structural response to tsunami loading the rationale for vertical evacuation laura kong ioc itic ian...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Structural Response to Tsunami Loading
The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation
Laura KongIOC ITIC
Ian RobertsonUniversity of Hawaii at Manoa
Harry YehOregon State University
![Page 2: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Topics
Pilot Study on current code tsunami design Lessons from Indian Ocean Tsunami FEMA ATC-64 Project NEESR-SG Proposal - Performance Based
Tsunami Engineering, PBTE
![Page 3: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Seismic/Tsunami Construction,Phase I: A Pilot Study
Initiated and funded by Washington State Emergency Management Division
One year pilot study Joint effort by OSU and UH Manoa Culminating in development of proposal for
future design guideline development
![Page 4: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Project Scope
1. Review current codes for tsunami loading provisions
2. Evaluate prototype structures for seismic/tsunami design
3. Review past tsunami damage
![Page 5: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
1. Review Current Codes
a. City and County of Honolulu Building Code (CCH)
b. FEMA Coastal Construction Manual (FEMA CCM)
c. Dames and Moore 1980
d. 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC 97)
e. 2000 and 2003 International Building Code (IBC)
f. ASCE 7-98 and ASCE 7-02 (ASCE 7)
Provisions of codes: • Predominantly intended for residential construction
or small scale structures.• Code provisions developed for storm wave
conditions, storm surge and river flooding.• CCH and FEMA CCM add reference to tsunami
conditions.
![Page 6: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
FEMA CCM states that : “Tsunami loads on residential buildings may be calculated in the same fashion as other flood loads; when the tsunami forms a borelike wave, the flood velocities are substantially higher.
Conclusion of FEMA CCM: Tsunami loads
are too great and not feasible or practical to design normal structures to withstand these loads.
(Note that this report was intended for use in low-rise residential construction)
Tsunamis covered in CCH and FEMA CCM
![Page 7: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Tsunami Design Vs. Design Stillwater Depth
FEMA CCM: Section 11.7 Figure 11-16
![Page 8: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Design Considerations
Hydraulic Lateral Forces– full structure – individual elements
Impact Force– floating debris
Buoyancy Force Scour
![Page 9: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Design Considerations
Hydraulic Lateral Forces– Hydrostatic– Surge Force– Breaking Wave Force – Hydrodynamic
Impact Force
![Page 10: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Design Considerations
Hydraulic Lateral Forces– Hydrostatic– Surge Force– Breaking Wave Force – Hydrodynamic
Impact Force
![Page 11: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Design Considerations
Hydraulic Lateral Forces– Hydrostatic– Surge Force– Breaking Wave Force – Hydrodynamic
Impact Force
![Page 12: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Design Considerations
Hydraulic Lateral Forces– Hydrostatic– Surge Force– Breaking Wave Force – Hydrodynamic
Impact Force
![Page 13: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Design Considerations
Hydraulic Lateral Forces– Hydrostatic– Surge Force– Breaking Wave Force – Hydrodynamic
Impact Force
![Page 14: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Design Considerations
Hydraulic Lateral Forces– Hydrostatic– Surge Force– Breaking Wave Force – Hydrodynamic
Impact Force
![Page 15: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Impact Force (CCH)
attg
WVFi Δ
= sd
where W = 1000 lbs
t
VFi Δ
=31
Example: Wood Steel RC
VFi 31= VFi 62= VFi 310=
Wood 1.0 secSteel 0.5 secRC 0.1 sec
tΔ Values:
![Page 16: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Loading Combinations
If walls not designed to break away:1. Hydrostatic force on building elevation,
plus hydrodynamic force on sides of structure, plus impact force.
2. Breaking wave force on building elevation, plus hydrodynamic force on sides of structure, plus impact force.
3. Surge force on building elevation, plus hydrodynamic force on sides of structure, plus impact force.
Codes call for break-away walls:In-fill wall capacity: min. 10 psf and max. 20 psf
![Page 17: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
2. Prototype Buildings
Seismic and Wind Design of
Concrete Buildings.
S.K. Ghosh and David A. Fanella
2003.
Includes examples of typical concrete building design for Gravity, Wind and Seismic loading.
Considers various wind exposure conditions and seismic design categories.
Shows sample column, beam and shear wall design.
