!2i±U9

Review and Refinement of

ATC 3-06 Tentative Seismic Provisions"

I Joint Committee on Review and Refinement

1 "I

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

Report r of Technical Committee 9:

Regulatory Use"

^creport documents the deliberations of a group of proft'ssionals jointly

Building Seismic Safety Council and the^National Bureau V;;^ and is for use in modifying the Tentative Provisions for trial designs.

JiT

4i<r.v*s .

4?- < rr^

.U56

80-2111

1980

-9

^pisrtment of Commerce

“l- Bureau of Standards

Engineering Laboratory

Building Technology

Jton, D.C. 20234

NattoMl Bureau of Standards

library, E-01 Admin. 0ldg.

NBSIR 80-2111-9 DEC 4 -1980

Report of Technical Committee 9: Regulatory Use

REVIEW AND REFINEMENT OF ATC 3-06 TENTATIVE SEISMIC PROVISIONS

U.C. -

• h>

IQvO

William Dripps, Chairman, National Conference of States on Building

Codes and Standards

James H. Pielert, Secretary, National Bureau of Standards

Patrick W. Cooke, Secretary, National Bureau of Standards

John Fisher, American Institute of Architects

Michael Sbaglia, American Insurance Association

Norton S. Remmer, American Society of Civil Engineers

Campbell L. Reed, Associated General Contractors of America

Jack M. Fratt, Association of Major City Building Officials

Lenny Rosenber, Building Owners and Managers Association

Paul K. Heilstedt, Building Officials and Code Administrators, International

G. Robert Fuller, Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction

Jack Allen, International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials

Ralph C. Grippo, International Conference of Building Officials

James M. Hicks, Jr., National Academy of Code Administration

David E. Johnson, National Association of Home Builders

William J. Tangye, Southern Building Code Congress International

Warner Howe, Applied Technology Council

Donald F. Pinkerton, Building Seismic Safety Council

Prepared for use by the:

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

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 documents 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 the recommendations and records of the committee charged with

review of the regulatory implementation and enforcement aspects of the

provisions. The committee made 2 recommendations for revisions to the

TENTATIVE PROVISIONS and five additional recommendations concerning

subsequent activities, such as the conduct of trial designs. These

recommendations 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: Building; building codes; building design; disaster mitigation

earthquakes; engineering; standards.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 General ^ 1.2 Committee Summary 1

1 . 3 Chairman ' s Statement 3

2.0 COMMITTEE ACTIONS 5

2.1 Recommended Changes ^ 2.2 Recommendations for Trial Designs ^ 2.3 Recommendations for Commentary Changes (none) ^ 2.4 Other Recommendations ^

3.0 COMMITTEE RECORDS 1

3.1 Minutes of Meetings 7 3.2 Roster 58

3.3 Selected Committee Correspondence and Applied Technology

Council Comments 62

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

Technical Committee 9 initially met on December 11, 1979 at NBS to select

a Committee Chairman and to develop an approach for carrying out its area

of responsibility during the review of the ATC 3-06 provisions. Mr. William

Dripps, the representative of the National Conference of States on Building

Codes and Standards (NCSBCS), was elected as Committee Chairman. The com- mittee determined that the thrust of its work should focus on "regulatory"

aspects of the ATC document as oposed to "technical". In this context

the primary areas for committee deliberations were to cover such areas as:

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
“regulatory intent of the provisions

“code format suitability of the provisions for regulatory adoption

by political jurisdictions

“legal enforceability of the provisions, and

“impact of the provisions on all aspects of the building

regulatory process.

Chapters 1 (Administration) and Chapter 13 (Systematic Abatement of Seismic

Hazards in Existing Buildings) of the ATC 3-06 Publication were the main

areas of Committee interest, however, the enforceability of all the provisions are a concern of regulatory personnel, (see section 3.1 for the

minutes of first meeting.)

Comments from nine individuals were received containing proposals and

criticisms relative to regulatory use of the Tentative Provisions . These

comments were each individually reviewed, discussed and acted upon at a public work session of the committee on February 20-21, 1980 at the

offices of NCSBCS in McLean, Virginia. The committee recommendations

resulted in either "no change" need be further considered, that certain

issues be balloted by the committee or that recommendations for further

study be undertaken in conjunction with the trial design phase, (see

section 3.1 for the minutes of second committee meeting.)

Two ballot items affecting word changes were voted on by the committee

and were passed affirmatively. A brief committee meeting at NBS was held on July 16, 1980 for the election of a new committee chairman to

replace Mr. Dripps, who had resigned his position with the National

Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards. The committee

unanimously elected Mr. Norton S. Remmer to succeed Mr. Dripps.

1.3 Chairman’s Statement (by William Dripps)

It was quite difficult for Committee 9 to find issues which fit the instructions for a "mid course" correction, and it is likely that some of

them presented in this report will not. The tentative provisions assume,

apparently, that political leaders in areas of the United States subject

to earth tremors only on rare occasions will view seismic building re- quirements in the same light as do the political leaders in such areas

as California, where damage from earthquakes is an unpleasant fact to be

dealt with by political leaders. Such is not the case, I believe,

judging from experience with political leaders who have dealt with

building regulations in the past.

If, in those areas of the United States not subject to frequent and severe earthquakes, the final document is to be accepted some actions are needed,

which to my knowledge, are not contemplated. These actions are not difficult nor excessively time consuming and I recommend serious consideration

be given them.

1. An explanation of the development of the Seismicity Index,

including the consideration given to frequency of earthquakes.

3
2. A clear exposition and explanation of the proposed provisions

for use with existing buildings plus cost analyses for addition of

seismic strengthening applied to typical existing buildings.

3. Some analysis of added costs to and personnel requirements for

administration and enforcement of seismic regulations plus some guidance

as to the methods of securing skilled personnel for the purpose.

These recommended actions should be presented in language easily understood

by political leaders; that is, without jargon, without obscure scientific

and engineering terminology, but with a realistic assessment of the likelihood of need for seismic requirements.

4
2.0

Committee Actions

2.1

Recommended Changes

The following Is a compilation of the results of the Committee 9 ballot

Issued on April 14, 1980.

Section Affirmative Negative

Affirmative

with Did Not

Reservations Vote

® Chapter 1 - Change of title

for Chapter 1 from "Administration" to "General

Provisions"

° Section 13.1.1 - Change the

word "designed" to "with a permit Issuance date" In

paragraphs one and two of

Section 13.1.1.

Summary of "Remarks" offered on negative and affirmative with reservations

ballots:

"The chapter should be titled ’General’. This document Is not a code - ’General Provisions’ Is code language".

"Propose ’Application’".

"With regard to seismicity Index of 4, Add asterisk and Note:

Local jurisdiction may change this for their location".

6 votes 2 votes 1 /2 / -0-

7 votes -0- 1 vote3/

2.2

Recommendations for Trial Designs

1. The committee recommends that economic studies be undertaken In conjunction

with the trial designs to determine the economic Impact of the provisions on one- and two-famlly dwellings In all Seismicity Zones.

2. It was recommended that the seismicity Index numbers appear on the map

legends to correspond to the designated map areas.

3. Chapter 13 should be re-wrltten so that It can be comprehended by the

layman. As presented In Its current version, the chapter Is difficult

to understand and comprehend.

4. Chapter 13 should be reviewed for Its applicability to t le Eastern part

j of the United States. R^, of 1 Is for all practical purposes not attaln-

' able for most older buildings In the Eastern part of the U.S.

i

1

5
5. The committee recommends that a legal review of the entire ATC3-06

document, particularly Section 1.6 on Quality Assurance and Chapter

13 on Existing Buildings be commissioned. Such a legal study would

involve:

° liability assumed by governmental entities that adopt the

provision

“ extent of liability assumed by regulatory agency and

building officials.

It was indicated that such a study could be carried out in conjunction

with the trial designs and that the firm or person selected by competent in local jurisdiction regulatory matters (i.e.

,

municipal law

with respect to buildings and enforcement).

2.3 Recommendations for Commentary Changes

None

2.4 Other Recommendations

The committee identified a number of specific issues that need further

attention or resolution. For regulatory use of the Tentative Provisions , the committee identified the following Issues as not being adequately

addressed in the current version of the document:

1 . Appeals

2 . Change s 3. Quality Assurance

4. Application to existing buildings

5. Education and Training of regulatory personnel

6
,5

H’ f

3.0 Committee Re^rds***

I

Imtetmetloe.

3.1 Mlno?« of Meetings

**“ ' ® olmmioe

£- CW. 4d»l;el«„tor.

sfc7»l>i»jJ^.A^a“-' » — *» SUtttleml

1^;,* ««*«». »«« 1>*W »Xl,3Mlw»3»Q.y.:.'

el>.|«« it» *l»tx.*d. lii. Brl»e

,«.<J liiSLl JA %»bVi 03 bollio »E!rf k ft*33ii«»o0 Isoixtii:^! lo ^b13smi« 3*511 aifT

ir "fefflwsaaasaatf ^ e. *

e

**

tH« r*«ul*t^

tv

VA

^

fn'l tf yffllp^ ^- ATT n ^r. na

3ifJ' '.jr^ a* 4 , «nd ttat

for«At . it w l=^ o££*r«4 « V*’, •,< I *

. » —V A . .

-tr

W

fc » Jpit^ * /. r?. I «a s^SMiaa .0

r'«M «. K ris I ^ A e . A m _ •-

*<MI iM a.* -I

Tft<0BKaJI »e OOI50TI

- **'s

^ ii*d<fisa0

-^ItlcSS

•17'' thl*<*r gidilat^U. W oo1.«.^9(mA> JmaoijW??*-'* ^'.. ~,tZ^ . "»'''- (i.e.. paut,*”. ... . ^mind. Wi«S&«

ao«iufoL .3 blvAO

t • B

J_

11)0\i(hl;^t}l micott V «* ,ao«m

*o«**i». in. :i^03nn ' wmiUlV

t3u>'.*# e»r.V. J- *'^ i* ^

noioto saoiofirfM? 6*1

u

‘ MMl

.: 3 -«i ’

•ct*.«w^sc t ••<-« -1

V- V •'* c*.

• ^.»ii.l< o-.*i d"-

««c4«i0 vi^vcte«j(mfi«a >0 »W >fxt 53*3

a 1 . : 59*1 ,)*ifoU 7*;n*v

S' •in* 4^ ^ola^iia^To 50 4»**a5 q 300 »3odn*K

ccoao^n, ik:.,

"‘ii

' -

iPiirtI icLAftljiJoo«*A * ' 00««A 9 A»3 M «o*C

apr^le49llUr tX^ i* .! >**»t 1

. 6<^‘XC»JsXi4 f«gu'Gi,4p: t»

jiV'" ^ ’^li at I

i

'.t

5^-

.->V-'V mi.all

7
Minutes of First Meeting

Technical Committee 9 : Regulatory Use

Review and Refinement of Tentative Seismic

Provisions (ATC-3-06)

at

National Bureau of Standards

December 11, 1979

The first meeting of Technical Committee 9 was called to order at 12:15 p.m.

by Acting Chairman, Patrick W. Cooke. The following members were present:

Name

Michael Sbaglia

Norton S. Remmer

Campbell L. Reed

Representative of

American Insurance Association

American Society of Civil Engineers

Associated General Contractors of America

Neal D. Houghton (alternate Building Owners and Managers Association

for Lenny Rosenberg)

G. Robert Fuller

Jack Allen

Ralph C. Grippo

David E. Johnson, P.E.

William Dripps

Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in

Construction

International Association of Plumbing and

Mechanical Officials

International Conference of Building Officials

National Association of Home Builders

National Conference of States on Building Codes

and Standards

James M. Hicks, Jr.

Warner Howe, P.E.

Patrick W. Cooke

National Academy of Code Administration

Applied Technology Council

National Bureau of Standards

Members not present or organizations not represented were:

Jack M. Fratt Association of Major City Building Officials

8
William J. Tangye, P.E. Southern Building Code Congress International

Donald F. Pinkerton Building Seismic Safety Council

American Institute of Architects

Building Officials and Code Administrators

Int ernat ional — International Association of Electrical

Inspectors

The first order of business was the selection of a permanent Committee

Chairman. William Dripps was nominated and unanimously elected. Mr. Dripps

chaired the subsequent committee deliberations.

The next action was selection of the date and place for the committee's next

meeting (i.e., public work session). It was decided that the next meeting

would be on February 20 (and 21, if necessary) , 1980 at the facilities

of the National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards, Inc.

,

1970 Chain Bridge Road, McLean, Va.

The Committee then embarked on a discussion pertaining to such issues as the regulatory intent, code format suitability, and enforceability of the

Tentative Provisions . Concern was indicated that the Tentative Provisions

as presently formulated go far beyond other types of codified documents

and that they are not enforceable by building officials in their present

format. It was the sense of the members, however, that the document

offered a unique opportunity for a partnership in Federal/State/Local

cooperation in the regulatory area. Various members expressed the opinion

that all interested parties should be afforded the opportunity to influence

the document and to present their views on its adoption and implementation.

With this in mind, it was determined to broadly publicize the next meeting

(i.e., public work session) and to allow for a two-day meeting if necessary.

