Twelve Appeals: Seismic Upgrading of Building Elements

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1008-DR
ApplicantLos Angeles County
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#037-910XX
PW ID#Multiple
Date Signed1999-02-23T05:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1008-DR, PA 037-91014, -91025, -91031, -91032, -91033, -91034, -91036. DSR #'s: 46741, 02489, 63077, 83677, 47502, 02430, 87862, 14906, 35860, 46524, 47547, 77635. Second Appeals by Los Angeles County for seismic upgrading of building elements damaged in the Northridge Earthquake as justified by provisions of the Los Angeles Building Code.

Cross-Reference: Subject: Stafford act Section 406(e)(1): Codes and Standards; Northridge Earthquake FEMA/OES Memorandum of Understanding (MOU); local building official; "loss of capacity" calculations.

Summary: The County claims that section 3403 of the LA County Building Code (UBC with Amendments) (LACBC) requires that damaged elements must be upgraded to the current code requirements for new construction, including current force levels. The County also claims that, because of this requirement, the LACBC includes a "trigger" and thus the MOU does not apply, and that the MOU is invalid because it was not adopted following the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The County also raised other technical issues, and included in defense of their case, statements that certain of the buildings had lost a substantial amount of their lateral capacity.

Issues:
  1. Does the language of the UBC and LACBC mandate that repaired elements be upgraded when repaired?
  2. If so, is this a "trigger" as defined by the MOU,
  3. Is the MOU's adoption valid under the APA? and
  4. Are the technical issues valid? and Is the reported loss of capacity in some of the buildings an accurate indication of more severe earthquake damage than has been recognized by FEMA as eligible for repair?
Findings:
  1. The UBC and LACBC language provides that the repair must be done according to the Code. It does not require that the repaired element be redesigned and reconstructed to meet the requirements for new buildings under the building code. Thus, there is no upgrade "trigger."
  2. Because there is no "trigger," the MOU will be used for FEMA grant determination.
  3. The MOU is valid under the APA for several reasons including that because it does not apply Agency-wide, but rather to Public Assistance projects in only one disaster.
  4. The use of capacity loss as a basis that damage was so excessive as to justify seismic upgrade work is usually based on a false methodology, and the other technical issues raised have not been presented with new supporting documentation.
Rationale: FEMA has reviewed the primary Codes and Standards issue repeatedly, and has determined that the Code is clear on this issue. In addition, FEMA has determined that the opinions, and actions of the local building official may not be used by the Agency as a basis for eligibility determinations because of the Agency's sole responsibility for the awarding of grants.

Appeal Letter

February 23, 1999

Mr. D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741-9023

Dear Mr. Christian:

This letter is in response to your letters sent between September 18 and October 29, 1998, forwarding the second appeals of the Damage Survey Reports for twelve (12) different projects submitted by Los Angeles County to OES between July 20 and September 1, 1998. The applicant has requested funds for the seismic upgrading of the buildings or building elements beyond the amount already approved, based on their interpretation of requirements of the Los Angeles Building Code.

As explained in the enclosed analysis, FEMA has found that the County's claims are not supported by either the language of the LA County Building Code, or the FEMA/OES Memorandum of Understanding. In addition, none of the project specific technical claims have been found to be supported by the evidence. Accordingly, the applicant's appeal is denied.

Please inform the applicant of this determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.

Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate

Enclosure

cc: Christina Lopez
Federal Coordinating Officer
Northridge Long-Term Recovery Area Office

Appeal Analysis

The following 12 separate appeals are combined into a this response

y

Action #

PA # 037-

LAC Dept.

DSR#

Site name

Building name

1

0663

91014

Public Library District

46741

y

Baldwin Public Library

2

0655

91025

Health Serv.

77478 77479

MLK/Drew Med.Ctr.

Cooling Towers & Power Plant*

3

0657

91025

Health Services

02489

LACO

Bldg 2016, Crematoria

4

0664

91031

Chief Admin Office

63077

y

Hall of Justice**

5

0658

91032

Courts

83677

Rio Hondo

Municipal Court

6

0665

91032

Courts

47502

y

Pomona Superior Court

7

0666

91033

LAC/USC Med. Center

02430

Main Campus

Bldg 4711: Outpatient Clinic

8

0691

91033

LAC/USC Med. Center

87862

Main Campus

Parking Structure #12

9

0660

91034

Sheriff's Dept

14906

Central Jail

Visitor Parking Structure

10

0667

91034

Sheriff's Dept

35860

Central Jail

Jail Building

11

0661

91036

Internal Services

46524

DPSS/Health

Parking Structure

12

0662

91036

Internal Services

47547

Camp Glenn

Rocky Recreation Bldg.

13

0668

91036

Internal Services

77635

Camp Fred Miller

Gymnasium


*Project #2, the MLK/Drew Medical Center Cooling Towers and Power Plant will be reviewed separately because it appears to be subject to a different code than the other projects.
** The County has accepted a Grant Acceleration Program (GAP) final DSR for Project #4, The Hall of Justice project. Thus any issues specific to this one project are now moot, as the County has acceptono appeals provision of that program.


