The Vintage Building Committee (VBC) was active in the mid 1980s when current chair, Wade Younie joined.  The VBC helps develop existing building standards both locally and nationally. Locally the VBC help prepare the current City of Portland Chapter 24.85, Seismic Design Requirements for Existing Buildings. The VBC worked with the Oregon State Bulling Codes Division to have the 2006 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) adopted as an alternate code for existing buildings. Nationally, the VBC supports ASCE Existing Building Standards Committee member Wade Younie on ASCE-31 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings and ASCE-41 Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings development and revisions. 

Minutes, Meeting Notes & Information

Currently, the VBC is active with the re-write of both ASCE-31 and ASCE-41.  The two standards will be better aligned and possibly combined.

New Business

  1. ASCE 31/41 Update activities
    1. ASCE 31/41 combining sub-committee
    2. Schedule:  Sub-committee meeting in SF 10-13 and committee meeting 10-29
    3. Sub Committee tasks
  2. SEAO WEB site
    1. Need VBC info to Aaron Burkhardt by Oct 5th
  3. October dinner/committee meeting

Old Business

  1. Public relations
  2. IEBC as mandatory for OSSC

ASCE 31/41 combining sub-committee Task # 4 and #5 Notes

  1. ASCE 31 Tier 2 / ASCE 41 Simplified Text/Commentary (McCracken, Parker, Younie Chair)
    1. Make recommendations to combine into one section
      1. Somers – task relates more to the text and commentary language in these two sections rather than the technical requirements. ASCE 31 Tier 2 has commentary describing the checklist items and ASCE 41 Ch10 has commentary about prioritizing deficiencies for mitigation. Goal of this task is to combine and streamline without losing useful content.
      2. Younie – Technical issues between 3-3 in ASCE-31 and ASCE-10-1
    2. Recommend technical revisions, if any, as a result of combination effort
      1. Erickson - I’ve never been fully comfortable with the knowledge factor, Currently, the only option is for = 0.75 of =1.0, based upon the amount of as-built information available.  The two options are rather extreme, and the penalty (25%) is rather severe if you can’t justify =1.0.  I suggest that an intermediate value, perhaps 0.85 or 0.9, be made available if an intermediate amount of as-built information is available.
      2. Tarries - Some have suggested that ASCE 31’s Tier 2 analysis seldom results in a successful review after a Tier 1 failure, though the degree of failure and perhaps the era in which a building was constructed can play a large part in the results.  This may have some relevance in the decision to delete or combine ASCE 31 Tier 2 with ASCE 41 Chapter 10. We did not come to a consensus on this issue.
    3. Chap 10:  deleted or combine?
      1. Erickson - Delete.
      2. Younie - Most people want to combine
    4. Are there practical and organizational issues?
      1. Erickson - ASCE 41 could benefit from typical examples, such as are included in ASCE 31.
    5. Is it hard to find information in ASCE 31Chapter 4?
      1. Erickson - No more difficult than any other chapter.
  2. ASCE 31 Tier 3 (Younie, Braund, Chair)
    1. Make recommendations to replace ASCE 31 Tier 3 with ASCE 41 Systematic
      1. Somers – general goal is to replace Tier 3 with ASCE 41 systematic.
      2. Parker – Tier 3 content to be replaced, but organization by Tiers is Important to maintain. “Tier 3” remains, but ill be ASCE 41 systematic.
    2. Consider 0.75 factor
      1. Erickson -keep it.
      2. Tarries - It would be helpful if the equations for lateral forces in an ASCE 31 Tier 2 analysis could have variables coordinated to match with those of ASCE 41 for consistency.
      3. Parker – suggests removing the 0.75 factor and the reference to new codes.
      4. Somers – The big questions are what to do with the 0.75 factor and the reference to the  IBC/ASCE 7 as an alternate.
    3. Consider commentary reference to codes for new construction Erickson – agreed

Consider systematic vs. deficiency only

General Comments

Tarries - The layout of information in ASCE 41 could be improved.  Better division between chapters would be very helpful as would organization of tables and figures at the end of the section rather than embedded in the text.  Hopefully any combination of the two would take this into consideration.

Tarries - If ASCE 31 analysis merges with ASCE 41 the C1 and C2 factors (from ASCE 41) for lateral loading may need some simplification to reduce their complexity.

Use of the two digit performance level names (3-C, 5-E, etc.) can be confusing since other methods of identification such as “Life Safety Performance Level” are more common and easier to follow.

Detailed examples of ASCE 41 applications would be helpful.

It would be preferred that the final volume would share many components if for no other reason than to minimize the size of the final document.