DEFINING RIGID VS. FLEXIBLE NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "DEFINING RIGID VS. FLEXIBLE NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS"

Transcription

1 10NCEE Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering July 21-25, 2014 Anchorage, Alaska DEFINING RIGID VS. FLEXIBLE NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS B. E. Kehoe 1 ABSTRACT Seismic design of nonstructural components using ASCE 7-10 considers the interaction between the response of the nonstructural component and the response of the building by means of a component amplification factor, a p, that accounts for the dynamic interaction between the nonstructural component and the response of the building. ASCE 7-10 provides tables of architectural, mechanical, and electrical components that specify values for a p. The values in the tables are either 1.0 or 2.5 for components considered rigid or flexible, respectively. ASCE 7-10 provides a definition for determining whether a component is rigid based on the component's period of vibration. The tabulated values of nonstructural amplification factors may not adequately characterize the actual seismic behavior of some nonstructural components since the values do not consider the actual properties of the nonstructural components and the effect of actual support and bracing. While ASCE 7-10 provides a formula for determining the actual period of mechanical and electrical components, this formula is seldom used in actual practice. Determining the period of vibration of a nonstructural component does not provide all of the information needed to assess how a nonstructural component will respond during an earthquake since it does not consider the predominant periods of vibration of the building. The vibrational periods for some common nonstructural components are tabulated based on considerations of material properties and dimensions. Data from component testing are also summarized and compared to calculated values. The influence of support conditions are also described. Recommendations for changes to building code requirements are presented. 1 Associate Principal, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., Emeryville, CA Kehoe BE. Defining Rigid vs. Flexible Nonstructural Components. Proceedings of the 10 th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.

2 Defining Rigid vs. Flexible Nonstructural Components B. E. Kehoe 1 ABSTRACT Seismic design of nonstructural components using ASCE 7-10 considers the interaction between the response of the nonstructural component and the response of the building by means of a component amplification factor, a p, that accounts for the dynamic interaction between the nonstructural component and the response of the building. ASCE 7-10 provides tables of architectural, mechanical, and electrical components that specify values for a p. The values in the tables are either 1.0 or 2.5 for components considered rigid or flexible, respectively. ASCE 7-10 provides a definition for determining whether a component is rigid based on the component's period of vibration. The tabulated values of nonstructural amplification factors may not adequately characterize the actual seismic behavior of some nonstructural components since the values do not consider the actual properties of the nonstructural components and the effect of actual support and bracing. While ASCE 7-10 provides a formula for determining the actual period of mechanical and electrical components, this formula is seldom used in actual practice. Determining the period of vibration of a nonstructural component does not provide all of the information needed to assess how a nonstructural component will respond during an earthquake since it does not consider the predominant periods of vibration of the building. The vibrational periods for some common nonstructural components are tabulated based on considerations of material properties and dimensions. Data from component testing are also summarized and compared to calculated values. The influence of support conditions are also described. Recommendations for changes to building code requirements are presented. Introduction The design of nonstructural components for seismic loading is required for buildings in most areas of moderate to high seismicity. Most building codes incorporate nonstructural seismic design provisions that are based on requirements in ASCE 7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures [1], or its predecessor documents. The design procedure in ASCE 7-10 for nonstructural components prescribes a horizontal seismic force be calculated and applied to the component. This calculated seismic force provides a simplification of the complex interaction of the behavior of nonstructural components attached to a building. The response of a nonstructural component to earthquake shaking of the building to which it is attached depends in large part on whether the nonstructural component vibrates in 1 Associate Principal, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., Emeryville, CA Kehoe BE. Defining Rigid vs. Flexible Nonstructural Components. Proceedings of the 10 th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.

3 resonance with the vibration of the building. If the component is attached to the building such that it effectively responds in synch with the portion of the building to which it is attached and does not vibrate independently of the building, the seismic forces on the nonstructural component are equal to the product of the weight of the component times the building acceleration at the point where the component is attached. This is considered to be a rigid nonstructural component. Many nonstructural components are either attached to the building in a manner that will allow the component to vibrate independently of the building, or the component itself has inherent flexibility that allows it to vibrate. If the nonstructural component can displace independently of its point of attachment to the building, the vibration of the nonstructural component may be amplified due to resonance with the building vibration, thus increasing the seismic forces on the nonstructural component. This is considered to be a flexible or flexibly mounted nonstructural component. For many years, building codes in the United States have considered the differing response of nonstructural components that are rigidly attached to the structure, and therefore respond with the response of the building, and those components that are flexible or flexibly supported and therefore may respond in resonance with the structure. The component frequency that generally is used to distinguish between rigid and flexible behavior is Hertz, which corresponds to a component period of vibration of 0.06 seconds. The period of vibration of a nonstructural component can be calculated using principals of dynamics. ASCE 7-10 includes the following equation (Eq. 1) for calculating the period of vibration of nonstructural components that can be considered as a single degree of freedom system. =2 (1) Where: T p is the period of vibration of the component, W p is the weight of the nonstructural component, K p is the stiffness of the nonstructural component, and g is the acceleration of gravity The nonstructural component seismic design force equation prescribed by ASCE 7-10 (Eq. 2) includes a factor, a p, that accounts for the amplification due to resonance of flexible nonstructural components attached to a building and provides a simplification for designers to avoid the need to calculating the period of vibration of every nonstructural component. = (1 + 2 ) (2) Where: F p is the design lateral seismic force on the nonstructural component, S DS is the design spectral acceleration at short periods

4 I p is the component importance factor a p is the component response amplification factor R p is the component response factor z is the height of attachment of the nonstructural component to the building, and h is the height of the building. For typical architectural, mechanical, and electrical components, ASCE 7-10 includes tables listing typical nonstructural components and provides a value of a p for these typical nonstructural components. For components considered rigid, the value of a p is prescribed as 1.0, indicating that the component does not experience any dynamic amplification due to resonance with the structure. For components considered flexible or flexibly mounted, the value of a p is prescribed as 2.5 to account for potential dynamic amplification of the component. Dynamic Behavior of Nonstructural Components The actual behavior of nonstructural components within a building involves a complex interaction of the nonstructural component and the building. Nonstructural components, even ones that seem straightforward, can be complex and may not be represented as a single degree of freedom system. For example, Notohardjono et. al. [2] performed finite element analyses and shake table testing of a mainframe computer rack system to determine its vibration characteristics, which varied depending the details of the construction of the frame and whether the rack was populated with equipment. Their studies found that the frequency of vibration of the frame can vary by nearly a factor of two depending on the amount of weight added to the frame and whether the frame s connections were reinforced. Testing of laboratory equipment benches by Hutchinson and Chaudhuri [3] demonstrated that there are not only differences in the periods of vibration of the tested benches in the two orthogonal directions but also that the benches themselves have several characteristic periods of vibration. The vibrational characteristics of the benches, or other support structure, can influence the characteristics of the components attached to them. While it would be ideal for the structural engineer designing anchorage for a nonstructural component to know the component s vibrational characteristics, this is seldom done in practice for several reasons. Shake table testing of nonstructural components has become more frequent; however the number of components tested on a shake table represents only a small fraction of the number of components available. For many nonstructural components, there is very little benefit gained from the knowledge of the component s characteristics since the anchorage of the component to the structure with four typical anchors would be more than sufficient to resist the required lateral force regardless of the vibrational characteristics. For other components, the vibrational characteristics are not available and the behavior is complex enough that the effort required to obtain the vibrational characteristics, either by analysis or full scale shake table testing, is not justified. Finally, if the anchorage is being designed by an engineer other than the designer of the building, knowledge of the nonstructural component s vibrational characteristics would not affect the anchorage design since the vibrational characteristics of the building are not available.

