Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fema 156
Fema 156
Second Edition
TypicalCostsfor Seismic Rehabilitation
of Existing Buildings
Volume 1 - Summary
x x4
ZZ
^ AA ^^ AAAAAA
AA..A. ..
^^
^^ AA..AA. .. 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
j
PREFACE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
1.1 General
1-1
1.2 Definition of Terms
1-3
1.3 Database Characteristics 1-6
First Edition
DEFINITIONS
of Cost Components
2.3 Seismic Related Construction Costs 2-4
Construction Costs
2.5 Non-Construction Costs 2-7
COSTS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
1-2
1.2 DEFINITION OF TERMS
* 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.
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.
1-4
z
rn
-I
A.
I 35
U W
TABLE 1.2.3 PERFORMANCE CATEGORIES
1-6
acm
C
: @
.0
co
4 5 6
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
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
700
600
co 500
3 400
ax
I am '300
E
Z 200
100
0
Life Safety Damage Control Immediate Occupancy
Performance Category
1 -8
ma.
0o
.0
I
Zvi
0 9
;oow
s
~ 6.:l
A:
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:
1-10
LI..
ISCO
q,
ian
a;
M o
0
| 0
:~~~~-
1-12
- / o~~~~
Building Area
/~~~~~~ *Building Locaftion
* Construction Start Date
* Number of BuildingsIn the Inventory
Statistical Theory
Regression Analysis
Equation
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.
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
1-15
1-16
1-17
TABLE 1.6.4 TYPICAL STRUCTURAL COSTS FOR LOW SEISMICITY
1-18
1-19
.
.
: . . ;:
.
.
i; .
2.1 GENERAL
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.
2-2
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
2-3
TABLE2.2.2 DIRECT REHABILITATIONCOST COMPONENTS AS
DEFINED IN THIS STUDY
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.
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.
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.
2-7
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.
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
.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. )
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
2-1 1
450
360
W
I
to
270
0
180
E
z
sF .
5 7 11 13 15 no-inform.
Number of Stories
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)
2-12
Figure 2.6.4 shows the number of buildings in the database as a
function of age.
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
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.
3-1
rehabilitation projects. Firms and individuals on the lists
were contacted, the project explained in brief and their help
requested in collecting the data.
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
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.
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).
3-3
TABLE 3.4.1 QUALITY/RATING DATE OF STUDY
Actual Poor 2
Actual Fair 3
Actual Good 4
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:
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
0 t,
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
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
3-9
CHAPTER 4 DETERMINATION OF TYPICAL
COSTS
4.1 GENERAL
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
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.
Moderate 15 2 2
High 15 2 2
Very High 88 14 9
4-2
Low 2 2 2
Moderate 3 24 5
High 34 17 0
Very High 23 2 16
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
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
4-4
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 $17.31
STEP2 TABLE.4.3.3
T4< , .
STEP4 TABLE4.3.6
'I
STEPS TABLE4.3.7
BUILDINGINVENTORYSIZE Number of Buldings
& Confidence Level
)
Ct
Confidence Range
EXPECTEDCOST
C1 XC2XCLXCT
LOWERUMIT
-- -
-~~ -
v%.
T
CL X CX CCRL
CIX C2XC
E ~XUPPERUMIT
C X CG
_4
O URM 0 Si
O W1, W2 0 S2, S3
O PC1,RM1 0 S5
O C1, C3 0 C2, PC2, RM2, S4
• InflationRate %
* Cost Adjustment Factor CTfrom Table 4.3.6 CTC
STRUCTURAL
TYPICAL COST
(C = CLX C2 X CCX CTC) _
C = /Sq. ft.
_.
5. DESIREDCONFIDENCELEVEL
S Confidence Percentage: U
O Very Narrow (90%) O Narrow (75%) O Moderate (50%)
11 Number of Buildings in Group:
El 1n 2 11 1110 O3 50 O 100 O 500 O 1000 or more
ib CCRU
Conf idence Range Coefficients CcRLI from Table 4.3.7 CCRL=
~~~~~CCRU=
TYPICAL STRUCTURAL COSTS
Mean = C
4-6
The Typical, Structural Cost is estimated using the equation:
C= CA C2 CL CT (4.3.1)
where
= Typical Structural Cost to Seismically
C
Rehabilitate a Building ($/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.
1 URM 15.29
2 W1, W2 12.29
4 C1, C3 20.02
5 Si 18.86
6 S2, S3 7.23
7 55 24.01
4-7
* Step 2 Area Adjustment Factor
Area BUILDINGGROUP
(Sq. ft)
Very Large 0.80 1.64 0.57 0.84 0.83 0.51 0.87 0.83
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
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
OHIO 0.99
OKLAHOMA 0.88
OREGON 0.99
PENNSYLVANIA 1.01
TENNESSEE 0.86
TEXAS 0.86
UTAH 0.89
VERMONT 0.87
VIRGINIA 0.84
WASHINGTON 1.02
WISCONSIN 0.97
WYOMING 0.86
4-10
TABLE 4.3.5 LOCATION ADJUSTMENT FACTOR (SELECTED CITIES)
DENVER 0.91
MEMPHIS 0.86
PORTLAND 0.99
SEATTLE 1.02
ST. LOUIS 1.00
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.
4-12
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
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:
4-13
TABLE 4.4.1 OPTION 2 COST ESTIMATION FORM
[ COST ESTIMATION OPTION 2
* Inflation Rate 6% CT =
Mean = C
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.
SEISMICITY PERFORMANCEOBJECTIVE
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
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.
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.
where
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
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.
4-18
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
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
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
4-21
APPENDIX A
.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:
F
wood (commercial or industrial) .................................. w2_ modiitued
oestduingwals .........................
esidee R.
precast concrete frame with concete shear walls ........ rc_ iazediate acy ..................... 1
reinforced masony wJprecast concrete diaphragm .... Rm2_ added shea walls;....................... .... sw
isolaton ................................... Is
stegthened diaphragm......................SD
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.)
...............................
o systemimprovements..........
A-I1
FBMA - Supplemental Data Collection Guideline
woodjois/gluelams
............ W-- tier....................... C_ __-_
....................
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_
preca ...................
other(plase describe)_
gitudinal lateral Systen
XL LonA
emnnfrius...........MF_
......................
cutaainwall
Precast.......................... PC_
other (please describe):
masonxy.......................... M_
shearwalls....................... SW_
- a-
A-2
Existing Standards and Performance Objectives
For questions concerning the Data Collection Guideline, please call H.J. Degenkolb Associates,
(415) 392-6952 (Jeff Soulages)
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
B-1
APPENDIX C
ADVISORY PANEL
C-1
PANEL MEMBER FIRM
C?2
C 7 g : i: ::: w
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