Risk Management Series
Design Guide 
for Improving School Safety in Earthquakes, 
Floods, and High Winds

January 2004




FOREWORD AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT



BACKGROUND

Our society places great importance on the education system and its schools, 
and has a tremendous investment in current and future schools. Currently, 
approximately 53 million kindergarten to grade 12 (K-12) students attend over 92,000 
public schools and it is estimated that the public student population will have reached 
54.3 million by 20041; to this figure must be added the substantial population of private 
school students. The sizes of these school facilities range from one-room rural 
schoolhouses to citywide and mega schools that house 5,000 or more students. The 
school is both a place of learning and an important community resource and center.
This publication is concerned with the protection of schools and their occupants 
against natural hazards. These hazards must be recognized as part of the natural 
environment and as extensions of phenomena that designers have always considered. 
Natural hazards can be reduced to extreme phenomena related to the four elements 
(i.e., earth, water, wind, and fire). Earthquakes are highly accelerated and exaggerated 
forms of motion that are always occurring in the earth and floods occur when rivers 
overflow or the wind stirs up the ocean along coastal waters. High winds and tornadoes 
are an extreme form of the beneficial breezes that freshen the air. Fire has been a 
threat to buildings for centuries and was one of the first threats to be the subject of 
regulation. Because of its familiarity and the extensive provisions for fire protection in 
building codes, it is not a subject for detailed consideration in this publication. How-
ever, some considerations relating to the fire protection of schools are presented in 
Chapter 3, Section 3.4. 
Architects and engineers deal with these natural elements all the time; building codes 
always have provisions for protection against fire and wind and the local building code 
(if adopted by the community) will also dictate whether earthquakes or floods must be 
considered as design parameters. However, the major decisions in reducing flood 
damage may be in site selection and layout, not in building design. 
This manual introduces two core concepts: multihazard design and performance-
based design. Neither is revolutionary, but represents an evolution in design thinking 
that is in tune with the increasing complexity of today's buildings and also takes advan-
tage of developments and innovations in building technology:

The concept of multihazard design is that designers need to understand the 
fundamental characteristics of hazards and how they interact, so that design for 
protection becomes integrated with all the other design demands.
_ Performance-based design suggests that, rather than relying on the building code 
for protection against hazards, a more systematic investigation is conducted to 
ensure that the specific concerns of building owners and occupants are addressed. 
Building codes focus on providing life safety and property protection is secondary: 
performance-based design provides additional levels of protection that cover 
property damage and functional interruption within a financially feasible context. 
This publication stresses that identification of hazards and their frequency and careful 
consideration of design against hazards must be integrated with all other design issues, 
and be present from the inception of the site selection and building design process. 
Although the basic issues to be considered in planning a school construction program 
are more or less common to all school districts, the processes used differ greatly, 
because each school district has its own approach. Districts vary in size, from a rural 
district responsible for only a few elementary schools, to a city district or statewide 
system overseeing a complex program of all school types and sizes, including new 
design and construction, renovations, and additions. A district may have had a long-
term program of school construction and be familiar with programming, financing, 
hiring designers, bidding procedures, contract administration, and commissioning a 
new building, but another district may not have constructed a new school for decades, 
and have no staff members familiar with the process.


SCOPE 

This publication is intended to provide design guidance for the protection of school 
buildings and their occupants against natural hazards, and concentrates on grade 
schools (K-12); the focus is on the design of new schools, but the repair, renovation, 
and extension of existing schools is also addressed. It is intended as the first of a series 
of publications in which hospitals, higher education buildings, multifamily dwellings, 
commercial buildings, and light industrial facilities will be addressed. 
The focus of this publication is on the safety of school buildings and their occupants, 
and the economic losses and social disruption caused by building damage and 
destruction. The volume covers three main natural hazards that have the potential to 
result in unacceptable risk and loss: earthquakes, floods, and high winds. A companion 
volume, Primer to Design Safe School Projects in Case of Terrorist Attacks (FEMA 428), covers 
the manmade hazards of physical, chemical, biological, and radiological attacks.
The intended audience for this manual includes design professionals and school 
officials involved in the technical and financial decisions of school construction, 
repair, and renovations. A short brochure based on this manual will also be available 
for school district and school board decision-makers.


ORGANIZATION AND CONTENT OF THE MANUAL

Chapters 1-3 present issues and background information that are common to all 
hazards. Chapters 4-6 cover the development of specific risk management measures 
for each of the three main natural hazards.
Chapter 1 opens with a brief outline of the past, present, and future of school design. 

Past school design is important because many of these older, and even historic, 
schools are still in use and their occupants must be protected. 
Chapter 2 introduces the concepts of performance-based design in order to obtain 
required performance from a new or retrofitted facility. Chapter 3 introduces the 
concept of multihazard design and presents a general description and comparison of 
the hazards, including charts that show where design against each hazard interacts 
with design for other hazards. This latter section includes fire and building security in 
its considerations.

Chapters 4, 5, and 6 outline the steps necessary in the creation of design to address 
risk management concerns for protection against earthquakes, floods, and high winds, 
respectively. Information is presented on the nature of each hazard and its effect on 
vulnerability and consequences of building exposure. Procedures for risk assessment 
are outlined, followed by descriptions of current methods of reducing the effects of 
each hazard. These vary, depending on the hazard under consideration. A guide to 
the determination of acceptable risk and realistic performance objectives is followed 
by a discussion to establish the effectiveness of current codes to achieve acceptable 
performance.

Appendix A contains a list of acronyms that appear in this manual.
The information presented in this publication provides a comprehensive survey of the 
methods and processes necessary to create a safe school, but is necessarily limited. It is 
not expected that the reader will be able to use the information directly to develop 
plans and specifications. The information is intended to help designers and facility 
decision-makers, who may be unfamiliar with the concepts involved, to understand 
fundamental approaches to risk mitigation planning and design. By so doing, they can 
move on to the implementation phase of detailed planning, involving consultants, 
procurement personnel, and project administration, from a firm basis of 
understanding. 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Principal Authors:

Christopher Arnold, Building Systems Development, Inc.
Jack Lyons, School Facilities Consultant
James Munger, James G. Munger and Associates
Rebecca C. Quinn, Consultant
Thomas L. Smith, TLSmith Consulting

Contributors:

Milagros Kennett, FEMA, Project Officer, Risk Management Series Publications
Eric Letvin, Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc., Consultant Project Manager
John Plisich, FEMA
Mike Robinson, FEMA
Joe Agron, American School and University
Connie Deshpande, Department of Education
Randy Haslam, Jordan, Utah, School District
Danny Kilcollins, Florida Department of Community Affairs
Fred Krimgold, World Institute for Disaster Risk Management
Tom Kube, Council of Educational Facility Planners International
Bill Modzeleski, Department of Education
Jack Paddon, Williams and Paddon Architects and Planners
Bebe Pinter, Harris County Department of Education
John Sullivan, Portland Cement Association
Jon Traw, Traw Associates 
French Wetmore, French and Associates
Deb Daly, Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.
Wanda Rizer, Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.
Julie Liptak, Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.
Bob Pendley, Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.

This primer will be revised periodically and EP&R welcomes comments and feedback 
to improve future editions. Please send comments and feedback via e-mail to 
riskmanagementseriespubs@dhs.gov
 



1   U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Baby Boom Echo Report, 2000




TABLE OF CONTENTS


FOREWORD AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i

Background i

Scope iii

Organization and Content of the Manual iii

Acknowledgments iv

CHAPTER 1- AN OVERVIEW OF THE SCHOOL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 
PROCESS
1.1 Introduction 1-1
1.2 School Construction: The National Picture 1-1
1.3 Past School Design 1-2
1.4 Present School Design 1-9
1.5 Future School Design 1-10
1.6 The Design and Construction Process 1-12
1.7 School Design and Construction 1-16
1.7.1 Structure 1-16  
1.7.2 Nonstructural Systems and Components 1-17


CHAPTER 2 - DESIGNING FOR PERFORMANCE 2-1
2.1 Introduction 2-1
2.2 Definitions of Performance-based Design 2 -1
2.3 The Prescriptive Approach to Codes 2-2
2.4 The Performance-based Approach 2-3
2.5 Hazard, Risk, and Probability 2-6
2.6 Acceptable Risk and Performance Levels 2-9
2.7 Correlation Between Performance Groups and Tolerated Levels of Damage 2-10
2.8 Roles of Designers, Code Officials, and  the School District 2-13
2.9  Changes to a Building Designed for  Performance 2-14
2.10 Current Performance-based Codes 2-15
2.11 The O&M Manual and the Occupants'  Handbook 2-17
2.12 Performance-based Design for  Natural Hazards 2-19
2.12.1 Performance-based Seismic Design 2-23
2.12.2 Performance-based Flood Design 2-30
2.12.3 Performance-based High Wind  and Tornado Design 2-32


CHAPTER 3 - MULTIHAZARD DESIGN 3-1
3.1  Introduction 3-1
3.2   The Hazards Compared 3-1
3.2.1  Location: Where are They? 3-2
3.2.2  Warning: How Much Time  is There? 3-6
3.2.3  Frequency: How Likely  are They to Occur? 3-6
3.2.4  Risk: How Dangerous are They? 3-8
3.2.5  Cost: How Much Damage  Will They Cause? 3-10
3.3 Comparative Losses 3-11
3.4   Fire and Life Safety 3-16
3.5 Hazard Protection Methods Comparisons: Reinforcements and Conflicts 3-19


CHAPTER 4 -MAKING SCHOOLS SAFE AGAINST EARTHQUAKES 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.2 The Nature and Probability of Earthquakes  4-1
4.2.1 Earthquakes and Other Geologic Hazards 4-1
4.2.2 Earthquakes: A National Problem 4-3
4.2.3 Determination of Local Earthquake  Hazards 4-11
4.3 Vulnerability: What Earthquakes Can Do to Schools 4-15
4.3.1 Vulnerability of Schools  4-15
4.3.2   Earthquake Damage to Schools 4-20
4.3.3 Significant School Damage in Recent  U.S. Earthquakes 4-27
4.3.4 Consequences: Casualties, Financial  Loss, and Operational Disruption 4-32
4.4 Scope, Effectiveness, and Limitations of Codes 4-33
4.4.1 The Background of Seismic Codes 4-34
4.4.2 Seismic Codes and Schools 4-36
4.4.3 The Effectiveness of Seismic Codes 4-37
4.5 Evaluating Existing Schools for Seismic  Risk and Specific Risk Reduction 
Methods 4-38
4.5.1 Rapid Visual Screening 4-38
4.5.2 Systems Checklist for School Seismic  Safety Evaluation 4-41
4.5.3 The NEHRP Handbook for  the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings 
(FEMA 178/310) 4-47
4.6 Earthquake Risk Reduction Methods 4-48
4.6.1 Risk Reduction for New Schools 4-49
4.6.2 Risk Reduction for Existing Schools 4-61
4.7 The School as a Post-earthquake Shelter 4-69
4.8 References and Sources of Additional Information 4-71
4.9 Glossary of Earthquake Terms 4-72


CHAPTER 5 - MAKING SCHOOLS SAFE AGAINST FLOODS 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Nature and Probability of Floods 5-1
5.2.1 Characteristics of Flooding 5-3
5.2.2 Probability of Occurrence5 -7
5.2.3 Hazard Identification and Flood Data 5-8
5.2.4 Design Flood Elevation 5-13
5.3 Scope, Effectiveness, and Limitations  of Building Codes and Floodplain  
Management Requirements 5-14
5.3.1 Overview of the NFIP 5-14
5.3.2 Summary of the NFIP Minimum  Requirements 5-16
5.3.3 Model Building Codes and Standards 5-18
5.4 Risk Reduction:  Avoiding Flood Hazards 5-19
5.4.1 Benefits/Costs: Determining  Acceptable Risk 5-20
5.4.2 Identifying Flood Hazards at School Sites 5-22
5.5 Risk Reduction:  Flood-resistant New Schools 5-26
5.5.1 Site Modifications 5-26
5.5.2 Elevation Considerations 5-28
5.5.3 Floodproofing Considerations 5-31
5.5.4 Accessory Structures 5-33
5.5.5 Utility Installations 5-33
5.5.6 Potable Water and Wastewater Systems 5-34
5.5.7 Storage Tank Installations 5-34
5.5.8 Access Roads 5-35
5.6 Vulnerability:  What Floods Can Do to  Existing Schools 5-36
5.6.1 Site Damage 5-36
5.6.2 Structural Damage 5-37
5.6.3 Saturation Damage 5-40
5.6.4 Utility System Damage 5-42
5.6.5 Contents Damage 5-45
5.7 Risk Reduction:  Protecting Existing Schools 5-46
5.7.1 Site Modifications 5-48
5.7.2 Additions 5-51
5.7.3 Repairs, Renovations, and Upgrades 5-52
5.7.4 Retrofit Dry Floodproofing 5-53
5.7.5 Utility Installations 5-53
5.7.6 Potable Water and Wastewater Systems 5-56
5.7.7 Other Damage Reduction Measures 5-57
5.7.8 Emergency Measures 5-57
5.8 The School as an Emergency Shelter 5-59
5.9 References and Sources of  Additional Information 5-60
5.10 Glossary of Flood Protection Terms 5-63



