Uncategorised

FEMA P-58 Training in San Francisco

REGISTRATION IS NOW CLOSED

Tuesday, September 25, 2018
9:00am – 1:00pm
Registration Fee. Free
Registration.  REGISTRATION IS NOW CLOSED DUE TO OVERWHELMING INTEREST IN THIS EVENT. The event capacity is limited to 50 participants and registration is required.

Location. 
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
100 Pine Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94111 

Purpose. This training will present new tools and guidance for performance-based seismic design, developed under the second phase of the FEMA P-58 project.  This methodology was first published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2012, along with an implementation tool for seismic performance assessment of buildings.  The follow-on project, conducted by the Applied Technology Council with funding from FEMA, developed guidance on performance of code-conforming buildings and seismic design of new buildings, as well as improvements to existing tools, incorporating environmental considerations related to seismic performance of buildings. This training seminar will provide an overview of the newly available tools and guidance.

Presenters.
Ronald O. Hamburger, Project Technical Director for the ATC-58 Project Series – Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, San Francisco, California
Jon A. Heintz, ATC-58 Project Executive – Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California
John D. Hooper, member of the ATC-58-2 Project Management Committee and Leader of the Products Update Team – Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Seattle, Washington
Vesna Terzic, member of the ATC-58-2 Performance Products Team – California State University Long Beach

Registration Information. The event capacity for this free event is limited to 50 participants and registration is required. Please note that the event capacity is limited to 50 and your registration is not final until you receive a confirmation email.  REGISTRATION IS NOW CLOSED DUE TO OVERWHELMING INTEREST IN THIS EVENT.

Notes.

  • Participation is limited to in-person attendance only.
  • The material covered is a repeat of the training conducted on June 25th, 2018, in conjunction with the 11th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering in Los Angeles.
  • Training materials will be provided at the location.
  • Box lunches will be provided at the conclusion of the seminar.

Questions. If you have any questions about FEMA P-58 trainings, please This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Print