5 Building Code Limitations The nonstructural design provisions in ASCE 7 include potentially conflicting requirements regarding nonstructural components. ASCE 7 defines Component, Rigid as having a period of vibration of less than or equal to 0.06 seconds [1] and Component, Flexible as having a period of vibration greater than 0.06 seconds [1]. In addition, Section requires that The design and evaluation of components, their supports, and their attachments shall consider their flexibility as well as their strength. Eq. 1 also provides a method for determining the period of vibration of a component to be used to satisfy these requirements. Eq. 1 however, is referenced only in the section of ASCE 7 that applies to mechanical and electrical components, implying that this equation is not to be used for architectural components. More importantly however, are the values of a p that are provided in Tables and ; however the values of a p provided for specific types of nonstructural components are not directly related to the actual vibrational characteristics of the components. The values prescribed in these tables relate only to the generic type of component without reference to the component s characteristics that may affect whether its behavior is rigid or flexible or the specific method of attaching the component to the structure. Although the footnotes in Tables and indicate that rigid components should be assigned a value of a p equal to 1.0 and the value of a p cannot be taken as less than 1.0, there is no explicit requirement that for components listed in the table, the component is required to be assigned a value of a p that accounts for whether the component s behavior, including that of its support, is rigid or flexible. The values in these tables are based primarily on engineering judgment, rather than on testing or analysis. Table in ASCE 7 indicates that all ceilings, regardless of their configuration should be evaluated as rigid components with a value of a p equal to 1.0. Testing of gridded ceiling systems by Reinhorn et. al. [4] has shown that the horizontal acceleration of the ceiling grid is higher than that of the floor or roof system to which it is attached, indicating that some amplification of response of the ceiling grid is occurring and thus the building code assumption of a p of 1.0 seems to be unconservative. These tests also indicate that the period of vibration of the ceiling system, as would be expected, varies depending on the weight of the ceiling system. For each component listed in the tables in ASCE 7, there is a single value for a p, implying that the behavior of the component would be the same in both orthogonal directions. For some components, the lateral stiffness of the component would similar in each direction, such as a ceiling or an exhaust stack. Other components however have substantially different vibrational characteristics depending on the direction being considered. Walls, for example, are very stiff in the in-plane direction while being more flexible in the out-of-plane direction. Cabinets and shelving may also have different vibrational characteristics in each direction depending on the horizontal dimensions and the type of bracing. Stairs are usually stiff in the direction of the stringers, but long span stairs can be flexible in both orthogonal directions perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the stringers.

6 Wall Panel Example Consider the case of a concrete wall panel in a building with a thickness of 5 inches and an unsupported vertical span of 10 feet. The period of vibration in the out-of-plane direction of this component, assuming it behaves as simply supported, is seconds. Using the definition of rigid nonstructural components in ASCE 7, this wall panel would be considered rigid and this corresponds to the value of a p equal to 1.0 prescribed in Table If the wall panel has a vertical span of 16 feet and if one considers the effective stiffness of the wall panel in the out-of-plane directionusing an effective stiffness of 0.3 times the gross section, the period of vibration becomes seconds This would no longer be considered a rigid component and therefore should be considered as flexible and should be assigned a value of a p equal to 2.5. ASCE 7 however does not prescribe dimensional limitations on the thickness or span of a wall panel to be considered rigid and also does not define whether the stiffness used to period of vibration should consider effective or gross stiffness properties. Water Heater Example Water heaters are listed in table of ASCE 7 and are prescribed a value of a p equal to 1.0 implying that these are rigid components. Where water heaters are anchored directly to the structure, this assumption is generally accurate. Consider however the case of a water heater that is supported on a steel framed pedestal, 2 feet tall with four legs constructed of 3-inch steel angles. For a water heater that weighs 400 pounds when filled with water (the approximate weight of a 40 gallon water heater), the period of vibration of the system with the legs acting as cantilevers is seconds. This would be considered as a flexibly supported component and should be assigned a value of a p equal to 2.5. While it can be argued that a structural engineer should understand that placing a water heater on a pedestal with cantilever legs should require an evaluation of the entire assembly to assess the system s overall vibrational characteristics, ASCE 7 provides little guidance for the designer of the system, particularly for designers that are not experienced in structural dynamics and the building code methodology to the requirements for nonstructural components who may desire the simplification of choosing a value from a table rather than performing additional calculations. Effects of Building Response In addition to a nonstructural component s vibrational characteristics, the behavior of nonstructural components is also dependent on the ratio of the component s period of vibration with those of the building to which it is attached. When the period vibration of a nonstructural component is close to that of one of the significant periods of vibration of the building, amplification due to resonance should be considered. Where the periods of the nonstructural component and that of the building are not close, resonance need not be considered in the design of the nonstructural component. This resonance effect is accounted for in ASCE/SEI 7-10 with the a p factor being 2.5. This value of component amplification was suggested by Soong et al [5] for the condition where the component period is similar to that of the period of the building.

7 Where the ratio of the component period to the building period varies by a factor of 2.0 (either T component /T structure or T structure /T component ) Soong et al proposed that there is no amplification of component acceleration. The amplification of nonstructural response due to resonance with the vibration of the building should also consider multiple modes of vibration of the building. Most buildings have a multiple periods of vibration and terefore a nonstructural component may respond in resonance to any of the periods of vibration of the building. The periods of vibration of a building, for example, may be substantially different in each orthogonal direction of the building due to differences in the lateral force resisting systems. To consider the effects of the structural response on the response of nonstructural components, floor response spectra can be generated to describe the variation in response of nonstructural components at each floor level with the period of vibration of the nonstructural component. Figure 1 shows a floor response spectrum generated for the roof of a 12-story steel moment-frame building subjected to the Newhall record of the 1994 Northridge earthquake from a study by Kehoe and Hachem [6]. Note that the peaks in the spectrum correspond to the first four modes of the building in the orthogonal direction of the building under consideration and that the first mode period of 1.85 seconds does not produce the maximum spectral acceleration for a component attached at the roof. The maximum spectral acceleration of 3.8 g occurs at a period of 0.3 seconds, which is approximately the fourth significant mode of vibration. This example, as well as other analyses, demonstrates that the response of nonstructural components can be influenced by modes other than the fundamental modes of vibration of the building. 4 Acceleration (g) Mode Tp (sec) Figure 1. Floor response spectrum (assuming 5% damping) for the roof level of a 12-story steel moment frame building subject to the Newhall record. The actual effects of interaction of response of nonstructural components with those of the building are seldom considered in practice for several reasons. The dynamic characteristics of the building are generally not available to the engineers that are designing the nonstructural

