^
^ ^_^ ^^^........... - ............

^^A ^^^ ^^^^A^ ^^^ A^A ^^A

S A^A^AA^AA^^A^............A^AA^A

-~ A w
t _ _ _ > _ _ _ _

E _
S~~~~~~~w
~~~~~~~~-
_ _ _ _ MR,ii
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i
I s w ~ '
/'JW W a~~wn

EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION SERIES 39

Issued by FEMA in furtherance of the

Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction.
CONTENTS

j
PREFACE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY RESULTS 1 -1

1.1 General
1-1
1.2 Definition of Terms
1-3
1.3 Database Characteristics 1-6

1.4 Database Limitations 1-10

1.5 Methods to Derive Typical Costs 1-12

1.6 Typical Costs Example 1-14

1.7 Comparison with Typical Costs in the 1-19

First Edition

CHAPTER:2 COST CONSIDERATIONS AND 2-1

DEFINITIONS

2.1 General 2-1

2.2 Definition and Categorization 2-2

of Cost Components
2.3 Seismic Related Construction Costs 2-4

2.4 Non-Seismic-Related 2-5

Construction Costs
2.5 Non-Construction Costs 2-7

2.6 Cost Influence Factors 2-8

CHAPTER 3 COST DATABASE 3-1

3.1 General 3-1

3.2 Data Collection Process 3-1

3.3 Time and Location Cost Adjustments 3-2

3.4 Data Quality Rating 3-3

3.5 Super Database 3-8

CHAPTER 4 DETERMINATION OF TYPICAL 4-1

COSTS

4.1 General 4-1

4.2 Overview of Methodologies 4-3

4.3 Typical Structural Costs Using Option 1 4-4

4.4 Typical Structural Costs Using Option 2 4-13

4.5 Typical Structural Costs Using Option 3 4-16

APPENDIX A - DATA COLLECTION GUIDELINE A-1

AND NOTES

APPENDIX B - REFERENCES B-1

APPENDIX C - ADVISORY PANEL C-1

APPENDIX D - COMPUTERIZED DATABASE D-1

 PREFACE

Since 1984, The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has had
a comprehensive, closely coordinated program to develop a body of
building practices that would increase the ability of existing buildings to
withstand the forces of earthquakes. Societal implications and issues
related to the use of these improved practices have also been examined.
At a cost of about $16 million, two dozen publications and a number of
software programs and audio-visual training materials have already been
produced and distributed for use by design professionals, building
regulatory personnel, educators, researchers and the general public. The
program has proceeded along separate but parallel approaches in dealing
with both private sector and Federal buildings.

Already available from FEMA to private sector practitioners and other

interested parties is a "technical platform" of consensus criteria on how to
deal with some of the major engineering aspects of seismic rehabilitation
of buildings. This technical material is contained in a trilogy, with supporting
documentation, completed in 1989: 1) a method for the rapid identification
of buildings that might be hazardous in the event of an earthquake which
can be conducted without gaining access to the buildings themselves; 2)
a methodology for a more detailed evaluation of buildings that identifies
structural flaws that have caused collapse in past earthquakes and might
do so again in future earthquakes, and 3) a compendium of the most
commonly used techniques of seismic rehabilitation.

In addition to these engineering topics, the program has also been

concerned with the societal implications of seismic rehabilitation. In addition
to the study Tvpical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings,
the FEMA program has developed benefit/cost models and associated
software for application to both private sector and Federal buildings and
identified for decision makers an array of socioeconomic issues that are
likely to arise in a locality that undertakes seismic rehabilitation of its
building stock. FEMA programs have also provided ways to array the
building stock and the methods to analyze it.

The culminating activity in this field will be the completion in late 1997 of a
comprehensive set of nationally applicable guidelines with commentary on
how to rehabilitate buildings so that they will better withstand earthquakes.
This is a multi-year, multi-million dollar effort that represents a first of its
kind in the United States. The guidelines will allow practioners to choose
design approaches consistent with different levels of seismic safety as
required by geographic location, performance objective, type of building,
occupancy or other relevant considerations. Before being issued, the two
documents will be given consensus review by representatives of a broad
spectrum of users, including the construction industry, building regulatory
organizations, building owners and occupant groups, academic and
research institutions, financial establishments, local, State and Federal
levels of government and the general public. This process is intended to
ensure their national applicability and encourage widespread acceptance
and use by practitioners. It is expected that, with time, this set of
guidelines will be adapted or adopted by model building code organizations
and standards-setting groups, and thus, will diffuse widely into the building
practices of the United States. Significant corollary products of this activity
are expected. Principal among them will be an engineering applications
handbook with refined cost data; a plan for a structural transfer of the
technology embodied in the guidelines; and an identification of the most
urgent research and development needs.

In advance stages of preparation is a set of technical criteria intended to

provide Federal agencies with minimum standards for both the seismic
evaluation and the seismic rehabilitation of buildings in their inventories.
The performance level established in the standards is life-safety for building
occupants and the general public. To facilitate the application of the
standards by users, a commentary has also been prepared. In addition, an
Executive Order to promulgate the standards has been drafted. These
materials were given consensus approval by the Interagency Committee on
Seismic Safety in Construction, which represents 30 Federal Departments
and Agencies, and were submitted to the Executive Office of the President
for consideration in September 1994..

FEMA is pleased to have sponsored the development of these two new

publications 2nd Edition: Typical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings - Volume 1 and 2nd Edition: Typical Costs for Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings - Volume 2 : Supporting Documentation, for
inclusion in the series of documents dealing with the seismic safety of
existing buildings that. is discussed above. In this endeavor, FEMA
gratefully acknowledges the expertise and efforts of the Hart Consultant
Group and its subcontractors, H. J. Degenkolb Associates, Engineers, Inc.
and Rutherford & Chekene Consulting Engineers,the Advisory Panel for the
project, and Ms. Diana Todd of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, the Technical Advisor to FEMA for this project.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work described in this report was performed under a contract to the
Hart Consultant Group. The work represents the collaborative effort of
the staff of the Hart Consultant Group and its two subcontractors ­
H. J. Degenkolb Associates, Engineers, Inc. and Rutherford and Chekene
Consulting Engineers. Mr. Chris Poland and Mr. William Holmes were in
every way co-project engineers with Dr. Gary C. Hart and their
contributions are gratefully acknowledged.

The authors of this report would also like to thank the individuals listed
in Appendix C for contributing seismic rehabilitation cost data and many
helpful suggestions.

The project team would also like to acknowledge the efforts and support
of Mr. Ugo Morelli, FEMA Project Officer, and Ms. Diana Todd of NIST.
Their thoughtful and constructive suggestions during the course of the
project and their careful reading of this report have improved its
usefulness immeasurably.

Lastly, the authors would like to thank Dr. Rami Elhassan of Hart
Consultant Group, Mr. Evan Reis of H. J. Degenkolb Associates,
Engineers, Inc., and Mr. Jon-Michael Johnson of Rutherford and Chekene
Consulting Engineers for their technical review and production of this
report.

iii
 CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY RESULTS

1.1 GENERAL

The first attempt at gathering a comprehensive set of costs for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings was completed in 1988 (Typical Costs of Seismic
Rehabilitation of ExistingBuildings-Volume I:- Summary and its companion
Volume 2: Supporting Documentation, FEMA 156 and 157, respectively).
Although these volumes were based on a relatively small sample and
employed a simplified analytical methodology, they nonetheless served the
twin objectives of focusing the attention of decision makers and providing
useful, general guidance on this very significant topic.

In the intervening six years, the tempo of improving the seismic safety of
buildings in both the private and public sectors has accelerated. Further,
such activities have spread from the region west of the Rocky Mountains
to other parts of the country and more cost data on this subject has become
available. Increasing the availability of this new data for use in seismic
rehabilitation initiatives is the principle motive behind the preparation of a
Second Edition of Typical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing
Buildings.

The Second Edition, which also consists of a summary and a supporting

documentation volume reflects:

* A clear definition of "costs";

* A rigorous data collection procedure;

* A written data collection protocol;

* Intensive follow-up efforts to verify the data; and

* A stringent quality control process, including a quality

rating for each data point.

1 -1
This collection effort and the application of quality control procedures
has resulted in the creation of a computerized database of 2088 data
points, each data point being the cost of rehabilitation for one building.
Each data point represents the cost of either an actual rehabilitation
project or the estimated cost of rehabiliation of a building subjected to
a detailed analysis by an experienced design professional. Cost
estimates based on mere studies were excluded from the database. The
database is, therefore, not only extensive but also objective and reliable.
Further, it comprises a rather broad distribution of buildings in terms of
types and location, as shown later in this chapter.

A sophisticated statistical methodology was developed to analyze this

database, with one very significant result; the quality and reliability of
the cost estimation of seismic rehabilitations become significantly
improved as more and more details of a building or a building inventory
are available to the user and employed in the estimation process.
Guidance is also provided to calculate a range of uncertainty associated
with this process. The variation of costs of seismic rehabilitation is
large. However, the reliability of an estimation using the results of this
analysis will improve if more characteristics of the building or inventory
are known, and the reliability of the estimate will improve dramatically
when used to obtain the average costs of many buildings.

Further, users are presented with the opportunity to apply any one of
three typical cost estimation techniques, from a very simple to a rather
complex one, depending on their needs or availability of information.
Instructions on how to use the various techniques are contained in
Chapter 4 of this volume. Depending on the cost estimation technique
that the user selects, it is also possible to link costs to:

* One of three seismic performance objectives;

* Regional seismicity levels;

* Variations in the cost of labor and materials in any location

in the United States and its Territories;

* Any one of 15 common building types, rearranged into

eight groups; and

* Construction in the future using projected ENR indexes or

estimated inflation

* Additional characteristics of the building

1-2
1.2 DEFINITION OF TERMS

In order to facilitate the understanding of the major results of this effort,

it is first necessaryto clarify a few of the most significant concepts used
in both volumes.

e "Typical costs" is the mean structural cost of the seismic

rehabilitation of a building based upon the database
gathered and does not include the cost of replacing
architectural finishes. Volume 2 contains a detailed
discussion of this topic and provides data on costs that are
not included in this definition, principal among which are
those associated with architectural work in normal
buildings, rehabilitating historic buildings, or upgrading a
building to current electrical, mechanical or accessibility
code requirements that might become mandatory as a
result of seismic rehabilitation. Instructions on how to add
allowances for these costs are also presented in that
volume.

X * The unit cost is expressed in terms of dollars per square

foot ($Isq.ft.) (Onesquare meter equals 10.76 square feet).

* All unit costs have been normalized to 1993 dollars for the
State of Missouri to represent an average national level.
Information on how to apply this normalized cost to any
location in the United States and Guam, or to any year in
the next decade, is found in Chapter 4 of this volume.

* Buildings are categorized by 15 common building types.

These are identified and described in NEHRPHandbook for
Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, FEMA 178, pp.
14-16. For this effort, they have been clustered into eight
groups. The groups are based on cost distribution
similarities that have been identified based on physical
similarities as well as similarities in costs. (See Table
1.2.1)

* The seismicity of the building location is categorized as

low, moderate, high and very high. The four categories
are correlated to the Map Areas shown in Map 1 of the
1991 Edition of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for
the Development of Regulations of New Buildings. (See
Table 1.2.2 and Figure 1.2.1).

1-3
 e -Performance levels associated with the cost data are life
safety, damage control and immediate occupancy. These
