STAND & TECH R.I.C

f

r-

•

“QC«

100

.056

III nil III! nil AlllDS DfiTOai

, Review and Refinement of

ATC 3-06 Tentative Seismic Provisions

Joint Committee on Review and Refinement

T

Coordinating Committee

Technical Committee

Committee 1: Seismic Risk Maps

Committee 2: Structural Design

Committee 3: Foundations

Committee 4; Concrete

Committee 5: Masonry

Committee 6: Steel

Committee 7: Wood

Committee 8: Architectural, Mechanical and

Electrical

Committee 9: Regulatory Use V.

Report of Technical Committee 8:

Architectural, Mechanicarand Electrical

This report dpcuments the deliberations of a group of professionals jointly

selected by the Building Seismic Safety Council and the National Bureau

of Standards and is for use in modifying the Tentative Provisions for t? iai designs.

Department of ('ommerce

Tonal Bureau of Standards

ional Engineering Laboratory

80-2111-8kter for Building Technology

1980 ^ ^hington. D.C. 20234 October 1980

NATIONAL BUBEAU

OF STANDARDS

LIBRARY NBSIR 80-2111-8 MAY 1 8 1981

r F#

REVIEW AND REFINEMENT OF ATC 3-06 TENTATIVE SEISMIC PROVISIONS

r)-. . . I _o

^ * REPORT OF TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 8: ARCHITECTURAL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL

Robert Sockwell, Chairman, American Institute of Architects

Mark Swatta, Vice Chairman, Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Constuction

Thomas K. Faison, Secretary, National Bureau of Standards

James R. Shaver, Assistant Secretary, National Bureau of Standards

Bruce C. Olsen, American Socity of Civil Engineers

Shlgehl Hlratsuka, American Socity of Heating Refrigerating and Air

Conditioning Engineers

Philip Lathrap, American Society of Mechanical Engineers

Stephen D. Heath, American Society of Plumbing Engineers

Joseph A. Wintz, Brick Institute of America

George Gibson, National Elevator Industry, Inc.

Tom Wosser, Applied Technology Council

Christopher Arnold, Building Seismic Safety Council

Prepared for use by:

BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY COUNCIL

Sponsored by:

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

October 1980

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Phillip M. Klutznick, Secretary

Luther H. Hodges, Jr., Deputy Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Productivity,

Technology and Innovation

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director
IAKrt<TA« to

r: W3iYAM
Abstract

The TENTATIVE PROVISIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEISMIC REGULATIONS FOR

BUILDINGS were developed by the Applied Technology Council to present,

in one comprehensive document, current state-of-knowledge pertaining to

seismic engineering of buildings. The TENTATIVE PROVISIONS are in the

process of being assessed by the building community. This report is one

of a series of reports that document the deliberations of a group of

professionals jointly selected by the Building Seismic Safety Council

and the National Bureau of Standards and charged with reviewing the

TENTATIVE PROVISIONS prior to the conduct of trial designs. The report

contains recommendations and records of the committee charged with the

review of the material related to architectural, mechanical and electrical

provisions. The committee made seven general recommendations for revision

and one recommendation for the addition of a new section on elevator

design requirements. These recommendations by Committee 8 were made to

the parent group, the Joint Committee on Review and Refinement, and

their action on these recommendations is documented in a companion

report.

Keywords: Architectural; electrical; elevators; mechanical; seismic

coefficients

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 General 1

1.2 Committee Summary 1

2.0 COMMITTEE ACTIONS 4

2.1 Recommendations for Change, 4

2.2 Recommendations for Trial Design (none) 13

2.3 Recommendations for Commentary (none) 13

2.4 Other Recommendations (none) 13

3.0 COMMITTEE RECORDS 14

3.1 Minutes of Meetings 14

3.2 Roster 26

3.3 Selected Committee Correspondence and Applied Technology

Council Comments 29

iv
1 .

0

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

The Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations were developed by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) In an effort that Included

a wide range of experts in the actual drafting of the provisions. Two

external review drafts were circulated to a large portion of the interested

and informed community of eventual users. However, because the Tentative

Provisions were Innovative, doubts about them existed. Consequently, an attempt was made to investigate these doubts and to improve the Tentative

Provisions where possible before an expensive assessment of the Tentative

Provisions was undertaken by conducting trial designs.

This review and refinement project was planned and conducted by the National

Bureau of Standards with the advice and approval of the Building Seismic

Safety Council, a private sector organization formed in 1979 for the

purpose of enhancing public safety by providing a national forum to foster

improved seismic safety provisions for use by the building community.

The assessment of the Tentative Provisions was performed using the committee

structure shown in figure 1. Nine Technical Committees were formed with

interests that collectively cover the Tentative Provisions . The Joint

Committee on Review and Refinement consists of all voting members of the

Technical Committees. The chairmen of the Technical Committees form a Coordinating Committee.

Membership of each Technical Committee is made up of representatives of

organizations that have particular Interest in the Tentative Provisions ; the participants are listed in the committee membership section of this

report.

In addition to the voting members, each Technical Committee Includes a non-voting member from each of the following organizations: The Applied

Technology Council (ATC), the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC)

and the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). The ATC representative served

as a technical resource to the committee since he was closely Involved with

the development of the provisions of interest to the committee. The NBS

representative was the technical secretary throughout the effort. The

BSSC representative provided a link with the Building Seismic Safety

Council, which will be involved in trial designs and evaluations.

1.2 Committee Summary

The task of Technical Committee 8 (T.C. 8) was to review the material in

Chapter 8 (Architectural, Mechanical and Electrical Components and Systems)

of ATC 3-06 and recommend modifications or refinements if felt necessary

prior to proceeding to trial designs. The charge to the committee was

to consider changes that were technical in nature and would Improve the

presentation or would assist in carrying out Phase II trial design

objectives

.

