AD-A130 924 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THE SEISMIC VULNERABILITY OFSELECTED BUILDINGS A..(U CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERINGUNLASI D ER-R--37RESEARCH LAB (ARMY) CHAMPAIGN ILI. K LEW MAR 83

UNCASIFED CEL-R--37 IPR-CIAO-81-58 G 13/13 NLl iiom hIiNOEiliIHflflflfllfl

lfl lfl 83No'

1.0 t'-.5IoZ al.'s

flflj~ ~.L2_ 0

LI ~ 4 3

MICROCOPY RESOLUT ION TEST CH-ART

WMO 9 URE4 OF SYANOO~fDS '6

construction Unit State. Armye nCone rpn of En. gi,,.e...s TechncalRep rt -327engineering

S d. A, March 19831, , * &.. -t n t. N ation

4 researchlaboratory

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THE SEISMIC VULNERABILITYOF SELECTED BUILDINGS AT FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA,

USING THE RAPID SEISMIC ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

byT. K. Lew

~AU2 1983'.

Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.

83 08 31 003

The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, orpromotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute anofficial indorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Departmentof the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.

DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN ITIS NO I ONGER NEEDED

DO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGIN.4 TOR

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (01en Data Entered)

REPOT DCUMNT 0H AGEREAD INSTRUCTIONSREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

CERL-TR-M-327 tlO

4. TITLE (and Subtitle) S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THE SEISMIC VULNERABILITY FINALOF SELECTED BUILDINGS AT FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA,USING THE RAPID SEISMIC ANALYSIS PROCEDURE S. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(.) S. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(.)

T. K. Lew MIPR-CIAO-81-58

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS tO. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASKU.S. ARMY AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY 4A762731AT41-A-037P.O. BOX 4005, Champaign, IL 61820

It. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

March 198313. NUMBER OF PAGES

7914. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESSQIf different from Controlling Office) IS, SECURITY CLASS. (of thie report)

Unclassified

I5e. DECL ASSI FICATION/ DOWNGRADINGSCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstraect enterd in Block 20, it different from Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Copies are obtainable from the National Technical Information ServiceSpringfield, VA 22161

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reveree sido It neceeary and Identify by block number)

Ft. Ord, CA

earthquake engineeringRapid Seismic Analysis procedure

20. Atrh ACT tt ,tm, ON powow.,. .. N niwom ad Ifdmtk by block nu,ber)

A preliminary evaluation of the seismic vulnerability of a selected group of 1 7 essentialand high-potential.oss buildings at Fort Ord. CA, was conducted using the Navy's RapidSeismic Analysis (RSA) procedure. This procedure estimates the potential earthquakeground-shaking effects on buildings, including estimated damage and the cost of thesedamages. In addition, a list of recommended modifications to enhance the accuracy andcapabilities (if the RSA procedure was also developed. Where appropriate, these modifica-tions were incorporated into the analysis of the selected group of buildings, Based on the - ,

W~ m 114M F017110 OF I NOV 65 is OWSOLtEtN 173 k ETUNCLASSI FI ED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF TNIS PAGE (Wl , Date Bntercd)

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(WhI Data Entered)

BLOCK 20. (Cont'd)

- results of the preliminary evaluation, about one third of the buildings in the initial groupwould have estimated damage greater than 60 percent of their estimated replacement cost

under the maximum site ground acceleration of 0.40 g. This indicates that the buildings

analyzed have a high probability of being severely damaged or of collapsing under the

maximum site ground acceleration. It was recommended that these buildings be analyzed

in detail to determine the degree of strengthening and cost required to reduce the seismic

hazards to these buildings and their occupants. - -

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEt'"en Deaa Entered)

FOREWORD

This study was performed by the Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory (NCEL). PortHueneme, CA, for the Engineering and Materials Division (EM) of the U.S. Army Con-struction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL). The work was performed underMIPR-CIAO 81-58 in support of the Directorate of Engineering and Construction, Officeof the Chief of Engineers (OCE), RDT&E Program 6.27.12A, Project 4A762731AT41."Military Facilities Engineering Technology" Technical Area A. "Facility Planningand Design": Work Unit 037, "Hazard Indexing/Prioritizing System (HIPS) for MilitaryBuildings."

Mr. B. Haulmen, Mr. C. Canlas, Ms. B. Rees, Ms. J. Stevens, and other members of theFacility Engineer staff at Fort Ord provided NCEL with the architectural and structuraldrawings and other information used in ths study. Mr. K. Mack (NCEL) extracted datafrom the structural drawings and computed the building properties used in the analysis.The section on strengthening costs and Table 10 were written by CERL personnel.Dr. James D. Prendergast was the CERL project monitor for this investigation. Mr. G.Matsumura, DAEN-ECE-T, was the OCE Technical Monitor. Dr. R. Quattrone is Chiefof EM.

COL Louis J. Circeo is Commander and Director of CERL, and Dr. L. R. Shaffer isTechnical Director.

ti,

3

CONTENTS

Page

DD FORM 1473 1FOREWORD 3

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES 5

1 INTRODUCTION 7...........................................7BackgroundObjectiveApproachScopeMode of Technology Transfer

2 ANALYSIS ................................................ 9Buildings AnalyzedVisual SurveyStructural PropertiesDamage EstimatesStrengthening Costs

3 RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS FOR THE RSA PROCEDURE ........ 22Computation of Base Shear CapacitiesComputation of Natural Periods at YieldDamping ValuesComputation of Estimated DamageSelection of Buildings for Detailed Seismic Analysis

4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 23

REFERENCES 23

APPENDIX A: Photos of Buildings Analyzed 25APPENDIX B: Computer Output of Earthquake Damage Estimates 57

DISTRIBUTION

4

TABLES

Number Page

1 Buildings Analyzed at Fort Ord, CA 10

2 Description of Buildings Analyzed at Fort Ord, CA 12

3 Assumed Damping Values 14

4 Base Shear Capacities of Buildings Analyzed at Fort Ord, CA 15

5 Natural Periods of Buildings Analyzed at Fort Ord, CA 16

6 Earthquake Damage Estimates tor Building 4250, TelephoneExchange at Fort Ord, CA 17

7 Summary of Damage Estimates at 0.40 g Maximum GroundAcceleration for Buildings Analyzed at Fort Ord. CA 19

8 Summary of Estimated Earthquake Damage Costs for BuildingsAnalyzed at Fort Ord. CA 20

9 Summary of Estimated Earthquake Damage Costs for BuildingsAnalyzed at Fort Ord, CA, Including Identical Buildings 21

10 Summary of Strengthening Costs of Buildings From DetailedSeismic Analysis 21

FIGURES

Number Page

1 Location Map for Fort Ord, CA 8

2 Elastic Response Spectra for Fort Ord, CA 9

3 Location of Buildings Analyzed in the Main Garrison, Fort Ord, CA 1l

4 Estimated Combined Damage Versus Maximum Ground Accelerationfor Buildings Analyzed at Ford Ord. CA 18

5

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS earthquake vulnerability of selected essential and high.OF THE SEISMIC VULNERABILITY potential-loss buildings at Fort Ord. CA. using theOF SELECTED BUILDINGS AT FORT ORD, RSA procedure,2

CALIFORNIA, USING THE RAPIDSEISMIC ANALYSIS PROCEDURE The objective of CERL's seismic research is to de-

velop a facility seismic indexing/prioritizing system toeconomically identify and evaluate the seismic capacityand strengthening strategies for essential and high-

INTRODUCTION potential-loss facilities at Army installations. The pre-liminary evaluations of the seismic vulnerability ofselected buildings at Fort Ord, CA, using NCEL's

Background RSA procedure and the identification of potentialMost of the permanent structures at military instal- enhancements to the RSA procedure are an integral

lations have been constructed according to the seismic part of CERL's on-going research.codes applicable during their design. These codes areintended to give the buildings some protection from The primary mission of Fort Ord is to support theseismic hazards. However, as more earthquake data be- 7th Infantry Division of the U.S. Army. In addition, itcame available, it was necessary to increase the design provides support to the Combat Development Experi-force levels in the older codes, and to change certain mentation Command, the Defense Language Institute,design details to improve seismic resistance and per- and active and reserve military programs in Central andformance of buildings. Thus, a structure built a few Southern California. Moreover, in the event of anyears ago may not satisfy current design criteria, earthquake in the San Francisco Bay area, Fort Ord

will support disaster relief operations in accordanceTo evaluate the earthquake vulnerability of existing with the Sixth U.S. Army Earthquake Response Plan-

mission-essential, critikal. and other selected structures, San Francisco Bay Area.the Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory (NCEL) hasdeveloped the Rapid Seismic Analysis (RSA) proce- Fort Ord (Figure 1) is located in one of the highestdure.' The RSA procedure, a series of computer pro- seismicity areas in California. The largest earthquake-grams. will identify buildings which may be severely induced ground motions at the site are expected fromdamaged during earthquakes by using the building movement along one of the following three active geo-site's current ground motion criteria and existing logic fault zones adjacent to the site:structural properties of the framing systems of thebuilding. Any inadequate structure is identified and 1. San Andreas fault zoneanalyzed in detail to determine the degree of strength-ening required and the estimated cost to eliminate or 2. Palo Colorado-San Gregorio fault /onereduce the potential earthquake damage and hazardsso that interruption of the facility's mission immedi- 3. Monterey Bay fault zone.ately after an earthquake will be minimal. Then, theresults of the detailed analysis are used to make admin- The San Andreas fault zone is about 25 miles east ofistrative decisions about the disposition of the existing the site and the Palo Colorado-San Gregorio fault zone

inadequate buildings. The Navy has used the RSA pro- is abojt 14 miles (22.4 km) southwest of it. The Mon-cedure successfully at several of its installations, such terey Bay fault zone is about 3 miles (4.8 kin) north-

as Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, CA; Naval west of the site. The primary hazards to the post'sStation and Naval Training Center, San Diego, CA; buildings and their occupants from a major movementNaval Construction Battalion Center. Port Hueneme, along one of these fault zones are falling debris fromCA: and Naval Facilities, Guam. Mariana Islands. the buildings and damage to the buildings from earth-

quake ground-shaking.As part of its continuing seismic research program,

the U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research ObjectiveLaboratory (CERL) requested that NCEL evaluate the The objectives of this study were: (I) to investigate

and evaluate the seismic vulnerability of 17 selectedIT. K. Lcw and S. K. Takahashi. Rapid Seismic Analysis

Procedu-e, Technical Memorandum M-51-78-02 (Naval CivilEngineering Laboratory. April 1978). 2Lew and Takahashi.

