hospital building safety board structural and non ... · pdf file31/01/2018 · hbsb...

HOSPITAL BUILDING SAFETY BOARD Structural and Non-Structural Regulations Committee

Wednesday, November 1, 2017 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development2020 West El Camino Avenue, Ste. 930

Sacramento, CA 95833and

Metropolitan Water District Headquarters700 N. Alameda Street, Suite 2-546

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Committee Members Present: OSHPD Staff: Rami Elhassan, Chair Paul Coleman, FDD Deputy Director Trailer Martin, Vice-Chair Chris Tokas Marshal Lew Eric Jacobsen Michael O’Connor Mohammad Karim Maryann Phipps Roy Lobo Jennifer Thornburg Diana Scaturro HBSB Staff:Ken Yu, Executive Director

Elizabeth Wied, OSHPD Chief Legal Counsel

Joanne JollsEvett Torres

1. Welcome and Introductions1

Rami Elhassan, Committee Chair, called the meeting to order. The committee members and 2 OSHPD staff introduced themselves from the Sacramento and Los Angeles locations. A 3 quorum was present. 4

5

2. Presentation: Elevator hoist motor and governor special seismic certification6 requirements per Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and 7

HBSB Structural and Non-Structural Regulations Meeting – 11/01/17 of 21

Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-16), Chapter 13 and 2016 California Building Code (CBC), 1 Chapter 16A 2

Presenter: Bruce Horne, Otis Elevator 3

4

NEII Member Seismic Task Group 5

• K. Brinkman – NEII CCC, Vice President 6 • B. Horne – Otis, Vice-Chair of Mechanical Design Committee 7 • T. Shelton – Kone, member of Earthquake Committee 8 • M. Lamb – Schindler, Vice-Chair of Mechanical Design Committee 9 • M. Mueller – Thyssenkrupp 10

Special Seismic Certification (SSC) Questions Raised by OSHPD in the past 11

• SSC of elevator drive machines 12 • SSC of elevator governors 13

Certifying drive machines and governors through shake-table testing is not practical and does 14 not achieve the overall objective of elevators running post-seismic event. 15

• OSP (OSHPD Special Seismic Certification Preapproval) renewals that have different 16 SSC rules based on hp (horsepower), voltage & controller configurations (documentation 17 down to the lowest component part level) 18

• SSC of elevator lobby panels (Fire Command Center items) that are greater than 50lbs 19 • Onsite questioning methods of mounting conduit & wire ways within hoistway and 20

machine/control rooms 21

The three questions above have been raised over the years and now randomly come up but are 22 worked through. It is good to revisit them to ensure clarity in future Code updates. 23

CBC 2016 & ASCE 7-10 Requirements 24

• Components must comply with SSC in accordance with CBC 2016 Section 1705A.13.3 25 (references CBC 2007 - CAN 2-1708A.5, CBC 2010 - 1708A.4, CBC 2013 - 26 1705A.12.41) and/or in accordance with ASCE 7-10 Section 13.2.2. 27

Requirements 28

• Minor changes to the CBC 2016 list compared to the CBC 2007 list: 29 o 22 items listed for Component SSC: definitive detail for some components but 30

vague for others 31 o Example: “elevator equipment (excluding elevator cabs)”; elevator machines and 32

governors not specifically listed resulting in different interpretations for 33 Component SSC 34

Component Exemptions Identified - CBC 2016 35

• “Electric motors, pumps, and compressors not more than 20 hp”: elevators and motors 36 cannot necessarily be converted to specific and equivalent hp; difficult to determine 37 which components to seismically certify and how for consistent application 38


Elevator Equipment 1

• Conventional Geared Elevator: traditional; controller, motor, and governor in machine 2 room 3

• Conventional Machine-Roomless Elevator (MRL): recent; machine structure integrated 4 within hoistway 5

• Conventional Hydraulic-Holed Elevator: jack is not in ground but in hoistway adjacent to 6 elevator car 7

• Various components that make up an elevator: 8 o OSP-certified: 9

- Elevator controller and drive 10 - Transformer (depending on supply voltage) and power disconnect 11 - Hydraulic motor/pump 12

o Not typically done in 2007 (not clear how to handle these): 13 - Traction hoist machine 14 - Speed governor 15 - Suspension means and terminations or hydraulic jacks 16 - Elevator counterweight (only traction elevators) 17 - Hoistway landing door assemblies 18

o Exempt: 19 - Elevator cab assemblies 20 - Elevator guiderails and brackets (non-active mechanical) 21 - Fireman key switches, hall call buttons, car direction and position displays 22

(<50lb) 23 - Car position switches (<50lb) 24

Historical OSHPD Elevator Compliance 25

• Seismic certification became required for elevators installed in California since CBC 26 2007 under the OSHPD oversight organization 27

• Method of compliance to date has been SSC testing & submission of OSP files (majority 28 of the elevator manufacturers have OSP files listed on OSHPD OSP site) 29

• Later CBC releases since CBC 2007 (2010, 2013 & 2016) have facilitated OSPHD 30 change in enforcement with no change to CBC language for “elevator equipment” 31

Elevator Equipment – Major Components 32

• List of OSP files for elevator equipment is consistent with prior project experience to 33 satisfy CBC requirements and ensure elevator components have SSC 34

• List shows that controllers in elevator equipment (not machines and governors) have 35 been typically SSC-serviced by most manufacturers. 36

ASCE 7-10 Section 13.2.2 37

• “Use of experience data shall be deemed as an acceptable method to determine seismic 38 capacity of components”; serves as rationale for why SSC has not been performed on 39 more mechanical equipment versus electrical and controllers, which cannot be validated 40 by traditional analysis processes. 41


