BLUE TRAIN
If you would like to schedule in-person or web-based training on ATC-20, ATC-45, or other topic(s) please click here for details and to submit a request for more information. 

 

 

Sign Up for ATC E-Mails


Receive up-to-date information
about ATC events and products.

 

 

ATC-15-15:
16th U.S.-Japan-New Zealand Workshop on the
Improvement of Structural Engineering and Resiliency

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Title: 16th U.S.-Japan-New Zealand Workshop on the Improvement of Structural Engineering and Resiliency

Project Status: This Workshop was conducted on June 27-29, 2016 at the Todaiji Temple Cultural Center in Nara, Japan.

Sponsors: Applied Technology Council (ATC), the Japan Structural Consultants Association (JSCA), the New Zealand Centre of Research Excellence (QuakeCoRE), and the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering

PROJECT SUMMARY

The Purpose of the Workshop was to discuss and develop policy recommendations for improved community resilience based on topics related to current state-of-practice, innovative engineering solutions, and emerging resilience technologies. A special focus of the Workshop was on post-earthquake repair and assessment of residual capacity of earthquake-damaged buildings.

This Workshop was the 16th in a series that began in 1984 and has been repeated every two or three years. Previous workshops have been held in California (San Diego and San Francisco), Hawaii (Honolulu, Kauai, Kona, Kohala Coast, and Maui), Japan (Kobe and Tokyo), and Victoria, British Columbia.  For this workshop, the program was expanded to include representation from New Zealand in addition to the United States and Japan.

Workshop Program. The Workshop Program was designed for practicing engineers, researchers, planners, policy makers, and other risk reduction specialists. It included technical presentations, panel discussions, and policy-development discussions. Technical sessions were planned around resiliency based engineering, post-earthquake repair and residual capacity, innovative structural design, technologies in underdeveloped countries, risk identification and reduction, earthquake response and recovery, and nonstructural elements.
 
Workshop Participants. The Workshop Participants included those with a background in the performance of buildings and other structures in severe earthquakes, including the effects of tsunami, and response, recovery, and reconstruction efforts following a major earthquake or tsunami.
 
Summary of Workshop Findings. The workshop was structured to include presentation and discussion. Presentations and papers can be found in the table below. Presentations provided information and opinions from experts in seven topical areas related to f structural engineering and resiliency, which were followed by discussions agreeing on conclusions and policy recommendations for improved community resilience. The Workshop Findings were summarized to present the overall conclusions from each session. The following recommendations were the agreed upon highest priority conclusions and recommendations across all sessions:
 
Session I: Resiliency Based Engineering
  • Resilience is not just an engineering problem. We need to engage with society, and create buy-in for what is needed for resilience and what that means to non-engineers.
  • We need to consider siting and land-use planning impacts on performance.
  • Damage and loss are not the same thing. Damage does not necessarily mean loss. We need to minimize loss (e.g., repair costs, downtime, injury, life loss).
  • We need to better understand the link between component-based design and system level performance.
  • Codes provide us a minimum standard. We need to evolve to promote best practices for serving society.
  • Communication is important. We need multi-language, multi-cultural sharing of information.
Session II: Post-Earthquake Repair and Residual Capacity
  • The participating organizations resolve to collaborate on the development of residual capacity guidelines.
Session III: Innovative Structural Design for Large Earthquakes
  • Holistic design principles should be considered with innovative solutions.
  • We need innovative design for construction types that represent the most common types of buildings (not just special or important structures).
Session IV: Risk Identification and Reduction
  • Seismic risk is not the only risk (e.g., tsunami, fire, multi-hazard).
  • We must not forget the basic life-safety intent of the codes.
  • We must address the risks in our existing building stock.
Session V: Earthquake Response and Recovery
  • We need to document successes so that we know where codes are working.
  • Conservatism in design and construction should be considered in a commercial context. We need to communicate the case for conservatism.
Session VI: Engineering and Technology in Developing Countries
  • We need to adapt our seismic technologies and share appropriate technologies (and processes) with developing countries.
Session VII: Resiliency of Non-Structural Elements
  • The cost-benefit ratio of nonstructural bracing needs to be considered (including consideration of downtime and design fees).
  • Structural response can impact nonstructural damage exposure. Holistic structural and nonstructural design is needed (especially for new construction).
  • For success in nonstructural implementation, we need to take advantage of the broader partnerships in the building industry: design, regulation, enforcement, and manufacture.
 