7

WATSONVILLE RiVER

N0 1 2 3 4 5

SCALE IN MILES

* MOSS LANDING

_M TEEY9 A1.,NAU L PRUNEDALE

CASTROVILLE

FAIgur SALINAS aplt -ot() . A

essential and high-potential-loss buildings at Fort Ord, 2 ANALYSISCA, using the RSA procedure, and (2) to recommendmodifications to the RSA procedure which would en- The major steps of the RSA procedure are: (1) se-hance its accuracy or capabilities. lecting the buildings to be studied: (2) visually inspect-

Approach ing the current physical condition of the buildings:

Seventeen selected buildings were analyzed with (3) determining the pertinent structural properties,such as the base shear capacities and natural periods atthe RSA procedure using site elastic response spectra yilanutmteevs:nd()nptnghebe

provided by CERL. Based on NCEL's experience, yield and ultimate levels; and (4) inputting the baseprovdedby ERL Baed o NCL'sexpriece, shear capacities, natural periods, assumed damping

modifications that would enhance the accuracy or

capabilities of the RSA procedure were presented values, and current replacement cost for each building

and, where appropriate, incorporated into the analysis and the digitized site response spectra (Figure 2) into

of the buildings. a computer program. The program determines the esti-mated damage and associated cost for each building

Scope at the maximum ground acceleration (MGA) for theThe information provided by this preliminary site of 0.40 g and at site MGAs between 0.05 g and

evaluation is limited to the rapid, approximate analy- 0.50 g at 0.05-g intervals. The estimated damage issis of the earthquake ground-shaking effects on the determined from the base shear capacities of thebuildings studied. building and the demand from the site response spec-

tra, using the assumed damping values and computedMode of Technology Transfer natural periods for the building. In calculating the

It is recommended that the information in this re- combined damage for each building, the computerport be used to prepare an updated volume of TM program first figures the estimated damage for each5-809-10, Seismic Design for Buildings. principal direction of the building. based on the

4.0 "

3.0 7

%=O/ CRITICAL DAMPING

0

S2.0S

2 % ".4--

h..

0 ID 20 3.0 4.0 5.0PERIOD, T (SEC)

Fore 2. Elastic response spectra for Fort Ord. CA.

9

demands from the response spectra for the input has performed quite well during past earthquakenatural period and damping values. It then determines ground motions in minimizing differential settlementthe combined damage by taking the sum of two-thirds damage to the building from ground shaking.of the damage for the critical direction, and one-thirdof the damage for the other direction. The estimated Figure 3 shows the locations of all of these buildingsdamage cost is obtained by multiplying the estimated except Building 507. which is located away from thedamage by the replacement cost of the building. main garrison. There are three identical types of bar-

racks buildings, i.e.. 10 buildings identical to BuildingGood engineering judgment, familiarity with the 3620.* 10 buildings identical to Building 4471. and 31

behavior of different buildings under earthquake buildings identical to Building 4782 on the post.ground shaking, and familiarity with good seismic-resistant design and construction practices are essen- Descriptions of the buildings analyzed are providedtial in obtaining realistic damage estimates with the in Table 2. including the year built, number of stories.RSA procedure. floor area, replacement cost. type of construction, and

primary lateral force resisting systems.

Seventeen buildings (see Table 1) representative oftypical construction types found at Ford Ord were Visual Survey

chosen for analysis by CERL in conjunction with the A quick visual survey was made of each building to

Fort Ord Facilities Engineer; the choice was made determine the physical condition of the buildings, as

based on the buildings' importance to potential post- well as verify the details shown in the constructiondisaster recovery requirements, occupancy, cost, age, drawings and the assumptions made in computing theand number of similar or identical buildings. building properties. Results indicated that the buildings

were constructed as shown in the construction draw-

Buildings Analyzed ings and are generally in good to excellent physicalMost of the selected 17 buildings are constructed of condition with only minor cracks from thermal expan-

reinforced concrete (RIC) and/or reinforced concrete sion, contraction, and shrinkage, except for those dis-unit masonry (CMU) and were built between 1943 and cussed below. The interiors of Buildings 3641. 3702.1979. One building is constructed of structural steel and 3703 were not inspected because they were closedframes, and a few other buildings have partial steel during the survey. Appendix A shows selected photosframing. The footings of many of the buildings are tied of the buildings taken during the visual survey.together with grade beams or tie-beams designed for apercentage of the axial load on the connected founda- Building 3620 Lnlisted Personnel Barrackstions. Experience indicates that this foundation system Without Mess

The exterior stucco cover over the thermal insula-tion placed outside of the precast concrete wall panels

Table I had numerous horizontal cracks 10 to 15 ft (3 to 45 m)

Buildings Analyzed at Fort Ord, CA long, and about 1/64 in. (.4 mm) wide. At one loca-tion. some triangular pieces of stucco. measuring about

Building No. Description I ft (.3 m) (nominal) on each side. had fallen off orbeen punched in- Except for potential hazards from

507 Elight Maintenance Aircraft langar debris falling on personnel near the building during an2075 Enlisted Men's Service Club

3620 Enlisted Personnel Barracks W/O Mess earthquake, the cracked stucco is expected to have

3641 Enlisted Personnel Mess negligible effect on the building's seismic resistance.3701 Unit Chapel3702 Theater W/O Stage The walls were constructed of 6-in. ( 152-mm)-thick.3703 Enlisted Men's Service Club precast, reinforced concrete panels. Only the vertical4200 lire Station4235 Exchange. Main Retail Store boundary reinforcements of the wall panels near the4240 Commissary edges of the building and exits were welded to one4250 Telephone Exchange another at the different floor levels. The other vertical4260 Open Mess, NCO reinforcement from the walls is held in place by the4280 Post Chapel one No. 4 rebar that acts as a continuous chord around4471 Enlisted Personnel Barrack W/O Mess4480 Gymnasium4782 Enlisted Personnel Barracks W/Mess *Eight more buildings oft identical design with shlghtl5 im-4953 Confinement Facility proved connection details are being constructed at the post.

t0

Ot 0

cc It 0

--- 44

1 0

C~CN7. 0

~~t W, j 7

AW I I 4

i 000 -

I;;," ;OA

Iable 2Description of Buildings Analyzed at Fort Ord. CA

Building Year No. of Total ReplacementNo. Built Stories Area (Sq. Ft.) Cost (SK) Type Lateral Force Resisting System

5107 1979 2 64.920 2.926 ('t* & Steel ('MU shear wsalls and steelframes s ith X-hraces

2075 1943 3 5I 892 3.649 R,(- *\ \Wooded Roof R/C shear walls and frame,3621 1977 3 22.439 1.332 Precast Concrete Precast concrete shear panels

& (OIt artd CMU shear osalls

3641 1978 1 13,787 1,614 ('Mt & Steel CMU shear \salls3701 1977 1 7.820 753 ('MI & Glu-lam CMU shear walls

Wooden Arches and R/C frames

3702 1958 1 14.481 1.325 CMU & R/(" CM[' shear wallsand RC(" trames

37(13 1962 1 31,770 2.252 CMtI & Steel (Mt shear walls and steel rigidfranes

4200 1953 1 6.797 468 R/C & CMU R/t" and (MU shear walls andR/C trarnes

4235 1971 1 72.709 4.617 Steel Steel frames4240 1973 1 80,590 4.309 Precast Concrete Precast concrete c\terior shear

& Steel walls and steel interior frames4250 1953 3 13.088 1.140 R/C& ('M" R/C and (MU shear ssalls4260 1965 1 35.612 2,670 ('ML. R/C. & Steel ('MU' shear walls. R/iC columns.

and steel frames

4280 1958 I 24,670 2.209 ('MU Walls. R/C ('MU shear xa!lstrames. & WoodenGlu-lam Arches

4471 1970 3 40.587 2,409 CMU & R/C CMU shear walls4480 1970 1 20,457 1.677 ('MU & Steel ('MU shear walls4782 1954 4 1barracks) 42.017 2.493 R/C R/C shear walls and frames