1
JOINT COMMITTEE ON

REVIEW AND REFINEMENT

COORDINATING

COMMITTEE

TECHNICAL COMMITTEES

Committee 1: Seismic Risk Maps

Committee 2: Structural Design

Committee 3; Foundat ions

Committee 4; Concrete

Committee 5: Masonry

Committee 6: Steel

Committee 7; Wood

Committee 8: Architectural,

Mechanical, and Electrical

Committee 9: Regulatory Use

Figure 1: Committee Structure

2
The first meeting was held on December 11, 1979, in conjunction with the

organizational meeting involving all committees. At this meeting,

Robert Sockwell of the American Institute of Architects Research Cooperation

representing the American Institute of Architects was selected chairman

of T.C. 8. Mark Swatta, representing the Interagency Committee on Seismic

Safety in Construction and an employee of the Veterans Administration,

was elected Vice Chairman. Tom Faison of the National Bureau of Standards

was assigned to serve as Secretariat. Three meetings of T.C. 8 were held

on December 11, 1979 at NBS in Gaithersburg, Maryland; February 19, 1980

at NBS Boulder Laboratories in Boulder, Colorado; and May 22, 1980 at

NBS in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

The major Issues addressed through comments from either members of T.C. 8 or the general public were: several items related to brittle materials

and/or low flexural strength materials, and elevator design requirements.

The issue of seviceability ^ life safety and the impact of either philosophy was discussed, but remained an open issue determined to be outside the

scope of individual Technical Committees. The Brick Institute of America

submitted comments on matters related to brittle materials and/or low

flexural strength materials and the serviceability philosophy. The

National Elevator Industry submitted comments on elevator design requirements. The Prestressed Concrete Institute also pro /ided several comments

which were considered by the Committee, but the action taken in regard

to these comments was to retain the existing wording in ATC 3-06.

Because the elevator design requirements were not adequately covered and

could not be resolved at the Boulder meeting (Meeting //2), Chairman Sockwell

assigned a Task Force to be chaired by George Gibson, and including Philip

Lathrap, Christopher Arnold and Tom Wosser to draft a set of requirements

to be considered by the full Committee. George Gibson circulated a set

of recommendations that were taken from the proposed seismic regulations

of ANSI A 17.1, the Elevator Safety Code. These recommendations were considered and acted upon at the third meeting of T.C. 8 on May 22, 1980.

A new section of Chapter 8 was developed, along with several modifications

of material in other sections of the chapter which allowed the use of

common formulas for any of the specified loading conditions.

The Committee acted to recommend to NBS and the Building Seismic Safety

Council that Technical Committee 8 be retained through Phase II of the

project to act in an advisory capacity on the planning and execution of

Phase II.

For exact wording of the proposed changes, the reader is directed to

Section 2, "Committee Actions." This report is intended to provide a record of actions taken by Technical Committee 8 during the proceeding

of the review process.

3
fI

2.0 Committee Actions

2.1 Recommendations for Change

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: //8 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ITEM NUMBER: 1/1

MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL

ATC-3-06 SECTION REFERENCE: 8.2.5

First Letter Ballot

Item 1"Section 8.2.5 to read: "Transverse or out-of-plane bending or deformation

of a component or system which is subjected to forces as determined in

Formula 8-1 shall not exceed the deflection capability of the conq>onent or system"

FINAL BALLOT: 8 YES

NO

ABSTAIN

DID NOT VOTE

COMMENT ON PROPOSED CHANGE:

The change is suggested as a more performance approach to cover a broad

range of materials.

4
REVIEW AND REFINEMENT OF TENTATIVE SEISMIC PROVISIONS

PROPOSED CHANGE

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: ARCHITECTURAL, COMMITTEE ITEM NUMBER: 1/2

MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL

ATC-3-06 SECTION REFERENCE: Commentary 8.2.5

First Letter Ballot

Item 2

"Commentary 8.2.5, third sentence to read: "This is particularly important

for systems composed of brittle materials and/or low flexural strength

materials .

FINAL BALLOT : 8 YES

NO

ABSTAIN

DID NOT VOTE

COMMENT ON PROPOSED CHANGE:

This change is editorial and was made for consistency.

5
REVIEW AND REFINEMENT OF TENTATIVE SEISMIC PROVISIONS

PROPOSED CHANGE

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: #8 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ITEM NUMBER: 1/3

MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL

ATC-3-06 SECTION REFERNCE: TABLE 8-B

First Letter Ballot

Item 3

"Table 8-B Footnote 4 changed to read: "Shall be raised one performance

level if the area facing the exterior wall is normally accessible within

a distance of 10 feet plus one foot for each floor height."

FINAL BALLOT : 8 YES

NO

ABSTAIN

DID NOT VOTE

COMMENT ON PROPOSED CHANGE:

Footnote 4 changed to be more specific with regard to appendages and

accessibility to areas near the appendages.

6
REVIEW AND REFINEMENT OF TENTATIVE SEISMIC PROVISIONS

PROPOSED CHANGE

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: #8 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ITEM NUMBER: 1/4

MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL

ATC-3-06 SECTION REFERENCE: TABLE 8-B

First Letter Ballot

Item 4

"Table 8-B: Change entry "Veneers" to "Veneer Attachments"

FINAL BALLOT: 8 YES

NO

ABSTAIN

DID NOT VOTE

COMMENT ON PROPOSED CHANGE:

Editorial change to better reflect the intent of the entry in Table 8-B

which is the "attachments" rather than the vaneer.

7
REVIEW AND REFINEMENT OF TENTATIVE SEISMIC PROVISIONS

PROPOSED CHANGE

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE; #8 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ITEM NO.; 2/1

MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL

ATC-3-06 SECTION REFERENCE; 8.1

Seond Letter Ballot

Ballot Item 1

(New exception to be added to Section 8.1)

Exceptions

;

3. Elevator systems which are in buildings assigned to Seismic Hazard

Exposure Group I and are located in areas with a Seismicity Index of

1 or 2 or which are in buildings assigned to Seismic Hazard Exposure

Group II and are located in areas with Seismicity Index of 1 are not

subject to the provisions of this chapter.

FINAL BALLOT; 7 YES

NO

ABSTAIN

1 DID NOT VOTE

COMMENT ON PROPOSED CHANGE;

The additional "exception” was appropriately added to Section 8.1 so that the exceptions would be in one place. This new exception could have

been placed in the new Section 8.4 but it was decided the better location

would be in Section 8.1.