ATC Past Directors

                      Board of Directors 
Director Term
Milton A. Abel 1979-1985
Dan Allwardt 2010-2013
James A. Amundson* 2010-2016
James C. Anderson 1978-1981
Victoria Arbitrio 2011-2017
Thomas G. Atkinson* 1988-1994
Steven M. Baldridge 2000-2003
Albert J. Blaylock 1976-1977
David C. Breiholz 2004-2006
Patrick Buscovich* 2000-2009
James R. Cagley* 1998-2004
H. Patrick Campbell 1989-1990
Lyle P. Carden 2018-2021
Arthur N. L. Chiu* 1996-2002
Anil Chopra 1973-1974
Richard Christopherson* 1976-1980
Lee H. Cliff 1973
Leighton Cochran 2011-2017
Michael Cochran 2018-2021
John M. Coil* 1986-1987, 1991-1997
Eugene E. Cole 1985-1986
Anthony B. Court 2001-2004, 2016-2022
Edwin T. Dean* 1996-2002
Robert G. Dean 1996-2001
Gregory G. Deierlein 2003-2009
James M. Delahay* 1999-2005
Edward F. Diekmann 1978-1981
Burke A. Draheim 1973-1974
John E. Droeger 1973
Donald O. Dusenberry 2018-2021
Michael D. Engelhardt 2014-2020
David A. Fanella 2010-2011
Nicholas F. Forell* 1989-1996
Douglas A. Foutch 1993-1997
Paul Fratessa 1991-1992
Sigmund A. Freeman 1986-1989
Nancy L. Gavlin* 2011-2016
Ramon Gilsanz* 2005-2012
Barry J. Goodno 1986-1989
Mark R. Gorman 1984-1987
Melvyn Green 2001-2002
Lawrence G. Griffis* 2002-2008
Kurtis R. Gurley 2011-2018
Gerald H. Haines 1981-1982, 1984-1985
William J. Hall 1985-1986
Ronald O. Hamburger 1999-2000
Robert W. Hamilton 2002-2005
James R. Harris* 2004-2010
Gary C. Hart 1975-1978
Erleen Hatfield 2011-2017
Robert H. Hendershot 2000-2001
Lyman Henry 1973
Richard L. Hess 2000-2003
James A. Hill 1992-1995, 2003-2004
Ernest C. Hillman, Jr. 1973-1974
Eve Hinman 2002-2008
Ephraim G. Hirsch 1983-1984
Douglas C. Hohbach* 2015-2018
William T. Holmes* 1983-1987
Warner Howe 1977-1980
Edwin T. Huston* 1990-1997
David Hutchinson 2004-2010
Jeremy Isenberg 2002-2005
Paul C. Jennings 1973-1975
Carl B. Johnson 1974-1976
Carrie J. Johnson 2017-2020
Edwin H. Johnson 1988-1989, 1998-2001
Stephen E. Johnston* 1973-1975, 1979-1980
Christopher P. Jones* 2001-2008
Joseph Kallaby* 1973-1975
Donald R. Kay 1989-1992
T. Robert Kealey* 1984-1988
H. S. (Pete) Kellam 1975-1976
Andrew B. Kennedy 2013-2019
Ryan A. Kersting 2017-2020
Helmut Krawinkler 1979-1982
Steven Kuan 2006-2009
James S. Lai 1982-1985
Mark H. Larsen 2003-2006
Gerald D. Lehmer 1973-1974
Roberto T. Leon* 2012-2018
Christopher W. Letchford 2017-2020
Marc L. Levitan 2006-2010
James R. Libby 1994-1998
Charles Lindbergh 1989-1992
R. Bruce Lindermann 1983-1986
Bret Lizundia* 2009-2015
L. W. Lu 1987-1990
Walter B. Lum 1975-1978
Kenneth A. Luttrell 1991-1999
James O. Malley 2016-2022
Newland J. Malmquist 1997-2000
Melvyn H. Mark 1979-1982
John A. Martin 1978-1982
Stephen McReavy 1973
John F. Meehan* 1973-1978
Andrew T. Merovich* 1996-2003
David L. Messinger 1980-1983
Bijan Mohraz 1991-1997
William W. Moore* 1973-1976
Manuel Morden 2006-2012
Ugo Morelli 2004-2006
Gary Morrison 1973
Robert Morrison 1981-1984
Ronald F. Nelson 1994-1995
Joseph P. Nicoletti* 1975-1979
Sissy Nikolaou 2017-2020
Bruce C. Olsen* 1978-1982
Gerard Pardoen 1987-1991
Robert B. Paullus, Jr. 2014-2017
Stephen H. Pelham* 1998-2005
Norman D. Perkins 1973-1976
Richard J. Phillips 1997-2000
Maryann T. Phipps 1995-1996, 1999-2002
Sherrill Pitkin 1984-1987
Chris D. Poland 1984-1987
Edward V. Pollack 1973
Egor P. Popov 1976-1979
Robert F. Preece* 1987-1993
David O. Prevatt 2018-2021
H. John Price* 2004-2011
Lawrence D. Reaveley* 1985-1991, 2000-2003
Philip J. Richter* 1986-1989
John M. Roberts 1973
James Robinson 2005-2008
Charles Roeder 1997-2000, 2009-2012
Spencer Rogers 2007-2013
Arthur E. Ross* 1985-1991, 1993-1994
C. Mark Saunders* 1993-2000
Walter D. Saunders* 1975-1979
Wilbur C. Schoeller 1990-1991
Samuel Schultz* 1980-1984
Donald R. Scott* 2009-2015
Lawrence G. Selna 1981-1984
Daniel Shapiro* 1977-1981
Joseph B. Shepard 2008-2014
Jonathan G. Shipp 1996-2000
Howard Simpson* 1980-1984
Robert Smilowitz 2008-2011
Thomas L. Smith 2008-2014
Mete Sozen 1990-1993
William Staehlin 2002-2003, 2013-2019
Scott Stedman 1996-1997
Donald R. Strand 1982-1983
James L. Stratta 1975-1979
Edward J. Teal 1976-1979
W. Martin Tellegen 1973
John C. Theiss* 1991-1998
Charles H. Thornton* 1992-2000, 2005-2011
James L. Tipton 1973
Ivan Viest 1975-1977
Ajit S. Virdee* 1977-1980, 1981-1985
J. John Walsh 1987-1990
Williston L. Warren, IV 2012-2018
Robert S. White 1990-1991
James A. Willis* 1980-1981, 1982-1986
Thomas D. Wosser 1974-1977
Loring A. Wyllie 1987-1988
Kent Yu 2015-2018
Edwin G. Zacher 1981-1984
Theodore C. Zsutty 1982-1985