8 components and their anchorages. The vibrational characteristics of the nonstructural components may also not be known. In addition, the computation of floor response spectra is tedious since it requires a response history analysis of the building and extraction of floor response spectra at each floor level. However, a simplified procedure for determining floor response spectra is presented in [6]. An Approach to Rationalization of Component Flexibility It would be extremely difficult and time consuming to provide a detailed list of nonstructural components in buildings along with the actual vibrational characteristics to provide the engineer with the necessary information to characterize nonstructural components as rigid or flexible. A practical approach however would be to provide limitations for some components that are assumed to be rigid in tables and of ASCE 7. The limitations can be made on the basis of dimensions or on the basis of calculated or tested component properties. Tabulation of Limiting Values There are common building components whose vibrational characteristics can be easily approximated calculations using fundamentals of dynamics. For these components, tables can be developed that provide values of nonstructural component periods to characterize the components as rigid or flexible. Table 1 provides values for the maximum length between supports of pipes for several typical types and sizes of pipes for which the pipe, when filled with water, would be considered to behave rigidly. The values in the table have been adapted from Seismic Design for Buildings developed for the Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force [8]. The stiffness of these pipes is based on the assumption that the pipes are simply supported. This table also assumes that the pipes behave as simply supported between lateral bracing and are significantly more flexible than the lateral bracing. Table 1. Maximum length of piping between supports for the piping to have a period of vibration less than 0.06 seconds. Pipe Diameter (inches) Lateral Support Spacing (feet) Schedule 40 Schedule 80 Copper Tube Type K Copper Tube Type L / /

9 Similarly, limitations on spans of interior nonstructural walls and exterior wall panels can also be developed based on typical wall configurations. Table 2 provides values for maximum span of several sizes of steel studs for a range of unit weights of wall. The values assume that the studs are spaced at 16 inches and they ignore the contribution of the wall sheathing on the stiffness. Table 2. Maximum height of steel stud walls with a period of vibration less than 0.06 seconds Stud Size Wall Weight = 8 psf Unbraced Wall Height (feet) Wall Weight = 10 psf Wall Weight = 12 psf Wall Weight = 16 psf 350S S S S S S * Stiffness of studs based on effective stiffness of 33ksi steel Component Support Conditions Nonstructural components can be attached, anchored, or braced to a structure in a variety of ways. Where the component is directly attached to the structure, the vibrational response of the component is dependent on the vibrational characteristics of the component. However, when the nonstructural component is attached or braced to a structure, the response of the component can be altered based on the stiffness characteristics of the anchorage or bracing structural system. Current building code provisions, [1], provide little or no guidance on whether the effects of the support system has been considered in the determination of the a p values in the building code and what assumptions have been made regarding the support or bracing for the components identified in the building code tables. The assumption implicit in the building code is that the characterization of a component as rigid or flexible with the assignment of a value of a p of 1.0 or 2.5, respectively, is that the behavior is based on that of the component without consideration of the effects on the method used to attach the component to the structure. Where a nonstructural component is attached to a structure through a supporting structure, Eq. 1, should be used to assess whether the stiffness of the supporting structure causes the nonstructural component to behave as a flexible component rather than a rigid component. This effect of the support system on the overall behavior of the nonstructural component had been explicitly required in previous building codes [9], which treated both flexible components and flexibly supported components as requiring an amplification to account for dynamic interaction.

10 Conclusions The response of nonstructural components to seismic loads is well known to be affected by the interaction of the vibrational response of the nonstructural component with that of the building to which it is attached. Current building code provisions for the design of nonstructural components attempts to consider this interaction with an amplification factor that varies depending on whether the component is considered rigid - and thus not experiencing any dynamic amplification - or flexible - and thus experiencing amplification due to resonance of the nonstructural component with that of the building to which it is attached. This approach has resulted in the development of tabulated values for an amplification factor, a p, which is based primarily on judgment. This code approach provides a simplification for engineers unfamiliar with structural dynamics, however, like many black boxes, the use of tabulated values to choose whether a nonstructural component will behave as rigidly or flexibly, can lead to inaccurate characterization of nonstructural components as rigid. Ideally, the tabulated values for the amplification factors in the tables in the building code should be based on testing or analysis. While shake table testing of nonstructural components has become more prevalent, such testing is not practical for the majority of nonstructural components with a building. Where such shake table testing has been performed, the results should be tabulated and either incorporated into the building code or provided by the manufacturers of the components. Analytical methods should also be used to establish limiting dimensional and material property values for common nonstructural components that define rigid and flexible behavior. Two such tables, for piping and steel stud walls, have been presented above as examples of the use of simple analytical models can be used to provide guidance to engineers designing these nonstructural components for seismic forces. In addition to the dynamic properties of the component, the influence of the support system should also be considered in characterizing a nonstructural component as rigid or flexible. The term flexibly mounted used in older building codes [9] has unfortunately been lost from the current building code and as a result, the support conditions for nonstructural components are seldom considered explicitly. The building code should include limitations on the structural characteristics of the support structure for nonstructural components to be considered rigid. Where those limitations are not met, the engineer should be required to explicitly calculate the period of vibration of the nonstructural component, including the effect of its support. Although floor response spectra are known to demonstrate that dynamic amplification of a nonstructural component varies depending on the characteristics of the component and that of the building, explicit consideration of this effect is seldom justified. For critical structures however, a more rigorous approach to calculating the interaction of nonstructural and structural response may be warranted on a benefit-cost basis. Building code provisions should include a methodology for evaluating floor response spectra and the dynamic amplification as a function of the ratio of component period to the predominant periods of the building as suggested in [6]. Another consideration is the effect of nonlinear response of the structure on the response of nonstructural components. Wieser et al [7] pointed out that the work of several researchers has

11 demonstrated that floor accelerations of a building are reduced when accounting for nonlinear behavior of the building. While explicit consideration of nonlinear building behavior is difficult to account for in building code provisions, one approach would be to use a level of earthquake shaking that approximates the elastic limit of the building for the design of nonstructural components rather than the use of an earthquake level that is expected to result in nonlinear behavior of the building. Although the seismic behavior of nonstructural components is complex, for the design of most nonstructural components, a simplified approach is justified. As building codes for new buildings, standards for design and evaluation of existing buildings, and other design criteria evolve into more of a performance-based approach, the seismic design of the nonstructural components requires a methodology that considers actual component behavior rather than prescriptive code requirements. The approach described herein provides one step in the process of a more rational understanding of the seismic behavior of nonstructural components. References 1. ASCE/SEI. ASCE/SEI 7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia, Notohardjono B, Ecker R, Zheng, J, Torok J. Seismic Testing and Analysis of Main Frame Computer Structure Proceedings of the ASCE/SEI Structures Congress American Society of Civil Engineers: Virginia, Hutchinson TC, Chaudhuri SR, Bench- and Self-Mounted Equipment and Contents: Shake Table Experiments, Seminar on Seismic Design, ATC-29-2 Performance, and Retrofit of Nonstructural Components in Critical Facilities, Applied Technology Council, California, Reinhorn AM, Ryu K, Maddoaloni G, MCEER Modeling and Seismic Evaluation of Nonstructural Components: Testing Frame for Experimental Evaluation of Suspended Ceiling Systems, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, June 30, Soong TT, Chen G, Wu Z, Zhang RH, Grigoriu M, NCEER Assessment of the 1991 NEHRP Provisions for Nonstructural Components and Recommended Revisions, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University at Buffalo, State University of New York and Cornell University, March 1, Kehoe BE, Hachem M, Procedures for Estimating Floor Accelerations, ATC 29-2 Seminar on Seismic Design, Performance, and Retrofit of Nonstructural Components in Critical Facilities, Applied Technology Council, California, Wieser JD, Pekcan G, Zaghi AE, Itani AM, Maragakis E, MCEER Assessment of Floor Accelerations in Yielding Buildings, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, October 5, Joint Departments of the Army, Navy, Air Force, TM /NAVFAC P-355/AFM 88-3 Seismic Design for Buildings, 20 October International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code, Whittier, California, 1994.