I mness)4953 1953 55.487 4.071 R/C Ri(C shear walls and frames

*Concrete Masonr Unit (('MU!* *Reinfored Concrete I R/)

the perimeter of the building. The No. 4 rebar is held it painting. Because the available structural drawings for

place by reinforcement hooks from the 2-1/2-in. 104- this pre-engineered building did not show the details

min)-thick.cast-in-place topping placed on the 2-I 2-in. needed for the RSA. measurements were taken at the

(64-nim)-thick precast concrete filigree panels. The base of one of the steel frames in front of the storevertical intersections of the precast wall panels at the ,uiiiag the visual survey to obtain the information

building perimeter appeared to be bonded only b needed for the analysis.

non-shrink grout. The 6-in. (152-mni)-thick interior

masonry partitions are connected I) the precast wall Building 4240 Commissar,

panels by rod anchors installed at 48 in. (1219 nm)ton Some of the exterior precast concrete wall panels

centers. In general, the wall connections throughout of the building had numerous horizontal cracks about

the buildings are relatively poor. 1/64 in. .4 mm) wide spaced at about 12-in. (305-mm)intervals. Apparently. these h'rizontal cracks were

Building 3702 Theater Without Stage caused by inadequate concrete cover over the steel

There were no signs of cracks on the exterior con- reinforcement in the panels. The surfaces of the precast

crete masonry walls or R/C columns. There appeared concrete columns have numerous I 4-in. to 1/2-in.to be about a 3-ft (.9-m)-long crack at the construction (6-mm to 12-mm) air pockets. indicating that the con-

joint on the outside of the south wall near the top of crete mix was a bit stiff during pouring.

the third column from the narrow end of the building.

The construction drawings indicate that the ties forBuilding 4235 Main Exchange Retail Store the precast exterior R/C columns supporting the wall

The exposed steel frames on the north wall of the panels are inadequate to prevent the four longitudinalbuilding are badly rusted and need sand blasting and rebars from buckling after the concrete shell has

12

spalled during earthquake response. These ties do not Inside the building. there are nuinerous cra, k, about

form the usual closed rectangular hoop. They consist 16104 in. (.4 nun wide on the bottom ,l the tloot

of U'" shapes with a flat base and a small portion of slabs at the different flto level,. These cracks,. wich

each upright is bent at 90 toward one another. The are perpendicular or parallel to the floor Joists. ap-

individual footings under the precast R/C columns on peared to be caused h\ theinial and or shrinkage

the perimeter of the building are tied to one another stresses.

only through the 40-ft I I 2-mi-long precast wall panels

that span the RiC columns. Individual footings with There are 1I of these barracks silh lriess at the post.

such connections tend to offer inadequate protection

from damage caused by earthquake-induced differen- Building 4953 Gmnfineincnt Facility

tial settlement. Also. the structural detailing of the This building was inspected fromin outside the tenc-

connections of the wall panel intersections at the ing which surrounds the tacility. The concrete surfaces

corners of the building appears inadequate, of the building appeared to be crack-free and in goodcondition. The construction drawings indicate that

The interior framing of the building was fabricated the construction joints for the columns are locatedfrom steel trusses and columns. The structural detailing at the top of the floor slab at the ground floor and

of the steel framing shown on the drawing appears at the bottom of the beams at the upper levels. Ex-to be adequate. perience indicates that the location of these con-

struction joints can lead to excessive damage from

Building 4250 Telephone Exchange earthquake ground-shaking.The exterior R/C walls have only minor thermal

and/or shrinkage cracking. The switching and cable Structural Propertiesracks on the first floor are well-anchored to the walls The Ford Ord Facilities Engineering staff provided

and floor. The masonry walls on the second floor are NCEL with available architectural and structural draw-

not carried down continuously to the first floor and ings for the buildings. Structural calculations were not

basement. There are no continuous paths to transfer available. The structural drawings were reviewed to

the lateral earthquake forces on these second-floor determine the primary lateral force resisting systemswalls to the foundation. Experience from past earth- of each building and the building properties needed to

quakes indicates that buildings with such interior parti- perform the rapid seismic analysis. These properties

lions tend to suffer excessive damage. The basement included the base shear capacities and natural periodswas not analyzed. at the yield and ultimate levels tor each principal direc-

tion of the building (i.e.. longitudinal and transverse).Building 4480 Gyvmnasium

There are no cross braces under the metal roof deck. This section presents the assumed damping valuesThere appears to be a 6- to 8-ft ( 1.8- to 2.4-m) hori- and the computed base shear capacities and natural pe-

zontal crack at the bottom of the R/C cap beam on the riods of the buildings analyzed. The material strengths

northwest corner of the basketball court. This crack and procedures used were essentially identical to those

was probably caused by an unclean construction joint presented by Lew and Takahashi. However. some of

and thermal and/or shrinkage stresses. The construc- the material strengths and procedures were modified totion drawings indicate that the R/C cap beams tie the enhance the accuracy of the rapid seismic analysis

masonry walls at the perimeter of the building together. procedure by better reflecting the current condition of

the building. The following text briefly discusses theBuilding 4782 Enlisted Personnel Barracks With Mess rationale for the modifications.

The barracks is a four-story structure which includesa basement. The mess is a separate one-story structure. Damping Values

The concrete surfaces on the exterior of the building Table 3 gives the assumed damping values used inhave numerous, approximately 1/4- to 1/2-in. (6- to the analysis. Except for the steel buildings. the values

12-mm) air pockets (see Appendix A). These air are identical to those given by Lew and Takahashi.pockets indicate that the concrete mix was too stiffwhen it was poured. There are also a few cracks about The assumed damping values for steel buildings at

1/2-in. (12-mm) wide on the exterior column surfaces yield and ultimate levels were increased from 2 percent

where some of the concrete has spalled off, exposing and 5 percent of critical it) 5 percent and 10 percent ofthe steel reinforcing. This was apparently caused by critical, respectively, in the analysis. This change was

insufficient concrete cover over the rebar. made in conformance to those values recommended for

13

Table 3 tribution when the forces on tie overloaded elementsAssumed Damping Values are distributed to the adjacent redundant lateral force

resisting elements that are not overloaded.Building Type Percentage of Critical Damping

Yield Ultimate Base Shear CapacitiesTable 4 gives the computed base shear capacities at

Steel 5 10 yield and ultimate levels for the longitudinal and trans-concrete 5 10 verse directions of the buildings. Buildings 4280 andMasonry 5 10 4782 were analyzed as three and as two separate build-

ings, respectively. due to the presence of seismic spac-ing or actual building separations:

the design of a new steel building by Chopra andNewmnark. 3 Another reason for increasing the assumed Building Descriptiondamping values was to lower the demand from the 4280A Chapelresponse spectra. 4280B North Education Wing

4280C South Education WingIncreasing the assumed damping values as indicated 4782A Mess (one-story)

would decrease the demands on the building by about 4782B Barracks (four stories. including basement)25 percent (see Figure 2). Experience with the RSAprocedure indicates that in actual major earthquakes, In computing the base shear capacities for the rein-the damage estimates for steel buildings are generally forced concrete (R/C) and reinforced masonry build-too high in comparison to those observed for similarly ings. tile ultimate value was computed first. The yieldconstructed buildings. Reducing the demand from the value was computed by dividing the ultimate value byresponse spectra would reduce the estimated damage a load factor of 1.5. This modification was done in an

for steel buildings. However, the damage estimate is attempt to lower the estimated damage and to conformnot directly proportional to the reduction in demand. to the load factor used in the American Concrete Insti-

Even iith this demand decrease, the damage estimates tute's (ACI) ultimate strength design procedure. Usingfor steel buildings are still much higher than those ob- a load factor of 1.5 implicitly assumes that the overall

served for similarly constructed buildings during actual yielding of the lateral force resisting system(s) of themajor earthquakes. building occurs at two-thirds of ultimate base shear

capacity. It is expected that some of the building'sTo further reconcile the damage estimates for steel lateral force resisting elements would have yielded

buildings from the RSA procedure with damages (cracked) before the demand from the earthquakeobserved under actual earthquake conditions, the ulti- ground motion reaches two-thirds of the building'smate demands from the elastic response spectra are ultimate base shear capacity. By contrast, the pr, ce-decreased by the introduction of a reduction factor, dure given by Lew and Takahashi assumes that the R/CR = 5.* The reduction factor R is used to account for and reinforced masonry lateral force resisting elementsenergy absorption and dissipation from the inelastic of a building cracks (yields) at one-third of its ultimateresponse of the building under the earthquake ground strength. Experience indicates that increasing the yieldmotions that were not accounted for by lengthening capacity relative to the ultimate capacity by using thethe natural periods and increasing the damping from load factor concept provides a lower and more realisticthe yield to tihe ultimate level. This energy absorption estimate of earthquake damages for R/C and retnforcedand dissipation comes from (I ) the work done as de- masonry buildings.fined by the area under the load deformation hysteresiscurve of the lateral force resisting elements of the The values in Table 4 indicate that the yield levelbuilding. and (2) the work done during stress redis- base shear capacities of the buildings range between

0.11 g and 2.15 g. The inherent nature of many of3A. the single-story reinforced masonry buildings causes3A. Chopra and N. Newmark. Design of Earthquake Resis- their base shear capacity at yield to exceed 1.0 g.

tant Structures, Chapter 2, "Analysis," Emile Rosenbleuth. ed. teir as ttr wapotet teld occupants