CHAPTER 6 - MAKING SCHOOLS SAFE AGAINST WINDS 6-1
6.1 Introduction 6-1
6.2 The Nature and Probability of High Winds 6-2
6.2.1 Wind/Building Interactions 6-6
6.2.2 Probability of Occurrence 6-15
6.3 Vulnerability: What Wind Can Do to Schools  6-17
6.4 Scope, Effectiveness, and Limitations  of Building Codes 6-23
6.4.1 Scope 6-24
6.4.2 Effectiveness 6-25
6.4.3 Limitations 6-25
6.5 Priorities, Costs, and Benefits: New Schools6-27
6.5.1 Priorities 6-27
6.5.2 Cost, Budgeting, and Benefits 6-28
6.6    Priorities, Costs, and Benefits: Existing  Schools 6-30
6.6.1 Priorities 6-31
6.6.2 Cost, Budgeting, and Benefits 6-32
6.7 Evaluating Schools for Risk from High Winds 6-33
6.7.1 Tornadoes  6-35
6.7.2 Portable Classrooms 6-36
6.8 Risk Reduction Design Methods  6-36
6.8.1 Siting 6-36
6.8.2 School Design 6-37
6.8.3 Peer Review 6-42
6.8.4 Construction Contract Administration 6-42
6.8.5 Post-occupancy Inspections, PeriodicMaintenance, Repair, and 
Replacement 6-43
6.9 Structural Systems 6-44
6.10 Exterior Doors 6-48
6.10.1 Loads and Resistance 6-48
6.10.2 Durability 6-48
6.10.3 Exit Door Hardware 6-49
6.10.4 Water Infiltration 6-49
6.10.5 Weatherstripping 6-50
6.11 Non-load Bearing Walls, Wall Coverings, Soffits,  and Underside of Elevated 
Floors 6-53
6.11.1 Loads and Resistance 6-53
6.11.2 Durability 6-55
6.11.3 Wall Coverings 6-55
6.11.4 Underside of Elevated Floors 6-59
6.12 Roof Systems 6-59
6.13 Windows and Skylights 6-68
6.13.1 Loads and Resistance 6-68
6.13.2 Durability 6-69
6.13.3 Water Infiltration 6-69
6.14 Exterior-mounted Mechanical, Electrical,  and Communications Equipment 6-71
6.14.1 Loads and Attachment 6-72
6.14.2 Equipment Strength 6-74
6.14.3 Durability  6-76
6.15 Schools Located in Hurricane-prone Regions 6-79
6.15.1 Design Loads  6-80
6.15.2 Structural Systems  6-80
6.15.3 Exterior Doors6-80
6.15.4 Non-load Bearing Walls, Wall Coverings,  and Soffits  6-81
6.15.5 Roof Systems 6-81
6.15.6 Windows and Skylights 6-84
6.15.7 Emergency Power 6-86
6.15.8 Construction Contract Administration 6-86
6.15.9 Periodic Inspections, Maintenance,  and Repair 6-86
6.16 Design for Tornado Shelters 6-88
6.17 Remedial Work on Existing Schools 6-91
6.18 References and Sources of Additional  Information 6-94
6.19 Glossary of Wind Terms6-96


APPENDIX A - ACRONYMS















AN OVERVIEW OF THE SCHOOL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROCESS     1


1.1 INTRODUCTION


This chapter presents an overview of the school building, to provide a context 
for the chapters that follow. Every building is unique and there is great variety in 
school design; however, the purpose of schools, their occupancy, their economic 
basis, and their role in the social scene mean that there are certain common features 
of schools that distinguish them from other building types.
A summary of the national public school inventory is presented (i.e., how many 
students it houses and how many schools it contains) and projections of future needs 
are also outlined. School design of the past is discussed, because many older schools 
are still in use and must be renovated periodically to meet today's needs. The present 
state of school design is also discussed and some trends and ideas that might 
influence future schools are identified. 


1.2   SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION: THE NATIONAL PICTURE 

The estimated value of the national public school inventory is well over $361.6 
billion.1 Of the almost 15,000 local education agencies found throughout the United 
States (U.S.), 41.9 percent are in small towns and rural areas, and enroll 30.4 percent 
of the students; 25.9 percent are in large towns and cities, and enroll 30.7 percent of 
the students; and 32.2 percent of the education agencies are in suburban areas, and 
enroll 39 percent of the students.2

Over half of our school facilities are at least 40 years old3 and, even with minor 
renovations, have passed their prime in terms of adaptability to modern teaching 
methods and tools (e.g., computers, in-class electronic information displays, and 
group learning activities). Almost all states require new construction once 
replacement costs reach a certain level (usually 60 percent4). The most recent studies 
(completed at the close of the last decade) show a range of $100 to over $300 billion 
would be needed to bring our nation's schools into good teaching condition.
In 2001, the decade-long growth in kindergarten to grade 12 (K-12) school 
construction reached a peak. A propensity for deferred maintenance and the poor 
construction quality of many post-World War II schools have resulted in a huge 
renovation demand, and population increases mean that additional space will also be 
necessary.

If new construction, remodeled space, and additions are included, 2001 witnessed 
over $29.5 billion in school construction throughout the United States, with primary 
school projects slightly edging out high school projects in total number, but not in 
construction dollars. The overall school construction intensity dropped slightly to 
$28.2 billion, but is forecast to rise to $29.15 billion by mid-decade. From 2001 
through 2005, it is estimated that almost a billion square feet of either new, renovated, 
or additional square feet will be added to the national school inventory.



1.3   PAST SCHOOL DESIGN

Schools are typically in use for long periods of time; as a result, teaching continues to 
be conducted in facilities that were designed and constructed at the beginning of the 
20th century. Early 20th century school design was based on late 19th century models 
and was relatively static until after World War II. Schools ranged from one-room rural 
school houses to major symbolic civic structures in large cities. Other inner city 
schools were more modest, inserted into small sites on busy streets and constrained 
by budget limits (see Figures 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3).
The typical city school was one to three stories in height and consisted of rows of 
classrooms on either side of a wide, noisy corridor lined with metal lockers; asphalt 
play courts; and, sometimes, rooftop recreational areas. The larger schools sometimes 
had a library, special rooms for art, science, and shop, and an auditorium.
The surge to meet the school construction demands of the post war baby-boom was 
primarily a suburban development. Much larger sites were available, schools were one 
or two stories in height, auditoriums became multiuse buildings, and large parking 
lots appeared. However, many rural schools were located far away from towns and 
their resources, such as fire departments and other services. 
But the fundamental school program of classrooms along double-loaded corridors 
did not change very much. However, in warm climates, the one-story finger plan 
school, constructed of wood and a small quantity of steel, was both economical and 
more human, and the noisy tiled double-loaded corridor became a covered walk, 
open to the air, with the classrooms on one side and a grassed court on the other (see 
Figure 1-4). Compact versions of these plans appeared as schools became larger and 
sites smaller (see Figure 1-5). 
Inner-city high schools were usually large facilities, housing 2,000 to 3,000 students 
(basically small towns with complex social, economic, and class systems; see Figure 1-
6). In the 1960s and 1970s, some design experiments were tried, such as team 
teaching, which spawned large open classrooms with poor acoustics (see Figure 1-7). 

Some of the new large high schools were built as air-conditioned enclosures, with 
many windowless classrooms, in buildings similar to the shopping malls that 
replaced the main street retail centers (see Figure 1-7). At the same time, many 
schools were expanded by adding prefabricated classrooms to accommodate a surge 
in enrollment. Although the prefabricated classrooms were originally intended as 
temporary space, many are now used as permanent classrooms (see Figure 1-8). 
Schools built in the 1980s and 1990s assumed a wide variety of forms, often combining 
classrooms into clusters and focusing on providing an attractive learning 
environment (see Figure 1-9). However, demographic needs, shortage of affordable 
land, and limited funding has also resulted in instances of the adaptation of existing 
non-educational buildings into schools (see Figure 1-10).



1.4 PRESENT SCHOOL DESIGN

As the U.S. begins a new century, there are indications that a new era of social, 
economic, and educational concerns is evolving that will impact school design. New 
statements of design principles are beginning to emerge, although some of the 
following represent perennial concerns:

¥ The building should provide for health, safety, and security.

¥ The learning environment should enhance teaching and learning and 
accommodate the needs of all learners.

¥ The learning environment should serve as the center of the community.

¥ The learning environment should result from a planning/design process that 
involves all stakeholders.

¥ The learning environment should allow for flexibility and adaptability to changing 
needs.

¥ The learning environment should make effective use of all available resources.
These principles lead, in turn, to a number of current design principles, including:

¥ Design for protection against natural hazards
¥ Increased design attention to occupant security
¥ Careful lighting design and increased use of day lighting and comfort control
¥ Design for durability 
¥ Long life/loose fit approach: design for internal change and flexibility
¥ Design for sustainability, including energy efficiency and the use of "green" 
materials 

Some new schools already respond to these needs5 and, indeed, their originators, 
school districts, communities, and designers are among those defining the schools 
of the next decade. Some of the changes are the result of ideology and analysis; others 
are enforced by the effort to provide an improved learning environment and 
enhanced learning resources in an increasingly financially limited school 
construction economy. Some school districts will be hard pressed to provide a 
minimal learning environment with buildings of the utmost simplicity, while 
meeting the requirements for health, safety, and security.



1.5 FUTURE SCHOOL DESIGN

Schools will continue to vary widely in size; however, even in the suburbs, land has 
become scarce and expensive. New schools will be more compact and the sprawling 
one-story campus will become less common (see Figure 1-11). The desire for more 
supportive environments and the rejection of traditional school plans will result in 
more imaginative and often more complex layouts (see Figure 1-12). Moreover, the 
move to repopulate the inner cities will result in the construction of even more dense 
and compact schools. 

However, many educational researchers believe that students improve their learning 
skills in smaller schools. 
Although small schools may be economically unrealistic, methods of organization 
are being explored that provide some of the benefits of small size within a large 
physical complex. Some schools are organized into "learning academies" for each 
grade, with classrooms that can expand and contract, and other activity rooms of 
various sizes. 

Other researchers believe that the conventional library will disappear. The trend in 
many new schools is for the library to take the form of a multi-media center and 
material collections, including laptop computers, that are distributed from mobile 
units to "classroom clusters." 
Schools are increasingly seen as community resources that go beyond the 
educational functions. Adult education and community events now take place on 
evenings, weekends, and throughout the traditional vacation periods; therefore, the 
school day and week have been expanded. These uses are seen as ways of finding 
affordable methods of enhancing community service resources by ensuring that a 
facility's utilization is maximized.
Indications are that the school building will probably increase in importance to the 
community, as its roles expand beyond that of merely providing a K-12 education for 
students during a school year. At the same time, modern technology means that 
today's schools, already far more complex than the relatively simple buildings of a few 
decades ago, will tend to be more fragile and consequently more vulnerable to 
nature's and society's threats unless special attention is paid to their design and 
construction.

The natural hazards will remain: earthquakes and tornadoes will continue to be, for 
some locations, a source of worry and fear. Besides protecting their occupants, 
schools in earthquake-prone regions are often used as post-earthquake shelters. In 
California, this is particularly appropriate because the State's Field Act, enacted in 
1933, following the Long Beach earthquake, requires that public schools be designed 
by a licensed architect or engineer, their plans checked, and the construction on site 
inspected by staff of the Department of State of Architecture. Elsewhere, floods and 
high winds are a familiar threat that also must be addressed by knowledgeable design 
and good construction practice. Schools, or designated areas within them, located in 
hurricane- and tornado-prone areas are increasingly being constructed to provide 
shelter for the occupants.



1.6 THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROCESS

Regardless of the size of a school construction program, certain steps are necessary 
and certain procedures must be followed. These will vary greatly in scope between the 
design of a small elementary school and the development of a multi-school program 
of new and remedial construction. Review and regulation procedures by outside 
agencies will also vary. Internal district decisions as to the design and construction 
process (e.g., conventional architect design and competitive construction bid, 
design/build or construction manager) will affect the scope and timing of some of 
the activities.
However, regardless of the size and scope of the project, the following steps should be 
taken; for a small project, they may entail relatively informal meetings among a few 
district staff, the school board, and others; for a large program, formal procedures 
must be established. These steps are summarized in a flow chart (see Figure 1-13) that 
follows this listing.
¥ Conduct an in-house assessment of the educational needs, with the assistance of a 
public education committee and consultants. Public committees continue 
throughout the programming and design process, acquiring specialist members 
as necessary at different stages for a large program.
¥ Determine the size and scope of the proposed program. (In a small district, an 
architect may be employed to assist the school district with this task, who may later 
become the design architect).