Session I: Resiliency Based Engineering
Chairpersons: Kawamura (Japan); Heintz (US)
Paper Number Paper Title Author(s) Presentation Paper
1. Engineers: The Forgotten Stakeholder in the Resilience Conversation J. Heintz* View Presentation View Paper
2. On the Resiliency of Power Grids after Earthquakes J. Eidinger* and A. Tang View Presentation View Paper
3. Modal Decomposition and Behavior of Free Vibration Response with Grounding and Uplifting T. Masuno* View Presentation  
4. Improving Resiliency by Designing for Community Needs V. Cedillos* View Presentation View Paper
5. Balance and Harmony D. Mar* View Presentation  
6. Resilience and Earthquake Engineering P. Yanev* View Presentation View Paper
7. Performance versus Compliance R. Jury* and A. Stirrat View Presentation View Paper
8. Current Direction for Improving Structural Engineering and Resiliency in New Zealand M. Stannard* View Presentation View Paper
Session II: Post-Earthquake Repair and Residual Capacity
Chairpersons: Celebi (US); Elwood (NZ)
Paper Number Paper Title Author(s) Presentation Paper
1. Rapid Fatigue Damage Assessment for Earthquake Losses: Stochastic Model and an Example from Christchurch, NZ J.B. Mander, G. Rodgers*, and D. Whittaker View Presentation View Paper
2. Assessing the Seismic Residual Fatigue Life of Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings: A Proposed Framework A. Cuevas Ramirez*    
3. Residual Seismic Capacity Evaluation and Damage Classification for Reinforced Concrete Buildings M. Maeda* View Presentation  
4. Post-Earthquake Residual Capacity of Damaged Reinforced Concrete Buildings K. Elwood* View Presentation View Paper
5. Determination of the Post-Earthquake Capacity of an Eccentrically Braced Frame Seismic Resisting System C. Clifton and G. Ferguson (presented by K. Elwood*) View Presentation View Paper
6. Significance of Beating Effects Observed in Earthquake Responses of Two Tall Buildings M. Çelebi*, F. Ghahari, and E. Taciroglu View Presentation View Paper
7. Earthquake Performance of a Three Story Actual Sub-Standard Building M. Comert*, C. Demir, A.O. Ates, K. Orakcal, and A. Ilki View Presentation View Paper
8. Residual capacity of RC frame with walls based on full-scale loading test T. Mukai* View Presentation  
9. Insights from Intensive Assessment Analyses – The Benefit to Targeted Performance Enhancement for a Christchurch Ductile RC Moment-Frame Building D. Pettinga* and T. Kelly View Presentation View Paper
Session III: Innovative Structural Design for Large Earthquakes
Chairpersons: Regos (NZ); Nishimura (Japan)
Paper Number Paper Title Author(s) Presentation Paper 
1. Seismic upgrading of existing high-rise buildings utilizing newly developed tuned mass damper, oil damper and steel damper N. Haneda*, H. Kurino, and Y. Kurokawa View Presentation  
2. Structural Design of Tall Damped Building with Irregularly-Shaped Plane and Elevation for Large Earthquake Y. Okuno*    
3. Testing and Application of Low Damage Technologies for Bridges in New Zealand S. White*, P. Routledge, and A. Palermo View Presentation View Paper
4. Structural design of high seismic performance twin tower by employing different structural system for each tower S. Yoshida*    
5. Study on Dynamic Behavior of Wooden Horizontal Hybrid Structure Involving Stiff Cores Y. Yamazaki*, H. Sakata View Presentation  
6. Effect of Column Modeling Parameters on Collapse Behavior of RC Building A. Matamoros*, A. Suwal, and A. Lepage View Presentation View Paper
7. An Experimental Study on the Buckling Stability of Laminated Rubber Bearings under Large Lateral Deformation I. Nishimura*    
8. Cyclic Tests of Cylindrical Concrete Containment Structures and Their 3-D Finite Element Predictions T. Hsu*    
9. Behavior of Precast Structural Walls Post-Tensioned by Unbonded Tendos in Shaking Table Tests on Actual-Size 4-Story Prestressed Concrete Building L. Bedrinana*, M. Raouffard, and M. Nishiyama View Presentation  
10. Behavior of structural walls of 1/3-scale 6-story reinforced concrete building in shaking table tests M. Nishiyama*, Y. Idosako, M. Sakashita, K. Sugimoto, Y. Masuda, and H. Katsumata View Presentation  
Session IV: Risk Identification and Reduction
Chairpersons: Kennedy (US); Haneda (Japan)
Paper Number Paper Title Author(s) Presentation Paper
1. Design of Structures for Target Risk Using Nonlinear Analysis M. Dolsek*    
2. Structural Morphogenesis for Tunnel-Shaped Frame Structure D. Wada*

 
3. Evaluation and Performance of Taiwan Housing and Schools in the Tainan/Meinong Earthquake R. Gilsanz, C. Huang, J. Mandrick, J. Mugford*, S.J. Hwang, T.C. Chiou, and M. Celebi View Presentation View Paper
4. The Role of Nonlinear Damping Measurement in Identifying Damage, Tracking Ageing and Design Prediction T. Winant* and A. Jeary*    
5. The Anatomy of Regulatory Reform for Buildings: The Role of Equity A. Brower*