(John Wiley and Sons, 1980). Exterior masonry walls protect the building occupantsand contents from the climate. Interior masonry p arti-

*A reduction factor of R = 5.0 is recommended for wooden

buildings. For R/C buildings with better than average reinforce- tions satisfy other functional requirements. Althoughment detailing. R = 1.5 is recommended. For other R/C build- many of these walls may not have been designed asings, R = 1.0 should be used. part of the building's lateral force resisting system,

14

Table 4Base Shear Capacities of Buildings Analyzed at Fort Ord, CA

Base Shear Capacities (g)Building Yield Ultimate

No. Longitudinal Transverse Longitudinal Transverse

507 0.63 0.41 0.94 0.612705 1.06 0.82 1.62 1.253620 0.43 0.47 0.65 0.733641 1.95 1.97 2.73 1.503701 1.11 0.94 1.67 1.413702 0.77 0.67 1.92 1.763703 1.82 1.07 2.55 1.504200 1.07 1.17 1.60 1764235 0.11 0.13 0.17 0.204240 0.59 0.61 0.92 0.944251) 0.71 0.40 1.07 0.604260 1.00 1.13 2.73 2.92

4280A 1.54 2.15 1.01 1.424280 1.46 0.89 2.04 1.234280C 1.71 1.71 2.40 2.40

4471 ).38 0.17 0.64 0.414480 1.60 0.89 2.40 1.33

4782A 1.05 0.86 1.61 1.334782B 0.14 0.27 0.30 0,49

4953 0.83 0.52 1.57 1.09

essentially all of them participate in the building's re- Natural Periodssponse to the earthquake motions. This is because they Table 5 gives the computed natural periods for thewere not designed and constructed as isolated walls. buildings analyzed. These periods were computed asThe lowest base shear capacity at yield belongs to one shown in the RSA procedure documented by Lew andof the steel buildings in the group (Building 4235, the Takahashi, except for the R/C shear wall buildings. ForPost Exchange Main Retail Store). The base shear these R/C buildings, the formulacapacities for the buildings at ultimate range between0.17 g and 0.20g. T 0.05 n [Eq1

The primary lateral force resisting systems of Build-ings 3620 and 4240 consisted of precast concrete wall where:panels. The computed base shear capacities of thesebuildings were based on the effective area of the panels Ty = natural period at yield (sec)and not the connections.*

Experience front past major earthquakes indicates h height of building (ft)

that precast concrete buildings have generally per- D = base width of building in directionformed poorly because of their poor connection detail- considered (ft)ing. The connections used in the two buildings are noexception. Thus. the computed base shear capacities was used instead of Eq 5.9. T = 0.5 (0.05hn/VI),for these two buildings were reduced by 40 percent to given by Lew and Takahashi.4 Experience indicates thatreflect the poor perfornance of the connections. The the periods computed using Eq 5.9 are much lower40 percent reduction is based on engineering judgment. than those obtained from detailed analysis. BecauseThe capacities for the two buildings shown in Table 4 the natural periods of most low-rise R/C shear wallhave been reduced by 40 percent.

*It is not possible to compute the strength of these connec- 4T. K. Lew and S. K. Takahashi, Rapid Seismic Analysistions without a detailed analysis. Even the results from such an Procedure, Technical Memorandum M-51-78-02 (Naval Civilanalysis may only be approximate. Engineering Laboratory, April 1978).

15

Table 5Natural Periods of Buildings Analyzed at Fort Ord, CA

Natural Periods (sec)Building Yield Ultimate

No. Longitudinal Transverse Longitudinal Transverse

5W7 11(9 0.14 0 15 0.232(175 0.06 0.(18 0.09 0.123621 (1.19 0.18 0.29 0.283641 0.O6 0.06 0.09 0.0937111 1,109 0.13 0.10 1.1437012 0.(8 0.10 0.09 0.1137113 1)16 10.07 (W09 0. 10

42t001 11.t6 0.08 (. 1( 0.124235 o.29 1.21 0.53 2.224240 0.018 0.10 (.12 0.164250 0t.0t5 0.10 0.08 0.15426W) 11.1t30 0.030 0.031 0.032

4280A o.11 0.18 0.16 0.264280B 0.04 0.06 (116 0.094280C1 11.015 0.05 0.0t9 0.09

4471 0(.06 0.14 0.08 0.164480 0.)9 0.11 0.13 0.16

4782A 0.1)4 0.06 0.0)6 0.094782B o.05 0.14 (.016 1.19

4953 0t.106 0.08 ().ot8 o. 101

buildings are less than 0.35 sec. the resulting demands It determines the combined damage by taking the sumestimated from the site response are lower than actual of two-thirds of the datnage of the critical directiondemands tFigure 2). Hence, damage estimates which and one-third of the damage for the other direction.*use Eq 5.9 to compute the periods at yield would The estimated damage cost is determined by multiply-be unconservative. ing the building replacement cost by the estimated

damage. Appendix B gives a complete set of the dam-Damage Estimates age and cost estimates.

The digitized site response spectra, building identifi-cations. assumed damping values, computed natural For illustration. Table 6 presents the computer out-periods and base shear capacities at yield and ultimate put for Building 4250. The computer program printslevels for the two principal horizontal directions, and the interpolated demands from the site response spec-the current ( 1981) building replacement costs were tra (Figure 2) in addition to the building's input pe-input into a computer program to determine the esti- riods, damping values, and base shear capacities. Themated dantage and associated cost under the maximum printed site demands at ultimate included the effectssite ground acceleration of 0.40 g. The program also of the reduction factor. R. At the site MGA of 0.40 g.coniputes the damage and cost 'estimates between the estimated total damage for the building is 66.70.05 g and 0.50 g at 0.05-g intervals. percent or $760.000. From the bottom of the table

for an MGA of 0.40 g, the damage estimates in theIn the damage estimation, tile building is assumed to transverse and longitudinal directions are 100 percent

experience no damage whe, tile demand (loading) atd 0 percent. Thus, the building is only seismicallyfrom tie response spectra is less than or equal to tile inadequate in the transverse direction.base shear capacity of the building at yield. On theother hand, the building is assumed to experience Figure 4 shows a plot of the estimated combined100 percent damage when tile demand is equal to or damage versus maximum ground accelerations at thegreater than the base shear capacity of the building atultimate. The variation of damage is assumed to belinear between yield and ultimate levels. The program *This implicitly assumes that the damage experienced by

the lateral force resisting elements in the critical direction alsofirst computes the estimated damage for each of the reduces their ability to resist seismic forces in the other orthog.transverse and horizontal directions of the building. onal direction.

16

I'~ ~ ~ ~ ~~b I -f @@C~*

42-

I [IN

66.. '

K al ij Cb - 4 rIkb. Im 4R

z 0 cc w z W.c* I - I. 1- ' '.' , ;b 0 - c-j

*~P 40 'H W.I CQb.

*j I

gj 3l C, C,'

0 £, 5 Cbgo P', Z I w :H I)6iz 4A aIj -P a - c

ki 1 4v-aof

a. LF 40 inoIiw um.U)' I Un cit' Jant 0. 0

Z~~~~-A A tI 4 4 ~ **'

0 rtI I. IL IX

us W- It 0 4I

0 h it. .j.

hi c

9D~- ap. * *

I~ him 0~ - , a

NE 000Om

E~ 0E 0

~I0 0 (D r- N~

ILO

1 0-\

ea-0

ONN

w -S c.j

S. 0.......S 4 r

5% iiN-

NwNE

U6

E

.25

()39VrdVa 03NIe&WO3

18

site for the buildings anal>zed. The curves for the buildings would require detailed analysis. The criteriamore seismic-resistant buildings are near or coincide used to select these buildings were:with the horizontal site MGA axis. The curves for theless resistant buildings have a relatively large initial 1. Buildings with greater than or equal to 60 per-slope and are close to the vertical damage axis. At the cent estimated combined damage under the nmaximumsite MGA of 0.40 g. Buildings 2435. 4471, 4782B. earthquake ground acceleration at the site would defi-3620. 507. and 4250 each have estimated combined nitely require detailed anal) sis.damage of greater than W0 percent. Thus, these build-ings are expected to have a high probability of being Buildings with between 30 percent and 60 per-severely damaged or of collapsing under the maximumground accelerations at the site. Table 7 shows the cntlsimated obine dam gmeq tadamage estimates for the buildings analyzed. The data analysis, depending on engineerig judgment.

include damage estimates for the transverse and longi-tudinal direction of each building. 3. Buildings with relatively poor structural connec-

tions would require detailed analysis, even if the esti-Table 8 summarizes estimated damage costs from mated damage is less than 30 percent.

the computer output for the buildings analyzed at siteMGAs between 0.05 g and 0.50 g in 0.05-g intervals. In applying criteria 2 and 3. the analyst should beThe estimated total damage cost at the site MGA of familiar with good current seismic design and construc-0.40 g is $13.0 million. Because there are 9, 9. and tion practices so that he/she can judge the seismic30 additional buildings, respectively, which are iden- adequacy of the layout of the lateral force resistingtical to Buirdings 3620. 4471. and 4782 at the post, system and the detailing of the structural connectionsthe estimated damage would become $114.7 million of the building considered. In applying criterion 2.when the identical buildings are included, as shown computing the equivalent current code base shearin Table 9. capacities for the building and comparing them with

the corresponding code-required design base shear co-In addition to engineering judgment, the curves efficients were found to be helpful.

shown in Figure 4 were used to help determine which

Based on the above criteria, analysts recommended

Table 7 that Buildings 4235, 4782B, 3620. 4471, 507. 4250.Summary of Damage Estimates and 4240 be analyzed in detail to determine the de-

at 0.40 g Maximum Ground Acceleration gree of strengthening and cost required to reduce thefor Buildings Analyzed at Fort Ord, CA seismic hazards to these buildings and their occupants.

