The boxes are unpacked, the dust has settled, and MHP officially has a new home!

Though we haven’t traveled far, our new location brings with it a revitalized sense of creativity and a beautiful environment worth bragging about. Located within “Douglas Park”, a new state-of-the-art, mixed-use business environment just minutes from Long Beach Airport, our new collaborative space provides our firm with endless opportunities for continued growth.

As you can see, we are thoroughly enjoying our new home…

Although some may have taken “home” a bit too literally…

Needless to say, all of us here at MHP are energized and excited to cultivate fresh ideas and expand our horizons, while continuing to provide the excellent service and expertise that is synonymous with the MHP name.

Come on by…Our doors are always open!

Structural Systems

We are pleased to announce our most recent Structural Systems Presentation for AIA Orange County. on March 12, 2013 MHP’s Vice President and Partner Ken O’Dell, S.E., LEED AP will present an evening of discussion on structural considerations relevant to interns, designers, architects and members of the architecture profession planning to sit for the Structural Systems section of the ARE. The discussion will review structural codes and loading criteria, materials of construction, and structural systems and configurations. Specific areas to be presented include:

-Criteria for Dead, Live and Lateral (Earthquake and Wind) loading
-Material of Constructions (Steel, Concrete, Masonry, and Timber) including review of their differing benefits
-Review of vertical and lateral load resisting systems including foundations
-Audience participation (Q&A)
-Sample problems

Time: 6PM-8PM (March 12, 2013)
Where: AIA Orange County
4100 Birch, Suite 300
Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tickets are available via the AIA Orange County website.

http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/312255

AIA Members:             $20                  Non-Members:            $50

Will-Call (No Additional Fee)

c|a ARCHITECTS and MHP Structural Engineers Designing New Pavilion for the MemorialCare Todd Cancer Institute at Long Beach Memorial

Long Beach, California — Construction has begun on the Todd Cancer Pavilion on the campus of Long Beach Memorial designed by Long Beach-based c|a ARCHITECTS and MHP Structural Engineers. The program for the iconic new building, which will serve as the welcoming entry to the MemorialCare Todd Cancer Institute, a nationally recognized cancer care center, includes outpatient treatment, breast imaging, doctors’ clinics, conference space and more.  The project also involves the renovation of the second and third floors of an existing administration building that will contain the new outpatient facility.  The entire project is scheduled to complete construction in March 2013.

“With the addition of this entry pavilion the MemorialCare Todd Cancer Institute has a new presence in the community,” said David Smith, project manager for c|a ARCHITECTS. “The light-filled, two-story lobby with its warm woods, natural materials and views to the outside will provide a patient-friendly, healing environment.”  The vaulting lobby space houses a first floor reception and waiting room. The open, sculptural staircase leads to the second and third floors that connect to 66,000 square feet of remodeled space in the existing building. Breast imaging and research, a resource center and staff spaces will be located on the second floor and an infusion center, infusion pharmacy, and clinic space on third. There also is a healing garden on the roof of the new pavilion, which will provide a respite for patients and family.

“Although the Pavilion connects to an older building on the medical center campus, the distinctive design of the building with its multiple roof levels and large glazed window walls creates a strong, highly visible identity for the Institute,” notes Rick Beall, MHP project structural engineer.  By analyzing the existing structure and incorporating the same method of lateral resistance for the addition (a steel moment frame) the design avoided the need for a seismic joint between the new entry and the existing structure, which provided for a cost savings to the project.

In addition to the structural building design, MHP provided equipment anchorage for all new mechanical and medical equipment.

Both firms have long-standing working relationships with Long Beach Memorial, which is part of the MemorialCare Health System, and have completed multiple projects on the growing Long Beach campus. www.memorialcare.org/long_beach

c|a ARCHITECTS is an architecture, planning and interior design firm that provides expert design solutions for healthcare institutions. www.c-aarchitects.com

MHP Structural Engineers is a structural engineering firm with expertise in structural design, seismic risk and business continuity, forensic engineering and equipment anchorage. www.mhpse.com

Story Link

In last week’s edition of the Disaster Due Diligence newsletter, we discussed how lawmakers and Alabama’s Emergency Management Agency (“EMA”) are trying to remove barriers to installation of smaller, private shelters holding 12 or fewer people. The direction from FEMA and public agencies is clear – if you are vulnerable to natural or man-made disasters, you should prepare adequate supplies and create a plan to sustain yourself, your family, pets, etc. for several days or more. Upon consideration, we recognize that perceived barriers may be preventing individuals, businesses, or cities in Alabama from taking the initiative toward preparedness prior to tornado season. The knee-jerk reaction we see after impactful disasters is often an avalanche of discussions with potential solutions to mitigate future risk. However, in some cases, quickly passing legislation doesn’t allow a reasonable amount of time to adequately assess the contributing factors to structural and other systems failures, nor does it allow time for the development of definitive approaches toward preaction.