The committee broke for lunch at 1:00 p.m. and reconvened at 2:00 p.m.

Thoughtful discussion continued around a variety of issues affecting the

regulatory and other aspects of implementing the Tentative Provisions and the

role of Technical Committee 9. These include;

o types of buildings and occupancies to be covered (e.g., one and

two family dwellings not covered in seismicity index areas 1

or 2 when these are the most populous class of buildings).

o economic impacts - should building official have control over economic impacts? (e.g., how far to go with coverage?)

o size and type of role for regulators, policy makers and others - economic, social, political aspects (i.e., are these areas a concern of this technical committee?)

o applicability of the document as presently formulated to all

geographic regions of the United States

9
o training and education program to properly guide enforcement

personnel in field use of document

In a discussion on committee procedural matters, balloting and the

consensus process and interfacing with the Joint Committee the following

motions were made:

"Technical Committee 9 recommends that the requirement for a two-thirds

majority of votes cast for adoption of changes by the Joint Committee be

changed to a simple majority."

The motion was made by David Johnson; seconded by Neal Houghton; and was defeated (Four/yes; four/no; two/abstained).

Motion 2

"That the issue raised by Motion 1 be expressed to the BSSC"

The motion was made by Robert Fuller; seconded by Campbell Reed; and

passed unanimously.

Warner Howe submitted a copy of a paper "Major Criticisms of ATC 3-06"

(Nov. 8, 1979) as an individual proposal for revision of the standard

(copy of paper enclosed). Any other proposals with specific recom- mendations for changes to the Tentative Provisions are to be sent prior

to Jan. 11, 1980 to:

Mr. James H. Pielert

Technical Committee, No. 9

Tentative Seismic Provision Project

B168, Bldg. 226

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

One approach suggested by which the committee might operate would be to

compartmentalize individual provisions with respect to being either

"technical" or "regulatory" and focus on the latter. The committee

reaffirmed its desire to involve all interested organizations and

individuals to submit proposals and to participate in the deliberations at

the Feb 20 and 21, 1980 work session.

There being no further business, the committee adjourned at 3:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted.

o need for Quality Assurance Plan as required in Section 1.6.

(preparation and interpretation of the Quality Assurance

Plan?)

Motion 1

Patrick W. Cooke

Enclosure

10

I
MAJOR CRITICISMS OF ATC-3-06

By Warner Howe, P. E.

BSSC Meeting - Nov. 8, 1979 - San Francisco

I am keenly interested in the ATC-3-06 "Design Provisions"

having been a participant in the project; and, as a member of the

Board of NIBS and ATC, and having made Earthquake Risk Study for

MATCOG, 1 am concerned for its proper use. Therefore, I am happy

to have been asked to discuss "Major Criticisms of ATC-3-Ob" because

the way this document is used can have a major impact on all of

those involved in the building process and the users of tlic products

of that process. That is this group!

Let me say, I am pleased, even proud, that 85 authorities who

worked together 3 years were able to agree to a single comprehensive

document on such a complex subject. ATC-3 is an excellent treatment

bringing together the current state-of-the-art technology for addressing the earthquake hazard. Indeed, if it were labeled as a stateof-the-art document and taken out of code format, I would have few

criticisms to make at this juncture.

But, the ATC-3-06 "Design Provisions" was written in code format

and was intended by many to be used in its entirety as a code reference standard. In my opinion, it is totally unsatisfactory as a mandatory code for the following reasons:

(1) It far exceeds the customary code philosophy of minimum

mandatory requirements for reasonable and prudent protection of human lives and property.

(2) It is far too complex for effective use by most designers

and enforcement officials.

(3) It does not appropriately address the earthquake hazards in

the less seismically active regions of the U. S., particularly in the Eastern half of the country.

lot me explain each of these assertions as follows:

Exceeds customary Building Code requirements

Building codes in their development over the years, purposefully

have been limited to the minimum requirements that will assure a reasonable and prudent protection of public health and safety.

Events which could endanger life and property are weighed for

their relative risks, considering the probabilities of occurrence,

costs for providing protection, and the impacts of non- protect ion

absolute protection generally cannot be economically justified

and frequently would be counter-productive; the need for shelter

may be more demanding than a higher level of protection.

A Building Code is not intended to bo a comprehensive design/

construction manual whose purpose is to insure excellence or

quality. It is a legal document which establishes the absolute

minimum requirements mandated by the enforcing governmental

11
jurisdiction. Mos t • bui Idings will be designed and built to a higher more comprehensive set of standards than the building

code

.

ATC-3 far exceeds this traditional code philosophy for a hazard which

lias a much lower probability of occurrence than many other hazards

wliich have not been addressed by the codes to this extreme.

Speci f L cally

( a ) Operability of Essential Facilities

It is a prudent public policy and in the best public interest

to have certain "essential" facilities needed after an

earthquake to be designed to be operable after such an event.

Obviously, appropriate design criteria for these facilities

is needed, but they should not be made a part of the building code regulations - WHY?

Most facilities which are classified as "Essential" are

publically owned and are designed with many features that

exceed minimum building code requirements. Such features

include not only operability but also maintenance, durability,

aesthetics, etc. Public buildings arc seldom built to

minimum building code requirements, and the public policies

affecting such structures should be addressed by means other

than the building code.

In the few instances where essential facilities arc not

publically owned, they are usually regulated by other mandatory standards. Thq one possible exception might be private

hospitals which are totally funded by private sources. In

this case building code requirements for post-disaster

"operability" is unfair to patients who have to pay for this

extra protection for the public of which they are such a small part. If such protection is deemed necessary, public

policy should provide for public financing of this added

protection.

There are certain "critical" facilities (such as,

Nuclear Power Plants, Toxic Chemical Plants, Dams, etc.)

whose failure in an earthquake would cause a catastrophy

that must be given special attention. Neither ATC-3 nor

the Model Building Codes addresses these hazards. Perhaps

they should since these facilities present serious hazards

and the owners thereof should be required by the code to

provide prudent protection for the public.

( b ) I^

o

tect i on of Non-structural Hlemen t

s

Non- St ructura 1 elements failing in an earthquake present

a far less risk to life and safety than many other more

probal)le hazards, such as, fire, explosions, sabotage, etc.

12
Obviously, heavy exterior architectural elements that could

hazard life in the streets should he treated thrii regulation,

hut, many of the other non-s tructural elements requiring

protection by ATC-3 are not so hazardous. Protection of

such non-structural elements, particularly in the regions of

less frequent earthquakes, can hardly be justified economically. Reciui rements for non-structural elements and other

non-life safety elements have recently begun to find their way

into codes and the economic impact is only now beginning to

be felt. If this trend continues, the cost of needed shelter

for many people could well become prohibitive.

( c ) Retro-active Requirements for Existing Buildings

Retro-active provisions have been resisted by the Building

Code authorities over the years for all but the most serious

hazards. In most cases the degree of hazard will not be significantly reduced by upgrading to conform to a new code requirement . Traditionally, a building conforming to the code wheji

it was built has been adjudged as providing reasonable protection unless a serious hazard is identified. Where major

additions or alterations are made, however, present codes

require total conformance to the current code.

The requirements in ATC-3 for existing structures can

hardly be justified economically in areas other than the high

risk regions of the Western United States (and questionably

there). If such requirements are to be mandated thru the

code, some provision must be made to weigh the relative risks

involved in relation 'to other hazards, taking into consideration,

for example, the reduced exposure due to limited future life

of the facility.

Opening these new avenues of mandatory protection in building codes

as proposed in ATC-3 would set a dangerous precedent and doubtlessly

would lead to ever increasing efforts to add more and more stringent

requirements for many other hazards which traditionally hav'^ lieen

resisted over the years. This is not to say that there isn't a need for

Voluntary non - mandat ory standards to assist the designer in planning

facilities which will be kept operable, in whicli non-structural

elements are to be protected, and for evaluating and strengthening

existing buildings whether damaged in an earthquake or potentially

hazardous in a future earthquake. Therefore, as a state-of-the-art

manual for guidance of designers who wish to go beyond the minimum

code requirements, ATC-3 is an appropriate document. Any intimation

that it is suitable as a mandatory requirement in a building code,

however, should be eliminated and its appropriate use be clearly

identified

is to o complex to be a Building Code Stan d ard

A code should not be a design manual. C’onversely, design manuals

should not be put forward in a manner that they encourage adoption as mininmin code requirements. This is too often the case with most

13
structural systems; witness the ACI, PCI, AISC, Masonry and Wood

Standards. These are recognized as acceptable standards for code

I'crercnce, but other designs may be used if tlicy provide equivalent

protection. In fact, the model code groups claim they have

performance codes because of this opportunity to demonstrate

equivalency. The basic format for ATC-3 was formated with a view

to creating such a reference standard.

In attempting to create the "Comprehensive" standard as originally perceived by the ATC-3 project planners, the project

participants became deeply involved in seismic research and technology in their individual fields of specialization. As a result,

much more detail than is warranted for a code document has been

included

.

To be readily usable by the building designer as he works with

every day projects of modest scale and by the Building Official as he seeks to determine compliance with the code, code provisions

must be streamlined and simplified, 50^ of the designers and building

officials could very easily become lost in trying to understand and

apply the ATC-3 document. A mandatory standard should be drafted

principally for the less knowledgeable designer and code enforcer.

ATC-3 does not address the less active seismic regions o f the Un i ted

States in an appropriate manner .

The ATC-3 project was led by a body of experts with the most

knowledge and experience; this meant, quite naturally, that most of

them came from the more seismic areas of the West Coast. Obviously,

California, with its greater exposure to earthquakes, should be

given the major attention in such an effort. ATC-3, therefore,

basically addresses the seismic problems of California and only

tangentially deals with other geographic areas. No criticism is

intended, but other parts of the country do have somewhat different

exposures and problems. This, of course, is no great revelation,

but it is important that the knowledge, experience and viewpoints of

those from these other areas be given proper attention. For example,

I would like to address the local situation in Memphis, Tennessee,

wJiere I am intimately familiar with the local situation liaving made

an Farthquake Risk Study of this area for the local Council of

Cove rnments

.

Memphis is in a major earthquake risk zone. As most of you know,

three of the largest recorded earthquakes to have occurred in the

continental IJ. S. occurred in the New Madrid seismic zone of Southeastern Missouri and Northeastern Arkansas, in 1811 and 1812. They

were followed by over 1000 recorded aftershocks. The felt area for

each of these earthquakes was approximately 2 million square miles,

topographic changes occurred over an area of some 50,000 sq. miles;

the 50;!^ sq. mile Reelfoot Lake was created and the mile wide

Mississippi River briefly flowed backwards. These earthquakes took

place in tlic basement rock beneath relatively unconsolidated tertiary

aiiv! eretaceous sediments and deeper Paleozoic rocks of the Mississippi

l.mbayment. The duration of ground shaking was reported to be 2 to 3

14
minutes. Because of the large area of perception, most authorities

believed these to be the largest earthquakes in U. S. history.

Recently, Otto Nuttli at St. Louis University has studied the available data and estimated the maximum magnitude of these earthquakes

to be 7.4. Maximum MMI ’ s reported indicate an epicCntral entensity

of X.

Had there been a city here then there undoubtedly would have

been serious damage to structures. There have been continuing smaller

earthquakes in the region, but the recurrence rate appears to be

about 1/lOth of that in California. This indicates a very low

probability of a major quake during the life of a structure- i.e.,

a 500 to 1000 year return period is indicated. No damaging earthquake has occurred in Memphis during its 150+ years as an established

community.

Because of the possibility of another major earthquake sometime

in the future, Algermissen placed Memphis in a Zone 3 on his 1969

Risk Map, which is equal to California. The ATC-3-06 Risk Map,

based upon 90o probability of not being exceeded in a 50-year period,

placed Memphis in a Zone 5 (whereas California is a Zone 7J. The

1972 ANSI A58.1 Risk Map places Memphis in a Zone 1, just outside

a Zone 2,- unless you live in North Memphis which is on the line

lietween Zones 1 and 2. Which best depicts the earthquake risk?

The Memphis earthquake risk differs from California in several

important ways

(a) Major earthquakes are highly probable during the life of

California structures, but are highly improbable in Memphis.

The statistical recurrence rate of earthquakes in the

New Madrid zone is about 1/lOth that of California.

(bl Though infrequent, major earthquake ground motions are

possible in Memphis, however.

(c) A major earthquake will do damage over an area 10 times

larger than in California.

(d) Damage in California is predominantly in the near- field

(within 25 to 35 miles of the epicenter. Whereas, Memphis

may be in the far-field of a New Madrid source area

80 to 100 miles distant.

(e) Many portions of the City of Memphis are in the Mississippi

River Alluvial Valley with extensive unconsolidated,

saturated, alluvial deposits.

Because of these differences, ATC-3 (which is based upon California

near-field strong motion records and Cali fornia- type exposures to the

earthquake risks) docs not appro{>r iatc ly address the seismic hazards

in Memphis, or for that matter other similar regions of the Idstcrn

United States. WHY?

15
(a) Since California earthquakes have a relatively high

frequency of occurrence, all types of building occupancy

in California are protected the same degree - a life lost

in a warehouse is considered c(iually probable to a life

lost in a theatre, school, or highrise office building.