These buildings are given in approximate order of

Building Estimated Damage priority. Although Building 4240 has an estimatedNo. Transversc Longitudinal Combined damage of 12.6 percent. it was recommended for de-

tailed analysis because of its relatively poor concrete507 100.0 0.9 66.9 reinforcement detailing. particularly the inadequate

2075 0. 0. O. iaeut3620 100. 100. 100. ties for the precast columns.3641 0. 0. 0.3701 0. 0. 0. Strengthening Costs3702 0.8 0. 0.53703 0. 0. 0. It is very difficult to estimate strengthening costs4200 0. 0. O. for buildings without an appropriate detailed seismic4235 74.4 95.1 88.2 analysis. Even when a detailed seismic analysis has4240 18.8 0. 12.6 been performed. the unit costs for seismic strengthen-4250 00.0 0. 66.7 ing can vary tremendously. as shown in Table 10,4260 0. 0. 0. i

4280A 0. 0. O. which is based on limited experience. The large spread4280B 0. 0. 0. in the unit cost for seismic strengthening of buildings4280C 0. 0. 0. of similar size and construction type shows the diffi-

4471 100.0 39.7 79.9 culty in trying to estimate strengthening costs for the4480 0. 0. 0.4782A 0. 0. 0. buildings in question based on only a rapid seismic4782B 100.0 100.0 100.0 analysis. Consequently, the seismic strengthening costs

4953 10.1 0.0 6.7 for these buildings were not estimated.

19

0 -i

UU I s i ,0 i

DO 3. C. 3

II II

40 0

vi

Al N

0 w LbOE

~ s-mo--M. @ *C .- Do 0

O Q s s-2-g W 06

p 000 0 IS D1tW0Wr I

020

Table 9Summary of Estimated Earthquake Damage Costs for illdinp

Analyzed at Fort Ord, CA. Including Identical Buildinp(Values Are Given in Thousands of Dollars)

Damage Estimate for Selected Buildings at Fort Od. California. 11-23-81

.05G .IWfG .1 5 .2(G 25% 30G 35G 4(K. 45( 5OG RF PL COSI

BLDG 507 0 0 0 14 79? 1514 195u 1958 2197 2434 2926BLDG 2075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0I II 3649

BLDG 3620110) 0 0 0 1600 6090 10030 12761 1331o 13310) 1 331o 13320BLDG 3641 0 i 1 0 1) 00 1 ( I 164BLDG 3701 0 0 0I 0 0 0 U U 32 753

BLDG 3702 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 67 125 1325BLOG 3703 0 0 0 IU 0 t I) U I 0 2252

BLDG 4200 0 0} 01 0I I 11 0i I) II U 468

BLDG 4235 489 1750 2653 3175 3516 3"56 3934 4072 418) 42711 4617BLDG 424) 0 U 0 0 II o 541 1461 23"8 4319

BLDG 4250 U ) 0 0 XI 342 590 759 759 759 114o

BLDG 4260 0 0 0 1) U 0 0 0) i tI 2671)

BLDG 4280A 0 0 U 0 0 U 0 47 142 782

BLDG 4280B 0 II U U II 0 II 0 835BLDG 4280C I) 0 I 0 0 0 ( 1) 1) 592

BLDG 4471(10)" 0 21010 720A) 116711 15560 16050 17481 1924o 20980 2269o 2411910

BLDG 4480 0 o 0 1 11 1 I0 I1 I 1l )6b7

BLDG 4782A(31 ) 0 0 0 0I I O I II 10

BLDG 4782B31 0 0 10149 32736 54250 66340 66340 6634o 66341 6634) 66371

BLDG 4953 0 0 0 0 0 U 3463 17763 26753 12617,

TOTAL 489 3760 20052 49195 80293 98032 1(03054 114691 127104 139243 270472

PERCENT .18 1.39 7.41 (8.19 29.69 36.24 38.10 42.40 46.99 51 48

*Total number of buildings is given in parentheses.

Table 10Summary of Strengthening Costs of Buildings From Detailed Seismic Analysis

(Metric Conversion Factors: I ft = .3048m; I sq ft .093m2 )

No. of size, ft (Overall) Replacement Stengthening Costs

Use Materil Stories Length Width Heiht Aes (Sq. Ft.) Cost, SK Total, SK Unit, Sft2

Data Center Precast 1 200 100 18 20,260 1,051 80 3.95Administration Wood 2 391 175 26 81.378 2,450 908 12.15

1-irehouw Wood I 122 87 16, 35T 7.290 201 68 7.00

Warehouse Steel/Conc. I 608 200 26 121.600 1.948 1380 11.40Office/Shop Steel 1.2 560 220 24. 32 62,470 1,665 920 17.60

Barracks Conc, 3 222 31 34 20.400 I, 119 175 9.00

Marine M.S. ('one. 5 112 78 107 38.515 4.738 350 10.00

Machine. Tool Steel 1 600 200 82 125,00 17.260 320 2.56

Administration Steel 5 308 168 67 258,720 7.792 77 0.30Serv. Group Steel 1.2 727 240 40 148.080 11,2% 163 1 10

Transportation Precast 1 672 374 13 to 24 62,078 3,770 2000 33.01)Power Plant Conc. 1,2'M 170 155 53 41,700 33,626 2500 60.(KPublic Works Steel I'M 418 202 28 65.702 709 941 15.00Power Plant Conc. 1 348 51 44 9,607 3.241 5110 28.00

*Includes cost of bracing power plant equipment.

21

3 RCMMENDED MODI FICATIONS Computation of Natural Periods at YieldFOR THE RSA PROCEDURE Steel, Concrete, or Wood fraine Buildings

No. of Story Period at YielduhN' sect ot presents a list ot' thi. recommended

1r1difLrtiuotrS TO enhanJ~ce thle accuracy and capabilities N =lI iofthe RSA piii~cdrzrc. Thre modifications were kept as I

simple as possible so that the procedure's accuracy attd where: inr seismic masscapabiloe Can be enrhanced wtthout sacrificing itssintphlicrt Fie tnodificat ions arc based on N('EL's K = lateral stifttressexper rencc \& it t hc pocedur e and thle author\l' judg-nrent Fihe ie mrrnrerrdatiorrr are in thle forllowing areas: w

cLrntpltit ton tnt base shear capacittes. (2) compu- N > I rftaino atural periods at iteld level. (3) damping g7 FAvalues,. (4) : oruputatliotl ot estimiated damage, and

()selectiont of build irgS for detailed seismic analysis. where: w, = story seismic weights

Wkhere appiopiiaict. tire nrodrtr.atiotis %%ere incorpo- F = story forces

rated ito thre anrakl sis ot tire selected buildings it FortOrd. A lrst antd slrort drscrissrron of' the recomtrntded .1 = lateral deflections at

mroditicationrs tor tire RSA Procedure forllow. story. *i' cirised bylateral fources F.

Computation of Base Shear Capacities orStreel Bu ildings

Iii anal hung steel buildings, use the actual yield N > I O.ION

stretngthit the steel if it is kniown. If not, assume that R/C Shear Wall Buildingsthe , , eld strenthl t, Sb3 ksi (6.25 G Pa) and that theshteair strength t, 0.55 t intile shearing of' rivets No. of Story Period at Yieldanld brlts.

N < 3 0.05 N orr (0.05"n )/%/DFor tire bending aboiut tire miinoir axis of rolled steel

H sectiois rr comtipact sect ionis. rise thle fortmulas: where: tin = building height (ft)

1i 5 M VI Eq 21 D = building base width (ft)

anrd N 0.0h /,

V Ls1. V IEq 31 Damping Valuestc y For steel buildings. assunie -5 percent and 10 per-

to comtipute tile ultitiate moimnent capacity, M . and cent of critical damping at the yield and ultimiate

tiltita te shear capacity. . rrf ot-hint ns u levels, respectively.

RIC and Reinjorced Masonry Buildings Computation of Estimated DamageR!C nd einfrce tttsony buldigs. Steel and Wooden Buildings

fIl analyzing RCadrifremaorbulng, Divide the ultitiate demand fromn thle elastic sitecomnpute the ultimiate base shear capacity first. Theti epneSetabyardcinfcor( .)bfrcotmpute the base shear capacity at yield by dividing dresponse spetbyatredocir dactrge..0 efrthe ultimiate capacity by a lorad factor of' 1.5 dtriigteetmtddnae

Precast Concrete Buildings RIC BuildingsIn analyzing buildings crrnst ructed from precast con- For R/C buildings with above-average reinforcemient

crete coimponents. multiply the computed base shear detailing, divide the ultimate demand fronm tile site

capacities by 0.6 tnt acconunt foir the generally poor elastic response spectra by a reduction factor (R = 1.5)

behlavioir of' the structural connections of these build- -______

ings in past niajor earthquakes. *This formula is a modified version of the Rayleigh procedure.

