DOCSLIB.ORG

UFC 3-301-01 Structural Engineering

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UFC 3-301-01 Structural Engineering UFC 3-301-01 1 October 2019 UNIFIED FACILITIES CRITERIA (UFC) STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED UFC 3-301-01 1 October 2019 UNIFIED FACILITIES CRITERIA (UFC) STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Any copyrighted material included in this UFC is identified at its point of use. Use of the copyrighted material apart from this UFC must have the permission of the copy- right holder. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND (Preparing Activity) AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGINEER CENTER This UFC supersedes UFC 3-301-01, dated 1 June 2013 with Change 4 of 12 September 2016. UFC 1-300-01 1 October 2019 FOREWORD The Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) system is prescribed by MIL-STD 3007, including the ex- emption process, and provides planning, design, construction, sustainment, restoration, and modernization criteria, and applies to the Military Departments, the Defense Agencies, and the DoD Field Activities in accordance with USD (AT&L) Memorandum dated 29 May 2002. UFC will be used for all DoD projects and work for other customers where appropriate. All construc- tion outside of the United States is also governed by Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA), Host Nation Funded Construction Agreements (HNFA), and in some instances, Bilateral Infra- structure Agreements (BIA.) Therefore, the acquisition team must ensure compliance with the most stringent of the UFC, the SOFA, the HNFA, and the BIA, as applicable. UFC are living documents and will be periodically reviewed, updated, and made available to us- ers as part of the Services’ responsibility for providing technical criteria for military construction. Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (HQUSACE), Naval Facilities Engineering Com- mand (NAVFAC), and Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) are responsible for administra- tion of the UFC system. Military Departments, the Defense Agencies, and the DoD Field Activi- ties should contact the preparing service for document interpretation and improvements. Tech- nical content of this UFC is the responsibility of the DoD structural working group. Recom- mended changes with supporting rationale should be sent to the respective service proponent office by the following electronic form: Criteria Change Request. The form is also accessible from the Internet sites listed below. UFC are effective upon issuance and are distributed only in electronic media from the following source: • Whole Building Design Guide web site http://dod.wbdg.org/. Refer to UFC 1-200-01, DoD Building Code (General Building Requirements), for implementa- tion of new issuances on projects. AUTHORIZED BY: George O. Lea Jr P.E. CCM FCMAA ROBERT D. CURFMAN, P.E. Chief Military Engineering Branch Chief Engineer Engineering and Construction Divi- Naval Facilities Engineering Command sion US Army Corps of Engineers NANCY J. BALKUS,, P.E., SES MICHAEL McANDREW Deputy Director of Civil Engineers Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense DCS Logistics, Engineering & (Facilities Management) Force Protection (HAF/A4C) Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense HQ, United States Air Force (Sustainment) UFC 3-301-01 1 October 2019 UNIFIED FACILITIES CRITERIA (UFC) REVISION SUMMARY SHEET Subject: UFC 3-301-01, Structural Engineering Cancels: UFC 3-301-01, Structural Engineering dated 1 June 2013 with Change 3 of 12 September 2016 Description of Changes: • This UFC combines UFC 3-301-01, Structural Engineering, and all provi- sions of UFC 3-310-04, Seismic Design for Buildings, that do not relate to Risk Category V structures, strategic military assets. UFC 3-301-02 now ap- plies strictly to Risk Category V structures only. • This UFC adopts the structural design provisions of the 2018 International Building Code (2018 IBC) for use in DoD building design and renovation. • This UFC adopts the structural design provisions of the 2018 International Existing Building Code (2018 IEBC). • Additional design load combinations are now specified for the design of structural members sensitive to vertical earthquake ground motion. • Live loads are updated to coordinate with 2018 IBC. • This UFC adopts the structural design provisions of the 2016 Minimum De- sign Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-16). • Site-specific structural load data tables for wind are updated to the basic wind speed values from the 2018 IBC and ASCE/SEI 7-16. • Site-specific structural load data tables for seismic ground motion parame- ters are updated to the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake val- ues and the peak ground accelerations from ASCE/SEI 7-16. • Updated snow, wind and seismic load tables are no longer part of this UFC; they can be found using the structural load data tool hosted on the Whole Building Design Guide website at: https://www.wbdg.org/additional-resources/tools/ufcsldt Reasons for Changes: • The updated UFC is designed to be consistent with and to supplement the guidance contained in the 2018 IBC as modified and implemented by UFC 1- 200-01. Impact: The newly introduced design load combinations for structural members sensitive to ver- tical ground motions may result in modest increases in the cost of those members. However, the seismic performance of these members should improve. i UFC 3-301-01 1 October 2019 The following additional benefit should be realized: • Web based load calculating tool ensures that the locations identified and the loadings described are complete and current with the most up-to-date availa- ble information. • DoD structural design criteria is current with industry codes and standards. Non-Unified Items: This document contains no non-unified items TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 MODIFICATIONS TO IBC ......................................................................... 6 ii UFC 3-301-01 1 October 2019 CHAPTER 3 MODIFICATIONS TO ASCE 7 ................................................................ 39 iii UFC 3-301-01 1 October 2019 iv UFC 3-301-01 1 October 2019 CHAPTER 4 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS .. 61 CHAPTER 5 NONBUILDING STRUCTURES .............................................................. 75 CHAPTER 6 MODIFICATIONS TO THE IBC FOR CRITICAL HEALTHCARE FACILITIES ................................................................................................................... 77 v UFC 3-301-01 1 October 2019 CHAPTER 7 MODIFICATIONS TO ASCE 7-16 FOR CRITICAL HEALTHCARE FACILITIES ................................................................................................................... 82 CHAPTER 8 MODIFICATIONS TO IEBC ..................................................................... 89 vi UFC 3-301-01 1 October 2019 APPENDIX A REFERENCES ....................................................................................... 90 APPENDIX B BEST PRACTICES .............................................................................. 102 APPENDIX C ALTERNATE DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR RC IV STRUCTURES ..... 110 vii UFC 3-301-01 1 October 2019 viii UFC 3-301-01 1 October 2019 APPENDIX D GUIDANCE FOR SEISMIC DESIGN OF NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS .......................................................................................................... 127 ix UFC 3-301-01 1 October 2019 APPENDIX E MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL COMPONENT CERTIFICATION 149 APPENDIX F ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................ 153 APPENDIX G MINIMUM UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED LIVE LOADS, LO, AND MINIMUM CONCENTRATED LIVE LOADS ............................................................... 159 FIGURES Widths of Thickened Slabs and Slab Edge Conditions Under Wall Loads .................................................................................................... 32 Anchorage of Walls to Flexible Diaphragm ....................................... 52 Figure B-1 Design Depth of Bottom of Building Foundation ............................ 106 Figure D-1 Partial Infill Masonry Wall between Two Concrete Columns, Causing Adverse “Short Column” Effect ....................................................... 130 Figure D-2 Typical Details for Isolation of Rigid Partition Walls ...................... 132 Figure D-3 Typical Seismic Restraints for Floor-mounted Equipment ............ 133 Figure D-4 Typical Seismic Restraints for Suspended Equipment .................. 134 Figure D-5 Acceptable Seismic Details for Pipe Sway Bracing ....................... 137 Figure D-6 Pinned-pinned Support Condition for Table D-1............................. 139 Figure D-7 Fixed-pinned Support Condition for Table D-2 ............................... 140 Figure D-8 Fixed-fixed Support Condition for Table D-3 .................................. 141 Figure D-9 Period Coefficients for Uniform Beams ........................................... 144 Figure D-10 Single Guyed Stacks. ........................................................................ 145 Figure D-11 Elevator Details .................................................................................. 146 x UFC 3-301-01 1 October 2019 TABLES Table 2-1 Lateral Deflection Limits for Framing Supporting Exterior Wall Finishes .................................................................................................... 9 Table 2-2 Risk Category of Buildings and Other Structures .............................. 11 Table 2-3 Maximum Allowable Wall Load at a Thickened Slab for Wall Load Near Center of Slab or Near Keyed or Doweled joints.......................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Simplified Method of Applying Loads to Flat Slab Floor Structural Model