One barrier to preparedness identified in the original article is “red tape,” or “excessive regulation or rigid conformity to formal rules that is considered redundant or bureaucratic and hinders or prevents action or decision-making.” But the responsibility for the burden of preparedness is not so easily shunted. Rather than focusing on the limitations of working through the red tape, it is perhaps better to expend energy on implementing actionable solutions by discussing the possibilities and implications of designing and building “brick and mortar” or traditionally constructed shelters under current building code and agency requirements.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) and other agencies have numerous current publications readily available to the general public. General building guidelines for storm shelters can be found in a pamphlet titled “Storm Shelters”, produced by the National Weather Service in Huntsville, Alabama, which presents three main types of storm shelters, as well as references to additional resources. In August 2008, FEMA released the Third Edition of FEMA 320, titled “Taking Shelter From the Storm: Building a Safe Room for Your Home or Small Business.” This comprehensive guide takes a home or small business building owner through the process of understanding hazards in the area and planning a safe room, with additional resources detailing approximate construction costs and sample floor plans. The intention of the publication is geared toward individuals and their builder/contractors to create safe room designs that provide protection from extreme winds and flying debris.

A related guide, FEMA 361, titled ”Design and Construction Guidance for Community Safe Rooms”, includes detailed guidance for construction of these structures. Additionally, FEMA’s Safe Room webpage coalesces some of the broader details of FEMA 320 into a more accessible format. These resources can be used and plans implemented TODAY while state regulatory agencies cut through the bureaucratic process of ensuring reasonable standards for pre-manufactured shelters are in place.

Considering the resources available, why are there still barriers to individual preparedness? The results of a recent survey performed by the Persuadable Research Corporation indicate that more than half of respondents believe they are unprepared for a disaster. According to the survey, personal experience appears to be the driving factor behind preparedness, and inaction seems to stem from the perceived financial impacts of preparedness.

While it’s difficult to put a price tag on the intangibles (health, safety, ability to return to work, etc.), is it really prudent to wait to be affected before taking action? More than just a literal blueprint for action, FEMA 320 has several answers to the perceived financial problem; on pages 41-42 there is an anecdote. describing the experience of an Autauga County, Alabama resident with the process of constructing a safe room. The first step taken in the process was to contact the local emergency manager and enroll in the Alabama Safe Room program. By completing the application for Individuals through Alabama Emergency Management Agency’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, the individual received 75% of the cost to construct the safe room.

An important reminder regarding high-wind events such as hurricanes and tornadoes – even though a shelter or safe room may be designed in conformance with all applicable FEMA criteria, the use of these structures may not be in compliance with mandatory evacuation orders of the local jurisdiction. Local jurisdictional directions and orders should always take precedence.

A strong strategy for recovery involves personal preparedness. This preparedness requires an informed, rather than perceived, understanding of the hazards and impacts. Luck is not a strategic plan! Individuals and businesses should not rely on immediate assistance and response from local, state, or the federal government in a major regional disaster. Firestorm’s Disaster Ready People for a Disaster Ready America takes individuals and employees though a process that helps them create their plan at home, ensuring a more rapid return to work and the ability to restore a sense of “normalcy”.

Can we motivate you to put on your own helmet? What do helmets and tornadoes have in common? Join our webinar, hosted by Firestorm in March to find out more.

STORY LINK

ANALYSIS by Ken O’Dell, S.E., Firestorm Principal and Marisol K. Shankar, ABCP, AMBCI, Firestorm® MHP

Impactful disasters often provoke an emotional and sometimes knee-jerk reaction – hindsight opens the door for a multitude of discussions about what could have been done to enhance preparedness and what should be done to mitigate future risk.

The immediate urgency created in a disaster’s aftermath is immense and far-reaching. Driving this urgency is often (understandably), a personal sense of regret that as individuals, there was a failure to undertake the necessary actions to mitigate the impacts of the disaster, inasmuch as those actions were reasonable, e.g. “if we had better storm shelters…”, “if only we had enough fresh supplies…”, etc.

Alabama’s Manufactured Housing Commission (“MHC”) and other entities have become entangled over the appropriate jurisdiction, bidding, construction, inspection, sale, etc. of effective tornado shelters.