In the present codes, no variation in requirements is

made for differing building occupancy types (except for

essential facilities to be operational). ATC-3, likewise,

makes no differentiation for occupancy, regardless of

the area of the country involved. Is this appropriate

in the less seismically active regions where the probabilities of a damaging earthquake are much lower? Should

not the reduced probability of life loss be considered

in the lower- occupancy type structures? I believe so,

particularly when one considers the relative cost of

providing earthquake protection. In the predominent

construction, low rise masonry bearing wall warehouses,

light business, commercial and residential structures,

the cost increase for earthquake protection is large compared to that for high-rise, more ductile construction

generally found in the higher occupancy type buildings.

ATC-3 if applied to Memphis would impose the greatest

hardsiiip on . the type of construction tliat presents the

least risk. There should be some acknowledgement of the

reduced risks in low occupancy structures for the less

active seismic areas.

(b) Though improbable, a major earthquake could occur in

Memphis. If so, shouldn't "critical" and extremely

hazardous facilities be designed and built for the maximum

"credible" earthquake ground motion to prevent an extreme

cat as trophy

(cj If and when a major earthquake does occur in the Central

United States, it is expected that it will cause damage

over a wide area, perhaps 10 times that of a similar quake

in California. Damage will not be localized - will this not

result in a catastrophic event because of the rapid

urbanization and rising population densities, if reasonable

mandatory provisions are not soon romul gated?

(d) Seismic ground motions in Memphis during a damaging

quake will be different than those in California (which

was used as a basis for ATC-3). The predominant ground

motions will likely be in the lower frequencies at greater

distances from the fault break - the higher frequency ground

motions being attenuated more rapidly than the low

frequencies. Will low-rise, rigid structures be as affected by the earthquake as will the high-rise, more

limber structures? This concern [parallels and reinforces

those expressed in (a) above.

(e) Memphis is in the center of tlie Mississippi hmbaymont and

large portions are in the Mississippi River Alluvial Valley.

16
Much of the Mississippi Valley and the valleys of its

tributaries are composed of unconsolidated, saturated

river deposits which will amplify the lower frcuuencv

ground motions and be resonent with taller structures.

Memphis may be very similar to Mexico City, which is on an

old lake bed with unconsolidated saturated sedimentary deposits

and is located some 100 miles from earthquakes epicentering near

Acupulco. There the predominent period of ground motion is

approximately 2.5 seconds. On the ground floor of the Holiday

Lnn in Mexico City last year in March one got the feeling of

being ill from a swaying motion when a 6.0+ magnitude earthquake

occurred near Acupulco. No short period vibrations were felt,

but the chandeliers swung through several inches of displacement.

Obviously, the shorter period vibrations had been darnped-out by

distance and/or the unconsolidated alluvium. Is it not probable

that the response in Memphis will be similar? If so, a considerable alteration to the response spectrum used in developing

ATC-3 provisions will be necessary to properly account for this

d i f fe rence

CONCLUSIONS

Ai'C-3 is not a suitable code document because:

(1) Its provisions, if adopted by code-enforcing jurisdictions, would require levels of performance well beyond

those which one would expect in a code that is founded

in the principal of reasonable and prudent protection

of public hedlth, safety and welfare.

(2j It does not address the earthquake hazards in the less

seismically active regions of the United States in an appropriate manner, and

(5) It is too complex for effective use by most designers

and enforcement officials.

Ihis is not to say, however, that the ATC-3 effort cannot

serve a very useful purpose -- that of bringing the state-of-theart together in a single, comprehensive document which can be a solid stepping stone for the development of appropriate code

provisions, reference standards, and guides to the planning,

design and construction of facilities throughout the United States

In this context, A'fC-3 has been most successful and should be

widely recognized for its valuable cont r iluit i on . At the same time

anti in its present form, the document siiould not be {) romu 1 gat etl as a standard for code adoption.

Hopefully, through the participation of IkSSC, this work can

be carried forward with the ultimate goal of improving seismic

salety [)rovisions -- provisions tliat are readily useable and

enforceable, and provisions that will result in a level of perlotm

ance that is consistent witli the need and the ability to pay.

17
Minutes of Second Meeting

Technical Committee 9: Regulatory Use

Review and Refinement of Tentative Seismic

Provisions (ATC 3-06)

at

National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards, Inc.

1970 Chain Bridge Road

McLean, Virginia

February 20-21, 1980

The second meeting of Technical Committee 9 was called to order by

Chairman William Dripps at 9:30 a.m., February 20, 1980. The following

members were present:

Name

Michael Sbaglia

Norton S . Remmer

G. Robert Fuller

Jack Allen

Ralph C. Grippo

William Dripps, Chairman

Representative of

American Insurance Association

American Society of Civil Engineers

Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety

in Construction

International Association of Plumbing and

Mechanical Officials

International Conference of Building Officials

National Conference of States on Building

Codes and Standards

James R. Harris

James H. Pielert

Patrick W. Cooke

National Bureau of Standards

National Bureau of Standards

National Bureau of Standards

The following members were not in attendance:

Lenny Rosenberg Building Owners and Managers Association

Neal D. Houghton Building Owners and Managers Association

David E. Johnson, P.E. National Association of Home Builders

Warner Howe, P.E. Applied Technology Council

‘s 18
Name Representative of

Jack M. Fratt Association of Major City Building Officials

William J. Tangy.e Southern Building Code Congress International

Donald F. Pinkerton Building Seismic Safety Council

American Institute of Architects

Building Officials and Code Administrators

International

International Association of Electrical Inspectors

National Academy of Code Administration

There were no other guests or attendees at this public work session

of Technical Committee 9.

The minutes of the first meeting of Technical Committee 9 on December 11,

1979, were approved without change (motion made by Ralph Grippo/second by

Michael Sbaglia)

.

Correspondence in the form of comments, proposals and criticisms relative

to the Regulatory Use Aspects of the Tentative Provisions were received from

nine individuals. These comments and proposals were individually reviewed

and acted upon by the committee and formed the basis of this meeting. A copy

of each piece of correspondence is attached to these minutes for the record.

Committee discussions opened with a review of the background and development

of the Tentative Provisions along with a reiteration of the purpose and intent

of the review and refinement project and this committee's role in that project.

Generally stated, the objective agreed upon was ". . .to participate in a systematic assessment of the Tentative Provisions to refine and improve them

prior to undertaking the trial design phase." Such an approach dictates that

any changes at this point in the process be small refinements and not major

changes in the basis of the entire project.

Other preliminary points discussed included the probable acceptability

difficulties of the provisions in a political atmosphere that is concerned about

deregulation and legal liablility of municpalities

.

The committee then proceeded to discuss each of the individual comments

received in the proposals and to arrive at a recommendation for each. This

action was taken without benefit of an official ATC response to the proposals

as required in the Work Plan for Review and Refinement of Tentative Seismic

Provisions (Revised 11/27/79). Jim Harris of NBS was present for the first

19
days deliberations and provided the committee with background into the

intent and rationale by which various provisions were formulated by ATC

in the Tentative Provisions .

The following is a summary of committee actions on each of the comments

submitted

1. Comments relative to Chapter 1 of Tentative Provisions

1.1 The Associated General Contractors of America; Cambell L. Reed,

Director, Building Division; letter January 2, 1980 (see Attachment #1) .

Section 1.5 Alternate Materials and Methods of Construction

No change recommended

The committee concluded that the ultimate responsibilities of

the Regulatory Agency to accept or not accept alternates cannot

be changed. The Regulatory Agency (or Building Official) can seek technical expertise as appropriate, but the responsibility

rests with the Regulatory Agency.

Section 1.6.1 (B) Contractor Responsibility

See discussion on Quality Assurance . (It was decided

to consolidate all the comments on Quality Assurance

matters into a single discussion and recommendation.)

1.2 Building Owners and Managers Association, International;

Leonard H. Rosenberg, Jr., Vice Chairman, Codes and Regulations

Committee; letter January 9, 1980. (see Attachment #2).

Section 1.1 Purpose

No change recommended.

The committee determined that the purpose of the provisions are clearly stated and that probabilistic methods were used. This is

further expanded upon in the Commentary starting on page 228 and

in particular on pages 312 and 313.

Section 1.2 Scope

No change recommended

The committee felt that this comment does not have merit. One-and

two-family dwellings are covered by the provisions in areas having a Seismicity Index of 3 or 4.

20
Section

Section

Section

Section

Section

1.3

1.3.1 New Buildings

No change recommended

(Same response as that given above for Section 1.2)

1.3.2 Existing Building Alterations and Repairs

No change recommended.

The committee felt the comment was not correct since the

25-50% rule on building alterations has been eliminated

from all of the major model building codes.

1.3.3 Change of Use

No change recommended.

1.4.1 Seismicity Index and Design Ground Motions

Recommend change of title for Chapter 1 from "Administration"

to "General Provisions." No change to Section 1.4.1.

1.6 Quality Assurance

See discussion on Quality Assurance.

(It was decided to consolidate all the comments on Quality

Assurance matters into a single discussion and recommendation.)

National Association of Home Builders; David E. Johnson, P.E.,

Assistant Director, Technical Services Department; letter

January 10, 1980. (see Attachment #3)

The committee recommended that the comment on expanding the

guideline for single or double top plates in light timber con- struction be referred to Technical Committee 7 on Wood. It was

the sense of the committee that extending the exception on one-and

two-family dwellings in areas having a Seismicity Index of three

was minor since most of the affected population are in zone four,

therefore, no change was recommended.

The comment on quality assurance was deferred to an overall discussion

on quality assurance provisions.

Pascoe Steel Corporation; William A. Sontag, P.E., Chief Engineer;

letter to Technical Committee 2, January 15, 1980 (see Attachment #4).

21
Section 1.6.2 Special Inspection

Section

1.5

1.6

Section

Section

Section

Section

Section

No change recommended.

The committee felt that the suggested approach is already

adequately covered in building codes.

1.6.3 D 1 Structural Steel

It was decided to refer this suggested change to

Technical Committee 6 on Steel for resolution.

Notes on the Meeting of Technical Committee No. 5 on Masonry,

Minutes of January 4, 1980 (see Attachment #5).

No changes were recommended. Instead the committee determined

that the issues were technical and should be resolved by Technical

Committee No. 5 on Masonry.

International Conference of Building Officials; Ralph C. Grippo, P.E.,

January 22, 1980 (see Attachment #6).

1.1 Purpose

No change recommended.

The committee felt that the provisions excluded the safeguarding

of property on purpose. The concept is adequately explained in

the commentary.

1.2 Scope

The committee recommended that an economic study be undertaken - possibly in conjunction with the trial designs - to determine

the economic impact of the provisions on one-and two-family

dwellings in all Seismicity Zones.

1.3.1 New Buildings

No change recommended.

1.3.3 Change of Use

No change recommended.

1.4.2 Seismic Hazard Exposure Group

No change recommended.

22
Section 1.6 Quality Assurance

1.7

Section

1.8

Section

Section

Section

Section

Section

1.9

See disucssion on Quality Assurance.

(It was decided to consolidate all the comments on Quality

Assurance matters into a single discussion and recommendation.)

Forell/Elsesser Engineers, Inc.; Nicholas Forell; letter to

Technical Committee No. 2, January 11, 1980 (see Attachment //7) .

1.4.4 Site Limitation for Seismic Design Performance Category D

No change recommended.

G. Robert Fuller, ICSSC Representative; letter January 31, 1980

(see Attachment #8)

1.1 Purpose

The committee felt that further treatment of potential property

damage issues should be covered in the appropriate commentary

section.

1 . 2 Scope

After discussion, the committee requested and Mr. Fuller agreed

to provide a further statement on this comment.

1.3.1 New Buildings

It was recommended that this comment be referred to Technical

Committee #7 on Wood for resolution.

1.5 Alternate Materials and Methods of Construction

No change recommended.

Mr. Fuller to commment further.

1 . 6 Quality Assurance

See discussion on Quality Assurance.

Warner Howe, P.E., Warner and Howe Consulting Structural Engineers,

letter December 12, 1979 (see Attachment #9).

No changes recommended on Mr. Howe's comments.

23
2 . Comments relative to Chapter 13 of Tentative Provisions

Section 13.1.1 Identification of Buildings Requiring Evaluation

(1) It was recommended that the seismicity index numbers

appear on the map legends to correspond to the designated

map areas.

(2) It was recommended that the word "designed" be changed

to "permit issuance date" in paragraphs one and two in

Section 13.1.1.

Other recommendations relative to Chapter 13 were:

(1) The Chapter should be re-written so that it can be

comprehended by the layman. As presented in its

current version, the chapter is difficult to understand

and comprehend.

(2) Chapter 13 should also be reviewed for its applicability

to the Eastern part of the United States. of 1 is for

all practical purposes not attainable for most older

buildings in the Eastern part of the U.S.

