BLUE TRAINIf you would like to schedule an in-person training for ATC-20 Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings (Second Edition), ATC-45 Safety Evaluation of Buildings after Windstorms and Floods, please click here for details and to submit a request for more information. 

 

Call for Consultants

ATC is committed to building a workforce that is as diverse as the communities we serve. Are you interested in consulting? Join us!

Celebrating the Past, Engaging the Present, and Envisioning the Future
December 8, 2023   |   San Francisco
Click here to learn more!

ATC-127 PROJECT

ATC/USGS Seismic Hazard User-Needs Workshop

On September 21-22, 2015, in Menlo Park, California, the Applied Technology Council (ATC) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) convened the ATC/USGS Seismic Hazard User-Needs Workshop. Like the ATC-35/USGS National Earthquake Ground Motion Mapping Workshops, which were held in 1995, 2001, and 2006, this User-Needs Workshop provided an opportunity for individuals and groups that use the National Seismic Hazard Maps to provide feedback on existing and planned hazard information and products from the USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project.

Agenda.  The Workshop Agenda is available here.

Presentations.

Workshop Program.‎ The ATC/USGS Seismic Hazard User-Needs Workshop was organized to (1) elicit feedback from users of seismic hazard information and products, (2) provide a forum for the wider earthquake engineering community to discuss the transfer of seismic hazard results into engineering practice, seismic risk analysis, and public policy, and (3) make practical recommendations to the USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project.

The User-Needs Workshop included presentations from invited speakers and workshop attendees:
▪ Representatives of the National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project described the changes in the 2014 update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps, including changes to the hazard model input, the calculation of hazard, and the resulting differences in hazard values. The representatives also provided an overview of seismic hazard information and products currently available at the Project website.
▪ Representatives of user groups described how they use hazard information from the National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project. Users also provided feedback on the hazard products that they currently use and ideas about development of additional products or the consolidation of existing products.

Location. William Rambo Auditorium, U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, California.  

Steering Committee.

Anna H. Olsen, (co-chair), Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California
Nicolas Luco (co-chair), U.S. Geological Survey, Golden, Colorado
Norman Abrahamson, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Francisco, California
C.B. Crouse, AECOM, Seattle, Washington
Rod Diridon, Sr., Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose, California
Arthur D. Frankel, U.S. Geological Survey, Seattle, Washington
Keith Knudsen, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California
Janiele Maffei, California Earthquake Authority, Sacramento, California
Robert B. Paullus, Jr. (ATC Board Contact), Applied Technology Council, Olive Branch, Mississippi
Sue Perry, U.S. Geological Survey, Pasadena, California
Mark D. Petersen (ex officio), U.S. Geological Survey, Golden, Colorado
Chris D. Poland, Consulting Engineer, Canyon Lake, California
Sanaz Rezaeian, U.S. Geological Survey, Golden, Colorado
Christopher Rojahn (ex officio), Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California
Tom Shantz, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, California
Nilesh Shome, Risk Management Solutions, Newark, California

Sponsoring Organizations.

Applied Technology Council
Redwood City, California
www.ATCouncil.org

U.S. Geological Survey
Reston, Virginia
www.usgs.gov

Co-Sponsoring Organizations.

Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety Commission
Consortium of Organizations for Strong-Motion Observation Systems
Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety
International Code Council
MAE Center
MCEER
Mineta Transportation Institute
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder
National Institute of Building Sciences Building Seismic Safety Council
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Southern California Earthquake Center
Seismological Society of America
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Seismic Committee
Western States Seismic Policy Council

Print

ATC-125 PROJECT

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Project Title: Recovery Advisories for the South Napa Earthquake

Project Status: Report Published

Client: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

PROJECT SUMMARY

Soon after some natural disasters, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) develops Recovery Advisories—short (5 to 10 page) documents providing guidance on how to repair or mitigate specific issues identified in a particular disaster. The FEMA Building Science Branch often works with the Joint Field Office and uses the findings from Mitigation Assessment Team reports to inform the development of FEMA Recovery Advisories.

After the August 24, 2014, magnitude 6.0 South Napa earthquake, FEMA contracted the Applied Technology Council (ATC) to develop two FEMA Recovery Advisories related to: (1) masonry fireplace chimneys, and (2) cripple walls in residential structures. Although these Recovery Advisories were developed following the 2014 South Napa earthquake, the technical content is not specific to this earthquake: the Recovery Advisories may be used to aid the recovery process after future earthquakes and for pre-earthquake hazard mitigation.

