AC R1 #13. Hello Brian,

Transcription

1 AC R1 #13 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Brian Gerber Monica Dean; Rosalind Fazel David Zhao FW: Ac 156 comments Thursday, September 23, :06:01 PM AG comemnts.doc From: Amir Gilani Sent: Thursday, September 23, :48 AM To: Brian Gerber Cc: Shakhzod Takhirov Subject: Ac 156 comments Hello Brian, Please find attached my comments on the proposed revisions to AC156. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the October meeting. However, Dr. Takhirov, who also has his own comments, will attend and can discuss my comments as necessary. Thank you Amir Amir S.J. Gilani. PhD, S.E. Structural Specialist Miyamoto International, Inc. Structural & Earthquake Engineers P (916) x 845 C (916)

2 Section Comment Recommendation 1.0 Is this a qualification document? The word certification clarify should be defined precisely to avoid confusion. Are the labs to certify performance? Is it practical for university research facilities to certify components? 1.0 Non-building structures include many components that are Delete not equipment. Many of these units are self-supporting and not attached to buildings. The extension of 156 to evaluate units such as towers, silos, signs, etc is not warranted. The seismic performance of components and equipments attached to buildings differs substantially from non-building structures and thus the use of this document for the latter is questionable. If anything, AC 156 should be streamlined to focus on specific nonstructural components Will the standard be used to qualify equipment for nuclear Clarify or delete facilities? The standard for such qualification is quite different than AC If the equipment is attached to the foundation, the use of Clarify AC156 spectra will not be correct as the building amplification is built in those spectra. 3.4 Please provide rationale for use of 5% damping. Clarify 3.14 What is the purpose of defining seismic capacity and how is that calculated? Clarify, revise, or delete Please clarify the IP of 1.5. Is this for nonstructural components that have an Ip of 1.5 or is the intent to confirm functionality of all components with a test to a higher intensity? 3.15 Distinction need to be made between analytical TRS and the clarify measured or experimental TRS 3.16 Please explain why the application to displacement is clarify removed 4.0 Recommend adding a template as an appendix and showing add a sample sheet to be used by vendors and labs It is important to note that the test results only apply to the test frame used and the same equipment will perform differently on a different support of varying dynamic properties. Table 1 Are the acceleration values the target ones or those from test clarify data? 4.5 The requirement for two tests as written in confusing. 1. If the intent is to replicate identical tests, this is unnecessary, expensive and will discourage testing. 2. If the intent is to run two similar tests is not clear and can lead to complications in defining what is similar. 3. If the intent is to do envelop testing, this data is not know before hand. The lightest and heaviest components do not necessarily include the worst delete

3 case. The performance depends on the dynamic properties (for example distribution of mass and stiffness) of components The support flexibility is already accounted for in the AC156 spectrum. This statement is confusing Is this a qualification document? Is it proposed to extend the test results to components or subcomponents that have not been tested without any additional evaluation? 5.0 Add a template including all requirements of this and other sections. This is similar to the Appendix A that should not be deleted Are the calibration data being included in the report or just conversion from volts to engineering units? The later is not useful There is no justification for the 130% limit. It should be left to the discretion of the client. RRS is not being generated. The spectrum shape is given for a specified damping. TRS does not have a damping, it just matches RRS Are the frequencies for the UUT or UUT mounted on the test frame? Is this a qualification document? If not, the word qualification should be globally removed Sine sweep is a better test method. Recommend specifying Figure 1 its use 1. This spectrum seems to show z/h=1 for vertical direction 2. Clearly show the spectra after 33 Hz to avoid excessive filtering that could lead to under-testing at a lower ZPA than nominal Clarify or delete delete add clarify revise clarify Clarify Recommend Clarify Add Should minimum limits be added per ASCE/SEI 7? Possible add This section needs to be streamlined and provide a uniform procedure for development of input signals Clarify, see IEEE for an example 6.4 Eliminate uniaxial and biaxial testing. Torsion cannot be captured. Many facilities can perform triaxial testing now and thus there is no reason not to require triaxial testing for general cases. Delete

4 AC R1 #13 September 24, 2010 ICC Evaluation Services, LLC Los Angeles Business/Regional Offices 5360 Workman Mill Road Wittier, California Subject: Proposed Modifications to AC 156 Madam/Sir: Below are my comments on the proposed revisions to AC 156. Title Change Staff Comment 1 Staff Comment 3 Section 1.1 Section 4.5 Section Is there any significance in the change from qualification to certification in the title? I agree that both A FLX-V and A FLX-V should be increased to comply with ASCE 7-10 Eq I agree that uniaxial and biaxial tests should be removed from AC 156. Testing laboratories capabilities have increased to the point that these types of tests are no longer needed and they cannot accurately represent performance in most circumstances. While ASCE 7-05 and 7-10 both contain chapters on nonbuilding structures, these are sufficiently different from nonstructural components that I believe AC 156 should not be extended to cover them. A new acceptance criteria should be developed if there is sufficient need for certification testing of these items. There will be many situations where the smallest and largest pieces of equipment will not be the most and least resistive to seismic forces. The requirement should be restated. The combination of the new requirement for two tests and the requirement that both tests use the weakest mounting can easily be in conflict if the stronger equipment is not designed for a weaker mounting. This also can unintentionally multiply the number of tests that would be required. Sincerely, Dennis Alvarez, P. E.