1

Earthquake Damage in San Diego and El Centro 2

• Job-site surveys and post-earthquake inspection; documented data from A17 3 Earthquake Task Group and Department of Occupational Safety and Health - Elevator 4 Unit 5 6

o Santa Fe: 7 - 42 stories, 700 FPM, 2 to 1 roping 8 - One car with leveling vain damage and crossed ropes 9 - Another car with damaged traveling cable and suspension rope pulled off of 10

sheave 11 - Lesson Learned: moving elevators more susceptible to entanglement of traveling 12

cables and machine cables moving within drive sheave 13 - Traction elevator suspension ropes cannot be constrained and can twist and 14

cross while running through sheaves. Despite rope retainers, movement 15 sufficient to cause ropes to move, entangle out of grooves, and possibly twist 16 during running through sheaves. 17

o Harbor Club (like Santa Fe): 18 - 40 stories, 700 FPM, 2 to 1 roping 19 - One car with ropes crossed and suspension rope wrapped around governor rope 20

guide bracket 21 - Another car with ropes crossed, one suspension rope separated, and suspension 22

ropes tucked up under each other on the deflector sheave 23 - Traction elevator suspension ropes cannot be constrained and can twist and 24

cross while running through sheaves (common on high-rise buildings) 25 - Ropes significantly displaced and damaged rope retainers requiring a significant 26

amount of labor to get elevator back in service. 27 - Traction elevator governor rope failure (renders elevator inoperable). 28 - Traction elevator rope retainer failure from suspension ropes’ movement. 29

o Imperial Irrigation District (El Centro): 30 - 5 stories, 200 FPM, 1 to 1 roping 31 - Car with counterweight derailed 32 - Counterweight rail and brackets did not provide required rigidity to fully constrain 33

the car or counterweight 34 o US Grant Hotel: 35

- 13 stories, 600 FPM, 1 to 1 roping, double wrap 36 - One car with counterweight guide roller damage and counterweight out of guides 37

o Towne and Country Hotel: 38 - 10 stories, 350 FPM, 1 to 1 roping 39 - Counterweight roller damage; counterweight rail and bracket damage at upper 40

floors; some building damage 41 o La Perla: 42

- 17 stories, 350 FPM, 1 to 1 roping 43 - Broken off limit switches at bottom floor (impeded operation of elevator) 44


o Petco Park: 1 - 6 stories, 350 FPM, corner post, 1 to 1 roping 2 - Broken safety lift rod from governor rope failure; possibly due to snagging 3

• The year and vintage the elevators were installed were not clearly provided creating an 4 uncertainty as to the specific requirements for the elevators at the time. 5

• Ropes and suspension elements are what mostly rendered the elevators inoperable. 6 • Today’s requirements coordinate building design with elevators to address many unmet 7

elements of the past and prevent similar scenarios from recurring. 8

Report on the Northridge Earthquake Impact to Hospital Elevators - April 12, 1996 9

• Post-seismic event damage from 9 different facilities and locations based on 100 traction 10 elevators and 12 hydraulic elevators 11

Northridge Report 12

• Report captures a diverse range of elevator ages, several manufacturers, and different 13 types of elevator equipment 14

• Difficult to make specific conclusions but highlights general understood trends 15 • Supports rationale to address the current SSC methods of elevator equipment 16 • Validates elevator industry experience regarding machines, motor generators, and 17

governor equipment which has only experienced anchorage failures in the past 18 • Data raises the question if the equipment anchorage was installed in accordance with 19

the approved engineered design 20 • 26 of the 100 traction elevators documented snagged ropes and traveling cables; 24 of 21

the 26 were at the same hospital (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles) where 22 elevators were 10-13 stops (can be indicative of rise but not always the case) 23

• No anchorage failures documented at the Cedars-Sinai location 24 • Several units of higher number of stops (up to 20) did not experience snagged ropes and 25

traveling cables; report only captured number of stops, not actual elevator rise, making it 26 difficult to draw a consistent analogy of stops truly tying to rise. 27

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Seismic Committee 28

• Alignment with IBC/NBCC/ASCE 7 ground force values 29 • ASME A17.1/CSA B44 Seismic committees include participants from CA, OR, WA, BC, 30

AK, UCSD Research, and OSHPD participation 31 • Review of prior seismic events as documented by CA Department of Industrial Relations 32

– CAL/OSHA Elevator Unit 33

University of California San Diego 34

• After shake testing, hoistway entrance frames and doors were shown to be susceptible 35 to damage when building inter-story drift was not controlled; design criteria of doorframe 36 must be aligned with mass of door to adequately prevent movement and doors coming 37 off doorframe rollers 38

• Car and counterweight rails and brackets were shown not to provide a high level of 39 control of the elevator car and counterweight, resulting in high levels of accelerations of 40 these components 41


• Aligning elevator component fixation with building design and movement is important to 1 ensure design can handle movement to remain functional and operational 2

3

Examples of Elevator Machines 4

• Historical OSHPD elevator applications: 5 o Elevator hoist machines (2.5T to 30T sheave shaft load) weighing 525lb to 6

10,000lb 7 o Elevator duties 2500lbs to 10,000lbs 8 o Car speeds 200fpm to 700fpm 9

Rationale to not SSC (Shake Test) Elevator Machines 10

• Elevator hoist machines are very different from elevator controllers and other electrical 11 equipment. 12

• Elevator hoist machine design is rigidly defined by ASME A17.1 Elevator Code to make 13 sure machines can survive annual elevator inspections. Within the hoist-machine design 14 section are requirements for stress factors of safety of at least 8 to 1 for the material 15 ultimate strength with respect to the suspended loads. It is also required by Code to 16 conduct routine safety sets and buffer strikes that generate suspended load impacts up 17 to 1g vertical over static. 18

• Prior seismic events have shown no issues with the operational characteristics of hoist 19 machines; only suspension elements (ropes and traveling cables) have been an issue. 20

• Elevator hoist machine application combined with ASME & ASCE code requirements is 21 more severe than shake-table tests of the machine mass by itself. 22

• Seismic testing of an elevator machine without the elevator suspended load would not 23 validate that the equipment would meet the intent of standard of care as required within 24 the CBC. Suspended load to replicate real-world application is not possible on a shake-25 table test. 26

Elevator Seismic Loads 27

• Elevator system’s suspended mass is 5 to 10 times the mass of the machine 28 • Per Code requirements, machines (motor & brake system) designed to stop entire 29

system (car, counterweight, suspension ropes & traveling cable) inertia must be <1g. 30

Rationale to not SSC (Shake Test) Elevator Governors 31

• The governor system (governor, rope, and tension sheave) are required to be 32 unconstrained within the hoistway for the elevator to function properly (closed-loop line). 33

• Historical post-seismic risk: governor rope becomes entangled on other stationary or 34 moving components within the elevator hoistway. Shake testing of governor alone does 35 not test for post-seismic outcome at all. Therefore, other means need to be employed to 36 assure positive post-seismic functionality of these components within the hoistway. 37

Elevator System Post-Seismic Mitigations 38

• Objective: Maintain elevator operation post-earthquake 39


• Much of the post-seismic elevator system damage and subsequent repair can be 1 attributed to the elevator’s continued movement within the hoistway while undergoing 2 seismic motion. 3

• A stationary elevator at the start of a seismic event and not operated until the seismic 4 motion has subsided will have far greater probability of post-seismic functionality. 5