    MATEC Web of Conferences 219, 03002 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201821903002 BalCon 2018 Simplified method of applying loads to flat slab floor structural model Maciej Tomasz Solarczyk1,*, and Andrzej Ambroziak1 1Gdańsk University of Technology, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Narutowicza 11/12, 80-233 Gdańsk, Poland Abstract. The article analyses the impact of the live load position on the surface of a reinforced concrete flat slab floor of 32.0 m × 28.8 m. Four variants of a live load position are investigated: located on the entire concrete slab, set in a chessboard pattern, applied by bands and imposed separately in each of the slab panels. Conclusions are drawn upon differences in bending moments, the time of calculation and the size of output files. The problems in the interpretation of results are presented too. A procedure is presented to model the reinforced concrete structures in computational programs. The recommendations of the Eurocodes are presented regarding to load combinations in the Ultimate Limit State (ULS). Convergence analysis of the finite element mesh is carried out to verify the obtained results. The law status on the implementation of the Building Information Modelling (BIM) technology in Poland points out significant time savings in the application of this technology. 1 Introduction Structural design is generally based on virtual mapping of a real object. The designer is supported by a number of computational tools to complete the task. A widespread automation of design works makes it available for the engineers with little experience. It should be emphasized that the results of numerical analysis should be permanently and critically assessed by the designer after computations.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER TWO - Static Aeroelasticity – Unswept Wing Structural Loads and Performance 21 2.1 Background
    Static aeroelasticity – structural loads and performance CHAPTER TWO - Static Aeroelasticity – Unswept wing structural loads and performance 21 2.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 21 2.1.2 Scope and purpose ....................................................................................................................... 21 2.1.2 The structures enterprise and its relation to aeroelasticity ............................................................ 22 2.1.3 The evolution of aircraft wing structures-form follows function ................................................ 24 2.2 Analytical modeling............................................................................................................... 30 2.2.1 The typical section, the flying door and Rayleigh-Ritz idealizations ................................................ 31 2.2.2 – Functional diagrams and operators – modeling the aeroelastic feedback process ....................... 33 2.3 Matrix structural analysis – stiffness matrices and strain energy .......................................... 34 2.4 An example - Construction of a structural stiffness matrix – the shear center concept ........ 38 2.5 Subsonic aerodynamics - fundamentals ................................................................................ 40 2.5.1 Reference points – the center of pressure..................................................................................... 44 2.5.2 A different
    [Show full text]
  • 98 of 127 DOCUMENTS Administrative Code of the City Of
    Page 459 98 of 127 DOCUMENTS Administrative Code of the City of New York Copyright 2010 New York Legal Publishing Corporation a New York corporation, All Rights Reserved ***** Current through December 2009 **** NYC Administrative Code SECTION BC 909 Administrative Code of the City of New York Title 28 New York City Construction Codes CHAPTER 7 THE NEW YORK CITY BUILDING CODE*1 CHAPTER 9 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS SECTION BC 909 SMOKE CONTROL SYSTEMS 909.1 Scope and purpose. This section applies to mechanical or passive smoke control systems when they are required by other provisions of this code. The purpose of this section is to establish minimum requirements for the design, installation and acceptance testing of smoke control systems that are intended to provide a tenable environment for the evacuation or relocation of occupants. These provisions are not intended for the preservation