Performance-Based Seismic Design of Non-Structural Building Components

Performance-Based Seismic Design of Non-Structural Building Components Performance-Based Seismic Design of Non-Structural Building Components André Filiatrault, PhD, P. Eng. Professor of Structural Engineering State University of New York at Buffalo, USA & School for Advanced

More information

Available at: Last Modified: December 2012

Available at:   Last Modified: December 2012 6.4 Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Components 6.4.8 Electrical and Communications Distribution Equipment 6.4.8.1 Electrical Raceways, Conduit, and Cable Trays This category covers electrical raceways,

More information

0306 SEISMIC LOADS GENERAL

0306 SEISMIC LOADS GENERAL 0306 SEISMIC LOADS 0306.1 GENERAL Every structure, and portion thereof, including nonstructural components such as architectural, mechanical, and electrical components, shall be designed and constructed

More information

Nonstructural Components

Nonstructural Components Nonstructural Components Architectural, Mechanical and Electrical Components supported by or located within buildings or other structures. In 2003 NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Chapter 6 Architectural,

More information

MCEER Hospital Demonstration Project

MCEER Hospital Demonstration Project 15 MCEER Hospital Demonstration Project Tsung Yuan Tony Yang Department of Civil, Structural & Environmental Engineering, University of Buffalo Research Supervisor: Andrew S. Whittaker, Associate Professor

More information

3. Analysis Procedures

3. Analysis Procedures 3. Analysis Procedures 3.1 Scope This chapter sets forth requirements for analysis of buildings using the Systematic Rehabilitation Method. Section 3.2 specifies general analysis requirements for the mathematical

More information

SECTION NON-STRUCTURAL SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA PART 1 - GENERAL 1.1 RELATED DOCUMENTS

SECTION NON-STRUCTURAL SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA PART 1 - GENERAL 1.1 RELATED DOCUMENTS SECTION 014100 - PART 1 - GENERAL 1.1 RELATED DOCUMENTS A. Drawings and general provisions of the Contract, including General and Supplementary Conditions and Division 01 Specification Sections, apply

More information

STRUCTURAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (SEISMIC PROVISIONS) FOR EXISTING BUILDING CONVERTED TO JOINT LIVING AND WORK QUARTERS

STRUCTURAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (SEISMIC PROVISIONS) FOR EXISTING BUILDING CONVERTED TO JOINT LIVING AND WORK QUARTERS INFORMATION BULLETIN / PUBLIC - BUILDING CODE REFERENCE NO.: LABC Chapter 85 Effective: 01-01-2011 DOCUMENT NO.: P/BC 2011-110 Revised: Previously Issued As: P/BC 2002-110 STRUCTURAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

More information

Available at: Last Modified: December 2012

Available at:   Last Modified: December 2012 6.4 Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Components 6.4.3 Pressure piping 6.4.3.3 Flexible Connections, Expansion Joints, and Seismic Separations This category covers the flexible piping connections required

More information

4.2 Tier 2 Analysis General Analysis Procedures for LSP & LDP

4.2 Tier 2 Analysis General Analysis Procedures for LSP & LDP 4.2 Tier 2 Analysis 4.2.1 General Four analysis procedures are provided in this section: Linear Static Procedure (LSP), Linear Dynamic Procedure (LDP), Special Procedure, and Procedure for Nonstructural

More information

BUILDING INTEGRITY SUMMARY REPORT

BUILDING INTEGRITY SUMMARY REPORT BUILDING INTEGRITY SUMMARY REPORT SUPPLIER NAME Karnafuli Shoes Industries Ltd (Garments Unit) SUPPLIER ADDRESS Building No 17, Building No 16, Canteen Building No 2, Canteen Building No 1; Building No

More information

REINFORCED CONCRETE WALL BOUNDARY ELEMENT LONGITUDINAL REINFORCING TERMINATION

REINFORCED CONCRETE WALL BOUNDARY ELEMENT LONGITUDINAL REINFORCING TERMINATION 1NCEE Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering July 1-, 1 Anchorage, Alaska REINFORCED CONCRETE WALL BOUNDARY ELEMENT LONGITUDINAL REINFORCING TERMINATION

More information

Design Example 2 Reinforced Concrete Wall with Coupling Beams

Design Example 2 Reinforced Concrete Wall with Coupling Beams Design Example 2 Reinforced Concrete Wall with Coupling Beams OVERVIEW The structure in this design example is a six story office building with reinforced concrete walls as its seismic force resisting

More information

EVALUATION OF NONLINEAR STATIC PROCEDURES FOR SEISMIC DESIGN OF BUILDINGS

EVALUATION OF NONLINEAR STATIC PROCEDURES FOR SEISMIC DESIGN OF BUILDINGS EVALUATION OF NONLINEAR STATIC PROCEDURES FOR SEISMIC DESIGN OF BUILDINGS By H.S. Lew 1 and Sashi K. Kunnath Presented at the rd Joint Meeting of the UJNR Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects ABSTRACT This

More information

3.5 Tier 1 Analysis Overview Seismic Shear Forces

3.5 Tier 1 Analysis Overview Seismic Shear Forces Chapter 3.0 - Screening Phase (Tier ) 3.5 Tier Analysis 3.5. Overview Analyses performed as part of Tier of the Evaluation Process are limited to Quick Checks. Quick Checks shall be used to calculate the

More information

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF STEEL PIPE SUPPORT STRUCTURES

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF STEEL PIPE SUPPORT STRUCTURES 10NCEE Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering July 21-25, 2014 Anchorage, Alaska SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF STEEL PIPE SUPPORT STRUCTURES

More information

Structural Engineering, Mechanics, and Materials. Preliminary Exam - Structural Design

Structural Engineering, Mechanics, and Materials. Preliminary Exam - Structural Design Fall Semester 2018 Preliminary Exam - Structural Design A small building is located in downtown Berkeley. The structural system, either structural steel or reinforced concrete, comprises gravity framing

More information

Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Base Isolated Reinforced Concrete Building

Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Base Isolated Reinforced Concrete Building Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Base Isolated Reinforced Concrete Building Anju Agarwal 1, Nirendra Dev 2, Ibadur Rahman 3 Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Delhi Technological University,

More information

Seismic Soil Pressure for Building Walls-An Updated Approach

Seismic Soil Pressure for Building Walls-An Updated Approach 11 th International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (11 th ICSDEE) and the 3 rd International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (3 rd ICEGE), University of California,

More information

Available at: Last Modified: December 2012

Available at:   Last Modified: December 2012 6.4 Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Components 6.4.1 Mechanical Equipment 6.4.1.3 HVAC Equipment with Vibration Isolation This includes HVAC equipment, typically of sheet metal construction, that

More information

UNCERTAINTIES IN DETERMINING DIAPHRAGM FLEXIBILITY

UNCERTAINTIES IN DETERMINING DIAPHRAGM FLEXIBILITY 13 th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, B.C., Canada August 1-6, 2004 Paper No. 565 UNCERTAINTIES IN DETERMINING DIAPHRAGM FLEXIBILITY K.T. TOKORO 1, J.C. ANDERSON 2 and V.V. BERTERO

More information

Summary of Modifications/Changes in this Update

Summary of Modifications/Changes in this Update Summary of Modifications/Changes in this Update This Summary of Changes is for information only. It is not a part of the referenced document, and should not be used for project documentation. U.S. Department

More information

AN OVERVIEW OF NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS RESEARCH AT THREE U.S. EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTERS

AN OVERVIEW OF NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS RESEARCH AT THREE U.S. EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTERS Proceedings of Seminar on Seismic Design, Performance, and Applied Technology Council AN OVERVIEW OF NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS RESEARCH AT THREE U.S. EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTERS Abstract A.