5 AC R1 #13 Rosalind Fazel From: Sent: To: Subject: Maria Reyes Friday, September 24, :04 AM Rosalind Fazel; Monica Dean FW: Comments on AC-156 Revisions From: Conor Byrne Sent: Thursday, September 23, :57 PM To: es Cc: Subject: Comments on AC-156 Revisions Hi Mark, It was a pleasure meeting you at the SEAOC conference today. I have copied the general for ICC-ES, but you might want to bring a copy of our comments to the discussion in case this didn t make their deadline. Please see our comments on the revisions from a test lab perspective listed below: 1. In covering a group of components by testing the smallest and largest it is important to define what you mean by smallest and largest. Do you mean heaviest or largest linear dimension? Also, this approach can overlook the most seismically significant component in a product line in the cases where a smaller component may have a much smaller anchorage spread, but only slightly less mass. I realize it is a lot to try to codify, but I think it is an important issue to keep in the discussion. 2. Section adopts the OSHPD philosophy of similar strength and flexibility, but in our experience the industry abuses the interpretation of the word similar. However, I will say that the addition to section in which anchorage anomalies must be noted helps limit this abuse as long as it is not allowed to be buried in the body of a report (it should have to be reported somewhere specific such that the reviewer can easily find and make note of the anomalies). 3. Section 4.2 defines the descriptors of the UUT, and while it correctly asks for maximum weight and dimensions of the UUT, it neglects to require anchorage pattern and CG location. 4. Section should be clarified that it only applies to simultaneous biaxial or triaxial testing. Additionally, verification should be guided by calculation of the coherence or correlation function with criteria set for acceptance (such as coherence<0.5 or correlation < 0.3) 5. In defining the RRS in Figure 1, a 10% Aflx value is shown as the 0.0Hz break point which really doesn t exist on a log-log plot. It is nice to specify this point, but it is more likely nearer to 1Hz than 0 Hz. 6. Section still references equipment force resisting system rather than component force resisting system. 7. The changes made in the introduction paragraph of section are very reasonable and, I think, will help to hold the testing facilities to a higher standard when it comes to the integrity of their reporting. Thank you very much for allowing us to provide comments on these revisions. We hope you find our input useful, and if you should happen to have any questions or desire more input we would be happy to answer an s or phone calls. Best Regards, Paul Ibanez and Conor Byrne Conor Byrne ANCO Engineers 1965A 33rd Street Boulder, CO Cell: (303) Office: (303) x223 Fax: (303)

6 AC R1 #13 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Brian Gerber Monica Dean; Rosalind Fazel David Zhao FW: My comments regarding staff comments on AC-156 Monday, September 20, :27:36 PM From: Sent: Friday, September 17, :29 PM To: Brian Gerber Subject: My comments regarding staff comments on AC-156 Brian, I plan to attend the ICC-ES hearings on AC-156 at the LAX Sheraton Gateway on October 7th. I will provide my comments on the changes to AC-156 at the hearing. As one of the developers of AC-156 and the nonstructural equation provided Section of ASCE 7-05, as well as the chair of the seismic task committee for ASCE 7-02 and ASCE 7-05, I would like provide you with my comments on the staff comments on AC-156 as it relates to ASCE 7. Staff raised comments and my comments on them: 1. Section 6.5.1: The limit on maximum AFLX-H is based on Eq of ASCE By setting Eq equal to Eq using ap =2.5 and z/h =1, and solving for Rp, the resulting Rp is 1.875, which is less than the minimum value of 1.5 in Tables and of ASCE 7. Should the maximum value of AFLX-H be increased to match the minimum Rp of 1.5? In addition, should AC156 include a minimum value of ARIG-H to comply with Eq of ASCE 7-05? REB Comment: AFLX-H maximum value is based on equation with one exception. The value does not include Ip. The reason is that as shown in equation the purpose of the Ip factor is to reduce the inelastic response in order to provide a higher level of assurance that acceptable performance will be achieved.thats why it is in the denominator and not in the numerator. Its not to increase the design forces although it does have that effect for force controlled designed components. The upper part of equation of equation is the elastic demand which is the response spectra definition provided in AC-156. The lower part is the design force reduction based on inelastic response tempered by the importance factor. What AC-156 is doing is providing capacities based on acceptable performance with Ip = 1.5 being the highest level of performance level; full functionality of the tested level for the elastic demand motion. This is an extreme performance goal and really what the ASCE 7-05 standard has the goal of achieving. The upper bound force of equation which relates directly to AFLX-H was determined by the judgment of experts based on the expected inelastic behavior of the supporting structure at Design Earthquake moton levels and the associated likely lack of resonance with the supported item. Because AC-156 considers the unreduced or adjusted demand on nonstructural components, the Rp value does not enter the picture and the same demand is used for all components regardless of Rp factor and Ip factor in the same manner that Design Earthquake motion is the same for all structures regardless of the R value or I value. 2. In accordance with Section of ASCE 7-05, testing according to AC156 should be used to address seismic relative displacements. AC156 may need to be amended to address this requirement. Comments are requested on this observation. REB: The staff comment implies a misunderstanding Section AC-156 is intended for only acceleration sensitive items, not displacement sensitive equipment and only for those items which have a fundamental greater than 1 Hz. It is not intended to be a generalized test prototocol for all nonstructural components for all demand types. It is intended to be used within certain limitations. I suppose we could add a statement in AC-156 scope to say that. I would not object. 3. Section 12.5 of ASCE 7 requires structural systems be designed for critical effects of seismic forces