22

betore computing tie estimnated darnge. Do not reduce Aircraft Hangar): and 4250 (Telephone Exchange) eachthe site demand at ulinate for otler R,/C huildings. would have an estimated damage greater than 00 pei-

cent. These buildings are expected to have a highSelection of Buildings for Detailed Seismic Analysis probabilit. of being seveiely damaged or collapsing

Determine buildings that require detailed seismic fromt the earthquake ground shaking at the site.analysis on the basis of the following criteria:

3. Use of the recommended modifications will en-1. Buildings with greater than 060 percent estimated hance the accuracy and capabilities of the RSA proce-

combied damage when subjected to the maximum dure. These modifications are for computation ofgiound acceleration at tlhe site would definitel) require base shear capacities: computation of natural periodsdetailed anals sis. at yield. damping values, and estimated damage: and

selection of buildings for detailed seismic analysis.2. Buildings with between 30 percent and 60 per-

cent estimated combined damage may require detailed Based on the analysis described in this report. theanial, sis. depending on engineering judgment. following recommendations are made:

3. Buildings with relatively poor structural connec- 1. Perform detailed seismic analysis on Buildingslion detailing would require detailed analysis, even if 4235 (Main Retail Exchange)- 4471, 4782B, and 3620tile estunated damage is less than 30 percent. (Enlisted Personnel Barracks of different vintage):

507 (Flight Maintenance Aircraft Hangar) 4250Good engineering judgment, familiarity with the (Telephone Exchange): and 4240 (Commissary) at

behavior of different buildings under earthquake Fort Ord to determine the degree of strengtheningground shaking, and familiarity with good seismic and cost required to reduce the seismic haiards of

resistant design and construction practices are imdis- these buildings.pensable in obtaining realistic datnage estimates withtile RSA procedure. 2. Verify the existence of the cracks, observed in

Buildings 3702 (Theater wo stage). and 4480 (Gym-

nasium ), and, if necessary . clean and then grout themwith suitable epoxy material as a part of normal main-

4 CONCLUSIONS AND tenance. Sandblast and paint tile steel trames on tileRECOMMENDATIONS north wall of Building 4235 IMain Retail Exchange).

3. lIncorporate the list of modifications into the

The following conclusions were drawn from the RSA procedure.RSA of 17 selected essential and high-potential-lossbuildings at Fort Ord.

), Results from the visual inspection and review of REFERENCESconstruction drawings indicate that, with a few excep-tions, the buildings were generally in good to excellentcondition with only minor cracks from thermal or Lew. T. K. and S. K. Takahashi. Rapid Seismic Aal-shrinkage stresses. sis Procedure, Technical Memorandum M.5 1 -7.02

(Naval Civil Engineering Laborator.. April 11)781.2. Under the site MGA of 0.40 g. the analysis re-

stilts indicate that Buildings 4235 (Main Retail Ex- Chopra, A.. and N. Newmark. Design of Earthquakechange): 4471. 4782B, and 3620 (Enlisted Dersonne! Resistant Stnictures, Chapter 2. "Amalysis."" EmileBarracks of different vintage): 507 (Flight Maintenance Rosenbleuth. ed. (John Wiles and Sons, 1980).

23

APPENDIX APHTOS IOF BUILDINGS ANALYZED

25 3Z

507

507

Flight Maintenance Aircraft Hanger

26

507

507

Flight Maintenance Aircraft Hanger

27

2075

2075

Enlisted Men's Service Club

28

2075

2075S

Enlisted Men's Service Club

29

3620

3620

Enlisted Personnel Barracks Without Mess

30

3627

3620

Enlisted Personnel Barracks Without Mess

31

3641

3641

Enlisted Personnel Mess

32

3641

3641

Enlisted Personnel Mess

33

3701

Unit Chapel

34

3701

3701

I Unit Chapel

35

3702

Theater Without Stage

36

I I

3702

3702

Theater Without Stage

37

3703

3703

Enlisted Men's Service Club

38

3763

3703

Enlisted Men's Service Club

39

4200

4200

Fire Station

40

4235

4235

Exchange, Main Retail Store

41

4 235

4235

Exchange, Main Retail Store

42

4240

4240

Commisary

43

4240

4240

Commisary

44

4250

4250

Telephone Exchange

45

4260

Open Mess, NCO

46

4280

4280

Post Chapel

47

4280

4280

Post Chapel

48

4471

4471

Enlisted Personnel Barracks Without Mena

49

4471

4471

Enlisted Personnel Barracks Without Mess

50

4480

Gynml

51

4782

4782

Enlisted Personnel Barracks With Mess

52

4784

4782

Enlisted Personnel Barracks With Mess

53

4953

Coxifinenient Faciity

54

4953

A.

4953

Confinement Facility

55

APPENDIX 8

COMPUTER OUTPUT OF EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE ESTIMATES

_ _ _

ODpIi

I!'0 '')c

I Q

Ij x

ILI

IX.W, "I C, *11 0 S0 0 o

4n z 5o,, .Na

Pi 0It MID I0

F I o g

CD - F I58

I's,

I W CO

I 4h Ia3. C - a

l z 0

I~' A u I - * 01 a1 4, WJ ofl p

fa An I.n itC c

2 L2-V en* a .

vi'i~~~~0 L l min 00004k e

inw w

~tEiQn CPW 40 0 c

J P- U

qSI I 0.

0. .fJ IV.

A ILI

TI AiI Srar'I wJ U Ji-I a 0 NNf~59w

1,1 '' ' I I

.1t in p- cr o- 0- t- -W 0 4nr 4

I'~ ~ ~~C CiL..CO,~I~

H 0-0

a. 44V C44PC.

I I 4

fn cp 0- nfu1W~~o 0p co4 m 4D 4- C4 WI a ea

4, 1' I L a cc

in I

Pj I

'a ui W

60

I r 0 0

IJ d:

on In #4 4 - -I

ZOI I I I 11 wI1.Li a- c I' -

I~~~4 In~v~LKD I'll

I~1 DID fl OQ

6 tn pnmoi; r40:uhJ4 IJ9 lm

_L1L . ITI 1 f1 Li l -L r61

Aaw)

I 15IIn44411 .0 4IL _1. v ' u11 4,0' "V

Olt.l

C.0~ 00000 o

to ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 to CI I 0(% a L

inL4 is in ~ 00 0

le .

