Contact Us   |   Your Cart   |   Sign In   |   Join
Building Seismic Safety Council 2020 PUC Issue Teams

2020 NEHRP Provisions Update Committee (PUC) Issue Teams

Issue Team 1 Seismic Performance Objectives

Work Scope

The IT1 main scope will be to evaluate the adequacy of the qualitative performance objectives in Section 1.1 of the provisions (not in currently ASCE-7) and determine if they are sufficient for the design of buildings and other structures.  Moreover, the IT 1 will look at ASCE-7 Chapter 1 that is not currently in the Provision, and Provision Commentary Chapter 11, 12, 13, and 15 that are currently not in ASCE-7. Since there is a Project 17 task committee looking at the acceptable risk with regard to safety based on collapse of the structure, this issue team will focus on topics such as nonstructural performance, loss of function and potentially the level of damage.  The committee will review the Resource Paper on future directions in performance based design from the 2015 Provisions and other applicable research projects related to performance-based design (ATC 58-2, ATC-84, ATC etc.).   Other potential topics: non-structural performance, loss of function and potentially the level of damage, and the ATC 120 study funded by NIST. IT1 may look at R factor.

Membership

Role Name Organization Location
Chair Robert Pekelnicky Degenkolb Engineers San Francisco, CA
Voting Member Ibbi Amufti Arup San Francisco, CA
Voting Member David Bonneville Degenkolb Engineers San Francisco, CA
Voting Member Julie Furr Chad Stewart & Associates Lakeland, TN
Voting Member Ron Hamburger SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER San Francisco, CA
Voting Member Jim Harris James Harris & Associates Denver, CA
Voting Member Jon Heintz Applied Technology Council Redwood City, CA
Voting Member John Hooper Magnusson Klemencic Associates Seattle, WA
Voting Member Steve McCabe NIST Gaithersburg, MD
Voting Member Maryann Phipps Estructure Oakland, CA
Voting Member John Silva Hilti San Francisco, CA
Voting Member J.G. (Greg) Soules CB &I
USGS Liason Nico Luco USGS Golden, CO
Corresponding Member Kevin Moore SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER San Francisco, CA
Corresponding Member Daniel Dolan Washington State University Pullman, WA
Corresponding Member David Bonowitz David Bonowitz San Francisco CA
Corresponding Member Terry Lundeen COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN SEATTLE WA
Corresponding Member Rob Smith Arup San Francisco CA
Corresponding Member Jack Baker Stanford Palo Alto, CA
Corresponding Member John Gillengerten Self
Corresponding Member Philip Line American Wood Council Leesburg, VA

2016 Meetings

 

 



Issue Team 2 Seismic-Force Resisting Systems and Design Coefficients

Work Scope

Consider adjustments to design coefficients and factors, including height limits, for seismic force resisting systems; the relationship between deflection amplification factor, response modification coefficient and drift limits; direction of loading requirements, including additional requirements for short period structures; and additional issues raised by or brought into the PUC.  Coordinate with IT 1 on issues affecting Chapter 12, such as seismic design categories and multi-period spectra.  The work product will be Part 1 proposals and Part 2 Commentary. 

Membership

Role Name Organization Location
Chair Sandy Hohener Degenkolb Engineers Los Angeles, CA
Voting Member Kevin Moore Simpson Gumpertz & Heger San Francisco, CA
Voting Member Daniel Dolan Washington State University Pullman, WA
Voting Member Bret Lizundia Rutherford & Chekene San Francisco, CA
Voting Member Edwin Huston Smith & Huston Seattle, WA
Voting Member Tom Xia DCI Engineers Seattle, WA
Corresponding Member Bonnie Manley Steel Market Develop Insitute Norfolk, MA
Corresponding Member Taka Tamiya Degenkolb Engineers Los Angeles, CA
Corresponding Member Dan Sloat Degenkolb Engineers Seattle, WA
Corresponding Member Richard Bennett University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN
Corresponding Member Greg Soules
Corresponding Member Hussain Bhatia OSHPD Sacramento, CA
Corresponding Member Robert Tremblay Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

2016 Meetings

 



Issue Team 3 Modal Response Spectrum Analysis Considerations

Work Scope

  • Possible adjustment of CS in the short period range by the square root of (2R/Ωo – 1)
  • Reduction by R only in the first mode (assuming higher modes are elastic);
  • Consideration (or reconsideration) of the appropriateness of current approaches for scaling to the results of an equivalent lateral force (ELF) analysis. This should include both the value matched (base shear, overturning moment, or other) and the scaling factor to be used for matching
  • Application of a multi-degree-of-freedom factor
  • Modification of MRSA to better target a probability of collapse of 1% in 50 years
  • Revisit triggers for Dynamic RSA in ASCE7 and realign with efforts of ATC 123