7 from any direction. The question is raised as to whether this aspect is adequately addressed where uniaxial or biaxial tests are conducted, since these tests by definition subject the unit under test to accelerations in the principal axis only. REB: This is a good point. I would prefer that all tests be performed as tri-axial tests for a variety of reasons but this is not always practical for some suppliers and situations. Fortunately this issue has already been dealt with in the adoption of ASCE 7-10, where the MCEr ground motion has been redefined as the maximum direction of response. So the design ground motion will inherently consider this issue. Meanwhile, the important point is that AC-156 is determining the capacity based on the testing done. This capacity can simply de-rated slightly to account for maximum direction effects when that becomes necessary. Regards, Bob Bachman

8 AC R1 #13 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Brian Gerber Rosalind Fazel ICC-ES AC-156 comments - Subject AC R1 (BG/DZ) Friday, September 24, :22:16 PM Dear Mr. Gerber: Please accept my comments regarding the proposed changes to ICC-ES AC-156. Chicago Metallic is a manufacturer of Suspended Ceiling Framing Systems. Although these systems are not specifically mentioned in AC-156 (current & proposed versions), a protocol is in place by ICC-ES for evaluating these systems based on the Table Input Motion from Section 6.5 Multifrequency Seismic Simulation Tests. To date, this ceiling protocol is used to evaluate alternative perimeter details vs. the prescribed details in the International Building Code. It requires comparative testing using two separate tests 1.) Code prescribed perimeter construction 2.) alternative perimeter construction. In this context I have two concerns: 1. The change of the title from a "Qualification" criteria to a "Certification" criteria. What is the significance of this change for the user(s) of this criteria? 2. Section 4.5 Component Product Line Extrapolation and Interpolation. This section would require two tests ( largest & smallest) units. Would the changes to Section 4.5 or other related sections require a change to ICC-ES's established suspended ceiling shaker table testing protocol? Thank you. Sincerely, Tony Ingratta Product Engineer Chicago Metallic Corporation 4849 South Austin Avenue Chicago, IL Phone Fax ingrattat@chicagometallic.com This may contain proprietary and confidential information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. To the extent that opinions are expressed in this message, they are not necessarily the opinions of the Company or any of its affiliates, employees, directors, officers or shareholders.

9 AC R1 #13

10

11 AC R1 #13 Date: September 8, 2010 To: Brian Gerber Principal Structural Engineer ICC Evaluation Service, LLC 5360 Workman Mill Road Whittier, CA Ph Dear Mr. Gerber: Subject: Comments on proposed revision to ICC-ES AC 156, dated August 31, 2010 Please find below my comments on proposed revision to ICC-ES AC 156 and response to three questions raised in your forwarding memo: Comments on proposed revision to ICC-ES AC 156: 1) Proposed revision changed word equipment to component in some sections but changes had not been made through out the criteria for consistency. Please change word equipment to component where flagged in the attached PDF comment file for consistency. This is purely an editorial change without any regulatory affect. 2) In Section 1.1, please delete the word analytical in the last sentence to read,..an alternative to code-prescribed analytical requirements, since ASCE 7 Section a does not permit analysis as an option for special certification. 3) Please remove the word seismic before seismic vibration isolators in Section 3.1 (as marked in attached PDF), since vibration isolators usually provide no seismic benefits. 4) In Section 3.8, please show frequency ratio correctly as 2 1/3 (as marked in attached PDF), similar to Section ) Please delete definition of Ring-down Time in Section 3.11 (as marked in attached PDF), as it is not used any where in the criteria. 6) Please add Component Importance Factor for Test: Ip = X.X at the end of Section 4.2 (as marked in attached PDF), since it is required for use in Section ) Please delete Section 4.7 (as marked in attached PDF), since it is a duplicate of Section ) Please revise last sentence of Section to read Different operating conditions for equipment for which equipment is qualified shall be listed. by deleting redundant phrase (as marked in attached PDF). 9) Please change reference for component importance factor to Section 4.2 from in the 1 st sentence of Section 6.7 (as marked in attached PDF), since Section does not provide component importance factor. 10) In Section 4.5.2, please delete the sentence Seismic testing of equipment may be conducted using the smallest diameter tie-down bolt size (or minimum weld size) that can be accommodated with the provided tie-down clearance holes (or base structural members) on the equipment. in the 1 st paragraph, since the issue is fully addressed in the second paragraph. Response to three staff comments in the forwarding memo for the propose revision to ICC-ES AC Maximum value of A FLX-H should not be increased for consistency with the ASCE 7. Rp of equipment is of no consequence for the test, since inelastic response (if any) will be observed in the test. Importance factor is addressed through acceptance criteria in Section 6.7. Minimum value of A RIG-H need not be added, since the minimum value that can be obtained in Section is higher than minimum specified value in ASCE 7.

