MASONRY STANDARDS JOINT COMMITTEE
www.masonrystandards.org
Seismic Subcommittee
MSJC Chair
Chair
Diane Throop
Vice Chair
Dick Bennett
Secretary
Andy Dalrymple
DIANE THROOP, INTERNATIONAL MASONRY INSTITUTE, 8001 EVENING WHISPER W AY, CINCINNATI, OHIO
45244, (513) 272-2470, FAX: (513) 272-2146, E-MAIL: DTHROOP@IMIWEB.ORG
MSJC Vice Chair
RICHARD M. BENNETT, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, TN
37996-235, (865) 974-7540 , Fax: (865) 974-6162 , email: rmbennett@utk.edu
MSJC Secretary
GERALD A. DALRYMPLE, WHITLOCK DALRYMPLE POSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC., 10621 GATEWAY BLVD.,
SUITE 200, MANASSAS, VA 20110, (703) 257-9280, Fax: (703) 257-9280, e-mail: msjc@wdpa.com
Staff Contact, TMS
PHILLIP J. SAMBLANET, (303) 939-9700, Fax: (303) 541-9215, e-mail: psamblanet@masonrysociety.org
Staff Contact, ACI
KHALED NAHLAWI, (248) 848-3713, FAX: (248) 848-3720, e-mail: khaled.nahlawi@concrete.org
Staff Contact, ASCE
PAUL SGAMBATI, 800-548-2723, e-mail: psgambati@asce.org
Subcommittees
AAC Masonry
Keith Itzler
June 2, 2013
Construction
Requirements
John Chrysler
Flexure, Axial, &
Shear
Mark McGinley
MEMO TO:
Members
Seismic Subcommittee, 2013 Masonry Standards Joint Committee
Form & Style
Rochelle Jaffe
FROM:
Richard E. Klingner, Seismic Subcommittee Chair
General
Scott Walkowicz
SUBJECT:
draft Meeting Minutes (2:30 – 5:30 pm, Saturday June 1, 2013, Coal
Harbour B Room, Coast Coal Harbour Hotel, Vancouver, BC, CANADA)
Infills
Charles Tucker
Prestressed
Masonry
Jennifer Popehn
Reinforcement &
Connectors
David Biggs
cc:
Diane Throop (Chair, 2013 MSJC)
Andy Dalrymple (Secretary, 2013 MSJC)
Seismic
Richard Klingner
Veneer, Glass
Block & Empirical
Eric Johnson
THE MASONRY SOCIETY
AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
FORM REV. 3 11-2-07
PAGE 1 of 6
MINUTES
2013 MSJC SEISMIC SUBCOMMITTEE
2:30 – 5:30 pm, Saturday June 1, 2013
Coal Harbour B Room, Coast Coal Harbour Hotel
Vancouver, BC, CANADA
IN ATTENDANCE
Voting Members (10):
Dan Abrams (Skype)
Ed Huston
Vilas Mujumdar
Jason Thompson
Jamie Farny
Richard Klingner (Skype)
Alan Robinson
Tom Gangel
Darrell McMillian
Kurt Siggard
Russ Brown
John Nichols
Chip Clark
Benson Shing
Regrets (1):
Tianyi Yi
Corresponding Members (0):
Guests (6):
Richard Bennett
Canan D’Avela
1)
Call to order (Richard E. Klingner)
The meeting was called to order at 2:30 pm. Members and visitors were welcomed.
2)
Recognition of Sue Frey (Richard E. Klingner and Ed Huston). On May 12, 2013, we lost the
technical and personal presence of Sue Frey, a valued colleague and friend. At the Main
Committee meeting, her passing will be recognized with a suitable memorial. At this Seismic
Subcommittee meeting, we share a moment of silence in memory of her technical excellence,
her collegial spirit, and her courage in the face of adversity.
Ed Huston read a tribute in Sue’s memory. After a moment of silence, members shared
recollections of her.
THE MASONRY SOCIETY
AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
FORM REV. 4 4-25-09
PAGE 2 of 6
3)
Approval of draft Minutes of previous meeting (7:30 – 10:30 am, Monday September 17,
2012, Hyatt Regency Greenville, Greenville, South Carolina)
The draft Minutes of our September 17, 2012 meeting were approved as previously circulated.
4)
Old Business
Old business items were briefly reviewed. There were no comments. The items will pass to the
jurisdiction of the 2016 MSJC and its Seismic Subcommittee.
a)
Develop displacement-based design provisions as an alternate to the current forcebased design provisions of ASCE7. This item was introduced by the Ductility Task
Group at the end of the 2011 cycle, and was discussed in two meetings by the Seismic
Subcommittee. It was balloted at Subcommittee (XX-E-018 and XX-E-019), and
received persuasive negatives. Limit design (a related item) was successfully balloted
at Subcommittee in 2011, and was approved by Main in November 2011. In January
2010, NIST announced funding for a new research project (Shing, McLean, Klingner)
on seismic performance of masonry walls with arbitrary configurations of openings.
A two-story specimen designed using displacement-based design was tested at UC San
Diego in late August and early September 2012. In February 2013, researchers on the
NIST-sponsored project convened a Denver meeting including future MSJC leadership
(Bennett, Abrams) and current BSSC leadership (Harris, Dolan, Ghosh). The
objectives of that meeting were to discuss the results obtained in the NIST-sponsored
research, and to lay the groundwork for future adoption of displacement-based seismic
design for masonry and other materials. The research group agreed to write a white
paper on displacement-based seismic design, suitable for inclusion in Part 3 of future
BSSC provisions.