View Paper
6. Laboratory Tsunami Loading Experiments on Buildings, and Comparison to U.S. and Japanese Standards A. Kennedy*    
Session V: Earthquake Response and Recovery
Chairpersons: Yanev (US); Shinozaki (Japan)
Paper Number Paper Title Author(s) Presentation Paper
1. Kumamoto M. Takayama* View Presentation  
2. Kumamoto K. Morita*

 
3. Kumamoto P. Yanev* View Presentation  
4. Nepal K. Miyamoto

 
5. Nepal R. Dhakal* View Presentation  
6. Ecuador K. Miyamoto*    
7. Christchurch N. Regos*

 
Session VI: Engineering and Technology in Developing Countries
Chairpersons: Jury (NZ); Okoshi (Japan)
Paper Number Paper Title Author(s) Presentation Paper
1. Can Big Data Approaches Help Earthquake Engineering in Underdeveloped Countries? I. H. Cho*, I. Song, and R.K.W. Wong View Presentation View Paper
2. Reconstruction Assistance to Damaged Building in Nepal Earthquake 2015 T. Okoshi* View Presentation  
3. Preparing Earthquake Disaster in Emerging Nations: The USAID “PREPARE” Program in Costa Rica and Colombia K. Miyamoto*    
Session VII: Resiliency of Non-Structural Elements
Chairpersons: Mar (US); Mori (Japan)
Paper Number Paper Title Author(s) Presentation Paper
1. JSCA’S Efforts on the Safety of Non-Structural Elements T. Teramoto* View Presentation  
2. JSCA’s Recommendation “Design and Detail of Non-structural Elements for Structural, Building and Building-Equipment Engineers” A. Osada* View Presentation  
3. Preliminary Guidelines for Enhanced Non-structural System Design to Achieve Functionality-Level Seismic Performance of Buildings S. Soroushian*    
4. Experimental Evaluation of the Influence of Seismic Clips on Grid Joints in a Suspended Ceiling System R. Dhakal*   View Paper
5. The Next Frontier – Improving the Seismic Resilience of Nonstructural Components H. Ferner* and A. Baird View Presentation View Paper

*Presenting Author


 

Sponsoring Organizations.

Applied Technology Council
Japan Structural Consultants Association
New Zealand Centre of Research Excellence (QuakeCoRE)


New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering

Please contact the Applied Technology Council with questions at 1-650-595-1542, or via e-mail by clicking This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Print

 

ATC-15-16:
17th U.S.-Japan-New Zealand Workshop on the
Improvement of Structural Engineering and Resilience

November 12-14, 2018
Queenstown, New Zealand

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Title. 17th U.S.-Japan-New Zealand Workshop on the Improvement of Structural Engineering and Resilience

Project Status. This Workshop was conducted on November 12-14, 2018 at the Rydges Lakeland Resort in Queenstown, New Zealand.

Sponsors. Applied Technology Council (ATC), the Japan Structural Consultants Association (JSCA), the New Zealand Centre of Research Excellence (QuakeCoRE), and the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE)

PROJECT SUMMARY

Purpose. This Workshop was intended to discuss and develop policy recommendations for improved community resilience based on topics related to current state-of-practice, innovative engineering solutions, and emerging resilience technologies.

This Workshop is the 17th in a series that began in 1984 and has been repeated every two or three years. Previous workshops have been held in California (San Diego and San Francisco), Hawaii (Honolulu, Kauai, Kona, Kohala Coast, and Maui), Japan (Kobe, Tokyo, and Nara), and Victoria, British Columbia. In 2016, the program was expanded to include representation from New Zealand in addition to the United States and Japan.

Workshop Program. The Workshop Program was based on topics presented by practicing engineers, researchers, planners, policy makers, and other risk reduction specialists. The format included technical presentations and discussions focused on recommendations. 

Workshop Participants. The Workshop Participants included those with a background in the performance of buildings and other structures in severe earthquakes, including the effects of tsunami, and response, recovery, and reconstruction efforts following a major earthquake or tsunami.

Summary of Workshop Findings. The workshop was structured to include presentations and discussions. Presentations and papers can be found in the table below. Presentations provided information and opinions from experts in five topical areas related to structural engineering and resilience, which were followed by discussions agreeing on conclusions and policy recommendations for improved community resilience. The Workshop Findings were summarized to present the overall findings and recommendations.