8
REVIEW AND REFINEMENT OF TENTATIVE SEISMIC PROVISIONS

PROPOSED CHANGE

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: //8 ARCHITECTURAL, COMMITTEE ITEM NUMBER; 2/2

MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL

ATC-3-06 SECTION REFERENCE; 8.4 (New Section)

Second Letter Ballot

Ballot Item 2

(New Section to be added to Chapter 8)

8.4 ELEVATOR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

8.4.1 REFERENCE DOCUMENT

The design and construction of elevators and components shall conform to the

requirements of ANSI A17.1, American National Standard Safety Code for

Elevators, Dumbwaiters, Escalators and Moving Walks, and the Proposed A17

Seismic Regulations, except as modified by provisions of this chapter.

8.4.2 ELEVATOR AND HOISTWAY STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

Elevators and hoistway structural systems shall be designed to resist

seismic forces in accordance with formula 8-1 and Table 8-B.

W^ is defined as follows;

Element ^

Traction Car C + .4L

Counterweight W

Hydraulic C + .4L + .25P

C is weight of car

L is rated capacity

W is weight of counterweight

P is weight of plunger

8.4.3

ELEVATOR MACHINERY AND CONTROLLER ANCHORAGE(S)

Elevator machinery and controller anchorages shall be designed to resist

seismic forces in accordance with formula 8-2 and Table 8-C.

9
BALLOT ITEM 2 CONTINUED

8.4.4 SEISMIC CONTROLS

All elevators with a speed of 150 fpm or greater shall be furnished with

signaling devices as follows:

(a) A seismic switch device to provide an electical alert or command

for the safe automatic emergency operation of the elevator system.

(b) A counter weight displacement or derailment device to detect

lateral motion of the counterweight.

A continuous signal from (b) or a combination of signals from (a) and

(b) will initiate automatic emergency shutdown of the elevator system.

8.4.5 RETAINER PLATES

Retainer plates are required top and bottom of the car and counterweight

except where safety stopping devices are provided. The depth of engagement

with the rail shall not be less than the side running face of the rail.

8.4.6 DEFLECTION CRITERIA

The maximum deflection of guide rails, including supports, shall be limited

to prevent total disengagement of the guiding members of retainer plates

from the guide rails' contact surface.

FINAL BALLOT : 7 YES

NO

ABSTAIN

1 DID NOT VOTE

COMMENT ON PROPOSED CHANGE:

Because of the significance of elevator performance and potential

cost Impact, it was decided that a new section should be developed specific

to "Elevator Design Requirements." The material has been developed so that

the existing formulas and proposed seismic coefficients can be used in

designing to resist seismic forces.

10
REVIEW AND REFINEMENT OF TENTATIVE SEISMIC PROVISIONS

PROPOSED CHANGE

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ITEM NUMBER: 2/3

MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL

ATC-3-06 SECTION REFERNCE: TABLE 8-B

Second Letter Ballot

Ballot Item 3

1. Change entry under Partitions - "Elevators and Shafts" to Elevator Shafts.

(Editorial)

2. Add the following new entry:

Architectural Components

Elevator and Hoistway Structural Systems

- Structural frame providing the

supports for guide rail brackets

- Guiderails and brackets

- Car and counterweight guiding

members

FINAL BALLOT: 7 YES

NO

ABSTAIN

1 DID NOT VOTE

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED CHANGE:

These new entries to Table 8-B allow general usage of equation 8-'l.

Factor III 1

1.25 S G G

1.25 S G G

1.25 S G G

11
REVIEW AND REFINEMENT OF TENTATIVE SEISMIC PROVISIONS

PROPOSED CHANGE

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: //8 ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ITEM NUMBER: 2/4

MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL

ATC-3-06 SECTION REFERENCE: TABLE 8-C

Second Letter Ballot

Ballot Item 4

1. Add the following new entry:

Cc

Mechanical/Electrical Components Factor III II I

Elevator Machinery and Controller 1.25 S G G

Anchorage

FINAL BALLOT: 7 YES

NO

ABSTAIN

1 DID NOT VOTE

COMMENT ON PROPOSED CHANGE:

This new entry to Table 8-C allows the general usage of equation 8-2.

12
2.2

Recommendations for Trial Design

None 2.3

Recommendations for Commentary

None

2.4

Other Recommendations

None

13
3.0 Committee Records

3.1 Minutes of Meetings

Meetings of the Technical Committee 8 were held on December 11, 1979 in

Gaithersburg, Maryland, on February 19, 1980 in Boulder Colorado and on May 22, 1980 at Gaithersburg, Maryland. Minutes of these meetings

are presented below.

14
Minutes of Meeting No. 1 Committee 8

Architectural, Mechanical and Electrical

Tentative Seismic Provisions Project

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, Md.

December 11, 1979

Members in attendance:

Name

Robert Sockwell, Chairman

Bruce Olsen

Shlgeki Hiratsuka

Philip Lathrap

Stephen Heath

Joseph Wlntz

Mark Svatta, Vice Chairman

George Gibson

Tom Wosser

Christopher Arnold

Tom Faison, Secretariat

Jim Shaver

Visitors

Representative of

American Institute of Architects

American Society of Civil Engineers

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating

and Air Conditioning Engineers

American Society of Mechanical Engineering

American Society of Pltimblng Engineers

Brick Institute of America

Interagency Committee on Seismic

Safety in Construction

National Elevator Industry, Inc.

Applied Technology Council

Building Seismic Safety Council

National Bureau of Standards

National Bureau of Standards

None

Tom Faison, as Secretariat, opened the meeting of Committee 8 by asking

that members introduce themselves, give their affiliation and some background material regarding professional interests. The first order of

business was the election of- a chairman. After a short discussion.

15
Mr. Sockvell, the AlA representative, was nominated and elected without

opposition. Mr. Sockwell requested that a vice chairman be selected.

Mr. Svatta, the ICSSC representative, was approved to serve as vice

chairman.