 

Executive Directors
Director Term
Jon A. Heintz 2015-present
Ronald Mayes 1979-1981
Christopher Rojahn 1981-2015
Roland L. Sharpe 1973-1979

Print

ATC Past Presidents

President Year
Douglas C. Hohbach 2018
Michael D. Engelhardt 2017
Victoria Arbitrio 2016
James Amundson 2015
Roberto Leon 2014
Nancy Gavlin 2013
Don Scott 2012
Bret Lizundia 2011
Ramon Gilsanz 2010
H. John Price 2009
James R. Harris 2008
Patrick Buscovich 2007
Christopher P. Jones 2006
Lawrence G. Griffis 2005
James M. Delahay 2004
Stephen H. Pelham 2003
James R. Cagley 2002
Andrew T. Merovich 2001
Arthur N. L. Chiu 2000
Edwin T. Dean 1999
Charles H. Thornton 1998
C. Mark Saunders 1997
John C. Theiss 1996
Edwin T. Huston 1995
John M. Coil 1994
Nicholas F. Forell 1993
Thomas G. Atkinson 1992
Arthur E. Ross 1991
Robert F. Preece 1990
Lawrence D. Reaveley 1989
Philip J. Richter 1988
T. Robert Kealey 1987
William T. Holmes 1986
James A. Willis 1985
Ajit S. Virdee 1984
Howard Simpson 1983
Samuel Schultz 1982
Bruce C. Olsen 1981
Daniel Shapiro 1980
Richard Christopherson 1978
Joseph P. Nicoletti 1978
Walter D. Saunders 1977
John F. Meehan 1976
Joseph Kallaby 1975
William W. Moore 1974
Stephen E. Johnston 1973

Print

NEW - PHASE 2

NIST–ATC BLIND PREDICTION CONTEST ON DEEP,

WIDE-FLANGE STRUCTURAL STEEL BEAM-COLUMNS

 

CLOSED

 

In early 2018, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Applied Technology Council (ATC) initiated the first phase of a Blind Prediction Contest to observe the community’s predictive capabilities of selected deep, wide-flange structural steel beam-column tests.  The tests were conducted under reverse quasi-static loading at the Seismic Response Modification Device (SRMD) facility of the University of California, San Diego under the NIST-funded ATC-106-1 project.  

The overarching goal of the ATC-106-1 project is to determine the fundamental behavior of steel structural members under constant or variable axial force loads for use in the future development of nonlinear modeling techniques in seismic evaluations.  The first phase of the Blind Prediction Contest was concluded in April 2018 and the winners were announced during a special session of the NASCC 2018 conference. 

NEW! The objective of this second phase of the Blind Prediction Contest was to quantify the impact of calibration on the modeling uncertainty.  Accordingly, the force-displacement results from one specimen (Column A) was provided, and contestants were asked to submit estimated results for two other specimens (Columns B and C).  Phase 2 Blind Prediction Contest was open to everyone, that is, it was not limited to Phase 1 contestants.