 
Session I: Innovative Structural Design for Large or Multiple Earthquakes
Chairpersons: Miyamoto (US), Pettinga (NZ)
Paper Number Paper Title Author(s) Presentation Paper
1. Control Effect of Large Tuned Mass Damper Applied to Existing High-Rise Building for Seismic Retrofit A. Haneda*, T. Yaguchi,
H. Kurino, T. Nakai
  View Paper
2. Proposed Low Damage Design Guidance – A NZ Approach P. Campbell* View Presentation View Paper
3. Partially Isolated Structure Dynamics Under Random Excitation I. Nishimura*, S. Suzuki View Presentation View Paper
4. Recent Progress in North American Research on Seismic Resilient Wood Buildings A. Iqbal*, J. van de Lindt,
S. Pei, T. Dao, P. Bahmani,
A. Barbosa, M. Popovski
View Presentation View Paper
5. 12 Projects over 12 Years: Reflections from Implementing Low Damage Designs A. Cattanach* View Presentation View Paper
6. Realization of Ultra High-Rise Mixed-Use Building in Which RC Columns and CFT Columns are Connected with Rigid Joints T. Kawai, K. Nakane,
S. Yamashita, N. Ozawa*
  View Paper
7. Structural Design of Unprecedented Large RM (Reinforced-Masonry) Structure in Japan T. Shitanishi*   View Paper
8. Rocking Walls with Lead Extrusion Dampers Protect Formerly Homeless Seniors from Earthquake Risks S. Aher, D. Mar*, G. Rodgers* View Presentation View Paper
9. Vibration Control of RC High-Rise Building with Soft-Story T. Tani* View Presentation View Paper
10. Improving Post-Tensioned Rocking Bridge Columns for Large and Multiple Earthquake Events R. Liu*, B. McHaffie,
A. Palermo
View Presentation View Paper
11. Seismic Isolation Standard for Continued Functionality V. Zayas*, S. Mahin,
M. Constantinou
View Presentation View Paper
12. Development and Application of System to Reduce the Excessive Tensile Forces Arising in Laminated Rubber Bearing M. Uekusa*, N. Aso,
K. Nakane, K. Murata,
F. Ogura, K. Nagahiro,
T. Nakamura, M. Nishino
  View Paper
Session II: Risk Identification and Reduction
Chairpersons: Ferner (NZ), Haneda (Jp)
Paper Number Paper Title Author(s) Presentation Paper
1. Lateral Instability of Ductile Structural Walls; State-of-the-Art F. Dashti, R. Dhakal*,
S. Pampanin
View Presentation View Paper
2. Advantages of Using the Simplified Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA) Technique in the Assessment of New Zealand 1960s Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings J. Keen*, H. Ferner View Presentation View Paper
3. Progress Report of Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Old Buildings Located Along the Specific Emergency Transportation Roads in Tokyo A. Osada*, T. Teramoto,
T. Okoshi
View Presentation View Paper
4. NZ Loadings Standard (NZS1170.5) 2016 and 2018 Modifications to Structural Clauses for Increased Seismic Resilience R. Jury*, D. Bull, G. MacRae View Presentation View Paper
5. Design Implications for Earthquake Duration on Concrete Bridge Columns D. Sanders*, M.S. Mohammed, S.M. Alian,
M. Moustafa
View Presentation View Paper
6. Development of Planning and Design Guidance for Tsunami Vertical Evacuation Structures in New Zealand J. Tipler*, S-.J. McCurrach View Presentation View Paper
7. Experimental Study on Damage Reduction Seismic Retrofit Technique for RC Frame Using Ultra High Strength Fiber Concrete T. Mukai*, H. Watanabe,
M. Sakashita, M. Tani,
T. Ishioka, T. Uchida, S. Hori, T. Megawa, M. Kanagawa,
T. Matsuura
View Presentation View Paper
8. Study on How to Consider Pile Foundation Performance when Setting Seismic Performance of Building T. Umeno* View Presentation View Paper
9. Shear Capacity for Full-Scale Precast Concrete Pile H. Watanabe*, T. Mukai,
S. Kono, T. Ohtaki, S. Kishida, O. Kaneko, T. Fukuda, Y. Kiya, Y. Imai
View Presentation View Paper
10. Towards a New Delivery Approach to Improve the Performance of Non- Structural Elements in New Zealand J.M. Stanway*, T.J. Sullivan, R.P. Dhakal View Presentation View Paper
11. Development of Seismic Performance Objectives for Nonstructural Components A. Hortacsu*, M. Phipps,
B. Lizundia
View Presentation View Paper
12. Nonstructural Earthquake Damage and Design Guide as Countermeasures in Japan H. Ito* View Presentation View Paper
Session III: Resilience- and Performance-Based Engineering: Progress and Developments
Chairpersons: Nishimura (Jp), Mar (US)
Paper Number Paper Title Author(s) Presentation Paper
1. Stronger Mega Cities for the Next Major Earthquake A. Wada*, J. Takagi,
K. Tamura
  View Paper
2. Resilience: Challenges and Opportunities M. Comerio* View Presentation View Paper
3. A Seismic Building Rating System – the New Zealand Experience H. Ferner* View Presentation View Paper
4. Applying Resilient Rating Systems for Predicting Continued Operability of Hospitals After Earthquakes M. Boston*, J. Mitrani-Reiser View Presentation View Paper
5. Research and Development on Safety of Buildings Against Natural Disasters and Urban Fires at the Building Research Institute M. Midorikawa* View Presentation View Paper
6. Resiliency Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Buildings S. Kono*, R. Kuwabara,
F. Kitamura, E. Yuniarsyah,
H. Watanabe, T. Mukai,
D. Mukai
View Presentation View Paper
7. Key Implementation Challenges and Crosscutting Research Themes for Developing Immediate Occupancy Performance Objectives S. Sattar*, C.L. Segura,
K.J. Johnson, T.P. McAllister, S.L. McCabe
  View Paper
8. The Serviceability of Resilient Seismic Design in New Zealand D. Pettinga* View Presentation View Paper
9. Evolution of Resilience-Based Design of Infrastructure P. Brabhaharan* View Presentation View Paper
10. Earthquake Disaster Prevention and Required Performance of Railway Facilities in Japan A. Hayashi*, Y. Ito, K. Ishikawa   View Paper
11. Modeling Community Resilience: Update on the Center for Risk-Based Community Resilience Planning and the Computational Environment IN-CORE J. van de Lindt*,
B. Ellingwood, T. McAllister,
P. Gardoni, D. Cox, W. Peacock, H. Cutler, M. Dillard, J. Lee, L. Peek, M. Scott,
J. Mitrani-Reiser
View Presentation View Paper
Session IV: Earthquake Response, Recovery, Repair, and Reconstruction
Chairpersons: Brunsdon (NZ), Çelebi (US)
Paper Number Paper Title Author(s) Presentation Paper
1. Lessons on Attaining Resilience Based on the Christchurch Rebuild Structural Form Drivers Study M. Bruneau, G. MacRae*   View Paper
2. Connecting Physical Damage to Social and Economic Impacts S. French* View Presentation View Paper
3. Research on Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Condominium in Japan T. Nakano*, A. Shigetaka View Presentation View Paper
4. Effectiveness of Repair via Epoxy Injection of Earthquake Damaged Reinforced Concrete Beam Elements K. Marder, M. Sarrafzadeh*,
K. Elwood*
View Presentation View Paper
5. Quantify Earthquake Disaster and Affect Disaster Response Policy to Improve Citywide Resiliency S. Kast*, K. Miyamoto*,
A. Gilani, T. Nifuku, K. Meguro
View Presentation View Paper
Session V: Lessons Learned from Recent and Past Events
Chairpersons: Shinozaki (Jp); Campbell (NZ)
Paper Number Paper Title Author(s) Presentation Paper
1. Observed Response of Seismically Isolated Buildings During the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake M. Takayama*, K. Morita View Presentation View Paper
2. Statistical Analysis of Building Damage in Japan Based on the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake F. Yamazaki*, T. Suto,
M. Matsuoka, K. Horie,
M. Inoguchi, W. Liu
View Presentation View Paper
3. Building Management in Emergencies: An Update on New Zealand Arrangements D. Brunsdon*, M. Stannard*, K. Elwood View Presentation View Paper
4. Zoning Verification in Mexico City Using Strong Motions of the M7.1 Puebla-Morelos Earthquake of September 19, 2017 M. Çelebi*, V. Sahakian,
D. Melgar, L. Quintanar
View Presentation View Paper
5. Structural Performance Factors and Building Damage Following the 19 September 2017 Puebla, Mexico Earthquake E. Jampole*, J. Hunt   View Paper
6. On the Diversity of Design Criteria in Seismic Design Y. Shinozaki*, Y. Izumo,
M. Watanabe
View Presentation View Paper
7. Legal Rumblings in California High-Rises: Emerging Liability Patterns when Field Performance Falls Short of Design Predictions M. White* View Presentation View Paper