Future Meeting Location

After considerable discussion, the Denver, Colorado area was selected as the site for the next meeting. The dates of February 19-20, 1980 were

chosen. A two-day session Is anticipated and an attendance of 25-50 Is

projected. NBS will make arrangements for' the meeting at the NBS Boulder

site In Boulder, Colorado. If space Is not available at the Boulder site,

the meeting will be held at the Denver Airport. Notification of the meeting

with details on time and location will be sent out at a later date.

Resource Material

Members requesting copies of ATC 3-06 and NBS Task Note 1100 were given

copies of these reports at the meeting.

Action Items

There were several Issues discussed that required action.

Action by NBS

As a source of potential candidates to receive announcements of the upcoming public meeting February 19-20, 1980, It was suggested that the ATC

file be searched to make sure that Individuals or organizations which made

comments on the first generations of the ATC Provisions are made aware of

the upcoming meeting.

Response: This information will be useful In developing a dlstrubltlon list.

Action by NBS

It was requested that comments be assembled %dilch were submitted during

the earlier cycles of the ATC Provisions and which relate to Committee 8

activities. These comments should be circulated to Committee 8 members.

Response: Because of the large number of comments and the significant

change In the document from earlier drafts to Its present form It was decided that not all comments would be circulated. A number of conments

have been chosen that are felt to be representative.

Note: The committee resolved that the comments on earlier drafts are to

be reviewed for Information only and It Is not the Intent that the committee

resolve or try to answer theses comments.

16
Action by NBS

Prepare a complete listing of the membership list of Committee 8 giving

addresses and telephone numbers. Membership list of the Coordinating

Committee was also requested.

Response: Membership list will be sent to members.

Action by NBS

Clarlflacatlon Is needed on voting procedures. Can members of the

committee abstain from voting?

Response: Yes, but everyone Is encouraged to vote.

Is the simple majority determined based upon the membership or those

voting?

Response: The simple majority Is based upon those voting, thus It Is

important that all members participate In voting upon Issues.

Tom Faison, Secretary

17
Minutes of Meeting No. 2 Committee 8

Architectural, Mechanical and Electrical

Tentative Seismic Provisions Project

National Bureau of Standards

Boulder, Colorado

February 19, 1980

Members Present:

Robert Sockwell, Chairman

Mark Swatta, Vice Chairman

Joseph Wintz

Bruce Olsen

Stephen Heath

Tom Wosser

Christopher Arnold

Jim Shaver

Tom Faison

Visitors:

None

Members Absent:

Shigeki Hiratsuka

Philip Lathrap

George Gibson

The Meeting was opened by Chairman Sockwell at 9:07 a.m.

The minutes of the December 11, 1979 meeting were accepted as distributed.

An issue was raised for discussion regarding those organizations that

were listed as potential members of Committee 8 but had not sent representatives.

The discussion dealt specifically with the status of participation for:

IEEE, NEMA and NFPA. The Secretary was directed to determine if the organizations had submitted a letter declining to participate.

1. Consideration of comments from the Brick Institute of America.

Comments were presented by Joseph Wintz.

Issue 1 Section 8.2.4 Component Deformation - Exception

ATC recommendation was accepted by BIA thus comment was withdrawn.

Issue 2 Section 8.2.5 Out-of-Plane Bending

Motion made by Wintz, seconded by Swatta.

Change 8.2.5 to read, "Transverse or out of plane bending or deformation of

a component or system which is subjected to forces as determined in Formula

8.1 shall not exceed the deflection capability of the component or system."

18
i •

I

!

I Change Commentary 8.2.5 third sentence to read "This is particularly

! important for systems composed of brittle materials and/or low flexural

strength materials." Motion passed 5-0.

I Issue 3 Table 8.B Seismic Coefficient and Performance Characteristic

* Levels Required for Architectural Systems or Components.

: Several motions were proposed.

Motion was made to eliminate Footnote 4. Failed to pass.

Motion was made to retain current wording in Footnote 4. Failed to

pass.

Motion was made to revise Table 8.B so that the L for Exterior Nonbearing

Walls and Wall Attachments be changed to G and eliminate Footnote 4 and

substitute Footnote 1 in place of 4. Failed to pass.

Motion made by Olsen, seconded by Heath as follows, "Footnote 4 - Shall

be raised one performance level if the area facing the exterior wall is

normally accessible within a distance of 10 feet plus one foot for each

floor height."

Motion passed 5-0.

Issue 4 Table 8.B Veneers

Motion by Wintz, seconded by Swatta.

Change "Veneers" to "Veneer Attachments."

Motion passed 5-0.

A suggestion was made that Committee 12 "Masonry" be made aware of the

need for seismic design standards for veneers.

Prestressed Concrete Institute Comments

Issue 1 Section 8.2.3 Exterior Wall Panel Attachment

A motion was made by Swatta, seconded by Wintz that the ATC recommendation

for no changes be accepted. Motion passed 5-0.

Issue 2 Section 8.2.2 Forces

Motion made by Swatta and seconded by Wintz, passed 5-0, to accept ATC

recommendation for no changes. The argument was nonpersuasive as no specific

reference was given for UBC-79 practice.

19
Elevator Industry comments

It was agreed by Committee 8 that greater consideration of elevator

requirements should be given. Chairman Sockwell appointed a task force

to develop draft requirements. The task force is comprised of

Mr. George Gibson, Chairman, along with Mr. Philip Lathrap, Mr. Christopher

Arnold and Mr. Tom Wosser. The draft requirements are to be circulated

to the committee prior to the next scheduled meeting which is tentatively

scheduled for Boulder, Colorado the last week of April 1980.

Action Items

1. Determine the official action taken with regard to IEEE, NEMA and

NFPA participation on Committee 8. Have these organizations declined to

participate?

2. Prepare responses to the three sets of comments. Responses will

include the ATC recommendation along with the action taken at the Boulder

meetings

-ed.