levels are functionally described in Table 1.2.3.

TABLE 1.2.1 FEMA BUILDING MODEL TYPES AND BUILDING GROUP

TYPES USED IN THIS STUDY

BUILDING GROUP MODEL FEMA 178 BUILDING TYPES

1 URM : Unreinforced Masonry

2 Wi Wood Light Frame

W2 Wood (Commercial or Industrial)

3 Pci Precast Concrete Tilt Up Walls

RM1 Reinforced Masonry with Metal or Wood
Diaphragm

4 Cl Concrete Moment Frame

C3 Concrete Frame with Infill Walls

5 Si Steel Moment Frame

6 S2 Steel Braced Frame

S3 Steel Light Frame

7 S5 Steel Frame with Infill Walls

8 C2 Concrete Shear Wall

PC2 Precast Concrete Frame with Concrete
Shear Walls
RM2 Reinforced Masonry with Precast Concrete
Diaphragm
S4 Steel Frame with Concrete Walls

TABLE 1.2.2 SEISMICITY CATEGORIES

SEISMICITY NEHRP MAP SEISMIC AREA

Low 1,2
Moderate 3,4
High 5,6
Very High 7

1-4
 z
rn

-I
A.

I 35

U W
 TABLE 1.2.3 PERFORMANCE CATEGORIES

PERFORMANCE CATEGORY DESCRIPTION

Life Safety (LS) Allows for unrepairable damage
as long as life is not jeopardized
and egress routes are not
blocked.

Damage Control (DC) Protects some feature or

function of the building beyond
life-safety, such as protecting
building contents or preventing
the release of toxic material.

Immediate Occupancy (10) Allows only minimal post-

earthquake damage and
disruption, with some
nonstructural repairs and
cleanup done while the building
remains occupied and safe.

1.3 DATABASE CHARACTERISTICS

As was indicated earlier, a rigorous collection effort coupled with

stringent quality control measures resulted in the creation of a large
database of exceptional reliability. Major characteristics of the 2088
data points (buildings) that were judged to be of high enough quality to
be included in the database are summarized below.

Figure 1.3.1 shows the distribution of the building cost database as a

function of the building groups defined in Table 1.2.1. Figure 1.3.2
shows the distribution of the data by NEHRPmap seismic area. Figure
1.3.3 is similar to Figure 1.3.2 but URM buildings have been omitted
because their large number tends to skew the data. Figure 1.3.4 shows
the distribution of cost data by three performance categories. The
number of URM buildings by performance objective was 442 Life Safety,
167 Damage Control and 71 Immediate Occupancy. Figure 1.3.5 shows
a three dimensional plot of

1-6
 acm
C

: @
.0
co

4 5 6
Building Groups

FIGURE 1.3.1 NUMBER OF BUILDINGS IN

DIFFERENT BUILDING GROUPS

1200

1000

0,
CD 800
:5
.5
600
.0
E
400
z
200

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
NEHRP Map Seismic Area

FIGURE 1.3.2 NUMBER OF BUILDINGS IN DIFFERENT NEHRP

MAP SEISMIC AREAS (WITH URM BUILDINGS)

1-7
 800

700

aI
600

X 500
3
m
400
S
.0
E 300
z
200

100

0
2
- 3 4
-
5
EI
6 7
1
NEHRP Map Seismic Area

I FIGURE 1.3.3 NUMBER OF BUILDINGS IN DIFFERENT NEHRP

MAP SEISMIC AREAS
(WITHOUT URM BUILDINGS)

700

600

co 500

3 400
ax
I am '300
E
Z 200

100

0
Life Safety Damage Control Immediate Occupancy
Performance Category

FIGURE 1.3.4 NUMBER OF BUILDINGS IN DIFFERENT

PERFOMANCE CATEGORIES
(WITHOUT URM BUILDINGS)

1 -8
 ma.

0o
.0
I
Zvi
0 9
;oow­
s
~ 6.:l

A:

FIGURE 1.3.5 NUMBER OF BUILDINGS FOR DIFFERENT

BUILDING GROUP/SEISMICITY COMBINATIONS
(LIFE SAFETY PERFORMANCE WITHOUT URM BUILDINGS)
the number of buildings with a life safety performance category as a
function of building group and seismicity. Figure 1.3.6 shows a similar plot
as a function of performance category and seismicity.

1.4 DATABASE LIMITATIONS

As previously noted, the data represents the most extensive and accurate
cost data available to users. However, because of the diversity of reasons
for performing the rehabilitations and also the diversity of objectives of the
users of this database there are some limitations that are important to note.
Many, and perhaps all, of these limitations can be removed from the
database if the presented methodology is modified to meet the specific
needs of a specific user. The noted limitations are:

* Architectural Renovation: The cost data does not include

costs associated with extensive removal and replacement of
architectural finishes or other nonstructural aspects that must
always be considered during seismic rehabilitation. The cost
of rehabilitation of large architectural features (e.g. cladding
) is not included.

oDistribution of Buildings in the Database: The building cost

data was collected and placed in one of the eight building
groups. Within each group there was typically more than one
FEMA building type. The cost data for that group will
therefore reflect the distribution of buildings within the group.
Considerable effort was taken to group the NEHRP types with
similar cost mean values and distribution. However, if a user
has a different mix of buildings within a group (e.g. only C2
buildings in Group 8 and no PC2, RM2 or S4 buildings), then
a unique cost database that included only C2 building types
would be more representative. If such a situation exists, the
users can use Method 3 or analyze the data themselves.

o Single Building Cost Estimation: For a single building type,

e.g. C1, there is a significant variation in rehabilitation costs
even for buildings of the C1 type within a single structural
engineering design office. The methods presented in Chapter
4 for deriving typical costs must be interpreted when used
with a single building.

1-10

 LI..

ISCO
q,
ian

a;
M o

0
| 0
:~~~~-

FIGURE 1.3.6 NUMBEROF BUILDINGSFOR DIFFERENT.

PERFORMANCE CATEGORY ISEISMICITY COMBINATIONS
(WITHOUT URM BUILDINGS)
 Because of the wide variation in costs for individual
buildings with similar characteristics, mean costs are less
variable as the number of buildings in an inventory
increases. This limitation is overcome by specifying a
range of costs for a single building.

* RehabilitationFollowing a Damaging Earthquake: The

database does not differentiate between costs associated
with a rehabilitation performed as a direct response to
observed structural damage after an earthquake and costs
associated with a planned rehabilitation. Very few, if any,
data points represent damaged buildings. The cost of
rehabilitation when structural damage exists and/or when
there are pressures to reopen or re-occupy the building as
fast as possible after an earthquake will be significantly
greater than for a planned pre-earthquake rehabilitation.

1.5 METHODS TO DERIVE TYPICAL COSTS

Chapter 4 of this volume contains a detailed discussion of the

methodology that was used to derive from the database three different
options for deriving typical costs. Each option was designed to provide
cost data that is as reliable as possible given the information available.
As more information is available, the cost data becomes more refined.

Figure 1.5.1 shows a schematic overview of the options and required

information. A brief description of each option follows.

* OPTION 1 : This option requires knowledge by the user of

the building group, the size in square feet of the building or
buildings in the group under consideration, and the year for which
typical costs are desired. The user can stop at this point but may
want to learn the confidence range that can be assigned to the
typical cost estimation, in which case the number of buildings in
an inventory is also required. The typical costs obtained from
Option 1 are deemed adequate only for very general discussions
of potential seismic rehabilitation costs for large inventories.

* OPTION2: The user of Option 2 needs to know the information

required for Option 1, the seismicity of the location (by NEHRP
Map Area), and the desired performance objective. Typical costs
derived from the use of Option 2 are deemed accurate enough for
planning purposes and only when considering multiple buildings .

1-12
 - / o~~~~
Building Area
/~~~~~~ *Building Locaftion
* Construction Start Date
* Number of BuildingsIn the Inventory

Aj); Smoothed COS OTN

* /SeimictyPerformnance
Mean BuildingGroup Objective Function
Cost Estimate / * Performance Objective
* NEHRPMap SeismicArea

Statistical Theory
Regression Analysis
Equation

~~-~~* 0 COT OTON31

Above Items Pius:

* Number of Storles
* Year Building Constructed
* BuildingOccupancy Class
* Occupancy Condition During
Sesmc Rehabliatation

FIGURE: 1.5.1 SCHEMATIC OF COST OPTIONS

1-13
 *OPTION 3: In addition to the information required for Option 2, the
user of this option must know the age of the building(s), the number
of stories, the occupancy type (office, residential) and occupancy
condition (vacant, in use during rehabilitation). In return for investing
a greater effort to gather this additional information and to perform
some mathematical calculations, the user obtains the most
mathematically rigorous definition of typical costs possible through
the use of this database. Further, the computerized database is
available in its entirety to a user for whatever calculation may be
desired. The database is available from Birch and Davis Associates,
Inc., at (301) 589-6760 (phone) or (301) 650-0398 (fax). A
description of the database can be found in Appendix D of this
volume.

1.6 TYPICAL COSTS EXAMPLE

As an example of the results that can be obtained by the use of Option 2,

following are fourtables; Tables 1.6.1 through 1.6.4, onefor each seismicity
level. They present the 1993 structural costs per square foot for a single
building of one of four sizes (square footage), assuming that the materials
and labor costs are those of the State of Missouri and the performance
objective is life safety. The four categories identified correspond to the
following ranges:

e Small Less than 10,000 sq.ft.

e Medium 10,000 sq.ft. to 49,999 sq.ft.
* Large 50,000 sq.ft. to 99,999 sq.ft.
* Very Large 100,000 sq.ft or greater

The typical cost of all buildings in the database that can be used for general
cost estimation purposes is $16.50/sq ft..

1-14

 TABLE 1.6.1 TYPICAL STRUCTURAL COSTS FOR VERY HIGH

I SEISMICITY AND LIFE SAFETY ($/sq. ft.)

MODEL FEMABUILDINGTYPES AREA

BUILDING
GROUP V-LARGE
SMALL MEDIUM LARGE

1 URM Unreinforced Masonry 18.22 :18.04 17.14 14.43

2 W1 Wood Light Frame

W2 Wood (Commercial or 14.07 14.79 18.56 23.78
Industrial)

PCI Precast Concrete Tilt Up

Walls
RM1 Reinforced Masonry with 18.69 17.70 15.52 9.43
3
Metal or Wood Diaphragm

4 Cl Concrete Moment Frame

C3 Concrete Frame with Infill 25.75 25.04 23.86 19.84
Walls

5 Si Steel Moment Frame 25.82 25.37 24.26 18.47

6 S2 Steel Braced Frame

Frame
Steel Frame
Light
S3 Light - 10.07
- 9.56 7.68 4.35
S3 Steel

7 S5 Steel Frame with Infill 29.47 29.18 28.05 24.65

Walls 2

8 C2 Concrete Shear Wall

PC2 Precast Concrete Frame
with Concrete Shear Walls
RM2 Reinforced Masonry with 22.67 22.06 20.83 16.95
Precast Concrete
Diaphragm
S4 Steel Frame with Concrete
Walls

1-15

TABLE 1.6.2 TYPICAL STRUCTURAL COSTS FOR HIGH SEISMICITY

AND LIFE SAFETY ($/sq. ft.)

BUILDING MODEL FEMABUILDINGTYPES AREA

GROUP
SMALL MEDIUM LARGE V-LARGE

1 URM Unreinforced Masonry 13.74 13.61 12.93 10.89

2 WI Wood Light Frame

W2 Wood (Commercial or 10.61 11.16 14.00 17.94
Industrial)

PCI Precast Concrete Tilt Up

3 RM1 ~~~Walls
Reinforced Masonry with
1.0
14.10
1.6
13.35
1.8
11.48
71
7.11
Metal or Wood Diaphragm

4 Cl Concrete Moment Frame

C3 Concrete Frame with Infill 19.42 18.89 18.00 14.97
Walls

5 Si Steel Moment Frame 19.47 19.14 18.30 13.93

6 S2 Steel Braced Frame 7.59 7.21 5.79 3.28
S3 Steel Light Frame

7 S5 Steel Frame with Infill 22.22 22.01 21.16 18.59

Walls

8 C2 Concrete Shear Wall

PC2 Precast Concrete Frame
with Concrete Shear Walls
RM2 Reinforced Masonry with 17.10 16.64 15.71 12.79
Precast Concrete
Diaphragm
S4 Steel Frame with Concrete
Walls

1-16

 TABLE 1.6.3 TYPICAL STRUCTURAL COSTS FOR MODERATE

SEISMICITY AND LIFE SAFETY ($/sq. ft.) ;

BUILDING MODEL FEMABUILDINGTYPES AREA

GROUP
SMALL MEDIUM LARGE V-LARGE

1 URM Unreinforced Masonry 10.81 10.70 10.17 8.56

2 Wi Wood Light Frame

W2 Wood (Commercial or 8.34 8.78 11.01 14.11
Industrial)

PCI Precast Concrete Tilt Up

Walls1109 1.0 90 .5
| 3 RM1 Reinforced Masonry with 11.09 10.50 9.03 5.59
Metal or Wood Diaphragm

4 Cl Concrete Moment Frame

C3 Concrete Framewith Infill 15.28 14.86 14.15 11.77
Walls

5 Si Steel Moment Frame 15.31 15.05 14.39 10.96

6 S2 Steel Braced Frame 5.97 5.67 4.55 2.518

S3 Steel Light Frame

7 S5 Steel Frame with Infill 17.48 17.31 16.64 14.62

Walls

8 C2 Concrete Shear Wall

PC2 Precast Concrete Frame
with Concrete Shear Walls
RM2 Reinforced Masonry with 13.45 13.09 12.36 10.06
Precast Concrete
Diaphragm
S4 Steel Frame with Concrete
Walls

1-17
TABLE 1.6.4 TYPICAL STRUCTURAL COSTS FOR LOW SEISMICITY

AND LIFE SAFETY ($/sq. ft.)

BUILDING MODEL FEMABUILDINGTYPES AREA

GROUP
SMALL MEDIUM LARGE V-LARGE

1 URM Unreinforced Masonry 9.42 9.33 8.86 7.46

2 Wi Wood Light Frame
W2 Wood (Commercial or 7.27 7.65 9.60 12.30
Industrial)

PCI Precast Concrete Tilt Up

3 Walls 9.60 9.15 7.87 4.87
RM1 Reinforced Masonry with
Metal or Wood Diaphragm

4 C1 Concrete Moment Frame

C3 Concrete Frame with Infill 13.31 12.95 12.33 10.26
Walls

5 Si Steel Moment Frame 13.35 13.11 12.54 9.55

6 S2 Steel Braced Frame 5.20 4.94 3.97 2.25

S3 Steel Light Frame
7 S5 Steel Frame with Infill 15.23 15.09 14.50 12.74
Walls

8 C2 Concrete Shear Wall

PC2 Precast Concrete Frame
with Concrete Shear Walls
RM2 Reinforced Masonry with 11.72 11.40 10.77 8.76
Precast Concrete . l
Diaphragm
S4 Steel Frame with Concrete
Walls

1-18

1.7 COMPARISON WITH1TYPICAL COSTS IN THE FIRST EDITION

In the First Edition of Tvoical Costs of Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing

Buildings, completed in 1988, the database consisted of 614 data
points, or fewer than one-third as many as the 2088 that comprise the
database for this effort, and most of the original data points were'
derived from rather limited studies. Unreinforced masonry buildings were
by far the most predominant building type. Further, the "typical cost"
in the First Edition, expressed in California 1988 dollars, was calculated
by deleting the lower and upper;one-sixth of the data points, so as to
reduce the influence that extreme data points would have had on the
mean values.