3 . Legal Liability

In a discussion on legal liability it was clear that the previous concept

of soverign immunity of municipal governments is gone; local governments

are becoming more liable in civil suits. This leaves public officials

liable. Thus local governments that adopt the provisions can leave itself

vulnerable to court actions. It was also indicated that the provisions

will not be able to be fully complied with in existing buildings. It was felt that all aspects of legal liability have not been adequately

addressed by the Tentative Provisions . In this regard the committee

recommended the following:

(1) That a legal review of the entire ATC 3-06 document, particularly

Section 1.6 on Quality Assurance and Chapter 13 on Existing Buildings

be commissioned. Such a legal study would Involve:

o liability assumed by governmental entities that adopt the provision

o extent of liability assumed by regulatory agency and building

off ic ials.

(2) It was indicated that such a study could be carried out in conjunction

with the trial designs and that the firm or person selected be competent in local jurisdiction regulatory matters (i.e.., municipal law

with respect to buildings and enforcement)

.

24
4 . Quality Assurance Provisions

In a lengthy discussion on all aspects of Section 1.6 of the Tentative

Provisions , the committee determined that the matter of including the

Quality Assurance requirement be held for further comment. It was determined that the concept was somewhat extreme particularly when

imposed on areas of the country that have had no previous exposure to

such a sweeping approach. The committee decided to allow additional

time to provide an opportunity for more review and comment from those

most concerned and affected by the quality assurance provisions if

they were imposed in their present form.

5 . Adoption Mechanisms

The committee then pursued a discussion on various means by which the

provisions could be adopted by governmental jurisdictions and considered

the following four alternatives along with their respective advantages

and disadvantages:

(1) Incorporate directly into the body of codes

Advantages

1.

All available in one document, uniformity

Disadvantages

1. Increase bulk of codes

2 . Inappropriate material included

3. Becomes law - no alternatives, flexibility for alternate approaches

(2) Prepare the provisions as a standard and recommend adoption by

reference.

Advantages ^

1.

Option whether to adopt or not on part of jurisdiction.

Disadvantages

1. Have to get in order to use, retrieve.

2. No control by each jurisdiction (participation)

3. Possible conflicting documents

(3) Incorporate the basic requirements directly into codes and present

the technical detail in an accompanying reference document.

Advantages

1. Users can have basics at hand

2. Can change basics without impacting details

3. Adhere most to performance approach

4. More uniformity

25
Disadvantages

1. More work for #3 to separate

2. Require greater level of expert knowledge to separate

3. Responsibility to evaluate content at local level

4. More coordination to maintain documents

(4) Prepare rules locally based on ATC 3.

Advantages

1.

Total local/regional control

Disadvantages

1. Different rules for each locality; no uniformity

2. No local expertise in technical areas

3 . Ignores model code process

Specific advantages and disadvantages for each alternative were put

forth and discussed.

6 . Issues To Be Resolved

The committee then identified a number of specific issues that need

further attention or resoltuion. For regulatory use of the Tentative

Provisions , the committee identified the following issues as not being

adequately addressed in the current version of the document

1 . Appeals

2 . Changes

3. Quality Assurance

4. Application to existing buildings

5. Education and Training

Mr. Grippo submitted a bulletin from the Structural Engineers Association

of Southern California which carried a news item indicating consideration of

ATC-3 by SEAOC in the development of their 1983 Blue Book (see Attachment #10)

.

The committee decided to tentatively hold a second public work session

on April 10, 1980, in the Washington, D.C. area.

The meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m. on February 21.

Respectfully Submitted,

/ /;

PATRICK W. COOKE

10 Attachments

26
THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA

1957 E Street. N.W. • Washington. D.C. 20006 • (202) 393-2040 • TWX 710-955-1134 AGC AGTN

PAUL N HOWARD JR , President IVAL R ClANCHETTE, Senior Vice President THOMAS E DAILEY Vice Presidcn' CUFF MORTENSEN. Treasurer JAMES M SPROUSE. Executive Vice President HUBERT BEATTY Executive Director

January 2, 1980

Mr. James H. Pielert

Technical Committee No. 9

Tentative Seismic Provision Project

B168, Building 226

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

Dear Mr. Pielert:

As a member of Technical Committee No. 9 assigned to review

the Regulatory Use areas of ATC-3-06, I submit the following

specific comments on Chapter 1:

1.5 I believe it would be beyond the expertise of many

building officials to evaluate whether alternate materials

and methods of construction are equal to those prescribed

in the technical provisions of the regulations. This

evaluation should be the responsibility of a licensed

engineer or architect.

1.6.1 (B) In submitting a bid or signing a contract for a project, each contractor agrees to build the project in

accordance with the plans and specifications. If the

pertinent provisions of the seismic regulations are to be

followed in constructing the project, these should be

included in the specifications on which the contractor

bases his bid or quote. It is redundant to ask him to

submit and sign the statement required in 1.6.1 (B)

Further, the procedures he uses for exercising control within

his organization, and the frequency and distribution of reports

is a managerial function of his operation and should not be

subject to a review by the Regulatory Agency.

27

THE FULL SETACE CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATION FOR FULL SERVICE MEKSERS
Mr. James H. Pielert

January 2 , 1980

Page Two

In general, I must speak against the basic philosophical

approach used in this proposed document. I believe too much of

the proposed regulations is based upon the frequent and severe

seismic conditions found in California and not enough consideration

has been given to developing less severe or restrictive regulations

for those areas of the country where seismic occurrences are less

frequent, less probable and less intense.

Sincerely yours.

CAMPBELL L. REED

Director

Building Division

CLR:chh

28
Chesapeake Center

A DIVISION OF THE CHESAPEAKE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

January 9, 1980

Mr. James H. Pielert

Technical Committee

Tentative Sizement Provisions Project D168

Building 226

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 2023A

RE: ATC 3-06 Comments

Dear Mr. Pielert:

Attached you will find three pages of comments on ATC 3-06, covering Chapters

1, Administration and Chapters 13, Commentary. The basic problem with the

document as it stands now is it is totally unclear as to whether it is supposed

to be a design criterion, a design reference manual or a code, and thus causes major problems. I believe that my comments are self-explanatory, and if you

have any questions, please feel free to call me at 800-638-3182, ext. 290.

Yours truly.

Leonard H. Rosenberg, Jr.

(Vice-Chairman, Codes and

Regulations Committee

Building Owners and Managers Association

International)

c

cc: Mr. Neil Houghton

BOMA, International

S77 : • rvA. • vrjni ?T?Or PMO»« > 3CT VT 29
CHAPTER 1 OF ATC 3-06 CRITICISMS

Section 1.1 - Purpose - The purpose of this document is not clearly stated in this paragraph. Question //I, is this document designed to be a reference material for local codes

or is it designed to be a code itself, in which case there are many problems with it. Or

is it meant to be a design reference manual for architects? None of these items are stated

in the first paragraph for the purpose of this document. They should be so stated.

2, the purpose states that the design criterion is used to produce a low probability of

collapse due to seismic-induced ground shaking. Yet there is no reference as to what the

probability level desired is. I feel that this is a critical factor due to the fact that

the whole document can only be judged in the light of its purpose, and without a clear

statement of what the probability factor that was desired to be achieved by the document

and what the purposes of the document are to be used for, this purpose cannot be ascertained

Section 1.2 - Scope -. Using an exception for one and two family dwellings is basically a cop out. One is thereby assuming with this exception that earthquakes only happen dviring

the daytime and not during the nighttime where these one and two family dwellings would

contain the largest amount of population. I do not think it is appropriate to exclude

one and two family dwellings in a comprehensive document that is supposed to address itself to building damage due to seismic disturbances, and I can see no justification for

excluding them.

Section 1.3.1 - New Buildings - Again there is the exclusion for one and two story dwellings

and again I can see no justification. Also the section is rather vague when it talks of

architectual systems.

Section 1.3.2 - Existing Building Alterations and Repairs - The addressing of conformance

for existing buildings is a dangerous and unacceptable diversion from the normal code

process, due to the fact that existing buildings have never been required to comply with

current codes unless the alterations or repairs have reached such a magnitude as to

consider the building as a new building. Typically this ratio has been produced as a percentage of building value being spent for the alterations. I feel that this entire

section should be dropped in favor of local code option.

Section 1.3.3 - Change of Use - The same comments as Section 1.3.2 apply.

Section 1.4.1 - This entire section should not be in the administrative area due to the

fact that it is technical in nature and belongs in design procedure.

Section 1.4.2 - Seismic Hazard Exposure Groups - No comment

Section 1.4.3 - Seismic Performance Categories - No comment

Section 1.4.4 - Site Limitation for Seismic Design Performance Category D - No comment

Section 1.5 - Alternate Methods of Construction - No comment

Section 1.6 - Quality Assurance - The submission of a quality assurance plan is redundant

in the light of code specifications. I have yet to run into a code whereby the engineer,

the architect and the contractor are not responsible for seeing to it that a building is

built per code specifications. Unless this document is to be used in conjunction with

local codes, then those provisions in the local codes would take precedence. The need for

special inspections is also redundant due to the fact that building inspectors throughout

the country have the right to inspect at will any building during construction or after

construction. These inspectors are empowered to cite for violation and to cause cession

of work if they deem it necessary.

30
- 2-

As for the special testing that would be necessary, I have yet to run into a code that

did not provide for testing by an approved agency to be acceptable. Therefore a long and

lengthy section on how special testing is to be done is not necessary. All that need be

stated is that equivalent levels of protection (strength or otherwise) need be obtained.

And that these levels shall be determined by an approved testing agency. As for the

excess reporting and compliance procedures, they are unwieldy and not necessary due to the

normaJ inspection process of building codes. The same comment would apply to 1.6.5 con- cerning the manufacturer's certification. In effect, by requiring everybody up and down

the line to certify or submit plans you have created a bureaucratic nightmare in the

enforcement of these regulations. The tried and true method of building permits, and

how they apply to the local code sections is the best method possible. Those people that

would normally be responsible for building failure due to non-compliance with codes would

be the same ones responsible in the case of a seismic failure due to non-compliance with

codes. If this section was rewritten to encompass the normal building permit procedure

rather than this multitude of plans and certificates, etc., and if it is the goal of

this document to increase the manpower needed to enforce codes, than this section will

surely achieve that goal. I believe that this section should be totally stricken and

replaced by a simple statement that if this document is adopted by the local regulatory

agency it is recommended that it be enforced through its normal code procedures.

Unfortunately, criticism of this chapter is difficult due to the fact that the purpose

of the entire document has not been clearly stated. If this document is meant to be a design standard the entire chapter of administration need not be there. If this document

is supposed to be a design reference manual for local codes to refer to than, again, the

administration section is not necessary. If this document is meant to be a code unto

Itself than the administration section needs an extreme rewrite and flushing out, but

than the rest of the sections need to be totally redrawn due to the fact that they are way overpowering in their detail and their requirements and the cost benefit ratio of

this document being enforced as a minimum requirement code is unrealistic.

31
CRITICISM - CHAPTER 13 - ATC 3-06

Section 13.1.1 - The next to the last paragraph on page 480 is buried in the text of

this document and, in fact, should be clearly stated either in the beginning of Chapter

13, or, perhaps, at the beginning of the entire document showing the areas that need be

evaluated. These areas should clearly be stated as to geographic boundaries instead

of referring to a map. They are nearly all of California, most of Nevada, two thirds

of Utah, portions of Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, one-half of Washington, and portions of

Missouri, Arkansas and Tennessee. A simple list by county within state in the beginnin;

would suffice, and thereby eliminate alot of searching and interpretation of maps by

those reading this document.

The major question, however, has not been addressed as to why such a document is needed

and before this document can be completed and put to use certain questions must be

answered

.

1. What is the documents purpose?

2. What is it trying to achieve in probabilities of collapse?

3. What are its costs vs. its benefits?

32
National Association of Home Builders

15th and M Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005

Telex 89-2600 (202) 452-0200

January 10, 1980

Mr. James H. Pielert

Technical Committee, No. 9

Tentative Seismic Provisions Project

B168 - Building 226

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Dear Mr. Pielert:

at the first Annual Meeting of the Building Seismic Safety Council, there were

mny valid criticisms of the ATC 3-06 provisions expressed and I trust the

current organizational structure will be sufficient to comprehensively address

the problems identified . Committee 9 - Regulatory Use has the responsibility

of determining how the ATC 3-06 provisions will be applied and the development

of practical, cost-effective, and reasonable guidelines should be the goal of

the other committees.

The National Association of Home Builders encourages the design and research

communities to develop state-of-the-art documents such as the ATC 3-06. We

call upon the organizations involved in the review of ATC 3-06 to be conscious

of the fact that a reasonable and practical eye should be used in reviewing

these state-of-the-art guidelines. Accordingly, this approach should not be

jeopardized by formulizing a long, complex, and comprehensive state-of-theart design and construction manual into a building code format. The

Building Seismic Safety Council and the organizations committed to the review

of ATC 3-06 should not continue to operate under the premise that this document

should be wholly independent of other codes. This document as currently drafted

has taken the form of an independent model code rather than a series of

recommended practices that could be included in the three model codes.