More information

Development of fragility functions and seismic design procedure for automatic fire sprinkler systems

Development of fragility functions and seismic design procedure for automatic fire sprinkler systems Development of fragility functions and seismic design procedure for automatic fire sprinkler systems PhD Candidate Muhammad Rashid Supervisory Team Main Supervisor: Prof. Rajesh P. Dhakal Co-Supervisor:

More information

Available at: Last Modified: December 2012

Available at:   Last Modified: December 2012 6.5 Furniture, Fixtures, Equipment and Contents 6.5.3 Computer and Communication Equipment 6.5.3.1 Computer Access Floors and Equipment Computer access floors are raised floor systems used in many facilities

More information

MCEER RESEARCH TASK STATEMENT

MCEER RESEARCH TASK STATEMENT MCEER RESEARCH TASK STATEMENT Thrust Area 2 Budget: Yr 6 Assigned Project Number: 8.2.6 Task Title: Experimental Data for Performance of Piping Distribution Systems Investigator/Institution: Emmanuel Manos

More information

Division IV EARTHQUAKE DESIGN

Division IV EARTHQUAKE DESIGN 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE CHAP. 16, DIV. IV 1626 1627 Division IV EARTHQUAKE DESIGN SECTION 1626 GENERAL 1626.1 Purpose. The purpose of the earthquake provisions herein is primarily to safeguard against

More information

U.S. CODE DEVELOPMENT OF STRUCTURES WITH DAMPING SYSTEMS.

U.S. CODE DEVELOPMENT OF STRUCTURES WITH DAMPING SYSTEMS. T2-5-a-3 SEWC2002, Yokohama, Japan U.S. CODE DEVELOPMENT OF STRUCTURES WITH DAMPING SYSTEMS. Robert D. Hanson 1 and Kit Miyamoto 2 1 University of Michigan, 2926 Saklan Indian Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94595-3911

More information

7. Seismic Design. 1) Read.

7. Seismic Design. 1) Read. 7. Seismic Design Lesson Objectives: 1) Describe code based seismic design in accordance with ASCE 7-16 and IBC 2012. 2) Compute mapped and design spectral accelerations. 3) Categorize and identify the

More information

AC R1 # Triangle Parkway Suite 100 Norcross, Ga Phone: Fax: AC R1. September 11, 2012

AC R1 # Triangle Parkway Suite 100 Norcross, Ga Phone: Fax: AC R1. September 11, 2012 AC70-1012-R1 #12 AC70-1012-R1 #12 AC70-1012-R1 September 11, 2012 Mr. Brian Gerber Ms. Elyse Levy International Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC ES) 5360 Workman Mill Road Whittier, CA 90601 2256 RE:

More information

SECTION SEISMIC RESTRAINT REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS REVISED PART 1 GENERAL 1.1 DESCRIPTION:

SECTION SEISMIC RESTRAINT REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS REVISED PART 1 GENERAL 1.1 DESCRIPTION: SECTION 13 05 41 SEISMIC RESTRAINT REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS REVISED 1-25-13 PART 1 GENERAL 1.1 DESCRIPTION: A. Provide seismic restraint in accordance with the requirements of this section

More information

Table 3. Detailed Comparison of Structural Provisions of IRC 2000 and 1997 NEHRP (Continued)

Table 3. Detailed Comparison of Structural Provisions of IRC 2000 and 1997 NEHRP (Continued) 2000 IRC 1997 NEHRP Section Provision Section Provision Comments CHAPTER 3 BUILDING PLANNING R301 DESIGN CRITERIA R301.2.2 Seismic Provisions R301.2.2.1 Determination of Seismic Design Category R301.2.2.1.1

More information

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES & RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES & RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY IJESRT INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES & RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY Evaluation of the Fundamental Period of Vibration of Irregular Steel Structures A.Shafei 1, M. Alirezaei *2 1 MSc student, Department

More information

Table 1. Detailed Comparison of Structural Provisions of 2000 IBC to 1997 NEHRP (continued)

Table 1. Detailed Comparison of Structural Provisions of 2000 IBC to 1997 NEHRP (continued) 1997 NEHRP 2000 IBC Section Provision Section Provision Comments 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.1 PURPOSE No corresponding provision The lack of a purpose statement does not make IBC 1.2 SCOPE AND APPLICATION

More information

Linear and Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of a Tall Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower

Linear and Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of a Tall Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower Linear and Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of a Tall Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower A. Adnan, M. Vafaei & A.K. Mirasa Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia SUMMARY: Air Traffic Control

More information

Consideration of torsional irregularity in Modal Response Spectrum Analysis

Consideration of torsional irregularity in Modal Response Spectrum Analysis Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures X 209 Consideration of torsional irregularity in Modal Response Spectrum Analysis O. A. Mohamed & O. A. Abbass Department of Civil Engineering, Abu Dhabi University,

More information

Chapter 13 SEISMICALLY ISOLATED STRUCTURE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

Chapter 13 SEISMICALLY ISOLATED STRUCTURE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS Chapter 13 SEISMICALLY ISOLATE STRUCTURE ESIGN REQUIREMENTS 13.1 GENERAL 13.1.1 Scope. Every seismically isolated structure and every portion thereof shall be designed and constructed in accordance with

More information

EVALUATION OF COLLECTOR DESIGN FOR CONCRETE DIAPHRAGMS

EVALUATION OF COLLECTOR DESIGN FOR CONCRETE DIAPHRAGMS 10NCEE Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering July 21-25, 2014 Anchorage, Alaska EVALUATION OF COLLECTOR DESIGN FOR CONCRETE DIAPHRAGMS J. S. LeGrue

More information

VOLUNTARY - EARTHQUAKE HAZARD REDUCTION IN EXISTING HILLSIDE BUILDINGS (Division 94 Added by Ord. No. 171,258, Eff. 8/30/96.)

VOLUNTARY - EARTHQUAKE HAZARD REDUCTION IN EXISTING HILLSIDE BUILDINGS (Division 94 Added by Ord. No. 171,258, Eff. 8/30/96.) DIVISION 94 VOLUNTARY - EARTHQUAKE HAZARD REDUCTION IN EXISTING HILLSIDE BUILDINGS (Division 94 Added by Ord. No. 171,258, Eff. 8/30/96.) SEC. 91.9401. PURPOSE. (Amended by Ord. No. 172,592, Eff. 6/28/99,

More information

FLOOR AND ATTACHED COMPONENT SEISMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS FROM NONLINEAR TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS

FLOOR AND ATTACHED COMPONENT SEISMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS FROM NONLINEAR TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS The th October -,, Beijing, China FLOOR AND ATTACHED COMPONENT SEISMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS FROM NONLINEAR TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS R.K. Dowell, J.W. Smith and T.C. Hutchinson Assistant Professor, Dept.