For historical reasons only, Table 1.7.1 presents a comparison of costs

between the two editions in as similar a manner as feasible, including the
elimination of the lower and upper one-sixth of the data points in each
respective database. Both sets of costs assume the performance
objective of the rehabilitation work to be life safety. The costs in the
First Edition were for California buildings in the late 1970's and the costs
for the Second Edition are all for buildings located in Missouri for 1993
i~nthe database.

TABLE 1.7.1 FIRST AND SECOND EDITION COST COMPARISONS

LIFE SAFETY PROTECTION ONLY
($/sq. ft.)

BUILDING GROUP FIRST SECOND

EDITION EDITION

Unreinforced Masonry $ 6.40 $ 12.82

Reinforced Masonry $ 3.70 $ 10.80

ReinforcedConcrete $ 10.60 $ 14.70

PrecastConcrete $ 12.90 $ 5.58
Wood $ 12.30 $ 8.77
Steel $ 10.25 $ 14.23

1-19

 .
.

: . . ;:
.
.

CHAPTER 2 COST CONSIDERATIONS>AND :

.
DEFINITIONS
. .
.

i; .

2.1 GENERAL

This chapter presents a discussion of cost categories and factors that

may influence rehabilitation costs. To develop reasonable cost ranges
for the seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings it is important that the
various costs and the factors that influence these costs be. clearly
understood. It is equally important that the user understands these costs
and influence factors when applying the methods presented in this report
to determine cost ranges for an actual building inventory.

2.2 DEFINITION AND CATEGORIZATION OF COST COMPONENTS

A close examination of several of the existing FEMA documents that

address cost issues related to the seismic rehabilitation of existing
buildings provides insight into the complexity involved in the development
of a typical cost methodology. Those documents include FEMA 156/157,
FEMA 173/174, and FEMA 227/228, see Table 2.2.1. The two
categories of costs described in the FEMA documents are direct costs and
indirect costs. A definition of direct costs as found in FEMA 156 is:
"The direct costs represent the bill received by the owner from the
contractor." Actually, the definition of direct costs should be broadened
to be those costs incurred by the actual rehabilitation work, usually paid
for by the owner. Indirect costs, on the other hand, are costs which
come about as a result of the rehabilitation work and affect the owner,
the tenants, the community, or other related groups. Comerio, 1989
defines indirect costs as "those costs difficult to measure as a result of
rehabilitation, mainly the loss of income and opportunity costs."

In this study, the cost of the relocation of occupants is considered a

"direct", non-construction cost because this cost is essentially an
extension of premium construction costs associated with having
occupants in the building at the proposed time of construction. Ongoing
rental from relocation, however, is considered similar to the loss of

2-1 o. .
 business or other opportunity and is therefore categorized as "indirect."
Financing is an independent variable unrelated to the project
characteristics and dependent on the type of owner. Short term project
costs do not include the additional costs due to financing thus, financing
is categorized as an "indirect" cost. For the purposes of benefit-cost
studies, financing costs are normally included automatically when
considering the time value of money and are incorporated into the
discount rate. Labeling financing costs as "direct", in addition to using
a discount rate, is appropriate only for benefit cost consideration.
Financing sources include banks, federal agencies, revenue bonds, and
private companies. In all cases where external financing is required, the
financial costs depend on the ability of the owner to secure financing as
dictated by the marketplace.

Contractor general conditions, profit, and project contingencies are

sometimes considered separate costs, particularly when creating cost
estimates from subcontractor material and labor prices. This method of
cost estimating is not appropriate until a specific seismic rehabilitation
scheme is developed and is, therefore, not used in this study. Each
construction cost component is assumed to include its proportional share
of these construction overhead-type costs. Actual construction costs can
be estimated by simply summing the "direct" construction cost
components.

Using the cost distinctions given in the FEMA documents as a base,

several modifications were made as part of this study to further clarify
and complete the categorization of rehabilitation costs. The first change
is in the dividing of direct costs into two sub-categories: construction
costs and non-construction costs. The distinction between these two
sub-categories is most clearly delineated by describing the construction
costs as the amount paid to the contractor and by describing the non-
construction costs as the amount paid to anyone other than the
contractor in order to complete the project. For the purpose of
developing typical cost ranges, these two sub-categories were, where
possible, quantified as separate and specific amounts. Otherwise, the
non-construction costs can be taken as a percentage of the overall project
cost.

Direct construction costs, however, need to be further subdivided into

two parts, seismic and non-seismic. Seismic direct costs are those
associated with costs directly incurred in actually making the building
better able to withstand seismic forces. Non-seismic costs, on the other
hand, are those that are often incurred ("triggered") by the seismic
construction work. (At times these are referred to as "collateral costs").

2-2

The taxonomy of costs used in this report is therefore shown in Table

2.2.2, and discussed below.

TABLE 2.2.1 SUMMARY OF REHABILITATIONCOST COMPONENTS

FEMA 156 AND 157 - "TYPICAL COSTS FOR SEISMIC REHABILITATIONOF EXISTINGBUILDINGS"

DIRECTCOSTS INDIRECTCOSTS
* construction materials and labor (contractor * financing
overhead and profit included)
* professional and permit fees 0 occupant interruption/relocation
* increased rents
* change in property value
* reduction in affordable housing

FEMA 173 AND 174 - "ESTABLISHING PROGRAMSAND PRIORITIESFOR THE SEISMIC

REHABILITATION OF BUILDINGS"

Costs for Rehabilitation:

DIRECT COSTS INDIRECTCOSTS
* construction (primary cost) 0l oss of revenue during construction
* architectural and engineering design * change in property value
* material testing, permits, and approvals 0 occupant relocation
* financing and relocation * change in housing stock
* mitigation program administration S social impacts
* mitigation program administration

Costs due to earthquake damage:

DIRECTCOSTS INDIRECTCOSTS
* damage * social trauma
* housing losses
* business and industry loss
* unemployment
* tax impact/increased cost of services to
community

FEMA 227 AND 228 - "A BENEFIT-COSTMODELFOR THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF

BUILDINGS"
REFERENCEDOCUMENT FOR COST INFORMATION: "SEISMIC COSTS AND POLICY
IMPLICATIONS, COMERIO, 1989.

DIRECT COSTS INDIRECTCOSTS

* structural construction 0 loss of rent and other income
0 architectural demolition and refinishing directly opportunities
related to seismic rehabilitation 0 construction delays
* engineering fees - e financial constraints
* permit, testing, and legal fees
* financing

2-3
 TABLE2.2.2 DIRECT REHABILITATIONCOST COMPONENTS AS
DEFINED IN THIS STUDY

CONSTRUCTIONCOSTS NON-CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Seismic o Project management

* Structural rehabilitation work (typical costs a Architectural and engineering design fees
* Non-structural rehabilitation work 9 Relocation
* Demolition and restoration a Testing and permits
* Damage repair
Non-seismic
* System improvements
* Disabled access improvements
* Hazardous material removal

2.3 SEISMIC RELATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS

The costs presented in this section are categorized as seismic-related

construction costs because they are dictated directly by the decision to
perform seismic rehabilitation work. These costs exclude items that do
not directly improve the seismic performance of the building, such as
additional improvements made to the architectural, electrical, mechanical,
plumbing, or other systems of the building. The cost components are
defined and discussed below (some of the definitions in Sections 2.3. to
2.6 are adapted from Recht Hausrath & Associates, 1992):

* Structural Rehabilitation Costs: The cost for structural work

performed by the contractor and the sub-contractor. This is the
only cost that is estimated in Volume 1 of this study.

* Non-Structural Rehabilitation Costs: The cost to reduce the risk

of failure of certain non-structural elements of the building. This
includes consideration of cladding, hazards relating to the failure of
exterior walls (including parapets), and other elements that may
interact with structural systems because these elements are
normally included in structural rehabilitation projects. This would
also include consideration of interior buildingsystems (architectural
and mechanical/ electrical/plumbing [MEP]) and "occupancy use
equipment" which is equipment required to enable the building to
fulfill its primary mission (e.g., medical equipment in a hospital or
computers in a data center). Furniture, office equipment, and
supplies are not normally included as non-structural components
that can be rehabilitated because their seismic resistance is
primarily dependent on the care given by the users.

2-4
 Demnolitionand Restoration Costs: The cost for architectural
work necessitated by the structural work. Included are items such
as demolition and replacement costs for wall and ceiling finishes,
removal and reinstallation of electrical and mechanical equipment,
and reroofing as necessary to install the lateral force resisting
elements in the building.

* Cost to Repair Existing Elements Used as Part of the Lateral

Force Resisting System: The cost to repair any of the existing
lateral force resisting elements that have been damaged because
of previous earthquakes, ground settlement or deterioration.

2.4 NON-SEISMIC-RELATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS

The costs presented inthis section are categorized as non-seismic-related

construction costs because they are costs pertainingto those items that
do not directly improve the seismic performance of the building but may
be "triggered" by the seismic rehabilitation. These costs can be difficult
to quantify because they can vary greatly depending upon the individual
building characteristics and the applicable regulations or code
requirements.

Systems Improvement Costs:

* Fire and LifeSafety: The building or fire department may require

an owner to upgrade fire protection and other life safety
provisions. This work can involve such items as improving the fire
rating of certain walls and providing sprinklers, fire escapes,
increased exits, fire stops at bouridary zones in the building, and
emergency lighting and fire alarm systems. Even if not required,
the owner may decide to make these improvements in addition to
the rehabilitation work.

* Mechanical, Plumbing and Electrical Renovation: In some cases,

the owner may also be required by the building or fire department
to upgrade the mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems of the
building. Again, an owner may take the opportunity to upgrade the
mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems of a building at the
same time as seismic rehabilitation even when not required.

* Architectural Renovation: When seismic rehabilitation work is

anticipated owners often take the opportunity to make architectural
renovations and improvements beyond the architectural demolition

2-5
and refinishing costs associated with the rehabilitation work.
Substantial savings may result because: 1) occupants will be
disrupted only once, 2) the contractor's general conditions are
fairly fixed and may not increase much if the time or work does not
increase substantially, and 3) the demolition and removal costs of
architectural finishes do not increase. Architectural renovation
costs are often hard to separate-from the costs due directly to
seismic rehabilitation in cost estimates and as Comerio, 1989
shows, they can add a very large premium to the cost of the total
project. On the other hand, plans for a complete architectural
renovation present an ideal opportunity to also seismically
rehabilitate a building. The efficiency of combining such projects
is the same in either case.

* Damage Repair Costs: The cost to repairstructural damagefrom

previous earthquakes, settlement, or deterioration in elements of
the building not affecting the seismic performance of the building.

* Hazardous Material Removal Costs: The cost to remove

hazardous materials, such as asbestos, lead paint, or contaminated
soil. Asbestos-containing materials in a building become a
potential health hazard when they are disturbed and the asbestos
fibers are released into the air near occupants not taking proper
safety precautions. As long as the asbestos-containing materials
are not disturbed and remain in good condition, they do not pose
a hazard. The following building materials may be found to contain
asbestos (NIBS, 1986): (1) sprayed or troweled on surface
material on ceilings and walls); (2) thermal insulation around pipes,
ducts, boilers, tanks (pipe and boiler insulation); (3) fireproofing on
structural members; and (4) a variety of other products such as
ceiling and floor tiles, roofing felts and shingles, and wall boards.
Asbestos was used commonly in buildings prior to 1973 (NIBS,
1986). Typically, asbestos is removed prior to construction by a
specialty contractor under a separate contract. Another hazardous
material that may be found in older buildings is lead-based paint,
which is used primarily to prevent rust on steel structures. The
primary risk due to lead based paint occurs when construction
workers inhale the lead dust or lead fumes caused by blasting,
welding, or spray painting. An increase in construction cost is
likely to occur because of requirements to provide paper protection
