Hubbry Logo
Color-tagged structureColor-tagged structureMain
Open search
Color-tagged structure
Community hub
Color-tagged structure
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Color-tagged structure
Color-tagged structure
Color-tagged structure
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A color-tagged structure is a structure which has been classified by a color to represent the severity of damage or the overall condition of the building. The exact definition for each color may be different in different countries and jurisdictions.[1]

A red-tagged structure has been severely damaged to the degree that the structure is too dangerous to inhabit. Similarly, a structure is yellow-tagged if it has been moderately damaged to the degree that its habitability is limited (only during the day, for example). A green-tagged structure may mean the building is either undamaged or has suffered slight damage, although differences exist at local levels when to use a green tag.

Tagging is performed by government building officials, or, occasionally during disasters, by engineers deputized by the building official. Natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods and mudslides are among the most common causes of a building being red-, yellow- or green-tagged. Usually, after such incidents, the local government body responsible for enforcing the building safety code examines the affected structures and tags them as appropriate.

In some areas of the United States, buildings are marked with a rectangular sign that is red with a white border and a white "X". Such signs provide the same information as "red-tagging" a building. Tagging structures in these ways can warn firefighters and others about hazardous buildings before the buildings are entered.

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Color-tagged structure

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A color-tagged structure is a building or other edifice that has undergone post-disaster evaluation and been assigned a color-coded indicating its status based on structural integrity and hazard levels. These placards, labeled INSPECTED (), RESTRICTED USE (), or UNSAFE (), are posted by trained building officials or engineers at entry points to communicate to the , responders, and property owners following events such as earthquakes, floods, windstorms, or tornadoes. The system originates from standardized procedures developed by the Applied Technology Council (ATC), particularly ATC-20 for seismic events and ATC-45 for wind and flood damage, which guide rapid and detailed inspections to assess both structural elements (e.g., foundations, walls) and nonstructural hazards (e.g., falling debris, utility failures). A green (INSPECTED) signifies the is safe for full occupancy, with no apparent significant hazards observed during evaluation. In contrast, a yellow (RESTRICTED USE) denotes limited access due to moderate damage posing hazards, such as structural offsets or nonstructural issues like water intrusion, often requiring further detailed assessment or repairs before full reentry. The most severe designation, a red (UNSAFE), marks the as unsafe, prohibiting entry to protect against significant life-threatening risks, with mandatory barricading and professional remediation needed. Implemented by authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs) such as local building departments, these evaluations typically involve certified professionals trained through programs like the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services Safety Assessment Program (), ensuring consistency and reliability. The () endorses this approach in its 2019 P-2055 guidance (supplemented in 2023), emphasizing its role in minimizing secondary injuries, prioritizing recovery resources, and complying with codes like the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). Placards cannot be removed or altered without AHJ approval, underscoring their legal weight in . This framework has been widely adopted across the , enhancing by providing clear, visual cues for safe navigation in affected areas.

Overview

Definition and Scope

A color-tagged structure refers to a building or other constructed facility that has undergone post-disaster and been assigned a color-coded to denote its assessed condition and potential for , applicable to various natural and human-caused disasters such as earthquakes, floods, windstorms, and tornadoes. This system enables quick communication of structural integrity findings to responders, building occupants, and authorities, emphasizing over comprehensive . The scope of color-tagged structures is centered on rapid structural safety assessments in the United States, where evaluations prioritize identifying immediate hazards to human life rather than exhaustive damage quantification or repair recommendations. These assessments apply to a broad range of building types, from residential to commercial and facilities, but exclude non-structural elements unless they pose direct risks. Placards are affixed to building entrances to enforce decisions during the initial recovery phase following a disaster event. The foundational procedures for this tagging system are outlined in the ATC-20 guidelines (for seismic events) and ATC-45 (for and floods) developed by the Applied Technology . Key components of the color-tagging process include standardized, durable placards that feature the assigned color, descriptive text indicating the evaluation outcome, and the date of inspection to ensure transparency and . These placards are designed for outdoor posting and are typically printed on weather-resistant materials to withstand environmental exposure during post-disaster conditions.