of contents, the timely restoration of operations or for assistance in fire suppression. Smoke control systems regulated by this section serve a different purpose than the smoke- and heat-venting provisions found in Section 910. Mechanical smoke control systems shall not be considered exhaust systems under Chapter 5 of the New York City Mechanical Code. 909.1.1 Definitions. These definitions are added for the purposes of Section 909 only. POST-FIRE SMOKE PURGE SYSTEM. A mechanical or natural ventilation system intended to move smoke from the smoke zone to the exterior of the building. PRESSURIZATION. Creation and maintenance of pressure levels in zones of a building, including elevator Page 460 shafts and stairwells, that are higher than the pressure level at the smoke source, such pressure levels being produced by positive pressures of a supply of uncontaminated air; by exhausting air and smoke at the smoke source; or by a combination of these methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide for Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Criteria for Offshore Structures
    Guide for Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Criteria for Offshore Structures GUIDE FOR LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD) CRITERIA FOR OFFSHORE STRUCTURES JULY 2016 American Bureau of Shipping Incorporated by Act of Legislature of the State of New York 1862 2016 American Bureau of Shipping. All rights reserved. ABS Plaza 16855 Northchase Drive Houston, TX 77060 USA Foreword Foreword This Guide provides structural design criteria in a Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) format for specific types of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODUs), Floating Production Installations (FPIs) and Mobile Offshore Units (MOUs). The LRFD structural design criteria in this Guide can be used as an alternative to those affected criteria in Part 3 of the ABS Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Offshore Drilling Units and Part 5B of the ABS Rules for Building and Classing Floating Production Installations, where the criteria are presented in the Working Stress Design (WSD) format, also known as the Allowable Stress (or Strength) Design (ASD) format. This Guide becomes effective on the first day of the month of publication. Users are advised to check periodically on the ABS website www.eagle.org to verify that this version of this Guide is the most current. We welcome your feedback. Comments or suggestions can be sent electronically by email to [email protected]. ii ABS GUIDE FOR LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD) CRITERIA FOR OFFSHORE STRUCTURES . 2016 Table of Contents GUIDE FOR LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD) CRITERIA FOR OFFSHORE STRUCTURES CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 General .................................................................................................... 1 Section 1 Introduction ............................................................................ 2 Section 2 Principles of the LRFD Method .............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Deflection-Based Aircraft Structural Loads Estimation with Comparison to Flight
    Deflection-Based Aircraft Structural Loads Estimation With Comparison to Flight Andrew M. Lizotte* and William A. Lokos† NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California, 93523-0273 Traditional techniques in structural load measurement entail the correlation of a known load with strain-gage output from the individual components of a structure or machine. The use of strain gages has proved successful and is considered the standard approach for load measurement. However, remotely measuring aerodynamic loads using deflection measurement systems to determine aeroelastic deformation as a substitute to strain gages may yield lower testing costs while improving aircraft performance through reduced instrumentation weight. With a reliable strain and structural deformation measurement system this technique was examined. The objective of this study was to explore the utility of a deflection-based load estimation, using the active aeroelastic wing F/A-18 aircraft. Calibration data from ground tests performed on the aircraft were used to derive left wing-root and wing-fold bending-moment and torque load equations based on strain gages, however, for this study, point deflections were used to derive deflection-based load equations. Comparisons between the strain-gage and deflection-based methods are presented. Flight data from the phase-1 active aeroelastic wing flight program were used to validate the deflection-based load estimation method. Flight validation revealed a strong bending-moment correlation and slightly weaker torque correlation.