and washing facilities for workers dealing with lead coated steel.

* Costs to Provide Access for the Disabled: The cost to provide

improved accessibility to disabled individuals as required by federal,

2-6
 state and local laws. The federal requirements are contained in the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which was signed by
President Bush on July 26, 1990. The ADA is "designed to remove
barriers which prevent qualified individuals with disabilities from
enjoying the same employment opportunities that are available to
persons without disabilities." (ADA Handbook, 1991). The costs
associated with the implementation of the ADA are discussed in
more detail in Volume 2.

2.5 NON-CONSTRUCTION COSTS

The costs presented in this section are categorized as non-construction

because these costs are not construction costs. Typically, these costs are
paid to persons other than the contractor.

Non-construction costs include:

* Management Costs: The costs necessaryto managethe project.

These costs may include performing analyses to determine the
impact of various levels of rehabilitation; determining the scope
and organization of the project; obtaining financing; hiring,
answering questions, paying and negotiating with design
consultants, testing laboratories, and contractors; addressing city
requirements and the concerns of affected tenants and clients; and
handling the many other tasks needed to successfully complete a
rehabilitation project. Assigning a management cost is often quite
difficult because money does not necessarily change hands when
an owner chooses to manage the project without outside
assistance such as a construction manager.

* Design Fees, Testing and Permitting Costs: These three items

are often grouped together by estimators. Design fees cover the
costs of design professionals such as structural, engineers,
architects, geotechnical engineers, civil engineers, surveyors, and
cost estimators required to perform the studies and design work
necessary for structural work and architectural refinishing work.
In order to ascertain the structural characteristics of existing
materials, a testing lab may be hired during the design process.
Once construction has begun, testing and inspection firms are
often hired to verify that the contractor is performing the work in
general conformance with the design documents and to perform
tests and inspections required by the building codes. Obtaining a

2-7

 building permit requires paying a fee to the building department to

cover their plan checking, field inspection, and recording costs.

* Relocation Costs: The cost to relocate occupants and equipment

due to the disruption expected by the construction. The nature of
the rehabilitation scheme may make occupancy during construction
infeasible because of interference with normal business operations
or added costs due to additional constraints on the construction if
the occupants are not relocated.

2.6 COST INFLUENCE FACTORS

The magnitude of rehabilitation costs will be affected by many factors,

including the characteristics of the building, the seismic zone, the
rehabilitation criteria used, and the conditions of occupancy. The
significance of these influence factors in determining the typical cost was
studied as part of this project and will be discussed in more detail in
Chapter 4 of Volume 1 and also in Volume 2. The number of influence
factors used in this document for determining typical costs was
determined by the analysis of the data and professional judgement.
Definitions and discussion of influence factors that were considered in
this cost analysis follow:

* Seismicity: The seismicity is based on NEHRP map areas

1 - 7. Regions of the country are divided into these areas
based on expected earthquake activity. Costs of
rehabilitation are dependent on the seismic map area
because it dictates the design forces which, in turn, often
influence the scope of structural work.

* Performance Objectives: The performance objectives are

defined by three general categories: 1) life safety; 2)
damage control; and 3) immediate occupancy. These
performance objectives determine the level of rehabilitation
for a building which, in turn, influences the cost of the
rehabilitation. Life safety allows for unrepairable damage as
long as life is not jeopardized and egress routes are not
blocked. Damage control is intended to protect some
feature or function of the building beyond life safety, such
as protecting building contents or preventing the release of
toxic materials. Immediate occupancy is characterized by
minimal post-earthquake disruption with some non-structural
repairs and cleanup.

2-8
* Structural System: There are many reasons why different
structural systems lead to different costs. One of the most
important is that the number of, extent of, and criteria used
for the rehabilitation activities are typically quite different.
Masses and original design force levels can be quite
different. Also, the existence of an independent vertical
load-carrying frame in multi-story buildings substantially
lowers the seismic hazard. Table 1.2.1 defines the FEIMIA
building types that were used to classify the structural
system.

* Occupancy Class: Some estimates have attributed a cost

impact to the occupancy type of a building. For example,
assembly buildings with large open spaces often require
special or more unusual rehabilitation solutions. Industrial
buildings tend to have higher story heights, forcing more
out-of-plane bracing; but they have fewer openings in the
existing masonry walls, potentially allowing for less in-plane
strengthening. They may also have lower architectural
refinishing costs because they lack interior finishes. Table
2.6.1 identifies the categories of occupancy that were used
in this study. Figure 2.6.1 shows the number of buildings
inthe database in each occupancy or class for the life safety
performance objective. The occupancy classifications are as
follows:

* Assembly - Theaters, Churches, or other assembly

buildings.

* Commercial/Office- all buildingsused for the transaction

of business, for the rendering of professional services, or
for other services that involve limited stocks of goods or
merchandise.

* Factory/Industrial/Warehouse - Factories, Assembling

Plants, Industrial Laboratories, Storage, etc.

* Institutional/Educational- Schools, Hospitals, Prisons, etc.

* Mall/Retail - Retail Stores or Shopping Malls.

* Parking - Parking Garages or Structures.

S Residential - Houses, Hotels, and Apartments.

2-9
 400

300
W

cm

200 1­

E
z
100 F

0
P M R
-EI F I C A no-inform.
Occupancy Class

FIGURE 2.6.1 NUMBER OF BUILDINGS IN DIFFERENT

OCCUPANCY CLASSES
(LIFE SAFETY PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE)

.c

r_
m

7.5 15.0 22.5 30.0 37.5 45.0 52.5 60.0 67.5 75.0 82.5 90.0 90+
Building Area (thousands of sq. ft. )

FIGURE 2.6.2 NUMBER OF BUILDINGS IN DIFFERENT

BUILDING AREAS
(LIFE SAFETY PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE)

2-10
 TABLE 2.6.1 OCCUPANCY CLASS

CLASS DESCRIPTION

A Assembly
C Commercial/Office

F Factory/Industrial

Institutional/Educational
M Mall/Retail

P Parking

R Residential

* Building Area: The total square footage of the building.

Figure 2.6.2 shows this distribution of data by building
area.

* Number of Stories: The number of stories can have a

significant cost impact in most estimates. In taller
buildings, overturning and shear forces may require a
proportionately greater cost to improve the foundation.
Figure 2.6.3 shows the distribution of the cost data for life
safety as a function of the number of stories.

* Building Age Characteristics: Age can be an important

cost factor because older buildings often require more new
lateral elements an also because the existing structural
system may suffer detioration. Also, the presence of
ornamentation or other significant architectural or historic
fabric will influence the design options available to the
engineer. Often, the least expensive engineering
rehabilitation technique will be unacceptable because of its
visual incompatibility with the building fabric. In some
instances, it may also be unacceptable to remove
significant finishes because of the potential for damage,
necessitating more costly, alternative measures.

2-1 1
 450

360

W
I
to­
270

0
180
E
z
sF .

5 7 11 13 15 no-inform.
Number of Stories

FIGURE 2.6.3 NUMBER OF BUILDINGS VERSUS NUMBER OF STORIES

(LIFE SAFETY PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE)

250

200

U
InD

._c
z.5
150
m
0

0 100
E
z
50

5 15 25 85 45 55 6s 75 65 95 100+
BuildingAge ( year)

FIGURE 2.6.4 NUMBER OF BUILDINGS VERSUS BUILDINGAGE

(LIFE SAFETY PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE)

2-12
Figure 2.6.4 shows the number of buildings in the database as a
function of age.

* Occupancy Condition: Seismic rehabilitation work

involves noise, dust, and general disruption to building
occupants. Table 2.6.2 defines the occupancy conditions
considered in this study and Figure 2.6.5 shows the
number of buildings in the database for each occupancy
condition. Note that most of the buildings in the database
had no information provided and, thus, this variable should
be used with some caution. However, it is clear based on
engineering experience that this is an important cost
variable.

TABLE 2.6.2 OCCUPANCY CONDITION

CLASS DESCRIPTION l

IP Occupants-in-place

TR Occupants Temporarily
Removed

- V Building Vacant

2-13

 850

680

510

10

IP TR v no-inform.
Occupancy Condition

FIGURE 2.6.5 NUMBER OF BUILDINGS IN DIFFERENT

OCCUPANCY CONDITIONS
(LIFE SAFETY PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE)

2-14
 CHAPTER 3 COST DATABASE

3.1 GENERAL

The cost database is the backbone of the effort to obtain typical costs
for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. This chapter discusses the
methods used in collecting and sorting the data including
acceptance/rejection procedures and other quality control processes.
The data points in the database for this report are either actual
construction costs or costs from detailed seismic rehabilitation studies.

3.2 DATA COLLECTION PROCESS

The process of collecting data for this study was developed so as to be

as objective as possible. The strength of the database is intended to be
its consistency regardless of the person or firm submitting data, the
location and date of study of the projects examined, and the types of
buildings and performance objectives selected.

The Data Collection Guidelines, as the two-page worksheet that guided

the data collection effort is called, requests a broad range of information
on a given project. Appendix A contains a copy of this worksheet and
the list of data collected. The building framing, layout and codes used in
the rehabilitation were obtained to assist in the quality control check.
When critical information (area, costs, building type, NEHRPmap seismic
area, year of study, and performance objective) was unavailable, the
worksheets were not added to the database. Where other information
was missing the record was assumed to have a lower level of accuracy
than those which were complete.

The cost basis was developed as follows:

* Step One: Identification of Sources of Data

Lists of engineers and others familiar with seismic
rehabilitation work were gathered. All members of the
Advisory Panel were required to provide information on

3-1
 rehabilitation projects. Firms and individuals on the lists
were contacted, the project explained in brief and their help
requested in collecting the data.

* Step Two: Collect Data from First Edition Database

The second step of the cost data collection was to examine
the data which had been collected for the First Edition of
the Typical Costs FEMAstudy done in 1988. While this
data was generally much less complete than the newer
information, approximately 60% of it was used in the new
database because it was examined and found to be
acceptable, especially for URMbuildings.

* Step Three: Collect New Data

The individuals identified in Step One were contacted and
the worksheets on the various projects were completed.

* Step Four: Quality/Data

Once the completed worksheets were collected, a careful
process of quality assurance was undertaken. If necessary
information was missing, the person who filled out the
worksheet was contacted to help fill in any blanks. Costs
were also checked to verify that non-structural costs were
properly separated from structural costs.

* Step Ave: Enter Costs into Database

The information was entered into the database, after each
worksheet was thoroughly reviewed for completeness and
accuracy.

3.3 TIME AND LOCATION COST ADJUSTMENTS

Much of the information collected was from studies or construction done

before 1993. To be consistent, all cost data in the database was
indexed to March 1993. For this adjustment of cost the Engineering
News Record's (ENR) 20-city average of building costs, called the
Building Cost Index (BCI), which compares the historical costs of
selected materials and labor to today's costs was used.

For costs associated with studies done before 1970, the index factor
rises rapidly and for this time period the cost correction was done in
consultation with Hanscomb Associates, a member of the Advisory
Panel.

3-2

In addition to indexing the data based on the year of the study or

construction year, costs from various parts of the country and Canada
were referenced to the St. Louis location, to account for regional
differences in labor and material rates. To account for these differences
another correction was made to each cost data point. The Means Index
relates costs in 250 cities in the United States and Canada. For each
state, U.S. territory or Canadian province where data was collected, an
average factor of all the cities in the state, territory or province was
calculated and compared to the common location, which was chosen as
Missouri. Missouri was selected to be the baseline state for this study
solely because of its central geographic location. Thus, where all cities
in Missouri were given a baseline of 1.00, all buildings in South Carolina,