Purpose and Importance

The color-tagged structure system, primarily through the ATC-20 Postearthquake Building Safety Evaluation procedures for seismic events and ATC-45 for and damage (as of 2019, with a 2023 supplement on accelerated reoccupancy), aims to rapidly determine and communicate the status of potentially damaged buildings following earthquakes or other disasters, ensuring public safety by restricting access to hazardous structures. This evaluation process uses color-coded placards—green indicating inspected and safe for , yellow for restricted use, and for unsafe—to provide immediate, visual guidance to emergency responders, officials, and the public, thereby preventing injuries from collapse or other risks during reentry. The system's focus on life safety prioritizes quick assessments over comprehensive property evaluations, allowing teams to complete rapid inspections in approximately 30 minutes per building. The importance of this system lies in its role within broader disaster management frameworks, such as those from FEMA, where it integrates with the to prioritize evaluations of like hospitals and emergency services. By identifying safe buildings for immediate reoccupancy, it reduces economic disruptions, minimizes community displacement, and lowers demands on temporary sheltering resources, facilitating faster recovery in affected areas. For instance, in events like the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, similar tagging procedures supported resident decisions on staying in or evacuating damaged homes, highlighting the system's utility in balancing safety with habitability. Beyond immediate response, the color-tagging system aids long-term recovery by informing assessments, rebuilding priorities, and , emphasizing occupant over full structural repair. Its standardized approach, as adopted in programs like California's Safety Assessment Program, enhances and , ultimately contributing to more resilient communities by preventing secondary incidents in disaster zones.

History

Development of the ATC-20 Procedure

The Applied Technology Council (ATC), established in 1971 in direct response to the widespread structural damage observed during the , recognized the critical need for a standardized, rapid system to evaluate and tag damaged buildings post-seismic events. This event highlighted deficiencies in existing assessment practices, prompting ATC—a founded by the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)—to prioritize user-friendly engineering tools for hazard mitigation. In 1987, ATC initiated the development of the ATC-20 procedures under a awarded by the ’s of Emergency Services (OES), the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), and the (), with the goal of creating guidelines to enhance public safety through systematic postearthquake inspections. The project drew on expertise from structural engineers, building officials, and seismologists to synthesize lessons from prior earthquakes, ensuring the procedures were practical for field application by non-specialist evaluators. Primary development was led by R.P. Gallagher Associates, Inc., with Ronald P. Gallagher serving as principal-in-charge, supported by a project engineering panel that included David R. Bonneville, Nick Delli Quadri, Maryann T. Phipps, Richard A. Ranous, James E. Russell, William E. Staehlin, and Zan Turner. Christopher Rojahn acted as project manager, overseeing the integration of input from volunteer structural engineers and building inspectors for whom the guidelines were specifically tailored. Key milestones began with the 1989 publication of ATC-20: Procedures for Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings and its companion ATC-20-1 Field Manual, which provided concise field guidance for rapid and detailed evaluations. These documents were released just one month before the , marking their inaugural real-world application during that event. In 1995, ATC issued the ATC-20-2 Addendum, featuring updated assessment forms and placards to reflect evolving practices, funded by the and U.S. Geological Survey. The early saw further refinements, including a 2005 revision to the ATC-20-1 Field Manual that incorporated the "RESTRICTED USE" placard (originally introduced in 1995) and concurrent updates to ATC-20-2 forms for improved clarity and usability. Parallel to these updates, ATC developed the ATC-45 Field Manual: Safety Evaluation of Buildings After Windstorms and Floods, published in 2004, adapting the procedures for non-seismic hazards like wind and floods. By the , digital advancements emerged with the introduction of mobile tools like the FEMA application in 2011, enabling electronic data collection and offline tagging aligned with ATC-20 standards to streamline post-disaster assessments.