• Modern elevator control systems could be utilized to create dispatching algorithms that 6 require a percentage of the elevators within an elevator bank to always be stationary. 7 The algorithms could direct the stationary elevator not to run once a seismic event is 8 recognized, and they should then be available once the seismic event has passed (like 9 destination dispatch). 10

• Utilize remote monitoring to improve post-seismic evaluation and determine the real-time 11 functionality of an elevator: 12

o Full hoistway permanent lighting (like Fire Service Access Elevators, FSAE) and 13 closed-circuit cameras located to give remote views of pit equipment, 14 counterweight at car passing points, machine sheave and guards, suspension 15 sheaves and guards, the compensation system, and the governor rope. 16

o Elevator mechanics or trained personnel could then assess post-seismic viability 17 of an elevator from outside the hoistway or outside the facility. 18

• Elevator mechanic availability and replacement parts preparedness plans: 19 o A complete post-seismic emergency preparedness plan should include on-site 20

critical elevator replacement parts and availability of elevator mechanics on a 21 priority basis 22

o Resident mechanics at high-population large city-center hospitals or, at 23 minimum, on-call dedicated support for smaller facilities 24

o Pre-event logistics: having mechanics at the facility should be considered as on-25 site mechanics have proven the ability to restore elevators to functional 26 capabilities in short periods of time 27

• Trauma center logistics: 28 o Careful consideration of all trauma center non-ambulatory function for new 29

construction hospital designs should be exercised with respect to elevator 30 operation. 31

o Non-ambulatory function could be dependent on single elevators that have no 32 ability to perform strategic functions detailed in mitigation action for traction 33 elevators 34

o Hydraulic elevators for low-rises are recognized to have fewer issues related to 35 elevator movement during a seismic event. 36

Next Steps 37

• Presentation along with 10-page NEII White Paper will be submitted to Chris Tokas and 38 Roy Lobo along with this presentation 39

• Establish collaboration process with OSHPD and Elevator Industry NEII for future CBC 40 changes during next code cycle to achieve common objectives of maintaining elevator 41 operation post-earthquake 42

Discussion and Public Input 43


Mr. Coleman asked how the algorithm method would work if aftershocks damaged an out-of-1 service elevator. Mr. Horne replied that one or two extra elevators could be added over the 2 specifications, which could offset the cost between seismic-certifying these various components 3 and increasing reliability through redundancy. The algorithm can be designed so that all 4 elevators are never all moving at the same time. Their movement is managed either by 5 delaying door-closing time or slightly slowing acceleration down to guarantee synchronization. 6 This would decrease the probability of an elevator getting entangled cables. 7

Mr. Coleman felt that the above concept works very well for large hospital campuses because a 8 certain number of elevators will always be stationary at any given time when they are not being 9 called for vertical transportation. However, smaller hospitals have a minimal number of 10 elevators because the construction of hospitals is extremely expensive, so the use of the space 11 is very critical. At the same time, low-rise hospitals with minimal elevators can use stairs as a 12 vertical means of access. Mr. Horne agreed and felt that lower-rise applications are historically 13 not as vulnerable to this concept. If the goal is to keep hospitals operational in these events, 14 one should not increase the probability of the elevators being taken out of service, or one should 15 have a mitigation plan. Mr. Coleman pointed out that Cedars-Sinai’s has a lot of SPC-1 16 buildings on its campus with inherent structural deficiencies, which could be a contributing factor 17 to the higher effects of impact and unique occurrence at this hospital. 18

With regards to the SSC of hoistway equipment, Ms. Phipps pointed out that many of the 19 problems are related to ropes and cables tangled. One idea of addressing this is keeping one 20 cab stationary, but are there other ways to deal with this to prevent cable movement? Mr. 21 Elhassan added that there is a time lag between the start of an earthquake and when the cables 22 start to shake and entangle. Is there a system where sensors can be attached to the building 23 and algorithm to signal the beginning of an earthquake and trigger the elevators to stop prior to 24 the cables beginning to sway? Mr. Horne replied that there are seismic safety switches that the 25 elevators respond to when initiated. There is a way to have sensors going into the elevators to 26 avoid miss-tracking on the drive machine and sheaves, which is key to limiting the amount of 27 total lateral displacement. Most hospitals are not built over 20 stories, so those examples can 28 be used to come up with ways of mitigating that. The Elevator Code has snag-guards to 29 prevent hard lateral forces occurring from stored energy in cables snagging on hoistway 30 equipment resulting in more equipment damage. 31

Regarding elevator doorframe and controlling the issue of entangled cables, an Interested Party 32 asked if anything can be done, whether hydraulic or traction, to mitigate the damage that could 33 be happening to doorframes? Mr. Horne responded that it might be helpful to look at deflection 34 and movement in doorframe framework designs as a secondary nature for seismic application. 35 Collaborative efforts between OSHPD and NEII can focus on clarifying what should be tested 36 and what should be added or changed in design criteria so that doorframes can be properly 37 restrained. 38

Ms. Phipps asked, other than the San Diego test, have there been any problems anywhere else 39 with door operability post-earthquake? Mr. Horne replied that some Otis Elevator mechanics 40 reported experiences with doors coming off their tracks and gibs. Also, there have been cases 41 of doors under maintenance where the door gibs were not up to the latest code in terms of force 42 requirements and redundancy on rollers and gibs. Inspectors are now looking out for it, so we 43 must make sure the design criteria supports the movement seen in San Diego. Ms. Phipps 44


acknowledged that there is a gap in current design work in terms of deformation capability for 1 doors to stairs or elevators. It is a large problem that has not been adequately addressed yet 2 and needs some attention to arrive at a good solution for fire rating and the inter-story seismic 3 drift working together. 4

Mr. Lobo noted that the Northridge earthquake occurred at 4:17 a.m., therefore it may be 5 important to consider how many elevators were in operation at that time in the morning when 6 discussing what happened and why they failed compared to others. Mr. Horne noted the time 7 and added that the data may have been documented based on the aftershocks. Mr. Lobo 8 agreed and added that the building could have been SPC-1 with a lot of drift to cause the ropes 9 to swing. Mr. Karim stated that SPC-1 buildings no longer exist in Cedars-Sinai. Mr. Coleman 10 added that this change would have presumably been implemented through voluntary seismic 11 improvements, meaning that certain deficiencies were corrected while the ones that may have 12 been most vulnerable for the elevators may still be in place. This area should be looked into to 13 consider if it needs to be paid a little more attention in future. Mr. Tokas responded that OSHPD 14 plans to consider it through Mr. Horne’s White Paper and Code changes will be prepared and 15 brought in front of the Committee in the next meeting. Mr. Lew stated that there is evidence that 16 building impact caused damage to Cedars-Sinai buildings that were structurally separated. 17 Therefore, building impact might be a factor in the Northridge occurrence although it may not 18 have been a consideration in the design or the original ground motions that the structure was 19 designed to. It might have been a unique occurrence at Cedars-Sinai because of the way the 20 building was constructed. 21