    [Show full text]
  • “Linear Buckling” Analysis Branch
    Appendix A Eigenvalue Buckling Analysis 16.0 Release Introduction to ANSYS Mechanical 1 © 2015 ANSYS, Inc. February 27, 2015 Chapter Overview In this Appendix, performing an eigenvalue buckling analysis in Mechanical will be covered. Mechanical enables you to link the Eigenvalue Buckling analysis to a nonlinear Static Structural analysis that can include all types of nonlinearities. This will not be covered in this section. We will focused on Linear buckling. Contents: A. Background On Buckling B. Buckling Analysis Procedure C. Workshop AppA-1 2 © 2015 ANSYS, Inc. February 27, 2015 A. Background on Buckling Many structures require an evaluation of their structural stability. Thin columns, compression members, and vacuum tanks are all examples of structures where stability considerations are important. At the onset of instability (buckling) a structure will have a very large change in displacement {x} under essentially no change in the load (beyond a small load perturbation). F F Stable Unstable 3 © 2015 ANSYS, Inc. February 27, 2015 … Background on Buckling Eigenvalue or linear buckling analysis predicts the theoretical buckling strength of an ideal linear elastic structure. This method corresponds to the textbook approach of linear elastic buckling analysis. • The eigenvalue buckling solution of a Euler column will match the classical Euler solution. Imperfections and nonlinear behaviors prevent most real world structures from achieving their theoretical elastic buckling strength. Linear buckling generally yields unconservative results
    [Show full text]
  • Seismic Fragility Assessment of Lng Pipe Rack Accounting for Soil-Structure Interaction
    Luigi Di Sarno and George Karagiannakis COMPDYN 2019 7th ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering M. Papadrakakis, M. Fragiadakis (eds.) Crete, Greece, 24–26 June 2019 SEISMIC FRAGILITY ASSESSMENT OF LNG PIPE RACK ACCOUNTING FOR SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION Luigi Di Sarno1,2,*, George Karagiannakis1 1 University of Sannio Piazza Roma, 21, 82100 Benevento, Italy [email protected] [email protected] 2 University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK [email protected] Abstract The increasing momentum for Natural Gas exploitation in Europe and worldwide constitutes Liquified Gas terminals indispensable links of energy supply network. Infrastructures of this kind should be resilient against the earthquake hazard and thus designed accounting for as much as possible sources of uncertainty such as modelling issues, analysis methods, seismic input selection, soil effects and others. To date, research efforts have not assessed the response of pipe racks sufficiently, let alone the interaction between the rack and piping system and analysis methods of the past have proved to be neither adequate nor efficient towards evaluat- ing the earthquake hazard potentiality. Further, soil-structure-interaction has not been incor- porated into a fragility analysis framework; albeit it is considered as a critical parameter since midstream and downstream facilities are usually rested on alluvial deposits. In the present work, a supporting RC rack is analysed through a 3D finite element model in the nonlinear regime both as coupled and decoupled vis-à-vis a piping system. The fragility func- tions are evaluated for structural components and limit states in the global and meso-scale, through the Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) considering far-field conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Nonbuilding Structures
    NONBUILDING STRUCTURES Instructional Material Complementing FEMA 451, Design Examples Non-Building Systems 15-8 1 This unit is only a brief introduction to the subject of earthquake resistant design of nonbuilding structures. It has been developed by Jim Harris from two primary sources: the content of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures and two slide collections of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute: the “Annotated Slide Collection” and the “EERI Northridge Earthquake of January 1994 Collection.” The images here are all taken from the 1994 Northridge event: failed transformers in an electric power distribution substation (Sylmar), fire and flood from breaks in buried gas and water mains (Balboa Blvd, Granada Hills), and demolition of damaged highway interchange structures (Gavin Canyon undercrossing, Interstate 5). Advanced Earthquake Topic 15 - 8 Slide 1 Nonbuilding Structures Same: Different: • Basic ground •Structural motion hazards characteristics • Basic structural • Fault rupture dynamics • Fluid dynamics • Performance objectives • Networked systems Instructional Material Complementing FEMA 451, Design Examples Non-Building Systems 15-8 2 There are many issues with nonbuilding structures that are not considered in earthquake engineering for buildings Advanced Earthquake Topic 15 - 8 Slide 2 Dams with Damage Instructional Material Complementing FEMA 451, Design Examples Non-Building Systems 15-8 3 Left: San Fernando EQ (1971); partial failure of upstream face
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2102.13492V2 [Physics.Comp-Ph] 3 Mar 2021