Tom Faison, Secretary

cc: Roland Sharpe

E.V. Leyendecker

E.O. Pfrang

20
Minutes of Meeting No. 3 Committee 8

Architectural, Mechanical and Electrical

Tentative Seismic Provisions Project

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD

May 22, 1980

Members Present:

Robert Sockwell

Mark Swatta

Shigeki Hiratsuka

George Gibson

Joseph A. Wintz, III

Tom Wosser

James Shaver

Tom Faison

Visitors:

None

The Vice Chairman Mark Swatta opened the meeting as Chairman Sockwell was delayed

in arriving. The draft requirements prepared by George Gibson were distributed

and studied since most members had insufficient time to prepare comments on the

draft material on Elevator Design Requirements prior to the May 22 meeting.

Mr. Gibson explained that the draft requirements. Tentative Seismic Provisions

for Elevator Equipment, were summarized from the ANSI-A 17.1 Elevator Safety

Code Proposed A 17 Seismic Regulations (copy attached).* Mr. Swatta raised

issues related to the Tentative Seismic Provisions for Elevator Equipment,

such as: how to deal with references; the application of provisions for different earthquake zones; the need to present the provisions in ATC format;

and the extent of coverage needed for elevator design.

Through group discussion, it was decided that the elevator systems not subject

to the ATC Tentative Provisions could be adequately described through the use of an additional exception which could be located in Section 8.1 of Chapter 8.

Reference can be made to attached Ballot Item (1) for exact wording.

It was proposed that a new Section 8.4 on Elevator Design Requirements be

developed in the ATC format which would make use of the formulas the tables

of Chapter 8. New material was developed from the ANSI A 17 Seismic Regulations

which specifies "Wc" for various elements or components of elevators so that

the existing relationship (Formula 8-1) can be used. New material is also

proposed on: Seismic Controls; Retainer Plates; and Deflection Criteria. The

attachment designated Ballot Item (2) presents the wording for the new proposed

Section 8.4.

Tables 8-B and 8-C were modified through slight changes in wording and the

addition of new material for two entries, "Elevator and Hoistway Structural

Systems" for Table 8-B and "Elevator Machinery Controller Anchorages" for

Table 8-C. See attached Ballot Items (3) and (4) for detailed wording.

The letter which was circulated to the committee by Mark Swatta was discussed

and it was recommended that Chairman Sockwell prepare a response to be directed

to Dr. E. V. Leyendecker requesting that Technical Committee 8 be retained for use in an advisory capacity to react to proposed procedures and plans for

carrying out Phase II of the project.

ic Material not included as part of this report.

21

Members Absent

:

Bruce Olsen

Steven Heath

Philip Lathrap

Christopher Arnold
Ballot Item 1

(New exception to be added to Section 8.1)

Section 8.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Exceptions

3. Elevator systems which are in buildings assigned to Seismic Hazard

Exposure Group I and are located in areas with a Seismicity Index of

1 or 2 or which are in buildings assigned to Seismic Hazard Ej^osure

Group II and are located in areas with Seismicity Index of 1 are not

subject to the provisions of this chapter.

22
Ballot Item 2

(New Section to be added to Chapter 8)

8.4 ELEVATOR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

8.4.1 REFERENCE DOCUMENT

The design and construction of elevators and components shall conform to

the requirements of ANSI A17.1, American National Standard Safety Code for

Elevators, Dumbwaiters, Escalators and Moving Walks, and the Proposed Al7

Seismic Regulations, except as modified by provisions of this chapter.

8.4.2 ELEVATOR AND HOISTWAY STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

Elevators and hoistway structural systems shall be designed to resist

seismic forces in accordamce with formula 8-1 and Table 8-B.

W^ is defined as follows:

Element Wc

Traction Car C + .4L

Coiinterwei ght W

Hydraulic C+.4L+.25P

C is weight of car

L is rated capacity

W is weight of counterweight

P is weight of plunger

8.4.3

ELEVATOR MACHINERY AND 'CONTROLLER ANCHORAGE

Elevator machinery and controller anchorage shall be designed to resist

seismic forces in accordance with formula 8-2 and Table 8-C.

23
Ballot Item 2 continued

8.4.4 SEISMIC CONTROLS

All elevators with a speed of 150 fpm or greater shall be furnished with

signaling devices as follows

(a) A seismic switch device to provide an electrical alert or command

for the safe automatic emergency operation of the elevator system.

(b) A counter weight displacement or derailment device to detect

lateral motion of the counterweight. A continuous signal from

this device or a combination of signals from (a) and (b) will

initiate automatic emergency shutdown of the elevator system.

8.4.5 RETAINER PLATES

Retainer plates are required top and bottom of the car and coixnterweight

except where safety stopping devices are provided. The depth of engagement

with the rail shall be not less than the side running face of the rail.

8.4.6 DEFLECTION CRITERIA

The maximum deflection of guide rails, including supports, shall be limited

to prevent total disengagement of the guiding members or retainer plates

from the guide rails' contact surface.

24
Hi C5 CJ o H (J

H| CJ o CJ

H o

h|

H • CO +J<w

nJ

CO

H

H 0 CO CO CO H CO

4J

H

(d>

<u iHM0

+>s P P

CO

O

m lO

m

O ID

p

O P eg eg eg OP rg cp u o • • u o • td Id rH rH iH Id rH

IP pL, CO

'0s

COP0 CO p a

(d <u > p

0) CO 1—!

>1

W COrH CO 1 Id P p G

CO 0 0)

p c • • p • • G IB 0 o CO >1 0 1—1 •H P p P CO P PX H P P p 0) p P & 0

‘H c w

p

M X! (2 0 P P 0) P CO O O' <U U P P c: Id •P G

(d ^ 5> >1

p 0) 1—1 0

04 0) c Id XI 0) Id

U c o p p 2 o p & P 3 TJ 0) •P

0) O' e CO

p c p O'p P m 'O C! 0 •H p Cd c CJ G P 0) 1 c •H u O p 1 •H o f2 00 p a 1—i CO 0 CO 0) •H 0 H Id rH o 0 rH 42

<i) rH Id '0 P •P <u rH

w

O

iH

p

H P q 3 Id *0 1—1 rH Id CO A p 0 3 p p c; p o 1—1 S c p p o (1) Id 'd' ra p Id

c: &H Q)

O

p 0 T3

a

Eh o P

(U1 1

(U (1) 0 p "P

p 0) •p 0 0 0) ^ p p p 0 Id 0) 0 42 q p

L_1 4J O'

p -p Id CO CJ

u

p P P 3 Id

a 42 > M 42 > w1 1 (0 <d O CJ 0) 1 1 1 CO T! o (B 0) T> P rH P <]) T( (1) rH O

r-< iH

cd PQ

O' CJ < < • u

O

rH

pH

Cd

O'G

Id 42 < s w

u 1—ICN - PQ t3 rH

25

Ahchorage
3.2 Roster

COMMITTEE 8: Architectural, Mechanical, and Electrical

American Institute of Architects

Mr. Robert Sockwell (Chairman)

AIA Research Corp.