![Page 18: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Building 1 – MRF and Dual System
![Page 19: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Building 2 – Building Frame System
![Page 20: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Building 3 – Bearing Wall System
![Page 21: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Building Design Criteria
Seismic Wind Building Equiv. TsunamiSDC Speed Location Prone Location
A 145 Miami, FL Kauai, HIC 110 New York, NY Oahu & Maui, HI
D 85 San Francisco, CAWest Coast, US;
Hawaii, HI
E 85 Berkeley, CAWest Coast, US;
Hawaii, HI
SDC – Seismic Design Category (Seismic Hazard and Soil Type)
Seismic and Wind Design Criteria
Tsunami Design Criteria
3 Meter Flow Depth
5 Meter Flow Depth
10 Meter Flow Depth
![Page 22: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Building 1 ResultsBase Shear Non-break-away walls
KEY SDC A SDC EADEQUATE WIND GOVERNS (145 mph) EQ GOVERNSMARGINAL Entire Structure Entire Structure
INADEQUATE Base Shear (kips) Base Shear (kips)Seismic Forces 291.10 --
N-S Seismic Forces -- 4,690.00E-W Seismic Forces -- 3,162.00N-S Wind Forces 1,493.50 512.70E-W Wind Forces 498.90 171.50
3 Meter Tsunami 6,280.00 6,280.005 Meter Tsunami 17,400.00 17,400.0010 Meter Tsunami 69,700.00 69,700.00
3 Meter Tsunami 2,330.00 2,330.005 Meter Tsunami 6,460.00 6,460.0010 Meter Tsunami 25,800.00 25,800.00
N-S Load Case 2
E-W Load Case 2
![Page 23: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Building 1 ResultsBase Shear Break-away walls
KEY SDC A SDC EADEQUATE WIND GOVERNS (145 mph) EQ GOVERNSMARGINAL Entire Structure Entire Structure
INADEQUATE Base Shear (kips) Base Shear (kips)Seismic Forces 291.10 --
N-S Seismic Forces -- 4,690.00E-W Seismic Forces -- 3,162.00N-S Wind Forces 1,493.50 512.70E-W Wind Forces 498.90 171.50
3 Meter Tsunami 1,480.00 1,680.005 Meter Tsunami 4,960.00 5,810.0010 Meter Tsunami 19,800.00 23,200.00
3 Meter Tsunami 2,890.00 3,940.005 Meter Tsunami 8,304.00 11,320.0010 Meter Tsunami 33,100.00 45,200.00
N-S Load Case 1
E-W Load Case 1
![Page 24: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Building 1Forces on Structural Members
Column C4 Shear Wall
![Page 25: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Building 1 Results
KEYADEQUATE Max Axial N-S Max E-W Max N-S Max E-W Max MARGINAL SDC Force Bending Moment Bending Moment Shear Force Shear Force
INADEQUATE (kips) (ft-kips) (ft-kips) (kips) (kips)
*EQ C 1,507.64 117.82 117.82 21.82 21.82
3 Meter Tsunami C 1,362.76 121.52 121.52 51.08 51.085 Meter Tsunami C 1,362.76 197.93 197.93 83.82 83.8210 Meter Tsunami C 1,362.76 395.88 395.88 167.66 167.66
*EQ D 1,841.45 228.00 386.18 39.27 77.45
3 Meter Tsunami D 1,512.82 132.56 132.56 57.23 57.235 Meter Tsunami D 1,512.82 217.70 217.70 94.43 94.4310 Meter Tsunami D 1,512.82 435.44 435.44 188.86 188.86
*EQ E 2,124.00 273.82 658.91 58.91 140.73
3 Meter Tsunami E 1,641.11 139.37 139.37 62.41 62.415 Meter Tsunami E 1,641.11 229.36 229.36 103.18 103.1810 Meter Tsunami E 1,641.11 458.74 458.74 206.36 206.36
*Governing design of structure
Column
Column – Design ForcesCode Tsunami Forces compared with Seismic Design
![Page 26: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Building 1 Results Column - Actual StrengthCode Tsunami Forces vs As-Built Strength
KEYADEQUATE Max Axial Max Bending Max ShearMARGINAL SDC Force Moment Capacity Strength
INADEQUATE (kips) (ft-kips) (kips)
*EQ C 1,507.64 503.00 115.96
3 Meter Tsunami C 1,362.76 121.52 51.085 Meter Tsunami C 1,362.76 197.93 83.8210 Meter Tsunami C 1,362.76 395.88 167.66
*EQ E 2,124.00 1,274.00 365.40
3 Meter Tsunami E 1,641.11 139.37 62.415 Meter Tsunami E 1,641.11 229.36 103.1810 Meter Tsunami E 1,641.11 458.74 206.36
*Governing design of structure
As-Built Column
![Page 27: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Building 1 Results Shear Wall - Actual StrengthCode Tsunami Forces vs As-Built Strength
KEYADEQUATE Max Axial E-W Max Bending Max ShearMARGINAL SDC Force Moment Capacity Strength
INADEQUATE (kips) (ft-kips) (kips)
*EQ C 3,112.00 2,386.00 535.58
3 Meter Tsunami C 3,111.98 1,670.81 735.665 Meter Tsunami C 3,111.98 3,249.78 1,557.9310 Meter Tsunami C 3,111.98 8,194.21 3,654.17
*EQ D 4,471.00 7,482.00 1,181.89
3 Meter Tsunami D 3,604.43 1,669.01 748.285 Meter Tsunami D 3,604.43 3,245.03 1,586.6110 Meter Tsunami D 3,604.43 8,141.78 3,710.56
*EQ E 5,135.00 9,912.00 1,601.36
3 Meter Tsunami E 3,899.48 1,600.37 738.175 Meter Tsunami E 3,899.48 3,113.38 1,569.2010 Meter Tsunami E 3,899.48 7,726.59 3,644.41
As-Built Shear Wall
*Governing design of structure