for example,werefactored by 0.80. Canadianfactors took into account
the 1993 average exchange rate so that Canadian dollar amounts
entered on the work sheets for buildings in Canada could be directly
converted to U.S. dollars.

The factors correcting for the year of construction or study and the
location factors were multiplied together to obtain a combined factor.
All costs for each building were multiplied by the appropriate factor so
that each building cost is relative to March, 1993 in Missouri dollars.

3.4 DATA QUALITY RATING

There is a notable variation in the quality of the cost data. The project
goal was to not eliminate any data except that which lacked enough
minimum information to be useful. Therefore, each cost data point was
assigned a quality rating. Quality factors were calculated for each
building cost data value, ranging from 1 (being the least accurate) to 10
(being the most accurate).

Care was taken to make the rating system as objective as possible so

that anotheruncertainty, that of the engineerassigningthe factor, would
be minimized. The rating was determined as the sum of the following
three parameters:

* Date of study: Design professionals today are more familiar with

earthquakes, seismic rehabilitation methods and building
performance. Consequently, the accuracy of their cost estimates
has increased considerably. Therefore, the rating in Table 3.4.1
was given to each record based on the date of its cost study or
construction.

3-3
 TABLE 3.4.1 QUALITY/RATING DATE OF STUDY

DATE OF STUDY OR POINTS

CONSTRUCTION
Before 1973 1
Between 1973 and 1987 2
After 1987 3

S Source and certainty of cost: Each design professional was

asked to check whether the cost estimate on the Data Collection
Guidelines was from a study or actual construction. Also, the
design professional rated his or her confidence in the costs as
either Good, Fair or Poor. Based on these choices, the ratings in
Table 3.4.2 were given.

TABLE 3.4.2 QUALITY RATING/SOURCE AND CERTAINTY OF COST

SOURCE CONFIDENCE POINTS

Unknown Poor 0
Study Poor 1

Study Fair or Good 2

Actual Poor 2

Actual Fair 3

Actual Good 4

S Consistency of data: In many instances the information

provided for particular buildings or groups of buildings was
sporadic and incomplete. Older or general studies of large
numbers of buildings often contained minimal information. The
familiarity and experience with seismic rehabilitation of the person
filling out the worksheet would, in general, affect the quality of
the data. So that no single characteristic would weigh too heavily
on the point value given to this factor, the following procedure

3-4
 was used: seven characteristics were developed by which each
record would be rated, with a 1 (positive) or a 0 (unknown or
negative). These characteristics were: Were the worksheets
complete and clearly filled out? Did the person or office submit
many records or only a few? Were the reports from which the
worksheets were prepared specific and complete? Was the
engineer located in a region of high seismicity? Was the person
or office submitting the forms a member of the Advisory Panel?
Was the person filling out the worksheets a registered Structural
Engineer or Architect? Was the person or firm submitting the
information well recognized in the earthquake engineering
profession?

Basedon the total point value obtained from this list of characteristics,
a rating was given for the consistency parameter as shown in Table
3.4.3:

TABLE 3.4.3 QUALITY RATING/CONSISTENCY OF DATA

SUM OF CHARACTERISTICS POINTS

0-1 0

2-3 1

4-5 2

6-7 3

Figure 3.4.1 shows the number of buildings versus the quality rating
for the three categories of the performance objective. Figure 3.4.2
shows the same plot as a function of the seismicity.

3-5

 200

.00

CA 0

FIGURE 3.4.1 NUMBER OF BUILDINGS FOR DIFFERENT QUALITY RATING/

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE COMBINATIONS
(WITHOUT URM BUILDINGS)
00

0 t,

FIGURE 3.4.2 NUMBER OF BUILDINGS FOR DIFFERENT QUALITY RATING/

SEISMICITY COMBINATIONS
(LIFE SAFETY PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE)
3.5 SUPER DATABASE

The database that was obtained by using the process described earlier
contained 2088 cost data points and could have been directly used to
develop the cost estimation coefficients in the methodology that is
presented in Chapter 4. However, if that procedure had been followed, it
would have not taken advantage of the information about the difference in
quality between the cost data points as described and quantified in Section
3.4. Therefore, a super cost database was developed using the 2088 cost
data values and their associated quality rating and a weighting process than
incorporates the relative value of the cost data and the confidence in the
value of that cost data.

The super database was developed by taking each of the original 2088 cost
data points and, one at a time, using them to generate several new values
of cost. For each original cost data value, the number of new cost values
that go into the super database is a function of the quality rating of that data
value, see Figure 3.5.1. For example, if the quality rating was 7, then 83
new cost data points would go into the super database.

Similarly, if the quality rating was 5 and not 7, then only 72 new cost data
points would go into the super database. Therefore, the super database
will contain more data for the higher quality rating. The value of each of the
new cost data points that goes into the super database incorporates the
increased confidence in the value of the cost that is associated with the
higher quality rating of the data. Each new cost data point that was created
for the super database was generated using a Monte Carlo Simulation
Analysis (MCS) using an underlying lognormal probability distribution with
a mean sample value equal to the cost of the original data point and a
coefficient of variation related to the quality rating, see Figure 3.5.2.
Repeating this for all original data points results in the super cost database
that is used to perform the analysis that yields the cost estimation equations
in Chapter 4. The details of this database generation are given in Volume
2.

3-8

 100,

2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10
Quality factor

FIGURE 3.5.1 NUMBER OF SIMULATIONS FOR NEW COST DATA

100

90
1­

80
0
C 70
.o
.* 60
50
4­
> 50
0
40
0 30
0 20
10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Quality factor

FIGURE 3.5.2 COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION FOR NEW COST DATA

3-9
 CHAPTER 4 DETERMINATION OF TYPICAL
COSTS

4.1 GENERAL

The methodology developed in this study to estimate typical costs

provides the user with a fundamental choice between two branches of
a decision tree, as previously shown in Figure 1.5.1. If the user selects
to go along the upper branch (from the start to A to C, Option 1, or from
the start to A to D, Option 2,) then the typical costs for seismic
rehabilitation can be obtained by multiplying either four or five terms.
Each term represents one or more variables that impact cost and the
value of each term is obtained from a table. The validity of the value for
each term in each table is a function of the number of original cost data
points that exist for the combination of variables that correspond to the
term under consideration. For example, Table 4.1.1 shows for Building
Group 5 that the original cost data contained no data for the variable
combination of low seismicity and the life safety performance objective.
In contrast to this, the combination of very high seismicity and the life
safety performance objective had 88 original cost data points.
Therefore, Options 1 and 2 provide values in tables that are derived
using a smoothing of the cost data in the super database to enable
values to be filled in the table for all variable combinations, and to
provide logical relationships between changes in variables and changes
in costs.

The values for each of the terms in Options 1 and 2 are obtained from
tables in this chapter. The values provided for the term related to the
Performance Objective and Seismicity (denoted C3 later in this chapter)
are obtained by using a statistically based smoothing of the life safety
cost data for all buildings. The reason for the use of the cost data for
all buildings in this statistical smoothing versus a statistical analysis of
the cost data for a single building group was that there was insufficient
data to develop a relationship between Building Group/Performance

4-1

Objective and Seismicity for each combination of variables. For example,

Tables 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 show for Building Groups 5 and 7, respectively,
the limited number of cost data points for the different seismicities and
performance objectives.

Prior to presenting the three typical cost estimation options in this new
methodology, it is important to note a basic finding of the study. It is
important to realize that even though one often thinks of buildings as
being essentially alike within a basic building class (e.g. concrete shear
wall buildings), buildings may have widely different rehabilitation
requirements. The results of the work documented in Volume 2 clearly
show that if one only uses the results presented in this study to estimate
the costs of seismic rehabilitation of a building, the cost estimate will
have a very large degree of uncertainty. This uncertainty will exist even
if the database includes information on the seismic rehabilitation of
several buildings of one building group done in one structural engineering
office. Only as the number of buildings of a specific type in an inventory
increases in number does the range of cost uncertainty decrease to
levels that permit the estimation of costs that are meaningful. It is
strongly recommended that if the cost estimate for the seismic
rehabilitation of one building is desired, then a structural engineer be
employed to perform a structural evaluation and a building specific cost
estimate. Volume 2 presents the results of an analysis of the data that
provided the basis for this conclusion.

TABLE 4.1.1 NUMBER OF BUILDINGGROUP 5 COST DATA POINTS

FOR DIFFERENT PERFORMANCE
OBJECTIVE/SEISMICITY COMBINATIONS

SEISMICITY LIFE SAFETY DAMAGE IMMEDIATE

CONTROL OCCUPANCY
Low 0 1 0

Moderate 15 2 2

High 15 2 2

Very High 88 14 9

4-2

TABLE 4.1.2 NUMBER OF BUILDINGGROUP 7 COST DATA POINTS

FOR DIFFERENT PERFORMANCE
OBJECTIVE/SEISMICITY COMBINATIONS

SEISMICITY LIFE SAFETY DAMAGE IMMEDIATE

CONTROL OCCUPANCY

Low 2 2 2

Moderate 3 24 5

High 34 17 0
Very High 23 2 16

4.2 OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGIES

Usersdesiring to determinetypical costs for seismicrehabilitation have

different buildinginventories, objectives and budgets. The methodology
that was developed in this study recognized these differences and was
developed to allow the user to select a typical cost estimation method
from three options. The options vary in complexity and also in their
requirements for the amount of information to be drawn from the
building inventory. Typically, Option 2 provides a more accurate cost
estimate than Option 1 and Option 3 is the most accurate.

Figure 1.5.1 and Table 4.2.1 provide an overview of the options. The
methodology presented in Volume 1 is for the calculation of typical costs
as defined in Section 1.2, namely, mean structural costs. However, the
methodology presented inVolume 2 expands the procedure to enable the
user to develop final costs that include such additional issues as
architectural, ADA access, etc.

4-3

 TABLE4.2.1 STRUCTURAL ESTIMlATION O)PTIOINS

BUILDING INVENTORY INFORMATION COST ESTIMATION OPTIONS

Building Group 1
Area
State
Year of Construction
Number of Buildings in Inventory

Building Group 2
Area
State
Year of Construction
NEHRP Seismic Map Area
Performance Objective
Number of Buildings in Inventory

Building Group 3
Area
State
Year of Construction
NEHRP Seismic Map Area
Performance Objective
Number of Stories
Occupancy Class
Occupancy Condition
Number of Buildings in Inventory

4.3 TYPICAL STRUCTURAL COSTS USING OPTION 1

Figure 4.3.1 shows a schematic of the steps involved in developing a

cost estimate using Option 1. Option 1, as noted in Figure 4.3.1. and
Table 4.3.1, requires the user to determine the building group, a
representative building area (size), the state in which the building is
located, the year in which the building will be rehabilitated and the
number of buildings in the building inventory.

4-4

 STEP1 TABLE4.3.2
UMI $ 15.29
W1.W2 $ 12.29
IGroupMean CJst PC1, RM2 $14.02
C1.C3 $ 20.02
Si $18.86
S2, S3 $ 7.23
S5 $ 24.01
4 C2 $17.31

STEP2 TABLE.4.3.3

BUILDINGSIZE FloorArea &

Area Adjustment Factor Building Group

STEP3 TABLE4.3.4 OR 4.3.5

BUILDINGLOCATION Los AngelesX 1.12,

St. Louis 1.00I
Locatlon Adjustment Factor New York 1.07]

T4< , .

STEP4 TABLE4.3.6

CONSTRUCTIONSTARTDATE Year and

Inflatlon Rate
Time Adjustment Factor

'I

STEPS TABLE4.3.7
BUILDINGINVENTORYSIZE Number of Buldings
& Confidence Level

)
Ct
Confidence Range

EXPECTEDCOST

C1 XC2XCLXCT

LOWERUMIT
-- -
-~~ -
v%.
T

CL X CX CCRL
CIX C2XC

E ~XUPPERUMIT
C X CG
_4

FIGURE: 4.3.1 FLOW CHART FOR COST ESTIMATION OPTION 1

4-5
 TABLE 4.3.1 OPTION 1 COST ESTIMATION FORM

COST ESTIMATION OPTION 1

1. GROUP MEAN COST

* Group:

O URM 0 Si
O W1, W2 0 S2, S3
O PC1,RM1 0 S5
O C1, C3 0 C2, PC2, RM2, S4

* Cost Coefficient C, from Table 4.3.2. C1 =/ Isq. ft.

2. AREA ADJUSTMENT FACTOR

* Area
O Small
O Medium
O Large
O Very Large
* Cost Adjustment Factor C2 from Table 4.3.3 C2 =

3. LOCATION ADJUSTMENT FACTOR

63 C-rtyI Statei

* Cost Adjustment Factor C, from Table 4.3.4

6C,=or 4.3.5

4. TIME ADJUSTMENT FACTOR

• Year

• InflationRate %
* Cost Adjustment Factor CTfrom Table 4.3.6 CTC

STRUCTURAL
TYPICAL COST
(C = CLX C2 X CCX CTC) _
C = /Sq. ft.

_.
5. DESIREDCONFIDENCELEVEL
S Confidence Percentage: U
O Very Narrow (90%) O Narrow (75%) O Moderate (50%)
11 Number of Buildings in Group:
El 1n 2 11 1110 O3 50 O 100 O 500 O 1000 or more

ib CCRU
Conf idence Range Coefficients CcRLI from Table 4.3.7 CCRL=