12 2. Relative displacement issue need not be addressed in the criteria. Where system is tested, relative displacement affect will be reflected in the test and is covered by the test acceptance criteria. Where discrete components are tested, relative displacement shall be addressed as part of the system design. 3. Criteria require testing in all three directions irrespective of whether test is uniaxial, biaxial, or triaxial, consistent with intent of ASCE 7 Section Since there are still a number of shake table incapable of doing triaxial test, criteria should permit uniaxial and biaxial test. Please note that proposed revision to AC 156 will permit testing (but will not require them) of nonbuilding structures by treating them as component at grade (z/h = 0). Since the acceptance criteria for the test is based solely on the importance factor and is not in any way related to location of component in the structure, there is no need for a separate acceptance criteria for nonbuilding structures. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Regards M. R. Karim District Structural Engineer OSHPD/FDD 400 R. Street # 200 Sacramento, CA Ph Mkarim@oshpd.ca.gov

13 August 31, 2010 TO: PARTIES INTERESTED IN EVALUATION REPORTS ON SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS AND NONBUILDING STRUCTURES SUBJECT: Proposed Revisions to the Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Certification by Shake Table Testing of Nonstructural Components and Nonbuilding Structures, Subject AC R1 (BG/DZ) Dear Madam or Sir: Hearing Information: Thursday, October 7, :00 a.m. Sheraton Gateway Hotel Los Angeles 6101 West Century Boulevard Los Angeles, California (888) The subject acceptance criteria will be discussed at the hearing noted above. The subject acceptance has been revised as reflected in the enclosed draft. The enclosed summary dated June 23, 2010, by Schnieder Electric, provides background information for the proposed revisions. The proposal has the following revisions: 1. Revised title and content to referring to seismic certification instead of seismic qualification. This change will make AC156 consistent with the special information, such as testing, stated in Sections and of ASCE Updated content to permit evaluation reports to be issued in accordance with the 2006 or 2009 International Building Code (IBC). The staff does not support inclusion of the 2012 IBC, since it has not been published and consequently is not available for adoption by jurisdictions. 3. Removal of references to the Uniform Building Code, since this code has become obsolete as an enforcement document. 4. Addition of ASCE 7-10 in Section 1.3, which is proposed as alternative to ASCE A significant change occurs in Section 13.4, which now includes an exception to the

14 AC R1 2 limitations on use of power-actuated fasteners and adds clearer provisions on use of friction clips. 5. Addition of nonbuilding structures in accordance with Chapter 15 of ASCE The staff notes that Chapter 15 does not directly reference AC156 as does Chapter 13 for nonstructural components, though Section b does so by allowing use of reference documents listed in Chapter 23, which includes AC156. Chapter 15 in ASCE 7-10 includes revisions from ASCE 7-05, which draw upon other IBC references for design information. Additional revisions need to be addressed within the proposal for acceptance of nonbuilding structures, since AC156 references Chapter 13 of ASCE 7 for design requirements, while Chapter 15 of ASCE 7 uses different design bases, depending on the type of structure. 6. Revised Section 4.5 now states the minimum number of tests needed to represent a product line. 7. Reformatting of the entire criteria. Staff comments at this time are as follows: 1. Section 6.5.1: The limit on maximum A FLX-H is based on Eq of ASCE By setting Eq equal to Eq using a p =2.5 and z/h =1, and solving for R p, the resulting R p is 1.875, which is less than the minimum value of 1.5 in Tables and of ASCE 7. Should the maximum value of A FLX-H be increased to match the minimum R p of 1.5? In addition, should AC156 include a minimum value of A RIG-H to comply with Eq of ASCE 7-05? 2. In accordance with Section of ASCE 7-05, testing according to AC156 should be used to address seismic relative displacements. AC156 may need to be amended to address this requirement. Comments are requested on this observation. 3. Section 12.5 of ASCE 7 requires structural systems be designed for critical effects of seismic forces from any direction. The question is raised as to whether this aspect is adequately addressed where uniaxial or biaxial tests are conducted, since these tests by definition subject the unit under test to accelerations in the principal axis only. You are cordially invited to submit written comments on agenda items, or to attend the Evaluation Committee hearing and present verbal comments. If you wish to contribute to the hearing, please note the following: 1. Written comments that are received by the Los Angeles business/regional office by September 17, 2010, will be forwarded to the committee prior to the hearing, and will be posted on the ICC-ES web site shortly after the comment deadline. 2. Written comments received up to ten days before the meeting, and staff memos responding to comments, will be posted to the web site on September 28, ICC-ES is no longer providing printed copies at the meeting of proposed acceptance criteria, staff memos or public comments. These documents will be available on a limited number of CDs at the meeting, for uploading to computers; and ICC-ES will