*Presenting Author

 

Sponsored by:

Applied Technology Council Japan Structural Consultants Association New Zealand Centre of Research Excellence (QuakeCoRE) New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering

 

Print

ATC-78 PROJECT SERIES

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Project Title: Identification and Mitigation of Nonductile Concrete Buildings

Project Status: Methodology Under Development

Client: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

PROJECT SUMMARY

Since 2009, the Applied Technology Council has been carrying out a series of FEMA-funded projects (ATC-78 project series) focusing on the identification and mitigation of nonductile concrete buildings. Investigations undertaken on these projects are being coordinated with other related activities within the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). The activities have taken on special importance given the decision by the Mayor of Los Angeles in 2014 to seek the adoption of a municipal ordinance to reduce the seismic collapse potential of older nonductile concrete buildings.

The following information describes the background and purpose of this project series, early project efforts, the change of project focus in 2013, and the list of project participants. Also included are downloadable copies of (1) the ATC-78-1 Report, Evaluation of the Methodology to Select and Prioritize Collapse Indicators in Older Concrete Buildings, which describes earlier project efforts, and (2) a description of the project that addresses frequently asked questions by design professionals and community advocates who wish to enact policies and procedures to reduce the seismic collapse potential of older nonductile concrete buildings. The final product of the ATC-78 project series will be a FEMA technical report entitled, “Seismic Evaluation for Collapse Potential of Older Concrete Buildings.