More information

SEISMIC ISOLATION FOR STRONG, NEAR-FIELD EARTHQUAKE MOTIONS

SEISMIC ISOLATION FOR STRONG, NEAR-FIELD EARTHQUAKE MOTIONS SEISMIC ISOLATION FOR STRONG, NEAR-FIELD EARTHQUAKE MOTIONS Victor A ZAYAS 1 And Stanley S LOW 2 SUMMARY As a consequence of the strong ground motions recorded during the Kobe and Northridge Earthquakes,

More information

Panduit Corporation Tinley Park, Illinois. Outset and Inset Cabinets Seismic Load Rating and Anchorage Design

Panduit Corporation Tinley Park, Illinois. Outset and Inset Cabinets Seismic Load Rating and Anchorage Design Panduit Corporation Tinley Park, Illinois Outset and Inset Cabinets Seismic Load Rating and Anchorage Design February 13, 2013 Degenkolb Job Number B2439007.00 www.degenkolb.com 500 Degenkolb Engineers

More information

An Introduction to the 2015 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures

An Introduction to the 2015 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures An Introduction to the 2015 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures David R Bonneville 1 and Andrew M Shuck 2 ABSTRACT The 2015 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions

More information

Invention: Seismic Retrofitting by Exterior Steel Brace Structural Building Jacketing System

Invention: Seismic Retrofitting by Exterior Steel Brace Structural Building Jacketing System 2017 Published in 5th International Symposium on Innovative Technologies in Engineering and Science 29-30 September 2017 (ISITES2017 Baku - Azerbaijan) Invention: Seismic Retrofitting by Exterior Steel

More information

sixteen seismic design Earthquake Design Earthquake Design Earthquake Design dynamic vs. static loading hazard types hazard types: ground shaking

sixteen seismic design Earthquake Design Earthquake Design Earthquake Design dynamic vs. static loading hazard types hazard types: ground shaking APPLIED ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND SYSTEMS DR. ANNE NICHOLS FALL 2017 lecture sixteen dynamic vs. static loading amplification of static affect time duration acceleration & velocity

More information

BUILDING INTEGRITY SUMMARY REPORT

BUILDING INTEGRITY SUMMARY REPORT BUILDING INTEGRITY SUMMARY REPORT SUPPLIER NAME Kenpark Bangladesh Apparel Pvt. Ltd (Unit 2) UNITS AUDITED SUPPLIER ADDRESS Wash Building Plot # 69-85, Karnaphuli Export Processing Zone, Chittagong, Bangladesh

More information

COMPARISON OF A REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDING STRENGTHRND WITH VARIOUS METHODS

COMPARISON OF A REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDING STRENGTHRND WITH VARIOUS METHODS COMPARISON OF A REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDING STRENGTHRND WITH VARIOUS METHODS Farnaz ALINOORI 1 and Kadir GÜLER 2 ABSTRACT The earthquake performance of a school building having three stories which has

More information

Strategies for mitigation of progressive collapse of corner panels in reinforced concrete buildings

Strategies for mitigation of progressive collapse of corner panels in reinforced concrete buildings Safety and Security Engineering II 161 Strategies for mitigation of progressive collapse of corner panels in reinforced concrete buildings O. A. Mohamed University of Hartford, Department of Civil, Biomedical

More information

INVESTIGATION ON NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF EXISTING BUILDING AND INTRODUCING SEISMIC RETROFITTING OUTLINES WITH CASE STUDY

INVESTIGATION ON NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF EXISTING BUILDING AND INTRODUCING SEISMIC RETROFITTING OUTLINES WITH CASE STUDY 13 th World onference on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, B.., anada August 1-6, 4 Paper No. 356 INVESTIGATION ON NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF EXISTING BUILDING AND INTRODUING SEISMI RETROFITTING OUTLINES WITH

More information

Lateral System Analysis and Confirmation Design November 15, 2004

Lateral System Analysis and Confirmation Design November 15, 2004 Jonathan Hill Structural AE Faculty Consultant Dr. Hanagan Lynde and Harry Bradley School of Technology & Trade Milwaukee, Wisconsin Lateral System Analysis and Confirmation Design November 15, 2004 Executive

More information

Case Study: Challenges of a Single-layer Reticulated Dome

Case Study: Challenges of a Single-layer Reticulated Dome Case Study: Challenges of a Single-layer Reticulated Dome Naveed Anwar, Pramin Norachan, Thaung Htut Aung AIT Consulting, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand Contact: nanwar@ait.asia Abstract

More information

Recent Advances in Seismic and Wind Design of Wood Structures &Historic Preservation Examples

Recent Advances in Seismic and Wind Design of Wood Structures &Historic Preservation Examples SEAoA 2015 Conference and Convention Recent Advances in Seismic and Wind Design of Wood Structures &Historic Preservation Examples Kelly Cobeen Wiss Janney Elstner Associates, Inc. Seminar Outline 1. NEHRP

More information

DEVELOPMENT OF FLOOR DESIGN SPECTRA FOR OPERATIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS IN CANADA

DEVELOPMENT OF FLOOR DESIGN SPECTRA FOR OPERATIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS IN CANADA The 4 th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 2-7, 28, Beijing, China DEVELOPMENT OF FLOOR DESIGN SPECTRA FOR OPERATIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS IN CANADA M. Saatcioglu,

More information

PERFORMANCE BASED PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF WOOD FRAMED BUILDINGS

PERFORMANCE BASED PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF WOOD FRAMED BUILDINGS 3 th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, B.C., Canada August -6, 2004 Paper No. 27 PERFORMANCE BASED PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF WOOD FRAMED BUILDINGS Anurag JAIN, PhD, CE Gary C. HART 2, PhD,

More information

Index terms Diagrid, Nonlinear Static Analysis, SAP 2000.

Index terms Diagrid, Nonlinear Static Analysis, SAP 2000. Pushover Analysis of Diagrid Structure Ravi K Revankar, R.G.Talasadar P.G student, Dept of Civil Engineering, BLDEA S V.P Dr P.G Halakatti College of Engineering & Technology Bijapur-586101 Associate Professor,

More information

HYBRID MOMENT RESISTING STEEL FRAMES

HYBRID MOMENT RESISTING STEEL FRAMES HYBRID MOMENT RESISTING STEEL FRAMES Finley A. Charney 1 and Ozgur Atlayan 2 1 Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 2461, USA 2 Graduate

More information

U.S. CODE DEVELOPMENT FOR BUILDINGS WITH ADDED DAMPING

U.S. CODE DEVELOPMENT FOR BUILDINGS WITH ADDED DAMPING 13 th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, B.C., Canada August 1-6, 2004 Paper No. 1922 U.S. CODE DEVELOPMENT FOR BUILDINGS WITH ADDED DAMPING Robert D. HANSON 1 and Kit MIYAMOTO 2 SUMMARY

More information

Available at: Last Modified: December 2012

Available at:   Last Modified: December 2012 6.4 Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Components 6.4.9 Light Fixtures 6.4.9.4 Heavy Light Fixtures This category covers heavy or special purpose overhead light fixtures that require engineered support

More information

Displacement-Based Seismic Analysis of A Mixed Structural System

Displacement-Based Seismic Analysis of A Mixed Structural System Displacement-Based Seismic Analysis of A Mixed Structural System Jane Li SUMMARY As energy costs soar, public demand for massive transportation systems has increased. Massive transportation systems often

More information

BUILDING INTEGRITY SUMMARY REPORT

BUILDING INTEGRITY SUMMARY REPORT BUILDING INTEGRITY SUMMARY REPORT SUPPLIER NAME Kenpark Bangladesh Pvt.Ltd (Unit 1) UNITS AUDITED SUPPLIER ADDRESS Dry Process Building Sector 8, Plot 31-42, Chittagong Export Processing Zone, Chittagong,

More information

UNIFIED FACILITIES GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS

UNIFIED FACILITIES GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS USACE / NAVFAC / AFCEC / NASA UFGS-26 05 48.00 10 (October 2006) ---------------------------------- Preparing Activity: USACE Superseding UFGS-26 05 48.00 10 (April 2006) UNIFIED FACILITIES GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS

More information

Full-scale dynamic testing of an 11-story RC building and interpretation of the results from the seismic-resistance viewpoint

Full-scale dynamic testing of an 11-story RC building and interpretation of the results from the seismic-resistance viewpoint Full-scale dynamic testing of an 11-story RC building and interpretation of the results from the seismic-resistance viewpoint I. Iskhakov * & Y. Ribakov * ' Department of Engineering, College ofjudea &

More information

Office Building-G. Thesis Proposal. Carl Hubben. Structural Option. Advisor: Dr. Ali Memari

Office Building-G. Thesis Proposal. Carl Hubben. Structural Option. Advisor: Dr. Ali Memari Office Building-G Thesis Proposal Structural Option December 10, 2010 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 3 Introduction... 4 Gravity System...4 Lateral System:...6 Foundation System:...6 Problem Statement...