15 AC R1 3 make arrangements with the hotel business center to have hard copies available for photocopying. 4. Written comments that miss the deadline noted in item (1), above, will only be available at the meeting if you provide 35 copies, collated, stapled, and three-hole punched, either at the meeting itself or to the Los Angeles business/regional office by September 28, If you plan to speak for more than 15 minutes, or offer a visual presentation lasting longer, you should notify ICC-ES staff as far as possible in advance. There will be a computer, projector, and screen available at the meeting for anyone wishing to make a visual presentation, and presentations in most cases will need to be in PowerPoint format. Also, ICC-ES will need to be provided with your presentation at least a halfhour before the start of the relevant meeting session (morning or afternoon) on either a CD or a flash card. 6. If you have any special needs related to a presentation, you should contact ICC-ES staff well in advance of the meeting. 7. Any visual aids for viewing at committee meetings (charts, overhead transparencies, slides, videos, electronic presentations, etc.) will be permitted only if a copy is provided to ICC-ES, before the presentation, in a medium that can be retained with other records of the meeting. 8. Any materials submitted for committee consideration are considered nonconfidential and available for public discussion, as noted in Section 2.7 of the ICC-ES Rules of Procedure for the Evaluation Committee. 9. Prior to the meeting, you should refrain from trying to communicate directly with committee members about agenda items, either verbally or in writing. Committee members reserve the right to refuse such communications. Your cooperation with these guidelines is much appreciated, as is your interest in the deliberations of the Evaluation Committee. If you have any question, please contact the undersigned at (800) , extension 3260, or David Zhao, at extension 2nd Engineers Extension. You may also reach us by at es@icc-es.org. Yours very truly, BG/md Enclosures cc: Evaluation Committee Brian Gerber Principal Structural Engineer

16 ICC EVALUATION SERVICE, LLC, RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of the Evaluation Committee is to monitor the work of ICC-ES, in issuing evaluation reports; to evaluate and approve acceptance criteria on which evaluation reports may be based; and to sponsor related changes in the applicable codes. 2.0 MEETINGS 2.1 The Evaluation Committee shall schedule meetings that are open to the public in discharging its duties under Section 1, subject to Section All scheduled meetings shall be publicly announced. 2.3 Two-thirds ( 2 / 3) of the voting Evaluation Committee members shall constitute a quorum. A majority vote of members present is required on any action. 2.4 In the absence of the nonvoting chairmanmoderator, Evaluation Committee members present shall elect an alternate chairman from the committee for that meeting. The alternate chairman shall be counted as a voting committee member for purposes of maintaining a committee quorum and to cast a tie-breaking vote of the committee. 2.5 Minutes of the meetings shall be kept. 2.6 An electronic audio record of meetings shall be made by ICC-ES; no other audio, video, electronic or stenographic recordings of the meetings will be permitted. Visual aids (including, but not limited to, charts, overhead transparencies, slides, videos, or presentation software) viewed at meetings shall be permitted only if the presenter provides ICC-ES before presentation with a copy of the visual aid in a medium which can be retained by ICC-ES with its record of the meeting and which can also be provided to interested parties requesting a copy. A copy of the ICC-ES recording of the meeting and such visual aids, if any, will be available to interested parties upon written request made to ICC-ES together with a payment as required by ICC-ES to cover costs of preparation and duplication of the copy. These materials will be available beginning five days after the conclusion of the meeting but will no longer be available after one year from the conclusion of the meeting. 2.7 Parties interested in the deliberations of the committee should refrain from communicating, whether in writing or verbally, with committee members regarding agenda items. All written communications and submissions regarding agenda items should be delivered to ICC-ES. All such written communications and submissions shall be considered nonconfidential and available for discussion in open session of an Evaluation Committee meeting, and shall be delivered at least ten days before the scheduled Evaluation Committee meeting if they are to be forwarded to the committee. Materials delivered to ICC-ES at least ten days before the scheduled meeting will be posted on the ICC-ES web site ( prior to the meeting. After this time, parties wishing to submit materials for consideration by the Evaluation Committee must deliver a sufficient number of copies as directed by ICC-ES. Consideration of materials not received by ICC-ES at least ten days before the meeting is at the discretion of the Evaluation Committee. Following the meeting, ICC-ES will make all materials considered by the Evaluation Committee available on the web site for a maximum period of one year following the meeting. The committee reserves the right to refuse recognition of communications which do not comply with the provisions of this section. 3.0 CLOSED SESSIONS Evaluation Committee meetings shall be open except that the chairman may call for a closed session to seek advice of counsel. 4.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 4.1 Acceptance criteria are established by the committee to provide a basis for issuing ICC-ES evaluation reports on products and systems under codes referenced in Section 2.0 of the Rules of Procedure for Evaluation Reports. They also clarify conditions of acceptance for products and systems specifically regulated by the codes. Acceptance criteria may involve a product, material, method of construction, or service. Consideration of any acceptance criteria must be in conjunction with a current and valid application for an ICC-ES evaluation report, an existing ICC-ES evaluation report, or as otherwise determined by the Evaluation Committee. 4.2 Procedure: Proposed acceptance criteria shall be developed by the ICC-ES staff and discussed in open session with the Evaluation Committee during a scheduled meeting, except as permitted in Section 5.0 of these rules Proposed acceptance criteria shall be available to interested parties at least 30 days before discussion at the committee meeting The committee shall be informed of all pertinent written communications received by ICC-ES Attendees at Evaluation Committee meetings shall have the opportunity to speak on acceptance August 20, 2010 Pg 1 of 2