A. Background and Purpose.

An issue of significant concern to earthquake hazard mitigation specialists in the United States is the expected poor seismic performance of older, seismically vulnerable concrete buildings, known as nonductile concrete buildings. These buildings were constructed prior to 1980, and include archaic construction dating back to the early 1900s. Not all such buildings are hazardous, but those that are contain inadequate steel reinforcing details, system irregularities, and element discontinuities that could result in sudden shear failure and loss of load-carrying ability.

While design and retrofitting criteria have been in place for mitigating hazardous concrete buildings for many years, the problem remains one of identifying which buildings within a large inventory of buildings are in fact hazardous. Because of the hidden nature of the problem, it is often difficult to visually determine which of these buildings would be collapse hazards and which would not.

In recognition of the need to develop a low-cost, easily implementable methodology to identify collapse-hazard concrete buildings, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has awarded the Applied Technology Council (ATC) several task order projects under Task Order Contract HSFEHQ-08-D-0726 and Contract HSFE60-12-D-0242 to develop a new evaluation methodology that will more easily and accurately predict the seismic collapse potential of older non-ductile frame and wall buildings. Efforts undertaken to date have been performed under four task orders, all with the same objective, title, and personnel.

The FEMA-funded efforts on mitigating the seismic hazards of older nonductile concrete buildings are coordinated with and build on other efforts to address this hazardous type of existing construction being undertaken by other agencies involved in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). These include (1) earlier efforts by the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) of the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), with funding from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)to identify subclasses of nonductile concrete buildings, based on their collapse hazard potential(see NIST, 2010a); (2) the National Science Foundation funded Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) Grand Challenge Project, “Mitigation of Collapse Risks in Older Reinforced Concrete Buildings;” and (3) the NIST-funded effort to develop the GCR 10-917-7 Report, Program Plan for the Development of Collapse Assessment and Mitigation Strategies for Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings (NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, 2010). A key piece of the NIST Program Plan, which recommends a comprehensive program that is projected to take up to 10 years to complete, was the development of what is termed “collapse indicators”those characteristics of many older concrete buildings that make them a high risk to collapse in strong earthquake ground shaking.

B. Early Project Efforts.

Initial efforts under the FEMA-funded ATC-78 project series were conducted over a 24-month period, beginning in 2009. Those efforts, designated as the ATC-78 Project, included the refinement and testing of analytical procedures for identifying and prioritizing collapse indicators, as proposed in the NIST Program Plan, within selected subclasses of nonductile concrete buildings. The principal product of that effort was the ATC-78 Report, Identification and Mitigation of Seismically Hazardous Older Concrete Buildings: Interim Methodology Evaluation, which was completed in December 2011. That document describes the overall efforts on the project through December 2011, including initial testing of the proposed collapse indicator methodology to assess the probability of collapse of older concrete buildings and the documentation of results from initial analysis efforts.

The second project in this series (ATC-78-1 Project) commenced in 2011 and ended in December 2012, with the publication of the ATC-78-1 Report, which supersedes the earlier ATC-78 report (which is now considered an internal interim report). The ATC-78-1 Report, Evaluation of the Methodology to Select and Prioritize Collapse Indicators in Older Concrete Buildings, contains much of the same background information as the earlier document, but expands considerably on the evaluation of the proposed assessment methodology and provides a summary of the trial analysis studies, descriptions of important technical issues and their resolution, and updated conclusions and recommendations.

Many collapse indicators were studied, some from lists in the NIST Program Plan, and some identified in this project, and many insights into the behavior of this building type were obtained. In 2012, however, several issues were identified regarding the development of an efficient evaluation technique using collapse indicator relationships. Although an interesting study was completed combining the two primary collapse indicators for columns, Vp/Vn (ratio of column plastic shear demand (controlled by flexure) to column nominal shear capacity) and Mc/Mb (ratio of column end moment to beam end moment), it was impractical to create all combinations of collapse indicators and perform incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) for each one. Other issues that were identified with the collapse indicator method included the need to complete the extensive analysis regime for structures of different heights, and the difficulty of modifying the values of some collapse indicators without significantly altering others or the base shear strength of the structure. For example, to test a weak first story, the strength of the first story was changed relative to the upper stories, but the absolute value of that strength also has a significant effect on the collapse potential.

Although providing insight into important aspects of predicting global collapse, the collapse indicator method was finally judged to be unsuitable as a basis for the low-cost, easily implementable methodology sought by FEMA.

C. Change of Project Focus in 2013.

In early 2013, the focus of the ATC-78 project series was altered to develop a new evaluation procedure/methodology that uses story drift as the primary engineering demand parameter. Part of the rational for this decision is the fact that the greatest amount of data available on the capacity of concrete components are based on drift and deformation. The new evaluation procedure/methodology was to be based on two major concepts: (1) development of an efficient way to estimate roof drift and story drifts based on the spectral demand for a building and the response characteristics of the structure, and (2) development of a systematic method to estimate the relative risk of the collapse of columns with different characteristics based on drift demands.