Without question, the ATC 3-06 document is far too complex for practical or regulatory use. We are, therefore, recommending that the format of this

document be revised from a code format to a support document reflecting seismic

safety design guidelines

Developing guidelines applicable for one and two family dwellings in areas having

a seismicity index of 3 or 4 is an approach that could be supported . However,

in our opinion , it would be more practical and reasonable for dwellings with

seismicity index of 1 , 2, or 3 not be subject to the design guidelines developed

for conventional light timber construction. In addition, the guideline for

top plates should be expanded to indicate that if studs are located directly

under the joists, double top plates would not be needed.

33 JAN 1 4 1980
Mr. Jaimes H. Pie1 art

Page 2

January 10, 1980

The quality assurance portion of this document is an ambitious plan that needs

to be carefully considered by all of the organizations involved in the ATC 3-06

review. Without discussing this plan in depth and the serious problems resulting from this plan, it would probably be more acceptable to a wider spectrum of

organizations if the quality assurance plan was applicable only to buildings in

Seismic Hazard Exposure Group III when located in areas having a seismicity

index of 2, 3, or 4.

In summary, the original intent of the drafters of this document was to reach

for the ultimate an independent code for a hazard with a high probability

of occurrence in many parts of the country. In our opinion, this goal is

impractical, unreasonable, and subject to serious criticisms within the

building and regulatory communities. Therefore, Committee 9 members should

evaluate this document on how it can be interfaced with the three model code

groups rather than maintaining a complex design manual written for code

adoption.

David E. Johpson

Assistant Director

Technical Services Department

DEJ : saw

34
-r ^

STEBL C(D:=i^OIRATiaN

ISOl EAST LEXINCTOS A VENUE -E O. BOX 2629 • POMONA. CAUFORNIA 91766 PHONE 714 62S-J4U • CABLE PASCOSTEEL • TVJT 9J0 S8h2798 PASCOE PONA

15 Jonuory I960

NoHonol Bureau of Standards

Mr. James Harris, Secretariat

Committee 2

Tentative Seismic Provision ^|ect

Room BI66, Bldg. 226

Woshington D.C. 20234

Subject: Review of ATC-3-06

Gentlemen:

The following ore my suggested modifications to ATC-3-06 which require serious

considerotion. Due to the interaction and close relationship of individual chapters, I am including comments to Chopters other than Chapter 2.

Item I

,

Paragraph 1,6,2 - Add:

EXCEPTION; When welding is done in on opproved fobricotor's shop.

Based on the above proposed chonge. Paragraph 2.1 definitions must hove the

following oddpds

APPROVED FABRICATOR is an established and qualified person, firm or corporation

opproved by the Regulatory Agency, Model Code Organization or recognized

Notional Trode Association

Reason: if o steel fabricators shop is opproved by any of the type of organizotions

listed In the definition, they must comply to approved quality control procedures

with corresponding continuous monitoring of their personnel ond equipment. Therefore, requiring continuous plant inspection only odds duplicating efforts with

corresponding increases in cost without effecting the quality of workmanship.

35
Mr. James Harris/ Secretariaf 2

- 15 January I960

Ifem 2. Paragraph 1.6. 3D i

Change the first sentence to read os follows: Welded connections for special

Moment Frames over 2 stories in height and clear spans over 200 feet shall be

tested by non-destructive methods conforming to AWS Dl.1.75.

Reason: The thickness of moteriol and type of welds ore such thot no additional

structural sofety results with the non-destructive testing.

Item 3. Porograph 2.1 - Shear Panel

Change to reod as follows: Shear panel is a floor etc.

Reason; Shear Panels are not limited to wood.

Item 4Section 2.1 - Loads

After definition of snow load, odd the following:

EXCEPTION: Where snow load is less than 30 pounds per square foot, no port of

the load need be included in seismic loading.

Reason: Agreement with all other model codes. In addition, probability of maximum earthquake and maximum snow load occuring simultaneously is very remote.

Item 5. Porograph 3.3 - Framing Systems

Change first word "four" to "five".

Reason; See Item 7 below.

Item 6. Porograph 3.7.1 - Combination of Lood Effects

Change equation 3.1 to read = 1 .2 Qp + L Q|_ + L Q$ ^ *0 Qe

Reason: The introduction of k is to allow for the varying proportion of loads,

k for only varies when Qj^ is roof live lood or floor live lood, k for Qj varies

due to proportion of O5 used. To use 100% combinations of all loads will result in

loads far in excess of any logicol probability occurence.

36
Mr. Jomes Morris, Secretariat -3- 15 January I960

Item 7. Table 3B

I. Under Type of Structural System odd the following:

Plane Moment Resisting Frome System. A structural system with a Plone

(2 dimensional) Moment Frame providing support for vertical loods. The

Plane Moment Frame shall have the capocity to resist the total required

lateral force in its plane.

Lateral forces perpendicular to the Plane Moment Frame shell be resisted

by shear walls, moment frames or diagonal bracing. This type of framing

shall be limited to two stories.

2. Under Verticol Seismic Resisting System Coefficients R ond Cj odd the

following:

Light framed walls with shear panels

Shear walls reinforced concrr reinforced masonry

Braced frames

Unreinforced and partial r Forced

masonry shear walls

Plane mott)ent resisting frames

4i

li

4i

5

4

4i

11

4

Reason: As the classical definition of space frame is a three dimensional system,

no where in the recommendations ore plane frames allowed. This eliminates steel,

concrete ond timber rigid frames, truss buildings (n. type buildings), therefore

there must be a classification for this type structure.

In oddition BSS46 Building Proctices for Disaster Mitigation issued February 1973

on Page 223 states "Constraining the designer to use highly ductile elements may

be unreasonably restrictive since it appears possible to design a structure with as much margin to resist failure by making it less ductile but stronger, in on appropriate me v."
Mr. James Harris, Secretariat -4- 15 January 1980

Item 8. Table 3C

Change subscript I to read os follows:

Where there ore no brittle finishes in buildings two or three stories in height,

these limits may be increased one-third. In one story buildings where there

is no brittle finish story drift is not applicable.

Reason: There is no reason to limit drift in single story buildings without brittle

finishes provided the effect of drift is included in the design analysis.

Very truly yours,

WllliomA. Sontog, P.E*

Chief Engineer

WAS:nz

cc:

Dr. Howard Simpson

Mr. Hoi Iyengar

Dr. Richard D. McConnel

Mr. Nicholas Forell

Dr. Robert Englekirk

Mr. Joseph V. Tyrrell

Mr. Mark Fintel

Mr. Alan Yorkdale

Mr. Edwin G. Zocher

Mr. Roland L. Sharpe

Dr. Ajit S. Virdee

Mr. William J. LeMessurier

38
MOTES on the Meeting of:

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE No. 5 on MASONRY

for

Beviev and Refinement of Tentative Seismic Provisions (ATC 3-06)

mss, Janney, Elstner and Associates Northbrook, Illinois

Qmference Room 4 January 1980

1.0 .The meeting opened at 9:15 a.m. , C.S.T., with the following members of

the Committee present:

Amrheln, James E.

Gensert, Richard M.

Bogan, Mark

Hanson, George

Belfrlch, Robert

Stockbrldge, J.G.

Torkdale, A.H.

1.1 Committee Members not Present:

Gerich, Andrei

Mark, Melvyn (non-voting)

Mayes , Ron (non-vo ting)

Bush , Vincent (non-vo ting)

1«2 One guest was present: ^ ; ..V Wintz, J.A. , III

1.3 It was noted that all but one voting member of the T.C. 3 was present.

Therefore, any action taken could be considered that of the Ccc-ittee

after it is circulated.

2.0 It was suggested that the group consider some of the "design" questions,

before attacking Chapters 12 and 12A.

The Committee reviewed some preliminary comments and positions prepared by

Mark Fintel, of Portland Cement Association. Especially the Tables in

Chapters 1 and 3 and height limitations.

It was the consensus that TC-5 should support these positions in general

and several Items In particular: l.e.. Tables 1-A and 1-B, also some

dianges In Chapter 3.

The Schedule for the Committee was discussed and is as follows:

January 4 T.G. Meeting

I January 11 T.G. Draft to full Committee

I January 30 Committee Comments to T.G.

j February 21 and 22 Full Public Meeting of Coniaittee In Dallas

May 10 Submission of full proposals to ATC

(MIA)

(ACI)

(NCMA)

(TMS)

(WSCPA)

(ASCE)

(BIA)

(I5CCS-HUD)

(ATC)

(ATC)

(ATC)

39
2.1 The first subject to be considered vas Table 1~B, which appears on page 33.

2.1.1 Following Is the result of the discussion and consideration

TABLE 1-B

I COEFFICIENTS A and A and SEISKICITI INDEX

a V

Coefficient A

Figure 1 ^

Map Area

Number

Coefficient A

Figure 2 * Seismicity

Index

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0.40 4

0.30 4

0.20 3

0.15 2

0.10 1 0.05 1 0.00 0

The ATC says in their commentary that they assigned the

arbitrary peak acceleration of 0.05 g to map area 1.

The actual seismicity of map area 1 is actually zero. In addition, the peak acceleration of map area 2 Is

actually 0.00 to 0.05 as maximum.

It Is the Intention that any reasonably desagned and built

structure will survive a peak acceleration of 0.05 intact

and all materials remain within the elastic range. Therefore, the Coefficients of Map Area 1 is recfiuced to 0.00

and the Seismicity Index for that area is r'educed to 0.

The other Seismicity Indices are adjusted accordingly.

2.2 The next subject to be considered was Table 1-A, on. page 35.

TABLE 1-A

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE CATEGORY

Seismic Hazard Exposure Groxjp

II

Seismicity

Index III I
The reasoning for these proposed changes is as follows:

• 1 It is felt that Seismic Hazard Exposure Croup III

Bxiildings should be investigated and analyzed, even

for Seismicity Index 1.

• 2 It Is also felt that based on peTformance history,

S.H.E.G. I Buildings in S.I. 2 izeed not be required

to be reinforced masonry.

The next Item to be considered was the Building Categories, which

appear in Sections 3.4 throu^ 3.7 of the AXC Documemts.

2.3.1 The proposed revisions will install the following general

requirements

• 1 Building Category - A may be of any masonry system.

%

• 2 Building Category - B requires analysis and foundation

study, but will only be inforced as needed to resist

the loads.

.3 Building Category - C requires analysis „ foundation

6tu(fy, and be reinforced to minimum requirements.

• 4 Building Category ~ D requires analysis,, xainimum

reinforcement, foundation study and special details.

The next item considered was Table 3->B on page 52, cconceming R

factors and C, factors.

u 2.4.1 It was determined that the R factors shown ace only opinions.

They have no basis technically.

2.4.2 In addition, the R factor is a material and s>ystem related

confidence factor .

.1 Based on this, the Committee recommends that the R factors

for reinforced masonry be at least equa.l to those for

concrete.

• 2 The Committee also recommends that the terms "partially

reinforced" and "unreinforced masonry" be eliminated.

• 3 The Committee recommends that tbe term to be used be

"Engineered Masonry".

.4 Engineered Masonry requires analysis aad design and is

reinforced as needed.

.5 Reinforced Masonry also requires analysis and design, but

la required also to have at least a miaimum area of reinforcement .

•6 It is recommended that these terms be ased in the Document

and in Table 3-B.

41
2.4.3

•7 It is also recommended that all R factors and

factors be the same for Concrete and Reinforced Masonry.

It is the Committee's xmderstandlng that the Concrete Industry

is performing cooq>uter inelastic studies to determine what the

R factors and C^ factors should be.

• 1 The Committee recommends the same factors for masonry.

2.5 The next item to be considered was Section 4.4 on page 57, dealing with

accidental torsion.

2.5.1 The Committee recommends that the section be revised as follows:

Last paragraph: "The design shall provide for the torsional

Bioment M resulting from location of the building masses or

the torsional moments caused by assumed displacement of

the mass each way from its actual location by a distance

equal to 5 per cent of (he dimension of the building perpendicular to the direction of the applied forces, whichever is the

larger.”

.1 The Committee believes that the minimum of 5 per cent for

torsion is legitimate for "accidental” torsion. Also

,

ve agree that actual torsion should be Included, but to

liqprove both requirements simultaneously Is arbitrary

and capricious.

2.6 The next item to be considered was Section 1.6.2, "Special Inspection”,

on page 31.

2.6.1 The Committee recommends that the section be revised as fellows:

Section 1.6.2 Special Inspection, (£)

(E) STRUCTURAL MASONRY. Continuous Special Inspection required

during placement of all masonry units for buildings assigned

to Category D, and during all grouting operations for

masonry which is part of the seismic resisting system in

Categories C and D .

^1 The reason is that continuous special inspection should be

required full time for Category D building, but only grouting

operations inspection need be required for Category C.

2.7 The next item to be considered was Section 1.6.3, Special Testing

(C) STRUCTURAL MASONRY.

The Committee recommends that the section be revised as follows:

(C) STRUCTURAL MASONRY. Special Testing of structural masonry shall be

as follows

.1 Uhen f is to be established by prism tests, at least five

representative prisms shall be prepared and tested prior to

start of work. During construction at least one sample prism

42
•hall be prepared per day, but not less than one sample prism

per 3,000 sq ft of vail area nor less than five such sample

prisms for any building during the progress of the work.