17 ICC EVALUATION SERVICE, LLC, RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE criteria listed on the meeting agenda, to provide information to committee members. 4.3 Approval of acceptance criteria shall be as specified in Section 2.3 of these rules. 4.4 Actions of the Evaluation Committee may be appealed in accordance with the ICC-ES Rules of Procedure for Appeal of Acceptance Criteria or the ICC- ES Rules of Procedure for Appeals of Evaluation Committee Technical Decisions. 5.0 COMMITTEE BALLOTING FOR ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 5.1 Acceptance criteria may be issued without a public hearing following a 30-day public comment period and a majority vote for approval by the Evaluation Committee when, in the opinion of ICC-ES staff, one or more of the following conditions have been met: 1. The subject is nonstructural, does not involve life safety, and is addressed in nationally recognized standards or generally accepted industry standards. 2. The subject is a revision to an existing acceptance criteria that requires a formal action by the Evaluation Committee, and public comments raised were resolved by staff with commenters fully informed. 3. Other acceptance criteria and/or the code provide precedence for the revised criteria. 5.2 Negative votes must be based upon one or more of the following, for the ballots to be considered valid and require resolution: a. Lack of clarity: There is insufficient explanation of the scope of the acceptance criteria or insufficient description of the intended use of the product or system; or the acceptance criteria is so unclear as to be unacceptable. (The areas where greater clarity is required must be specifically identified.) b. Insufficiency: The criteria is insufficient for proper evaluation of the product or system. (The provisions of the criteria that are in question must be specifically identified.) c. The subject of the acceptance criteria is not within the scope of the applicable codes: A report issued by ICC-ES is intended to provide a basis for approval under the codes. If the subject of the acceptance criteria is not regulated by the codes, there is no basis for issuing a report, or a criteria. (Specifics must be provided concerning the inapplicability of the code.) d. The subject of the acceptance criteria needs to be discussed in public hearings. The committee member requests additional input from other committee members, staff or industry. 5.3 An Evaluation Committee member, in voting on an acceptance criteria, may only cast the following ballots: Approved Approved with Comments Negative: Do Not Proceed 6.0 COMMITTEE COMMUNICATION Direct communication between committee members, and between committee members and an applicant or concerned party, with regard to the processing of a particular acceptance criteria or evaluation report shall take place only in a public hearing of the Evaluation Committee. Accordingly: 6.1 Committee members receiving an electronic ballot should respond only to the sender (staff). Committee members who wish to discuss a particular matter with other committee members, before reaching a decision, should ballot accordingly and bring the matter to the attention of ICC-ES staff, so the issue can be placed on the agenda of a future committee meeting. 6.2 Committee members who are contacted by an applicant or concerned party on a particular matter that will be brought to the committee will refrain from private communication and will encourage the applicant or concerned party to forward their concerns through the ICC-ES staff in writing, and/or make their concerns known by addressing the committee at a public hearing, so that their concerns can receive the attention of all committee members. August 20, 2010 Pg 2 of 2

18 (800) (562) A Subsidiary of the International Code Council PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR SEISMIC QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATION BY SHAKE-TABLE TESTING OF NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS AND SYSTEMS NONBUILDING STRUCTURES AC156 Proposed August 2010 Previously approved December 2006, June 2004, and January 2000 PREFACE Evaluation reports issued by ICC Evaluation Service, LLC (ICC-ES), are based upon performance features of the International family of codes and other widely adopted code families, including the Uniform Codes, the BOCA National Codes, and the SBCCI Standard Codes. Section of the International Building Code reads as follows: The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any materials or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety. Similar provisions are contained in the Uniform Codes, the National Codes, and the Standard Codes. ICC-ES may consider alternate criteria, provided the report applicant submits valid data demonstrating that the alternate criteria are at least equivalent to the criteria proposed in this document, and otherwise meet the applicable performance requirements of the codes. Notwithstanding that a product, material, or type or method of construction meets the requirements of the criteria proposed in this document, or that it can be demonstrated that valid alternate criteria are equivalent to the criteria in this document and otherwise meet the applicable performance requirements of the codes, ICC-ES retains the right to refuse to issue or renew an evaluation report, if the product, material, or type or method of construction is such that either unusual care with its installation or use must be exercised for satisfactory performance, or malfunctioning is apt to cause unreasonable property damage or personal injury or sickness relative to the benefits to be achieved by the use of the product, material, or type or method of construction. Acceptance criteria are developed for use solely by ICC-ES for purposes of issuing ICC-ES evaluation reports.

