Available at: Last Modified: December 2012

Similar documents
Home Not Anchored to Foundation

Available at: Last Modified: December 2012

FEMA P 50 & FEMA P 50 1

Simplified Seismic Assessment & Seismic Retrofit Guidelines for Detached, Single-Family, Wood-Frame Dwellings FEMA P-50 & FEMA P-50-1

Available at: Last Modified: December 2012

Available at: Last Modified: December 2012

Available at: Last Modified: December 2012

Available at: Last Modified: December 2012

7 NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

INSTRUCTORS GUIDE. FEMA P-593 CD, Seismic Rehabilitation Training for One- and Two-Family Wood-Frame Dwellings

Available at: Last Modified: December 2012

STANDARD PLAN BULLETIN SP-2 (Structural)

Available at: Last Modified: December 2012

NZSEE CONFERENCE Jack Moehle University of California, Berkeley

RECONSTRUCTION AND REPLACEMENT OF EARTHQUAKE DAMAGED MASONRY CHIMNEYS

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

RESIDENTIAL SEISMIC RETROFITS

WOOD FRAME SOFT-STORY RETROFIT PROGRAM

Sponsored by The Boston Association of Structural Engineers and the Structural Engineers Association of Massachusetts

AMERICAN RED CROSS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ACADEMY Presented by Michael J. Griffin, P.E. Principal CCS Group, Inc.

Life Safety Risks to Schools from Nonstructural Earthquake Damage

Available at: Last Modified: December 2012

Available at: Last Modified: December 2012

3. SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS

Simplified Seismic Assessment of Detached, Single-Family, Wood-Frame Dwellings. FEMA P-50 / May 2012 FEMA

FEMA P-593 STEP-BY STEP PRESCRIPTIVE RETROFIT FOR CRIPPLE WALL BRACING & ANCHORAGE TO FOUNDATION

Project Seismic Vulnerability Assessment For SFCC District Building 33 Gough Street San Francisco, California 94103

BUILDING INTEGRITY SUMMARY REPORT

CALBO Annual Business Meeting The Building Official and the CEA

Community Meeting Soft-Story Buildings

Virginia Existing Building Code

STRUCTURAL/SEISMIC REPORT Roosevelt Elementary School. Report prepared by DCI Engineers. For. Medford School District. Completed By: DCI Engineers

Mandatory Wood Frame Soft-story Retrofit Program STRUCTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES

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

Section 1 Introduction

Available at: Last Modified: December 2012

MEXICO CITY RECOVERY UPDATE: SEVEN MONTHS AFTER THE M7.1 CENTRAL MEXICO EARTHQUAKE

+ Soil Maps + Building Inventory Maps

COST ANALYSIS AND BENEFIT STUDIES OF CODES AND STANDARDS FOR EARTHQUAKE-RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION IN MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

Damage Examples. Available at: Last Modified: January 2011

Supplemental Plan Check List for Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Retrofit

Seismic Design Requirements

2012 VOICES OF EXPERIENCE W hen I nfrastructure F ails. Presented by Michael J. Griffin, P.E. Principal CCS Group, Inc.

2010 Haiti Earthquake: Recovery Effort and Earthquake Risk Management. H. Kit Miyamoto, S.E. Miyamoto International

Engineering Geology and Seismology. Structural Geology

Structural Investigation Report

Economics on Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Low-rise Building in Korea

Post-Earthquake Building Damage Assessment. John Osteraas, PhD, PE Exponent Failure Analysis Associates

Information Systems for Repair Alternatives and Initial Cost Estimation of Damaged Building Structures

ALTERNATE DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS

Post-Disaster Safety Evaluations Using ATC-20/45

3.5 Tier 1 Analysis Overview Seismic Shear Forces

Volume 1. HOW TO MAKE A DREAM HOUSE EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT Contents