~~~~~CCRU=
TYPICAL STRUCTURAL COSTS

Lower Bound = C x CCR[L

Mean = C

Upper Bound = C x CCRU

4-6
The Typical, Structural Cost is estimated using the equation:

C= CA C2 CL CT (4.3.1)
where
= Typical Structural Cost to Seismically
C
Rehabilitate a Building ($/sq. ft.)
C, = Building Group Mean Cost ( Table 4.3.2)
C2 = Area Adjustment Factor ( Table 4.3.3)
CL = Location Adjustment Factor ( Table 4.3.4-5)
CT = Time Adjustment Factor ( Table 4.3.6)
Equation (4.3.1) represents, in a statistical sense, a mean estimate of
the cost of seismic rehabilitation. This option also provides a confidence
interval about this mean that reflects the number of buildings in the
inventory and the statistical variation in the cost data.

Each of the steps in the cost calculation shown in Figure 4.3.1 and
required for Table 4.3.1 will now be discussed.

S Step 1 Group Mean Cost

Option 1 starts with the identification of the building type.

From the building type one determines the value of the
term C1, the Building Group Mean Cost, shown in Table
4.3.2. The Building Group Mean Cost is the average or
mean cost for all buildings in a group regardless of
seismicity or performance objective or any other variables.
In the absence of information on seismicity or performance
objective, it provides a base for use in the determination of
typical costs.

TABLE 4.3.2 GROUP MEAN COST (C, )

BUILDING GROUP BUILDING TYPE GROUP MEAN COST
.__ __ _.___ ___ __ ___ ___ __ ___ __ __ l({$ __ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ _ Isq. ft.)

1 URM 15.29

2 W1, W2 12.29

3 PC1, RM1 14.02

4 C1, C3 20.02

5 Si 18.86

6 S2, S3 7.23

7 55 24.01

8 C2, PC2, RM2, S4 17.31

4-7
* Step 2 Area Adjustment Factor

The next step is the calculation of C2 which is the Area

Adjustment Factor. As noted in Chapter 1 the size (area) of a
building affects its typical cost. The category that best
represents the buildingor inventory should be chosen. Inventories
that include a wide range of building sizes could be broken up into
groups. The building sizes used are defined as follows:
* Small Less than 10,000 sq. ft.
* Medium 10,000 to 49,999 sq. ft.
* Large 50,000 to 99,999 sq. ft.
* Very Large 100,000 sq. ft. or greater
Table 4.3.3 gives the value of C2 as a function of the building
group and the area of the representative building. As noted in
Section 4. 1, limited data existed for some building group and floor
area combinations. Therefore, the area adjustment factor was
computed using linear regression on the data points for each
building group. A detailed description of the factor can be found
in Volume 2.

TABLE 4.3.3 AREA ADJUSTMENT FACTOR (C2 )

Area BUILDINGGROUP
(Sq. ft)

Small 1.01 0.97 1.13 1.09 1.16 1.18 1.04 1.11

Medium 1.00 1.02 1.07 1.06 11.14 1.12 1.03 1.08

Large 0.95 1.28 0.92 1.01 1.09 0.90 0.99 1.02

Very Large 0.80 1.64 0.57 0.84 0.83 0.51 0.87 0.83

* Step 3 Location Adjustment Factor

Table 4.3.4 provides the state by state value for CL which is the
Adjustment Factor for the location of the building. Inventories
could be broken up into regions using the average of states in the
region. Table 4.3.5 gives values for selected large cities. This
factor compares the purchasing power of the dollar in each State
with respect to Missouri. It is based on in-depth analysis of the
factors affecting the cost of construction in each state, as
described in Section 3.3. These factors include the cost of
materials and labor. Volume 2 contains a detailed description of
this factor.

4-8
TABLE 4.3.4 LOCATION ADJUSTMENT FACTOR (CL)
STATE| LOCATION ADJUSTMENT FACTOR

ALABAMA 0.83
ALASKA 1.25
ARIZONA 0.91
ARKANSAS 0.83

CALIFORNIA 1.12

COLORADO 0.91

CONNECTICUT 1.05
DELAWARE 1.05

DIST. OF COLUMBIA 0.96

FLORIDA 0.86

GEORGIA 0.84
HAWAII 1.21
IDAHO 0.91
ILLINOIS 0.99
INDIANA 0.97

IOWA 0.90
KANSAS 0.86
KENTUCKY 0.88
LOUISIANA 0.85

MAINE 0.88
MARYLAND 0.98
MASSACHUSETTS 1.10

MICHIGAN 0.97
MINNESOTA 0.97
MISSISIPPI 0.80
MISSOURI 1.00
MONTANA 0.90
NEBRASKA 0.84

4-9
 STATE LOCATION ADJUSTMENT FACTOR

NEVADA 1.03

NEW HAMPSHIRE 0.94

NEW JERSEY 1.14

NEW MEXICO 0.90

NEW YORK 1.07

NORTH CAROLINA 0.79

NORTH DAKOTA 0.80

OHIO 0.99

OKLAHOMA 0.88

OREGON 0.99

PENNSYLVANIA 1.01

RHODE ISLAND -1.09

SOUTH CAROLINA 0.80

SOUTH DAKOTA 0.80

TENNESSEE 0.86

TEXAS 0.86

UTAH 0.89

VERMONT 0.87

VIRGINIA 0.84

WASHINGTON 1.02

WEST VIRGINIA 0.99

WISCONSIN 0.97

WYOMING 0.86

OTHER: GUAM 0.67

0 Step 4. Time Adjustment Factor

Table 4.3.6 provides values for CTwhich is an adjustment factor

that projects costs beyond the 1993 cost database assuming
rates of inflation selected by the user. The inflation rate must be
selected by the user.

4-10
TABLE 4.3.5 LOCATION ADJUSTMENT FACTOR (SELECTED CITIES)

CITY LOCATION ADJUSTMENT

FACTOR
BOSTON 1.10
CHARLESTO N 0.80

DENVER 0.91

LOS ANGELES 1.12

MEMPHIS 0.86

NEW YORK 1.07

PORTLAND 0.99

SALT LAKE CITY 0.89

SAN DIEGO 1.12

SAN FRANCISCO 1.12

SEATTLE 1.02
ST. LOUIS 1.00

TABLE 4.3.6 TIME ADJUSTMENT FACTOR (CT)

VALUE OF TIME ADJUSTMENT FACTOR

YEAR
0% 2% 4% 6% 8%

1993 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1994 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08

1995 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.12 1.17

1996 1.00 1.06 1.12 1.19 1.26|

1997 1.00 1.08 1.17 1.26 1.36
1998 1.00 1.10 1.22 1.34 1.47
1999 1.00 1.13 1.27 1.42 1.59
2000 1.00 1.15 1.32 1.50 1.71
2001 1.00 1.17 1.37 1.59 1.85
2002 1.00 1.20 1.42 1.69 2.00
2003 1.00 1.22 1.48 1.79 2.16
2004 1.00 1.24 1.54 1.90 2.33

4-11
It is important to note that instead of Table 4.3.6, the ENR cost index
can be used, For example, if this document is used in 1995, the user
can look up the ENR index and make an adjustment.

@ Stop S Confidence Range

Because every building is unrique, the actual cost of rehabilitating

any single building will differ from the calculated "Typical Cost"
to some degree. In a large inventory of buildings, some actual
costs will be lower than the estimate, and some will be higher, so
the aggregate actual cost is likelyto be close to the estimate. The
Second Edition methodology enables the user to determine a
range of possible expected cost values as a function of the
number of buildings that are included in the typical cost. The
user must select the desired range of confidence; the
methodology provides the lower and upper bounds on the cost
estimate for that confidence level, For example, if a confidence
level of 75% is selected, it means that the entire building
inventory will be between the lower and upper bounds. The
confidence range reflects the uncertainty involved in computing
cost values from small data sets, As the number of buildings in
the data set increases, the confidence ranges decrease, i.e. the
uncertainty surrounding the estimate is reduced. Table 4.3.7 gives
the values of CCRLand CcRuwhich are the lower and upper
confidence range adjustment factors.

TABLE 4.3.7 CONMDENCE LIMITS FOR CPTW1 I COST ESTIMATES

NUMBER OF CONFIDENCE LDMbTS

BUILDINGS
90% 75% 50%
CCRL CCRU CCRL CCRU CCRL CCRU

1 0.18 5.57 0.27 3.69 0.40 2.48

2 0.38 2.63 0.51 1.97 0.67 1.49
5 0.54 1.84 0.65 1.53 0.78 1.29
10 0.64 1.54 0.73 1.35 0.84 1.19
50 0.82 1.21 0.87 1.15 0.92 1.08
100 0.87 1.15 0.90 1.10 0.95 1.06
500 0.94 1.06 0.96 1.04 0.96 1.03
1000 0.96 1.04 0.97 1.03 0.98 1.02

4-12

4.4 TYPICAL STRUCTURAL COSTS USING OPTION 2

As noted in Figure 1.5.1 and Table 4.2.1, Typical Cost Option 2 requires
that the user know the information required to use Option 1 plus the
seismicity of the building site, and the performanceobjective to which
the building will be rehabilitated. Table 4.4.1 is the typical cost form for
Option 2. A detailed description of Option 2 can be found in Volume 2.
The Typical Structural Cost is estimated in Option 2 using the equation

C = C1 02 C3 CL CT (4.41)

where C1, C2, CL, CT are as defined in Section 4.3 for Equation (4.3.1)
and

C3 = Seismicity/Performance Objective Adjustment Factor

It is important to note that most of the steps in Option 1 are the same
as the steps for Option 2. The only additional step is the inclusion of a
term to incorporate the influence of the seismicity of the building site
and the desired performance objective. The steps in Option 2 are:

* Step 1 Group Mean Cost

Option 2 starts with the identification of the building type. From

the building type one determines the value of the term C1, the
Building Group Mean Cost, shown in Table 4.3.2. The Building
Group Mean Cost is the average or mean cost for all buildings in
a group regardless of seismicity or performance objective or any
other variable. In the absence of information on seismicity or
performance objectives, it provides a base cost for use in the
determination of typical costs.

* Step 2 Area Adjustment Factor

The next step is the calculation of C2 which is the Area

Adjustment Factor. As noted in Chapter 1 the size (area) of a
building affects its typical cost. The category that beSt
represents the building or inventory should be chosen. Inventories
that include a wide range of building sizes could be broken up into
groups. The building sizes used are defined as follows:
* Small Less than 10,000 sq. ft.
* Medium 10,000 to 49,999 sq. ft.
0 Large 50,000 to 99,999 sq. ft.
* Very Large 100,000 sq. ft. or greater

4-13
 TABLE 4.4.1 OPTION 2 COST ESTIMATION FORM
[ COST ESTIMATION OPTION 2

1. GROUP MEAN COST

* Group:
0 URM O Si
O W1, W2 O S2, S5
O PC1,RM1 O SS
O C1, C3 O C2, PC2, RM2, S4

I Cost Coefficient C, from Table 4.3.2. El

2. AREA ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
I Area
O Less than 10K sq. ft. Cl 10K - 50K sq. ft.
O 50K - tOOK sq. ft. E 10K - 50K sq. ft.
* Cost Adjustment Factor C2 from Table 4.3.3 |C2

3. SEISMICITY/PERFORMANCEOBJECTIVE FACTOR ADJUSTMENT

* SEISMICITY
E Low (NEHRP 1 or 2) E Moderate (NEHRP 3 or 4)
El High (NEHRP 5 or 6) O Very High (NEHRP 7)
* PERFORMANCEOBJECTIVE
E Life Safety E Damage Control E Imrmediate Occupancy

t Cost Adjustment Factor C2 from Table 4.4.2 EC3

4. LOCATION ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
* City / State
* Cost Adjustment Factor CL from Table 4.3.4 or Table 4.3.5 CL =

5. TIME ADJUSTMENT FACTOR

*Year

* Inflation Rate 6% CT =

O Cost Adjustment Factor CT from Table 4.3.6

TYPICAL STRUCTURAL COST

(C = C1XC 2 XC 3 XC[XCT)
IC=
6. CONFIDENCERANGE
* Confidence Percentage:
E Very Narrow (90%) E Narrow (75%) E Moderate (50%)
* Number of Buildings in Group:
E 1 E 2 E 5 ElO E0 50 O 100
l 500 EO 1000 or more
CCRL=
* Confidence Range Coefficients CCRLand CCRUfrom Table 4.4.3 C
. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CRU­
TYPICAL STRUCTURAL COST

Lower Bound C x = CCRL

Mean = C

Upper Bound = Cx C CRU _

4-14
 Table 4.3.3 gives the value of C2 as a function of the building
group and the area of the building. As noted in Section 4.1,
limited data existed for some building group and floor area
combinations. Therefore, the area adjustment factor was
computed using linear regression on the data points for each
building group. A detailed description of the factor can be found
in Volume 2.

6 Step 3 Seismicity/Performance Objective Adjustment Factor

The expected seismic activity of the building site must be

quantified in terms of the NEHRP Seismic Area. The user must
also decide what seismic performance is desired. The three
options are life safety, damage control and immediate occupancy
of the building after the earthquake. These objectives are defined
in Table 1.2.3 and described in Section 2.6. Table 4.4.2 gives
the value of C3 which is the Seismicity/Performance Objective
Adjustment Factor.