Initial Implementation and Evolution

The color-tagged structure system, formalized in the ATC-20 procedures, saw its initial widespread adoption following the in , where it was rapidly deployed to guide volunteer structural engineers and building inspectors in assessing damaged structures across the affected regions. This marked the first large-scale application of the red, yellow, and green tagging methodology, enabling quick prioritization of safe, restricted, and unsafe buildings to facilitate emergency response and public safety. The system's rollout involved immediate training sessions for local officials and volunteers, building on pre-earthquake preparations that had familiarized Bay Area professionals with the guidelines just weeks prior. Over the subsequent years, the procedures evolved through targeted refinements to address practical challenges observed in early implementations, such as variations in tagging interpretations that arose from the high volume of assessments under time pressure. In 1995, the Applied Technology Council released ATC-20-2, an addendum that updated evaluation forms and placards to enhance clarity and consistency in postearthquake inspections. This was followed in 1997 by ATC-20-3, a report compiling 53 detailed case studies from events including the , which served as an instructional tool to refine rapid evaluation techniques and standardize inspector decision-making. By the 2010s, the system integrated digital technologies to improve efficiency, incorporating geographic information systems (GIS) mapping and mobile applications for collection and tagging during assessments. For instance, tools like ESRI's Collector for allowed field evaluators to submit ATC-20 forms digitally, streamlining workflows and enabling better coordination among response teams. These advancements addressed ongoing needs for faster, more accurate documentation in large-scale events. In the 2020s, updates expanded the system's applicability beyond earthquakes to climate-related disasters, such as wildfires, through adaptations by the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) Safety Assessment Program (), which incorporates ATC-20 forms for evaluating fire-damaged structures. Early inconsistencies in tagging, highlighted in post-Loma Prieta reviews, were systematically tackled via Cal OES's standardized training programs, which certify evaluators and promote uniform application of criteria across disciplines like engineering and .

Classification Categories

Green Tag: Inspected and Safe

The green tag, designated as "INSPECTED," signifies that a has undergone and poses no significant hazards, allowing for unrestricted . This posting is applied following a rapid evaluation, typically lasting 15 to 60 minutes, which assesses both structural and non-structural elements to confirm the building's integrity. Criteria for a green tag require the absence of severe structural damage, such as , significant out-of-plumb conditions, severe , partial collapse, noticeable tilt or lean, major cracks, or deformation that compromises vertical load-carrying or lateral force-resisting capacity. Minor structural issues, like small cracks in non-load-bearing walls or plaster cracks in wood-frame dwellings, are permissible if they do not threaten life safety. Non-structural checks must reveal no obvious falling hazards, such as unstable parapets, chimneys, or loose cladding requiring , and no serious environmental risks like gas leaks, toxic spills, fire, or major chemical releases. Acceptable minor non-structural damage includes small non-progressive cracks in walls or floors, slight displacement of fixtures, minor exterior cladding or roofing issues, and broken windows affecting less than 50% of the glazing, provided they pose no immediate life safety threat. The building must pass the rapid evaluation checklist, confirming overall with little to no damage impacting safety. The implications of a tag permit full and normal use immediately upon posting. This designation does not imply the is undamaged or exempt from future ; owners are encouraged to address any identified minor issues to prevent long-term deterioration. The posting remains valid unless subsequent events, such as aftershocks, alter the building's condition, at which point reinspection may be requested. Posting details involve affixing a placard labeled "INSPECTED - APPARENTLY SAFE" to all main entrances, including the evaluator's and the date of . The may specify "Exterior Only" if the assessment was limited to the building's exterior or "Exterior and Interior" for a complete . This visible marker reassures occupants and authorities of the structure's safety status until a detailed , if warranted, confirms or modifies it.

Yellow Tag: Restricted Use

The yellow tag, designated as "Restricted Use" in the ATC-20 procedure, is applied to buildings exhibiting moderate damage that compromises safety or but permits limited, supervised occupancy under specific conditions. This classification arises from visual assessments identifying issues such as partial foundation cracks, fallen ceilings obstructing exits, cladding damage exposing interiors to weather, or water-saturated finishes posing falling hazards or air quality risks, where full occupancy could endanger lives but essential functions like possession retrieval remain feasible with precautions. Localized severe conditions combined with overall moderate damage, including partial collapses or broken , may also warrant this tag if they do not threaten the entire structure's stability. Implications of a yellow tag include strict limitations on entry, , and use to mitigate risks, such as restricting access to hours, specific floors, or designated areas while barricading hazardous zones and reducing occupant loads. Repairs or temporary measures, like boarding openings, implementing fire watches, or drying affected areas to prevent mold, are typically required before upgrading to full , with ongoing monitoring to address potential aftershocks. This status signals the need for further detailed to confirm restrictions or authorize changes, distinguishing it from unconditional approvals or total prohibitions. The yellow placard is posted at all building entrances by authorized evaluators, such as code officials or trained engineers, clearly stating "RESTRICTED USE" along with precise limitations (e.g., "No entry above 2nd floor" or "Brief entry for essentials only"). It often follows an initial rapid and remains in place until removed by the governing after verification, ensuring public awareness of the conditional status.