BACKGROUND
This response covers 12 separate Los Angeles County buildings damaged by the Northridge Earthquake. The second appeals are combined into a single response because the main issue raised by the County is the same for all of the cases. Any subordinate unique issues will be addressed as well under separate headings. The table on the next page provides a classification of the separate issues raised in these appeals for quick reference.

THE DAMAGE
All buildings experienced some form of structural damage that has precipitated the disagreements over the eligibility of structural upgrade work proposed to be done in conjunction with the repairs. The specific damages can be found described in the first appeal responses. Only those damages specifically relevant to this appeal response analysis will be described below.

DSRs WRITTEN
A listing of all of the DSRs for each project is not necessary for the completion of this Second Appeal Response. The specific DSRs under appeal are listed in the table at the beginning of this document.

SECOND APPEAL REQUEST
All of these appeals share the same basic eligibility claims by the County on codes and standards, while some also include other subordinate issues specific to the individual cases. The following table shows a classification of the appeal issues raised by project. All of these issues will be responded to in the discussion below, with reference to these individual appeals.

CLASSIFICATION OF APPEAL ISSUES BY PROJECT

y

y

y

y

y

APPEAL ISSUE

y

PA # 037-

DSR#

Site name

Building name

1

2

3

4

1

91014

46741

y

Baldwin Public Library

?

y

y

y

2

91025

77478 77479

MLK/Drew Med.Ctr.

Cooling Towers & Power Plant

?

?

y

Appeal treated separately

3

91025

02489

LACO

Bldg. 2016, Crematoria

?

y

y

y

4

91031

63077

y

Hall of Justice

?

y

y

c

5

91032

83677

Rio Hondo

Municipal Court

?

?

?

e

6

91032

47502

y

Pomona Superior Court

?

?

?

d,e

7

91033

02430

Main Campus

Bldg. 4711: Outpatient Clinic

?

y

y

f

8

91033

87862

Main Campus

Parki5%"DLE">

?

y

?

f

9

91034

14906

Central Jail

Visitor Parking Structure

?

y

?

y

10

91034

35860

Central Jail

Jail Building

?

?

?

y

11

91036

46524

DPSS/Health

Parking Structure

?

?

y

y

12

91036

47547

Camp Glenn

Rocky Recreation Bldg.

?

?

y

y

13

91036

77635

Camp Fred Miller

Gymnasium

?

?

y

f (p10)


SECOND APPEAL ISSUES
Issue #1: CODES AND STANDARDS ISSUES
(1a) LAC Building code vs. MOU
(1b) Local Building Official Discretion

Issue #2: NEED FOR INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL REVIEW
Issue #3: CONCRETE CRACKS & EPOXY GROUTING
Issue #4: OTHER ISSUES
(4c) Seismic upgrade funded as "Hazard Mitigation"
(4d) Costs of Engineering Analysis classified as Grant Administration Expense
(4e) Justifications for extensions of time for DSR preparation.
(4f) Project specific technical issues & "capacity loss."


DISCUSSION
Issue #1a: [All Projects] (1) Whether seismic upgrade of structural elements, and building systems is required by the Los Angeles County Building Code (LACBC or Code) and thus is eligible, and (2) whether the FEMA/OES Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) applies.
The County disputes FEMA's determination that the simple repair of observed damages fulfills the mandate of the Stafford Act Section 406.(e) NET ELIGIBLE COST: ".the cost of repairing.a public facility. on the basis of the design of such facility as it existed immediately prior to the major disaster and in conformity with current applicable codes, specifications, and standards.shall, at a minimum, be treated as the net eligible cost of such repair.".

The County takes the following positions in regards to the codes and standards eligibility:Position #1: Section 3403.1&2 (formerly section 104f) of the LACBC (the Uniform Building Code, published by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) with Amendments) requires that individual damaged structural elements when repaired must be upgraded utilizing all of the design details and forces prescribed for new buildings in the Code. In addition, as a consequence of this, any other elements which are compromised by the changed loading and stiffness resulting from the upgraded elements must also be brought into new building code conformance. FEMA eligibility is thus based on Section 406 of the Stafford Act which states that the "cost of repairing ...a public facility.in conformity with current applicable codes shall at a minimum, be treated as the net eligible cost.." [emphasis added by subgrantee] The subgrantee takes the position that this provision of the act "shall at a minimum" remove FEMA's discretion on this issue.
Position #2: That the provisions of that section of the Code fulfill the definition of a "trigger," and thus the Code, rather than the MOU should take precedence for the FEMA eligibility.
Position #3: That the MOU was adopted by FEMA contrary to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and thus is invalid.
Section 3403.1&2 of the LACBC provides:"Buildings and structures to which additions, alterations or repairs are made shall comply with all the requirements of this code for new facilities except as specifically provided in this section.. Additions, alterations or repairs may be made to any building or structure without requiring the existing building or structure to comply with all the requirements of this code, provided the addition, alteration or repair conforms to that required for a new building or structure."The County takes the position that the "plain language" meaning of this section is that the repaired element must meet new building structural design (strength and stiffness) criteria consistent with new building code requirements. A necessary consequence of this is that many undamaged elements must also be upgraded to withstand the new load and stiffness demands, leading to the consequential requirement that much of the subject building's structural system would have to be upgraded at substantially higher cost than repairs to pre-earthquake capacity alone. In the DSRs and first appeal responses, FEMA disagrees.