TABLE 4.4.2 SEISMICITY/PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE ADJUSTMENT

FACTOR (C 3 )

SEISMICITY PERFORMANCEOBJECTIVE

LIFE SAFETY DAMAGE CONTROL IMMEDIATE

.________________ OCCUPANCY
Low 0.61 0.71 1.21

Moderate 0.70 0.85 1.40

High 0.89 1.09 1.69
Very High 1.18 1.43 2.08

* Step 4 Location Adjustment Factor

Table 4.3.4 provides the state by state value for CL which is the
Adjustment Factor for the location of the building. Inventories
could be broken up into regions using the average of states in the
region. Table 4.3.5 gives values for selected large cities. This
factor compares the purchasing power of the dollar in each State
with respect to Missouri. It is based on in-depth analysis of the
factors affecting the cost of construction in each state, as
described in Section 3.3. These factors include the cost of
materials and labor. Volume 2 contains a detailed description of
this factor.

4-15
* Step 5 Time Adjustment Factor

Table 4.3.6 provides values for CTwhich is an adjustment factor that

projects costs beyond the 1993 cost database assuming different
rates of inflation. The user selects the rate of inflation.

* Step 6. Confidence Range

Use Table 4.4.3. The values in Table 4.4.3 indicate confidence limits
that are less than those given in Table 4.3.7 in Option 1. This
reduction in the limits results from the increased confidence in the
estimates that follow from the introduction of the performance
objective into the process.

TABLE 4.4.3 CONFIDENCE LIMITS FOR OPTION 2

COST ESTIMATES

NUMBER OF CONFIDENCE LIMITS

BUILDINGS
90% 75% 50%

CCRL CCRU CCRL CCRU CCRL CCRU

1 0.25 4.07 0.34 2.88 0.49 2.06

2 0.44 2.27 0.56 1.77 0.71 1.40

5 0.60 1.68 0.70 1.44 0.81 1.24

10 0.69 1.44 0.77 1.29 0.86 1.16

50 0.85 1.18 0.89 1.12 0.94 1.06

100 0.89 1.12 0.92 1.08 0.95 1.05

500 0.95 1.05 0.96 1.04 0.98 1.02

1000 0.96 1.04 0.97 1.03 0.99 1.01

4.5 TYPICAL STRUCTURAL COSTS USING OPTION 3

Options 1 and 2 were developed in order to enable the user to arrive at a

cost estimate using tables. The development of the values in the tables for
the various adjustment factors in Cost Equation (4.2.1) or (4.3.1) "smoothed
out" local variations based on mathematical averaging techniques and
engineering judgement. This smoothing assures the user of having
reasonable values of cost estimates even when the actual data for a
particular set of inventory values might be small or even zero. In addition,
the smoothing process eliminated counterintuitive values derived purely

4-16

from the database that may have been caused by small inventory values
or unrepresentative buildings. Options 1 and 2 are less statistically precise
than Option 3. When the typical -cost is being determined by a
knowledgeable structural engineer who can review the original database
and evaluate the results of Option 3 with experience, Option 3 will provide
the best statistical estimate of typical costs.

The equation used to calculate the typical cost in Option 3 is:

C = Cc (Area)Xl (# of Stories)X3 (Age)X2 X4 X5 X6 (4.5.1)

where

Cc = Statistically based constant.

X1 = Statistically based variable whose value depends on the

building group.

X2 = Statistically based variable whose value depends on the

building group.

X3 = Statistically based variable whose value depends on the

building group.

X4 = Statistically based variable whose value depends on the

building seismicity and performance objective and the
building group.

X5 = Statistically based variable whose value depends on the

building occupancy class and the building group.

X6 = Statistically based variable whose value depends on the

occupancy condition during seismic rehabilitation and the
building group.

This option is the most statistically rigorous option. The values of the
regression parameters were calculated using linear regression on the super
database cost data. This produces the most accurate estimate of the cost
since all the relevant parameters are included in the analysis. This
procedure captures the behavior of the cost data as a function of several
factors described in detail in Volume 2 such as the age, the area, the
seismicity, the performance objective etc.. The values of Cc and the
regression parameters X1 through X6 are given in Table 4.5.1. Table 4.5.3
shows the number of original cost data points that existed for each of the

4-17

noted combinations. Equation 4.5.1 provides an estimate of the mean

value of the typical structural cost. The lower and upper bounds for the
typical costs for different confidence levels and for different numbers of
buildings in the inventory are given in Table 4.5.4.

Users are urged to employ both Option 2 and Option 3 together and
carefully compare the results for consistency. Typical costs determined by
Option 3 most accurately represent the contents of the existing database.
More information about the proposed rehabilitation is required than with
Option 1 and 2 and this information is used to determine a "best fit" cost
based solely on a statistically rigorous analysis of the database. However,
due to the high variability of rehabilitation costs, even within groups of
buildings with similar characteristics, and the inconsistent quantity and
quality of data for buildings in the various categories, this option may yield
inconsistent to counterintuitive results for some combinations of variables.
For example, in certain circumstances, the costs may appear to increase
going from higher to lower seismic zones orfrom higher performance levels
to lower ones. As the typical cost database is increased in size and
completeness, these inconsistencies should be minimized or disappear, and
this option will produce the most representative typical costs with the
greatest flexibility in input parameters. Using the currently available
database, this option can be useful to experienced evaluators who would
incorporate appropriate parameter studies and apply their judgement to the
results.

A full discussion of the methodology and assumptions related to this option

can be found in Volume 2 of this study.

4-18

 TABLE 4.5.1 VALUES OF REGRESSION VARIABLES

COEFF. CATE- BUILDING GROUP

GORY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Cc - 151.9 1.2 13.5 36.9 182.5 137.6 59.2 86.5

Xi - -0.23 -0.02 -0.26 -0.15 -0.30 -0.11 -0.26 -0.28

X2 - 0.02 0.52 0.60 0.18 0.19 -0.50 0.40 0.14

X3 0.28 -0.28 1.06 0.43 0.21 -0.71 0.40 0.53

1 0.28 0.48 0.51 0.48 0.53 0.58. 0.47 0.61

2 2.65 0.61 0.41 2.55 0.46 0.73 1.20 0.64

3 1.16 0.72 1.25 0.72 1.07 1.27 0.97 0.43

4 0.57 1.31 0.70 1.03 1.22 0.90 1.74 1.02

X4
(See 5 0.69 0.40 0.35 0.52 0.76 0.83 0.67 0.44
Table- -

4.5.2 6 0.57 0.67 1.03 0.52 0.14 0.30 0.32 2.27

below) --- _ _ _ _­

7 0.76 1.17 0.96 1.01 1.23 0.42 0.81 1.42

8 2.30 2.53 1.01 1.02 1.30 0.43 1.40 1.61

9 1.48 1.12 1.20 1.17 1.25 1.35 1.10 1.86

10 1.28 1.31 1.16 0.62 2.71 3.21 1.25 1.38

11 1.60 1.24 3.23 1.28 1.89 2.12 1.57 0.46

12 2.09 1.10 2.15 2.10 1.44 2.36 1.54 1.89

-4 24.27 1.09 1.09 0.26 1.19 1.48 1.15 0.45

M 0.76 0.43 0.59 4.50 0.45 0.56 0.85 0.36

X5 R 0.48 0.90 2.19 0.75 2.72 1.11 0.32 1.09

F 0.98 0.91 0.99 1.03 0.39 0.54 0.96 2.21

I 0.97 1.35 1.00 0.82 1.29 0.47 1.17 0.96

C 0.82 0.94 1.47 1.01 0.81 0.73 2.48 1.25

A 0.83 2.22- .53 1.33 0.91 4.77 1.33 2.16

IP** 0.69 1.78 1.00 0.77 1.11 0.63 0.93 0.69

X6
TR 1.12 1.13 0.96 1.44 1.28 1.94 1.08 1.21

V 1.30 0.50 1.04 0.90 0.70 0.81 0.99 1.20

Notes:
*Occupancy Class: See Table 2.6.1
**Occupancy Condition: See Table 2.6.2

4-19
 TABLE 4.5.2 CATEGORY FOR CONSTANT X4
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
DAMAGE IMMEDIATE
SEISMICITY LIFESAFETY CONTROL OCCUPANCY

Low 1 5 9

Moderate 2 6 10

High 3 7 11

Very High 4 8 12

TABLE 4.5.3 NUMBER OF DATA POINTS AVAILABLE IN EACH CELL

COEFF. CATE- BUILDING GROUP

GORY

I .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 0 0 .0 >g
0 1

2 0 4 12 1 .

3 42 12 33 48 11 15 14 21

X4 4 151 16 32 57 14 13 5 90
X4 - - _

(See Table 5 13 5 11 6 0 0 8
4.5.2 . ­

above) 6 42 15 32 a 17

7 15 34 10 27 8 14 26

8 8 9 10 22 12 7 ! 48

10 20 0 6 44 2 4 0
11 7 6 10 15
is 9

12 e 15 10 27 9 8 6 32

P 1 0 0 11 .0 0> . 10 |

m 75 1 a . 0 1 5

X5 r 14 10 a 14 . . 24
f 43 5 41 23 18 33 5 34

I 120 78 38 172 23 11 43 104

c 48 8 25 64 12 6 36

a 6 10 10 12 1 4 28

ip 89 10 27 46 13 14 7 29
X6
tr 160 77 76 198 35 31 48 153

I v 58 26 16 53 9 4 6 [ I
otes: The number of data in shaded cells Is equal to or leas than 4.

4-20
TABLE 4.5.4 CONFIDENCE LIMITS FOR OPTION 3 COST ESTIMATES

NUMBER OF CONFIDENCE LEVELS

BUILDINGS 0
0 ~~~~90% 75% - 50 -E

| _ CCRL CCRU CCRL CCRU

1 0.34 2.90 0.45 2.21 0.59 1.70

2 0.52 1.91 0.64 1.57 0.77 1.30
5 0.66 1.50 0.75 1.33 0.85 1.18

10 0.75 1.33 0.82 1.22 0.89 1.13

50 0.88 1.13 0.91 1.09 0.95 1.05

100 0.91 1.09 0.94 1.07 0.96 1.04

500 0.96 1.04 0.97 1.03 0.98 1.02

1000 0.97 1.03 0.98 1.02 0.99 1.01

4-21

APPENDIX A

FEMA - Data Collection Guideline 5

DO NOTUSEI field mber: .C E V I

.UAWUWA Phone Date
B. Building Identification (optional)
C Site Location (countystate) cominerZane(if .. ,c
D. NEHRP/UBC Soil Type: SiS2 _ S3 a4 PeNur of stomnes: abe gm
F. Total Area (sq. f.):
G. Approximate Year of Original Construction _.
IL Model Building Type: (ore rehabilitation)
(se U.)
redu tinc.
risk bdovgrade

....o..................1
datsebly A_

_on:

wood light frame ................................... Wi_ actoy/ns s ...................

F
wood (commercial or industrial) .................................. w2_ modiitued

oestduingwals .........................

steel moment frame ............. SI_ da .........................

esidee R.

steel braced frame ........... s2_ comla riaon e . C

........................

steel light frame ........... s3_ p ngd....................... P

steel frame with concrete shear walls............................ __ retil/awbl

......................... .. M

steel frame with infill shear walls ................................. ss Ote:

concrete moment frame ................................. ci..... 0.

concrete shear walls................................. c2 _

concrete frame with infill shear walls ......................... C3a risksaiety

life ieduclion .........................
....................... ............
S

precast concrete tilt-up walls ................................ rci_ d m ge contral ............................. = c

precast concrete frame with concete shear walls ........ rc_ iazediate acy ..................... 1

reinforced masonry w/ metal or wood diaphragm .......RMi_ P.:,RehabilitationMethod(s):

reinforced masony wJprecast concrete diaphragm .... Rm2_ added shea walls;....................... .... sw

unreinforced masonry............................... URaM_

; added b d fiames ............ YESFNO

other (please describe): Performance

addedmoets (arh.ObjectivseW ... ) ..... Y S... MN
YE N _
modified eeing Wats .....................

L Historic building controls: YESNO_ modified existigfames .......................UF_

isolaton ................................... Is

J. BASE YEAR for cost:_ added da ping ............................. AD _

stegthened diaphragm......................SD­

K TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $ (see U.) strengthened found~atos ...................... s _

paae bracing............................. PsB_

L Source of cost: actual construction(Ac) study(s) URM or tilt-up wgallties ........................WT

sgrengtheftedMA-gioryonly .................. _ss-

M. Overall scope of non-seismnicwork: Q. Non isiniicvrork included in total gMnsguiqR=o:

minimum work required .............. MbN_
MI aos YES _N0_

uiazrdousmaterial removal ...........

additional improvements............ ADD _ disabled aIcoffl ........................... .MS_ NO-

complete renovation of interior ...co _ systemit poemepts (arch., N.E.P) .... YES.... NO_
added space (please give sq.) _ YE
repair of tdamage/desenioxatio.................. N0_

otr: _
RLCondition of occupanc :
occupants-in-placep)_ occupan temporarily removedcd)_ vcanEt
S. §Me of seismic rehabilitation wok: NtEvaluted(NE) Evaluated and Mmc) Included in Co I
I Structure .
2 Exterior falling hazards
3 Selected interior nonructural
4 All interior nonstructural
T. STRUCTURAL COST (total of items 1 & 2 in S. including contractor'soverhead & profit):__ (see U.)