¥ Conduct an assessment of the site needs to determine the size and availability of 
sites (and lease/purchase as necessary).
¥ Develop educational specifications, both in-house and/or consultants.
¥ Conduct an assessment of financial needs. 
¥ Identify financial resources, including alternative sources of funding (e.g., state and 
federal programs, local taxes, bond issues).
¥ Ensure funding (e.g., pass bond issue).
¥ Appoint a district building program management staff (appointed officials or a 
committee). 
¥ Determine the design and construction process (i.e., conventional design and bid, 
design/build or construction management).
¥ Select and hire architects and other special design consultants or design/build 
team members; the timing of hiring will vary, depending on number of projects, 
whether programming is involved, and other variables.
¥ Develop building programs, including building size, room size, equipment, and 
environmental requirements; this may be done in-house and/or architects or 
independent program consultants may assist. 
¥ Appoint the district staff and public stakeholders committee for the design phase. 
¥ Develop designs (architects), together with cost estimates. Hold public meetings 
with architects and encourage public input into the design, together with district 
progress reviews.
¥ Design completion, district review of contract documents.
¥ Submit construction documents to the district and any permitting agencies for 
review and approval.
¥ Submit documents to building department and other required agencies.
¥ Select the contractor (bidding) or finalize design/build or construction 
management contracts.
¥ School construction.
¥ School district administration of construction contract.
¥ Observation by architect and inspection as required.
¥ School completed by contractor
¥ School inspected and accepted by architect.
¥ School inspected and accepted by school district.
¥ School commissioned and occupied. 

The sequence of the above steps may vary, depending on the complexity of the 
program; some steps may be implemented simultaneously.
Figure 1-13 shows a flow chart of this typical process. Also shown (in the five boxes to 
the right) are specific activities related to design for multihazards and how these fit 
into the general construction process.



1.7 SCHOOL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 

1.7.1 Structure

The structure provides support for all the elements of a building and ensures that the 
building can sustain all the loads and forces that it will encounter during its life. 
Often concealed behind ceilings, exterior cladding, and decorative facing materials, 
the structure plays a critical role in providing a safe and secure school building. 
Because of the relatively small size of most school buildings and the simplicity of 
design of the traditional school, with numerous internal walls, structural design is 
relatively simple and a well designed and constructed school should not collapse 
unless struck by a severe tornado or terrorist.
Most suburban schools built in the last few decades are typically one or two stories in 
height, with light steel frames or mixed structures of steel and wood frames and also 
with some concrete or concrete masonry walls. Except in the western states, and the 
Atlantic and Gulf coasts, concrete masonry walls may have nominal or no steel 
reinforcing. Reinforced masonry perimeter and/or interior classroom separation 
walls sometimes are used as shear walls to provide lateral support. First floors are 
generally concrete slab-on-grade.

Many schools may have long-span gymnasiums or assembly spaces, using glued-
laminated wood beams, steel trusses, or precast reinforced concrete tees or double 
tees. In these long span structures, large diaphragm and wind uplift forces must be 
transmitted to the perimeter walls or frames and the design and construction of 
wall/roof connections are critical. 
Typical prefabricated teaching spaces consist of classroom-sized wood frame boxes, 
are air-conditioned where necessary, and generally have minimally adequate lighting 
and electrical services. They provide an economical way of solving a problem, but 
rows of prefabricated classroom boxes do not provide an appropriate long-term 
learning and social environment. Also, they are typically less resistant to natural 
hazards.

Inner city schools may be three or four stories in height and are often built on 
congested sites. Structurally, they are usually constructed of reinforced masonry, 
reinforced concrete, and/or steel frames, and sometimes are a mix of these types of 
systems.
Older structures (i.e., pre-World War II) often had unreinforced masonry walls with 
wood floors and roof structures. Another common type was a lightly reinforced 
concrete frame infilled with hollow tile or masonry for walls, together with a wood 
floor and roof structure. Small schools were often of wood frame construction 
throughout, and basements and crawl spaces were common in these structures. Older 
structures are particularly vulnerable to natural hazards. Unreinforced masonry 
structures have performed very poorly in earthquakes and high winds, as have older 
reinforced concrete frames with infill. Older wood frame structures are often 
deficient in their design and construction detailing and are frequently weakened by 
insect attack or dry rot. 


1.7.2 Nonstructural Systems and Components

Nonstructural components and systems comprise architectural components such as 
ceilings and partitions, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical items that provide 
utilities and services to the building and cladding and roofing that provide weather 
protection and insulation.

A wide variety of exterior cladding materials are used for schools. The most common 
materials include brick or concrete masonry, stucco on metal or wood stud frame 
walls, exterior insulation finish systems (EIFS), and various natural and synthetic 
sidings on wood frame structures. Metal or stucco faced insulated panels are also 
used. Metal and glass curtain walls are used infrequently, generally in an urban 
setting. 
Newer schools usually have suspended grid ceilings that support light acoustic panels 
and inset lighting fixtures. Pendant fixtures are also used, in the form of rows of 
linear fluorescent fixtures or single high intensity (HID) fixtures. The latter are often 
large in size when used in assembly spaces or gymnasiums. Incandescent fixtures may 
still be found in older school buildings, but are a source of high energy use and 
should be replaced.
Non-load bearing partitions are often of hollow tile or concrete masonry: however, 
especially in the western states, partitions are of gypsum board over wood or metal 
framing, although concrete masonry or tile may be used in restrooms or other service 
areas. 

School mechanical systems are relatively simple. Older schools and some new ones 
employ perimeter hot water heating together with natural ventilation or forced air. 
Very old schools may still employ steam heating, but most of these systems should 
have been replaced by hydronic systems. Newer schools, particularly when large, 
often employ forced air heating, ventilating, and cooling systems. Concern for energy 
conservation has resulted in the use of innovative systems, including a return to the 
use of natural ventilation and day lighting. 

Plumbing tends to be concentrated in restroom areas, although science, art spaces, 
and school kitchens require more complex plumbing services. Specialized plumbing 
will also be found in mechanical/boiler rooms, the water service and fire protection 
service entrances, and domestic water heaters.
Electrical services have become increasingly complex with the need for ready access 
to power and communications services. The trend in communications devices to 
become wireless may serve to slightly reduce the extent of hard wired commu-
nications. Fire alarm and security services, however, require increasingly extensive 
electrical and electronic services.
Fixed classroom desks and teachers units have been replaced by lighter mobile 
furniture. Libraries still require extensive shelving, although ready access to the 
internet may tend to reduce the use of hard-copy materials. 
Some special spaces, such as science labs, shop, and art rooms, need storage for 
hazardous chemicals and operate heavy equipment, and are vulnerable to earthquake 
damage. Music spaces and gymnasiums all have special equipment and storage needs, 
some of which would be costly to replace in the event of damage.


1 Conservative estimate based upon elementary and secondary school averages developed with the   help of Paul Abramson, President of Stanton 
Leggett & Associates, Education Consultants. 
2  U.S. Department of Education, National Center of Education Statistics; The Digest of Education   Statistics, 2001.
3  U.S. Department of Education, National Center of Education Statistics, The Digest of Education   Statistics, 2001


4 Use of this estimate as a decision tool was developed by Basil Castoldi, Education Facilities, Planning, Modernization and Management, fourth 
edition, Allyn & Bacon publishers, page 385















DESIGNING FOR PERFORMANCE     2


2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter introduces a performance-based design process that is 
recommended for adoption by a school district starting a program of school 
construction, addition, or repair. The principles of performance-based design can be 
applied to the design of a single school, of any size, or to a school construction plan 
for a large school district launching a major program. 
Performance-based design seeks to augment current code approaches rather than 
replacing them. However, there is a significant drive to introduce performance-based 
codes and, particularly in the field of fire safety, performance-based codes are now 
used for many applications. In the natural hazards area, although performance-based 
design is well developed for seismic design, prescriptive approaches are still typical 
for floods and high winds. A sound multihazard design approach should provide an 
impetus to adopt a performance-based philosophy for design against risk. 



2.2 DEFINITIONS OF PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN

Performance-based design is an evolving concept. The term as currently used has 
multiple definitions and three are presented below:

¥ A design approach that meets the life safety and building performance intents of 
the traditional code while providing designers and building officials with a more 
systematic way to evaluate alternative design options currently available in codes. 

In this regard, performance-based design facilitates innovation and makes it 
easier for designers to propose new building systems not covered by existing code 
provisions.

¥ A design approach that identifies and selects a performance level from several 
performance level options. Some provisions in the current version of the 
International Building Code (IBC) are sometimes called performance-based 
because they incorporate distinctions between performance goals for different 
building uses. These performance options are conceived to achieve higher-than-
code-minimum design requirements.

¥ A design approach that provides designers with tools to achieve specific 
performance objectives such that the performance of a structure can be reliably 
predicted. In the hazards area, this approach has been highly developed for 
seismic design although considerable research is still necessary to ensure the 
requisite reliability and predictability that would allow a performance-based code 
to be possible.



2.3THE PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH TO CODES 

The traditional approach used in building codes in the United States has been that of 
prescriptive-based codes. Prescriptive-based codes are quantitative and rely on fixed 
values that are prescribed by the codes and intended to achieve a reasonable level of 
fire and life safety as well as reasonable levels of safety from other hazards such as 
earthquakes, floods, and high winds. Prescriptive requirements are based on broad 
classifications of buildings and occupancies, and are typically stated in terms of fixed 
values such as travel distance, fire resistance ratings, allowable area and height, and 
structural design (e.g., dead loads, live loads, snow loads, rain loads, earthquake 
loads, wind loads, etc.). 

Prescriptive codes provide limited rules for addressing various design and 
construction issues (e.g., establishing limits on the allowable area and height of a 
building, based upon construction type and occupancy classification). One of the 
current prescriptive building codes limits the basic area of a non-combustible, 
unprotected school building to 14,500 square feet. Why are this building and its 
occupants considered reasonably safe or acceptable at 14,500 square feet and unsafe 
or unacceptable at 15,000 square feet? This traditional approach is assumed to provide 
an "acceptable level of risk."

This is not to say that buildings designed and built under the prescriptive based 
codes are unsafe, but it is important to understand that the requirements in the 
prescriptive-based codes are judged to be only the minimum necessary to safeguard 
the public health, safety, and general welfare. In some instances, it may be desirable, 
appropriate, or even necessary to raise the level of safety above the prescribed 
minimums.
Under the prescriptive approach, all schools are essentially treated alike. Thus, the 
requirements for an elementary school with 500 students are the same as those for a 
high school with 500 students, although clearly there are differences in these 
buildings due to the age of the occupants and their ability to take proper and 
appropriate action under various emergency conditions. 
Another issue involving school buildings is the use of the facility for purposes other 
than education. In many communities, school buildings are designated as emergency 
shelters to be used in the event of a natural or manmade disaster event. The "normal" 
prescriptive code approach does not address the building features and systems 
necessary for the continuity of service required for an emergency shelter (for security, 
flooding, high wind, or hazardous material release issues).

How can the issues such as these and others be addressed? An innovative procedure 
that is becoming increasingly adopted is the use of a performance-based approach to 
improve or supplement the prescriptive requirements.



2.4THE PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH

Although having detailed requirements for "performance" is relatively new to the 
building and fire codes used in the United States, the concept is not. The various 
"prescriptive" building, fire, and life safety codes have all contained provisions for 
what was known as "alternative methods and materials" or "equivalencies." These 
code provisions allow for the use of methods, equipment, or materials not specified 
or prescribed in the code provided the alternative is approved by the code official. It is 
under these provisions of the traditional codes that the performance-based design 
approach can be undertaken.

Under the concept of an alternative method, material, or equivalency, the code 
official must approve the alternative or equivalency if it can be shown to be equivalent 
in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, and safety. The 
proponent of the alternative method or equivalency is responsible for providing all 
necessary documentation to the code official. Based on the ability of the code official 
to permit alternate methods and materials in the existing prescriptive codes, 
performance-based codes simply offer the code official a system with which to accept 
alternative designs based on performance. In other words, this is nothing new to the 
code official, it is just a more formal way to review designs.
As mentioned previously, taking a "performance" approach is not new to building 
design because decisions based upon performance occur in all most every project. As 
an example, constructing corridor walls out of either gypsum board and steel studs or 
concrete masonry units (CMUs) will meet the prescriptive code requirements for a 
rated corridor in an educational occupancy. However, from a "performance" 
standpoint, the concrete masonry assembly is more desirable due to its ability to 
withstand the normal wear and tear of such occupancy. Another example would be 
the selection of the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) system. 
Although either rooftop units or central boilers/chillers might provide the requisite 
thermal performance, life-cycle cost analysis might support the choice of the central 
boiler/chiller. 

Performance-based design provides a structured way of making decisions that is 
particularly applicable to the issue of life safety and damage reduction from natural 
and manmade hazards. From a designer's standpoint, the performance-based codes 
provide a more formalized system to develop, document, and submit alternative 
materials, methods, and equivalencies.