Mr. La Brie raised the following question: Has there been any recorded damage in all the shake-22 table testing that has been performed on elevator equipment? Mr. Tokas confirmed this to be 23 true for the original test. Mr. Karim added that most of the tests were conducted on controllers, 24 and some of the tests failed in determining the nature of the frequency at the 0.1 level. 25 However, recent tests have all passed at the highest levels without any problems. Ms. Phipps 26 applauded the success of the program and how the enforcement of it has improved seismic 27 safety for all equipment. 28

3. Presentation: Elevator functionality requirements and current hospital building 29 requirements 30

Presenter: Bruce Horne, Otis Elevator, representing NEII 31


Informational Item 33

4. Presentation: Lessons Learned—Nonstructural Performance Category (NPC) program 34 implementation 35

Presenter: Paul Coleman 36

• OSHPD has begun to work on the 2019 California Building Standards Code 37 • This code cycle will focus on areas with room for improvement in the Code and where 38

OSHPD may not have stayed true to its statutory requirements. 39 • Hospitals tend to be built on earthquake faults, so requirements specific to hospitals 40

must be established. 41 • Northridge Earthquake: 42


o Pre-Act buildings performed much poorly than post-Act buildings 1 o All buildings failed in non-structural damage (77% minor and 23% major in post-2

Act) 3 o No recollection of any buildings being red-tagged for nonstructural damage 4

5 • Napa Earthquake: 6

o Not a design earthquake; less damage expected here 7 o Most nonstructural damage was insignificant; no heavy nonstructural damage 8

• Relative Capital Investment: 9 o Capital investment for nonstructural components and contents of hospitals is very 10

high compared to structural components 11 o Very important to protect nonstructural equipment during an earthquake; often 12

essential to continuing operation of the hospital 13 14

• Cost of NPC-3 Compliance in 2007: 15 o California Hospital Upgrade Project’s total construction cost was roughly $100 16

per square foot of the entire area of the hospital 17 o Today’s numbers are 35% higher (about $135 per square foot) 18 o NPC Challenges: 19

- Hazardous materials abatement (e.g. asbestos) 20 - Maintaining uninterrupted 24/7 hospital services during construction 21 - Constructing “swing” or “temporary” spaces for work 22 - Congested spaces and obstructions to seismic anchorage and bracing 23 - Some roof and/or floor slabs do not have thickness needed to meet 24

anchorage Code requirements 25 - Unforeseen conditions discovered during construction 26 - Lack of “as-built” drawings for systems and building structure requiring 27

extensive field investigations and preparation of drawings for existing 28 conditions 29

o Even when averaged across hospital square footage, cost was significant to 30 comply with NPC-3; compliance with NPC-4 will be considerably higher 31

• Current NPC Compliance Status: 32 o NPC-2: 59% of hospitals 33 o NPC-3: 7% of hospitals (mostly buildings that upgraded to this level) 34 o NPC-4: 17% of hospitals (newer buildings built since 1983) 35

• NPC Compliance: 36 o Pre- and post-1983 buildings, a significant number of pre-1983 are NPC-2; many 37

need upgrading 38 o Referring to SPC buildings (previously known as “additions”), not entire 39

architectural building 40 • Pre-1983 Buildings: 41

o NPC-2: 81% 42 o NPC-3: 9% 43 o NPC-1: 9% (should have been NPC-2 by 2002) 44 o NPC-4: 1% 45 o NBC-5: 0% 46

• Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act: 47 o § 129680 (a): It is the intent of the Legislature that hospital buildings that house 48

patients who have less than the capacity of normally healthy persons to protect 49 themselves, and that must be reasonably capable of providing services to the public 50 after a disaster, shall be designed and constructed to resist, insofar as practical, the 51


forces generated by earthquakes, gravity, and winds. To accomplish this purpose, 1 the office shall propose proper building standards for earthquake resistance based 2 upon current knowledge, and provide an independent review of the design and 3 construction of hospital buildings. 4

o “Insofar as practical” used several times in this section of the Code 5 o § 130005 (c): Earthquake performance categories shall also include sub gradations 6

for risk to life, structural soundness, building contents, and nonstructural systems 7 that are critical to providing basic services to hospital inpatients and the public after a 8 disaster. 9

o (f) The office, in consultation with the Hospital Building Safety Board, shall develop 10 regulations to identify the most critical nonstructural systems and to prioritize the 11 timeframes for upgrading those systems that represent the greatest risk of failure 12 during an earthquake. 13

• SPC standards are statutory and must be met by specific dates. NPC standards are in 14 regulations, so they can be modified and changed through regulation. 15

• Several NPC-3 hospitals in Seismic Design Category F must be NPC-4 by 2020 unless 16 they get an exemption from NPC-3, which would move their deadlines to 2030. 17

• Question for Committee: What non-structural anchorage and bracing of equipment and 18 systems is practical in an existing hospital building constructed prior to 1983? 19

20 Discussion and Public Input 21

Mr. Coleman mentioned that 1973 is the year when the Seismic Facilities Safety Act came into 22 being and required higher structural standards. OSHPD came into existence and began looking 23 at. and overseeing nonstructural work in 1982. Therefore, before 1983, nonstructural work was 24 not addressed in Code and/or by plan reviews or inspections. Mr. Lobo further added that 25 buildings built after 1983 have an OHSPD permit, and an exemption in the Code allows them to 26 fix a few items to upgrade to NPC-4. 27

Ms. Phipps felt that, while completely believing in the value of anchoring, bracing, and protecting 28 nonstructural components, the value of upgrading nonstructural components to NPC-4 in an 29 operating hospital independent of doing anything else is not consistent with the cost. Also, it is 30 false to think that all worries will cease to exist after completing the upgrades because some 31 equipment will remain unprotected. Therefore, it is important to temper the value with the cost 32 and bring those elements together. The appropriate way to handle the upgrading is to take care 33 of them in specific spaces that are already being controlled for renovation projects. Hospitals 34 are renovated all the time, so over time, all spaces will get taken care of. Finally, the main issue 35 lies in above-ceiling upgrades as below-ceiling requirements raise no issues because they are 36 accessible. Mr. La Brie agreed and expressed that the opportunity for upgrading arises when 37 renovation is occurring, so it makes sense to take care of it all at one time for that specific 38 space. At the same time, it is possible to prioritize some above-ceiling tasks that do not have 39 the same level of potential damage as other systems. 40