The question of whether the LACBC requires upgrade work when repairs are done is a different question than the one of whether the cited provision in the code is a "trigger." In the case of the first question (Position 1), the issue is simply one of whether the approved repair scope includes upgrading of a damaged element and any elements negatively affected by the changes to be made (load path and stiffness, etc) to the affected element. In the case of the second question (Position 2), the issue is whether FEMA funding is to be determined by the upgrade trigger provisions of the MOU or not.

FEMA Response: The problem seems to surround a confusion in the meaning of the following sentence in Section 3403: "Additions, alterations or repairs may be made to any building or structure without requiring the existing building or structure to comply with all the requirements of this code, provided the addition, alteration or repair conforms to that required for a new building or structure." This sentence states that it is the repair which must conform to that required for a new building. It does not say that it is the repaired element that must so conform. While confusion may surround the fact that new buildings do not have "repairs," what is meant is that the work undertaken as the repair must conform to current code conforming construction practice.

For example: if the element involved is an assembly in which some repairable damage (a crack or cracks) have occurred, such as a shearwall, the cracks may be fixed under the Code without the entire wall being rebuilt to resist current code forces or contain current code steel reinforcing detailing. When the crack repair work is undertaken, it must be done in a code conforming manner. (In the case of many repair processes and technologies (epoxy grouting, for example), such "code conformance" involves the following of accepted engineering practices or industry approved guidelines for the execution of a technological based construction practice because the specific procedures do not appear in the Code.)
This interpretation is supported by the Commentary, published by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), the publishers of the Uniform Building Code, from which the LACBC is derived. This Commentary on Chapter 34 states: "3403.2 The present wording of this section will allow existing buildings to be.repaired.without complying with all of the provisions of the code as long as the new work complies with the code," [emphasis added]. The Commentary goes on to say that, when this is done, "compliance with forces at least equal to original design force levels seems to be implied." If the Code (the language in the UBC and LACBC is identical in this section) had mandated that all repair work, and new work of a strengthening nature, such as grouting a wall or augmenting a weakened beam, automatically mandated a complete redesign of the design and detailing of the element and all surrounding affected elements, then this statement in the Commentary would not have been written. It should also be noted that the latest version of the Code allows "voluntary strengthening" of a building's lateral-force-resisting-system as an exception to the rule that new work must fully comply with all applicable provisions of the current Code.

A more extensive analysis of the codes and standards issue can be found in the FEMA Second Appeal Analysis and Decision: Ford Assembly Building, City of Richmond, Calif, FEMA 845-DR-CA-013-60620 (Richmond/Ford), August, 1996.(1) This decision also formed the basis for the second appeal decision on the Klamath County (Oregon) Courthouse, FEMA 10004-DR-OR, PA 035-00000, December, 1996. An excerpt from the Richmond/Ford decision, page 17, which was repeated in Klamath County, page 9, states:Most building codes do not specifically address the repair of earthquake-damaged facilities and/or do not contain thresholds which, if met or exceeded, require that the entire facility be upgraded to meet current design, construction and occupancy standards applicable to new facilities. These thresholds are commonly referred to as "triggers" and are typically based on either the amount or degree of damage suffered (damage triggers) or the cost or extent of repair required to remedy that damage (repair triggers).

In carrying out its statutory authority under Section 406 of the Stafford Act to fund disaster-related restoration work, FEMA recognizes, as eligible, costs associated with work that is responsive to the direct effects of a disaster, as well as costs of upgrade work imposed by operation of a code-mandated trigger that is reasonable and technically supportable in relation to the disaster damage. FEMA's position and practice in this regard is clearly consistent with the requirements of 44 CFR 206.223(a)(1) which states that, to be eligible for Public Assistance Program funding, an item of work must be required as a result of a major disaster event and 44 CFR 206.226(b)(1) which applies...specifically to code-mandated upgrade work.

By requiring that a standard which changes the pre-disaster construction of a building "apply to the type of repair or restoration required," FEMA made clear its intention that to be eligible upgrade work must be reasonably related to the performance of repair work necessitated by the disaster event itself.

The CBC is the "prevailing code" applicable to the structural repair of the Facility. The CBC itself contains no earthquake damage or repair triggers applicable to the facility. The CBC requires only that the repair work itself be carried out in a code-compliant manner. It is FEMA's position that the CBC, therefore, requires that damaged structural elements (such as the columns) be repaired using CBC-approved materials and "present day" construction methods that restore the pre-disaster capacity and stiffness of the damaged elements to the greatest extent practicable. Because the CBC, the current applicable code, is silent with respect to the nature and extent of upgrading work required as a result of earthquake-related damage or repairs, the eligible scope of work for the facility.includes only work which is required to repair disaster damage in a code-compliant manner. [In this case, "code compliant" means the work that, in an engineer's judgment, is sufficient to] remove the specific life safety risks caused by the earthquake (rather than any [general code] deficiencies that existed before).
County Position 2: The LACBC Section 3403 fulfills the definition of a "trigger."
FEMA Response: Because the answer to Position 1 is that no special seismic upgrade requirements are mandated beyond that the fact that the repair work on the damage itself must conform to the code, the LACBC, along with most UBC based codes, does not contain "triggers" as meant by FEMA and OES when the MOU was drafted. FEMA and the State of California signed this MOU on March 3, 1994 for just this purpose. It is important to note that, when certain conditions are met, this MOU only provides benefits to subgrantees. In regard to the Subgrantee's claim that it does "withdraw benefits previously provided by FEMA," it does not, nor cannot, withdraw any work from FEMA eligibility that would otherwise be available without it.