These two FEMA South Napa Earthquake Recovery Advisories are also included in the appendices of FEMA P-1024, Performance of Buildings and Nonstructural Components in the 2014 South Napa Earthquake. FEMA P-1024 provides an assessment of the performance of a select number of buildings impacted by the earthquake and corresponding recommendations to further improve mitigation.

Repair of Earthquake-Damaged Masonry Fireplace Chimneys

This FEMA Recovery Advisory recommends best practices for the reconstruction of earthquake-damaged masonry chimneys in one- or two-family dwellings to minimize risk of damage in future earthquakes. The best practices detailed in this advisory are also recommended for retrofit of masonry chimneys. The information included in the Recovery Advisory is intended to be used by homeowners to compare and contrast the various options for reconstruction and retrofit, as well as by contractors to understand details and applicable building code requirements associated with the implementation of these options. Readers should note that this Recovery Advisory does not fully detail construction requirements; a homeowner or contractor will still need to obtain a building permit to perform the work described in this advisory.

Earthquake Strengthening of Cripple Walls in Wood-Frame Dwellings

The South Napa earthquake damaged many cripple walls in residential structures, and many of the damaged cripple walls were taller than four feet. This FEMA Recovery Advisory addresses the earthquake strengthening of cripple walls and foundation anchorage in one- or two- family residential structures, supported by elevated concrete foundation systems and cripple walls not taller than approximately seven feet. In its first part, the Recovery Advisory describes the issue of earthquake strengthening of cripple walls and foundation anchorage for a typical homeowner. The second part is an accompanying Plan Set, which provides a pre-engineered retrofit solution and step-by-step instructions for use by knowledgeable contractors or skilled homeowners in customizing the work for the conditions in a specific dwelling. The contractor or homeowner must still obtain a building permit to perform the work described in this advisory.

Print

ATC-20-1 Bhutan Field Manual

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Title: Development of Field Manual: Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, Bhutan Edition (ATC-20-1 Bhutan)

Funding Provided By: World Bank’s Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) and the Applied Technology Council Endowment Fund

Developed By: the Applied Technology Council (ATC), GeoHazards International (GHI), and the Royal Government of Bhutan’s Department of Engineering Services (DES) and Department of Disaster Management (DDM)

Status: This document was completed in January 2015

Participants: To see a list of project participants, click here.

Final Product:

This document represents adaptations to the U.S. version of the ATC-20-1 Field Manual  to account for Bhutan’s vernacular buildings, as well as Bhutan’s cultural and governmental context. During the development, a number of improvements were made to the presentation of material in the ATC-20-1 Field Manual, including a graphical format with numerous images to help engineers evaluate damaged buildings more accurately. Also, the procedures incorporate recent lessons learned during postearthquake safety evaluations following the Chile (2010) and New Zealand (2010-2011) earthquakes.

Sample pages from Chapter 6, Stone Masonry Buildings, showing the graphical format of the document. Table 6.1 is 13 pages long and presents damage conditions with photographs or illustrations.

An electronic copy of the document is not available online. To view the cover, title page, and table of contents, click here.  If you wish to purchase a hard-copy version of the document, please contact This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

An overview of the project that developed the Field Manual was presented at the 10th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering in Anchorage, Alaska in July 2015, and may be viewed here.

In accordance with the ATC-20 Methodology, forms for recording safety evaluation results for Rapid and Detailed Evaluations were developed for buildings in Bhutan. These forms are provided in A4 size in PDF format here.

After undergoing safety evaluation, buildings are posted with one of three placards: INSPECTED, RESTRICTED USE, or UNSAFE. These forms are provided in A4 size in PDF format here.

ATC-20-1 Bhutan Field Manual also presents interim procedures for advisory placarding of single-family homes. When this document was developed, Bhutan had limited resources for response and recovery. The Department of Disaster Management determined that the results of postearthquake safety evaluations should be provided as safety advisories for occupants of single-family homes. The Department is working to enhance response capacity and intends that the provisions in this appendix serve as an interim measure. The technical developers of this document, including the U.S.-Bhutan Project Engineering Panel, ATC, GeoHazards International, and Department of Engineering Services, believe that mandatory placarding, in which directives on placards are legally binding and enforceable, is essential for public safety. The technical developers strongly support efforts to move to mandatory placarding for all buildings as soon as possible. The procedures are presented in Appendix F of the document. The advisory placards for INSPECTED, RESTRICTED USE, and UNSAFE are provided in A4 size in PDF format here.