![Page 28: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Building 1 Results Shear Wall - Actual StrengthRecommended Tsunami Forces vs As-Built Strength
KEYADEQUATE Max Axial E-W Max Bending Max ShearMARGINAL SDC Force Moment Capacity Strength
INADEQUATE (kips) (ft-kips) (kips)
*EQ C 3,112.00 2,386.00 535.58
3 Meter Tsunami C 3,111.98 768.33 336.885 Meter Tsunami C 3,111.98 1,379.69 584.3210 Meter Tsunami C 3,111.98 2,759.42 1,168.66
*EQ E 5,135.00 9,912.00 1,601.36
3 Meter Tsunami E 3,899.48 734.34 337.615 Meter Tsunami E 3,899.48 1,281.97 576.6810 Meter Tsunami E 3,899.48 2,563.93 1,153.36
*Governing design of structure
As-Built Shear Wall
![Page 29: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Conclusions
1. The USA building codes do not adequately address the flow velocity and subsequent structural loading during a tsunami. Experimental validation of the velocity, flow depth and loading expressions is needed.
2. The tsunami forces often exceed the design forces based on wind and seismic conditions
3. However, a review of three typical prototype buildings indicated that the as-built capacity of individual members is often adequate for the tsunami loads
4. The prototype building with moment-resisting frame or dual system was able to resist the tsunami forces
![Page 30: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Conclusions (cont.)
5. The prototype building with shear wall-frame system was able to resist the tsunami forces, however individual shear walls perpendicular to the tsunami flow may fail and lead to progressive collapse of the building
6. The prototype building with bearing wall system was not able to resist the tsunami loads and is not recommended for construction in tsunami inundation zones
7. A structure must resist both the initial earthquake ground shaking, as well as the subsequent tsunami loads, so that vertical evacuation can be recommended to levels above the expected maximum flow
![Page 31: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Recommendations
1. Analytical Modeling and experimental verification of tsunami flow depth and velocity should be performed using a large-scale wave tank
2. Hydrodynamic force and impact force are the most probable during a tsunami.
3. Wave tank studies should also be performed to verify hydrodynamic loading due to tsunami flow, and impact due to waterborne debris
4. Based on these studies the code tsunami loading equations should be revised.
![Page 32: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Recommendations (cont)
5. All non-structural walls at the lower levels should be designed to break-away during a tsunami event
6. Open moment frame or dual systems are recommended for lateral framing of buildings in tsunami inundation areas
7. Buildings in tsunami inundation areas should avoid the use of bearing walls or large structural walls perpendicular to the anticipated tsunami flow
8. Structures must be able to resist the local source earthquake, which often precedes the tsunami, with limited structural damage
![Page 33: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Final Recommendation
Vertical evacuation in multi-story reinforced concrete (and structural steel) buildings is an appropriate policy for:
All near-source tsunamis
Remote-source tsunamis in densely populated areas where horizontal evacuation is not feasible
![Page 34: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
FEMA ATC-64 project
Initiated by FEMA as follow-on to Pilot Study
$400,000 funding for 2-year effort “Development of Design and Construction
Guidance for Special Facilities for Vertical Evacuation from Tsunami”
Applied Technology Council Project Team– Chris Rojahn – Project Executive Director– Steven Baldridge – Project Technical Director
![Page 35: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
NEESR-SGPerformance Based Tsunami
Engineering, PBTE Proposal to the NSF George E. Brown Network for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation, NEES Small Group project, $1,600,000 over 4-years UH, Princeton, Oregon State University “Development of Performance Based Tsunami
Engineering” Will include numerous tsunami wave basin
experiments to validate run-up and 3-D RANS modeling, develop improved loading time-history, scour modeling and structural response.
Result in code adoptable tsunami design provisions
![Page 36: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
HOTELWAIKIKI
![Page 37: Structural Response to Tsunami Loading The Rationale for Vertical Evacuation Laura Kong IOC ITIC Ian Robertson University of Hawaii at Manoa Harry Yeh](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062604/56649d945503460f94a7bda2/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Thank-you