It is the upgrade "trigger" provisions of the MOU that apply for the determination of the level of FEMA funding for these projects.

County Position 3: The MOU was adopted by FEMA contrary to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and thus is invalid.
FEMA Response: The Subgrantee raises a new argument with regard to the applicability of the MOU. The Subgrantee asserts, as mentioned above, that the MOU attempts to "withdraw benefits previously provided by FEMA" and therefore it must comply with the rulemaking procedures set forth in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 552. The Subgrantee concludes by stating that the MOU does not comply with the APA and therefore cannot be applied to Los Angeles County. It is unclear, however, why the Subgrantee is making this argument since, even if the argument were valid (and it is not), it is clearly not to the Subgrantee's advantage.

The Stake conpair or replacement of certain facilities damaged by a major disaster on the basis of the design of those facilities as they existed prior to the disaster and in conformity with current applicable codes. In addition, the regulations provide that, to the extent a code changes the pre-disaster construction of a building, code-mandated upgrades may be eligible for funding if the code complies with the requirements of 44 CFR 206.226(b). The MOU applies default triggers for code upgrades where the applicable code does not contain such triggers. In the absence of triggers, the MOU provides that eligible costs may be determined based on the triggers contained in the MOU.

The Subgrantee argues that the MOU does not apply to the County because 1) the County has a building code that contains applicable code triggers (see: Position #2 above), and (2) the MOU does not comply with the APA. However, as determined in FEMA's response to the Subgrantee's first appeal, the LACBC does not contain such triggers. This determination would be the same regardless of whether the MOU did or did not apply to the Subgrantee's projects. Moreover, in the absence of such triggers, the MOU actually provides a benefit by including a triggering rule and threshold for including the cost of a code upgrade in the FEMA grant that would not otherwise be available.

In any event, we note that generally substantive rules of general applicability must comply with the APA. However, the MOU is not such a rule as it does not apply on an agency-wide basis. Rather, it was developed specifically for application to eligible projects damaged in the Northridge earthquake. In addition, to the extent that FEMA's disaster assistance programs are discretionary, they generally are not subject to the notice and comment provisions of the APA.

Issue #1b: Whether the building official's interpretation should be followed and all expenses necessary to restore lawful use covered by FEMA.
This issue has been responded to in prior appeal decisions beginning with the Third Appeal, San Francisco City Hall, May 27, 1994. It was subsequently added to in the Klamath County decision cited above. The following is from the Klamath County decision, which in turn quotes the San Francisco City Hall decision:"There is no provision within the Stafford Act that mandates that FEMA eligibility extend to cover all of a building official's requirements for a given repair project, or that FEMA pay all costs deemed necessary to obtain a building permit, or an occupancy permit. The "codes and standards" provision of the regulations is limited to the repairs of the disaster caused damage as determined by FEMA, based on FEMA's own inspection reports and requested documentation. Differences between what is determined to be eligible for funding, and the cost of what may be required by officials of state and local governments are likely to occur, and such differences do not become an obligation on FEMA.

An explanation of the legal basis for this can be found in the Third Appeal (FEMA Task Force) Response, San Francisco City Hall, May 27, 1994, page II.3, which provides the following quote:

"On the question of whether the building official's interpretations can have a direct bearing on FEMA funding without FEMA control, FEMA General Counsel has made the following finding in connection with the role of the building official's discretionary decisions vis-?-vis FEMA funding as quoted here:"The question of whether repairs require a complete seismic upgrade cannot be within the sole discretion of a local building official. This would wrest the authority to interpret and administer the Stafford Act and its implementing regulations from the Federal Government and place it in the hands of a local building official. This is particularly so when FEMA is charged with protecting the public fisc and the official is often an employee of the applicant." (Spence Perry, Acting GC to W. Medigovich, RD, Region 9, Feb. 12, 1993 p14)"
The County's position that FEMA's refusal to accept the local building official's discretionary opinions or project approval as a basis for FEMA eligibility constitutes a usurpation of the County's jurisdictional power has no merit. FEMA does not interfere with the role and responsibilities of the local building official, nor does FEMA disagree with the building official's jurisdiction over plan approval for repair work. The only issue here is the impact of the local building official's discretion on FEMA funding decisions, for which FEMA, not the building official, is solely responsible.