1735 New York Ave. , N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Phone: 202-626-7441

American Society of Civil Engineers

Mr. Bruce C. Olsen

1411 4th Ave. Bldg.

Suite 1420

Seattle, Washington 98101

Phone: 206-624-7045

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers

Mr. Shigeki Hiratsuka

406 South Barton

Arlington, VA 22204

Phone: 202-252-4950 (DoE) temporary

American Society of Mechanical Engineering

Mr. Philip Lathrap

c/o Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

77 Beale Street

Room 2883

San Francisco, CA 94106

Phone: 415-781-4211 X1605

American Society of Plumbing Engineers

Mr. Stephen D. Heath, P.E.

American Society of Plumbing Engineers

15233 Ventura Blvd.

Suite 616

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Phone: 213-783-4845

26
Conunlttee 8 (continued)

Brick. Institute of America

Joseph A. Wlntz, III

Brick Institute of Aoerica

1750 Old Meadow Lane

McLean, VA 22101

Phone; 703-893-4010

Interagency Coamittee on Seismic Safety in Construction

Mr. Mark Swat t

a

Verterans Adoiinistratlon (085A)

810 Vermont Avenue* N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20420

Phone: 202-389-3103

National Elevator Industry, Inc.

Mr. George Gibson

Otis Elevator Company

440 Fanklin Turnpike

Mahwah, NJ 07430

Phone; 201-825-4400

Applied Technology Council

Mr. Tom Wosser

H. J. Degenkolb Assocs.

350 Sansome Sf.

San Francisco, CA 94104

Phone; 415-392-6952

Building Seismic Safety Council

Mr. Christopher Arnold

Building Systems Development Inc.

120 Broadway

San Francisco, CA 94111

Phone; 415-434-3830

27
Committee 8 (continued)

National Bureau of Standards

Mr. Tom Faison

Secretariat

Tentative Seismic Provision Project . v- > Committee 8, Architectural, Mechanical and Electrical

National Bureau of Standards

Room B-168, Bldg. 226

Washington, D.C. 20234

Phone; 301-921-3293

Dr. James R. Shaver

Tentative Seismic Provision Project

Committee 8, Architectural, Mechanical and Electrical

National Bureau of Standards

Room B-168, Bldg. 226

Washington, D.C. 20234

Phone: 301-921-2186

28
3.3 Selected Committee Correspondence and Applied Technology Council Comments

Presented below are several correspondences transmitted or received during the

course of the Committee's actions.

1. ATC Comments on Chapter 8, ATC 3-06, Tom Wosser (recommendations related

to comments received. Attachment A, not included)

2. Trial Design Issue for Technlpal Committee 8,

2a. - Swatta's letter of May 14, 1980

2b. - Olsen's letter of May 19, 1980

2c. - Kirkland's letter of June 23, 1980

29
H. J. Degenkolb 8c Associates, Engineer..

350 SANSOME STREET SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94 1o4^

' \ / Telephone 392-6952 * ' r </

To: MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE 8 - ARCH

y \ ' ^

HENRY J. DEGENKOLB

R GORDON DEAN

GEORGES E BASSETT

THOMAS D WOSSER

LORING A WYLLIE, JR. TED J CANON

GEORGE E GREENWOOD

CHRIS D POLAND

February 11, 1980

MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL

OF THE NBS TENTATIVE SEISMIC PROVISION PROJECT

vyiom Faison, Secretary

Robert Sockwell, Chairman

Bruce Olsen

Shigeki Hiratsuka

Philip Lathrap

Stephen Heath

Joseph Wintz

Mark Swatta

Christopher Arnold

James Shaver

George Gibson

From: Tom Wosser, ATC Representative

Reference: COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 8, ATC 3-06

Gentlemen:

We have received only three sets of comments, those from Brick Institute

of America, Otis Elevator and the Prestressed Concrete Institute. You

have all received copies of the comments, so I will not repeat them here

except to refer to the organization, section number and section title.

BRICK INSTITUTE OF AMERICA

. Section 8.2.4 COMPONENT DEFORMATION - EXCEPTION

I disagree with the comment. Exception 1 in Section 8.1 does not except

all "L” performance level components.

. Section 8.25 OUT-OF-PLANE BENDING

This section was an attempt to apply deflection limitations to wall

framing systems, for out-of-plane bending. Although the commentary

refers to "conventional limits based upon deflections as a proportion

of the span", the Provisions themselves do not include any design

criteria. In my opinion. Section 8.2.5 does not add anything to

Section 8.2. It is merely a "flag".

The comment refers to a masonry veneer system. Certainly, if the veneer is properly attached to the framing elements of the system,

it is the framing elements themselves that would have to meet the

design requirements. I do not believe the recommended change accomplishes

anything particularly significant.

30
Page 2

February 11, 1980

Perhaps a better solution Is to include a specific section such as that proposed for the new State of California Title 24:

TABLE NO. 2 23-L

Maximum Allowable Deflection Normal to the Surface

of Wall Element Under Lateral Force Loading

Loading

Wall Element Condition

Exterior Walls-brittle construction Seismic or Wind

Exterior Walls-flexible construction Seismic or Wind

Veneered Stud Walls (Wood or Metal Studs)

:

Anchored Veneers Seismic

*L is the span between vertical or horizontal supports.

Table 8-B

(a) Performance Level of Exterior Nonbearing Walls

For Seismic Hazard Exposure Group I, the committee intended a higher

performance characteristic for exterior nonbearing walls as well as for wall attachments if the building is located in an urban area.