U. Estimate of uncertain in data provided: < 5% (a) 5-10019(F) > I1f%(P)

Area ~see F.) II
Total Construction Cost (see K;)
Structural Cost (see T.)
Additionalinfonnationto be provided(ifavailable:
V.Non-ConstructionProjectCosts: X. ConstructionCots (S or V of costin K):
* occupantrelocation........................ o repair of damage/deteirioration ............

_

* A & E fees,testing,permits............ a haado materialremoval : ___............

,e projectnanagement .............. _... o disabledaccess

...............................

o systemimprovements..........

W.Dwation of Construction(months) a nonstructnralmitigation...........

A-I1
FBMA - Supplemental Data Collection Guideline

Y.Plan Siape: U jQEQ..j1a)_ OthetaD: Z. Base Dimesios_ _ ,,

AA. Typical Floor Pln Dnnmons_ _ BB.Stoly Height: CC. Total Heih. .

DD. Roof/For Fming (2nd FMor+ R P IL Columns/Bearing WalLs C BW

woodjois/gluelams
............ W-- tier....................... C_ __-_

truss pists/timber trUses ........T_ - concrete

....................
selbeams
.................... s_ _
steel. ................. _

aoetebeab................. C_ _ F _ _

precastconretP .e.................
flatslabs.. .............. P- reinforcedmasonry........

RM_
N ­

_....
other(pleasedes e _ _ _ descri: .........
oeforedmasemy UR______

describe):

oteur(please

EL Diaphrag
wood(sheafting or plywood) ......... W_ J.Foundations:

metal deck w/ amcrete fill ...... ... M _- spread footingp .................... SF_

metaldeck w/o fill ......

wncrete b
. MD.... concretemat ....................... _

cost-i-place CorA'ete ................ C__ ......................

les/caissons
_

preca ...................

stcoee PC_ other (pleasedescribe):_ _ _ _

steeltrus ......................... * ST_

other(plase describe)_
gitudinal lateral Systen
XL LonA
emnnfrius...........MF_

bracedframes ................... B _...

FE. Exterior Non-Load Bearing Caddmg

cw_ shearwalls
....................... _

......................
cutaainwall
Precast.......................... PC_
other (please describe):
masonxy.......................... M_

other (please desarbe_.__

LL Trnansverse Lateral System:
moment . ..................
frames _

GG. Evidence of SettHn .........YESNO_ braced*as ............... ....... BF_

shearwalls....................... SW_

MULCondition of Bldg: ... Gaad_ Fi__ FM other (pleasedescribe):

mhL Code or DesignGuideline Usedfo R t ___

NN. SpecialFeatures (r ua e, to partitions, etc._ ......

00, Rehabilitation Work Completed

.?-hl

- a-

A-2
Existing Standards and Performance Objectives

Exdsting Standard 1Equivalent SpecificConcern of Standard

Performance
. : ~~~~Objectve: :
ATC-22/ATC-26-1 life Safety (DProtectoccupantsand general public
ATC-14 Life Safety aD
'90 BOCA National Life Safety (!
Bldg. Code
CA Title 24- Hospitals Immediate Occupancy (DUseof building immediately following EQ
CA Title 24 - Schools Damage Control CDProtectoccupantsthat are not fully able to help themselves
FEMA 178 Life Safety C
FEMA 95 - New Damage Control OMinfiize the hazard to life in all buildings
Buildings
GSA Seismic Design Damage Control (DResista minor earthquakewithout damage
Manual Resist moderateearthquakewithout structural damagebut with
some nonstructuraldamage
Resist a major earthquakewith damagebut without collapse
H-O8-8(VA) - Hospitals Immediate Occupancy 0
H-O8-8(VA) - most DamageControl (D
otherbuildings
City of Long Beach - Life Safety (D
Existing Bldgs.
MassachusettsState Code Life Safety 11
SiteSpecific Response Life Safety (D
SiteSpecific Response Damage Control C)
Site Specific Response Immediate Occupancy (0
SBCCSouthern Bldg. Life Safety CD
Code
DOD Tn-Services - ImmediateOccupancy 0)
Essential Buildings
1992 Tri-Services Damage Control CD
Manual
'88,'91 UBC (1=1.0) Damage Control 0
'88,91 UBC (1=1.25) Immediate Occupancy (D
< '88 UBC Life Safety (D
UCBC Life Safety (D
DOE-STD-1020-92 ImmediateOccupancy (DUseof building immediatelyfollowing EQ and containmentof
Moderate & High hazardousmaterials
DOE-STD-1020-92 DamageControl CDProtectoccupantsand prevent release of hazardousmaterials
Low & General Use

For questions concerning the Data Collection Guideline, please call H.J. Degenkolb Associates,
(415) 392-6952 (Jeff Soulages)

Please return the completed Guidelines to: Jeff Soulages

H.J. Degenkolb Associates
350 Sansome St. #900
San Francisco, CA 94104

FAX # (415) 981-3157

A-3
 Guideline Notes:
C Location of building. Indicate seismic zone used for 0. The performance objectives are:
rehabilitation if it has been changed since the date of erisk reduction - rehabilitating parts or portions of
the rehabilitation project a structure without considering the entire
D. Soil profile type based on either NEHRP Handbook structure for life-safety or greater performance.
for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings o life-safety - allows for unrepairable damage as
(FEMA 178) or the Uniform Building Code. long as life is not jeopardized and ingress or
E. Include new stories that were added. egress routes are not blocked.
F. Total area is the total square footage of the building e damage control - protect some feature or function

including basements and added space. of the building beyond life-safety, such as
H. Model building type is based upon the fifteen protecting building contents or preventing the
building types described in the NEHRP Handbook release of toxic materials.
(FEMA 178). This applies to the original building, o immediate occupancy - minimal post-earthquake
not the structural system used for rehabilitation. damage and disruption with some nonstructural
L Historic building controls refers to whether or not repairs and cleanup
special consideration was taken for preserving the P. Rehabilitation method used for building.
historic character of the building. Q. Non-seismic work included in total construction cost
J. Base year for costs is the bid date for construction or are those items which do not improve the seismic
the year used for the cost estimate in the study. performance of the building. These may have been
X The total construction cost is the bid amount or the "triggered" by the seismic work or done voluntarily.
cost estimate from a detailed seismic study including The third item refers to architectural improvements,
the contractor's overhead, profit, and contingency as well as mechanical, electrical, or plumbing
costs. Also include change orders if known to add (M.E.P.) improvements.
significant cost. If the cost due to change orders is IL. Condition of occupancy is the location of the
unknown, indicate this in item U. Not included in occupants during the construction.
this cost are the costs shown in item V. o occupants-in-place - work is scheduled around
L Source of total construction cost is either an actual normal hours of occupancy
rehabilitation project which has been completed or e occupants temporarily removed - occupants are

an estimate from the study of the projected movedto another room in the building during
rehabilitation of a particular building. A study is a construction
schematic design of a specific building. A study does * vacant - the building is completely vacated during
not include a 'cost per square foot' study as in construction
FEMA 1561157or a cost estimation based on the S. Scope of seismic rehabilitation work refers to any
rapid screening process described in FEMA 154. items which were rehabilitated: the main structure,
M. Overall scope of non-seismic work is divided into exterior falling hazards such as precast panels and
three categories: 1) minimum work is doing 'just parapets, or interior elements such as equipment and
enough" to satisfy local code requirements, 2) light fixtures.
moderate improvements are those done voluntarily T. Structural cost is the cost of the construction of the
without doing a 3) complete renovation of the structural elements necessary to rehabilitate the
interior, which implies that the seismic rehabilitation building and reduce exterior falling hazards. This
work does not increase the level of architectural work cost includes the contractor's overhead and profit. It
which is already a major portion of the project. does not include items such as demolition and
Added space refers to additional stories or replacement costs for architectural finishes or
expansions of the bldg space. M.E.P. systems. If the exact figure is not known,
N. Occupancy classifications are as follows: please approximate.
• assembly - theatres, churches, or other assembly U. The estimate of uncertainty relates to the data
buildings. collectionprocess (not the uncertainty inherent in a
e industrial/factory/warehouse - factories, cost estimate or study). If the area andlor costs
assembling plants, industrial laboratories, provided are guesses, indicate >10% uncertainty. If
storage, etc. the data is documented or recollectionis very
• institutionalieducational - schools, hospitals, accurate, indicate <5%.
prisons, etc. V. Non-construction project costs should be provided as
• residential - houses, hotels, and apartments. an amount or percentage of the total construction
e commercial/office - all buildings used for the cost for each of the items presented.
transaction of business, for the rendering of W. Please estimate duration of rehabilitation project.
professional services, or for other services that X. Additional components of the construction cost.
involve limited stocks of goods or merchandise. Please provide an amount or percentage of the total
* parking - parking garages or structures. construction cost for each of the items presented.
• retail/mall - retail stores or shopping malls.

A-4
APPENDIX B

 REFERENCES

1. Americans with Disabilities Act Handbook, ADA 1991., Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission and the U.S. Department of
Justice, Washington, D.C. , October 1991.

2. Establishing Programs and Priorities for the Seismic Rehabilitation

of Buildings, Building Systems Development, Inc., A Handbook
and Supporting Report, FEMA 174 & 173. Washington D.C.,
FEMA, 1989.

3. Seismic Costs and Policy Implications, Comerio, Mary C., George

Miers & Associates, San Francisco, CA, 1989.

4. Typical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings,

Englekirk & Hart Consulting Engineers, Vol I & II, FEMA 156 &
157, Washington D.C., FEMA, 1988.

5. Socioeconomic and Engineering Study of Seismic Retrofitting

Alternatives for Oakland's Unreinforced MasonryBuildings, Recht
Hausrath & Associates, Oakland, CA, March 1993.

6. A Benefit-Cost Model for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,

VSP Associates, Vol. I & II, FEMA 227 & 228, Washington D.C.,
FEMA, 1991.

B-1

APPENDIX C

 ADVISORY PANEL

PANEL MEMBER FIRM

Gregg Brandow Brandow & Johnston Assoc.,

1660 W 3rd Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Gordon Beverage Hanscomb Associates, Inc.
750 Battery Steet, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94111
James Cagley Cagley & Associates, inc.
6141 Executive Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20852
Eric Elsesser Forell/Elsesser Engineers
539 Bryant Street
San Francisco, CA 90404

David Hattis Building Technology

1109 Spring Street
Silver Spring, MD 20910
James Hill James A. Hill & Assoc.
1349 East 28th Street
Signal Hill, CA 90806
John Hooper Ratti, Swenson, Perbix
1411 Fourth Avenue BuildingSuite 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Arthur Johnson KPFF Consulting Engineers
707 S.W. Washington Street,Suite 600
Portland, OR 97205
Kenneth Luttrell Cole, Yee, Schubert & Assoc.
2500 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95833
Frank McClure Frank E. McClure S.E.
54 Sleepy Hollow Lane
Orinda, CA 94563

Mike Mehrain Dames & Moore

911 Wilshire Blvd./ Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90017

C-1
 PANEL MEMBER FIRM

Lawrence Reaveley Reaveley Engineers & Associates

1515 South 1100 East
_Salt Lake City, UT 84105
John Shipp EQE Engineering and Design
181 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400
___ __ ___ __ I!rvine, CA 92715
John Theiss Theiss Engineers, Inc.
1300 Convention Plazq
St. Lous, MO 63103
Patrick Vujovich Buehler & Buehler Assoc.
7300 FolsomBlvd., Suite 103
Sacramento, CA 95826
Ted Winstead Allen & Hoshall
2430 Poplar Ave
Memphis, TN 38182
Domenic Zigant Department of the Navy
Western Division,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
900 Commodore Drive
San Bruno, CA 940Q6-2402
Joe Zona Simpson Gumpertz and Heger
297 Broadway
Arlington, MA 0)21
74

C?2

 C 7 g : i: ::: w

. * 1 2 ,. ,: ]; ,,; aft ' ,'; ' *

D : 0 : - : f 7; f fF rS: . r * S W. . sG S o r : w l

; f \ X [ 2 t - J S n: {J:- :

z E : - :
. t

: ' ' : f
: .: Hi. ![fi! b 0

- . ? r g

; ' r

:::
r { \ < S? f i

\ :
g l i

: n S ? 2

-: APPENDIX D