Membership

Role Name Organization Location
Chair Anindya Dutta SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER San Francisco, CA
Voting Member Jim Malley Degenkolb San Francisco, CA
Voting Member Bob Hanson Univ of Michigan Dublin, Ohio
Voting Member Jay Harris NIST Gaithersburg, MD
Voting Member Rafael Sabelli WALTER P MOORE San Francisco, California
Voting Member Kevin Aswegan Magnusson Klemencic Associates Seattle, Washington
Corresponding Member Jason Collins PCS Structural Solutions Seattle, WA
Corresponding Member Finley Charney Virginia Tech Blacksburg, Virginia
Corresponding Member Rob Tovani Computers and Structures, Inc. Walnut Creek, CA

2016 Meetings

 


Issue Team 4 Shear Wall Design

Work Scope

The shear wall IT will consider the effects of external loads (gravity as well as lateral) on shear walls of concrete, steel, masonry, and wood. It will next consider the possible failure modes resulting from those load effects or internal forces. This will lead to a determination of the failure modes that are critical in design, which in turn should lead to possible areas of improvement in current design practice. Two of those areas are anticipated to be the following:

  1. Coupled shear wall systems are recognized as distinct from isolated shear wall systems in Canadian and New Zealand codes; they are also accorded higher response modification factors in view of their superior seismic performance. The IT will examine whether ASCE 7 should go in the same direction. (suggested by PUC: different R factor for coupled and isolated, need definition of coupled shear wall, ACI 318 will develop the definition, new items in 12.1. Ron Hamburger suggested P 695 study)
  2. Tall buildings in the 400-ft height range are increasingly being built in highly seismic areas, with seismic forces being resisted entirely by cores consisting of reinforced concrete shear walls. (suggested by PUC: cooperate with multi-period spectra team)

The shear design of these shear walls is absolutely crucial to the safety of these structures. However, we have at best an imperfect understanding of the maximum shear that can develop and how it is transferred at the base. It will be very beneficial for the IT to look into this design aspect.

The IT will develop Part 1 proposals and accompanying Part 2 commentary dealing with any topic on which the IT is able to progress to that point. All other findings of the IT and work leading to those findings will be recorded in a Part 3 Resource Paper.

Membership

Role Name Organization Location
Chair S.K. Ghosh S. K. Ghosh Associates Inc. Palatine, IL
Voting Member Jason Collins PCS Structural Solutions Seattle, Tacome, WA
Voting Member David Fields Magnusson Klemencic Associates Seattle, WA
Voting Member Kelly Cobeen Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Emeryville, CA
Voting Member Dick Bennett University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN
Voting Member Gino Kurama University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN
Voting Member Andy Taylor KPFF Consulting Engineers Seattle, WA
Voting Member Michel Bruneau University of Buffalo Buffalo, NY
Corresponding Member Rafael Sabelli Walter P. Moore San Francisco, CA
Corresponding Member John Wallace University of California Los Angeles, CA
Corresponding Member Daniel Borello Oregon State University Corvallis, OR
Corresponding Member Bonnie Manley American Iron and Steel Institute Norfolk, MA
Corresponding Member Joe Maffei Maffei Structural Engineering Oakland, San Francisco, CA
Corresponding Member Tom Xia DCI Engineers Seattle, WA
Corresponding Member Dan Dolan Washington State University Pullman, WA
Corresponding Member John Hooper Magnusson Klemencic Associates Seattle, WA
Corresponding Member Laura Lowes University of Washington Seattle, WA
Corresponding Member Jose Restrepo University of California, San Diego La Jolla, CA
Corresponding Member Andrew Whittaker University of Buffalo Buffalo, NY
Corresponding Member Siamak Sattar NIST Gaithersburg, MD
Corresponding Member Dawn Lehman University of Washington Seattle, WA
Corresponding Member Philip Line American Wood Council Leesburg, VA
Corresponding Member Jack Moehle University of California, Berkeley

Berkeley, CA

Corresponding Member  Lawrence C. Novak Portland Cement Association Skokie, IL
Corresponding Member Joe Ferzli Cary Kopczynski & Company Bellevue, WA

2016 Meetings

 



Issue Team 5 Nonstructural Components

Work Scope

During the development of the 2015 NEHRP Provisions, there was extensive discussion on establishing performance objectives for nonstructural components. In addition, specific issues have been identified that significantly influence the performance of nonstructural components, but are not adequately covered in the current Provisions. With the exception of a review of Rp factors, all of the nonstructural items listed in the 2015 NEHRP Issues were research needs. NIST is supporting the ATC-120 project that directly addresses a substantial number of the research needs, including the force equations and performance objectives for nonstructural components.