 

 

 

 

 

Print

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Title: 15th U.S.-Japan Workshop on the Improvement of Structural Engineering and Resiliency

Project Status: This Workshop was conducted on December 3-5, 2014

Sponsors: Applied Technology Council (ATC) and Japan Structural Consultants Association (JSCA)

 

PROJECT SUMMARY

The Purpose of the Workshop was to develop policy recommendations for improved community resilience based on the current state-of-practice, innovative engineering solutions, and new and emerging technologies. A special focus of the Workshop was on the means to build resiliency, reduce economic losses, and speed recovery and reconstruction following typhoons or hurricanes, earthquakes, and other natural disasters.

The Workshop is the 15th in a series started in 1984, and repeated every two-to-three years. Previous workshops have been held in California (San Diego and San Francisco), Hawaii (Honolulu, Kauai, Kona, Kohala Coast, and Maui), Japan (Kobe and Tokyo), and Victoria, British Columbia.

Workshop Participants.  The Workshop Participants included those with a background in building performance and other structures in severe earthquakes, including the effects of tsunami, and response and recovery.

Workshop Program.  The Workshop Program was designed for practicing structural engineers and researchers, and included technical presentations, and working group breakout sessions and discussions. Papers and presentations were as follows:

 Session I: Resiliency-Based Design: Progress and Developments

Paper Number

 Paper Title Author Presentation

1.

 Thoughts and Ideas on the Improvement of Structural Engineering and Resilience for Natural Hazards Alexander Yanev and
Peter Yanev*		 View Presentation

2.

 Development of Resilient Reinforced Concrete Building Structure Seitaro Tajiri*, Hiroshi Fukuyama, and Tomohisa Mukai View Presentation

3.

 Resilience of Steel Moment-Frame Buildings with Reserve Lateral Strength Johnn P. Judd* and
Finley A. Charney		 View Presentation

4.

 Structural Design of the Seismic Response Controlled Buildings with Robustness Shinya Nishimoto*,
Yozo Shinozaki, Megumi Kawasaki, and Koji Tsuchimoto
 View Presentation

5.

 Utilizing Damping Devices to Improve Resiliency of Structures Alan Klembczyk* View Presentation

6.

 Progress on Resilience-Based Seismic Design Supported by Advanced Prediction of Building Damage, Repair Cost, and Building Closure Time Curt B. Haselton* and
Jack W. Baker
 View Presentation

Session II: Performance Based-Design and Response Evaluation of Structures

Paper Number

 Paper Title Author Presentation

1.

 A New Framework for Quantifying Ground Motion Intensity to Estimate Collapse Vulnerability of Buildings Kenny Buyco*, Thomas Heaton, Anna Olsen, John Hall, and
Shiyan Song		 View Presentation

2.

 Seismic Response Control of the Building Having Large Space with Dampers T. Haijima* View Presentation

3.

Performance Target Choices by Owners Under ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 41-13: Improving Seismic Resiliency and Reducing Seismic Risk in the Legal Arena

 Mark N. White*, Cynthia L. Perry,
Eduardo Fierro, Toyu Yazaki, and Junko Yazaki
  View Presentation

4.

 Resilient Seismic Upgrade of Bay Division Pipeline No. 3 at the Hayward Fault Changmo Kwon View Presentation

5.

Response Reduction Effect of Soil-Structure-Interaction Evaluated by System Identification of Strong Motion Records Observed in 2011 East Japan Earthquake

 Hajime Okano* and
Tatsuya Azuhata
 View Presentation

6.

 Seismic Design of Japanese Nuclear Power Plants and Their Actual Response in the July 2007 Chuetsu-oki Earthquake Akira Wada* and
Katsuichiro Hijikata
 View Presentation

Session III: Risk Identification and Reduction: Methods and Validation

Paper Number

Paper Title

 Author Presentation

1.