CONTENTS – PHASE 2 CONTEST

Purpose and Background
Contest Rules
Timeline
Provided Information, Assumptions, References
Submittal Rules
Questions and Answers

PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND – PHASE 2 CONTEST

NEW! In Phase 2 of the blind prediction contest, the participants were asked to predict the response parameters for Columns B and C by having access to the experimental results for Column A. The objective of Phase 2 was to assess the change in the uncertainty of predicted response of wide-flange structural steel beam-columns if, in addition to all of the data made available during Phase 1, the overall lateral load-lateral response of Column A was also made available.

CONTEST RULES – PHASE 2 CONTEST

  • Contestants may consist of individuals or teams.
  • NEW! If contestants participated in Phase I, please indicate so in your submittal cover letter.
  • An individual can only be involved in a single team.
  • If an individual is part of a team, the individual cannot not enter the competition separately as an individual.
  • A company or a research institution may submit several predictions.
  • Contestants will submit a single entry of one of the following three categories:
    • NEW! Simple: This category is recommended for structural engineers and researchers using simple nonlinear models intending to capture the main response parameters, without the use of 3D finite element modeling software, such as Abaqus or LS-Dyna. This category will utilize the “Simple_Entry” submittal form.
    • NEW! Simple-3D: This category is recommended for structural engineers and researchers using simple nonlinear models intending to capture the main response parameters. Any software may be used in this category. This category will utilize the “Simple_Entry” submittal form.
    • Comprehensive: This category is recommended for structural engineers and researchers intending to model the test specimens to capture the full nonlinear cyclic response of the test specimens, and intending to predict overall and local responses. Any software may be used in this category. This category will utilize the “Comprehensive_Entry” submittal form.
  • There will be one winner for each of the three categories.
  • Although names and affiliations of participating teams will be recognized publicly, the results may be presented anonymously except for those of the “winning” entries.
  • NEW! Questions about the blind prediction contest or details of the column specimens could be submitted via email until August 21, 2018. Questions and answers will be posted on the contest website. For updates on questions and answers, please see below.

TIMELINE – PHASE 2 CONTEST

  Event   Date
  Submittals Due1   September 7, 2018
  Category Winners Notified2   September 22, 2018

 

 

 

1  Contestants submitted their final spreadsheet on or before 11:59pm Pacific on September 07, 2018, via email. An email acknowledging the submittal was sent to each team.
2  Category winners will be notified by September 22, 2018 via the email used for submittal.

PROVIDED INFORMATION, ASSUMPTIONS, REFERENCES – PHASE 2 CONTEST

The blind prediction contest directory contains the following information:

  • Summary of contest rules
  • General information on specimens and loading protocol
  • NEW! Force-displacement results for Specimen A
  • Material test results
  • Corrected loading protocol
  • Submission spreadsheets (see below for a detailed description)
  • The following references that summarize previous tests conducted under this program.
    • Ozkula, G., Harris, J., and Uang, C.M., 2017, Observations from Cyclic Tests on Deep, Wide-Flange Beam-Columns, Engineering Journal, 1, pp.45-59.
    • Ozkula, G., Harris, J., and Uang, C.M., 2017, Classifying Cyclic Buckling Modes of Steel Wide-Flange Columns under Cyclic Loading, Structures Congress, pp. 155-167.

Computational models can assume the column ends were fastened to rigid elements as data has been post-processed to remove the flexibility occurring at the column ends due to the deformation of tie-down rods and end plates.