19 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR SEISMIC QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATION BY SHAKE-TABLE TESTING OF NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS AND SYSTEMS NONBUILDING STRUCTURES 1.0 SCOPE AND PURPOSE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose: The purpose of this criteria is to establishes minimum requirements for the issuance of ICC Evaluation Service, Inc., evaluation reports on seismic certification by qualification shake-table testing of nonstructural components and nonbuilding structures systems (hereinafter referred to as equipment ) to be recognized in ICC Evaluation Service, LLC, evaluation reports in accordance with the 2006 or 2009 International Building Code (IBC). Basis of recognition is IBC Section Such reports relate to the seismic design requirements for architectural, mechanical, electrical and other nonstructural systems, components, and elements permanently attached to structures, as specified in Section 1632 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and Section 1613 of the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) This acceptance criteria is applicable for shaketable testing of nonstructural components and systems that have fundamental frequencies greater than or equal to 1.3 Hz The reason for the development of this criteria is to provide detailed procedures for seismic certification by testing of nonstructural components and nonbuilding structures as an alternative to code-prescribed analytical requirements. 1.2 Scope: This acceptance criteria is applicable for shake-table testing of nonstructural components and nonbuilding structures that have fundamental frequencies greater than or equal to 1.3 Hz. Testing done in accordance with this criteria is intended to support data for the seismic design of architectural, mechanical, electrical and other nonstructural systems, components, and elements permanently attached to structures, and nonbuilding structures as specified in Section of the 2009 IBC or Section of the 2006 IBC and Section of ASCE Codes and Referenced Standards: International Building Code (2009 IBC), International Code Council International Building Code (2006 IBC), International Code Council ASCE Standard, SEI/ASCE 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers ASCE Standard, SEI/ASCE 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers FEMA 461, Interim Testing Protocols for Determining the Seismic Performance Characteristics of Structural and Nonstructural Components, June 2007, Federal Emergency Management Agency IEEE Standard , IEEE Recommended Practice for Seismic Qualification of Class 1E Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations, IEEE NOMENCLATURE: 2.1 UBC: The following symbols and notations have the noted meaning in this document: Ca = Seismic coefficient, as set forth in Table 16- Q of the UBC. Na Hx Hr Rp = Near-source factor used in the determination of Ca in Seismic Zone 4, related to the proximity of the building or structure to known faults having magnitudes and slip rates as set forth in Tables 16-S and 16-U of the UBC. = Equipment attachment elevation with respect to grade. For items at or below the base, Hx shall not be taken to be less than 0.0. = Building or structure roof elevation with respect to grade. = Equipment response modification factor. Rp represents the energy absorption capability of the equipment's structure and attachments, set forth in Table 16-O of the UBC. Ip = Equipment importance factor. Ip represents the greater of the life-safety importance of the component and the hazard exposure importance of the structure, set forth in Table 16-K of the UBC. 2.2 IBC: The following symbols and notations have the noted meaning in this document: S DS z h z/h R p = Design spectral response acceleration at short period, as determined in Section of the IBC. = Height of structure (in feet or mm) with respect to grade, at point of attachment of equipment the component. For items at or below the base, z shall not be taken to be less than 0.0. = Average building/structure roof height (in feet or mm) relative to the base elevation. = Height factor ratio. = Equipment response modification factor. R p represents the energy absorption capability of the equipment's component structure and its attachments, set forth in Table or of ASCE 7. Ip = Equipment importance factor. Ip represents the greater of the life-safety importance factor of the component and the hazard exposure importance factor of the structure, as set forth in Section of ASCE Common to UBC and IBC: The following symbols and notations have the noted meaning in this document:

20 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR SEISMIC QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATION BY SHAKE-TABLE TESTING OF NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS AND SYSTEMS NONBUILDING STRUCTURES A RRS = Spectral acceleration as calculated from design seismic forces, F p, and equipment weight, W p. = F p/w p. AFLX-H = Horizontal spectral acceleration calculated for flexible equipment components. AFLX-V = Vertical spectral acceleration calculated for flexible equipment at z/h = 0. ARIG-H = Horizontal spectral acceleration calculated for rigid equipment components. ARIG-V = Vertical spectral acceleration calculated for rigid equipment at z/h = 0. ap Fp Wp = In-structure equipment amplification factor. The ap represents the dynamic amplification of the equipment component relative to the fundamental frequency of the building structure. = Horizontal seismic design force centered at the equipment s component s center of gravity, and distributed relative to the equipment s mass distribution (lbf or N). = equipment Component operating weight (lbf or N). 3.0 DEFINITIONS: 3.1 Attachments: The means by which equipment is secured or restrained to the supporting by the seismic force resisting system of the building structure or foundation. Such attachments and restraints Examples may include anchor bolting, welded connections, mechanical fasteners and seismic vibration isolators 3.2 Biaxial Test: A dynamic test in which the test specimen is subjected to acceleration in one principal horizontal axis and the vertical axis simultaneously. The horizontal and vertical acceleration components are derived from two different input signals that are phaseincoherent. 3.3 Build-hold-decay (BHD): The build-hold-decay time interval envelope (5 + 0 / 3 seconds, / 0 seconds and / 3 seconds, respectively) imposed on the drive signal of the shake table to simulate the nonstationary nature of an earthquake event. The build time includes time necessary for acceleration ramp-up, the hold time represents the earthquake strong motion time duration, and the decay time includes the de-acceleration ring down time. A straight linear approximation is acceptable. 3.4 Damping: An energy dissipation mechanism that reduces the amplification and broadens the vibratory response in the region of resonance. Damping is expressed as a percentage of critical damping. This criteria is based on 5 percent of critical damping. 3.5 Flexible Equipment: Component or nonbuilding structure, including its attachments and force-resisting structural members, having a fundamental period greater than 0.06 second (less than Hz). 3.6 Equipment Force-resisting System: Equipment force-resisting systems are tthose members or assemblies of members, including braces, frames, struts and attachments that provide structural stability for the connected components and transmit all loads and forces between the equipment component and the supporting building structure or foundation. Equipment supports also transmit lateral forces and/or provide structural stability for the connected equipment. 3.7 Octave: The interval between two frequencies that have a frequency ratio of One-third Octave: The interval between two frequencies that have a frequency ratio of 2 1/ 3 1/ One-sixth Octave: The interval between two frequencies that have a frequency ratio of 2 1/6 1/ Required Response Spectrum (RRS): The response spectrum generated using the formulas and normalized spectra detailed in Section of this acceptance criteria. The RRS constitutes a requirement to be met Ring-down Time: The time required for vibration of the shake table to decrease to a negligible level following excitation Rigid Equipment Component: A component or nonbuilding structure, including its attachments and force-resisting structural members, having a fundamental period less than or equal to 0.06 second (greater than or equal to Hz) Subassemblies: A grouping or assemblage of secondary sub-components and/or structural elements that require attachment to the equipment s primary force resisting system to achieve structural stability Seismic capacity: Seismic capacity of a component, for the purposes of this criteria, is defined as capacity associated with the component s internal structure and its attachments to resist the seismically induced forces and deformations, and maintain the structural integrity. Post-test functionality shall be maintained for equipment with I p = 1.5, Test Response Spectrum (TRS): The acceleration response spectrum that is developed from the actual time history of the motion of the shake table test as measured by reference control accelerometers mounted on the shake table at a location near the base of the UUT Transmissibility: The nondimensional ratio of the response acceleration amplitude of a system in steady-state forced vibration to the excitation amplitude. The ratio may be one of forces, displacements, velocities, or accelerations and is used to characterize resonant modes of structural vibration Triaxial Test: A dynamic test in which the test specimen is subjected to acceleration in two principal horizontal axes and the vertical axis simultaneously. The two horizontal and the vertical acceleration components are derived from three different input signals that are phase-incoherent Uniaxial Test: A dynamic test in which the test specimen is subjected to acceleration in one principal 3