Proposed Action: None. Action on this item (if any) will be determined by the
leadership of the 2016 Seismic Subcommittee and the 2016 MSJC.
b)
Continue work on items that were balloted at Subcommittee but did not advance during
the 2011 cycle. See Exhibit 4(b)ii. Of the actions for the 2013 cycle that we agreed on
at our October 2010 meeting in Bellevue, the following remain:
i)
Include requirements for capacity design of intermediate reinforced masonry
shear walls.
Proposed Action: None. See proposed Ballot Item XX-E-021. A related item
for capacity design of special reinforced masonry shear walls was balloted as
XX-E-007, and received persuasive Subcommittee negatives related to clarity.
None. Action on this item (if any) will be determined by the leadership of the
2016 Seismic Subcommittee and the 2016 MSJC.
c)
Recommend future actions (if any) on items that were discussed but not balloted at
Subcommittee during the 2013 cycle.
THE MASONRY SOCIETY
AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
FORM REV. 4 4-25-09
PAGE 3 of 6
i)
Splices in plastic hinge zones. We have information on this from the NIST
masonry research program. Some information indicates that splices in plastic
hinge zones behave satisfactorily. Other information indicates that they have
detrimental effects. The fundamental question is, “How much degradation in
performance do lap splices introduce in the behavior of reinforced masonry
shear walls, and should that degradation be addressed in our code provisions?”
Proposed Action: None. Action on this item (if any) will be determined by the
leadership of the 2016 Seismic Subcommittee and the 2016 MSJC.
ii)
Inconsistencies in prescriptive requirements for spacing of reinforcement.
When we discussed these in previous meetings, a path forward was not clear,
because there is in many cases no rational basis for preferring one prescriptive
spacing over another. We need to clean this up.
Proposed Action: None. Action on this item (if any) will be determined by the
leadership of the 2016 Seismic Subcommittee and the 2016 MSJC.
iii)
Boundary elements. Current MSJC provisions for boundary elements permit
maximum reinforcement requirements to be exceeded if a requirement for the
neutral-axis depth is met. The trigger for this is similar to that of ACI318-11.
In such cases, boundary elements are not required. If the requirement for the
neutral-axis depth is not met, boundary elements are required. No MSJC
provisions exist for such boundary elements. Preliminary information from the
NIST project indicates that boundary elements can be designed similarly to
boundary elements in reinforced concrete, using formwork or special masonry
units.
Proposed Action: None. Action on this item (if any) will be determined by the
leadership of the 2016 Seismic Subcommittee and the 2016 MSJC.
iv)
Sliding and shear friction. The current MSJC Code does not address shearfriction in a general way. It is addressed in Section 8.3.4.1.2 (AAC
masonry). Similar provisions should be added to Chapters 2 and 3. This
should be coordinated with the Shear Subcommittee, and should be initiated
by them. It is brought up here because current NIST research indicates that
lightly reinforced masonry shear walls can slide at ground accelerations of
MCE and above. The NIST research team has proposed that sliding
resistance be computed based on shear friction plus dowel action. This
should be discussed when specific recommendations are available.
Proposed Action: None. Action on this item (if any) will be determined by
the leadership of the 2016 Seismic Subcommittee and the 2016 MSJC.
THE MASONRY SOCIETY
AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
FORM REV. 4 4-25-09
PAGE 4 of 6
d)
Proceed with “holdover” items from public comment period in 2011 cycle (see Exhibit
3(a)).
i)
Item 71 (definitions for stirrups and ties).
Proposed Action: None. Action on this item (if any) will be determined by the
leadership of the 2016 Seismic Subcommittee and the 2016 MSJC.
ii)
Item 72 (minimum prescriptive spacing of reinforcement in wall segments).
This is related to research on displacement-based design. Additional
information has been provided by reversed cyclic testing on wall segments as
part of the NIST research (Shing, McLean, Klingner).
Proposed Action: None. Action on this item (if any) will be determined by the
leadership of the 2016 Seismic Subcommittee and the 2016 MSJC.
e)
Proceed with items introduced as new business at previous meetings.
i)
Spacing of reinforcement for intermediate walls (Chittenden).
Proposed Action: None. Action on this item (if any) will be determined by the
leadership of the 2016 Seismic Subcommittee and the 2016 MSJC.
THE MASONRY SOCIETY
AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
FORM REV. 4 4-25-09
PAGE 5 of 6
5)
New Business:
a)
During the no-protest balloting at Main of proposed Committee responses to public
comment, we received a protest on our proposed response to Item 076. MSJC
leadership judged that protest to be well-founded, and asked Seismic to prepare a ballot
item. We did so. That item (10-E-076) was balloted at Seismic in early May, and it
proceeded to Main. If that item attracts any responses on Main 10, those will have to
be dealt with at the Main Committee meeting in Vancouver, based on proposals from
the Seismic Subcommittee.
Action Item: None. No Main Committee negatives were received on Item 10-E-076 at
Main Ballot 10. There is no change to our document, only to responses to Public
Comments. The changed response to Public Comment is approved, and there is no
further Seismic Subcommittee business for the 2013 cycle.
6)
Adjournment
As our 2013 cycle draws to a close, the Chair of the 2013 MSJC Seismic Subcommittee
would like to express his sincere appreciation for the efforts of all who have worked, inside
and outside our Subcommittee, to improve our present and future seismic design provisions.
I am especially grateful to the members of the Ductility Task Group, without whose efforts
our draft Limit Design Appendix would not have come into being. I would also like to thank
Frank Moon and Kurt Siggard for their service as Subcommittee Secretaries.
After short comments by Rich and Kurt, the meeting was adjourned at 2:50 pm.
With regards and thanks,
Richard E. Klingner
Chair, 2013 MSJC Seismic Subcommittee
June 1, 2013
THE MASONRY SOCIETY
AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
FORM REV. 4 4-25-09
PAGE 6 of 6