I~~~ L1 Irc 3D 4~ 1Ip7TO

~~~~ ft s J

62

wo

00

In 0- 00 4D ofF *CD

lijii

4-l Q 1 1 1 1 'U Z 0.

0 -!m I i4n4 --q 09 00j -A. u -j f- o ina~ . -

-~e wnz 0- NM m . . 0 wj e-Pa,.m

IL in, OD in in

x 8 i W "- I- IX44 * * * * ***

*l 1A* 0-l 4K a IovCa4

I '

W -r in 1

- . 014 D DC

w~ mi

ow, Iinemeem in

F a It -a m a U I

In III'

63

I In

0 C6

InZ

a 0-, 4MO Coe Doo~lC - .

U10 f'O -jv1 b r 0I DI

9L W.U I

.9 W. a., *,

4D PI .4mb4.

%. IIIC tI La S 1..j _j Wf )4 P I

oW 4I

49

z, 4 .a.. JI 4J

Lb .. b 9 W W W A : s io t

K.Is

IL w

64

C00

43,i lab p

4K -j

La I-C n

I- lh'O ~II U. .0~4.mK- 1.- 30 0Ij af ! 16~a 4nt

&i g. i OI- W*t A 44D 00 D w04 a ;

II 0 di

49 41 ** 43. .,.. .D

1 . IbI- b oo

~3 t- IMP Infidi

CL .. .I .I

4 -j 00" Iy

3L

P62

op I 0~ 000000.00

03, q.l C)P

z~~~~ x ' Fk& PC

a IDQ- .4 -#- ;'I&p- * -F'"

4h I

$A. :, CLv to00 in0

4-~~~4 x n 1-0 .

It. -9 0 0 4*U0f0 e 1t0ltl0 - IL

PCl

0 00 N.h 4t- -a .

w 0

:3 (UriIo~ Vo-0, 04fCU

49 h01 0j P. Ia CD U

law I- a a I o mt cI . i

KA1L . "i- I I

66

w0 (v f" r"..E~

zO . . . . 0 .

49

a p

Iq I 0 QN

0~ cct W -z m ~ ~a: flE c- 410 -- 0 t- 'v 0 inM'O -~~fP

in O. 4" 1- ft * a

IC,

- z L .9 '

IA* 0 0 0 ~4p -a C'U' ooI 4 t 1 - . .h , I I(Jf

-A AO U) P- Ixflri C.r-D

Ui IWA U -I

0LI. 4" 44

hi 0 0 coo U*

Io N- k' C2, fm N J4 ecD '4 LLW 4 I

.A ** 'j O-p! 10 1

'Al-L hi W., Ii

'9' 0 hi u X K 'OL uW P- - I- "* U9

4w w -

O ~ . Z hi. Z hhi

hi i

4~I 1i 0 .40

a 0 0

.0 ,.67

0

I'i

,Ii~c~,cooo0o0CDI~W v 2 I

01)*03Q(l'~i

A 0 la I'

cb 0 X: L wj -2 % l 4 ta. U. 0

4, C, > 4 6

a, mu in LfD -f w - j p- Cr0 T

-j La Lf

0 00

'0 lz 0 0 &'

.9 ~ C P-tWo ,c ;,CoCOOLA. z 3: CI

I ' I -j 0 t a -

04

lfl 0 -Jl OD f- inJ * (Yr O e a

Lo. 0 z wti 'A

aa .5 I

'n 0 0 ui In i in n68

.9 AP 6 0*P ;J.

'a L

Kr mb. in.0

41 I I inaz 0 in~

II 41 A 4L O

WI ~) hi0-0

eft .* 10 wl

bi i

am in I an 0

LM in I

-4 w -j itt0 CD Wh 2 W

i. I D~ta~IP~~l I fl~n V~C wi

0

69

W C.

Iao6I 1 t : I ~ 00 0 04

0I 4 .0 1.0j1I I 9

I22 't i:n~rrLa' 0 c4 *pc Da 0 Ioa*

4A 4 to:1441

b D~ I*

4.,

01. w al01 d~

iT . In , nmi j'~ I--i

0 Ih I (. 1o

70

, ,Do I.92 I0 4!0

IN~ ~ 1 41 - 0 o ac

%j IICUI

49

'-' 0 *

It< I

Cb In r InJU J 101 1... CL

on 9 .8 1- u _ ' In M'I

H 3L 0DC0Ed

It~ r .11 r ~ t 9* * *9 **.

I2 aI a. -6 0a1

~ .~ ~ '' ~ ~Dam~71

131F I KNO

IF [ 'I00c 0l .24

F I-

-aE 40 4K toc.'D'IC I -31 F Wf nr a4w

6.~~ m. .b us CL

NO t

Fp 0

j to

,iII LiivNJC

l72

ct

w 0Z

IA- x

0 xI 2-90 1 m£ nID4

I, J. PI O

WI qa & -. .A .. .m

qj0I

16Lon a, I

IVxi 4% -~ ii-ain%baa

'O!

- I I ...

4.

73h~~* I

iT 1111K

''.. - .aI

ft ." Q.in

K U) 49(%"in

a--

4l -j

z I z

1110

.W0. 40 1..~*~e 0

~ z a.2.' lo. a I 0 pi's 0C3,

us* *P- a aa 4

J 4V I P CP46C-6 40 H00f .t

usfuI M . r. 2

. **S 5 it

474

Ia k

9, 1 .

0 0

,.m 4 LI E L40 41

'0 0 i

.j , In t 401.i LH0opU Al'

ILI

4 1 I . - 1

doo

75

I 1D

C. ai

* - . 3KD t " 1.

(axC a aw M enWa V ! : iPI ! , It

it 0 0 0 0 o-.C I* '

~ 'It

ON It I lup I II akoh b I * U JA

. b* Io JIi0- 1- 0 C

L"~ u Ar

7 C76

Io I NNil

2 1'K I&@ -- l~a~E~lz

I. PaDI Oo 0 0

cc 4. 00 p0

I- .*1 an t- I J D -o -2- .6 .LIe1 0 n wa (D-y ~ ll

WI 00

-WA I WI, *. *.I P 0 L * **

i , *

or am, 0 0

29 WM.

IC.-

P0 ID 0 , 0i InII I * * * '

13 a-. aI fa I I 4J 1 W' 1 RI~ IN I

77

400l1 I ;4:f% M i

ci T

Co. 1 . .

Ma. Inz -9 IP

to o In in. 0 0i

040

U J o CO IIfnm-p 0i

ItI11.1

V- CI

WW I

,0

in i lIn

494

78

CIA In

IL

I

-

i~J 10I%

In,

GI,x 40 1 i Dm4 mI

-J 09

ID II

I:- In in ar

0 0 0CODn 0 ocj0. 1 lo

4 44

Dacia

79

CERL DISTRIBUTIONChief of Engineers 8th uSA. Korea IATNCATT : Tech Monitor ATT7N: EAFE-H 96271 ATTN:. MM-SA 2031SAT: OAE ,-ASI-L (2) AT11: EAFE-P 96259 ATTN: Facilities EngineerATTN: DAEN-CCP ATTN: EAFE-T %212 OIkland Arly gate 69426ATTN: OAEN-CW $ayaonem NOT 07002ATTN: OAEN-CWE RcslUs Cton d Forces COmnand 96301 Sunny Point NOT 26461ATTN: OAEN-CWM-R ATN: EUSA-HHC-CFC/EngrATTN: OAEN-CWO NiAAfCON, ATTN: DR A-F 071160ATTN: DAEN-CWP USA Japan (USJJATTM: DAEN-EC Ch. FE Dv,. AJEN-FE 96343 TMCON. Fec. Div. 480ATTN: ODAEN-ECC Fac Engr (ihonsiw) 96343ATTN: OAEN-ECE Fac Engr (Okinawl) %331 10CATTN: DAEN-ZCF HQ. TRUDOC, ATTN: ATE%-FtATTN: DAEN-ECB Rocky Mt. Area 80903 ATTN: Facilities EngineerATTN: OAEN-RD Fort 6l41vtr 22060ATTN: DAEN-ROC Area Enineor. AEd-Area Office Fort lening 31906ATTN: DAEN-RM Arnold Air Force Station. TI 37389 Fort Bliss 79916ATTN : DAEN-I5 Carlisle Barracks 17013ATTN: OAE9-ZCZ Western Area Office. CE Fort Chaffs* *1902ATTN: DAEM-ZCE Vonderborg AFS. CA 93437 Fort 01 06640ATTN: OAEN*ZCI Fort Eustis 23604ATTN: OAEN-ZCN 416th Engineer C=Mnd 60623 Fort Gordon 3090S

ATTN: Facilities Enginoer Fort %halltp IIZSZFESA. ATTN: Library 22060 Fort keJasmin Harrison 46216

US Milltary Academy 10996 Fort Jackson 29207FESA. ATTN: SET 1i 79906 ATTW: Facilities Engineer Fort Knox 40121

ATTN: Dot of Geography A Fort Leavenrth 66027US Army Engineer Districts Coruter Science Fort Lee 23301ATTW: Library AT : OSCPEO/MALOI-A Fort Mclellan 3620S

Alaska 99SO1 Fort Monroe 23661AT Satin 09616 Engr. Studies Canter 20315 Fort Rucker 36362Albuquerque 87103 ATTN: Library Fort Sill 73503Baltimore 21203 FO. t Leonard Wood 66473Buffalo 14207 AC, ATm: ORM-W 02172Charleston 29402 TSK0M. ATTN: STSAS-F 63120Chicago 60604 USA ARRCON 61299Detroit 48231 ATTN: DKC1-Rs-I USACCFar East 96301 AT1: ORSAA-IS ATr: Facilities EngineerFort worth 76102 Fort NmaCheca 86613Galveston 77550 DARCON - 01,.. Inst.. A Svcs. Fort Ritchie 21719huntington 25721 ATT: Facilities EngineerJacksonville 32232 AL9OC~N 07801 WIESTCOJapan %343 Aeren Proving Gromnd 21006 Arm: Facilities EngineerKansas City 64106 Arly Matls. and Mechanics Res. Ctr. Fort Shafter 96668Little ROck 72203 Corpus Christi Army Delpot 79419 ATT: APEX-INLos Angeles 90063 Har 0100Mon Laboratories 20783Louisville 40201 Dopey Proving Ground 64022 SHAPE 066Memiphis 38103 Jefferson Proving Ground 4720 ArTm: Survivability Section. CCI-OPSMobile 36628 Fort 1oemOth 07703 Infrastructure Br ch. LNANashvilld 37202 Lettork"Ny Ar§y Mspot 17201Nt England 02154 Natick R&D Ctr. 01760 MQ USEUCOM 09128rew Orleans 70160 New Cumberland Arm e"Ot 17070 ATTN: ECJ 4/7-LOENow York 10007 Pueblo Army Depot 81001Norfolk 23510 Red Rivnr Arm Depot 7501 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060Omaha 66102 Redstone Arsenal 3609 ATT1N: &TZ-0TE-EMPhiladelphia 19106 RCock sland Arsenel 61299 Ar: ATZA-OTE-SPittsburgh 15222 Savenna Arm Oeomt 61074 ATT: AT"A-FEPortland 97206 Sharpe Army Depot 96331 ATrm: Enr. LibraryRiyadh 09038 Seneca Army Depot 14641 ATT: Canadian Liaison Office (2)Rock Island 61201 Tobyhnnea Army Depot 18466 ATTI: IO LibrarySacramento 96614 Tooele Army Depot 64074San Francisco 94106 Watervliet Arsenal 12189 Cold Regions Research Engineering La 03766savannah 31402 Yuma Proving Ground 85364 ATTN: LibrarySeattle 98124 White Sends Missile Range 8002St. Louis 63101 1T, ATTN: Library 22060St. Paul 5101 OLk AT1: OLA-Wi 22314Tulsa 74102 Waterways Esperiment Station 39180Vicksburg 39160 FORSCOM ATm: LibraryWalla Walla 99362 FORSrO Engineer. ATT: A YESF-wilmington 28401 ATTN: Facilities Engineer WO XVIII Airborne COrs$ and 28307