The Stafford Act provides for Federal assistance to local governments to aid in the recovery from disasters. Sometimes this assistance takes the form of the Federal Share of the entire cost of a given repair project, and at other times, depending on the particulars of a case, it covers a smaller percentage of the cost. This Federal assistance is not tied to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, or any other administrative action that a local building official may provide as approval of a project's design. Responsibility for obtaining such approvals remains the sole responsibility of the owner of the building.

FEMA has no role or responsibility under the Stafford Act either to represent a project to a local authority, or to fund any costs which may accrue from demands made by a local or state building official. This separation of responsibilities is complete. A local building official's demands, and building department's actions should have no bearing on FEMA's grant determination process.

Issue #2: Need for Independent Technical Review
While FEMA has, on rare occasions, agreed to submit specific structural issues on individual projects to an outside panel of experts for independent review, this is a very rare procedure, and even when it is done the result is not binding on FEMA. In all cases the decision on conducting such a review is at FEMA's discretion. It is not the general practice to do this. In the case of all of the appeals included in this Response, as can be seen below, the technical issues and facts involved in FEMA's estimation do not warrant such a procedure.

Issue #3: Concrete Cracks and Effectiveness of Repair using Epoxy Injection Gouting
(a) Crack Size: The Subgrantee challenges FEMA's conclusion that epoxy injection is an effective means of repairing shear wall cracks caused by the disaster. Specifically, the Subgrantee contends that epoxy injection does not fully restore the lateral load resistance of the structure to pre-damage level; further, even if this level of lateral resistance was restored, the repair would not comply with current requirements under the LACBC. In support of this position, the Subgrantee cites FEMA 178, Handbook for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, FEMA 97, Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, and a guidance published by the State Architect.

The FEMA 178, Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings of June 1992, provides criteria for the seismic evaluation of existing buildings, and not for the evaluation of earthquake damaged buildings. The quote from sec.3.5.6 (concrete wall cracks) identifies that cracks larger than 1mm or forming an "X pattern" may denote a reduced capacity. It further states that the 1-mm size criterion needs to be increased if the structure has been subjected to design level seismic events.

FEMA 178 was updated in 1998 with the publication of FEMA 310, Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings - A Prestandard. This publication states on page 4-33 the following: "CONCRETE WALL CRACKS: Small cracks inA signifiusually the result of large displacements or crushing of concrete. Only when cracks are large enough to prevent aggregate interlock or have the potential for buckling of the reinforcing steel does the adequacy of the concrete capacity become a concern. All existing diagonal cracks in the wall elements shall be less that 1/8" for Life Safety and 1/16" for Immediate Occupancy; shall not be concentrated in one location, and shall not form an "X" pattern."None of the appeals contain information on the concrete shearwall crack sizes or configuration found in each of the individual projects. FEMA must conclude, therefore, that this issue was reviewed at the first appeal level, and that all cracks were relatively small and either fell within or below the size for which epoxy grouting is adequate.

(b) The efficacy of Epoxy grouting as an adequate repair: On the issue of whether epoxy grouting alone is an acceptable repair for cracks within the 0.02"-0.20" size range, FEMA finds that the first appeal response is correct, and that the method is a broadly enough accepted method for the repair of the lightly damaged walls found in these listed projects for the reasons described in the first appeal responses.

One of the problems seems to be the confusion surrounding documents that state that the full strength and stiffness of a repaired element cannot be assumed to be fully restored by such a method. It is beams and columns, not monolithic shearwalls, which are the subject of such concerns. In the case of reinforced concrete shearwalls, the technical literature supports the conclusion that epoxy grouting is likely to fill many voids and cracks which are likely to have existed from when the wall was constructed. Such improvements are likely to at least balance against the failure to fully grout newer hairline cracks, leading a restoration of the pre-disaster capacity of the wall, if not a net improvement.

The First Appeal Response Findings: LAC/USC Medical Center Psychiatric Hospital, October 16, 1995 provides a lengthy examination of this issue. This explanation is hereby included into this second level appeal:

"Epoxy injection repair is a well-established method for restoring strength and integrity to concrete walls and slabs. It is recognized that the quality of the process has major impact on the successful repair. Therefore, many jurisdictions have established criteria to assure that their projects will achieve the desired post repair performance. IR 100-2 Epoxy Injection Repair of Concrete and Masonry Building Elements(2) permits epoxy repair of concrete cracks ranging from 0.006 inch to 3/16 inch maximum, while the City of Los Angeles permits epoxy repair of cracks up to 1/4 inch maximum. These agencies provide inspection and testing criteria to assure proper repair construction."