Red Tag: Unsafe

The red tag, designated as "Unsafe," is applied to buildings exhibiting severe structural damage that poses an imminent risk of , as determined through rapid or detailed evaluations under the ATC-20 procedure. Criteria for this classification include or partial , the building or a story leaning significantly out of plumb, major foundation shifts such as the structure moving off its foundation, and severe or to primary load-bearing elements like walls or columns. Additional indicators encompass large fissures, massive ground movement, or slope displacement that endangers the overall integrity of the building. These conditions are identified during rapid safety checks, where any severe hazard failing the inspection prompts an immediate Unsafe posting without further entry. Upon red tagging, no entry or occupancy is permitted, with immediate evacuation enforced to protect public safety, and the building typically requires extensive , stabilization, or before reoccupation can be considered. The designation prohibits all access, controlled solely by the local , underscoring the life-threatening hazards present. This status signals that professional assessment and repairs are mandatory, often involving structural reinforcements to address the underlying failures. The red features bold warnings stating "UNSAFE - DO NOT ENTER OR OCCUPY" and "This Is Unsafe and Its Occupancy Has Been Prohibited by the Code Official," posted visibly at all entrances and secured with tape or other means to prevent tampering. It further instructs that the must not be removed, altered, or covered without authorization from the governing authority. Enforcement is vested in building officials or the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ), who have legal powers under building codes to restrict access, issue evacuation orders, and coordinate with if needed.

Evaluation Procedures

Rapid Evaluation Process

The Rapid Evaluation Process is the initial triage phase of the color-tagged structure assessment, designed for swift determination of a building's immediate safety following an earthquake. This procedure, outlined in the ATC-20 guidelines, is conducted by trained evaluators, such as those certified through programs like California's Safety Assessment Program (SAP), who work in teams of at least two to ensure personal safety and thorough observation. The assessment typically lasts 15-30 minutes per building, focusing on visual inspections without any engineering calculations or structural analysis to enable rapid deployment across affected areas. It prioritizes high-occupancy structures, such as schools, hospitals, and commercial buildings, to facilitate quick decisions on public access and resource allocation. The process begins with a visual exterior walkthrough to identify obvious signs of or hazards, followed by a limited interior if the exterior appears and entry is deemed . Evaluators approach the building cautiously, avoiding entry into structures showing severe leaning, , or potential , and always verify that exits are clear and operable before proceeding indoors. One team member remains outside to monitor for changes, such as shifting debris or aftershocks, while others conduct the walkthrough, staying away from lean directions and being alert to immediate dangers like exposed wiring or unstable slopes. This step-by-step visual method allows evaluators to gauge overall usability without specialized testing, emphasizing judgment based on observable damage patterns. Central to the evaluation is a standardized comprising over 20 items that guide systematic observation of structural and non-structural elements. Key areas include foundation integrity, such as cracks or differential settlement; roof condition, including sagging or separation from walls; and various hazards like gas leaks, electrical exposures, or falling debris from chimneys and parapets. Other checklist components cover wall racking, vertical load failures in columns or framing, ground movement effects, and interior stability issues like floor-ceiling separations or blocked egress paths. Evaluators note the extent of —minor (0-1%), moderate (10-30%), or severe (60-100%)—to inform the overall posting decision, with severe conditions warranting immediate restrictions. Essential tools for the process include a placard kit for tagging, a flashlight for low-light areas, a hard hat, and safety shoes, enabling evaluators to perform assessments in hazardous post-disaster environments without advanced equipment. No computational tools or formulas are used, as the focus remains on qualitative visual cues to expedite triage. Upon completion, the evaluation results in one of three color-coded placards posted at building entrances: for inspected and entry, for restricted use due to partial , or for unsafe conditions prohibiting . These outcomes guide emergency responders and occupants, with or tags often triggering further detailed reviews, while allows resumption of normal activities. By emphasizing speed and , the Rapid Evaluation Process minimizes risks in the critical hours following a .