Two of the areas of investigation in the second phase of ATC-120 are a detailed evaluation of the nonstructural design provisions, and development of performance objectives for nonstructural components.  The detailed evaluation will include development of a design philosophy for nonstructural components that identifies desirable post-yield and failure mechanisms for components, supports and attachments, and a method for producing generic floor spectra for design of nonstructural components. 

IT5 will incorporate information from ATC-120 to develop proposals for updating the force equations and nonstructural anchorage to concrete and masonry provisions to reflect the most current research, and proposals to update the Rp factors.  Depending on the outcome of the ATC-120 effort on nonstructural performance objectives, IT5 will produce either a proposal or white paper.

Membership

Role Name Organization Location
Chair John Gillengerten SE, Retired OSHPD Hebron, KY
Voting Member Peter Carrato Bechtel Reston, VA
Voting Member Travis Churpalo Degenkolb Oakland, CA
Voting Member Bill Holmes R&C San Francisco, CA
Voting Member Bret Lizundia R&C San Francisco, CA
Voting Member John Silva Hilti San Rafael, CA
Voting Member Greg Soules CB&I Woodlands, TX
Voting Member Chris Tokas OSHPD Sacramento, CA
Corresponding Member Hussain Bhatia OSHPD Sacramento, CA
Corresponding Member Phil Caldwell Schneider
Corresponding Member Meaghan Halligan ISAT SF Bay Area
Corresponding Member Matthew Hoehler NIST Gaithersburg, MD
Corresponding Member Maryann Phipps Estructure Emeryville, CA
Corresponding Member Robert Simmons Petra Seismic Design Houston, TX
Corresponding Member Siavash Soroushian Arup San Francisco, CA

2016 Meetings

 

 

 


Issue Team 6 Nonbuilding Structures

Work Scope

To identify seismic design issues unique to non-building structures.  Specific items currently identified for consideration include:

  • Thin walled storage tanks for unique liquids such as wine, or bulk solids such as grain (may cross over with IT5).
  • Design of large bore piping systems, where the pipe provides significant stiffness relative to the supporting structure.
  • Anchorage to concrete, including resistance mechanisms, and load combinations.
  • Seismic classification of unusual structures such as airplane hangers.

Membership

Role Name Organization Location
Chair Peter Carrato Bechtel Reston, VA
Voting Member Greg Soules CB&I Houston, TX
Voting Member Eric Wey Fluor Houston, TX
Voting Member Bill Scott AISC Industrial building committee Port Townsend, WA
Corresponding Member Harold Sprague Parsons Gladstone, MO
Corresponding Member John Rolfes Computerized Structural Design Milwaukee, WI
Corresponding Member Robert Simmons Petra Seismic / ASHRAE Houston, TX
Corresponding Member Rick Drake Fluor Aliso Viejo, CA
Corresponding Member John Silva Hilti San Francisco, CA

2016 Meetings

 



Issue Team 7 Soil-Foundation Interaction

Work Scope

  1. Review 2015 Chapter 19 provisions.  Consider modifications to limitation on damping and base shear reduction, relationships of foundation damping to superstructure damping, and effects base slab stiffness.
  2. Review proposed changes to ASCE 41-17. Bring forward pertinent modifications in the Provisions to accommodate updated approaches, revising wording for improved clarity where appropriate. (Pekelnicky comment: there were changes, but most were minor)
  3. Consider development of provisions relating to seismic earth pressure on basement walls
  4. Consider development of provisions related to rocking in flexible-base foundation modeling.
  5. Look at load factor on soil pressure.