Structural Engineering

DIVISION: SPECIALTIES SECTION: MANUFACTURED FIREPLACES REPORT HOLDER: FIRE ROCK PRODUCTS LLC

BUILDING INTEGRITY SUMMARY REPORT

Plan Check No. Checked by: An Appointment Is Required for Verification

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WEST CONTRA COSTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (WCCUSD)

4.6 Procedures for Connections

THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

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

ACTS Conference, June 2014 Dbayyeh, Lebanon Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Reinforced Concrete Structures

Nonstructural Components

Streamlined Hazard Mitigation Cost Assessment Framework for Residential Buildings

E. Nonstructural Seismic Risk Ratings

Chapter 2 EARTHQUAKE-RESISTANCE REQUIREMENTS

Pushover Analysis Of RCC Building With Soft Storey At Different Levels.

4. BUILDINGS, DWELLINGS AND BRIDGE

Example Application Guide for ASCE/SEI 41-13, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings

Cal VIVA: Assessing the Seismic Vulnerability of California s State-Owned Buildings

Comparative Cost Analysis of Possible Seismic Retrofitting Schemes for Multi-Story Unreinforced Masonry Building

7. Seismic Design. 1) Read.

EXPLORATION OF DIFFERENT RETROFITTING OPTIONS FOR RC FRAME BUILDINGS IN KATHMANDU

McMULLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Seismic Resistant Repair and Reconstruction - Critical Issues

STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF DOVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WEST CONTRA COSTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (WCCUSD)

STANDARDIZING SEISMIC EVALUATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

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

FEMA 356 Life Safety Building Performance Evaluation & PML Analysis

A STRUCTURAL RESPONSE PREDICTION ENGINE TO SUPPORT ADVANCED SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT

Emeryville's Seismic Hazard Mitigation Ordinance

A CASE STUDY OF PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF AN EXISTING HOSPITAL BUILDING IN CALIFORNIA, U.S.

DIVISION: SPECIALTIES SECTION: MANUFACTURED FIREPLACES REPORT HOLDER: MASONRY FIREPLACE INDUSTRIES, LLC

GLOBAL SEISMIC RISK REDUCTION PROGRAMS: INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION IN ISTANBUL

SEATTLE CENTRAL COLLEGE BROADWAY PERFORMANCE HALL SEATTLE, WASHINGTON STRUCTURAL EVALUATION FOR PREPARED BY PCS STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS

Question 8 of 55. y 24' 45 kips. 30 kips. 39 kips. 15 kips x 14' 26 kips 14' 13 kips 14' 20' Practice Exam II 77

THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Statistical Damage Survey of the 2010 and 2011 Christchurch Earthquakes

ORDINANCE NO. 16- The City Council of the City of West Hollywood does hereby ordain as follows:

ASCE Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings

IBC Seismic and Wind Load Compliance for Non-Structural Building Components

Evaluation and Repair of Earthquake Damage in Woodframe Buildings. John Osteraas, PhD, PE Exponent Failure Analysis Associates

Retrofit Grants Guidelines for Voluntary Seismic Retrofit of Concrete Buildings

Introduction. by Dr. Tao Lai, Project Manager & Dr. Polsak Tothong, Analysis Engineer

PRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE METHOD

10. Simplified Rehabilitation

Natural Hazards Resilience: Seismic Design & Detailing of Non-Structural Components November 2015

RETROFIT OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY CLADDING FOLLOWING THE 2001 NISQUALLY EARTHQUAKE

Burbank Municipal Code A300: ADOPTION OF CODE: Page 8 of 13

A. Are Plan Reviews Important? B. Statement of Special Inspections C. Deferred Submittals D. DFCM Requirements

Transcription:

6.3 Architectural Components 6.3.7 Chimneys and Stacks 6.3.7.1 Unreinforced Masonry Chimney Unreinforced masonry (URM) chimneys are extremely vulnerable to earthquake damage; their behavior has long been used as an indicator of seismic intensity as in the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale. Provisions BUILDING CODE PROVISIONS Masonry chimneys are subject to the force requirements of ASCE/SEI 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE, 2010), Chapter 13, Nonstructural Components. In addition, masonry fireplaces are subject to the prescriptive requirements of 2012 IBC, International Building Code, (ICC 2012), Chapter 21. The 2012 IBC provisions focus on seismic reinforcing and anchorage of masonry fireplaces. In general, unreinforced masonry chimney construction is not permitted in areas of moderate and high seismicity (Seismic Design Categories C and higher). RETROFIT STANDARD PROVISIONS ASCE/SEI 41-06, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE, 2007) classifies unreinforced masonry chimneys as force-controlled. Compliance with the requirements of the standard is required for all performance levels in areas of high and moderate seismicity. If the performance level is Hazards Reduced and the unreinforced masonry chimney is located in areas of public occupancy or egress, it must meet the Life Safety performance level. Residential unreinforced masonry chimneys may be retrofitted using prescriptive design concepts. Typical Causes of Damage Unreinforced masonry chimneys may crack, spall, separate from the structure, or collapse. They may fall through the roof structure and injure occupants or fall to the ground. Chimneys may suffer damage even at relatively low levels of ground shaking. FEMA E-74 6: Seismic Protection of Nonstructural Components Page 6-139

Available at: http://www.fema.gov/earthquake-publications/fema-e-74-reducing-risks-nonstructural-earthquake-damage DAMAGE EXAMPLES Figure 6.3.7.1-1 Chimney collapsed and fell through the roof; approximately 2,600 chimneys were destroyed in the 1992 Big Bear City, California earthquake (NGDC, 2009). Figure 6.3.7.1-2 Residential metal flue in wood frame chimney that failed in the 2003 magnitude-6.5 San Simeon earthquake. The house fell off its cripple wall, pushing over the chimney (Photo courtesy of Michael Mahoney). FEMA E-74 6: Seismic Protection of Nonstructural Components Page 6-140

Figure 6.3.7.1-3 Chimney collapse (Photo courtesy of Earthquake Engineering Research Institute). FEMA E-74 6: Seismic Protection of Nonstructural Components Page 6-141

Seismic Mitigation Considerations The most reliable mitigation measure is to remove a URM chimney and replace it with a metal flue inside a framed enclosure or to remove the chimney and firebox entirely. If the chimney is not being used, reducing its height to not more than 1 to 2 feet above the roofline will limit the potential for damage. Chimney and roof configurations vary widely. If a URM chimney is to be braced in place, an engineered design is needed to account for specific as-built construction details. To protect against a chimney falling in toward the roof and posing a safety hazard below, the roof can be locally strengthened with plywood. Large historically important chimneys need special consideration; these could be reinforced using a center core technology to improve their performance; this method involves core drilling the masonry and filling the cores with reinforcing and grout. Fire code requirements and local ordinances must be considered when considering strategies for reducing the risk of unreinforced masonry chimneys. The City of Seattle developed guidelines for Alteration and Repair of Unreinforced Masonry Chimneys following the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake; these can be found at http://www.seattle.gov/dclu/codes/dr/dr2004-5.pdf and include details for straps at the roof and floor lines, bracing above the roofline, and partial replacement above the roofline. Similarly, the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety developed prescriptive measures for Reconstruction and Replacement of Earthquake Damaged Masonry Chimneys, available at http://ladbs.org/ladbsweb/ladbs_forms/informationbulletins/ib-p-bc2008-070eqdamagedchimney.pdf. FEMA E-74 6: Seismic Protection of Nonstructural Components Page 6-142

MITIGATION EXAMPLES Figure 6.3.7.1-4 Braced chimney (FEMA, 2004). MITIGATION DETAILS Figure 6.3.7.1-5 Unreinforced masonry chimney bracing (ER). FEMA E-74 6: Seismic Protection of Nonstructural Components Page 6-143