Mr. Coleman mentioned that OSHPD has considered allowing hospitals to determine what level 41 of services they want to have available to the public after a disaster. And based on that, they 42 would have to anchor and brace the systems that provide those services. That information 43 would then be brought to the Office of Emergency Services (OES) and the California 44 Department of Public Health (CDPH) to know theoretically which hospitals had what services 45 available to direct patients to. This would also prioritize for OSHPD which hospitals need to be 46 inspected first for operationality and can still provide those services for OES and CDPH’s 47 knowledge as well. This could be implemented with Ms. Phipps’ suggestion of upgrading during 48 renovation times to minimize the cost impact of doing the work at that time versus removing a 49


space from service for NPC work alone. Ms. Phipps added that it could be made as a condition 1 for getting a renovation/remodeling permit approved so that a mechanism is in place to ensure 2 the space gets checked. 3

Mr. Carl Scheuerman felt that, in practical application, hospitals that are the most profitable are 4 the ones least required for the condition of licensure. So, outpatient ancillaries may carry a lot 5 of the profitability of a given facility. Therefore, what needs to be kept in operation for the health 6 of the hospital would need to be the whole hospital. Mr. Coleman noted that OSHPD is not 7 required to consider the business recovery aspect of a hospital per the Seismic Safety Act. It is 8 more important to look at what would be essential during emergency situations where major 9 damage has occurred and access to certain hospitals may be blocked from road and 10 infrastructure damage. Therefore, adding this element would be useful for OSHPD to apply to 11 its response. Mr. Scheuerman added that some of the response would be related to geographic 12 vulnerability. Mr. Coleman countered with OSHPD being concerned with the safety standpoint 13 only as there are other factors that can affect a hospital’s functionality after an event other than 14 building issues (e.g. staff losing their homes). 15 16 Ms. Thornburg asked if a hospital that chooses not to be a post-event facility could have specific 17 rooms that were OSHPD-1 and others that were not. Mr. Coleman replied that it would have to 18 be a facility-wide classification; either the hospital campus can provide service, or it cannot. An 19 Interested Party pointed out that hospitals do not have the option to not participate in some level 20 of assistance post-disaster as it is part of their mission to serve their communities, and they 21 have extensive requirements by Licensing and Accreditation. 22 23 Ms. Phipps pointed out that proximity to the strong shaking is also an important factor. While a 24 facility may not have met all OSHPD requirements, they would be the ideal choice for operation 25 post-event if they are further away from the shaking. Therefore, it is recommended that where 26 patients are directed post-earthquake be based on real-time information gathered by OSHPD 27 about each facility as opposed to what is expected of them based on past records of their 28 compliance with requirements. Mr. Coleman agreed and mentioned that OSHPD uses collected 29 real-time data to prioritize its responses and highly prioritizes getting out to hospitals to confirm 30 if they are indeed operational. OSHPD must present code changes to the California Building 31 Standards Commission (CBSC) around March 2018. This change may be too complex to 32 implement within the timeframe OSHPD currently has, and may have to be pushed to the mid-33 cycle. 34 35 Speaking from experience, Mr. O’Connor commented that performing the NPC upgrade was not 36 a practical experience for the expense it took to achieve it. A preferred method is to work with 37 hospital owners to define post-event levels of service and work on a plan according to that while 38 incorporating seismic-upgrade work into open-ceiling projects. 39 40 Action Item 41 42 Mr. Coleman suggested putting together a task force to begin working on these changes to try 43 to get them into this code cycle. The Committee should start inviting some hospital 44 representatives to talk about what they think is feasible and practical to do instead of deciding 45 for them. 46 47 5. Discussion: Transition from CBC, Chapter 34A to International Existing Building Code 48 (IEBC) 49

Presenter: Chris Tokas 50


• In Code Cycle 2015/2016, OSHPD decided to adopt IEBC for nursing facilities and keep 1 following Chapter 34A for OSHPD-1s even though the model building code had 2 eliminated Chapter 34. 3

• Between 2015 and now, OSHPD has spent a considerable amount of time evaluating 4 the provisions of Chapter 34A. 5

• Being confronted now with the new 2018/2019 code cycle, it is time to move forward, 6 embrace IEBC at its full capacity, and bring the provisions of Chapter 34A into IEBC. 7

• OSHPD envisions IEBC to be the provisions for model code buildings and nursing 8 facilities, and in the process, amend IEBC’s provisions to bring everything that is 9 applicable from the hospital environment into Chapters 3, 4, and 5, thereby bringing the 10 OSHPD-1 provisions for general acute-care services into the IEBC environment. 11

• Time Line: 12 o Present proposal to HBSB at Structural Meeting—February 2018 13 o Submittal due to CBSC—March 2018 14

• Discussion Question: Is there more value in design professionals having an “A” chapter 15 in IEBC (provisions for existing buildings separate), or should everything be merged in 16 IEBC with tags of what applies to OSHPD and what does not? 17


Mr. Martin recommended keeping the “A” chapters as people have gotten used to using them. 19 Ms. Phipps agreed and felt that it should be very clear wherever it is placed in the new Code 20 and it is important to ensure it does not become messy. Mr. Coleman pointed out that, if acute 21 psychiatric hospitals are still considered OSHPD-1 but should use model code too, the 22 complexity arises of how to do so in the matrix for readers to know they should use the model 23 code for certain ones and the amended IEBC for others. 24

Ms. Phipps asked what the downside of having an “A” chapter in Part 10 is. Mr. Tokas replied 25 that there is no downside. 26

Mr. Coleman suggested designating the code requirement by structure category rather than 27 OSHPD-1 and 2. For example, facilities in Category 4 should reference the “A” chapter, and 28 Category 3 should reference the model code, etc. At the same time, this brings up the question 29 of whether OSHPD-1 and 2 designations are needed anymore. Mr. Scheuerman felt they were 30 not needed as the designation should be based on use. The group concurred. 31

Ms. Scaturro noted that a lot of work needs to be done and a lot of follow-up discussions need 32 to occur on them. December 2017 will be tough, and a lot of production needs to happen on 33 proposing language. That is why addressing the core question of how to model the language is 34 very helpful so that the bulk of the work can be done once and be ready to show the Committee 35 in January 2018. Mr. Martin motioned for “A” chapters be used in Part 10 (Chapters 3, 4, and 5) 36 where they include all appropriate information in lieu of section-by-section amendments. 37