Unlike relying solely on a prescriptive code, performance-based design addresses an 
individual building's unique aspects or uses, and specific and "stakeholder" needs. 
"Stakeholders" include everyone who has an interest in the successful completion of 
a school project (i.e., the school board members, responsible officials, members of 
the design team, the builders, the community at large, parents, and the code 
enforcement officials). The design team is a sub-group of the "stakeholders," which 
includes individuals such as representatives of the architect, school district, and 
other pertinent consultants.

It is critical to the proper development, approval, and implementation of any 
performance-based design for all of the stakeholders to be actively involved in the 
process. Because the stakeholders establish the acceptable level of risk, it is crucial 
that all stakeholders be involved in the project from the earliest stages. It is also 
important that the stakeholders realize that an incident in a school facility can be 
measured in more ways than just monetary. The loss of a school facility for any reason 
can have organizational, legal, political, social, and psychological impacts. 
The performance-based procedure provides the basis for the development and 
selection of design options, based upon the needs of the specific project, to augment 
the broad occupancy classification requirements. The approach structures a 
comparison of safety levels provided by various alternative designs, and also provides a 
mechanism for determining what level of safety, at what cost, is acceptable to the 
stakeholders. Performance-based design aims at property protection and life safety 
strategies in which the systems are integrated, rather than designed in isolation.



2.5HAZARD, RISK, AND PROBABILITY

But what about "risk"? We often use the terms "hazard" and "risk" interchangeably. 
However, in the performance-based design environment, this substitution is 
incorrect. The definitions of these two words are distinctly different when assessing 
various challenges, and they must be used in the correct context when working with 
stakeholders, especially those not familiar with the terms.
No one should confuse "hazard" or "risk" with "safety." "Safe" is a subjective condition 
that everyone views differently. Society establishes what it considers to be "safe" 
through a process of legal documents: both laws and court interpretations of them. Is 
a building that meets the prescriptive code requirements "safe?" Are you "safe" when 
you occupy a building that is entirely fire-resistant and protected by the latest in 
sprinklers and fire alarm technologies? "Hazard" and "risk" are recognized terms in 
the design, construction, engineering, architectural, and scientific worlds; "safe" is 
not.

The stakeholders must properly and thoroughly evaluate the risk or probability of a 
hazard event occurring in the performance designed facility. The basic questions 
they should ask are:

¥ What events are anticipated?
¥ What level of loss/damage/injury/death is acceptable?
¥ How often might this happen?

As they ask themselves these questions, and develop the variety of scenarios to which 
to apply them, the stakeholders must remember that obtaining consensus on 
acceptable levels of risk is essential to the successful outcome of the project.
Risk analysis incorporates the likelihood of a specific event and the severity of the 
outcome. This process combines both the severity and the probability of all relevant 
hazard loss scenarios. Remember that it is the intent of a performance-based code to 
establish the acceptable or tolerable level of risk. The overall analysis must consider 
not only the frequency of an events' occurrence, but the effectiveness and reliability 
of the entire building as a system. Risk analysis provides a quantitative measure of the 
risk. It also can establish the basis for evaluating acceptable losses and selecting 
appropriate designs.

Risk managers use two different evaluative methods in risk and hazard analysis: 
deterministic and probabilistic.
Deterministic analysis relies on the laws of physics and chemistry, or on correlations 
developed through experience or testing, to predict the outcome of a particular 
hazard scenario. In the deterministic approach, one or more possible designs can be 
developed that represent the worst possible credible events in a specific building. In 
this approach, the frequency of possible occurrences need not be evaluated.
Probabilistic analysis evaluates the statistical likelihood that a specific event will 
occur and what losses and consequences will result. This approach may use both 
statistics and historical information.
History from events involving similar buildings or equipment, building contents, or 
other items can be considered. The frequency of occurrences of a particular type of 
event is evaluated.

Any risk analysis method must anticipate a certain level of "uncertainty." Uncertainty 
describes those factors or circumstances that, if altered, affect the desired outcome.
Risk is the product of potential consequences and the expected frequency of 
occurrence. Consequences may include death, serious injury, or time lost from work, 
the extent of structural damage, monetary loss, interruption of use, or environmental 
impact. The occurrence frequency may be an estimate of how often the project loss 
might occur. 
Risk binning is an alternative to the more classic risk analysis, and is considered to 
be much simpler. Instead of identifying and evaluating every possible hazard, it 
quantifies (measures) the consequences of the most severe events and matches them 
with an approximate event frequency. The concept is based on the idea that, if one 
prepares for the worst-case scenario, lesser damaging events will result in favorable 
outcomes.

For each type of event, the maximum consequence must be established. 
Consequences may include death or serious injury; or massive structural damage, 
absolute loss of production, severe environmental damage, or total business 
interruption. The consequences should represent the largest realistic event of each 
type.

The provisions of the International Code Council (ICC) Performance Code for Buildings 
and Facilities (2003 edition) describe this as the "magnitude of events." These range 
from small, medium, large, and very large. Table 2-1 shows the correlation between 
the "magnitude of events" and acceptable levels of damage
For seismic, flood, and wind events, the ICC Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities 
has established criteria for the various magnitude of events as shown in Table 2-1.



2.6 ACCEPTABLE RISK AND PERFORMANCE  LEVELS 

The performance-based design process begins with establishing the acceptable risk 
and appropriate performance levels for the building and its systems. The basic 
concept of acceptable risk is the maximum level of damage to the building that can 
be tolerated, related to a realistic risk event scenario or probability. For each hazard, 
there are methods of measuring the magnitude of events and their probability, as well 
as terminology to describe levels of damage or performance levels. There are four per-
formance levels, each of which addresses structural damage, nonstructural systems, 
occupant hazards, overall extent of damage, and hazardous materials. The types of 
damage that are defined will vary according to the type of hazard that is being 
addressed. The ICC Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities formalized four design 
performance levels in terms of tolerable limits to the building, its contents, and its 
occupants that apply to all types of hazards. These levels are as follows:
Mild Impact. At the mild impact level, there is no structural damage and the building 
is safe to occupy; injuries are minimal in number and minor in nature; damage to the 
building and contents is minimal in extent and minor in cost; and minimal haz-
ardous materials are released to the environment. 
Moderate Impact. At the moderate level, there is moderate, repairable structural 
damage, and some delay in re-occupancy can be expected; injuries may be locally 
significant, but generally moderate in numbers and in nature; there is a low 
likelihood of a single life loss and very low likelihood of multiple life loss; and some 
hazardous materials are released to the environment, but the risk to the community is 
minimal.

High Impact. At the high impact level, it is expected that there will be significant 
damage to structural elements, but with no falling debris. Significant delays in re-
occupancy can be expected. Nonstructural systems needed for normal building use 
are also significantly damaged and inoperable. Emergency systems may be damaged, 
but remain operational. Injuries to occupants may be locally significant with a high 
risk to life, but are generally moderate in numbers and nature. There is a moderate 
likelihood of a single life loss, with a low probability of multiple life loss. Hazardous 
materials are released to the environment with localized relocation required.
Severe Impact. With severe impact, there will be substantial structural damage, and 
repair may not be technically possible. The building is not safe for re-occupancy, 
because re-occupancy could cause collapse. Nonstructural systems for normal use may 
be completely nonfunctional, and emergency systems may be substantially damaged 
and nonfunctional. Injuries to occupants may be high in number and significant in 
nature. Significant hazards to life may exist. There is a high likelihood of single life 
loss and a moderate likelihood of multiple life loss. Significant hazardous materials 
may be released to the environment, with relocation needed beyond the immediate 
vicinity.


2.7 CORRELATION BETWEEN PERFORMANCE GROUPS AND 
TOLERATED LEVELS OF DAMAGE

The provisions of the ICC Performance Code for Building and Facilities  correlate the 
performance groups and the tolerated levels of damage. Table 2-2 shows this 
relationship. Events are classified as small, medium, large, or very large. Each hazard 
will have its own definitions that modify these generic magnitudes.
Building groups in the ICC Performance Code include: 

¥ Group I - Buildings that represent a low hazard to human life in the event of failure

¥ Group II - All buildings except Groups I, III, and IV 

¥ Group III - Buildings with a substantial hazard to human life, including schools or 
day care centers with a capacity greater than 250 

¥ Group IV - Buildings designed as essential facilities, including designated 
earthquake, hurricane, or other emergency shelters

Using an elementary school with an occupant load of less than 250 as an example 
(Group II), it can be seen that there is a significant difference in the level of 
performance required when the building is to be used as a designated emergency 
shelter (Group IV). These performance levels clearly are not addressed by the 
prescriptive code requirements.
For hazards such as earthquakes and winds, it may be desirable to set different 
performance objectives for nonstructural versus structural design. Although the 
prescriptive code may provide acceptable structural safety, it may be cost effective to 
spend a small additional amount of resources to enhance the attachment and 
bracing of key nonstructural components and provide for independent inspection of 
their installation. Local information on the characteristics of flood may suggest that 
it is prudent to allow an increased factor of safety above the expected flood elevation 
at the property. Similarly, local experience may suggest that projects should be 
designed for higher wind speeds than the code values.
The flow chart shown in Figure 2-1 summarizes a typical performance-based design 
process for a major design and construction program. It can be used as a checklist for 
a single construction project to structure early discussion between the stakeholders 
and the designers to establish the acceptable risk, performance goals, and objectives 
for the design. 



 2.8 ROLES OF DESIGNERS, CODE OFFICIALS, AND THE SCHOOL 
DISTRICT 

The school district is responsible for retaining the services of the design 
professionals and for the costs of any special services, including contract or third-
party reviews and inspections required by the code official. The district must also 
retain all required documents and reports on the premises and is required to operate 
the building in accordance with the approved design throughout the life-cycle of the 
building.

The design professional is an individual who is registered or licensed to practice his 
or her respective design profession as defined by the statutory requirements of the 
professional registration laws of the state or jurisdiction in which the project is to be 
constructed. The design professional must possess the required knowledge and skills 
to perform design analysis and verification in accordance with the code requirements 
and applicable standards of practice. Design professionals may include architects, 
civil and structural engineers, mechanical engineers, and fire protection engineers, 
to name only a few.

The design professionals and special experts must be able to apply performance 
requirements; provide appropriate analysis, research, computations, and 
documentation; utilize authoritative documents and design guides; and review 
(inspect) the completed construction elements to verify compliance with the 
prescribed design.
All design documentation must be prepared by the design professional. Required 
documentation includes a concept report, a design report, and an operations and 
maintenance (O&M) manual. The design professional must coordinate all plans and 
documents for consistency, compatibility, and completeness, and submit them to the 
code official for review and approval. 

The code official is required to perform a "knowledgeable" review of the proposed 
design and is permitted to use a third-party or peer review. When such third party or 
peer review is used, the cost for such services may be passed on to the submitter. After 
the plans and specifications have been reviewed and approved, a permit is issued for 
the start of construction. During the construction process, inspections and tests must 
be conducted in accordance with the design documents, code official procedures, 
and applicable codes. Upon completion, acceptance testing must be undertaken 
prior to occupancy.
After completion of the project and acceptance testing, the design professional must 
prepare and submit to the code official documentation that verifies that all 
performance and prescriptive code provisions have been met. The code official is 
permitted to require a third-party or peer review of this documentation. After comple-
tion of construction, final inspection, and testing and submission of all required 
documentation, the code official must issue the certificate of occupancy. A temporary 
certificate of occupancy may be issued for a limited timeframe with specified 
conditions, provided that all life safety items are accepted. The code official may also 
require that a temporary certificate be issued for a specific period of time and/or be 
"renewable" on a periodic basis.
The school district is responsible for proper maintenance and operation of the 
building, in accordance with the O&M manual, throughout the life of the building. 
The school district is also responsible for periodically verifying compliance with the 
approved design at a frequency approved by the code official. Documents verifying 
that the building, facilities, premises, processes, and contents are in compliance with 
the approved design documents must be filed with the code official.


 
2.9 CHANGES TO A BUILDING DESIGNED FOR PERFORMANCE

When a building that was designed and constructed using a performance-based 
design is remodeled or altered, or its use changed, a design professional must 
evaluate the existing building and applicable documentation. Any change that results 
in an increase in hazard or risk must undergo a full review and evaluation of the de-
sign. The review and evaluation must be documented in a written report and 
submitted to the code official for review and approval. Such written review must be 
submitted to the code official even when the proposed changes do not exceed the 
original conditions. 
One area of change that can occur is in one or more of the original bounding 
conditions. Bounding conditions by definition are conditions that, if exceeded, 
invalidate performance-based design. These could be maximum allowable conditions 
such as fuel load or type and arrangement of fuel load that must be maintained 
throughout the life of a building to ensure that design parameters are not exceeded.