Efforts on the ATC-78-2 Project, which effectively commenced in early 2013, focused primarily on the development of an evaluation methodology specifically for concrete frame buildings. At the same time, preliminary efforts were also devoted to the concepts that would be incorporated in the comparable evaluation methodology for concrete buildings with structural walls.

Work on the ATC-78-3 Project, which effectively commenced in early 2014, focused on finalization of the draft frame evaluation methodology for concrete frame buildings and continuation of the development of a concrete wall evaluation methodology. This work resulted in the publication of the ATC-78-3 report, Seismic Evaluation of Older Concrete Frame Buildings for Collapse Potential.

Work on the ATC-78-4 Project, which effectively commenced in early 2015, is focusing on expansion of the evaluation methodology to concrete wall systems.  Work will also include a formal trial evaluation program to test the clarity, usability, level of effort, and need for calibration of the methodology for concrete frames.

D. Frequently Asked Questions.

In response to inquiries about this project series posed by earthquake engineering design professionals and other interested parties, and given the decision in 2014 by the Mayor of Los Angeles to seek the adoption of a municipal ordinance to reduce the seismic collapse potential of older nonductile concrete buildings, the project participants have prepared responses to Frequently Asked Questions. That document, FEMA/ATC Project to Evaluate the Earthquake Collapse Potential of Older Concrete Buildings and How It Could Be Used, can be downloaded here. Answers to the following questions are provided:

  • What are non-ductile concrete buildings and why are they a risk to the public?
  • What can a community do to address the risk presented by non-ductile concrete buildings?
  • Is it possible to develop a local ordinance to address this risk, and what would it look like?
  • What is the FEMA/ATC Older Concrete Buildings Project?
  • What is the current status of the FEMA/ATC Older Concrete Buildings Project?
  • Can the ATC-78/FEMA draft document be used this year to perform an analysis?

E. Project Participants.

ATC Management and Oversight

Jon A. Heintz (Project Manager)
Applied Technology Council
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240
Redwood City, California 94065

Anna Olsen (Associate Project Manager)
Applied Technology Council
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240
Redwood City, California 94065

 

Project Technical Committee

William T. Holmes (Project Technical Director)
Rutherford + Chekene
55 Second Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, California 94105

Abbie Liel
University of Colorado at Boulder
Dept. of Civil, Environmental and
   Architectural Engineering
UCB 428
Boulder, Colorado 80309

Michael Mehrain
Mehrain Naeim International, Inc.
100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 900
Irvine, California  92618

Project Review Panel

Craig Comartin, Chair
CDComartin Inc.
535 La Honda Drive
Aptos, California  95003

Michael Cochran
Weidlinger Associates
4551 Glencoe Avenue, Suite 350
Marina del Rey, California 90292

Gregory G. Deierlein
Stanford University
Dept. of Civil and
   Environmental Engineering
Y2E2 Building, 473 Via Ortega
Stanford, California 94305

Kenneth J. Elwood
The University of Auckland
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Private Bag 92019
Auckland  1142 New Zealand

Working Group Members

Carlos Arteta
University of California, Berkeley
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
760 Davis Hall
Berkeley, California 94720

Panagiotis Galanis
University of California, Berkeley
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
760 Davis Hall
Berkeley, California 94720

Cody Harrington
University of Colorado at Boulder
Dept. of Civil, Environmental and
   Architectural Engineering
UCB 428
Boulder, Colorado 80309

FEMA Project Officer

Michael Mahoney
Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street, SW, Room 416
Washington, DC 20472

FEMA Subject Matter Expert

Robert D. Hanson
Federal Emergency Management Agency
5885 Dunabbey Loop
Dublin, Ohio 43017

 

Jack P. Moehle
University of California, Berkeley
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
760 Davis Hall
Berkeley, California 94720

Peter Somers
Magnusson Klemencic Associates
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, Washington 98101

 

 




Laura N. Lowes
University of Washington
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
201 More Hall, Box 352700
Seattle, Washington  98195

Terry Lundeen
Coughlin Porter Lundeen, Inc.
801 Second Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, Washington 98104

Robert Pekelnicky
Degenkolb Engineers
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, California 94104

John W. Wallace
University of California, Los Angeles
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
5731C Boelter Hall
Los Angeles, California 90095




Travis Marcilla
University of Colorado at Boulder
Dept. of Civil, Environmental and
   Architectural Engineering
UCB 428
Boulder, Colorado 80309

Pablo Parra
University of California, Berkeley
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
760 Davis Hall
Berkeley, California 94720

  

 

 

 