A Risk Communication Game-Changer: The U.S. Resiliency Council (USRC) Building Rating System

 Jon A. Heintz* View Presentation

2.

 The ATC-78 Methodology for Evaluation and Mitigation of Nonductile Concrete Buildings Abbie Liel* View Presentation

3.

 Performance of Buildings and Nonstructural Components in the South Napa Earthquake John Gillengerten* View Presentation

4.

 Modified Displacement-Based Design for Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall Structures Farhad Ahmadi* View Presentation

5.

 Presentation on Similar Efforts in Japan Mitsuru Kawamura* View Presentation

Session IV: Multi-Hazard Design, Analysis and Research: Buildings & Critical Infrastructure

Paper Number

Paper Title

 Author Presentation

1.

Multi-Hazard and Resilience Research at Rensselaer

 Franklin T. Lombardo* View Presentation

2.

 Resiliency of Power Systems in the United States for Earthquakes and Windstorms and Firestorms John Eidinger* View Presentation

3.

 Performance of Base Isolated Structure for Tsunami Loading Mineo Takayama*  View Presentation

4.

 Reliability Analysis of Structures Designed in Accordance with ASCE 7, when Subjected to Tsunami and Earthquake Effects Gary Chock* and Nico Luco View Presentation

Session V: Systems and Processes to Improve Emergency Response, Reconstruction, and Recovery

Paper Number

Paper Title

 Author Presentation

1.

Examples of Recovery Proposals and Recovery Process

  Mitsuru Kawamura* View Presentation

2.

 Measuring lifeline emergency response using temporal network models Gian Paolo Cimellaro*  View Presentation

3.

 Development of an Open Source Structural Health Monitoring and Damage Detection System for Sustainable and Resilient Structures Erol Kalkan*, Jon P. Fletcher, Lawrence Baker, Paul Friberg, and William Leith View Presentation

4.

 Improving Community Resilience Through Public-Private Partnership: The BORP Strategy Matthew Bogaard* View Presentation

5.

 What is needed for resiliency of tall buildings in San Francisco and elsewhere? Mehmet Çelebi* View Presentation

Session VI: Humanitarian Engineering: The Role of Engineering and Technology in Less-Developed Communities

Paper Number

Paper Title

 Author Presentation

1.

Improving Earthquake Resiliency in Developing Cities

 Hideki Kit Miyamoto* View Presentation

2.

 ‘Ductility’ is ‘Damage’, People Don’t Want to Live in Damaged Buildings Akira Wada*  View Presentation

3.

 Saving Lives through Humanitarian Engineering Sabine Kast* View Presentation 

4.

 An Example of Improving Earthquake Safety Project in South-east Asia Takayuki Teramoto* View Presentation

5.

 Effectively Adapting and Adopting Risk Reduction Technologies in Emerging Communities Verónica Cedillos* View Presentation

Session VII: Closing Session

Paper Number

 Paper Title Author Presentation

1.

 Special Presentation: Personal Message to Participants from Roland Sharpe—U.S. Founder of the U.S.-Japan Workshop series Roland Sharpe (presented by Christopher Rojahn) View Presentation

2.

 Summary and Conclusions Mitsuru Kawamura*, Christopher  Rojahn*, Kit Miyamoto* View Presentation

*Presenting Author.

Print

 

 

ATC-15-15:
16th U.S.-Japan-New Zealand Workshop on the
Improvement of Structural Engineering and Resiliency

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Title: 16th U.S.-Japan-New Zealand Workshop on the Improvement of Structural Engineering and Resiliency

Project Status: This Workshop was conducted on June 27-29, 2016 at the Todaiji Temple Cultural Center in Nara, Japan.

Sponsors: Applied Technology Council (ATC), the Japan Structural Consultants Association (JSCA), the New Zealand Centre of Research Excellence (QuakeCoRE), and the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering

PROJECT SUMMARY

The Purpose of the Workshop was to discuss and develop policy recommendations for improved community resilience based on topics related to current state-of-practice, innovative engineering solutions, and emerging resilience technologies. A special focus of the Workshop was on post-earthquake repair and assessment of residual capacity of earthquake-damaged buildings.

This Workshop was the 16th in a series that began in 1984 and has been repeated every two or three years. Previous workshops have been held in California (San Diego and San Francisco), Hawaii (Honolulu, Kauai, Kona, Kohala Coast, and Maui), Japan (Kobe and Tokyo), and Victoria, British Columbia.  For this workshop, the program was expanded to include representation from New Zealand in addition to the United States and Japan.

