Issue Team Three

Issue Team 3, Seismic Anchorage to Concrete: Assessment of ACI 318 Appendix D, and the Exploration of Alternate Methodologies

Scope:  The scope of Issue Team 3's effort will be to evaluate research, published documents, commentary, and code provisions related to seismic anchorage to concrete and to assess the applicability of the ACI 318 Appendix D methodology in the context of a diverse body of research results.  Issue Team 3 will strive to understand the entire body of research used to develop the methodology, including extrapolation of testing results and applicability of the methodology given system considerations and force transfer mechanisms.  Upon completion of a literature review and research evaluation, the Issue Team will identify published alternative methodologies or source documents and issues that could benefit from further study or research. 

Using knowledge gained through the literature review, the Issue Team will define applicability limits of Appendix D and explore alternate methodologies for both general and specific applications that fall outside of the influence of methodologies and limitations contained within Appendix D.  The Issue Team will develop proposals for alternative anchorage design methodologies to be considered by the BSSC PUC as a means of establishing new regulations for seismic anchorage to concrete under the NEHRP Provisions.   

IT Size: Chairman, PUC Liaisons, and 6 travel funded members

Chairman: Kevin Moore, Certus Consulting, Inc., Oakland, California

PUC Member Liaisons:
J. Greg Soules, Chicago Bridge and Iron, The Woodlands, Texas
John Silva, Director of Codes and Approvals, Hilti, Inc., San Rafael, California

Members:
Steve Pryor, Simpson Strong-Tie, Pleasanton, California
Hussain Bhatia, Office of the Statewide Health Planning and Development, Sacramento, California
Ron Hamburger, Simpson Gumpertz and  Heger, San Francisco, California
Brent Hungerford, Walter P. Moore and Associates, Inc., Tampa, Florida
Tara Hutchinson, University of California, Irvine
Harold Sprague, Black and Veatch, Overland Park, Kansas

Duration/Proposed Schedule:  Estimated Duration - 12 months

Initial/Kick-off Meeting (San Diego):                                   March 2011
            Establish Goals, Timeline, Group Leads
            Review Current Appendix D
            Discuss Various Existing/Prominent Methodologies

Monthly Teleconferences                                                    March 2011 through March 2012

Research/Evaluation Phase (independent efforts)        March – June 2011
            Review Available Research
            Evaluate Appendix D Supporting Research
            Research Applicability of Appendix D (limits)

Appendix D Evaluation Efforts                                          June 2011 – December 2011
            Case Studies
            Comparison of Alternative Research
            Baseline Studies (i.e. 1997 UBC methodologies)

Mid-Point Meeting (San Diego):                                      August 2011
            Present and Review Research/Evaluation Results
            Present and Review Appendix D Evaluation Results
            Revise/Realign Directives and Deliverable Goals
            Verify Proposed Work Schedule

Working Meeting (San Diego):                                         January 2011
            Finalize Research/Evaluation Result
            Prepare Initial Deliverables (all facets)
            Prepare Appendix D Evaluation Deliverables
            Prepare Alternative Methodologies Deliverables

Final Review Meeting (San Diego):                                March 2012
            Review/Finalize Research/Evaluation Deliverables
            Review/Finalize Appendix D Evaluation Deliverables
            Review/Finalize Alternative Methodologies Deliverables

Present Findings/Deliverables to PUC:                          April 2012

PUC Meetings                                                                     TBD
Chair to attend PUC meetings to present progress and hear input from Committee