Some examples of a change in bounding conditions are:

¥ The original design assumed that the gym would be used only for spectator sporting 
events. Such an arrangement would present a relatively low HVAC load. The desire 
is to now use the same gym for a science fair with the display of many project and 
other related materials. The new use represents a much higher HVAC load than 
originally intended and thus would represent a change in bounding condition. 

¥ The building was originally designed for use as a high school. Characteristics of 
these occupants to respond to an emergency situation are a bounding condition. 
The desire is now to change the school to one on the elementary level. Because 
the ability of these occupants to respond to an emergency is different, this would 
represent a change in bounding conditions.



2.10 CURRENT PERFORMANCE-BASED CODES

Performance-based codes are not based on broad or generic classifications, but are 
qualitative. They establish, by a consensus process, acceptable or tolerable levels of 
hazard or risk for a variety of health, safety, and public welfare issues. Three model 
codes that are currently available are the ICC Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities, 
the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 101 Life Safety Code, and the NFPA 
5000 Building Code. Any one or a combination of these documents would be 
appropriate for use in a performance-based design.
Although the ICC Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities addresses all types of 
building issues, the provisions of the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code, "Performance-based 
Option," address only those issues related to "life safety systems." The provisions of 
the NFPA 5000 Building Code apply not only to life safety issues, but to all traditional 
"building code" issues as well.

This design approach is based on a life safety evaluation, which is a written review 
dealing with the adequacy of life safety features relative to fire, storm, collapse, crowd 
behavior, and other related safety considerations. 
The performance-based design must be prepared by a person with qualifications 
acceptable to the code official. The code official is permitted to require an approved, 
independent third-party review of the proposed design and provide an evaluation of 
the design to the code official. All data sources are required to be identified and 
documented. The code official is empowered to make the final determination as to 
whether the performance objectives are met.
Design specifications and other conditions used in the performance-based design 
must be both clearly stated and shown to be realistic and sustainable. The 
characteristics of the building or its contents, equipment, or operations that are not 
inherent in the design specifications, but that can affect occupant behavior or the 
rate of hazard development, are required to be explicitly identified. The anticipated or 
expected performance of a fire protection system and building features must also be 
documented. 

In addition, the selection of the occupant characteristics must be approved by the 
code official and must reflect the expected population of building users. Response 
characteristics of the occupants should include their sensibility (sensory awareness), 
reactivity, mobility, and susceptibility. Sources of data for these characteristics must 
be documented. It must also be assumed that, in every normally occupied room or 
area, at least one person will be located at the most remote point from the exits. The 
design must also reflect the maximum number of people that every occupied room or 
area is expected to contain.
In those instances where the ability of trained employees (occupants) is part of the 
overall performance design concept, the number of employees, and their training 
and abilities should be identified and documented.



2.11 THE O&M MANUAL AND THE OCCUPANTS' HANDBOOK

The last critical component of the performance-based design process is the O&M 
manual. The design professional is responsible for developing this important 
document, which can be described as an owners manual for the building and all of 
its systems. This document should clearly establish the requirement that the school 
official must ensure that all components of the performance-based design are in 
place, operational, and properly maintained for the entire life-cycle of the building. 
The ICC Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities, the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code, and the 
NFPA 5000 Building Code all provide for the continued use and maintenance of a 
performance-based design facility. Each building or facility designed and constructed 
using a performance-based design relies on certain conditions remaining stable 
throughout the life of the building. 
The O&M manual documents agreements with stakeholders and clearly states that 
the building owner must ensure that the components of the performance-based 
design remain in place and in proper operating condition. The manual provides 
instructions that place restrictions on the building operations, and communicates to 
the building tenants and occupants the limits of building use and their 
responsibilities. It also provides a guide to renovation and documents what actions 
are to be taken if a fire protection system is impaired or removed. The importance of 
the O&M manual cannot be understated. It is the glue that holds the on-going use of 
the building together.

The O&M manual must be submitted with the final design documents, and all of the 
stakeholders must agree on its contents. The manual should contain the 
requirements for the testing, inspection, and maintenance of all systems; outline 
restrictions on building operations; and provide guidelines on how to address any 
changes in occupancy or use. 
This manual also must be made part of the legal documents of the property so that 
they are transferred with any change in ownership. The O&M manual should 
include:

¥ Descriptions of the commissioning requirements of all fire protection systems
¥ Identification of all subsystems
¥ Descriptions of all inspections, testing, and maintenance procedures and schedules
¥ Information on emergency electrical power systems
¥ Details on building operations (e.g., critical fuels loads, sprinkler design 
requirements, building use and occupancy, reliability and maintenance of fire 
protection systems)
¥ Details of the maintenance plans for critical design components
¥ Qualifications of inspection personnel or inspectors
¥ Fee schedules for unique or third party inspections required by the code official and 
provisions of changes to the fee schedules 
¥ Requirements to be followed if any fire protection system is impaired or out of 
service
¥ Testing criteria for initial acceptance, including pass/fail criteria, 
inspection/testing schedules, periodic testing criteria, and recordkeeping 
requirements
In addition, the manual should spell out any requirements or restrictions, such as 
storage height, commodity type, or fire protection system modifications. 
The O&M manual should also contain the occupants' handbook. In the case of 
school occupancies, this is the portion of the O&M manual that would be provided to 
the faculty and support staff. Less technical than the O&M manual and similar to the 
handbook that comes with a new automobile, this publication informs all occupants 
of the specific building about the design features of the building and its equipment, 
as well as the occupants' responsibilities. It also serves as a guide for renovations and 
changes to workspaces. In addition, the occupants' handbook should provide details 
for the development and submittal of modifications for review and approval by the 
Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ), building owner, insurance carrier, or other 
appropriate stakeholders. 



2.12 PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN FOR NATURAL HAZARDS

As noted in Section 2.4, a performance-based approach to building design is not new, 
because decisions based on performance occur frequently in almost any project. What 
is new is the attempt to formalize a decision-making process related to expected 
performance and, ultimately to develop performance-based codes to regulate building 
design and construction.
In the natural hazards area, "performance" is used to signify a level of damage or load. 
This, in itself, represents a major change in perception, because the building owner 
or occupant generally believes that adherence to building codes provides a safe 
environment and anticipated degrees of damage are not a normal source of 
conversation between an architect and owner, or even an architect and his engineer. 
Earthquake experience in recent years has forced recognition that damage 
(sometimes severe) will occur in a building designed in accord with the code.
The theory and practice of performance-based design currently is most advanced in 
seismic design and virtually non-existent in design for floods and high winds. 
Advanced seismic engineering practitioners have, for some time, recognized several 
performance objectives in relation to owner's needs, and have used them as a basis 
for establishing design parameters. These objectives, or performance levels, can be 
simply stated as follows:

¥ Level 1: The building is essentially undamaged and can be immediately operational.

¥ Level 2: The building is damaged, and needs some repairs, but can remain occupied 
and be functional after minor repairs (of a nonstructural nature) are complete.

¥ Level 3: The building is both structurally and nonstructurally damaged, but the 
threat to life is minimal and occupant injuries should be minor and few.

¥ Level 4: The building is severely damaged and will probably have to be demolished; 
it has not collapsed, although there is some likelihood of occupant injury.

In this spectrum, the code conforming building is fairly far down the scale (at Level 
3) and many private and public owners are prepared to pay more to achieve a higher 
level of performance. A hospital should achieve at least Level 2, and preferably Level 
1. A high-tech manufacturing plant might desire to achieve the same level, because of 
the high value of its contents and the business losses if the plant must shut down 
production. The owner of a warehouse that houses a modest and easily replaced 
commercial inventory, with very few occasional occupants, might opt for the 
economies of Level 4.

In the last decade or so, this informal pragmatic approach to performance-based 
seismic design has become formalized; the performance levels have been named and 
carefully defined. Detailed observation of damaged buildings, together with advances 
in materials science, experimental research, and analytical methods, have led to 
much more sophisticated understanding of building response and have enabled 
engineers predict more reliably how a structure will behave under various levels of 
shaking. This prediction is still far from a guarantee, but it has a scientific and 
engineering basis that was non-existent even 2 decades ago. Meanwhile, extensive 
studies of all aspects of performance-based seismic design are underway around the 
country, largely sponsored by FEMA and the National Science Foundation.
The same degree of research and development activity does not, however, apply to 
design for floods and high winds. One reason is that these fields have not had the 
same sophisticated (and fairly expensive) research support that the seismic 
community has enjoyed. Before performance-based design for floods and winds can 
become a reality, a solid research base must be established. The kind of research 
would be different from that of seismic engineering; the engineering problems are 
much simpler, but research into simulating the probabilities and effects of floods 
and winds could yield rich rewards. The objective is to reduce the uncertainties 
associated with these hazards, thus avoiding wasted money and resources. Wind 
design could benefit from materials and component research to improve exterior 
envelope design and construction: at present, many of the available protective 
methods are labor intensive in the most primitive way, often using only hammers, 
nails, and stapling guns.

If design for performance against floods and high winds is to approach the 
sophistication of seismic performance-based design, a new approach to thinking 
about buildings subjected to floods and winds is necessary, paralleling the new 
thinking that has occurred around buildings subjected to earthquakes. When engi-
neers began to think about buildings from the owners' viewpoint, and the different 
ways in which buildings were occupied, it became clear that a seismic code that 
focused only on methods and technical design criteria instead of results was not 
responding to owners' (and society's) needs. Performance-based seismic design is 
still in its infancy, and much research needs to be done, but the essential shift in 
thinking has occurred. 

Performance-based design is not proposed as an immediate substitute for design to 
traditional codes. Rather, it is seen as an opportunity for enhancement and the 
tailoring of the design to match the objectives of the community. Design to the code 
remains as the minimum baseline to ensure safety for school occupants, but the 
special importance to our society of protecting the school population suggests that 
design to a generic code minimum is not sufficient.

To achieve a building code that regulates performance rather than easily inspected 
design construction methods will not be easy, but ultimately one can expect to see a 
rational mix of performance and prescription in the regulatory mix. That shift took 
place in advanced industries (e.g., airplane design) a few decades ago, and airplanes 
are now habitually designed to stringent performance requirements, specified by the 
military or the airline companies.

Designers and owners of buildings in flood or high wind-prone regions need to 
begin to think in terms of a few basic objectives:

¥ Can the real probabilities and frequencies of events during the useful life of the 
building be defined with a useful degree of accuracy?

¥ Can the extent and kinds of damage (if any) that can be tolerated be defined?
¥ Are there ways (if any) in which this acceptable level can be achieved?
¥ Are there alternative levels of performance that can be achieved and how much do 
they cost over the lifetime/ownership of the building?
¥ Are these levels below, at, or above design to code enforced criteria?

Serious thought about these basic issues by all the stakeholders is the beginning of 
design for performance.


 
2.12.1 Performance-based Seismic Design

As discussed in Section 2-12, procedures for the application of performance-based 
design seismic design are well advanced. However the procedures are still evolving 
and issues such as terminology, analytical methods, and achieving reliable 
performance prediction are still subject of much research and development. This 
section outlines the general approaches that are current in performance-based 
seismic design; considerable refinement of the approaches and procedures that are 
outlined herein are expected to occur in the next few years.
Determining Acceptable Risk. The performance-based design procedure starts with 
the definition of acceptable risk. Prior to inception of design work for a new or 
retrofitted school building, discussions should be initiated between the design team, 
the school district, and community representatives to explain the level of seismic 
performance that will be achieved by conformance to the code, and other possible 
performance options that may be available. In these discussions, "seismic 
performance" refers to the extent of damage and loss that is likely to occur in 
earthquakes of differing magnitudes. These discussions focus on ensuring that all 
parties understand that "earthquake" or damage-free performance is not possible, 
and compromises must be made between seismic performance, cost, and design for 
learning. "Acceptable risk" refers to the extent and types of damage and loss that the 
school officials and community can tolerate. Clearly, avoidance of casualties is of the 
highest priority, but what are the priorities for issues such as damage to the 
building's structure, nonstructural components, and systems and contents?
The discussion of acceptable risk begins with determining the answer to the 
following question: If the building is designed strictly to the minimum code 
requirements, are the damage and loss that might occur in the design level 
earthquake acceptable? If the answer to this question is positive, an implicit level of 
acceptable risk has been set and design can proceed. If the answer is negative or 
undecided, the following should be addressed:

¥ What lesser extent and types of damage can be accepted?
¥ What are the implications for long-term costs and benefits over the life of the 
school building?
¥ Is the desired performance level affordable within the first-cost resources of the 
district (minimum code requirements must always be provided)?

Issues of uncertainty must also be made clear. It should be noted that the degree of 
uncertainty in predicting performance will be dependent on the existing school 
design in addition to the application of code requirements. The design team for a 
new building has control over this issue; however, for a retrofit, some of the existing 
school characteristics may be less than desirable. 