Workshop Program. The Workshop Program was designed for practicing engineers, researchers, planners, policy makers, and other risk reduction specialists. It included technical presentations, panel discussions, and policy-development discussions. Technical sessions were planned around resiliency based engineering, post-earthquake repair and residual capacity, innovative structural design, technologies in underdeveloped countries, risk identification and reduction, earthquake response and recovery, and nonstructural elements.
 
Workshop Participants. The Workshop Participants included those with a background in the performance of buildings and other structures in severe earthquakes, including the effects of tsunami, and response, recovery, and reconstruction efforts following a major earthquake or tsunami.
 
Summary of Workshop Findings. The workshop was structured to include presentation and discussion. Presentations and papers can be found in the table below. Presentations provided information and opinions from experts in seven topical areas related to f structural engineering and resiliency, which were followed by discussions agreeing on conclusions and policy recommendations for improved community resilience. The Workshop Findings were summarized to present the overall conclusions from each session. The following recommendations were the agreed upon highest priority conclusions and recommendations across all sessions:
 
Session I: Resiliency Based Engineering
  • Resilience is not just an engineering problem. We need to engage with society, and create buy-in for what is needed for resilience and what that means to non-engineers.
  • We need to consider siting and land-use planning impacts on performance.
  • Damage and loss are not the same thing. Damage does not necessarily mean loss. We need to minimize loss (e.g., repair costs, downtime, injury, life loss).
  • We need to better understand the link between component-based design and system level performance.
  • Codes provide us a minimum standard. We need to evolve to promote best practices for serving society.
  • Communication is important. We need multi-language, multi-cultural sharing of information.
Session II: Post-Earthquake Repair and Residual Capacity
  • The participating organizations resolve to collaborate on the development of residual capacity guidelines.
Session III: Innovative Structural Design for Large Earthquakes
  • Holistic design principles should be considered with innovative solutions.
  • We need innovative design for construction types that represent the most common types of buildings (not just special or important structures).
Session IV: Risk Identification and Reduction
  • Seismic risk is not the only risk (e.g., tsunami, fire, multi-hazard).
  • We must not forget the basic life-safety intent of the codes.
  • We must address the risks in our existing building stock.
Session V: Earthquake Response and Recovery
  • We need to document successes so that we know where codes are working.
  • Conservatism in design and construction should be considered in a commercial context. We need to communicate the case for conservatism.
Session VI: Engineering and Technology in Developing Countries
  • We need to adapt our seismic technologies and share appropriate technologies (and processes) with developing countries.
Session VII: Resiliency of Non-Structural Elements
  • The cost-benefit ratio of nonstructural bracing needs to be considered (including consideration of downtime and design fees).
  • Structural response can impact nonstructural damage exposure. Holistic structural and nonstructural design is needed (especially for new construction).
  • For success in nonstructural implementation, we need to take advantage of the broader partnerships in the building industry: design, regulation, enforcement, and manufacture.
 