In May, 1995 LA County, Construction Quality & Contracting Division issued Epoxy Injection Guidelines that "all A/E evaluations or permanent fixes should be evaluated at 70% to 80% maximum strength for epoxy grout solution of cracked concrete." The basis for this guideline was FEMA 97(3) Appendix page A-41 that states "If concrete cracks are reasonably small (opening widths of less than 1/4 inch), the simplest method of repairing reinforced concrete elements is to pressure-inject epoxy. . . .With full penetration of epoxy, original strength can be restored. However, recovery of only 70 to 80 percent of the original strength should be assumed." Unfortunately, this quoted section does not provide the rationale behind the statement. Fortunately, the source document for this section of FEMA 97 Appendix was written by a member of the ATC 3-06 committee, Robert Hanson, for publication in a Workshop.(4)

In a corresponding section of Hanson's paper which discusses the technique of epoxy injection (page 845) "The behavior of members repaired by this technique in the laboratory and subjected to load conditions similar to the original damaging conditions has shown that the failure occurs adjacent to the epoxy repairs. . . . It is appropriate to consider whether this is adequate repair. It has been shown that the original strength can be developed, although it has been recommended that only 70 to 80 percent of the original strength recovery be assumed because of the possibility of lack of penetration of all the cracks in the section." The assumption of a percentage reduction in strength requires that the purpose of the epoxy injection is to restore strength and that there are a large number of cracks in the repair region that may not be fully injected.

For most of the Psychiatric Hospital cracks, [as well as the cracks in the LA County projects in these appeals] the epoxy injection repair is of individual cracks, not multiple cracks. The laboratory data referenced in the Workshop paper was for beam-to-column connections with multiple flexural shear cracks including bond deterioration. With appropriate construction quality controls and testing, full strength recovery is easily achieved in beams and columns. Where the wall cracks are less than 3/16 inch, the cracks can be epoxy injected to restore most of their original stiffness and to maintain their pre-earthquake strength, which has not been reduced. [Please see Issue 4f below for an explanation of why the strength of the walls has not been reduced.]

Issue #4c: Code-Mandated upgrade funded as "Hazard Mitigation"
In the second appeal, the Subgrantee states "the inclusion of this work [new shearwalls] as a hazard mitigation measure, rather than as code-mandated work, has significant financial implications for the Grantee." There are no details in the appeal of what is this "significant financial implication."

Since FEMA has already agreed to fund this measure, there should be no issue to appeal. The difference in funding between the County's request, and the results of FEMA's eligibility analysis is the result of differences between the FEMA inspector's findings of eligibility, and the County's opinion on the upgrade design, not because of code provisions. Since FEMA's findings include the position that the Code does not mandate that the upgrade work be done, nor is the MOU trigger exceeded, the provision of funds under Hazard Mitigation is of benefit to the Subgrantee. Based on the Code and MOU findings explained above, there is no basis either to increase the benefits, or to reclassify them as code mandated. In any case, the County has accepted a Grant Acceleration Program (GAP) final DSR for Project #4, The Hall of Justice project. Thus any issues specific to this one project are now moot, as the County has accepted the no appeals provision of that program.

Issue #4d: Costs of Engineering Analysis classified as Grant Administration Expense
The Subgrantee in their second appeal failed to include any documentation specific to this case to justify their position that the contested expenses are for "preliminary engineering analysis and design" rather than costs associated with the identification of damage. FEMA has approved a DSR for an A&E Report for this project. An A&E Report must be classified as preliminary engineering analysis. It precedes the full development of a repair design, and it is done as a benefit to the Subgrantee to allow for the Subgrantee to provide FEMA with a more detailed submittal for complex projects involving structural damage. (Normally, FEMA would not fund such a preliminary analysis separately from the DSR for the repair work itself, but this step was specially developed as a benefit to subgrantees where complex engineering issues existed in the repair of earthquake damage.)

In this case, a review of the first appealthe costs ifor damage, prior to the issuance of an A&E Report, or scope and costs which are over and above that funded by the A&E DSR. The FEMA first appeal response is correct as written when it states:
"It is FEMA policy to base a construction DSR on identified damage only..It has been, and continues to be, FEMA's policy to disallow additional reimbursement for costs incurred in the search for damage conducted by a subgrantee."

Consistent with this policy, but at the same time recognizing the peculiar difficulties presented by the damage discovered to have occurred in Welded Steel Moment Frames (WSMF), FEMA has developed a specific inspection policy for that structural system in Northridge. Again, the costs of the initial damage survey are the subgrantee's responsibility, but FEMA provides for eligible reimbursement of destructive investigations which follow the observation of visible architectural damage consistent with the possibility that a WSMF has been damaged.

When, as is true in the case of Project 6, the Pomona Superior Court, the architectural damage is insufficient to indicate WSMF failure, then FEMA will only reimburse the initial inspection costs associated with damage actually found. FEMA will then only fund further connection inspections if a DSR for such inspections has been approved prior to carrying out the work. In this case, the Subgrantee has not reported in the appeal or submitted documentation that any such damage had been found. Since any future inspection work would fall after the August 29, 1997 deadline set by FEMA for the submittal of such documentation, no further costs for Preliminary Engineering Analysis are eligible.

Issue #4e: Justifications for extensions of time for DSR preparation.
The August 1997 deadline was three and one -half years after the disaster. Despite the fact that the Welded Steel Moment Frame problems discovered after the Northridge Earthquake were particularly vexing and complicated to fix, this still should have been an adequate time for the County to have made an initial inspection and discovered at least some frame damage if any exists. If, as is stated in the appeal, this is an "essential facility," it is the County's, not FEMA's, responsibility to expeditiously find and repair damage that could threaten its safety. The proper and responsible administration of FEMA's programs cannot include an open-ended period for damage discovery.

