The fact of the matter is in a best case scenario, 10% of these buildings are going to collapse in a major earthquake. 10% of the newest, shiniest, up to code buildings. Best case, that's the engineering code, that's the spec. They are designed to collapse 10% of the time.
In reality many more will collapse, because some buildings are older and not up to code, as well as earthquakes generally just being weird and unpredictable.
Do you think 10% of buildings collapsing is a "loose" or "tight" code? 10% losses is acceptable in say, human habitation?
You don't get exactly 10% failure rate, you have to demonstrate better than 10% failure rate which means going past that point. Further, failure is not 'collapse' failure is anyone in the building being unable to exit safely.
And again, they are aiming for a 9.0 that's a ridiculously large earthquake. An 7.8 similar to the last SF earthquake would still be a major earthquake, but vastly less dangerous by comparison.
In reality many more will collapse, because some buildings are older and not up to code, as well as earthquakes generally just being weird and unpredictable.
Do you think 10% of buildings collapsing is a "loose" or "tight" code? 10% losses is acceptable in say, human habitation?