MOTION: [Martin/Phipps] 38

The Committee voted unanimously to approve the use of “A” chapters in IEBC. 39

In terms of the timeline, Mr. Scheuerman commented that there was no touchpoint mentioned 40 for the Full Board to weigh in on the work product of the Committee prior to its submission to 41 CBSC. It is recommended that, at the end of the December Full Board meeting, the Chair of the 42


Structural Committee asks for the authority to move forward on the issues absent the Full Board 1 meeting so that there is no hitch in the timeline. Mr. Tokas agreed and stated that this is how it 2 was done in the past as the Full Board meetings usually do not coincide with the Code cycles. 3

Action Item 4

Mr. Coleman noted that OSHPD will need to figure out how to set up the matrix based on use 5 for the “A” chapters as opposed to its current setup based on OSHPD-1 and 2. Mr. Tokas 6 suggested not including a matrix in front of each chapter but adding it as a scope section that 7 applies to the “A” chapters. 8

9

6. Discussion: Definition of “Hospital Building” in the context of OSHPD 1 and OSHPD 2 10 building and delineation and applicable code requirements 11

Presenters: Eric Jacobsen, Paul Coleman 12

Legislative Mandate 13

• Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983: It is the intent of the 14 Legislature that hospital buildings that house patients who have less than the capacity of 15 normally healthy persons to protect themselves, and that must be reasonably capable of 16 providing services to the public after a disaster, shall be designed and constructed to 17 resist, insofar as practical, the forces generated by earthquakes, gravity, and winds. To 18 accomplish this purpose, the office shall propose proper building standards for 19 earthquake resistance based upon current knowledge, and provide an independent 20 review of the design and construction of hospital buildings. [Codified as Section 12980 21 California Health and Safety Code] 22

California Building Standards Law 23

o California Health & Safety Code Subsection 18930 (a) Nine-Point Criteria 24 Analysis of Proposed Building Standards: 7) The applicable national 25 specifications, published standards, and model codes have been incorporated 26 therein as provided in this part, where appropriate. (A) If a national specification, 27 published standard, or model code does not adequately address the goals of the 28 state agency, a statement defining the inadequacy shall accompany the 29 proposed building standard when submitted to the commission. 30

• OSHPD is obligated to use model code whenever and wherever possible unless model 31 code can be shown to be inadequate. 32

California Health and Safety Code 33

• Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act §129725: (a) (1) “Hospital building” includes any 34 building not specified in subdivision (b) that is used, or designed to be used, for a health 35 facility of a type required to be licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 36 1250) of Division 2. 37

• (b) “Hospital building” does not include any of the following: 38


o (1) Any building where outpatient clinical services of a health facility licensed 1 pursuant to Section 1250 are provided that is separated from a building in which 2 hospital services are provided to inpatients... 3

o (2) Any building used, or designed to be used, for a skilled nursing facility or 4 intermediate care facility if the building is of single-story, wood frame or light steel 5 construction... 6

• §129875. Construction or alterations of buildings specified in paragraphs (2) and (3) of 7 subdivision (b) of Section 12975 shall conform to the latest edition of the California 8 Building Standards Code. The office shall independently review and inspect these 9 buildings... 10

• Single story, wood or light metal frame, Skilled Nursing Facilities must meet the 11 requirements of the model code and not the higher standards for hospital buildings. 12

• 2019 CBC alignment includes clarification that these SNFs shall comply with the model 13 code as required by statute. 14

Proper Building Standards 15

• 1988 Uniform Building Code (as model code) Chapter 23, Section 2312 Earthquake 16 Standards –found to be “inadequate” for hospital buildings. V = ZICW/Rw 17

o a) I = 1.25 for “Essential Facilities” –Hospitals and other medical facilities having 18 surgery and emergency treatment areas. 19

o b) I = 1.0 for “Special Occupancy Structures” –Medical facilities with 50 or more 20 resident incapacitated patients, but not included above. 21

• 1989 California Amendments included State Chapter 23 with amendments to Section 22 2312. 23

o a) I = 1.50 for “Essential Facilities” –Hospitals and other medical facilities having 24 surgery and emergency treatment areas. 25

o b) I = 1.15 for “Special Occupancy Structures” –Medical facilities with 50 or more 26 resident incapacitated patients, but not included above. 27

o c) Additional enhancements for buildings regulated by OSHPD. 28

Standards Based Upon Current Knowledge 29

• §129840: After the occurrence of an earthquake, the office may make, or cause to be 30 made, studies of health facilities within the area involved. 31

• §129850: ...The office shall from time to time make any regulations that it deems 32 necessary, proper, or suitable to effectually carry out this chapter. The office shall also 33 propose and submit building standards to the California Building Standards Commission 34 for adoption and approval pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 18935) of 35 Part 2.5 of Division 13 relating to seismic safety for hospital buildings. 36

• Body of knowledge continues to grow over time and building standards progress 37 o Loma Prieta earthquake - 1989 38 o Northridge earthquake - 1994 39 o ASCE 7: national standard (1993, 1995, 2002, 2005, 2010, 2016) 40

2018 IBC (Model Code) Occupancy Groups 41


• Section 308, Institutional Group “I” (§308.3 Institutional Group I-2): Institutional Group I-2 1 occupancy shall include buildings and structures used for medical care on a 24-hour 2 basis for more than five persons who are incapable of self-preservation. This group 3 shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 4

o Foster care facilities 5 o Detoxification facilities 6 o Hospitals (OSHPD-owned) 7 o Nursing homes (OSHPD-owned) 8 o Psychiatric hospitals (OSHPD-owned) 9

• §308.3.1 Occupancy conditions. Buildings of Group I-2 shall be classified as one of the 10 occupancy conditions specified in Section 308.3.1.1 or 308.3.1.2. 11

o 308.3.1.1 Condition 1. This occupancy condition shall include facilities that 12 provide nursing and medical care but do not provide emergency care, surgery, 13 obstetrics or in-patient stabilization units for psychiatric or detoxification, including 14 but not limited to nursing homes and foster care facilities. 15

o 308.3.1.2 Condition 2. This occupancy condition shall include facilities that 16 provide nursing and medical care and could provide emergency care, surgery, 17 obstetrics or in-patient stabilization units for psychiatric or detoxification, including 18 but not limited to hospitals. 19

• Note: Conditions 1 & 2 were not adopted in the 2016 CBC although they were 20 introduced in the 2015 CBC. 21

2018 Importance Factors ASCE 7-16 22

• Risk Category II: Seismic Importance Factor (Ie) of 1.00 23 • Risk Category III: Seismic Importance Factor (Ie) of 1.25 24 • Risk Category IV: Seismic Importance Factor (Ie) of 1.50 25