21 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR SEISMIC QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATION BY SHAKE-TABLE TESTING OF NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS AND SYSTEMS NONBUILDING STRUCTURES axis. The acceleration components are derived from a single input signal Unit Under Test (UUT): The equipment component item to be qualification certification-tested Zero Period Acceleration (ZPA): The peak acceleration of motion time-history that corresponds to the high-frequency asymptote on the response spectrum. This acceleration corresponds to the maximum peak acceleration of the time history used to derive the spectrum. For use in this acceptance criteria, the ZPA is assumed to be the acceleration response at 33.3 Hz or greater. 4.0 UUT REQUIRED INFORMATION: Sections 4.1 through detail the necessary information to be provided for each UUT. Section 4 shall be a complete document, submitted by the UUT manufacturer or the manufacturer s representative and included as an appendix to the Qualification Test Plan described in Section 6.1. Appendix A of this document sets forth the information necessary to meet the requirements of Section Manufacturer and Testing Laboratory Contact Information: The following contact information shall be specified: Manufacturer s contact information as follows: name and address and the individual(s) representing the primary point of contact for all correspondence regarding the seismic qualification testing per this procedure. Manufacturer: Company name Address: Company address Primary Contact: Representative(s) name Phone Number: Representative(s) phone number Representative(s) address Testing laboratory s contact information as follows: name and address and the individual(s) representing the primary point of contact for all correspondence regarding the seismic qualification testing per this procedure. Testing Laboratory: Laboratory name Address: Laboratory address Primary Contact: Representative(s) name Phone Number: Representative(s) phone number Representative(s) address. 4.2 UTT Description: A description of the UTT shall be provided, including the following items: General description of the UUT s primary function Detailed description of the UUT s hardware configuration, including subassemblies and unique product identification numbers and/or serial numbers Overall dimensions and weight of the UUT Any restrictions or limitations on equipment use. 4 Name: Product name UUT Designation: Short alphanumeric UUT designator used for plotting and test run purposes. UUT Function: A general description of the primary function or end use of the product. Description: A detailed description of the UUT configuration. This should include a listing of major subassemblies and sub-components (e.g., bills of material) and any other applicable product differentiation. Identification No.: Supply UUT s unique identification number or serial number. Dimensions: Height = xx in. (mm); Width = xx in. (mm); Depth = xx in. (mm). Weight: Approximately xxx lbs. (mm). Restrictions: Provide any product restrictions or limitations on use. 4.3 Seismic Parameters: UBC: The following seismic parameters, used to establish maximum UUT seismic qualification test requirements, shall be provided: Hx = Equipment attachment elevation with respect to grade. Hr = Building or structure roof elevation with respect to grade. Ca = Seismic coefficient. Ip = Equipment importance factor IBC: The following seismic parameters, used to establish maximum UUT seismic qualification test requirements, shall be provided as shown in Table 1 below: z = Equipment attachment elevation with respect to grade. h = Average building/structure roof elevation with respect to grade. SDS = Spectral response acceleration at short period. Ip = Equipment importance factor. Building Code IBC 20** Table 1: Shake Table Test Parameters Test Criteria ICC-ES AC 156 S DS (g) z/h Horizontal Vertical A FLX- H A RIG- H A FLX- V A RIG- 4.4 Functionality and Operability Requirements: A listing and detailed description shall be provided of the functionality and operability equipment requirements and/or tests used to verify pre- and post-seismic-testing functional compliance of components. Each test and/or requirement should be listed as a separate line item. 4.5 Equipment Component Product Line Extrapolation and Interpolation: Testing every single configuration of a given equipment component product line V