Issue #4f: Unique Technical disagreements.
(a) Several Projects: The use of "Loss of Capacity" calculations: A number of the appeals have cited a calculation of a percentage loss of capacity as justification for the need for more extensive and costly repairs as required repairs under the LACBC. These losses of capacity are part of the justification for the County's position that (1) epoxy grouting is insufficient to restore the pre-earthquake conditions, and (2) the repairs should be more extensive to recover the pre-earthquake condition and thus the costs would exceed the threshold in the MOU. A lengthy answer to this issue can be found in the first appeal response from the First Appeal Response Findings: LAC/USC Medical Center Psychiatric Hospital, October 16, 1995. A portion of this response is edited and included here. As can be seen from this analysis, the existence of hairline or even larger cracks in reinforced concrete shear walls is not necessarily proof of a significant degradation of the lateral capacity of a structure. In fact, there may be little or no loss of capacity at all.

The determination of capacity loss from the visible manifestation of damage - namely cracks in concrete - is considerably different from the engineering design of new buildings. New building design uses the standard lateral force resisting design provisions of the building code which was not developed for the purpose of structural damage analysis in existing buildings. The plans and specifications for new construction are commonly designed using the working stress design procedures set by the building code. The reason why earthquake damage itself cannot be analyzed using the building code's working stress design formulas and procedures is very simple.

To design ordinary buildings (as opposed to nuclear power plants) so that they will remain within the elastic range during moderate to severe earthquakes has been determined to be uneconomical and unrealistic. Building code-based design thus presumes that earthquakes will push code conforming structures into the inelastic range, resulting in the cracking the concrete and yielding of the reinforcement. This is behavior is expected of buildings constructed to today's codes, as well as for buildings constructed to earlier codes. As is explained in a standard textbook on the subject, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, T. Paulay and M.J.N. Priestley, John Wiley and Sons, p1:The corresponding design forces [for code-level earthquake loads] are generally too high to be resisted within the elastic range of material response, and it is common to design for strengths which are a fraction, perhaps as low as 15 to 25% of that corresponding to elastic response, and to expect the structures to survive an earthquake by large inelastic deformations and energy dissipation corresponding to material distress." (See attached Figure)The LACBC has provided for this by introducing force reduction factors for the different structural systems based on their expected capacity to deform in a ductile manner. These "Rw" factors result in the reduction of the expected elastic earthquake forces to 1/4 (Rw =4) to 1/12 (Rw =12) of the full value, depending on the structural type. In fact, almost all of building design and construction is dependent on the extrapolation of what the ultimate post-elastic behavior of a building will be by using the comparatively simple linear elastic mathematical model with reduced earthquake demand forces prescribed by the building code. The reason for the code's use of linear-elastic design procedures with reduced forces is that the post-elastic behavior that is expected to occur in earthquakes is highly complex and very difficult and time consuming to model mathematically in any meaningful way.

While the building code forces have been adjusted upwards over the years to take into account larger than previously expected earthquakes, at no time have these codes been adjusted to remove the expectation that inelastic behavior (i.e. damage) will occur in buildings subjected to a design level earthquake. In fact, controlled damage is an essential factor in a building's ability to resist being destroyed by a severe earthquake because the energy dissipation and damping, which is a product of the yielding and cracking of its structural and non-structural elements. Absent this incremental cracking and yielding, a building could conceivably resonate with the frequency of a given earthquake to such a degree that a very strong structural system could still be catastrophically overwhelmed.

The calculation of loss of capacity to address earthquake damage rests on the assumption that (1) there is a direct linear relationship between a shear-strength capacity analysis of new construction using the building code procedures, and that of an existing structure affected by an earthquake, and (2) loss of capacity can be accurately and precisely derived from a visual inspection of the actual earthquake damage followed by a linear elastic analysis using similar to that used for new building design. This is not a valid assumption for the reasons explained below.

The purpose of the code is to ensure that when a building is designed using code-based methods, its actual earthquake behavior will stay within the acceptable post-en engineeringof the code is not to ensure that no damage will occur, only that the damage will remain within certain limits. Therefore, since it is inelastic behavior that is being analyzed, it is essential that any method used to determine that capacity loss accurately reflects the full ultimate post-elastic capacity of the element. To do otherwise would lead to the erroneous calculation of a large loss of capacity, which simply may not have occurred.

The capacity of reinforced concrete is the result of complex interactive behavior of the steel reinforcing together with the concrete, not each material alone. In order to mobilize the ultimate capacity of an element, the concrete must crack in tension. Full capacity is reached only when the steel yields and a compression strut is fully developed in the concrete. As research results on actual test walls show, the visible cracking and deformation of a reinforced concrete wall is quite severe when it reaches its ultimate capacity - much more severe than the cracking seen in the buildings under appeal by the County. Therefore, it is important to understand that the initial onset of cracking (which is most likely all that is seen in the buildings under appeal) of a reinforced concrete element does not signify the point at which it begins to yield inelastically or when it has reached its ultimate strength.(5) Only after an element is stressed further, will yielding begin causing the cracks to continue to increase in both number and in size until the element is worked with each strong motion cycle towards its ultimate strength. When the full strength of a given element has been exceeded the visual evidence is the crushing of the concrete.

