| 1. |
How long has
this program been operational? Month:
September Year: 1995 |
| |
|
| 2. |
What are the
major purposes of this program? What problem(s) or
issue(s)
was it designed to address? |
| |
|
| |
The SAC Steel Project is a problem-focused, applied research project
designed to solve the problem of brittle fractures in welded steel frame
buildings that
surfaced in the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. |
| |
|
| 3. |
Describe the
specific activities and operations of the program. |
| |
|
| |
A variety of investigations have been conducted and are still
underway,
ranging from statistical and engineering studies of buildings that went through
the Northridge Earthquake to physical testing of full-scale steel frame column-
beam
assemblies. These Topical Investigations are the foundation on which
are based the
ultimate product of the project, which are code-like guidelines
to revise the way steel
frame buildings are designed and constructed. |
| |
|
| 4. |
Does this
program take a new and creative approach or method? If yes,
please describe. |
| |
|
| |
The program was innovative in its inception: A new entity, a joint
venture of
the Structural Engineers Association of California, Applied Technology Council,
and California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, was formed to provide
the combination of resources and capabilities necessary to conduct
this project. |
| |
|
| 5. |
What were
the program’s start-up costs and source(s) of
funding? |
| |
|
| |
$ 11.5 million over five years Budget Source: FEMA ($11.2 million
FEMA; $.03 million California OES) |
| |
|
| |
What are the program’s annual operational costs and source(s)
of funding? |
| |
|
| |
$ 2.3 million approximate/yearly Budget Source: FEMA |
| |
|
| 6. |
How many
employees (full-time equivalent) work(ed) with this
program? 6 FTE |
| |
|
| |
The majority of expenditures are not on employed staff but on
subcontracted work to conduct physical testing, support a Project Oversight Committee,
bringing together engineers in committees to write sections of the code-like guidelines,
and similar activities. |
| |
|
| 7. |
To the
best of your knowledge, did this program originate in your state?
Yes |
|
|
| |
Are you aware of similar programs in other states? No |
| |
|
| 8. |
Has the
program been fully implemented? No |
| |
|
| |
If No, what actions remain to be taken? |
| |
|
| |
Testing and other investigations will mostly conclude in
approximately one
year; an initial draft of the Guidelines for application by engineers,
building officials, and construction industry had been completed. |
| |
|
| 9. |
Is there
evidence that the program has been effective in achieving its
stated purpose(s)? Briefly summarize evaluations (pro and con) of how well
the
program has addressed the defined problem(s) or issue(s). |
| |
|
| |
By conclusion of the Phase I of the SAC Steel Project, the building
code had
been revised on an emergency basis to incorporate knowledge learned about
the
seismic vulnerabilities of steel frame construction and how to mitigate
them. |
| |
|
| 10. |
How has
the program changed since its inception? What limitations or
obstacles might other states expect to encounter if they attempt
to adopt this
program? |
| |
|
| |
A project this large and multi-faceted requires a large amount of
technical expertise and managerial capability. However, the model of applying a
concentrated dose of technical investigations to one focused problem area
can produce
significant results, rather than only solving small pieces of a
problem While the project
is based in California, it is national in scope. Increasingly, efforts to improve building
codes and construction practices
must have a national scope. |