OR

.2 When f Is established based on the strength of units and

Bortar Fypes

a. Sample at Job site and test mortar and grout at the rate of

at least once per day, but not less than once for each

2,000

sq ft of vail area, and

b. Sample at manufacturer's plant and test masonry units

proposed for use. Sanq>ling rate shall be at least five

representative units per production lot, but not less

than one unit per 5,000 sq ft of vail area. Tests shall

be performed for compressive strength In accordance with

ASTM Standards appropriate for the type of unit used.

%

3.0

Consideration of Chapters 12 and 12A

3.1 General - In a general discussion of the Chapters, 12 and 12A, the

following appeared to be strong consenstis of the CooEuittee present:

3.1.1 General goal Is to do vhat is In the best Interest of the

public and the industry.

3.1.2 Not to try to do avay vith the psuedo Oltlmate Strength Design

portion in Chapter 12.

3.1.3 We must check the p factors to see vhat the resultant design

will be.

3.1.4 It vlll also be necessary to check the R.factors.

3.1.5 It vas agreed that the present Chapter 12A Is very bad. It

Is not vorth attempting to revise.

3.2 It vas at this point that the basic Impasse was reached.

As perceived by the group, there are tvo choices:

3.2.1 Adopt a National Standard and eliminate Chapter 12a and make

suitable revisions to Chapter 12.

• 1 This position was supported by four of those present.

3.2.2 Keep a Chapter 12A, but Insert 8'Conq>letely rewritten document,

based on the ACI-531 Standard and the draft Standard of the

Masonry Society.

• 1 This position vas supported by three of those present.

43
3.3 After considerable discussion, no agreement could be reached,

3.3.1 It vas the general feeling that both would be developed,

and at a point near completion, perhaps a decision could

be reached.

4.0 The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:30 p.m., C.S.T.

Bespectfully suboiitted.

AHY/j cr

Distribution: To All on Committee List

44
COMMENTS AND PROPOSED CHANGES OF ATC^6

TENTATIVE PROVISIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEISMIC REGULATIONS FOR BUILDINGS

By Ralph C. Grippo, P.E.

International Conference of Building Officials

Technical Committee 9 - Regulatory Use

The scope of these comments delve into a philosophical level with respect to the

applicability of the provisions. Also, specific comments are made with recommended

changes to the provisions along with a justification statement.

The tentative provisions draft is a monumental effort between the various disciplines

involved in building construction. The Applied Technology Council must be commended

for this major achievement. The basic question to be answered is should the ATC3-06

Seismic Provisions become a code document.

The model code organizations have minimum seismic design provisions in the present

codes. The broad acceptance of the model code has created a standard regulation to

design the building to. This is a consensus procedure to amend the model building codes

and update them as the state-of-the-art improves. The minimum standards must be

looked at and improved i4>on when justification is documented. These provisions should be

submitted to the model codes in this manner to provide minimum mandatory code

standards.

Of great concern are those buildings that are designed for occupancy and owned by

public jurisdictions that have pre-emptive rights to waive the local and regional

construction code. These include Federal buildings as well as some State or special

district buildings. Adequate safeguards of life and limb do need to be provided for the

people occupying Federal public buildings. The "Seismic Provisions" would certainly

answer this need. Also there would be a uniform regulation for all Federal agencies that

would eliminate conflict and duplication. This efficiency of effort to provide standard

regulations is laudatory and it is most encouraging to see an Interagency Committee on

Seismic Safety in Construction at the Federal level.

The consensus process is a most important part in the adoption of these "Seismic

Provisions." It is vital that aU levels of participants take part in the evolution of the

provisions. The end document should be something that everyone could "live with." The

review and change process now affords us this opportunity. I submit that the regulations

as adopted are not cast in concrete; a mechanism for changes needs to be included in the

policy paper or even the document if there is concern.

I submit that the "Seismic Provisions" should become regulations for all buildings not

presently controlled by a model building code with seismic provisions. This should provide

a guarantee for those Federal buildings that are exempt from local government code

regulations that they have adequate life safety provisions. This should be a mandatory

requirement.

For those buildings constructed to minimum seismic requirements of the model codes

(or equivalent), these new seismic provisions should be submitted for inclusion in the

model codes through the consensus code change process.

45

JAN 2
Those areas of the provisions that do not meet the test of the consensus review

should be placed in an appendix or companion guideline report as a recommended design

provision. Those elements of the provisions that are prescriptive rather than performance

orientated need to be quantified or reworded into more enforceable language.

Specific Changes to the Seismic Provisions

A. Section 1.1 Purpose

Add the words "and property" after the words "hazard to life."

The model codes propose to "safeguard life and property" as their goals. A

review of the philosophy stated in the text (page 2) clearly shows that an effort is made to protect the structure from collapse or significant structural damage when

subject to moderate earthquake. This is a definite effort to protect property.

B. Section 1.2 Scope

Delete Exception Number 2.

There should be an economic study for the cost of providing a minimum seismic

• otection of 5 percent versus the risk factor. The economic impact of the

construction of one- and two-family dwellings to provide a degree of structural

safety ne*;ds to be studied. The requirements for Conventional Light Timber

Construe <’>''n (Section 9.7) would be a minimum standard that could be used.

C. Section 1.3.1 New Buildings

Delete the portion of the second sentence after the word "height" which start

with "located" and ends with "Table 1-B."

To allow all wood frame structures to have a minimum seismic resistance (the

added comments in Part B above apply also).

Clarification of the application of the conventional wood framing Section 9.7

needs to be made. Section 9.8, Engineering Timber Construction, provides for more

complex design for wood frame houses yet it is not clear that Section 1.3.1 would

allow this design. (Also see Appendix A-2 datum 9001.)

D. Section 1.3.3. Change of Use

This section leaves unanswered the treatment of an existing building which does

not meeting the present seismic requirements yet does not fit into the category of

Section 13.1.1, that is, it is not significantly weakened since construction. This

implies that seismic resisting elements of the building have been removed. More

study is needed in this section. Perhaps an exception similar to the wording of the

exception to Uniform Building Code Section 502 can be used:

EXCEPTION: The character of the occupancy of existing buildings may be

changed subject to the approval of the building official, and the building may be

occupied for purposes in other groups without conforming to all the requirements

of this code for those groups, provided the new or proposed use is less hazardous,

based on life and fire risk, that the existing use.

46
Sooiioi' 1.4.2 Seismic Hazard Exposure Group

Sur«:'Oeuc;-. U') MuUipie U.scs

Clear jus: ifical un-; oi the Ir pereea: i'ii:u''e is 'u: i deeuuu

rationale should be staled in the eommeiilary; i.o., -.vl'.y not M

25 percent?

i ;i-. oe.M 0 r

Section 1.6 Quality Assu.f'.ance

rius sectio;i expands an enforceable Uniform HiulJin^ Code se(*t!^: ,^:.>ccial

Inspections. Section 305) into a complex matrix of design and construction

regulations. .An in-depth economic cost aniaysis should be conducted to justify tlie inclusion of all Seismic Hazard Exposure Group II buildings in Seismicity Index 4 area

in this plan.

Uesign costs, eerntraclor costs and owner costs will increase propc"tion

Group II buildings are subjected to these provisions. Certainly schools anc and public buildings can warrant this quality control.Inosnitals

d'lhis ’'first-time" effort to place minimum quality assurance requirements on

installation of nonstructural components can become a major economic impart on the

construction costs, generates a second level of approval and review and adds an

additional enforcement burden on the local jurisdiction. The seismic life-risk factors

need to be documented to justify the adoption of this provision.

I recommend the deletion of Seismic Hazard Exposure Group II except hospitals

and schools and deletion of Designated Seismic Systems from these provisions.

G. Chapter 13 and 14

These chapters should be placed in the appendix of the provisions and labeled as guidelines. A preface should be included to note that special local action is required

by the political jurisdiction to adopt these appendix provisions.

H. Omissions

1. A section should be included to provide a mechanism for review and change of

the provisions on a systematically timed basis; i.e., a three- to six-year cycle.

The amendments could be published on an annual basis on the off years with the

code reissued on the designated year. The organization to administer this

provision needs to be defined, perhaps the Building Seismic Safety Council

(BSSC) is that organization.

2. A section should be included for an appeal process. A board or agency shall be

established (or referred to) that has the authority to hear and resolve formal

appeals regarding these seismic provisions.

47
FORELL / ELSESSER ENGINEERS, INC.

Forell Elsesser Chan Structural Engineers

Nicholas r Fotei SE

Efic Eisesse- SE

F C Chan SE

Donaio M Chappe'' SE

IMilliam C Moneck SE

January 11, 1980

James Harris, Secretary

Technical Committee No. 2

Tentative Seismic Provisions Project B168

Building 226

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Gentlemen;

The enclosed lists of comments and recommendations are intended to improve

on the Tentative Provisions to be used in the trial design test program.

The list prepared by me had assistance from members of the Structural Engi- neers Association of Northern California and was briefly discussed in a meeting of the Steering Committee of the Seismology Committee of SEAONC.

The list prepared by T. Zsutty, Chairman of the State Seismology Committee,

and Ed Zacker, past President of SEAONC, are transmitted as received.

I wish to restate my expressed concern at the December 11th meeting at the

National Bureau of Standards. The importance of the Tentative Provisions

is too great to limit the time for the preparation of comments and recom- mendations as severely as the schedule demands. The result of placing

such a severe time restraint on this process will be a lingering doubt

in the minds of the participants and their sponsoring organizations that

they have not been given a fair opportunity to have their voices heard.

I sincerely hope the door will not be closed for future well reasoned

and sincere conments.

cc: Steve Johnston

631 ClayStreet SanFrancisco,California94111 Telephone:{4l5)397-2768

48

/cs
CHAPTER 1

Section Why is this requirement limited to Category D buildings?

New buildings of lower category should be protected from this exposure.

What is the definition of "site”? 1 acre, 100 acres, or what?

Clarification required.

CHAPTER 7

One comment received points out that interconnection of footings is not

required or needed under certain conditions, such as solid rock or other

soils materials that would not permit differential motion of footings.

CHAPTER 10

Section 10. g. There is an Implication in this section that Special

Moment Frames shall be designed by the Plastic Design Method. This is

undesirable and wrong. The concept should be to incorporate the useful

and important provisions of Section 2 of A. I.S.C. Specifications into

the design of special Moment Frames. This section requires

clarification which could be accomplished by writing a new section which

coherently states the requirements, rather than deleting from and adding

to two pages of Section 2 of the A. I.S.C. (which makes both the original

and the revisions incomprehensible).

49
Memorandum U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

TO Janes Pielert, NBS Secretariat DATE; January 31, 1980

BSSC Committee 9, Regulatory Use

IN REPLY REFER TO;

FROM : G. Robert Fuller, ICSSC Representative

SUBJECT: Revievj of ATC 3~06

Following are several comments derived from my review of Chapters 1 and 13 of ATC 3-06, for dissemination to other members of Committee

9, Regulatory Use.

I. Chapter 1 Administration

Sec, 1.1 , Purpose ; Potential property damage should also

be minimized.

Sec, 1.2 Scope ; Provisions for seismic resistance of

agricultural buildings and one- and two-family dv/ellings

should also be included, even if minimal. The purpose

is to reduce economic loss as vjell as to promote

life-safety.

Sec. 1.3.1 New Buildings ; One- and two-story dwellings,

other than V70od frame construction, are not adequately

covered in other chapters. Uood-framed dwellings,

particularly modular and m.obile homes, with Seismicity

Index 3 and 4 need much more stringent anchor bolt

requirements than shoT-m in Sec. 9.7 (7 diam. = for

bolts). Dwellings with Seismicity Index of 2 have a coefficient Av = 0.10 and a resulting lateral shear force

which should be accounted for.

Sec. 1.5 Alternate Materials ; The second sentence needs to be

rev;ritten. More specific criteria is required, as well as guidance to "Regulatory Agency."

Sec. 1.6 Quality Assurance ; Special inspections and testing

should also be required for precast concrete structural and

architectural elements and related connections.

FEB

PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE HUD-96 (7-75)

50
2

II. Chapter 13 Existing Buildings

Sec. 13.1 General : Evaluation of seisnic hazard should be

required of all buildings v/ith critical occupancies, such

as multi-story residential in Seismicity Index 2, Map Area

No . 2 and 3 , Aa & Av = 0 . 10 and 0.05.

Sec. 13.1.1 Identification : Requirements are excessively

complicated, i.e.: SFPO (Dwellings) = 300. Therefore, vzith

OP = 100, buildings with Total Area of All Floors less than

30000 sf v/ith Seismic Performance Category C are not subject

to provisions. However, evaluation is required for all

buildings designed before 19 (?) with Seismicity Index 4 and

for all exterior nonstructural elements in Category C buildings.

Then an "Earthquake Capacity Ratio, rc" has to be calculated

using the "OP", and a "Permissible Time to Complete Seismic

Hazard Abatement Measure, tx" needs to be developed using a factor for ? years plus the rc ratio. The alpha factor

is "To be determined by the Regulatory Agency (see Commentary)."