SUBMITTAL RULES – PHASE 2 CONTEST

Contest Now Closed

The individual or team are required to use the contest submittal spreadsheet and input values as follows:

Category A. Simple and Simple3D–  Submit results using spreadsheet Simple_Entry_Phase2.xls:

  • Questionnaire tab: Provide brief description of the method of analysis.
  • For Specimens A and B, tested under constant axial load:
    • Ratio Mmax / Mpc to two decimal places, where Mpc is the reduced plastic moment.
    • Lateral force in units of kip to one (1) decimal place versus drift ratio envelope, for various drift ratios specified.
    • Mode of primary nonlinear response.
  • For Specimen C, tested under variable axial load:
    • Ratio Mmax / Mpc to two (2) decimal places for two axial loads.
    • Positive lateral force in units of kip to one (1) decimal place versus drift ratio envelope, for various drift ratios and corresponding axial loads.
    • Negative lateral force in units of kip to one (1) decimal place versus drift ratio, for various drift ratios and corresponding axial loads.
    • Mode of primary nonlinear response.

Category B. Comprehensive – Submit results using spreadsheet Comprehensive_Entry_Phase2.xls:

  • Questionnaire tab: Describe the method of analysis
  • For Specimens A and B, tested under constant axial load:
    • Ratio Mmax / Mpc to two decimal places.
    • Lateral force in units of kip to one (1) decimal place versus drift ratio envelope for the drift ratios specified.
    • Hysteretic energy in units of kip-in to zero (0) decimal places calculated between various drift ratios.
    • Column shortening in units of inches to two (2) decimal places calculated for various drift ratios.
    • Mode of primary nonlinear response.
  • For Specimen C, tested under variable axial load:
    • Ratio Mmax / Mpc to two (2) decimal places for two axial loads.
    • Positive lateral force in units of kip to one (1) decimal place versus drift ratio envelope for drift ratios and corresponding axial loads.
    • Negative lateral force in units of kip to one (1) decimal place versus drift ratio for the drift ratios and corresponding axial loads.
    • Hysteretic energy in units of kip-in to zero (0) decimal places calculated between the various drift ratios and corresponding axial loads.
    • Column shortening in units of inches to two (2) decimal places calculated for various drift ratios and corresponding axial loads.
    • Mode of primary nonlinear response.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

NEW! Answers to questions regarding Phase 2 of the blind prediction contest are posted below.

Question: For specimen A, could you provide us with the axial shortening data for changing lateral drift values?
This information is not available.

Question: Was self-weight somehow countered for in the test setup of the experiment? (Like initial camber that countered self-weight deflection?).
No measures were taken to counter the self-weight deflection as it was very small.

Note the following Q&A is from Phase 1 of the contest. 

Question: I´m trying to feel the comprehensive entry sheet for specimen A. I´m a bit confused with the rows indicated in the last part on the hysteretic loops. I thought these rows will correspond to those in the loading protocol excel for the drifts indicated in the table, but when I check rows 601-667 for example, I have a drift ratio of 0.036% and 0.1747%. I calculate the drift ratio as the imposed lateral displacement divided by L=18feet.
Answer: Please refer to Corrected Load Protocol r1.0, which has been uploaded in the "04 Load Protocol" folder of the blind prediction contest directory. Your question prompted a revision of this spreadsheet.  During testing, data is acquired at discrete intervals.  This means that the points are collected near the zero drift points but not necessarily at the zero drift.  The original spreadsheet presented the data as collected, whereas the Comprehensive spreadsheet made reference to a revised spreadsheet where the zero drifts had been inserted at the corresponding locations.  The revised spreadsheet includes the added zero drift rows not only for Specimen A, but also for Specimens B and C.  The revised spreadsheet now includes color coded cells, and makes explicit reference to the key points in the hysteretic responses.  Since the applied axial force at the zero drift points was not measured, we suggest that participants linearly interpolate the axial load using the measured drift ratio and axial load points above and below where the zero drift rows were inserted.
While reviewing the spreadsheet we found that the drift ratios listed in cells D53-E57 of worksheet “Specimen C” had been mistakenly calculated using a column length of 216 in. The correct length is 212 in.  The correct drift ratios are listed in r 1.0 of the Corrected load protocol.