A new design in which key parameters of good seismic design are provided (i.e., 
continuous load path, structural redundancy, symmetry in plan and section, short 
spans, and well designed nonstructural connections and bracing) will be more 
economical and more predictable in performance than a design in which these 
characteristics are not present. (The simple concept design shown in the How 
Buildings Resist Earthquakes illustration in Section 4.6.1 represents an "optima" 
seismic design that incorporates these features.)
Discussions of these issues should lead to a formal conclusion on performance 
objectives that then serve as a target for the designers, but it is the school district 
representatives who must make the final performance objective decision. The 
implications of this decision must be fully understood and it is the responsibility of 
the design team to provide necessary information, to the extent that it is available.

Traditionally, the architect has been the source of all design information for the 
school authorities but, due to the technical sophistication of performance-based 
design, the structural engineer will probably be consulted. On large projects, the key 
consultants may be involved in early meetings, particularly when the school district is 
represented by a facilities manager or other technical staff. In these instances, the 
district's professional staff may be expected to be able to discuss the project on equal 
terms with the design team. Whether all parties are familiar with the language of 
performance-based seismic design may have significant impact on the extent to 
which seismic performance issues can be a subject for useful discussion and decision-
making. 

If community representatives or committees, whose technical expertise may be more 
limited, are involved, the design team should try to ensure that the issues are 
understood.
For most school districts and communities, the discussion of acceptable risk will be 
an entirely new kind of discussion and the language of seismic performance may be 
unfamiliar. Historically, it has not been common practice to initiate a discussion of 
damage tolerance for a new project. The seismic expectations checklist in Table 2-3 
provides a basis for these discussions. The checklist takes the form of a matrix of 
design expectations that can assist design team members, the school district, and the 
community to agree on seismic performance goals that are reasonably in line with 
the available resources. Agreement on such goals and expectations can help achieve a 
desired level of performance and limit later surprises due to unexpected earthquake 
damage. Such performance objectives statements might properly be part of a project's 
building program and serve as the basis for a performance-based design procedure.
The checklist can be completed or used merely as a basis of discussion. The intent is 
for the school district to arrive at a seismic performance objective that is understood 
and approved, both as to its opportunities and its limitations. 
The above classifications may be modified by poor soil conditions or specific 
seismological forecasts. Note that this table adds a short description to the four 
damage level categories identified in the ICC Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities 
outlined in Section 2.12.

Table 2-4 shows the expected overall and nonstructural damage for the four building 
performance levels defined in FEMA 273, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of 
Buildings. These performance levels are developed versions of the four general 
performance levels described on page 2-20. The bottom row relates the damage levels 
to those expected for a building designed to a conventional code. FEMA 273 contains 
six such tables that show expected damage to vertical and horizontal structural 
elements; architectural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing components; and 
building contents. These expectations refer to a building designed using the 
appropriate analytical tools available in FEMA 273, which provides the necessary 
methods of analysis and detailing to achieve these performance levels for high, 
moderate, and low earthquake intensity regions. Some of the terminology in these 
tables may be expected to change as a result of studies now underway.
Reducing Seismic Risk Through Performance-based Design. The general principles of 
performance-based design are discussed in earlier sections of this chapter. For 
seismic risk reduction, performance-based design starts with the recognition that 
some damage will be incurred in a severe earthquake even in a well designed and 
constructed building. Prior to the seismic design, the school districts and the design 
team reach agreement on the desired seismic performance of the building (i.e., the 
extent and type of damage that the school district can tolerate). The extent of this 
damage can be reduced by seismic design measures based on more precise analysis of 
the earthquake forces that the building will encounter, rather than relying on the 
simplified analytical methods of the current seismic code.

These more precisely estimated forces may, in some instances, be less than the forces 
determined by a simple code analysis because less allowance will need to be made for 
uncertainty in the calculations, and the seismic design and construction cost may be 
reduced. Increased protection beyond the minimum code expectations, however, will 
almost inevitably add to the initial cost of the building. The trade-off that the school 
district must consider is that damage reduction will probably result in design and 
construction cost increases. 
The value to the district of increased investment in seismic protective design and 
construction is dependent on the likelihood of damaging earthquakes, and some 
economic analysis can assist in arriving at an affordable solution with satisfactory 
safety and damage control characteristics. This implies that the cost of protection 
must be evaluated over the life of the building, rather than only as an item of the 
initial building cost. As with design to the current code, performance-based design 
starts with the assumption that the basic purpose of seismic design is to protect the 
building occupants from collapse and damage that may be life-threatening.
The performance-based design procedure uses inputs from the information 
evaluations previously described to develop designs that balance the desired 
performance levels with the available resources. 


2.12.2 Performance-based Flood Design

The performance objectives (or performance levels) for flood hazards can be stated as 
follows:

Level 1:  The school building sustains no structural or nonstructural damage, 
emergency operations are fully functional, and the building can be immediately 
operational; the campus is not affected by erosion but may have minor debris and 
sediment deposits. 

Level 2:  The school building is affected by flooding above the lowest floor, but 
damage is minimal due to shallow depths and short duration. Cleanup, drying, and 
minor repairs are required, especially of surface materials and affected equipment, 
but the building can be back in service in a short period of time. Site improvements 
such as bleachers and fences are damaged, and athletic fields are damaged by erosion 
and deposition of sediment and debris.

Level 3:  The school building may sustain structural damage that requires extensive 
repair and partial reconstruction. If the school is used as a shelter, threats to 
occupants are minimal. Nonstructural damage to equipment and finish materials 
requires cleanup, drying, and repairs. Site improvements such as bleachers and 
fences are damaged, and athletic fields are damaged by erosion and deposition of 
sediment and debris.

Level 4:  The school building is severely damaged and likely requires demolition or 
extensive structural repair. Threats to occupants are substantial and warning plans 
should prompt evacuation prior to the onset of this level of flooding. (Note: Level 4 is 
applicable to schools affected by flooding due to failure of dams, levees, or 
floodwalls.)
In addressing the question "what level of loss/damage/injury/death is acceptable?", 
an assessment of the probable magnitude and frequency of flood events during the 
life of a school is relatively straightforward. With the exception of floods caused by or 
exacerbated by failure of dams and levees, an examination of available information 
regarding mapped flood hazard areas, predicted flood elevations, and historic floods 
should identify an adequate estimation of the flooding that may affect a school site. It 
is reasonable to exceed the minimum design flood elevation and loads for essential 
and critical facilities, including schools.

Flooding of buildings rarely results in loss of life and injuries, although that is a 
likely consequence of extreme and unpredictable flooding caused by events such as 
dam or levee failures. Beyond identification of the normal design flood magnitude, 
further examination is required to identify those contributory hazards. State water 
resources agencies can identify the high hazard dams and significant hazard dams 
that are present in the watershed and the failure scenarios that may result in cata-
strophic consequences. Similarly, local agencies or authorities that maintain and 
operate levee and floodwall systems can characterize failure scenarios for protected 
areas. Schools located in areas threatened by these very low probability, high conse-
quence events should have emergency response plans that are closely coordinated 
with the appropriate emergency management authorities.
Chapter 5 identifies a number of recommendations to exceed minimum flood-
resistant requirements to achieve an appropriate level of protection for essential and 
critical facilities, primarily avoidance of flood hazard areas and adding a factor of 
safety to the elevation requirement. Consideration of these recommendations is in 
the spirit of performance-based design. To some degree, the benefits can be 
quantified: the National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP's) statistics on building 
that exceed the minimum requirements indicate lower damage. It is notable, 
however, that there is insufficient experience with nonresidential buildings that are 
exposed to extreme flooding to quantify the benefits.


2.12.3 Performance-based High Wind and Tornado Design

The performance objectives (or performance levels) for the wind hazard can be stated 
as follows:

Level 1: The school building is essentially undamaged and can be immediately 
operational. 

Level 2:  The school building is damaged, and needs some repairs, but can remain 
occupied and be functional after minor repairs (of a nonstructural nature) are 
complete. 

Level 3:  The school building may be structurally damaged, but the threat to life is 
minimal and occupant injuries should be minor and few. However, nonstructural 
damage (i.e., the building envelope or rooftop equipment) is great, and the cost to 
repair the damage is significant. If rain accompanies the windstorm, or if rain occurs 
prior to execution of emergency repairs, water damage to the interior of the school 
can prohibit occupancy of all or a portion of the school from several weeks to several 
months.

Level 4:  The school building is severely damaged and will probably have to be 
demolished. Significant collapsing may have occurred, and there is great likelihood 
of occupant deaths and many injuries unless the school has a specially designed 
occupant shelter. (Level 4 is applicable to schools struck by strong or violent 
tornadoes. For other types of windstorms, Level 4 should not be reached.)
For the wind hazard, loss of life and injuries due to collapsing building components 
or wind-borne debris is quite rare. Except for strong and severe tornadoes, the major 
threat posed by high winds is damage to the school itself, which can be very costly to 
repair and may prohibit use of the school for a considerable period of time.
In addressing the question "what level of loss/damage/injury/death is acceptable?", 
an assessment of the probable magnitude and frequency of wind events during the 
life of a school is relatively straight forward. With the exception of strong and violent 
tornadoes, complying with the design procedure in ASCE 7 should typically result in 
adequate estimation of the wind loads that a school will experience. (For strong and 
violent tornadoes, wind and wind-borne debris loads derived from FEMA 361 should 
typically provide an adequate estimation.) However, the great challenge with 
performance-based wind design is the assessment of the wind resistance of the 
building envelope and rooftop equipment and the corresponding damage 
susceptibility. 

Assessment of the true performance of the building envelope and rooftop equipment 
is challenging because of several unrelated factors:

¥ Analytical tools (i.e., calculations) are currently not available for many envelope 
systems and components. Because of the complexity of their wind load response, 
many envelope systems and components require laboratory testing, rather than 
analytical evaluation, in order to determine their load-carrying capacity. 
Unfortunately, current test methods typically have many limitations. For example, 
test assemblies normally test unaged materials. Hence, the test may adequately 
indicate how the system will perform during the first few years of its life, but it may 
not indicate how the system will perform after being exposed to sunlight (which 
may result in heat and/or ultraviolet radiation induced degradation), water 
(which may degrade the system via corrosion or dry rot), or repeated modest wind 
events (which may induce fatigue failure). Also, tests are typically static (i.e., 
uniform pressure distribution), rather than dynamic (i.e., cyclically-induced 
loading). In addition, test assemblies are not typically subjected to wind-driven 
water while simultaneously being subjected to design-level wind pressures.

 It is likely that finite element analysis (FEA) will eventually augment or replace 
laboratory testing, but substantial research is necessary before FEA becomes 
available for the numerous building envelope systems from which architects are 
able to choose.

¥ Architects have traditionally given little attention to wind resistance of building 
envelopes, and mechanical engineers have given little attention to wind resistance 
of rooftop equipment. For those architects and engineers that try to give attention 
to envelopes and rooftop equipment, their task is hampered by lack of 
comprehensive design guides, lack of analytical tools and lack of realistic long-
term wind resistance data as discussed above.

¥ Building envelopes are often constructed by several different trades. For example, 
an exterior non-load bearing wall may be framed by one subcontractor, another 
subcontractor may install the insulation and wall covering and another 
subcontractor may install the windows. It is challenging to successfully integrate 
these various subsystems so that wind-driven water infiltration is inhibited and 
load-path continuity is maintained.

¥ Because the building envelope is exposed to weather, it is natural for various 
envelope components to lose strength over time. If naturally-deteriorated 
components are not replaced before they become overly weak, they can be 
damaged during storms that are well below design wind speed conditions. 

Although appropriate maintenance and repair criteria may be included in the 
O&M manual, it is often difficult to determine if serious corrosion, dry rot, or 
termite attack has occurred in concealed portions of the envelope. 