2018 IBC Risk Categories 26

• Risk categories in ASCE 7 are modified in IBC as the model code including occupancy 27 groups 28

• Risk Category IV (Ie = 1.5): Group I-2, Condition 2 (hospitals): having emergency surgery 29 or emergency treatment facilities 30

• Risk Category III (Ie = 1.25): Group I-2, Condition 2 (hospitals): not having emergency 31 surgery or emergency treatment facilities; Condition 1 (SNFs): more than 50 patients 32

• Risk Category II (Ie = 1.00): all others aside from above 33

Higher Standards for General Acute Care 34

• In SB 1953, the Hospital Seismic Safety Act began better defining which hospital 35 buildings are required to run services after an event. 36

• The first section of the Act indicates that facilities with patients that are capable of self-37 preservation and that must provide services after an event had to be designed to higher 38 earthquake standards 39

• SB 1953 identified facilities that only provided SNFs and acute psychiatric services as 40 not required to provide services after an event (excluded from seismic compliance 41 standards) 42


• Single-story, wood or light metal frame SNFs must be brought under model code 1 • 2019 CBC proposal is that: all SNFs meet model code, regardless of the number of 2

stories. This will result in an Ie factor of 1.0 for SNFs with 49 or fewer beds regardless of 3 the number of stories 4

• This will require an Ie factor of 1.25 for SNFs with 50, or more, beds regardless of the 5 number of stories 6

OSHPD-1 vs OSHPD-2 Risk Factor Summary 7

• OSHPD-1 Hospitals: 8 o Facilities with emergency services must be designed to Ie of 1.50. 9 o Non-emergency facilities, acute-psych, and GACH must meet Ie of 1.25. 10

• OSHPD-2 SNFs: 11 o Multi-story buildings with more than 50 patients must meet Ie of 1.25. 12 o One-story buildings with less than 50 patients must meet Ie of 1.00. 13

• Acute rehab is an acute service that may have to be kept at Ie of 1.50 even though model 14 code would allow going down to 1.25. 15


Mr. Scheuerman asked if an acute rehab building is built to model code standards, would it be 17 possible to convert it to med-surg as an exit strategy if one had built out to 1.25? That would 18 result in an asset that is no longer economic. Mr. Coleman agreed and stated that owners 19 would need to be aware of that information before starting the upgrade, that doing so would be 20 limiting the flexibility of their building. OSHPD has interpreted SB 1953 to include acute rehab 21 hospitals to remain at 1.5. However, acute-psych is specifically excluded by statutory and 22 OSHPD regulations, so they can adhere to the model code of 1.25. At the same time, the 23 chances that an acute-psych building will be convertible to general acute care is less 24 economically feasible. Mr. Scheuerman agreed and added that it is not a useful exit strategy 25 because it would be gutting and rebuilding the entire interior of the building. Ms. Scaturro 26 mentioned that referral-only specialty hospitals will fall under acute-rehab and will need to be 27 held at 1.5 even though they do not have emergency services. 28

Mr. Elhassan felt that the number of stories of a building is more relevant than the number of 29 patients. For example, in a 4-story 49-patient hospital, seismic performance is different and less 30 reliable than a 1-story building. Mr. Coleman stressed that the Code dictates the number of 31 patients to be the more critical factor than the number of stories. Mr. Tokas added that when 32 having 50 care recipients, the main point is to begin moving up towards 1.5 regardless of the 33 number of stories. Mr. Elhassan added that this decision probably was arrived at from fire and 34 life safety issues and evidence, but the structural performance of multi-story buildings is much 35 more problematic than the performance of a single-story building. Hence, the number of stories 36 remains much more relevant than the number of occupants. Ms. Phipps disputed that a 4-story 37 building would probably have more damage than a single-story building, the risk categories are 38 designed around occupancy. So, the question is does OSHPD want to make an exception to 39 the model code for multi-story SNF buildings? OSHPD would need a very good reason to go 40 against the model code and change the way it is headed. Mr. Coleman added that OSHPD built 41 a case before when the initial Act did not specifically accept SNFs as being hospital buildings. 42 However, SB 1953 has clarified which types of hospital buildings have to provide services after 43


an event and specifically excluded SNFs. Therefore, if the legislators saw fit to exclude them, 1 why should OSHPD continue to include them? 2

Mr. Scheuerman asked if it would be possible to get around the 50-bed limit if, for example, an 3 80-bed single-story proposal has a seismic joint. Mr. Coleman said yes because those are two 4 separate buildings. Mr. Scheuerman asked another practical question: how many multi-story 5 new construction applications for SNF projects has OSHPD received in the last few years? Mr. 6 Coleman responded that several multi-story applications are being received right now, which 7 are all more than 50 beds (1.25) and in urban settings. 8

7. Discussion: Testing protocols for components and assemblies of nonstructural 9 distribution systems 10

Appropriate Loading Protocol for Capacity Determination of Metallic Bracing Components 11

Presenters: Chris Tokas 12

• SB 211: 13 o Health and Safety Code §129895: a) The office shall adopt by regulations 14

seismic safety standards for hospital equipment anchorages, as defined by the 15 office, to include, but not be limited to, architectural, mechanical, and electrical 16 components, supports, and attachments. Those regulations shall include criteria 17 for the testing of equipment anchorages. 18

o Although the language talks about equipment anchorages, it was not envisioned 19 within the provisions of Chapter 13 ASCE 7 as a whole. The language directs 20 OSHPD into mechanical and electrical components which bring a variety of other 21 nonstructural components in a hospital building that basically renders 22 functionality to the building. 23

• ASCE 7, Chapter 13: 24 o 13.2.1 Applicable Requirements for Architectural, Mechanical, and Electrical 25

Components, Supports, and Attachments: 2) Submittal of the manufacturer’s 26 certification that the component is seismically qualified by at least one of the 27 following: 28

- analysis 29 - testing in accordance with the alternative set forth in Section 13.2.5 30 - Experience data in accordance with the alternative set forth in Section 31

13.2.6 32 o 13.2.5 Testing Alternative for Seismic Capacity Determination: As an alternative 33

to the analytical requirements of Sections 13.2 through 13.6, testing shall be 34 deemed as an acceptable method to determine the seismic capacity of 35 components and their supports and attachments. Seismic qualification by testing 36 based upon a nationally recognized testing standard procedure, such as ICC-ES 37 AC 156, acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction shall be deemed to satisfy 38 the design and evaluation requirements provided that the substantiated seismic 39 capacities equal or exceed the seismic demands determined in accordance with 40 Sections 13.3.1 and 13.3.2. 41