    Local micromorphic non-affine anisotropy for materials incorporating elastically bonded fibers Sebastian Skatulla1,2, Carlo Sansour3, and Georges Limbert4,5 1Department of Civil Engineering, University of Cape Town, South Africa 2Center for Research in Computational and Applied Mechanics, University of Cape Town, South Africa 3Department of Mathematics, Bethlehem University, Bethlehem, Palestine 4National Centre for Advanced Tribology at Southampton (nCATS) and Bioengineering Science Research Group, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK 5Laboratory of Biomechanics and Mechanobiology, Division of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Human Biology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Observatory 7935, Cape Town, South Africa March 4, 2021 Abstract There has been increasing experimental evidence of non-affine elas- tic deformation mechanisms in biological soft tissues. These observations call for novel constitutive models which are able to describe the dom- inant underlying micro-structural kinematics aspects, in particular rel- ative motion characteristics of different phases. This paper proposes a flexible and modular framework based on a micromorphic continuum en- compassing matrix and fiber phases. It features in addition to the dis- placement field so-called director fields which can independently deform and intrinsically carry orientational information. Accordingly, the fibrous arXiv:2102.13492v2 [physics.comp-ph] 3 Mar 2021 constituents can be naturally associated with the micromorphic directors and their non-affine motion within the bulk material can be efficiently captured. Furthermore, constitutive relations can be formulated based on kinematics quantities specifically linked to the material response of the matrix, the fibres and their mutual interactions. Associated stress quantities are naturally derived from a micromorphic variational princi- ple featuring dedicated governing equations for displacement and director 1 fields.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX a Working Plan
    APPENDIX A Working Plan CVO\081750013 Appendix A: Working Plan This Working Plan summarizes the tasks that will be carried out to complete the Seismic Design and Analysis of Retaining Walls, Buried Structures, Slopes, and Embankments. The first section in this Working Plan provides an overview of the philosophy and research work that will be implemented to meet the goals of the research program. The following sections of the Working Plan then provide detailed discussions of Project approach. This Working Plan is based on the CH2M HILL proposal submitted to NCHRP in early November of 2003 with modifications summarized in Attachment 2 of CH2M HILL’s letter to Dr. Robert Reilly of the Transportation Research Board dated January 13, 2004. A.1 Overview of Working Plan The objective of the NCHRP Project 12-70 (Project) will be to develop analytical methods and recommended load and resistance factor design (LRFD) specifications for the design of retaining walls, slopes and embankments, and buried structures. The Specifications will be consistent with the philosophy and format of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and the seismic provisions for highway bridges. A two-phased approach will be taken for this Project: (1) literature reviews and analytical developments will occur in Phase 1; and (2) LRFD specifications, commentary, and examples will be prepared in Phase 2. When addressing the buried structure component of this project, vehicular tunnels will not be included. The planned approach for the Project will consider the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications requirements which state that “Bridges shall be designed for specified limit states to achieve the objectives of constructibility, safety, and serviceability, with due regard to issues of inspectibility, economy, and aesthetics….” In the LRFD design procedure, margins of safety are incorporated through load (γ) factors and performance (or resistance, φ) factors.
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Loads Analysis for Wave Energy Converters Preprint Jennifer Van Rij, Yi-Hsiang Yu, and Yi Guo National Renewable Energy Laboratory
    Structural Loads Analysis for Wave Energy Converters Preprint Jennifer van Rij, Yi-Hsiang Yu, and Yi Guo National Renewable Energy Laboratory Presented at The American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2017 36th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering (OMAE2017) Trondheim, Norway June 25–30, 2017 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. Conference Paper NREL/CP-5000-68048 July 2017 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 NOTICE The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC (Alliance), a contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Accordingly, the US Government and Alliance retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • Bridge Rating and Analysis Structural System (BRASS)
    TE sport No. FHWARD 73-501 rc^r S62 Ul> .A3 10. -HiVA- RIDGE RATING AND ANALYSIS STRUCTURAL SYSTEM RU- IRASS] 73-501 Vol. I. System Reference Manual S& 091374 R. R. Johnston, R. H. Day, and D. A. Glandt -».«ijr * ^aus o« September 1973 Final Report This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151 Prepared for FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Offices of Research & Development Washington, D.C. 20590 NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The contents of this report reflect the views of the contracting organization, which is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE hO, 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-RD-73-501 ' £j>- Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Bridge Rating and Analysis Structural System September 1973 73-50 I (BRASS) 6. Performing Organization Code Vol. I. System Reference Manual > Author's) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Ralph R. Johnston, Robert H. Day and Dan A. Glandt Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Wyoming Highway Department FCP 36E1023 P.O. 1708 11. Contract or Grant No. Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001 FH-11-7936 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12.
    [Show full text]