More information

NON-LINEAR STATIC PUSHOVER ANALYSIS FOR MULTI-STORED BUILDING BY USING ETABS

NON-LINEAR STATIC PUSHOVER ANALYSIS FOR MULTI-STORED BUILDING BY USING ETABS NON-LINEAR STATIC PUSHOVER ANALYSIS FOR MULTI-STORED BUILDING BY USING ETABS Polupalli Victor Paul 1, K Sampath Kumar 2 1 PG Student, Dept of Civil Engineering, Nova College of Engineering & Technology,

More information

Validation of the 2000 NEHRP Provisions Equivalent Lateral Force and Modal Analysis Procedures for Buildings with Damping Systems

Validation of the 2000 NEHRP Provisions Equivalent Lateral Force and Modal Analysis Procedures for Buildings with Damping Systems Validation of the Equivalent Lateral Force and Modal Analysis Procedures for Buildings with Damping Systems Oscar M. Ramirez, a) Michael C. Constantinou, b) M.EERI, Andrew S. Whittaker, c) M.EERI, Charles

More information

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF A 19 STORY CONCRETE SHEAR WALL BUILDING

PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF A 19 STORY CONCRETE SHEAR WALL BUILDING 13 th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, B.C., Canada August 1-6, 2004 Paper No. 133 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF A 19 STORY CONCRETE SHEAR WALL BUILDING Rahul RANA 1, Limin JIN 2 and Atila

More information

SEISMIC DAMAGE CONTROL WITH PASSIVE ENERGY DEVICES: A CASE STUDY

SEISMIC DAMAGE CONTROL WITH PASSIVE ENERGY DEVICES: A CASE STUDY SEISMIC DAMAGE CONTROL WITH PASSIVE ENERGY DEVICES: A CASE STUDY by Robert J. McNamara, SE McNamara/Salvia, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers One International Place Boston, MA 02110 This paper presents

More information

Available at: Last Modified: December 2012

Available at:   Last Modified: December 2012 6.3 Architectural Components 6.3.4 Ceilings 6.3.4.1 Suspended Lay-in Tile Ceiling Systems Suspended modular ceiling systems are used widely in many types of buildings. These ceilings consist of light gauge

More information

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF CONCRETE TILT-UP BUILDINGS: CURRENT WALL-TO-SLAB CONNECTIONS

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF CONCRETE TILT-UP BUILDINGS: CURRENT WALL-TO-SLAB CONNECTIONS SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF CONCRETE TILT-UP BUILDINGS: CURRENT WALL-TO-SLAB CONNECTIONS Frank Devine, 1 Omri Olund, 2 Ken Elwood 3 and Perry Adebar 4 1 Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University

More information

Research on seismic behavior of Wood-Concrete Hybrid Structure

Research on seismic behavior of Wood-Concrete Hybrid Structure Research on seismic behavior of Wood-Concrete Hybrid Structure ABSTRACT: Haibei Xiong 1 and Guocheng Jia 1 Associate Professor, College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China Master,

More information

SEAU 5 th Annual Education Conference 1. Read the Standard! ASCE Analysis Provisions. (not just the tables and equations)

SEAU 5 th Annual Education Conference 1. Read the Standard! ASCE Analysis Provisions. (not just the tables and equations) ASCE 41-13 Robert Pekelnicky, PE, SE Principal, Degenkolb Engineers Chair, ASCE 41 Committee* *The view expressed represent those of the author, not the standard s committee as a whole. ASCE 41-13 Analysis

More information

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Volume 5, No 3, 2015

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Volume 5, No 3, 2015 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Volume 5, No 3, 15 Copyright by the authors - Licensee IPA- Under Creative Commons license 3. Research article ISSN 976 4399 Response of multi-storey

More information

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY AND PROTECTION OF NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY AND PROTECTION OF NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS SEISMIC VULNERABILITY AND PROTECTION OF NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS T.T. Soong and D. Lopez Garcia Department of Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo,

More information

International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development

International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development Scientific Journal of Impact Factor (SJIF): 5.71 International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development Volume 5, Issue 04, April -2018 e-issn (O): 2348-4470 p-issn (P): 2348-6406 COMPARATIVE

More information

Engr. Thaung Htut Aung M. Eng. Asian Institute of Technology Deputy Project Director, AIT Consulting

Engr. Thaung Htut Aung M. Eng. Asian Institute of Technology Deputy Project Director, AIT Consulting Engr. Thaung Htut Aung M. Eng. Asian Institute of Technology Deputy Project Director, AIT Consulting Selection of Structural systems Load paths Materials Approximate sizing of members Primary mechanisms

More information

Chapter 4 Commentary STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERA

Chapter 4 Commentary STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERA Chapter 4 Commentary STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERA 4.1 GENERAL 4.1.2 References. ASCE 7 is referenced for the combination of earthquake loadings with other loads as well as for the computation of other loads;

More information

Mandatory Wood Frame Soft-story Retrofit Program STRUCTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES

Mandatory Wood Frame Soft-story Retrofit Program STRUCTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES INFORMATION BULLETIN / PUBLIC - BUILDING CODE REFERENCE NO.: LAMC Division 93 Effective: 11/22/15 DOCUMENT NO.: P/BC 2014-137 Revised: 06/07/16 Previously Issued As: N/A Mandatory Wood Frame Soft-story

More information

Background and Purpose Acknowledgments. 1.1 Background The Architect s Role in Seismic Design Contents The Bottom Line 1-8

Background and Purpose Acknowledgments. 1.1 Background The Architect s Role in Seismic Design Contents The Bottom Line 1-8 FOREWORD AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Background and Purpose Acknowledgments i iii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Christopher Arnold 1.1 Background 1-1 1.2 The Architect s Role in Seismic Design 1-4 1.3 Contents 1-5 1.4

More information

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF LOW-RISE PRE-ENGINEERING BUILDINGS WITH TILT-UP AND MASONRY FAÇADE WALLS DURING THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES IN NEW ZEALAND

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF LOW-RISE PRE-ENGINEERING BUILDINGS WITH TILT-UP AND MASONRY FAÇADE WALLS DURING THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES IN NEW ZEALAND 10NCEE Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering July 21-25, 2014 Anchorage, Alaska SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF LOW-RISE PRE-ENGINEERING BUILDINGS WITH TILT-UP

More information

Application of Performance Based Nonlinear. of RC Buildings. A.Q. Bhatti National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan

Application of Performance Based Nonlinear. of RC Buildings. A.Q. Bhatti National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan Application of Performance Based Nonlinear Seismic Static Pushover Design and Analysis Simulation for Seismic Design of RC Buildings A.Q. Bhatti National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad,

More information

National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering University of California, Berkeley