• CBC Chapter 17A 42


o Modification/addition to 1705A.13.2 Nonstructural Components: Seismic sway 1 braces satisfying requirements of FM 1950 shall be deemed to satisfy the 2 requirements of this Section. Component tests shall be supplemented by 3 assembly tests when required by the building official. 4

• Loading Protocol Component Test –FM 1950 5 o To design new buildings or performance evaluation of existing buildings, it is 6

necessary to use the appropriate loading protocols in experimental tests for 7 developing qualification criteria. 8

o Crucial concern in these tests is to utilize loading protocol that should be 9 representative of the actual demands imposed by the seismic event. 10

• What is Quasi-Static Loading Protocol? 11 o Quasi-static loading protocols have been mainly developed in part by statistical 12

evaluation of seismic response data and in part by judgement. 13 o We need well-defined standardized protocols that outline the test procedures 14

clearly to test properly and achieve desirable results to approve components with 15 a defined capacity. 16

o “Quasi-static” implies load or deformation cycles are imposed on a test specimen 17 in a slow, controlled, stepwise increasing symmetric fully reversed cyclic loading 18 pattern and predetermined manner. 19

• Loading History Effects: 20 o Helmut Krawinkler (father of loading protocols) compared the effects of loading 21

history on the same components 22 o Objectives of Testing: 23

- Evaluation of behavior 24 - Study of damage and failure modes 25 - Development of design/detailing criteria 26 - Analytical modeling 27

o Dilemmas: 28 - Single tests should represent different conditions existing in a structure 29 - Demands imposed by ground motions on the structure depend strongly 30

on structural characteristics 31 - Imposed demands are a function of ground motion characteristics, which 32

depend strongly on soil type, source-to-site distance, and many other 33 geophysical parameters 34

- Various performance levels of interest, from immediate occupancy to 35 collapse 36

- “Loading history is never ‘right’.” - Helmut Krawinkler 37

ASCE41-13 Sec 7.6: Alternative Modeling Parameters and Acceptance Criteria; paper by Bruce 38 Maison 39

• Background 40 o [ASCE 41] Sec 7.6 deals with lab tests 41

- to generate backbone curves and acceptance criteria 42 - emphasis on “fully-reversed cyclic tests” 43

o Industry trend includes “monotonic tests” 44


- FEMA P-440A study on effects of strength and stiffness degradation 1 - FEMA P-695 for determining building system performance parameters 2 - PEER “Tall Buildings Initiative” has the preferred option of using the 3

monotonic backbone curve with deterioration 4 • Why are Backbone Curves Important? 5

o Backbone curves set modeling parameters (m-factors) and acceptance criteria 6 o Arbitrary backbones are not good 7 o Backbones should be realistic to produce meaningful results 8

• Bruce Maison initiated different loading protocols and compared monotonic tests with 9 fully reversible cyclic tests, resulting in a good analog of monotonic vs. cyclic results 10

• Trends 11 o One-sided response at “large” drifts 12 o Few “large” excursions, mostly < 3 “large” drift excursions 13 o More “monotonic” as opposed to “numerous fully-reversed cycles” 14

• What Needs to Change? 15 o Emphasize that protocol should mimic expected EQ loading pattern; typically few 16

one-sided cycles at “large” drifts 17 o Indicate usefulness of monotonic in addition to cyclic tests 18 o Eliminate “fully-reversed cyclic” loading requirement 19 o Change [ASCE 41] Figure7-5; currently shows unrealistic numerous fully-20

reversed cyclic results 21 • Next Steps: 22

o Ad hoc working group to formulate change proposal 23 o White paper explaining rationale for changes 24 o Present to ASCE 41 Committee 25

• The same nonstructural issues have been brought forth by other researchers 26

Observations on FEMA 461 vs FM 1950 27

• A lot of cycles in the elastic region of FM 1950; works very low in the post-elastic region 28 • This testing protocol fully evaluates the components of FEMA 461 29 • Absorbed Energy: FEMA 461 imparts a lot of energy compared to FM 1950. 30

Current Work Under Development 31

• Note: loading protocol to be used should not be based on the pure science, but for 32 establishing what is needed for everyday work 33

• Tests should be regular to provide consistency to compare relative performance of 34 different components and thereby provide evidence that the components satisfy the 35 requirements 36

• Discussion Question: Which protocol is the most appropriate for estimating capacity of 37 metallic components: 38

o Monotonic with a safety factor? 39 o Cyclic FM 1950 with a safety factor? 40 o Cyclic FEMA 461 with a safety factor? 41


o Monotonic for some, cyclic for others? 1 o Other? 2


Mr. Coleman posed the following question: If there are a concrete shear wall building, a moment 4 frame building, and a raised frame building, can it be expected that the components will perform 5 the same in all three structures regardless of the protocol that is chosen? Mr. Tokas replied that 6 another paper discussed this subject and concluded that the loading protocol utilized for a 7 nonstructural component should be appropriate to where the component is to be installed. Mr. 8 Coleman emphasized the importance of devising a practical way of establishing loads that can 9 be used. Mr. Tokas agreed. 10

Mr. Hussain mentioned that the testing protocol tests the component’s capacity, while another 11 part of the Code deals with determining what the demand is, and capacity must be greater than 12 demand. Mr. Coleman’s question is related to demand, where the current Code does not 13 distinguish between moment frames and shear walls. But, that differentiation is coming soon as 14 discussions are in motion to modify the demand formula based on structure. Ms. Phipps added 15 that if the component has some ductility in it and can give a little bit, it reduces the demand in an 16 effective way and is useful to do if one can accommodate the displacements. Therefore, 17 understanding the post-elastic behavior is very important in the protocol development. It is 18 important to rethink this as our understanding of the phenomenon is constantly changing, so the 19 information needed from the protocol is also changing and advancing. Mr. Lobo further added 20 that if capacity, ductility, and other characteristics are to be tested, it may be worth questioning if 21 more value can be derived from the protocol that is chosen. 22

An Interested Party felt that multiple modes of failure may occur as assembly becomes more 23 complex. Therefore, there is value in spending some time defining what represents a failure. 24 Mr. Tokas countered with the fact that the protocol tests from the system level down to the 25 component level and the little brackets. Although weaknesses were looked out for, the FM 1950 26 testing protocol showed no signs of failure when observing the assembly. 27

8. Comments from the Public/Board Members on Issues Not on This Agenda. 28

No comments. 29

9. Adjournment 30

Mr. Elhassan adjourned the meeting at approximately 1:32 p.m. 31

hospital building safety board structural and non ... · pdf file31/01/2018 · hbsb...

Documents