Session I: Resiliency Based Engineering
Chairpersons: Kawamura (Japan); Heintz (US)
Paper Number Paper Title Author(s) Presentation Paper
1. Engineers: The Forgotten Stakeholder in the Resilience Conversation J. Heintz* View Presentation View Paper
2. On the Resiliency of Power Grids after Earthquakes J. Eidinger* and A. Tang View Presentation View Paper
3. Modal Decomposition and Behavior of Free Vibration Response with Grounding and Uplifting T. Masuno* View Presentation  
4. Improving Resiliency by Designing for Community Needs V. Cedillos* View Presentation View Paper
5. Balance and Harmony D. Mar* View Presentation  
6. Resilience and Earthquake Engineering P. Yanev* View Presentation View Paper
7. Performance versus Compliance R. Jury* and A. Stirrat View Presentation View Paper
8. Current Direction for Improving Structural Engineering and Resiliency in New Zealand M. Stannard* View Presentation View Paper
Session II: Post-Earthquake Repair and Residual Capacity
Chairpersons: Celebi (US); Elwood (NZ)
Paper Number Paper Title Author(s) Presentation Paper
1. Rapid Fatigue Damage Assessment for Earthquake Losses: Stochastic Model and an Example from Christchurch, NZ J.B. Mander, G. Rodgers*, and D. Whittaker View Presentation View Paper
2. Assessing the Seismic Residual Fatigue Life of Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings: A Proposed Framework A. Cuevas Ramirez*    
3. Residual Seismic Capacity Evaluation and Damage Classification for Reinforced Concrete Buildings M. Maeda* View Presentation  
4. Post-Earthquake Residual Capacity of Damaged Reinforced Concrete Buildings K. Elwood* View Presentation View Paper
5. Determination of the Post-Earthquake Capacity of an Eccentrically Braced Frame Seismic Resisting System C. Clifton and G. Ferguson (presented by K. Elwood*) View Presentation View Paper
6. Significance of Beating Effects Observed in Earthquake Responses of Two Tall Buildings M. Çelebi*, F. Ghahari, and E. Taciroglu View Presentation View Paper
7. Earthquake Performance of a Three Story Actual Sub-Standard Building M. Comert*, C. Demir, A.O. Ates, K. Orakcal, and A. Ilki View Presentation View Paper
8. Residual capacity of RC frame with walls based on full-scale loading test T. Mukai* View Presentation  
9. Insights from Intensive Assessment Analyses – The Benefit to Targeted Performance Enhancement for a Christchurch Ductile RC Moment-Frame Building D. Pettinga* and T. Kelly View Presentation View Paper
Session III: Innovative Structural Design for Large Earthquakes
Chairpersons: Regos (NZ); Nishimura (Japan)
Paper Number Paper Title Author(s) Presentation Paper 
1. Seismic upgrading of existing high-rise buildings utilizing newly developed tuned mass damper, oil damper and steel damper N. Haneda*, H. Kurino, and Y. Kurokawa View Presentation  
2. Structural Design of Tall Damped Building with Irregularly-Shaped Plane and Elevation for Large Earthquake Y. Okuno*    
3. Testing and Application of Low Damage Technologies for Bridges in New Zealand S. White*, P. Routledge, and A. Palermo View Presentation View Paper
4. Structural design of high seismic performance twin tower by employing different structural system for each tower S. Yoshida*    
5. Study on Dynamic Behavior of Wooden Horizontal Hybrid Structure Involving Stiff Cores Y. Yamazaki*, H. Sakata View Presentation  
6. Effect of Column Modeling Parameters on Collapse Behavior of RC Building A. Matamoros*, A. Suwal, and A. Lepage View Presentation View Paper
7. An Experimental Study on the Buckling Stability of Laminated Rubber Bearings under Large Lateral Deformation I. Nishimura*    
8. Cyclic Tests of Cylindrical Concrete Containment Structures and Their 3-D Finite Element Predictions T. Hsu*    
9. Behavior of Precast Structural Walls Post-Tensioned by Unbonded Tendos in Shaking Table Tests on Actual-Size 4-Story Prestressed Concrete Building L. Bedrinana*, M. Raouffard, and M. Nishiyama View Presentation  
10. Behavior of structural walls of 1/3-scale 6-story reinforced concrete building in shaking table tests M. Nishiyama*, Y. Idosako, M. Sakashita, K. Sugimoto, Y. Masuda, and H. Katsumata View Presentation  
Session IV: Risk Identification and Reduction
Chairpersons: Kennedy (US); Haneda (Japan)
Paper Number Paper Title Author(s) Presentation Paper
1. Design of Structures for Target Risk Using Nonlinear Analysis M. Dolsek*    
2. Structural Morphogenesis for Tunnel-Shaped Frame Structure D. Wada*

 
3. Evaluation and Performance of Taiwan Housing and Schools in the Tainan/Meinong Earthquake R. Gilsanz, C. Huang, J. Mandrick, J. Mugford*, S.J. Hwang, T.C. Chiou, and M. Celebi View Presentation View Paper
4. The Role of Nonlinear Damping Measurement in Identifying Damage, Tracking Ageing and Design Prediction T. Winant* and A. Jeary*    
5. The Anatomy of Regulatory Reform for Buildings: The Role of Equity A. Brower*