In terms of capacity loss analysis, the distinction between the onset of yielding and the development of a compression strut is an important one. Since the maximum strength of a reinforced concrete element will not be achieved until large deformations have taken place, anything less than the crushing of the diagonal strut and/or fracture of the steel reinforcing does not, by definition, represent any loss of strength. When such crushing does take place, the visual evidence is usually unmistakable. Such damage has not been reported to exist in the subject appeals.

Only when cracking has progressed to the point where most of the elements in the building are engaged towards their ultimate strength, is the full capacity of a building mobilized. Thus, rather than showing an overall loss to the building's total capacity, cracks in certain elements may only be evidence of a redistribution of the earthquake loads from stiff but weak elements to stronger but more flexible elements in the lateral resisting system. It is only when the stiffness of the building's elements becomes balanced after this initial onset of damage, that the combined strength of all parts of a building's structural system becomes mobilized to resist the earthquake forces at full capacity.

When some secondary lateral force-resisting elements are significantly stiffer than the other lateral resisting elements on a given floor, these stiffer elements may be significantly damaged before the primary lateral force resisting elements are fully loaded. The damage or even destruction of these elements may represent little loss of overall lateral capacity at that floor level.(6) This is particularly the case in many older structures where shear wall elements were often of varying widths, and architectural features were often engaged with the structural system in such a way as to influence structural behavior under lateral loads.

In reviewing post-earthquake damage, it is important to remember that even current codes allow for an expectation of significant structural damage during a major earthquake. Thus, the discovery of a moderate amount of post-elastic behavior in buildings designed under earlier codes may only mean that they behaved in a manner equivalent to the underlying seismic objective of today's codes even if their construction details and engineering design may differ from today's code practices. This may be a result of both deliberate over design or structural redundancy because of architectural partitions and enclosing walls.

All concrete structures have some cracks. Cracking from shrinkage and normal thermal stresses during normal service life is normal. In fact, there is the often-repeated axiom: "if it ain't cracked, it ain't concrete." Therefore, if the denominator in a post-earthquake capacity loss analysis is based on the presumption of an un-cracked section, and the numerator includes a discount for every observed crack, the results will show an unrealistically high loss of capacity as has sometimes been claimed by the applicant.

(b) Project #13: Damage to a glulam beam: The second appeal for Project #13, The Camp Miller Gymnasium, includes a disagreement about the proper repair (and therefore the eligible cost of repair) of "the 2nd glulam arched beam" over the gymnasium. The Subgrantee's engineer has taken the position that the beam was damaged beyond repair and thus required replacement, while FEMA inspectors had concluded that it could be repaired with the addition of steel plates on either side of the beam.

The second appeal included no detailed information or documentation to support this claim, making it impossible for FEMA Headquarters to evaluate this with the benefit of any new information which was not already available to the FEMA inspectors and the FEMA reviewers of the first appeal. Since FEMA has already funded the repair of this element, the only disagreement is the means and methods, and the resulting cost difference. The Subgrantee is free to choose any method of repair.

Because of the passage of time, a review of the existing FEMA record now cannot have the benefit of the same access to information that the original inspectors had before the repair work was done, so in the absence of new information, it is best not to reexamine the issue. Thus, in this case, absent any new supporting evidence, FEMA does not find any justification for revisiting this issue.

(c) All other projects: As with project # 13, the County has not submitted new technical information specific to any other project to support technical claims separate from the general issue of the disagreement over the LACBC application and the MOU trigger discussed above. Without new technical information, FEMA finds no justification for revisiting any project specific technical issues on these projects. One case, Project #4, the Hall of Justice, does include what appears to be a technical disagreement over the extent of damage. However, this case was settled by the County's agreement to accept GAP funding. By acceptance of a GAP DSR, the County agrees to forgo the appeal rights on this project.

CONCLUSIONS
As stated above, these twelve appeals have been presented as second appeals on the same issue having to do with FEMA's codes and standards policy under the Stafford Act. FEMA has reviewed this issue and finds that the Agency's policy on this issue has been correctly applied. The County's claim that the provisions of Chapter 34 of the LACBC is a trigger, requiring seismic upgrading of the buildings or portions of them is not supported by the language of the Code, or industry practice.

On the other issues raised in the appeals, each is responded to above. Nothing has been found in the claims to support an increase in eligibility.
The appeals are denied


ENDNOTES:

(1)In the second appeal submittal, the Subgrantee (County Counsel Karen Lichtenberg) has raised the point that the Richmond/Ford Appeal Response states on page 16 that "the CBC makes clear thatnecessary to brmance with new building codes" and that such a statement is inconsistent with the FEMA position as explained in the rest of the document. In reviewing the cited sentence for this appeal response, FEMA finds that the point was incorrectly stated in the Richmond Response. As stated here above, it is the repair work, not the "damaged element" which is required to conform to the code.
(2)This interpretation made July 1990 was intended for the use by the plan review and field engineers of Office of State Architect and/or OSHPD to indicate an acceptable method for achieving code compliance.
(3)FEMA 97 "NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for N
Last updated