Question: It is not clear in the Simple Entry spreadsheet at what cycles the predictions are to be made. Please confirm that the predictions are to be made at the points indicated in the image, below. 

Answer: The interpretation is correct.

Question: I wonder if the measured dimensions of the specimens are available.
Answer: A file containing this information “Measured section dimensions for Specimens A-B-C.pdf” is now posted in the “02 Test Specimen Information” folder of the blind prediction contest directory

Question: Would you please let me know the geometry of the specimens used to obtain the material properties listed in Table 2 of the reference:  "2017a Ozkula et al. (Observations from Cyclic Tests on Deep Wide Flange Beam Columns)".
Answer: A file containing this information “tensile coupon dimensions for 2017a.pdf” is now posted in the “06 References” folder of the blind prediction contest directory

Question: Regarding the units on the material test coupon C -- want to confirm that the units should be as listed in the data [in/in] and not as plotted [%], i.e. failure strains are on the order of 40%/25%, and not less than 1%.
Answer: The test data for all three specimens are correct; however, the horizontal axis for Specimen C tensile coupon test results was not labelled correctly.  A corrected file, Engineering Stress-Stress Data_rev1.xls, is now posted under Material Test Results in the blind prediction contest directory

Question: Would it be possible to provide the chemical decomposition of the specimens’ steel materials?
Answer: The chemical properties of Specimens A, B, and C are provided in the table shown below and also uploaded as a pdf under the Test Specimen Information folder in the blind prediction contest directory.

Mill Certificate: Chemical Composition

Specimen
Designation
Column
Size
Chemical Composition (%)
C Si Mn P S Cu Ni Mo Cr Al V Nb Sn CE
A W30×148 0.17 0.15 0.104 0.013 0.011 0.23 0.08 0.02 0.12 0.002 0.056 0.001 0.013 0.4
B W14×82 0.08 0.2 0.2 0.02 0.032 0.34 0.11 0.022 0.18 0.003 0.001 0.021 0.01 0.29
C W18×130 0.07 0.23 1.3 0.015 0.025 0.32 0.11 0.03 0.15 - 0.04 0.001 0.01 0.36


Question: The submittal date on the announcement email listed January 22, 2017. Has the deadline passed for submittals?

Answer: We apologize for the mistake. The submittal deadline is January 12, 2018. Good luck!

BLIND PREDICTION CONTEST PHASE 1 RESULTS

The winning team in the simple category (using simple nonlinear models intending to capture the main response parameters) includes JJ Tobolski (Project Engineer) and Zachary Treece (Senior Engineer) of Thornton Tomasetti, Chicago, Illinois. The entry utilized Abaqus software and earned the highest number of points of the 15 entries when judged against the test results.

The winning team in the comprehensive category (demonstrating the full nonlinear cyclic response of the test specimens, and intending to predict overall and local response parameters) includes Alexander Hartloper (Doctoral Assistant), Ahmed Elkady (Postdoctoral Research Scientist), and Dimitrios G. Lignos (Associate Professor) of Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL) Switzerland. The entry utilized Abaqus software and earned the highest number of points of the 11 entries when judged against the test results.

In addition to the two winners, the contest judges would like to commend Mariyam Amir (PhD Student), K.G. Papakonstantinou (Assistant Professor), and G.P. Warn (Associate Professor) of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Pennsylvania State University. This team’s results in the comprehensive category were developed by their own code and model, developed in Matlab, and earned the second highest number of points when judged against the test results.

One representative of each of the three teams presented their methods and findings at the AISC Steel Conference (NASCC)  in Baltimore, Maryland on Friday, April 13, 2018 in Session V1, Blind Prediction of Cyclic Response of Deep Wide-Flange Columns for Special Moment Frame Applications.  Also in this session, Professor Chia-Ming Uang of University of California San Diego provided a summary of the overarching testing program. The session will be moderated by James O. Malley of Degenkolb Engineers, San Francisco.