Membership

Role Name Organization Location
Chair Stephen Harris Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. San Francisco
Voting Member C.B. Crouse AECOM Seattle
Voting Member Gyimah Kasali Rutherford + Chekene San Francisco
Voting Member Ian McFarlane Magnusson Klemencic Associates Seattle
Voting Member Robert Pekelnicky Degenkolb Engineers San Francisco
Voting Member Jonathan Stewart UCLA Los Angeles
Corresponding Member Bruce Kutter UC Davis Davis
Corresponding Member Armin Masroor Arup San Francisco

2016 Meetings

 

 


Issue Team 8 Base Isolation and Energy Dissipation

Work Scope

  • Improve coordination and reduce inconsistencies between ASCE 7 Chapters, 16, 17,18 and Chapter 12.
  • Review and refine quality assurance procedures.
  • Review proposals received         

Membership

Role Name Organization Location
Chair Bret Lizundia Rutherford + Chekene San Francisco, CA
Voting Member Michael Constantinou SUNY - Buffalo Buffalo, NY
Voting Member Andrew Whittaker SUNY - Buffalo Buffalo, NY
Voting Member Reid Zimmerman KPFF Consulting Engineers Portland, OR
Voting Member Steve Mahin University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA
Voting Member Robert Pekelnicky Degenkolb Engineers San Francisco, CA
Voting Member Andy Taylor KPFF Consulting Engineers Seattle, WA
Corresponding Member Armin Masroor Arup San Francisco, CA
Corresponding Member Ron Mayes SGH San Francisco, CA
Corresponding Member Victor Zayas Earthquake Protection Systems Mare Island, CA
Corresponding Member Anthony Giammona Nabih Yousef Associates San Francisco, CA
Corresponding Member Keri Ryan University of Nevado, Reno Reno, NV
Corresponding Member Rob Smith Arup San Francisco, CA
Corresponding Member Charlie Kircher Kircher and Associates Palo Alto, CA

2016 Meetings

 

 

 


Issue Team 9 Diaphragm Issues - RWFD and Alternate Provisions for Diaphragm Design

Work Scope

  • Determine next steps required to progress the rigid wall - flexible diaphragm seismic design methodology of the FEMA P-1026 guideline document to a Part 1 proposal ready for incorporation into ASCE 7. This will include consideration of technical gaps as well as mandatory language. If possible with IT resources, begin next steps. (road maps)
  • Determine next steps required to fully develop and document the methodology for deriving Rs diaphragm design force reduction factors for the alternative provisions for diaphragm seismic design developed by PUC last cycle. If possible with IT resources, begin next steps. (more likely Part III document)
  • Incorporate available steel deck diaphragm information into the two items listed above

Membership

Role Name Organization Location
Chair Kelly Cobeen Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Emeryville, CA
Voting Member John Lawson Cal Poly San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA
Voting Member S.K. Ghosh S. K. Ghosh Associates Palatine, IL
Voting Member Ben Schafer (1) Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD
Voting Member Tom Sabol Engelkirk & Sabol Los Angeles, CA
Voting Member Ron La Plante California Division of the State Arch San Diego, CA
(1) Ben Schafer is primary contact and voting member for steel industry research projects. Matt Eatherton or Jerome Hajjar may attend meetings in Ben's place.
Corresponding Member Andre Filiatrault SUNY University at Buffalo Buffalo, NY
Corresponding Member Bill Holmes Rutherford & Chekene Oakland, CA
Corresponding Member Bonnie Manley AISI Norfolk, MA
Corresponding Member Christopher Gill Hilti North America Plano, TX
Corresponding Member Dan Dolan Washington State Universtiy Pullman, WA
Corresponding Member Dave Golden ASC Steel Deck Div. of ASC Profiles Sacramento, CA
Corresponding Member Jerome (Jerry) Hajjar Northeastern University Boston, MA
Corresponding Member Maria Koliiou Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO
Corresponding Member Matt Eatherton Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA
Corresponding Member Patrick Bodwell Vulcraft/ Verco Group Sacramento, CA
Corresponding Member Phil Line American Wood Council Leesburg, VA
Corresponding Member Pouria Bahmani KPFF Consulting Engineers Seattle, WA
Corresponding Member Rafael Sabelli Walter P. Moore San Francisco, CA
Corresponding Member Robert Tremblay Polytechnique Montreal Montreal, Canada
Corresponding Member Steve Hobbs Vulcraft Tremonton , UT
Corresponding Member Tom Xia DCI Engineers Seattle, WA
Corresponding Member Walt Schultz Nucor

2016 Meetings

Community Search
Latest News
Calendar

12/4/2016 » 12/8/2016
BUILDINGS XIII Conference

12/6/2016
Workshop: Your Building Control Systems Have Been Hacked, Now What?

1/9/2017 » 1/12/2017
Building Innovation 2017 Conference & Expo

4/18/2017 » 4/20/2017
ABAA Conference & Tradeshow