National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering University of California, Berkeley nisee National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering University of California, Berkeley Strength Reduction Factors in Performance-Based Design By Eduardo Miranda National Center for Disaster Prevention

More information

Chapter 2 QUALITY ASSURANCE

Chapter 2 QUALITY ASSURANCE Chapter 2 QUALITY ASSURANCE 2.1 GENERAL 2.1.1 Scope. This chapter provides minimum requirements for quality assurance for seismic-forceresisting systems and designated seismic systems. These requirements

More information

MODAL PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF RC FRAME BUILDING WITH STAIRCASE AND ELEVATOR CORE

MODAL PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF RC FRAME BUILDING WITH STAIRCASE AND ELEVATOR CORE 10NCEE Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering July 21-25, 2014 Anchorage, Alaska MODAL PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF RC FRAME BUILDING WITH STAIRCASE AND ELEVATOR

More information

SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A REINFORCED CONCRETE ARCH BRIDGE

SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A REINFORCED CONCRETE ARCH BRIDGE 84 SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A REINFORCED CONCRETE ARCH BRIDGE Kazuhiko KAWASHIMA And Atsushi MIZOGUTI SUMMARY This paper presents an analysis of the seismic response characteristics and seismic performance

More information

LIGHTLY DAMPED MOMENT RESISTING STEEL FRAMES

LIGHTLY DAMPED MOMENT RESISTING STEEL FRAMES ABSTRACT : LIGHTLY DAMPED MOMENT RESISTING STEEL FRAMES Ozgur Atlayan and Finley A. Charney Graduate Student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 46, USA Email:

More information

ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION ON THE PERFORMANCE OF TUBE-IN-TUBE STRUCTURES SUBJECTED TO LATERAL LOADS

ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION ON THE PERFORMANCE OF TUBE-IN-TUBE STRUCTURES SUBJECTED TO LATERAL LOADS International Journal of Technical Research and Applications e-issn: 0-86, www.ijtra.com Volume, Issue4 (July-August 05), PP. 84-88 ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION ON THE PERFORMANCE OF TUBE-IN-TUBE STRUCTURES

More information

MOUNTAIN STATE BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD HEADQUARTERS

MOUNTAIN STATE BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD HEADQUARTERS MOUNTAIN STATE BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD HEADQUARTERS PARKERSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA DOMINIC MANNO STRUCTURAL OPTION FACULTY CONSULTANT: DR. ANDRES LEPAGE Technical Report 3 11-21-08 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF

More information

A STRUCTURAL RESPONSE PREDICTION ENGINE TO SUPPORT ADVANCED SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT

A STRUCTURAL RESPONSE PREDICTION ENGINE TO SUPPORT ADVANCED SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT Eleventh U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Integrating Science, Engineering & Policy June 5-9, 018 Los Angeles, California A STRUCTURAL RESPONSE PREDICTION ENGINE TO SUPPORT ADVANCED SEISMIC

More information

FEMA 356 Life Safety Building Performance Evaluation & PML Analysis

FEMA 356 Life Safety Building Performance Evaluation & PML Analysis FEMA 356 Life Safety Building Performance Evaluation & PML Analysis For 2 Dinkelspiel Station Ln. Atherton, California September 24, 2009 Prepared for: Prepared by: Town of Atherton Crosby Group Office

More information

IMPROVING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE: ADD STIFFNESS OR DAMPING? Trevor E. Kelly 1

IMPROVING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE: ADD STIFFNESS OR DAMPING? Trevor E. Kelly 1 24 IMPROVING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE: ADD STIFFNESS OR DAMPING? Trevor E. Kelly 1 This paper was presented at the 2007 NZSEE Annual Conference in Palmerston North. ABSTRACT Structural engineers typically improve

More information

CHAPTER III DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR OF A LABORATORY SPECIMEN

CHAPTER III DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR OF A LABORATORY SPECIMEN CHAPTER III DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR OF A LABORATORY SPECIMEN To address the vibration response of a long span deck floor system, an experiment using a specimen that resembles the conditions found in the in-situ

More information

Seismic Design of Precast Concrete Structures

Seismic Design of Precast Concrete Structures Seismic Design of Precast Concrete Structures S. K. Ghosh S. K. Ghosh Associates Inc. Palatine, IL and Aliso Viejo, CA Instructional Material Complementing FEMA 1052, Design Examples Diaphragms Analysis

More information

A SIMPLIFIED METHOD FOR THE ESTIMATION OF THE SEISMIC RESISTANCE OF RC FRAMES WITH WEAK INFILL PANELS

A SIMPLIFIED METHOD FOR THE ESTIMATION OF THE SEISMIC RESISTANCE OF RC FRAMES WITH WEAK INFILL PANELS Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering July 21-25, 2014 Anchorage, Alaska A SIMPLIFIED METHOD FOR THE ESTIMATION OF THE SEISMIC RESISTANCE OF RC FRAMES

More information

Influence of Concrete and Steel outrigger and belt truss in high rise Moment Resisting Frames

Influence of Concrete and Steel outrigger and belt truss in high rise Moment Resisting Frames International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-issn: 35-5 Influence of Concrete and Steel outrigger and belt truss in high rise Moment Resisting Frames A SURESH 1,B BHANUPRIYA,

More information

Chapter 2 EARTHQUAKE-RESISTANCE REQUIREMENTS

Chapter 2 EARTHQUAKE-RESISTANCE REQUIREMENTS Chapter 2 EARTHQUAKE-RESISTANCE REQUIREMENTS This chapter explains the International Residential Code s (IRC s) general earthquake-resistance requirements as well as specific IRC requirements concerning

More information

Effect of Diaphragm Openings in Multi-storeyed RC framed buildings using Pushover analysis

Effect of Diaphragm Openings in Multi-storeyed RC framed buildings using Pushover analysis Effect of Diaphragm Openings in Multi-storeyed RC framed buildings using Pushover analysis P.P. Vinod Kumar 1, Dr. V.D. Gundakalle 2 1 M.Tech Student, Civil Engineering, KLEMSSCET - Belagavi, Karnataka,

More information

James Hauck 1 and Christine Moe 2

James Hauck 1 and Christine Moe 2 3479 Beam-over-Column Bracing Requirements in Continuous Steel Frame Buildings James Hauck 1 and Christine Moe 2 1 Associate Principal, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., 10 South LaSalle Street,

More information

FEASIBILITY STUDY ON SEISMIC RESPONSE ESTIMATION OF DAMAGED R/C BUILDINGS BASED ON OBSERVATION DATA AND NUMERICAL ANALYSIS

FEASIBILITY STUDY ON SEISMIC RESPONSE ESTIMATION OF DAMAGED R/C BUILDINGS BASED ON OBSERVATION DATA AND NUMERICAL ANALYSIS 1NCEE Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering July 1-5, 14 Anchorage, Alaska FEASIBILITY STUDY ON SEISMIC RESPONSE ESTIMATION OF DAMAGED R/C BUILDINGS

More information

Earthquake Damage Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Hotel Buildings in Hawaii

Earthquake Damage Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Hotel Buildings in Hawaii Earthquake Damage Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Hotel Buildings in Hawaii C.C. Simsir, C. Ekwueme, G.C. Hart & A. Dumortier Weidlinger Associates Inc., Marina del Rey, CA, USA SUMMARY: This paper presents

More information

Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures with Spring Base Isolation

Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures with Spring Base Isolation Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures with Spring Base Isolation TUN MYINT AUNG 1, TIN TIN WIN 2 and NYAN.MY1NT KYAW 3 ' Dept: of Civil Engineering, Mandalay Technological University 2

More information