¥ Modifications may inadvertently weaken the resistance of the building envelope. 
For example, if a roof system incorporates an air retarder, and a future penetration 
(such as an exhaust fan) through the roof does not maintain the continuity of the 
air retarder at the penetration, the roof system could receive a sufficiently high 
unexpected load to result in roof covering damage. In this example, even though 
maintaining air retarder continuity should be included in the O&M manual, 
compliance with this O&M requirement could easily be overlooked.
Because of the great uncertainty of the true resistances of the building envelope and 
rooftop equipment on a given school, the level of wind and subsequent water 
infiltration damage that could be reasonably expected to result from a design-level 
windstorm at some future time is difficult to quantify at this time. With development 
of comprehensive wind design guidelines for building envelope systems and rooftop 
equipment, development of greatly enhanced test and analytical methods, and 
greater awareness on the part of designers and construction trades on basic design 
and installation techniques to inhibit water infiltration and practices necessary to 
achieve load-path continuity, the magnitude of the uncertainty can be decreased. 
However, significant research funding is needed in order to reduce the uncertainties 
associated with the wind and water resistance of building envelopes and rooftop 
equipment.
Except for strong and violent tornadoes, schools designed and constructed with one 
of the current model building codes (and adequately maintained and repaired), 
typically present a low risk of casualties and injuries. However, some existing schools 
may present higher risk. For example, a glass curtain wall at a cafeteria, or tall 
unreinforced and inadequately braced CMU wall at a gym may be blown in or out 
during a strong thunderstorm. If students or faculty are nearby, they could be injured 
or killed. Or, a roof could blow off and injure students that are on their way to the 
buses. There is also increased risk of casualties and injuries to people seeking refuge 
in a school during a hurricane if the school was not originally designed for this 
purpose.
By considering the recommendations provided in Chapter 6, and implementing 
those that are appropriate for a given school, the spirit of performance-based design 
can be achieved, with respect to both casualties/injuries and building 
damage/interrupted use, for new construction, as well as existing schools. However, 
because of the limitations discussed above, it is not possible at this time to quantify 
the actual performance that the various enhancement recommendations will offer. In 
some cases, the recommendations may be overly conservative and, in others, they may 
be non-conservative. The recommendations will result in enhanced performance, but 
additional research is needed to quantify the magnitude of the enhancement














MULTIHAZARD DESIGN     3


3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter compares the effects of three natural hazards that are the 
subject of this publication, in terms of their geographical locations, relative warning 
times, frequency, risk, and potential for damage and loss. Comparative losses are 
discussed and fire and safety considerations are presented. The design methods used 
to protect against the hazards by looking at the ways in which these methods 
reinforce or are in conflict with one another are compared. This is a key aspect of 
multihazard design because the similarities and differences in the ways in which 
hazards affect buildings and how to guard against them demand an integrated 
approach to natural hazards design. This must be pursued as part of a larger 
integrated approach to the whole building design problem. 




3.2 THE HAZARDS COMPARED

Natural hazards are not aberrations; they are part of the natural environment in 
which we live and in which our buildings should be designed to function. Therefore, 
it is necessary for designers to become knowledgeable about all natural hazards in 
order to gain an understanding of how they act and how they can be accommodated 
within the design process, rather than treating them as adversaries that the designer 
must reluctantly accommodate at the expense of more traditional design aspirations. 
This section presents a comparative sketch of the three natural hazards covered in 
this publication together with some issues relating to the common hazard of fire. 
The threat of physical attack is covered in a companion publication, FEMA 428, Primer 
to Design Safe School Projects in Case of Terrorist Attacks. A general understanding of all 
hazards is necessary in order to develop an integrated multihazard approach to 
design. It has been a tenet of multihazard design that design for two or more hazards 
may reinforce one another, thus reducing cost and improving protection, but it has 
also been recognized that at times there may be conflicts between designs for 
different hazards. This section presents, for the first time, a systematic analysis of the 
reinforcements and conflicts between hazard protection methods. This takes the 
form of the matrices shown in Section 3.5. This section is presented to stimulate 
discussion and analysis at the outset of project design and to provide a format for 
further development and discussion of the issues involved. 


3.2.1 Location: Where are They?

The public perception of natural hazards is that earthquakes occur in California, 
floods in many riverine and coastal locations, tornadoes in the Midwest, and 
hurricanes along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Although there is some truth to this 
perception as it relates to the highest probabilities for each hazard, hazard maps 
show that the entire United States is vulnerable to one or more of the three main 
natural hazards: earthquakes, floods, or high winds. Earthquakes are predominant in 
the West, but also threaten specific regions in the Midwest, Northeast, and Southeast. 
The great earthquakes centered on the little town of New Madrid, Missouri, in 1811 
and 1812 caused little damage and only a few casualties; a recurrence of these 
earthquakes would impact some of the most populous cities of the Midwest. The worst 
earthquake in the eastern states occurred in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1886; 60 
people were killed and the modest sized city suffered the equivalent of about $25 
million damage in today's dollars. Riverine floods occur along rivers, largely but not 
exclusively in the Midwest, and coastal flooding is associated with storm surges 
caused by high winds. Flash floods caused by sudden, intense rainstorms may occur 
anywhere. Some of the worst floods in U.S. history have been caused by dam failures, 
often when rivers are swollen by flood waters. Extreme winds are regional (e.g., 
hurricanes along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, the Caribbean, and the South Pacific; 
tornadoes typically in the Midwest; and downslope winds adjoining mountain 
ranges), but high winds can also occur anywhere. 
Floods are fairly specific and predictable in their location, and effective design 
against floods is less a matter of design concept than of siting. A building can be 
located in such a way that floods will never be a problem; however, flood-free loca-
tions are relatively rare and our floodplains are full of existing buildings. Other than 
use of elevation, which can be reasonably effective, design against floods consists of a 
number of detailed measures (e.g., dry and wet floodproofing, which is discussed in 
Chapter 5 of this publication), all of which can be overwhelmed by flooding that 
exceeds the design flood. In some regions of the country, the designer must consider 
two or three natural hazards. In parts of California (in certain coastal and river delta 
regions), buildings are vulnerable to both floods and earthquakes, although the 
probability of simultaneous occurrence is remote. The Hawaiian Islands, Guam, the 
Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and parts of the East coast may all be impacted by earth-
quakes, floods, and high winds; although all three are lateral forces, they have many 
different characteristics that must be taken into design consideration.
Figures 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4 provide four maps that show an overview of the incidence 
of earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes in the United States. Figure 3-1 
shows the earthquake hazard for the United States; the contour lines on the map 
indicate the 10 percent probability of exceedance of ground motion accelerations 
within each contour area (or the "odds" that there is a 10 percent chance that the 
accelerations will be exceeded in a 50-year period). Maps such as this are used for 
seismic design to estimate the forces for which structures must be designed. Figures 
3-2, 3-3, and 3-4 show the Presidential Disaster Declarations between January 1965 and 
November 2000 for floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes, respectively. These maps show 
only major events, and do not show all the regions where there are hazards. Chapters 
4, 5, and 6 provide information to enable the reader to establish the risk for each of 
these hazards (earthquakes, floods, and high winds) in a local region, respectively.


3.2.2 Warning: How Much Time is There?

The warning times for these hazards vary. Earthquakes are unique among the natural 
hazards because there is no warning at all, although new sensing devices can now 
give a few seconds warning to locations far from the epicenter. Floods (except flash 
floods) can be predicted so as to give hours or days of warning; hurricanes can be 
tracked for days and give several hours of warning before hitting a specific location. 
Tornadoes are more localized and, though visible, may hit a specific location almost 
without notice. 

Although the tornado gives warning and its approach is visible during daylight, its 
winds are often so strong that damage or destruction in its immediate vicinity is 
common. Hurricanes are tracked by the national hurricane tracking system and their 
movement is carefully and thoroughly reported. The hurricane's movement along its 
path is slower and its size is much larger than a tornado, yet even then its precise 
route and timing cannot be predicted until a few hours before making landfall. 
In earthquake-prone areas that experience frequent events, such as California and 
Alaska, there is a continuous generalized prediction, but the earthquake always 
strikes totally without warning. Although much work has been done throughout the 
world to develop a scientific prediction methodology (based on characteristics such 
as changes in the dimensional or physical nature of the ground prior to an 
earthquake; detailed investigation of the geologic strata; or statistical data on the 
incidence of previous earthquakes), earthquakes must still be regarded as random 
events within a general envelope of probability.


3.2.3 Frequency: How Likely are They to Occur?

For all hazards, the regional probabilities are much higher than the local ones, and 
the extreme events are relatively rare for a given site. Inundation of floodplains in 
riverine areas and flooding of poorly protected or sited coastal locations may be 
relatively frequent; the general threat along rivers occurs each winter and spring, and 
a succession of hurricanes roam the Atlantic seaboard every year, bringing the risk of 
extreme winds and storm surge. Traditionally, residents in tornado-prone areas 
retreated to their basements, but engineered safe rooms are now being constructed in 
homes, schools, and other buildings. Earthquakes are perhaps the most difficult to 
deal with, because of their complete lack of warning, their rarity, and their possible 
extreme consequences. Although an earthquake of a given magnitude is still, in 
practical terms, unpredictable, its probability of occurrence can safely be predicted as 
far higher in California or Alaska than in, for example, Massachusetts or Tennessee. 
Even in California, the rarity of a large earthquake is such that many people will not 
experience one in their lifetime. In less seismic parts of the country, one must go 
back several generations, or to folklore, for earthquake stories, but even then there is 
a probability of an event.

Because natural hazards are only broadly predictable, the incidence of future events 
can only be expressed as probabilities. This presents a problem because what may be 
perfectly rational and useful to a mathematician may be confusing or even 
counterproductive to the public and their decision-makers. The probability of 
occurrence of earthquakes, floods, and high winds is commonly expressed by use of 
the term "return period" or "mean recurrence interval." This is defined as the average 
or mean time in years between the expected occurrence of an event of specified intensity.
For example, until recently, earthquake codes used as a basis of severity a level of 
shaking (an acceleration value) that corresponded to a 10 percent probability of 
exceedance in 50 years (or a probability that it would be exceeded one time in 
approximately 500 years, a 500-year return period). More recently, it has become 
apparent that certain areas, such as the Mississippi embayment area, may, in fact, be 
vulnerable to much larger but more infrequent quakes. Therefore, a new set of hazard 
maps has been produced by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) that shows 
acceleration values for a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years 
(approximately 2/3 of design value). Designing to this level would provide real 
protection against a large earthquake. 

Values for high winds are commonly expressed in codes as a 50-year return period, 
much shorter than earthquakes because their incidence is much more frequent. 
Floods are expressed as a 100-year return period (i.e., the "100-year flood"). To the 
public, these return periods seem very long (i.e., why would a business owner 
confronting small crises every day and large ones every month be worried about an 
event that might not occur for 500 years - let alone 2,500 years? ). And if the return 
period for California is 500 years, would it not be another 400 years before something 
of the magnitude of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake occurs?
The problem is that these figures represent mean or average return periods over a 
very long period of time, with the result that the return period is often quite 
inaccurate in relation to the shorter time periods in which most of us are interested 
(i.e., the next year or the next 10 years). Because floods and high winds are relatively 
frequent, the discrepancy between the actual return period and the mean return 
period used in the codes is much more noticeable than the corresponding 
probabilities for earthquakes. 
Currently, these statements of probability are the best we can do. Because they express 
mean values over long periods of time, they tell little about what will really happen 
this year or next year, but they may give a hint as to what will happen in our lifetime. 
Professional disaster planners must assume that disastrous hazards may occur at any 
time. 


3.2.4 Risk: How Dangerous are They?

Deaths and injuries from natural hazards are serious, but are not statistically large on 
an annual basis (e.g., compared to deaths from automobile accidents); nor have we 
recently encountered the number of deaths caused by the Johnstown, Pennsylvania, 
dam failure and flood of 1889 (3,000 killed) or the Galveston, Texas, hurricane of 1900 
(6,000 killed).

Deaths from earthquakes in the United States have been quite small (e.g., less than 
200 people have been killed since 1971, including the San Fernando, California, 
earthquake that killed 65 people in that year and the later Loma Prieta and 
Northridge, California, earthquakes). However, the experience of Kobe, Japan, in 
1995, when over 6,000 people were killed, shows that we cannot be complacent as to 
the ability of a modern city to withstand a direct hit. 
A major concern for those working on reducing earthquake risks is that the United 
States has yet to experience a large earthquake in an urban location (such as the 1906 
San Francisco earthquake or the New Madrid, Missouri, earthquakes of 1811 and 
1812) that seismologists believe to be inevitable. The Northridge earthquake of 1994 
caused approximately 60 deaths, with economic losses estimated to be over $30 
billion. In January 1995, on the anniversary of the Northridge earthquake, an 
earthquake in Kobe, Japan, caused more than 6,000 deaths and economic losses 
estimated to be over $85 billion. 

Since the Loma Prieta, Northridge, and Kobe earthquakes occurred, several analyses 
have been conducted on the potential effects of large earthquakes in California. It is 
estimated that a repeat of the 1906 earthquake on the San Andreas Fault near San 
Francisco would result in 3,000 to 8,000 deaths (depending on the time of day) with 
economic losses from $170 billion to $225 billion in today's dollars. It is also 
estimated that a magnitude 7 earthquake (a moderate to large shock) on the 
Newport-Inglewood Fault in Southern California would kill between 3,000 and 8,000 
people and the economic losses would range from $175 billion to $220 billion.1 
Earthquake-caused fires have historically been a major cause of casualties, most 
notably in the Tokyo earthquake of 1923. Approximately 30,000 people were killed in a 
single fire storm in a park along the Sunida River. Severe damage and casualties were 
caused by fires in the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 and the Kobe, Japan, 
earthquake of 1995.2
In the period between 1987 and 1997, floods caused 407 deaths: 187 were caused by the 
1996 blizzard and flood in the Northeast. Hurricanes caused 599 deaths, 270 of which 
occurred in the 1993 blizzard and storm in the eastern United States. Although these 
numbers for hurricanes are substantial, relative to the size of the impacted area, the 
number of casualties is much less than in tornadoes. Between 1985 and 1997, the 
National Weather Service Storm Prediction Center reported 15 deaths in schools 
alone, of which 9 occurred in 1989.
Statistics for deaths from natural hazards over a recent 20-year period, on a mean 
annual basis, are as follows:3

¥ Earthquakes 6
¥ Flash floods 160
¥ Hurricanes 30
¥ Tornadoes 100



3.2.5 Cost: How Much Damage Will They Cause?

In the last two decades, losses from natural hazards have escalated. During the period 
from 1987 to 1997, floods caused $30 billion to $37 billion in damage, of which $15 
billion was due to the Midwest floods of 1993. In the same 10-year period, hurricanes 
caused losses of between $60 billion to $66 billion, of which $27 billion was due to 
Hurricane Andrew in Florida and Louisiana. 
The three major California earthquakes that occurred in the period (Whittier 
Narrows, 1987, Loma Prieta, 1989, and Northridge 1994) caused some $36.5 billion in 
damages.