Print

National Earthquake Technical Assistance Program (NETAP)

NETAP 2018 Training Schedule

About NETAP. Instructor services and expenses for these trainings are funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Earthquake Technical Assistance Program (NETAP), which is a mechanism for delivering direct assistance to the public to increase their knowledge and ability to analyze their risk, make a plan, and take actions aimed at reducing their earthquake risk and supporting overall community resilience. NETAP is a program managed by FEMA to rapidly deploy training and technical assistance to organizations and communities. For more information about NETAP please visit the FEMA website.

 
Upcoming NETAP Trainings—Free of Charge

Date Title FEMA
Region
Venue Address Instructor Registration and
More Information
TBD There are currently no upcoming NETAP events. Please check this page often for updates.        
           


- Visit this page often for up-to-date information on scheduled NETAP trainings for the current fiscal year.

 

Past NETAP Trainings—Free of Charge

Date Title FEMA
Region
Venue Address Instructor More Information 
March 7,
2018
FEMA E-74, Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage - A Practical Guide All Webinar Mike Griffin  
           
March 23,
2018
FEMA P-154, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards (Third Edition), and Rapid Observation of Vulnerability and Estimation of Risk (ROVER) 7 The Timbers of Eureka
1 Coffey Park Lane
Eureka, Missouri
Mike Griffin  
           
April 10,
2018
FEMA P-767, Earthquake Mitigation for Hospitals  4 Baptist Memorial Hospital
Magnolia Room 1 
1100 Belk Blvd

Oxford, MS 38655
Mike Griffin  
           
April 19-20,
2018
FEMA P-154, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards (Third Edition), ATC-20-1 Field Manual: Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Building (2nd Edition), and Rapid Observation of Vulnerability and Estimation of Risk (ROVER) 5 John A. Logan College
700 Logan College Dr.
Room H-127
Carterville, IL 62918
Mike Griffin  
           
April 25-26,
2018
FEMA P-154, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards (Third Edition)ATC-20-1 Field Manual: Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Building (2nd Edition), and Rapid Observation of Vulnerability and Estimation of Risk (ROVER) 10 Friday Harbor Grange
152 1st Street, FH
Friday Harbor, WA
San Juan Island
Ed Huston  
           
April 25,
2018
Webinar on Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-Unit Wood-Frame Buildings With Weak First Stories (FEMA P-807)  All Webinar David Mar,
Mike Korolyk
 
           
May 8,
2018
FEMA P-154, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards (Third Edition), and ATC-20-1 Field Manual: Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Building (2nd Edition) 9 Clark County Department of Building & Fire Prevention
4701 W. Russell Rd.
Las Vegas, NV 89118
Mike Griffin  
           
June 6,
2018
Building Codes – Why They Matter All Webinar Mike Griffin  
           
June 7,
2018
FEMA P-50 and FEMA P-50-1, Simplified Seismic Assessment of Detached, Single-Family, Wood-Frame Dwellings 10 Anderson Readiness Center
3225 State Street, Room 172
Salem, Oregon  97301
Kelly Cobeen  
           
June 8,
2018
FEMA P-50 and FEMA P-50-1, Simplified Seismic Assessment of Detached, Single-Family, Wood-Frame Dwellings 10 Anderson Readiness Center, Room 172, 3225 State Street, Salem, Oregon 97301 BJ Cure
Steve McGuire
Cassie Hibbert
 
           
June 12-13,
2018
Building Codes – Why They Matter, FEMA P-154, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards (Third Edition)ATC-20-1 Field Manual: Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Building (2nd Edition), and Rapid Observation of Vulnerability and Estimation of Risk (ROVER) 2 Colegio de Ingenieros y Agrimensores de PR
College of Engineers & Surveyors
500 Calle Antolín Nin
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918
Mike Griffin  
           