View Paper
6. Laboratory Tsunami Loading Experiments on Buildings, and Comparison to U.S. and Japanese Standards A. Kennedy*    
Session V: Earthquake Response and Recovery
Chairpersons: Yanev (US); Shinozaki (Japan)
Paper Number Paper Title Author(s) Presentation Paper
1. Kumamoto M. Takayama* View Presentation  
2. Kumamoto K. Morita*

 
3. Kumamoto P. Yanev* View Presentation  
4. Nepal K. Miyamoto

 
5. Nepal R. Dhakal* View Presentation  
6. Ecuador K. Miyamoto*    
7. Christchurch N. Regos*

 
Session VI: Engineering and Technology in Developing Countries
Chairpersons: Jury (NZ); Okoshi (Japan)
Paper Number Paper Title Author(s) Presentation Paper
1. Can Big Data Approaches Help Earthquake Engineering in Underdeveloped Countries? I. H. Cho*, I. Song, and R.K.W. Wong View Presentation View Paper
2. Reconstruction Assistance to Damaged Building in Nepal Earthquake 2015 T. Okoshi* View Presentation  
3. Preparing Earthquake Disaster in Emerging Nations: The USAID “PREPARE” Program in Costa Rica and Colombia K. Miyamoto*    
Session VII: Resiliency of Non-Structural Elements
Chairpersons: Mar (US); Mori (Japan)
Paper Number Paper Title Author(s) Presentation Paper
1. JSCA’S Efforts on the Safety of Non-Structural Elements T. Teramoto* View Presentation  
2. JSCA’s Recommendation “Design and Detail of Non-structural Elements for Structural, Building and Building-Equipment Engineers” A. Osada* View Presentation  
3. Preliminary Guidelines for Enhanced Non-structural System Design to Achieve Functionality-Level Seismic Performance of Buildings S. Soroushian*    
4. Experimental Evaluation of the Influence of Seismic Clips on Grid Joints in a Suspended Ceiling System R. Dhakal*   View Paper
5. The Next Frontier – Improving the Seismic Resilience of Nonstructural Components H. Ferner* and A. Baird View Presentation View Paper

*Presenting Author

 

Sponsoring Organizations.

Applied Technology Council
Japan Structural Consultants Association
New Zealand Centre of Research Excellence (QuakeCoRE)


New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering

Please contact the Applied Technology Council with questions at 1-650-595-1542, or via e-mail by clicking This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Print

More Articles ...

 

 Welcome to the ATC Team!

Valley Mike cropMichael Valley As a former Principal at Magnusson Klemencic Associates in Seattle, Mike Valley comes to ATC with more than 30 years of structural engineering experience in new design, evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings, applied research, and codes and standards development. Mike’s design experience includes the landmark Salesforce Tower in San Francisco, and his research and development experience includes the FEMA 356 Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA P-2012 Assessing Seismic Performance of Buildings with Configuration Irregularities (ATC-123 Project), and NIST GCR 10-917-9 Applicability of Nonlinear Multiple-Degree-of-Freedom Modeling for Design (ATC-76-6 Project).

Mike also has extensive experience as an ATC consultant serving as a reviewer, a technical contributor, and Project Director on multiple ATC projects. We look forward to how Mike’s unique experiences as a successful team member will contribute to ATC projects in the future.

Michael Mahoney
Michael Mahoney

Retired from federal service as a Senior Geophysicist with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Mike Mahoney comes to ATC with more than 30 years of experience in hazard mitigation program management and policy development, post-disaster response and recovery, and problem-focused research and development in support of FEMA’s efforts under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). He has led FEMA’s earthquake-related work with the International Code Council and has been involved with the development of national model codes and standards since 1984.

In his career at FEMA, Mike has led the development of countless major FEMA publications, including: FEMA 350 Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings and its series of companion reports (ATC-41 Project series), FEMA P-58 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Methodology and Implementation (ATC-58 Project series), FEMA P-695 Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors (ATC-63 Project), FEMA P-2018 Seismic Evaluation of Older Concrete Buildings for Collapse Potential (ATC-78 Project), and FEMA P-2090/NIST SP-1254 Recommended Options for Improving the Built Environment for Post-Earthquake Reoccupancy and Functional Recovery Time (ATC-137 Project). With Mike’s extensive knowledge of federal government programs, and past collaboration with state and local agencies, hazard mitigation partners, and code development organizations, we look forward to how his unique experiences will help serve ATC’s client needs and objectives in the future.