Detailed Evaluation Process

The detailed evaluation process serves as a follow-up assessment for buildings initially tagged as (restricted use) or (unsafe) during rapid evaluations, providing a more thorough analysis to confirm or revise the safety status. This process is typically conducted by licensed structural engineers, professional engineers with structural specialization, architects, or qualified building officials, often deputized by local jurisdictions to ensure expertise in seismic performance. It generally requires 1 to 4 hours or more per building, depending on the structure's complexity and extent of damage, allowing for in-depth scrutiny beyond initial visual checks. Key steps include systematic measurements of structural elements, such as using tape measures and levels to quantify displacements or deformations, alongside non-destructive testing methods like crack gauges to monitor fissure widths and borescopes to inspect inaccessible areas for hidden damage. The evaluation incorporates comprehensive , assessing load-carrying capacity, stability of foundations, walls, columns, diaphragms, and connections through field investigations and construction observations. Additionally, evaluators review original construction plans, building design documents, historical maintenance records, and prior seismic event data to contextualize current . Specialized tools enhance the precision of this assessment, including engineering software for modeling structural behavior, as well as borescopes for internal inspections and seismic records to correlate ground motion intensities with observed effects. These resources, combined with standardized forms from ATC-20-1, enable evaluators to document findings systematically. Outcomes determine reoccupancy eligibility, with results leading to updated placards: an upgrade to (inspected and safe) if hazards are mitigated, maintenance of for limited access, or for unsafe conditions requiring evacuation. For - or -tagged buildings, this detailed evaluation is mandatory before any reoccupancy, often recommending repairs or further intrusive testing to ensure life safety.

Implementation and Variations

Application in California

In California, the color-tagged structure evaluation system, based on the ATC-20 procedures, is standardized through the Safety Assessment Program () administered by the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). This program integrates the ATC-20 rapid and detailed evaluation forms and placards to assess building safety following earthquakes and other disasters, ensuring a uniform protocol across the state for determining if structures are safe (green tag), restricted (yellow tag), or unsafe (red tag). Cal OES coordinates the statewide implementation, maintaining a registry of more than 10,000 volunteer evaluators as of 2018, including licensed engineers, architects, and certified building inspectors, who undergo standardized to perform assessments. Training emphasizes field safety, team-based evaluations, and the use of ATC-20 field manuals, with ongoing refresher courses to keep evaluators current on procedures adapted for earthquakes, windstorms, floods, and fires. Local jurisdictions request support when local capacity is overwhelmed, and Cal OES deploys teams under the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and (ICS). Enforcement is handled by local building departments, which deputize SAP evaluators to issue official tags, providing legal authority and liability protection under state laws such as the Emergency Services Act. Tampering with or removing tags is prohibited, with placards explicitly warning of penalties under local building codes and ordinances, potentially including fines or criminal charges for endangering public safety. These assessments are integrated into operations centers, prioritizing essential facilities like hospitals and shelters to facilitate rapid recovery and support federal declarations through preliminary damage assessments. The system has been applied in every major California earthquake since its development, enabling systematic tagging to guide occupancy decisions and resource allocation. For instance, following the , over 112,000 damaged structures were assessed using ATC-20 procedures, resulting in thousands of tags issued to address widespread hazards in residential and commercial buildings.