June 12-13,
2018
FEMA P-154, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards (Third Edition)ATC-20-1 Field Manual: Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Building (2nd Edition), and Rapid Observation of Vulnerability and Estimation of Risk (ROVER) 10 Shoshone-Bannock Hotel
Event Center Conference Room
777 Bannock Trail
Fort Hall, Idaho 83203
Ed Huston  
           
July 9-10,
2018
FEMA P-154, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards (Third Edition)ATC-20-1 Field Manual: Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Building (2nd Edition), and Rapid Observation of Vulnerability and Estimation of Risk (ROVER) 10 ANMC Consortium Office
4000 Diplomacy Drive
Corner of Elmore and Diplomacy
Conference Room 1
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Ed Huston  
           
 July 11-12,
2018
 FEMA P-154, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards (Third Edition)ATC-20-1 Field Manual: Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Building (2nd Edition), and Rapid Observation of Vulnerability and Estimation of Risk (ROVER)  10 University of Alaska
Statewide Butrovich Building
2025 Yukon Drive
Room 109 A-B
Fairbanks, Alaska 99755-6540
 Ed Huston  
           
July 18,
2018
FEMA P-749, Earthquake-Resistant Design Concepts 9 American Samoa
ASDHS
1st Floor Conference Room
Ed Huston  
           
July 19,
2018
FEMA P-909, Train the Trainer: Home and Business Earthquake Safety and Mitigation 9 American Samoa
ASDHS
1st Floor Conference Room
Ed Huston  
           
August 7,
2018
FEMA E-74, Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage - A Practical Guide and FEMA 395, Earthquake Safety and Mitigation for Schools 9 Guam Homeland Security/Office of Civil Defense
Initial Operating Facility
221-B Chalan Palasyo, Agana Heights, Guam 96910
Ed Huston

 

           
August 23,
2018
FEMA P-154, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards (Third Edition) and ATC-20-1 Field Manual: Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Building (2nd Edition)
9 Hawai'i Emergency
Management Agency
Operations Support Center, Building 303
Diamond Head State Monument
Ed Huston  
           
September 6, 2018 FEMA P-1000, Safer, Stronger, Smarter: A Guide to Improving School Natural Hazard Safety All Webinar Lori Peek More Information and Recording
           
September 13, 2018 FEMA E-74, Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage and FEMA P-909, Train the Trainer: Home and Business Earthquake Safety and Mitigation 8 Pinedale, Wyoming Ed Huston  
           
October 9-10,
2018
FEMA P-154, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards (Third Edition)ATC-20-1 Field Manual: Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Building (2nd Edition)Rapid Observation of Vulnerability and Estimation of Risk (ROVER), and Building Codes – Why They Matter 6  Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Mike Griffin  
           
October 18,
2018
FEMA 395, Earthquake Safety and Mitigation for Schools

4 SCEMD-Training Room
2779 Fish Hatchery Road, West Columbia, So. Carolina 29172
Mike Griffin  
           
October 18,
2018
FEMA P-909, Train the Trainer: Home and Business Earthquake Safety and Mitigation SCEMD-Training Room
2779 Fish Hatchery Road, West Columbia, So. Carolina 29172 
Mike Griffin  
           
 December 11, 2018 FEMA 232, Homebuilders’ Guide to Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction 10   Cold Climate Housing Research Center, Main Classroom
955 Draanjik Drive
Fairbanks, AK, 99709
Mike Griffin   
           
December 12, 2018 FEMA P-50 and FEMA P-50-1, Simplified Seismic Assessment and Retrofit Guidelines for Detached, Single-Family, Wood-Frame Dwellings 10  Cold Climate Housing Research Center, Main Classroom
955 Draanjik Drive
Fairbanks, AK, 99709
Mike Griffin  
           
December 13, 2018 FEMA P-593, Seismic Rehabilitation Training for One- and Two-Family Wood-Frame Dwellings 10  Cold Climate Housing Research Center, Main Classroom
955 Draanjik Drive
Fairbanks, AK, 99709
Mike Griffin

Print