I recommend that the footnote should remain.

(b) Veneers

The Cj, factor for veneers was based on the traditional 100% G

at working stress design for UBC Zone 4 conditions. Considering

the workmanship factors, exposure to weather conditions

and occasional unfortunate experience observed in building facade

performance, 1 recommend that the C(, factor remain at 3.0.

Perhaps the Masonry section should include some specific veneer

requirements such as those contained in UBC.

OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY

Max. Allow.

Deflection*

L/240

L/180

L/600

. General

It was not the intent of ATC 3-06 to increase design requirements for

elevator systems beyond those normally in use in California today.

The points discussed by Otis Elevator are well taken and serve to

point out that elevators "fell between the cracks" or perhaps "down

the shaft" in the sometimes conflicting efforts of the architectural

subcommiteee and the mechanical and electrical subcommittee. This

oversight will require a significant change to ATC 3-06 requirements

for elevators.

31
Page 3

February 11, 1980

In the State of California, the controlling requirements are contained in "Title 8 Elevator Safety Orders". These requirements are repeated in Part 7 of Title 24. The proposed new

Title 24 contains specific recommendations for elevators. (See

Attachment A.) I suggest that these be modified as required to

suit the format for incorporation into ATC 3-06. The C factors can be adjusted accordingly and the requirements for "Earthquake

Emergency Operation" needs to be considered for the various performance characteristic levels.

I would certainly agree that any certification of any mechanical,

electrical, or elevator "components" should be at the operating

unit assembly level, rather than each individual part.

. Section 8.3.2 FORCES

The requirements should be modified to conform to California Elevator

Safety Orders.

. Section 8.3.2 FORCES

These factors are all defined. "hx" refers to the level under

consideration and hn refers to the top level.

There should not be any variation with height for guiderail or guiderail connection design.

. Section 8.3.2 FORCES

Yes, horizontal and vertical forces are assumed to be simultaneous.

. Section 10.2 STRENGTH OF MEMBERS

(a) 0 for elevator framing beams would be 0.90, yielding f^ = F^.

(b) The allowable shearing stresses for bolts might be covered

under special elevator design requirements.

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE INSTITUTE

. Section 8.2.3 EXTERIOR WALL PANEL ATTACHMENT

I disagree with this comment. C value for wall attachment is already

high and beyond this, detailing Suctllity is the Important requirement.

32
Page 4

February 11, 1980

. Section 8.2.2 FORCES

I disagree with this comment. The Fp, on parts of structures, is normally

considered as a horizontal force, from any direction.

Very truly yours.

f

Thomas D. Wosser

TDW/dq

cc : Roland Sharpe

33
I

Office of Construct! Washington, D.C. 20420

Veterans

Administration

May 111, 1980

To Members of Technical Committee 8, Architectural,

Mechanicel & Electrical - Tentative Seismic Provisions

Robert Sockwell

Bruce C. Olsen

Shigeki Hiratsuka

Stephen D. Heath

Joseph A. Wintz,III

Philip Lathrap

George Gibson

Tom Wosser

Christopher Arnold

James R. Shaver

Tom Faison

Dear Member:

SUBJECT: Trial Design Issues for Technical Committee 8

The representatives of the Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction met on May 6, to disucss the ATC-3-06 design provisions. An extension of

Technical Committee 8 scope was discussed as outlined in paragraph ffl on the

attached sheet. We ask that you consider this suggestion as a topic for discussion at our next meeting on May 22, 198O.

Sincerely,

Mark Swatta

Attachment

cc: Dr. Charles C. Thiel

In Raply Refer To: (085B)

34
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Washington. D.C. 20472

May 6, 1980

Mr. William Moore

Chairman, Building Seismic

Safety in Construction Council

1015 15th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Bill:

On May 6 the Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction representatives

met to discuss our participation in the nine subcommittees currently considering

the ATC 3-06 design provisions. We reiterate the points made in our March 27

letter and ask that the recommendations contained therein be reviewed at the

earliest possible time. We believe these points should be made to the subcommittees

prior to their recommendations being balloted. We have three additional points

to make

:

1. Subcommittee 8 on Architectural, Mechanical and Electrical systems has

apparently not considered how trial designs may be useful in judging the efficacy

of their recommendations. To the best of our knowledge, ATC’s proposed trial

design _program. will only deal with structural systems. The incorporation into

these design provisions architectural, mechanical and electrical considerations

is a major innovation. Thus, we strongly recommend that the subcommittee give

consideration to the trial design issue and make such recommendations, as appropriate, to the Coordination Committee.

2. Our representative to Subcommittee 9, Regulatory Use, has left us with

a concern about whether the Subcommittee will resolve the issues before it in a timely manner. There appears to be a large number of issues still before the

Committee. We urge that the Council encourage the Subcommittee to complete its

work at the same time that the other Subcommittee’s are completing theirs.

3. We have some concern that Subcommittee 4, Concrete, is proposing to

expand Chapter 11 to include precast and prestressed concrete. Yet the design

provisions are not fully developed nor have they been experimentally validated.

V7e are concerned that this potentially represents a signification departure from

the original intent of review and refinement of the ATC Design Provisions for

which v;e can not make legitimate technical arguments.

In net, we believe that the Subcommittees are working well and expect them to

recommend a thoughtful, technically competent set of provisions for consideration

by the Council membership.

Sincerely yours.

Charles C. Thiel

Chairman, Interagency

Committee on Seismic Safety

in Construction

CC: ICSSC Representatives on Subcommittees

E. Pfrang/R. Wright/E. Leyendecker /R. Johnson

35
BRUCL C. OLSEN

r /'

1411 FOURTH /VENUE i A T T ! E , V/ A S h I N G r O N 9 8 10 1 '2061624 045

May 19, 1980

Mr. Tom Faison, Secretary

Technical Committee 8 - Tentative Seismic Provisions

National Bureau of Standards

Room BI68, Building 226

Washington, D. C. 20234

Subject; Trial Design Issues for Technical Committee 8

Dear Tom;

I have just received a letter dated May 14, 1980, from Mark Swatta, accompanied

by an enclosure making reference to trial designs relating to architectural mechanical and electrical systems. You have received a copy of the same material.