Finally, the hazard needs to be abated by strengthening so that the applicable earthquake capacity ratio is increased to

1.0 for Seismic Performance Category C and D Buildings, which

in other words is 100% compliance with the present Code, unless

it is an "Historical Building." It is our opinion at HUD, that

it is not feasible to require 100% compliance with present

codes. A structural evaluation should be required and then

the "Pvegulatory Agency" must decide what is economically feasible.

III. General Review of ATC 3-06:

"Regulatory Use" Aspects : ATC 3-06 does not adequately address

many aspects of application of aseismic design and construction

criteria, codes or standards by regulatory agencies. One such

aspect pertains to "liability" and "tort law." A study funded

by NSF and conducted by the Association of Bay Area Governments

(ABAG) , Berkeley, California covers this topic. The subsequent

report by Terry Margerum, dated January 1979, titled "VJill

Local Government be Liable for Earthquake Losses," should be

reviewed

One area where liability to local government, contractors and

designers could be reduced is in rehabilitation of existing

buildings. The ATC-3-06 requirement of 100% compliance,

mentioned previously, and the 50% rule for rehabilitation

contained in most codes should be reviewed in light of implied

liability.

G. Robert Fuller

cc\ tW . Wf C. Tk\« V

PILMA - xcs^c.

51
GARDNER & HOWE

CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

LYNNHElD OFFICE PARK

1255 A LYNNFIELD ROAD • SUITE 194 ^MEMPHIS T[ NNESSEE 38138

901 761 1580

H N HOWE . P E December 12 , 1979 warnerhowepe

TO: COMMITTTE 9: Regulatory Use

N'lib - ATC-3-06 Review 1’ reject

Gentlemen

It was a pleasure meeting with most of you at the Bureau

yesterday and feel that we talked around the problems but made

very little resolution of them. As stated, I believe that the

t'ermat and use of this document as a code per se is inappropriate

and I do not know who would address this if Committee 9 does not.

As requested by Chairman Bill Dripps, I presented my comments

in the form of a paper which I presented at the Building Seismic

Safety Council in San Francisco on November 8th and am sending the

Committee a copy herewith for your information.

Some discussion was made at our meeting of the problems of

tiie county by county maps now included in the ATC-3-06 document,

but again no resolution was made. My opinion is that the concept

of contoured probability maps as explained in the Commentary to

ATC-3-06 is an excellent approach and affords the opportunity for

pj'esenting a family of risk maps based on different degrees of

probability and life periods of structures, thus allowing a rational

approach to varying exposures to hazards due to type of occupancy.

It further allows some rational modifications due to local conditions, particularly in the less seismic regions of the U. S.

ilie use of county by county maps in my opinion connotes a much

greater degree of accuracy than exists in the preparation of the

maps and can be misleading from that aspect.

There would appear to be two approaches at this point:

(IJ Prepare a Code document that can be adopted by reference

or inclusion without major modifications, and

(2J Prepare a guide document to provide a basis for local

adaptation

In view of the the present pressure from the Federal Government

and from the Model Code Groups and the National Institute of Building Sciences to adopt a National Model Code without mod i f i cat ions

jl is rather improbable that (2) will be acceptable. Therefore,

1 believe that the Committee must reconcile our thinking to the fact

tliat tliis document, if it remains in code format, will pr )l)ably be

adopted intact as a model code provision and ultimately be adopted

b) most code enforcement authorities.

52
TO: C0^1^H 1TI:H 9: Regulatory Use

NHS - ArC-5-00 Review Project

December 12, 1979

Page Two

1, therefore, believe tliat it is the responsibility of

Committee 9: Regulatory Use - to deal with the philosophical

content of the document if it is to remain in code format.

Yours very trujy,

* /

L- ' / Wll/rv Warner Howe, P. K.

cc: Roland Sharpe - ATC

.Seville Dun i va nt / Dames <i Moore

53
JANUARY MEETING

DATE; January 9th, 1980. DINNER; $9.00 SOCIAL HOUR; 5.45 p.r

DINNER HOUR ; 6.45 p.r

PLACE; Luminarias Restaurant, 3500 Ramona Blvd. , Monterey Park.

RESERVATIONS; Return enclosed card before noon, January 7th.

SUBJECT; "KEMPER ARENA ROOF COLLAPSE"

Kansas City, Missouri.

SPEAKER ; JAMES L. STRATTA, Consulting Engineer,

Menlo Park, California.

On June 4th, 1979, the roof of the Crosby- Kemper Memorial

Arena collapsed during an intense wind and rain storm.

A- 490 high strength bolts were involved.

Retained by the Kemper Arena Commission to determine

failure cause and potential repair, James Stratta, will

discuss his findings as presented to the owners of the

17,600 seat convention hall.

SEAOC SEISMOLOGY COMMITTEE - NEW VERSION OF THE BLUE BOOK

Fhe SEAOC Seismology Committee has begun a program leading to a new version of the Blue Book

for 1983. The basis for this program comes from

last year’s committee resolution that "the methodology contained in the ATC-3 document deserves

consideration in developing new lateral force

requirements and commentary". The work is

organized according to the following time schedule

and task committees. Willing and knowledgeable

SEAOC members are encouraged to join these

task committees. Hopefullv we will end up with a code that is both easy to use nd hard to misinterpret

rather than the opposite!

Time Schedule

1980 - Organize Task Groups; Discussion of viewpoints from each SEAOC Section; Begin commentary

and provisions for resolved viewpoints.

1981 - Draft commentary on all provisions

except materials sections.

1982 - De*:ailed statements of provisions

including materials sections.

1983 - Blue book provisions and commentary

1984 - Review for UBC publication.

1985 - UdC publication.

Task Committees

A. Purpose to assemble information from al sections and soi rces, draft commentary and

provisions, and lead to discussion sessions.

B. Section tasks (Chairman).

SEASD Gim Libby)

Foundations

Precast and prestressed concrete

Masonry

5 /.
SEASC Cohn Robb)

Dynamic response related provisions

Dynamic analysis

Steel

Special structures

SEACC (Gene Cole)

Timber

Decking and sheathing

SEANC (Fritz Matthiesen)

Design criteria and method

Structural system factors

Zoning and ground shaking description

Reinforced concrete.

Seismology Committee Procedure

Based on a 1-1/2 day committee meeting setup.

A. Friday afternoon - Regular Seismology

Committee business, including necessary changes

to existing Blue Book.

B. Saturday work session on New Provisions.

Discussion as directed by the assigned task committee. Approved section guests and materials

representatives may attend.

C. First 1-1/2 day meeting is February 8th9th (an appropriate seismological anniversary

date) at San Francisco Airport.

Agenda will be:

Design philosophy and criteria (SEANC)

Zoning objectives, criteria and Methods (SEANC)

D5mamic response provisions (SEASC).

Any SEASC member wishing to serve on any of

the above task committees, is invited to attend a meeting of the Seismology Committee, which will be

held at Luminarias Restaurant, prior to the dinner

meeting on January 9th. The committee meeting

will commence at 3 p.m.

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING PROFESSION

The Professional Policies Committee of SEANC

is in the process of developing a position paper on

Structural Engineering registration similar to the

paper recently prepared on Civil Engineering registration.

In discussing the present and future status of

Structural Engineering, it became apparent that we

are near the point of losing the history of the start

of Structural Engineering as a profession in

California

The committee has, therefore, decided to attempt to write a brief history recording

when, why and how Structural Engineering

Registration came about.

We would appreciate any help that any

member could give us in the recreation of the

history of Structural Engineering. Any bit of

information, no matter how brief or informal,

will be useful. With the help of everybody,

we should be able to piece the story together.

Please send any information to Nicholas

F. Forell, Chairman, Professional Policy

Committee, SEANC, c/o 1005 Sansome Street,

San Francisco, California 94111.

STRUCTURAL STABILITY RESEARCH

COUNCIL - CALL FOR PAPERS

The Structural Stability Research Council

will hold its 1980 Annual Technical Session and

Meeting at the New York Sheraton Hotel in New

York City on April 29-30, 1980. There will

be open Task Group meetings on April 28, and

the Technical Sessions are scheduled for April

29-30.

A special panel discussion on "Bridge

Stability Problems” will be held in the evening

of April 29.

The technical sessions provide an opportunity for practicing engineers, research

workers and students to describe their latest

findings, and to exchange information with

others working in similar fields. Papers and

reports on a wide range of subjects related to the stability of metal structures and to the

theme will be presented at the technical

sessions.

Those interested in presenting a p>aper

should contact Ms. Lesleigh G Federinic,

SSRC Headquarters, Fritz Engineering

Laboratory 13, Lehigh University, Bethlehem,

Pa. 18015 (215) 861-3519.

FIRE RESISTIVE MATERIALS COMMITTEE

TTie Fire Resistive Materials Committee

completed their important 1979 report on the

55
jse of structural epoxy materials. Their next

project is "The Structural Aspects of Fires in

Multi-Story Buildings", a very contemporary

engineering topic

.

Members of the Association are invited to submit their observations and experiences, and

to participate in the committee work.

New chairman of this committee is Nick

Parris (620-3684). The next luncheon meeting

will be held on January 9, 1980, 11.30 - 1 p.m.,

at the OSA Office, Room 3032, 107 South Broadway,

Los Angeles 90012.

LA SECTION OF ASCE TECHNICAL SEMINAR

The first of a series of two-day technical

seminars will be held on Friday and Saturday,

January 25 and 26, 1980.

The subject of this important seminar is

Seismic Design Today - State-of- the-Art and

Applications. SEASC is a co-sponsor of this

seminar.

Subject to be presented at the seminar, which

will be held between 9.00 a.m. , and 4.30 p.m.

,

each day, include:

An overview of seismic design practice.

Earthquake resistant design of earth and

rock- fill dams.

B Earthquake resistant design of concrete

gravity and arch dams.

• Earthquake resistant design of intake towers

and water storage tanks.

Seismic risk analysis on water resources

projects.

TTie seminar will be held in the main auditorium

of the L. A. Department of Water & Power building,

111 North Hope Street, Los Angeles. Parking will

be available under the Music Center across the street on Friday, and at DWP on Saturday.

Registration fees for the seminar are as follows:

Members of Co-Sponsoring Organizations $100.00,

Students $40.00, All others $125.00. In accordance

with DWP policy, all fees must be paid in advance.

Fees Include lunch on Saturday and all handout

materials.

For further information and registration, please

contact Ms. Connie Bickmore, ASCE Office, 2550

Beverly Blvd., Los Angeles 90057, telephone 386-6291.

NEWS ABOUT MEMBERS

Bob Tobin has been selected to receive th(

"Wason Medal" at the 1980 ACI Convention foi

the year’s most meritorious paper published i the January 1978 Journal, entitled "Flow Cone

Sand Tests".

Bill Liljestrom has resigned as President

of Chemically Prestressed Concrete Corporat

and formed a new company - 5C Service, Inc. which provides quality assurance for shrinkag

compensating concrete.

LeRoy Crandall has been elected Presider

of the Consulting Engineers Association of

California. He will take office at the 27th

Annual Meeting in February 1980. He has

been serving on the CEAC Board of Directors

since 1976.

Jim Amrhein advises of a two-day

conference on "Masonry Research in Progress

to be held March 11-12, 1980, at the Marina

Del Rey Hotel. Call Jim at 388-0472 for

further details.

Zorah Sheffner attended the Third

International Conference on Automation in

Warehousing, held in Chicago on November

27-29, 1979, and presented a paper on "Economic Considerations in the Design of

High-Rise Storage Racks in Seismic and NonSeismic Regions".

APPLICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP

RUBEN A. FLORES

P. O. Box 2746, Seal Beach 90740.

Graduate New Mexico State University - BSCE 1960. Registered CE in California

Employed By Los Angeles County.

PETER C. YONG

16 Sunset River, Irvine 92714.

Graduate Stanford University - MSCE 1960. Registered CE in Califomic

Employed by Medall, Aragon, Worswick

and Associates, Inc.

56
ILLIAM A. HAGLUND

11292 Weatherby Road, Los Alamitos 90720.

Graduate Michigan Technological University

BSCE 1961. Registered CE in California.

In Private Practice.

ISASTER SERVICE WORKER REPORT

m Ruthroff, Chairman.

The first call SEASC has had for Disaster Service

Workers, was from Laguna Beach, California. SEASC

as been working since 1976 to establish the qualifica- ons and willingness of registered Civil or Structural

ngineers to volunteer for disaster work.

Within two hours of the start of advancement of the

lassive landslide, Don Wiltse was contacted by Mr.

•ouglas Schmutz, Assistant City Manager, requesting

le presence of structural engineer representatives to

ispect and post various structures for safety. Don

Wiltse contacted Jim Ruthroff, and was advised by Jim

lat SEASC would be unable to dispatch any engineers

ntil the Governor declared the area a disaster.

On or about November 9th the area was declared

disaster area, and Jim Ruthroff selected 12 regisjred disaster service workers to survey structures

3r safety.

The 12 engineers were organized into teams of wo men each, and assigned various houses for inspeclon and reporting. It was made clear that inspection

ms for structural stability, and not to report on

jeological stability or for hazard of services such as

;as, electricity and sewers. The Disaster Service Workers were able to post

\1 homes as being structurally sound for occupancy,

rwenty- seven homes were either completely destroyed,

iartially destroyed, or in any case unsafe to occupy.

