Program Name Seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program

Administering Agency CA Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC)

Contact Person (Name/Title) Fred Turner, Staff Structural Engineer

Address 1900 K St., #100, Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone Number 916-327-1606

Fax Number 916-322-9476
 

1.	How long has this program been operational? Month: June Year: 1991
2.	What are the major purposes of this program? What problem(s) or issue(s) was it designed to address?
	To help governments spend seismic retrofit dollars more wisely and balance the benefits of reducing damage against the costs of retrofitting existing institutional buildings.
3.	Describe the specific activities and operations of the program.
	Four Products:      1) Improved seismic retrofit guidelines for engineers      2) Risk management tools for facility owners      3) Limited research to support Products 1 & 2      4) Information Transfer and Dissemination
4.	Does this program take a new and creative approach or method? If yes, please describe.
	We are collaborating with volunteers from the CSSC’s Oversight Panel, the California Building Officials, the American Institute of Architects - California Council, and the Structural Engineers Assn. of California to provide continuing education for design professionals.
5.	What were the program’s start-up costs and source(s) of funding?
	Up to $3,000,000 Budget Source: Proposition 122 General Obligation State Bonds
	What are the program’s annual operational costs and source(s) of funding?
	$104,000 Budget Source: Same
6.	How many employees (full-time equivalent) work(ed) with this program? 2 FTE, plus volunteer & external contractors
7.	To the best of your knowledge, did this program originate in your state? Yes
	Are you aware of similar programs in other states? No
8.	Has the program been fully implemented? No
	If No, what actions remain to be taken?
	Our Product 4, Information Transfer and Continuing Education effort, is just getting underway.
9.	Is there evidence that the program has been effective in achieving its stated purpose(s)? Briefly summarize evaluations (pro and con) of how well the program has addressed the defined problem(s) or issue(s).
	Yes, we have successfully influenced the retrofit practice in California by       introducing concepts of performance objectives and simple, nonlinear structural analysis techniques. With somewhat higher design costs, we have experienced considerably lower retrofit construction costs.
10.	How has the program changed since its inception? What limitations or obstacles might other states expect to encounter if they attempt to adopt this program?
	Yes, we reassess the direction of the program during and after each product is completed. Several damaging earthquakes changed our priorities and caused delays. We found it difficult to reach an informal consensus on some issues, particularly with volunteer participants.
11.	Additional comments:
	Prop. 122 Products have allowed both owners and design professionals to have a better understanding about the limits and capabilities of retrofitting buildings.