Use in Other Regions and Adaptations

The color-tagged structure system, originating from the ATC-20 procedures, has been widely adopted in other U.S. regions prone to seismic activity. In Washington state, the WAsafe Coalition implements a Safety Assessment Program (SAP) that directly incorporates ATC-20 rapid and detailed evaluation protocols for post-earthquake building inspections, training evaluators to apply green, yellow, and red placards to ensure public safety. Similarly, Utah's state Earthquake Program utilizes ATC-20 methodologies, offering specialized workshops for engineers, architects, and inspectors to conduct on-site placarding and assessments following seismic events. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) promotes ATC-20 as the de facto national standard for post-disaster building safety evaluations, recommending its application across all states in response to earthquakes or other hazards to standardize rapid reoccupancy decisions. Adaptations of the system extend to other in vulnerable areas. In , where tsunamis pose a significant threat, the principles of ATC-45—developed in part through workshops sponsored by the Hawaii State —are applied for post-flood and windstorm safety evaluations, using analogous color tags to assess structural integrity and habitability after inundation events. New Zealand adapted the tagging framework after the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes by introducing an orange placard category, designating buildings that require immediate further engineering investigation but are not immediately unsafe, thus refining the spectrum between yellow (restricted use) and red (unsafe) classifications to better manage recovery in densely populated areas. Internationally, analogous color-coded systems have been developed to align with local regulations while drawing from ATC-20 concepts. employs a green-yellow-red tagging protocol for post- assessments, often integrated with to evaluate damage and usability, emphasizing caution tags for buildings needing restricted access pending repairs.

Notable Examples

Earthquake (1989)

The Loma Prieta earthquake, which struck the on October 17, 1989, with a moment magnitude of 6.9, caused extensive damage across multiple counties, including the collapse or severe impairment of approximately 1,400 buildings and damage to around 27,000 others, primarily from intense ground shaking and in areas like 's Marina District. This event marked the first widespread application of the ATC-20 procedures, which had been published just one month earlier in September 1989, enabling rapid safety evaluations by trained inspectors from organizations such as the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) and local building departments. In the initial 72 hours, evaluators conducted rapid assessments on roughly 1,000 structures in heavily affected zones, including , Santa Cruz, and Oakland, using the system's color-coded tagging to prioritize public safety amid chaotic post-event conditions. Key outcomes of the ATC-20 implementation included the issuance of over 200 tags designating structures as unsafe for occupancy, which effectively prevented potential collapses and injuries by restricting access to heavily damaged buildings, such as those on unreinforced or wood-frame soft-story designs vulnerable to the quake's forces. In alone, 726 buildings were surveyed, with 234 receiving or tags (32% of evaluations), highlighting the procedure's role in systematically identifying hazards like foundation settlement and structural cracks. These tags, applied per the (safe), (restricted use), and (unsafe) categories, facilitated coordinated emergency response and , ultimately contributing to the of further casualties beyond the earthquake's 63 fatalities. The experience exposed critical challenges, including inspector overload due to the sudden demand for assessments exceeding available trained personnel, inconsistent placard enforcement, and gaps in for tracking evaluations. These issues underscored the urgent need for expanded programs, prompting the development of statewide initiatives by the Office of Emergency Services to certify more evaluators and standardize procedures. In response, the Applied Technology Council initiated the ATC-20-2 addendum project, funded by the , which refined tagging —such as changing "limited entry" to "restricted use"—and improved evaluation forms to address observed shortcomings, with further enhancements influencing subsequent revisions around 1995.

Northridge Earthquake (1994)

The , a magnitude 6.7 event centered approximately 20 miles northwest of , struck on January 17 and caused widespread structural damage across the densely populated and surrounding areas. Under the ATC-20 color-tagging system, emergency response teams conducted rapid safety evaluations on over 66,000 buildings in the initial weeks following the quake. Of these, approximately 6% received red tags indicating severe damage rendering them unsafe for occupancy, totaling around 4,000 structures, with a significant portion—over 1,000—applied to multifamily apartments and commercial office buildings due to vulnerabilities like soft-story designs and non-ductile concrete frames. The system's maturity was evident in the scale and speed of implementation, enabling about 77% of inspected buildings to receive green tags for immediate safe reoccupancy, which facilitated roughly 80% overall reoccupancy rates within weeks for residential and commercial properties. This rapid process was particularly impactful for commercial buildings, where quick green tagging minimized economic disruptions in a region contributing significantly to County's $20 billion in total quake-related losses. By August 1994, the number of still-tagged buildings in heavily affected areas had dropped dramatically to under 500, underscoring the efficiency of the tagging protocol in restoring functionality. Key lessons from the Northridge response highlighted the need for enhanced inter-agency coordination, including with utility providers, to address hazards like gas line ruptures that complicated inspections and contributed to post-quake fires. Tagging data also revealed patterns of failure in older multifamily and office structures, informing subsequent policy developments such as expanded mandates for soft-story buildings in cities like Santa Monica and broader state initiatives to strengthen vulnerable building stocks.