On December 11, 1978, the SEASC received a

etter from Mr. Fred S. Solomon, City Manager of

^aguna Beach, as follows:

"I appreciated our telephone conversation on the

Landslide disaster because it gives me an opportunity

:o express the thanks of the City of Laguna Beach to

the SEASC for their assistance in evaluating the structural integrity of homes impacted by the slide.

The SEASC’ s evaluation, in conjunction with

geology studies, has permitted homes to be occupied

which may otherwise have been subject to question

and conversely supported a position of refusing

KOSO NAKATANI

2731 Tesla Avenue, Los Angeles 90039.

Graduate U of Colorado - BSCE 1961

.

Registered CE & SE in California.

Has been in engineering 11 years.

Employed by Brandow & Johnston Associates

occupancy in certain cases. One further form of assistance they provided which you may not be aware of is that the

repx>rts of the engineers were utilized in

abatement hearings to support a declaration of

pHiblic nuisance and need for demolition on the

site to provide for emergency attention to the

grading of the headscarp and main slide area.

If I have a criticism of the involvement

of the SEASC, which is intended as a constructive means of addressing a more widespread

disaster, such as the San Fernando Valley

earthquake, it is the delay in your participation

arising out of the need to await official

disaster status and the liability you incur until

then. Official disaster status may take some

period of time causing hardship which may not

be necessary. Houses and businesses may be

declared unsafe to occupy by local officials

where the expertise of the SEASC would result

in an entirely different conclusion. I would

hopse that a mechanism could be derived which

would permit your immediate attention to these

problems.

Finally, uniformity of reporting and a bit

more attention to detail in the reports would be

helpjful in later abatement hearings."

57
3.2 Roster

COMMITTEE 9: Regulatory Use

American Institue of Architects

John Fisher

Skidmore, Owings and Merrill

1 Maritime Plaza

San Francisco, California 94111

Phone: 415-981-1555

American Insurance Association

Mr. Michael Sbaglia

American Insurance Association

85 John Street

New York, N.Y. 10038

Phone: 212-433-4412

American Society of Civil Engineers

Norton S. Remmer, P. E.

Commissioner

Dept, of Code Inspection

419 Belmont St.

Worcester, Mass. 01604

Phone: 617-798-8111

Associated General Contractors of America

Mr. Campbell L. Reed

The Associated General Contractors of America

Director, Building Division

1957 E Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Phone: 202-393-2040

Association of Major City Building Officials

Jack M. Fratt, General Manager

Department of Buildings and Safety

200 North Spring Street

Los Angeles, ''A 90012

Phone: 213-485-2341

58
Committee 9 (continued)

Building Officials and Code Administrators International

Paul K. Heilstedt

Technical Director

Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc.

17926 South Halsted

Homewood, Illinois 60430

Phone; 312-799-2300

Building Owners and Managers Association

Mr. Neal D. Houghton

2907 E. Fairmount

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Phone: 602-955-1973

Phone: 301-727-6400

Mr. Lenny Rosenberg Alter;

Vice President, Operations

Chesapeake Lift Insurance

527 St. Paul Street

Baltimore, MD 21202

Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction

Mr. G. Robert Fuller

Structural Engineer

Office of Architecture & Eng. Standards

HUD/Room 6172

Office of Housing

Washington, D.C. 20411

Phone: 202-755-5924

International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials

Mr. Jack Allen

11471 Phoebe Court

Smartville, CA 95977

Los Angeles, CA 90032

Phone: 916-272-5532

Alter: Tom Higham

Executive Director

International Assoc, of Plumbing

and Mechanical Officials

5032 Alhambra Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90032

Phone: 916-272-5532

59
Committee 9 (continued)

International Conference of Building Officials

Mr. Ralph C. Grippo

Dept, of Building Safety

3031 Torrance Boulevard

Torrance, CA 90503

International Conf. of Bldg. Officials

5360 S. Workman Mill Road

Whittier, CA 90601

Phone: 213-699-0541

Phone: 213-328-5310

National Academy of Code Administration

Mr. James M. Hicks, Jr.

Suite 502

1970 Chain Bridge Road

McLean, VA 22102

Phone: 703-821-8171

National Association of Home Builders

David E. Johnson, P. E.

Assistant Director

Technical Services Dept.

National Association of Home Builders

15th & M Streets N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

Phone: 202-452-0360

National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards

Mr. William Dripps (Chairman)

Director, Codes and Standards

National Conference of States on Building Codes & Standards

1970 Chain Bridge Road.

McLean, VA 22102

Phone: 703-790-5750

60
Committee 9 (continued)

Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc.

William J. Tangye, P. E.

Director of Engineering Services

Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc.

900 Montclair Road

Birmingham, Alabama 35213

Phone: 205-591-1853

Applied Technology Council

Mr. Warner Howe, P. E.

Owner, Gardner & Howe

1255-A Lynnfield Road

Suite 194

Memphis, Tenn. 38318

Phone: 901-761-1580

Building Seismic Safety Council

Mr. Donald F. Pinkerton

National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards

1970 Chain Bridge Road

McLean, VA 22101

Phone: 703-790-5750

National Bureau of Standards

Mr. James H. Pielert

Secretariat

Committee 9, Regulatory Use

National Bureau of Standards

Rm. B-168, Bldg. 226

Washington, D.C. 20234

Phone: 301-921-3146

Mr. Patrick W. Cooke

Phone: 301-921-2776

61
3.3 Selected Committee Correspondence and Applied Technology Council Comments

The following is a composite summary of all responses received from committee

members to the request for comments /recommendations to specific sections of

the ATC document.

Section 1.6.1 Quality Assurance Plan

"The contractor has already assumed, when he submitted his bid or signed

his contract, the responsibility covered in 1.6.1(B). This requirement is

redundant .

"(B) CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY - According to my notes, on 2/20/80 the

committee had reached consensus to delete Section 1.6.1(B) until it could be

legally investigated. Towards the end of the meeting on 2/21/80 the committee

reached consensus to recommend that the entire document be legally reviewed,

especially Section 1.6 and Chapter 13."

"Much of what is in the Quality Assurance Plan should not be the responsibility of the regulatory agency. By establishing all the details in the

"code", it makes the regulatory agency responsible for enforcing all such

relationships.

"1.6.1(B) "Contractor Responsibility" was to have been removed from the

document after balloting. The responsibility should be placed on the building

official or regulatory agency, not on the Contractor".

"I recommend the deletion of Seismic Hazard Exposure Group II except

hospitals and schools as well as deletion of Designated Seismic Systems (H)

& (I). Arch. & Mech/Elec. components. I further recommend the deletion of

subsection 1.6. IB Contractors Responsibility as unenforceable for the local

jurisdiction. There is a greater cost factor in the administering of

contractor regulations. This would not be cost-effective, just create more paperwork"

Section 1.6.2 Special Inspection

"Already covered in building codes."

"In my opinion, the committee reached consensus to specifically include

precast, prestressed concrete. However, upon reading Section 1.6.2(D) more carefully, I believe that it can be interpreted as including precast,

prestressed concrete as well."

"The municipality's building department or the regulatory agency should

provide for "Special Inspectors." Certain inspections should also be provided

for in the Contract as the responsibility of the "Architect of Record,"

"Engineer of Record," "Design Architect," or "Inspecting Architect."

"I recommended modification of (D) to include precast concrete structural

and architectural elements."

62
Section 1»6«3 Special Testing

"Adds to the overall cost of construction."

"Requirements outside of West Coast seismic zones should vary from

ATC 3 document."

Section 1.6.4 Reporting and Compliance Procedures

"More government regulation and red tape, Increasing the cost of

construction without necessarily increasing the quality."

"There are serious legal and regulatory conflicts in the requirements

There are gaps in responsibilities. Deficiencies may require engineer

modifications and permit modifications requires at least engineer approval

It is likely that some work completed will not be in compliance. Requires

thorough review of all legal and technical literature.

"All work noted not in compliance on the inspector's reports and

certification shall be accepted by the design engineer or architect prior

to final approval by the local jurisdiction.

1.6.5 Approved Manufacturer's Certification

"Is there adequate expertise in all regulatory agencies to evaluate

whether a manufacturer meets the requirements to be approved?"

"This section is vague in reference to the means of approval by the

regulatory agency and the obligation of the manufacturer. This section

would have to anticipate a complete system to accomodate the approvals

and monitoring system required."

"The manufacturer's certification could be approved by the local

regulatory agency or an approved alternate organization, i.e. ICBO, BOCA,

etc.

Other issues relevant to Regulatory Use that received specific comments/

recommendations

1. Appeals

"Appeal Procedure - There does not appear to be any reason to impose

any specialized appeal procedure requirements on any standard procedures

now existing."

"Appeals procedures will need to be established by each municipality

or Regulatory Agency in conformance with statutes and regulations."

"A board or commission should be established that has the authority

to hear and resolve formal appeals regarding these seismic provisions.

This appeal board would be the elected officials of the local jurisdiction

if they did not delegate this responsibility."

63
2.

Changes

"Recommended procedures in commentary reflecting work of SEAOC, ICBO,

etc. A central source should be established for promulgating material

which is code oriented for consideration by agencies and jurisdictions for

code changes. Don't recommend specific change procedures Incorporated in

document .

"A periodic review procedure needs to be established by BSSC for

continual updating of the requirements. Annual revisions of the document

would enable state-of-art correlation."

"A section should be included to provide a mechanism for review and

change of the provisions on a systematically timed basis, i.e., a three

year cycle. The amendment could be published on an annual basis on the

off years with the code reissued on each third year. The organization to

administer the provision should be the Building Seismic Safety Council."

3. Application to Existing Buildings

"I believe that the recommended legal review of Chapter 13 should

provide guidance regarding this matter."

"This requires careful review of policy and procedures in less seismic

areas. Existing section is reasonable reference as guide but local policy,

cost-benefit, etc. in less seismic areas requires careful study and policy

development.

"Evaluation of seismic hazard should be required of all buildings with

critical occupancies, such as multistory residential in Seismicity Index 2,

Map Area No. 2 & 3. The Regulatory Agencies must have the latitude to

decide degree of compliance with new code provisions. An r^ factor of 1.0

is not economically feasible for most buildings. Entire section needs

simplification.

"Chapter 13 and 14 should be placed in the appendix of the provisions

and labeled as Guidelines (or placed in a separate document). A preface

shall be included in the regulations noting that special action by the

local political jurisdiction shall be required to adopt these appendix

provisions. This provides local decision on an as needed basis."

4. Education and Training

"An extensive program of exposure to general comments relative to

seismic design considerations is necessary. In addition, general information on seismology, microzonation and risk which is applicable to policy

making decisions should be covered."

"BSSC sponsored seminars and workshops could be organized to educate

building officials, regulatory agency personnel, as well as engineers and

architects. A cirriculum or syllabus could be developed for adoption by

academic institutions."

64
"It is obvious from the scope of the regulations that funds need to be

provided along with personnel and material to educate the local code enforcement officials and their staff. The training could be delegated (contracted)

to the regional model code organizations with staff already existing."

3.4 Other Comments Received

"I think that the purpose of this regulation should not be limited to

safeguard life only but should be expanded to the protection of property.

The structures are asked to be designed to withstand certain loads to protect

the building from collapse or significant structural damage when subject to

moderate earthquakes. This philosophical point should be acknowledged under

the purpose section (1.1)."

"The tables (1-A, 1-B, etc.) are complex as well as the detailed regulations, yet the overall effort is to be commended. I recommend that the

"Seismic Provision" becomes regulations for all building not presently con- trolled by a model building code with seismic provisions. This will provide

a guarantee for those buildings that are exempt from local code regulations

that they will have adequate life safety provisions. This should be a mandatory requirement."

"For those buildings subject to the seismic provisions of the model codes,

these draft regulations should be submitted for inclusion in the model codes

through consensus process for code change."

65
NBS-114A (REV. 9-76)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICA1I0N OR REPORT NO. NBSIR 80-2111-9

Accession No Z, Accession No,

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

REVIEW AND REFINEMENT OF ATC 3-06 TENTATIVE SEISMIC PROVISIONS

Report of Technical Committee 9: Regulatory Use

5. Publication Date October 1980

7. AUTHOR(S)

James H. Pielert and Patrick W. Cooke

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIOtML BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS rsrreBr, City, srafe. ZIP)

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Washington, D.C. 20472

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

15, SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

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

16. ABSTRACT (A 200~word or leas factual summary of most significant 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 s tate-of-knowledge pertaining to seismic engineering of buildings.

The TENTATIVE PROVISIONS are in the process of being assessed by the building com- munity. This report is one of a series of reports that documents 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 the recom- mendations and records of the committee charged with review of the regulatory

implementation and enforcement aspects of the provisions. The committee made two

recommendations for revisions to the TENTATIVE PROVISIONS and five additional

recommendations concerning subsequent activities, such as the conduct of trial

designs. These recommendations 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)

Building; building codes; building design; disaster mitigation; earthquakes;

engineering; standards

18. AVAILABILITY Unlimited

I I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

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

20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003-

Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

(um UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

22. Price

USCOMM-DC