Print

ATC Project No. Project Title Funding Agency
ATC-66 Series National Earthquake Technical Assistance Program (NETAP) Federal Emergency Management Agency
ATC-110
(CEA 2)
Development of a Prestandard for the Evaluation and Retrofit of One- and Two-Family Light Frame Residential Buildings California Earthquake Authority, Federal Emergency Management Agency
ATC-128-1 AISC-ATC Workshop on Performance-Based Structural-Fire Engineering American Institute of Steel Construction; ATC Endowment Fund
ATC-134 Series Performance-Based Seismic Engineering: Benchmarking of Existing Building Evaluation Methodologies National Institute of Standards and Technology
ATC-136 Series Technical Monitoring of New and Existing Seismic Building Codes and Related Training Federal Emergency Management Agency
ATC-137 Series Technical Assistance, Training and Product Development Federal Emergency Management Agency
ATC-138 Series Support of Performance-Based Seismic Design of Buildings Federal Emergency Management Agency
ATC-140 Series Update of Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings Guidance Federal Emergency Management Agency
ATC-149 Coastal Inundation Events in Developed Regions University of Notre Dame; National Institute of Standards and Technology


ATC-150 Improving the Nation’s Lifelines Infrastructure to Achieve Seismic Resilience Federal Emergency Management Agency
ATC-151 Seismic Safety Consulting Services for City of San Francisco City and County of San Francisco

ATC-152 Developing a Framework for Design of Lifeline Infrastructure Systems for Functional National Institute of Standards and Technology
ATC-153 Research Plan for the Study of Pre-Northridge Earthquake Weak Panel Zones in Welded Column Splices with PJP Groove Welds National Institute of Standards and Technology
ATC-154 Improving Seismic Design of New Buildings Federal Emergency Management Agency
ATC-155 Development of an Updated Plan to Coordinate NEHRP Post-Earthquake Investigations, Phase II U.S. Geological Survey usgs
ATC-156 Workshop for Seismic Practice Needs for Buildings and Lifeline Infrastructure Located in the Central and Eastern United States National Institute of Standards and Technology
ATC-157 Engineering Services in Support of Utah Division of Emergency Management to Address URM Risk in Public Schools Utah Department of Emergency Management (DEM) Utah DEM logo
STARR II JV Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR) II Joint Venture, Production and Technical Services (PTS) for Architect and Engineering Services Nationwide Contract Federal Emergency Management Agency
ATC-SME Support for FEMA Earthquake Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) – Seismic Technical Guidance Development and Support Federal Emergency Management Agency
ATC-DGs Development of ATC Design Guides ATC Endowment Fund
ATC Hazards by Location ATC Hazards by Location Website for Geographic-Based Design Parameters ATC Endowment Fund

Print

 

Project Title:  National Earthquake Technical Assistance Program (NETAP) 

ClientFederal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

Purpose: The purpose of the ATC-66 Series is to deliver trainings to the public that increase local earthquake knowledge and support the effective implementation of earthquake risk reduction activities. The National Earthquake Technical Assistance Program (NETAP) provides training delivery to support the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. Courses relate to a wide range of subjects, including schools, hospitals, residences, rapid visual screening, post-earthquake assessment, building codes, and nonstructural components. Each year, the ATC-66 Project hosts around 40 trainings and trains about 2,500 participants. These trainings, which take place in-person or virtually, are provided in about 20 U.S. states and territories.

Resources: For a list of upcoming NETAP Training Courses, click here.

Print

 

 Welcome to the ATC Team!

Valley Mike cropMichael Valley As a former Principal at Magnusson Klemencic Associates in Seattle, Mike Valley comes to ATC with more than 30 years of structural engineering experience in new design, evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings, applied research, and codes and standards development. Mike’s design experience includes the landmark Salesforce Tower in San Francisco, and his research and development experience includes the FEMA 356 Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA P-2012 Assessing Seismic Performance of Buildings with Configuration Irregularities (ATC-123 Project), and NIST GCR 10-917-9 Applicability of Nonlinear Multiple-Degree-of-Freedom Modeling for Design (ATC-76-6 Project).

Mike also has extensive experience as an ATC consultant serving as a reviewer, a technical contributor, and Project Director on multiple ATC projects. We look forward to how Mike’s unique experiences as a successful team member will contribute to ATC projects in the future.

Michael Mahoney
Michael Mahoney

Retired from federal service as a Senior Geophysicist with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Mike Mahoney comes to ATC with more than 30 years of experience in hazard mitigation program management and policy development, post-disaster response and recovery, and problem-focused research and development in support of FEMA’s efforts under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). He has led FEMA’s earthquake-related work with the International Code Council and has been involved with the development of national model codes and standards since 1984.

In his career at FEMA, Mike has led the development of countless major FEMA publications, including: FEMA 350 Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings and its series of companion reports (ATC-41 Project series), FEMA P-58 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Methodology and Implementation (ATC-58 Project series), FEMA P-695 Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors (ATC-63 Project), FEMA P-2018 Seismic Evaluation of Older Concrete Buildings for Collapse Potential (ATC-78 Project), and FEMA P-2090/NIST SP-1254 Recommended Options for Improving the Built Environment for Post-Earthquake Reoccupancy and Functional Recovery Time (ATC-137 Project). With Mike’s extensive knowledge of federal government programs, and past collaboration with state and local agencies, hazard mitigation partners, and code development organizations, we look forward to how his unique experiences will help serve ATC’s client needs and objectives in the future.