The ATC proposal for the trial design program is basically aimed at the srructural

systems it is true. At the same time, incorporated in the proposal there has been a segment relating to investigation of architectural, mechanical and electrical systems

in conjunction with at least a part of the structures undergoing the trial design.

While these "non -structure I " systems are nominally separate from the basic structuiol

supporting and resisting system, the response to the requirements is ordinarily ultimately referred back to a structural engineer. This may not necessarily be the

original design engineer for the building, but it will be a structural design function.

In view of the fact that the fundamental data concerning the trial design structures

will be developed by the contractor performing the trial design, such information

as fundamental period, higher modes, and related information will be developed by

the basic contractor, it would appear that an extension of that work could conveniently incorporate questions raised through Subcommittee 8.

While I sit on this committee as a representative of ASCE, I must also admit to being a member of the Board of Directors of the Applied Technicology Council at the present

time. If the Committee will overlook this potential for bias, they may accept the

suggestion that the response to "non-structural " problems can very well be handled

within the ATC proposal. I am sure that any suggestions relative to specific problems

I

I

I
Mr. Tom Faison

May 19, 1980

Page Two

which might be submitted by the Committee to the Coordination Committee, if also

directed to the Applied Technology Council, would be gratefully received and

carefully considered by that body in administering the evaluation program.

Very truly yours.

|BCO:br

cc: Roland L. Sharpe

Applied Technology Council

37
BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY COUNCIL

i015 15th Street, N.W . buife 70;' Washington, D C. 20005

(202) 347 5710

June 23, 1980

To: MBS Technical Committees for the Review and

Refinement of Tentative Seismic Provisions

for Buildings

Committee #1

Committee

Committee #3

Committee /M

Committee //5 Committee #6

Committee f/7 Committee #8

Committee #9

Seismic Risk Maps

Structural Design

Foundations

Concrete

Masonry

Steel

Wood

Architectural, Mechanical,

and Electrical

Regulatory Use

Enclosed is a copy of the first Building Seismic Safety Council

newsletter. You will note that on page 3 under "Tvork Plan Committee”

that the NBS Technical Committees 1 through 9 have been retained as Building Seismic Safety Council committees.

A new ad hoc Committee 10-A, comprised of members of the existing

Coordinating Committee //lO and the Structural Design Committee with

several additional organizational representatives, has been established.

Your committees will continue their duties through the completion of the

trial designs and development of suitable and appropriate design provisions .

The funding for the trial design phases of the committee work will

be included in the FY '31 proposal to the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA)

.

Sincerely,

Acting Executive Director

WGK: lb

Enclosure

cc: BSSC Board of Direction - no enclosure

BSSC Work Plan Committee- no enclosure

BSSC Overview Committee - no enclosure

Gene C. Brewer

Edward 0. Pfrang

Charles C. Thiel

E. V. Leyendecker

38
U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBSIR 80-2111-8

4ec«ssion No.1

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Review and Refinement of ATC 3-06 Tentative Seismic Provisions

Report of Technical Committee 8: Architectural, Mechanical

and Electrical

5. Publication Date October 1980

..Performing Orfanizatlon Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

Thomas K. Faison

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

%ProJect/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS fsrreor, City, Ste^te, ziP)

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Washington, D.C. 20472

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

-r.;. :

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

I I Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

16. ABSTRACT (A 200’‘word or less factual eummary of moat aignificant information. If document includes a significant bibliography or

literature survey, mention it here,) The TENTATIVE PROVISIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEISMIC REGULATIONS FOR BUILDINGS

were developed by the Applied Technology Council to present, in one comprehensive

document, current state-of-knowledge pertaining to seismic engineering of buildings.

The TENTATIVE PROVISIONS are in the process of being assessed by the building

community. This report is one of a series of reports that document the deliberations

of a group of professionals jointly selected by the Building Seismic Safety Coiancil

and the National Bureau of Standards and charged with reviewing the TENTATIVE

PROVISIONS prior to the conduct of trial designs. The report contains recommendations

and records of the committee charged with the review of the material related to

architectural, mechanical and electrical provisions. The committee made seven general recommendations for revision and one recommendation for the addition of a new section on elevator design requirements. These recommendations by Committee 8

were made to the parent group, the Joint Committee on Review and Refinement, and

their action on these recommendations is documented in a companion report.

17, KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name;

separated by semicolons)

Architectural; electrical; elevators; mechanical; seismic coefficients

18. AVAILABILITY [^Unlimited

I I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

[31 Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003-

[)n Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield,

VA. 22161

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

X

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

22. Price

USCOMM-DC
y wo»T*3tj|Lpii

t III ffcH ¥!Hi» & e^f^nAo$^

a- Ji i-A&ja, ...„ 1Ll1tl<iwf,ciht«ik t»t' wP , _

i«*v«v’:»

rtf ftmtil fiiirtii'T 4 r*

.

w.’.ip' WS ^ ' 2Q']iAqm’T<'

kitw

,, .HtrtO; ..> ^ - > ?/r?S3IKWA

^

iiotTAijiiMMS'^'

, r: Ti -

' r ':^', '3'^

^ I

:H»’

fin<^i»^^l^^:!9‘«'t si^tMsmp-snw

bcuiSfoll^# *?*<•

aj^Bse^^VT v^f.majfta'Sf-^ jiiwl^' #!!??’ 'iar'^''

,3’j©q»a. -*** ^ c!-'^

.

' -‘^1*21^'®®^'. ^''

v. '1

''mitrm :i*»' AMrifiSf?

***

'tii'*''*' -~Tia-j -Vi - ^* ^ »

", iljwi'^jjti&tA

y^^*- *-S _•'•««««#, n #*a«*l|» V»»M» «f "»»>'«

t;ii5 X i»*it WSBHWBM|ie - :S. . i;, ^ . ;

"

&i« ii C. ,t, ":03}, Tk.<w n^'» mafv^gary ^'- i'

- ,»,^«!4aK»#>«»

oaiii;M,>aHU

'‘M, CMlM