South Napa Earthquake (2014)

The M6.0 South Napa earthquake struck on August 24, 2014, causing significant damage in the city of Napa and surrounding areas, including surface fault rupture and shaking that affected brick buildings and older structures. ATC-20 procedures were applied by local building officials and trained evaluators, resulting in rapid safety assessments of 752 buildings in the city of Napa by August 27, 2014. Of these, 121 (16%) received green tags for safe occupancy, 515 (68%) yellow tags for restricted use due to moderate damage like cracked chimneys and parapets, and 116 (15%) red tags for unsafe conditions, primarily in unreinforced masonry buildings. This event demonstrated the system's effectiveness in a smaller-scale urban quake, with tagging helping to manage recovery in a tourism-dependent area and highlighting ongoing vulnerabilities in historic downtown structures. Lessons included the value of pre-event training through programs like California's Safety Assessment Program (SAP), which mobilized over 200 evaluators, and the need for better integration of nonstructural hazard assessments to reduce yellow tags from falling hazards. The tagging data informed local retrofit incentives, contributing to enhanced resilience measures in Napa County by the mid-2010s.

References

  1. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_p-2055_post-disaster_buildingsafety_evaluation_2019.pdf
  2. https://www.atcouncil.org/atc-20
  3. https://www.atcouncil.org/atc-45
  4. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/cal-oes-divisions/recovery/disaster-mitigation-technical-support/technical-assistance/safety-assessment-program
  5. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_p-2055-1-guidance-accelerated-building-reoccupancy_012023.pdf
  6. https://www.atcouncil.org/placards-and-evaluation-forms
  7. https://www.structuremag.org/article/a-brief-history-of-atc/
  8. https://legacy.seaonc.org/organization/atc/
  9. https://www.atcouncil.org/pdfs/ATC201tocv2.pdf
  10. https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1553/pp1553a/pp1553a.pdf
  11. https://shop.iccsafe.org/atc-20-1-field-manual-postearthquake-safety-evaluation-of-building.html
  12. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784479728.065
  13. https://roverready.atcouncil.org/about
  14. https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1553/
  15. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/2269/chapter/6
  16. https://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc16/papers/65_656.pdf
  17. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/office-of-the-director/operations/recovery-directorate/interagency-recovery-coordination/recovery-analytics-engineers-and-specialists/safety-assessment-program/
  18. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/Recovery/Documents/SAP-Evaluator-Student-Manual-2022-v-17-cover-page.pdf
  19. https://www.atcouncil.org/pdfs/ATC202appendixA.pdf
  20. https://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/lfe_survey_appendix_10-15.pdf
  21. https://www.atcouncil.org/pdfs/DETAIL.PDF
  22. https://www.atcouncil.org/pdfs/rapid.pdf
  23. https://mitigate.be.uw.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2018/03/141013-WA-EMD-NGO-SAP-Report-Revised-021118.pdf
  24. https://ssc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2020/08/cssc95-01c-ch1.pdf
  25. https://wasafecoalition.org/tools-and-resources
  26. https://dem.utah.gov/hazards-and-mitigation/utah-earthquake-program/
  27. https://www.atcouncil.org/pdfs/ATC45toc.pdf
  28. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/eeri/earthquake-spectra/article/29/3/1091/585959/Post-Earthquake-Building-Safety-Inspection-Lessons
  29. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/87552930241296377
  30. https://www.atcouncil.org/pdfs/ATC202toc.pdf
  31. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1996/ofr-96-0263/introduc.htm
  32. https://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/1994-0117_NorthridgeEarthquake/quake/01_EQE_exsummary.htm
  33. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-80b021981b7845eb8e7d09b3aa8d4c7f/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-80b021981b7845eb8e7d09b3aa8d4c7f.pdf
  34. https://home.csulb.edu/~rodrigue/scehc97.html
  35. https://www.seismicordinances.com/wood-frame-soft-story-structures/santa-monica
  36. https://www.sparisk.com/pubs/SPA-2014-Napa-Report.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.