Fort Buchanan 00934 t. BraggUS Ary Engineer Oivisiosi Fort 8ragg 28307 ATTN: AFTJ-FI-El

AMTN: Library fort Campbell 42223Europe 09757 Fort Carson 60913 Chanute AFt, IL 6186muntsville 35807 Fort Sevens 01433 3345 CES/Ol, Stop 27Lowr Mississippi Valley 39180 Fort Orum 13601Middle East 09038 Fort Mood 76644 Norton AFS 92409Middle East (Near) 22601 Fort Indianto n Gap 17003 ATr: AFRC-I0/O[EMissouri River 66101 Fort Irwin 92311North Atlantic 10007 Fort Sm Houston 76234 Tyndall AF8, FL 32403North Central 60605 Fort Lewis 9433 AlESC/Engineering A Service LabNorth Pacific 97208 Fort McCoy 54656Ohio River 46201 Fort McPherson 30330 %AWECPacific Ocean 9668 Fort George G. Meade 20766 ATTN: RDT Liaison OfficeSouth Atlantic 30303 Fort Ord 93941 Atlantic Oivision 2311South Pacific 94111 Fort Polk 71469 Chesapeae iviision Z0374Southwestern 76202 Fort Richardson 9960 Southern Division 29411

Fort Riley 66442 Pacific Division 96660JS Army Europe Presidio of Sen Francisco 94129 Nortlher Division 19112

NO, 7th Army Training CMiamed 09114 Fort Sheridan 60037 Motor" Ojiisio 64AITIM: AETTG-OEN (S) Fort Stewart 31313 ATTN: Sr. Tech. FAC-03T 22332

N, 7th Army ODCS/Engr. 09403 Fort Waiwright 09713 ATT: Asst. CO R&D, FAC-03 22332AiTN: AEAEiu-E i41 Vancouver i ks. 9666

V. Corps 09079 d0L 93041ATTN: AETVDH (S) HSC ATTr: Library (CO LO A

vil. Corps 09164 ATN: MLO-F 76334ATTN: AETSOEN () ATrm: Fcilities Engineer Defense Techical Info. Center 22314

21st Support C=4d 09326 Ftusim AIC 4024 ATO: ODA 11VArTN: AELM (5) Wlter Bee AMC 20012

&erlin 06742 Engineri l Societies Library 10017ATTN: A8BA-E (2) 105OND - Ch. nstl. Div. Nam loft, my

Southern Europan Task Force 091" ATO: Facilities IngienAlTO: 4 4- EJIG (31 Arlingte M411 Station (2) 22312 National Guard Berm 20310

Installtion Support Activity 09403 Vint Mill Farm Station 2216 Installation DivisionATTN: AEiJ1S-RP

ND1V US aiverift Printing Office 223046th USA. KOra ATT: fecilities Egineer Receiving sctio/ebeoi w y Copies (23

AM1: EAF[ 18) 96301 Cmrou Station n314A N: EFE.* 96316 Fort Lesley J. fMtoIr 20316 116AM7: (MI-iD 9624 Pra NW 3 1 1-60AM0: EAFI[-40 -

ENE Tem Distribution

Chief of Engineers US Army Engineer Division Bolling AFB, DC 20332ATTN: DAEN-ECZ-A New England 02154 AF/LEEEU

ATTN: Chief, NEDED-TUS Army Engineer District Middle East (Rear) 22601 Kirtland AFB 87117

New York 10007 ATTN: Chief, MEOED-T AFWL/DESATTN: Chief. Design Br. North Atlantic 10007

Pittsburgh 15222 ATTN: Chief, NADEN-T Little Rock AF8ATTN: Chief, Engr Div South Atlantic 30303 ATTN: 314/DEEE

Philadelphia 19106 AT'i: Chief, SADEN-TSATTN. Chief, NAPEN-D AiT: Chief, SADEN-TE/TN Patrick AFB, FL 32925

Baltimore 21203 Huntsville 35807 ATTN: XRQATTN: Chief, Engr Div ATTN: Chief. HNOED-CS

Norfolk 23510 ATTN: Chief. HNDED-ME Tinker AFB, OK 73145

ATTN: Chief, NAOEN-M ATTN: Chief. HNOED-SR 2854 ABG/OEEEATTN: Chief. NAOEN-D Ohio River 45201

Huntington 25721 ATTN: Chief, Engr Div Tyndall AFB. FL 32403ATTN: Chief, ORHED-D North Central 60605 AFESC/PRT

Wilmington 28401 ATTN: Chief, Engr DivATTN: Chief, SAWEN-DS Missouri River 68101 Bldg. Research Advisory Board 20418ATTN: Chief, SAWEN-D ATTN: Chief, MRDED-T

Charleston 29402 Southwestern 75202 Defense Nuclear Agency 20305

ATTN: Chief, Engr Div ATTN: Chief. SWDED-TS ATTN: DMA-RAEVSavannah 31402 ATTN: Chief, SWOEO-TN

ATTN: Chief, SASAS-L South Pacific 94111 Dept. of Transportation Library 20590Jacksonville 32232 ATTN: Chief, SPOED-TG

ATTN: Const Div Pacific Ocean 96858 Transportation Research Board 20418ATTN: Design Br., Structures Sec. ATTN: Chief, Engr Div

Mobile 36128 ATTN: Chief, FF41S Branch USA Liaison Detachment 10007ATTN: Chief, SAMEN-D ATTN: Chief, POOED-D ATTN: LibraryATTN: Chief, SAMEN-C North Pacific 97208

Nashville 37202 ATTN: Chief, Engr Div Airports and Const. Services Dir.ATTN: Chief, ORNED-O Ottawa, Ontario, Canada KIA ON8

Memphis 38103 HQ, Combined Field Army (ROK/US) 963S8ATTN: Chief. LMMED-OT ATTN: CFAR-EN Division of Bldg. ResearchATTN: Chief, LMMED-04 Ottawa, Ontario, Caneda KIA 0N

Vicksburg 39180 6th US Army 94129ATTN: Chief, Engr Div ATTN: AFKC-EN Natianl Defense wedqWurters

Louisville 40201 Ottaa, Ontario, Canada KIA OK2ATTN: Chief, Engr Div 7th US Army 09407

Detroit 48231 ATTN: AETTM-HRD-EHD 7th .luamtry Dtolem ame Fort Ord (4)ATTN: Chief, NCEED-T

St. Paul 55101 US Army Foreign Science & Tech. Center 116ATTN: Chief, ED-O ATTN: Charlottesville, VA 22901

Chicago 60604 ATTN: Far East Office 96328ATTN: Chief, NCCED-DS

Rock Island 61201 USA ARRADCOM 07801ATTN: Chief, Engr Div ATTN: ORDAR-LCA-OKATTN: Chief, NCRED-O

St. Louis 63101 SHAPE 09055ATTN: Chief, ED-D Chief, Land & Ms). Inst). Section

Kansas City 64106ATTN: Chief, Engr Div Aberdeen Proving Ground, MO 21005

Omaha 68102 ATTN: AM4XHEATTN: Chief, Engr Div

New Orleans 70160 Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060ATTN: Chief, LMNED-DG ATTN: Learning Resources Center

Little Rock 72203 ATTN: ATSE-TD-TL (2)ATTN: Chief, Engr Div

Tulsa 74102 Ft. Clayton Canal Zone 34004

ATTN: Chief, Engr Div ATTN: DFAEFort Worth 76102

ATTN: Chief, SWFED-O Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027Galveston 77550 ATTN: ATZLCA-SA

ATTN: Chief, SWGAS-LATTN: Chief, SWGEO-OS Ft. Lee, VA 23801ATTN: Chief, SWGED-OM ATTN: ORXMC-O (2)

Albuquerque 87103ATTN: Chief, Engr Div Ft. McPherson. GA 30330

Los Angeles 90053 ATTN: AFEN-CDATTN: Chief, SPLED-D

San Francisco 94105 Ft. Monroe, VA 23651ATTN: Chief, Engr Div ATTN: ATEN-AD (3)

Sacramento 95814 ATTN: ATEN-FE-BG (2)ATTN: Chief, SPKED-D ATTN: ATEI-FE-W

Far East 96301ATTN: Chief, Engr Div USA-bES 39180

Portland 97208 ATTN: C/StructuresATTN: Chief, 08-6ATTN: Chief, 08-3 Naval Air Systems Command 20360

Seattle 98124 ATTN: LibraryATTN: Chief, NPSCOATTN: Chief, EM-OS-EM NAVFAC/Code 04

ATTN: Chief, EN-OB-ST Alexandria, VA 22332ATTN: Chief, NPSEN-PL-WC

Walls Walla 99362 Naval Training Equipment Comand 32813ATTN: Chief, Engr Div ATTN: TeChnical Library

Alaska 99501ATTN: Chief, NPASA-R Port Hueneme, CA 93043

ATTN: M4orell Library

LOW T. K.Preliminary analysis of the seismic vulnerability of selected buildings

at Fort Ord, CA, Using the Rapid Seismic Analysis procedure. - Champaign,IL: Construction Engineering Research Laboratory ; available from NTIS,1983.

79 p (Technical report / Construction Engineering Research LaboratoryM-327)

1. Fort Ord, CA. 2. Earthquakes and building -- California -- Ft. Ord.1. Title. II. Series: Technical report (Construction EngineeringResearch Laboratory (U.S.)) ;M-327.

*U.S GOowETw PrWOW OPPIM IUS-4U74s11

II

,.A

-3 3:

1D T'