Safety Assessment Program Evaluator Student Manual

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CA Emergency Mgmt. Agency Safety Assessment Program Evaluator Manual April 2011Photo courtesy Global Emergency ManagementFigure 3-11 – Historic building, Santa Cruz, 1989 Loma Prieta EarthquakePhoto courtesy Global Emergency ManagementFigure 3-12 – Closeup of shoring, Santa Cruz, 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake92
CA Emergency Mgmt. Agency Safety Assessment Program Evaluator Manual April 2011this building. This is an example of a longer term, more complex stabilization procedure that ispart of the repair process.The City of Santa Cruz deemed this building an imminent hazard. The potential for collapse wasgreat in even a moderate aftershock. Additionally, the building posed a significant threat to thepublic right-of-way. In this case, the roof and floors were removed, and the walls were stabilizedwith a system of “raker” shores. These are diagonal members connected together with steelbeams at the floor and the roofline. They are intended to replace the diaphragms and provideout-of-plane load support for the walls. The walls were damaged, but were still able to supportthemselves for in-plane loads. Each of these frames is in an “A” configuration to providemaximum support for the walls. During the repair process, these braces can remain in place untilsuch time as the new diaphragms are reconnected to the walls and can provide the lateral supportneeded for building stability. The raker shore frames are then removed and the final pieces ofthe diaphragm are installed. In this case, a building that was on the National Register of HistoricPlaces was saved, and the building was reopened for operation with an extended useful life.Photo courtesy Global Emergency ManagementFigure 3-13 – Marina District, San Francisco, 1989 Loma Prieta EarthquakeSometimes a building can look like a total loss, yet a simple method of stabilization can bedevised which can save the building from demolition. There were a number of buildings in SanFrancisco‟s Marina District that suffered soft story failure from the Loma Prieta Earthquake.The example in Figure 3-13 is definitely a potential collapse hazard, yet it was stabilized in arather simple manner. Large timbers, 8 by 8 or larger, were installed diagonally across thegarage openings. The braces were attached to the header across the top of all the openings. The93
Page 1 and 2:
CA Emergency Mgmt. Agency Safety As
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40: CA Emergency Mgmt. Agency Safety As
Page 89: CA Emergency Mgmt. Agency Safety As
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
show all

Safety Assessment Program Evaluator Student Manual

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?