A statistical comparison of percentage of occurrence of property and economic losses 
between January 1986 and December 1992 is as follows:4

¥ Earthquakes  3
¥ Hurricanes/Tropical storms 48
¥ Tornadoes/Other winds 40
¥ Fire/Explosion 5
¥ Miscellaneous 4

Although these statistics relate to events prior to the Northridge earthquake of 1994 
and also predate a number of significant floods and hurricanes, the relative 
importance of each hazard has not changed significantly, even though the overall 
dollar values involved have increased sharply.
One cause of this serious increase in the social and economic impacts of natural 
hazards is the rapid pace and intensity of urban and suburban development since 
World War II, particularly in states such as California, the Carolinas, and Florida, all 
of which have their own high hazard probability. Another is the high cost of 
construction, now soaring to levels inconceivable only a few decades ago. A third 
problem is that our political, economic, and social mechanisms for decision-making 
are still ill equipped to deal with the multi-faceted problems of reducing the risks and 
consequences of natural disasters. 


 
3.3 COMPARATIVE LOSSES

The HAZUS-MH (Hazards U.S.-Multihazards) program was developed by the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to produce loss estimates for use by federal, 
state, regional, and local governments to plan for damage, prepare emergency re-
sponse and recovery programs, and to help examine options to reduce future damage. 
HAZUS-MH is a Geographic Information System (GIS)-based program designed to 
help communities estimate future losses. The methodology covers nearly all aspects 
of the built environment and a wide range of losses. Originally developed to assess 
risks from earthquakes, the methodology has been expanded to address floods 
throughout the U.S. and hurricanes in the Atlantic and Gulf coast regions.
In order to obtain an indication of the magnitude of losses and their relative 
significance for the three hazards considered in this manual, a "Level 1" HAZUS-MH 
analysis was conducted for educational facilities in six areas of the United States. A 
Level 1 analysis uses the building inventory in the HAZUS-MH program and is 
intended to give a broad picture of damage and loss on a regional basis.
The analysis was a regional loss analysis and was based on the building information 
for the EDU 1 occupancy class in the general building stock module from the 
upcoming release of HAZUS-MH. (This occupancy class is the HAZUS-MH 
designation for the school building inventory.) The regions chosen were those prone 
to two or more of the hazards addressed in HAZUS-MH, and deemed to provide a 
useful range geographic range. For each region and applicable hazard, probabilistic 
losses for a 100-and 500-year return period event (earthquake, flood, or high wind) 
were computed. The column "EDU 1 Exposure" in Table 3-1 refers to the total school 
inventory in each region.

The following regions were evaluated:

¥ Charleston County, South Carolina (Charleston) (earthquake, flood, and hurricane)
¥ Shelby County, Tennessee (Memphis) (earthquake and flood)
¥ Bexar County, Texas (San Antonio) (hurricane and flood)
¥ Salt Lake County, Utah (Salt Lake) (earthquake and flood)
¥ Suffolk County, Massachusetts (Boston) (earthquake, flood, and hurricane)
¥ Hillsborough County, Florida (Tampa) (hurricane and flood)

Table 3-1 is a summary of the results for the earthquake, wind, and flood scenarios as 
outlined above. 

Table 3-2 shows another comparison of these losses in the form of the percentage 
loss of school inventory for each event. It is instructive to note, in some cases, the 
wide disparity in losses between the 100-year and 500-year events.



This HAZUS-MH study, though limited in scope and relying on built inventory 
information, reveals some useful information:

¥  Generally, the 100-year earthquake causes insignificant damage, except in Salt Lake 
City, UT ($3 million).
¥ The 500-year earthquake causes the most damage in Salt Lake City, UT ($42 
million), followed by Shelby, TX ($15 million) and Charleston, SC ($5 million).
¥ The 100-year flood causes by far the most damage in Hillsborough, FL ($15 million; 
however, the 500-year flood causes only another $1 million in damage). In Shelby, 
TN, the 100-year flood causes $5 million in damage and the 500-year flood causes 
$9 million. Elsewhere, flood damage is insignificant. 
¥ The 100-year hurricane causes the most damage in Hillsborough, FL ($20.5 
million), followed by Charleston, SC ($11.5 million) and Suffolk, MA ($10 
million).
¥ The 500-year flood causes $118 million in damage in Suffolk, MA, $99 million in 
damage in Hillsborough, FL,  and $46 million in damage in Charleston, SC.
Charleston, SC, has the greatest combined threat from earthquakes and hurricanes; 
Hillsborough, FL, has the greatest combined threat from hurricanes and floods. 

The relatively modest damage figures shown in this study could be changed 
dramatically by a single large event, whether an earthquake, flood, or hurricane. It 
should also be noted that none of these locations were on the west coast and, thus, 
the damage figures for earthquakes are low. 



3.3 FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY

Of the many hazards that can endanger a school facility and its service to the 
community, the most prevalent is fire. This is more pervasive than any of the hazards 
noted above. However, design against fire has long been built into our building 
codes, in the form of approved materials, fire-resistant assemblies, exiting 
requirements, the width and design of stairs, the dimensions of corridors, fire 
suppression systems, and many other issues. In fact, fire considerations are now so 
embedded in our design culture and regulation that there is a real danger that some 
designers may not fully realize that fire hazard is a specific design issue that must be 
considered.

According to the Special Report on Educational Property Structure Fires in the United States 
published by the NFPA in 1989, an average of 11,100 structural fires occur annually in 
educational properties. These fires resulted in a direct property loss of nearly $100 
million, with 236 injuries and 3 fatalities. According to both NFPA and the United 
States Fire Administration (USFA), a substantial number of fires in schools are the 
result of arson.

Fires in older school buildings often result in a total loss of the building. This is due 
to a variety of factors, which include: delay of discovery and alarm, remote locations, 
lack of fire walls and/or compartmentation, lack of draft stopping in combustible 
attics, lack of automatic fire sprinkler systems, and inadequate water supplies for 
manual fire suppression activities. Losses in buildings without automatic fire alarm 
and detection systems are twice those in buildings with such systems. Additionally, 
fire losses in buildings without automatic fire sprinkler protection are five times 
higher than those in buildings protected by sprinklers.
Often there appears to be a concern that there is not enough water for automatic fire 
sprinklers. The reality is that the water supply necessary for the proper operation of 
an automatic fire sprinkler system is far less than the amount of water necessary for 
manual fire suppression by the fire department.  As an example, the water supply for a 
fire sprinkler system protecting a typical school building would be in the 350 gallons 
per minute (gpm) range, although 2,500 gpm or more would be required by a typical 
school building without sprinklers.
Since the 1970s, the provisions of the various building codes have continued to 
improve the level of fire and life safety of new school facilities. The level of fire and 
life safety in existing buildings is, however, another matter because the provisions of 
the various building codes are generally not applied to existing facilities except when 
renovations or additions are made and then only to the new work. Given that the 
average age of a school facility in the United States is currently 42 years, it is highly 
likely that older buildings do not provide the same level of protection as newer 
buildings. In order to protect these older facilities, their levels of fire and life safety 
must be evaluated. After an evaluation has been conducted, solutions using 
prescriptive and/or performance approaches can be developed and undertaken.
One system of evaluation is that contained in the existing structures chapter of the 
International Building Code. The "compliance alternatives" section provides a way of 
evaluating the overall level of fire and life safety in an existing building. Although the 
provisions of this section are generally intended to be applied to an existing building 
during changes in occupancy or renovation, it can provide the basis for the 
evaluation of any existing building. 
The evaluation comprises three categories: fire safety, means of egress, and general 
safety. The fire safety evaluation includes structural fire resistance, automatic fire 
detection, and fire alarm and fire suppression systems. Included within the means of 
egress portion are the configuration, characteristics, and support features for the 
means of egress. The general safety section evaluates various fire safety and means of 
egress parameters. The evaluation method generates a numerical score in the various 
areas, which can then be compared to mandatory safety scores. Deficiencies in one 
area may be offset by other safety features.
Another method of evaluating and upgrading an existing facility is the application of 
the provisions of the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code. Unlike the provisions of the various 
building codes, this document is intended to be applied retroactively to existing 
facilities and has a chapter specifically for existing educational occupancies. Even if 
this code is not adopted by the local jurisdiction, it can be used as the basis for an 
evaluation of any existing facility.

There is no question that upgrading an existing school facility can be costly. 
However, the cost of upgrades is far less than the direct and indirect losses of the 
facility to fire. The most effective method of providing fire protection is through 
automatic fire sprinklers, but other lower cost methods can be utilized, including:

¥ Automatic fire alarm and detection
¥ Draft stopping in combustible attic spaces
¥ Smoke and fire compartmentation walls in occupied spaces

Upgrades in fire and life safety can often be coordinated with other building 
renovations or upgrades to help reduce costs. For instance, draft stopping could be 
installed in a wood framed attic during roof deck replacement. Fire sprinklers could 
be installed during asbestos abatement or ceiling replacement/upgrades for seismic 
concerns. 



3.5   HAZARD PROTECTION METHODS COMPARISONS: 
REINFORCEMENTS AND CONFLICTS

An important aspect of designing against all hazards in an integrated approach is 
that the methods used for design may reinforce one another or may conflict with one 
another; in the former case, the costs of multihazard design can be reduced, but, in 
the latter, they may be increased. Table 3-3 summarizes the effects that design for 
more than one hazard may have on the performance and cost of the building, 
addition, or repair. 
The horizontal rows show the five primary hazards. The vertical rows show methods 
of protection for the building systems and components that have significant 
interaction, either reinforcement or conflict. These methods are taken from the 
extended descriptions of risk reduction methods for the three main natural hazards 
discussed herein, together with the methods for security/blast protection presented 
in FEMA 428, Primer to Design Safe School Projects in Case of Terrorist Attacks. In addition, the 
interactions of these four categories of risk protection with fire safety, where they 
occur, are also shown. 

The designations are intended to provoke thought and design integration; they are 
not absolute restrictions or recommendations. In general, reinforcement between 
hazards may be gained and undesirable conditions and conflicts can be resolved by 
coordinated design between the consultants, starting at the inception of design. The 
reader is encouraged to use the list as a basis for discussion relative to specific 
projects and to structure the benefits and conflicts of multihazard design depending 
on local hazards.

Table 3-3 also provides information to help the reader to develop a list of 
reinforcements and conflicts for the particular combination of hazards that may be 
faced. Development of lists such as these can be used to structure initial discussions 
on the impact of multihazard design on the building performance and cost that, in 
turn, guide an integrated design strategy for multihazard protection. The system and 
component heading list is similar to that used for the building security assessment 
checklist in FEMA 426, Reference Manual to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks Against 
Buildings.















MAKING SCHOOLS SAFE AGAINST EARTHQUAKES     4



4.1INTRODUCTION

This chapter outlines the earthquake risk to schools and the processes and 
methods that can be used to reduce it. An explanation of the nature and probability 
of earthquakes is provided, together with procedures for determining the earthquake 
threat to specific locations. An assessment of the scope and effectiveness of seismic 
building codes is followed by an explanation of how to evaluate the vulnerability of a 
school building. Current methods of designing for seismic resistance in new 
buildings and upgrading existing buildings lead to a discussion on determining 
acceptable risk and the use of performance-based design to achieve community 
objectives in providing for seismic safety. 
4.2THE NATURE AND PROBABILITY OF EARTHQUAKES  
Although earthquakes cannot be prevented, modern science and engineering 
provide tools that can be used to reduce their effects. Science can now identify, with 
considerable accuracy, where earthquakes are likely to occur and what forces they will 
generate. This information is readily available and can be obtained for local geo-
graphic regions (see Section 4.2.3). 



4.2.1Earthquakes and Other Geologic Hazards

Earthquakes have long been feared as one of nature's most terrifying phenomena. 
Early in human history, the sudden shaking of the earth and the death and 
destruction that resulted were seen as mysterious and uncontrollable. We now 
understand the origin of earthquakes and know that they must be accepted as a 
natural environmental process. Scientific explanations, however, have not lessened 
the terrifying nature of the earthquake experience. Earthquakes continue to remind 
us that nature can, without warning, in a few seconds create a level of death and 
destruction that can only be equaled