However, it is important to note that the intervention of lawmakers and Alabama’s Emergency Management Agency (“EMA”) is trying to remove barriers to installation of smaller, private shelters holding 12 or fewer people. This action may indicate that there may be smaller obstacles to be faced for smaller, private shelters.

It is anticipated that there is nothing preventing individuals, businesses, or cities from taking the initiative to protect themselves, rather than depending on the county or other state agencies for that protection. Therein lies a huge opportunity for action on a personal level.

In rural or isolated areas across the United States, personal preparedness for individuals and families is encouraged with slogans like “The First 72 are on You”, designed to deter reliance on public agencies in the first few days and increase the likelihood of a return to a “new normal” after an event. That message is not limited to rural residential areas – it is applicable to every individual, family and business vulnerable to a natural or man-made disaster.

While focused on the application of “manufactured” shelters, the article does not discuss the ability to design and build “brick and mortar” or traditionally constructed shelters. Next week we’ll look at the possibility and implications of building a shelter under current building code and agency requirements, rather than waiting for the red tape to be cut.

Firestorm’s firm belief that Every Crisis is a Human Crisis begins with disaster preparedness at home. Individual and family preparedness and resiliency, allows individuals – as business employees – the peace of mind that their families are cared for as their focus turns outward to assisting their businesses recover. We have found that across most companies, 95% of employees do not have a plan at home. If employees do not have a clear strategy for their families, emergencies or disasters can force a choice between family and work, and family will always trump work.

Reliance on immediate assistance and response from local government in a disaster should not be the only strategy for recovery. Firestorm’s Disaster Ready People for a Disaster Ready America takes individuals and employees through a process that helps them create their plan at home, ensuring a more rapid return to work and the ability to restore a sense of “normalcy”.

As we reflect upon the two year anniversary of the devastating M7.0 earthquake in Haiti, and approach the bicentennial of the 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquake sequence, many parallels may be drawn. Looking at these two events, there are numerous similarities that can inform the preparedness efforts we can effect now, in the United States, to keep buildings safe and businesses operational when the next significant event occurs in the New Madrid Seismic Zone.

One of the most striking similarities is the historical context of the timeframes and generational memories of the inhabitants within the regions. Prior to the Haiti earthquake of 2010 just over two hundred years had elapsed since a previous similarly devastating event had occurred. Further, like the New Madrid region, the expected frequency of large earthquakes is measured in centuries rather than decades.

Absence of Historic Context

As our conversations with residents of Port-au-Prince found, this long time period allowed generations to come and go without passing along prominent memories or personal stories of past experiences to influence the present or future mindset of the current populations.

This absence of context for potential earthquakes creates a lack of awareness and therefore, a false sense of security and certainly a lack of urgency for those living within the potentially affected areas.

When asked where significant earthquakes occur in the United States, most of the population will quickly identify the states of California, Alaska, and possibly Hawaii. Some individuals may even include Oregon and Washington, but few individuals will identify the Central United States as a region that could be affected and in fact has felt the effects of a major earthquake. An example of this lack of awareness and urgency can be measured by the participation in preparedness drills; last year’s Great Central U.S. Shakeout drew an approximate 3 million participants or under 5% of the populations of the eight states most likely to be affected by an event within the New Madrid Fault zone, by comparison last year’s Great California Shakeout drew over 8.5 million participants, approximately 25% of the state’s population.

Lessons from Haiti

So what should the remaining 95% of the New Madrid region’s residents learn from Haiti, and why should they care?

On January 12, 2010, the Republic of Haiti was struck by a M7.0 earthquake. According to USGS, during the 20^th century and prior to this event, seismic activity within the island of Hispaniola had been concentrated on the eastern 2/3 of the island in the Dominican Republic, with only one earthquake in the Port-au-Prince region since 1964 registering greater than M4.0. Historically, though, larger (>M7.0) earthquakes have affected the region in 1701, 1751, 1770, and 1860 due largely to movement of the east-west-oriented Enriquillo Fault located just south of Port-au-Prince.

From December 1811 to February 1812, a series of three earthquakes with a magnitude of 7.0 or greater rocked New Madrid Seismic Zone. According to USGS, the main shocks were followed by many hundreds of aftershocks that lasted for decades. Many of the aftershocks were major earthquakes themselves. The area that was strongly shaken by the three main shocks was 2–3 times as large as the area shaken by the 1964 M9.2 Alaskan earthquake, and 10 times as large as that of the 1906 M7.8 San Francisco earthquake.

New Madrid Seismic Zone

It is estimated that the ground motion for a possible major earthquake event in the New Madrid Seismic Zone could be higher than associated with a major California Earthquake. In fact, according to USGS data, the anticipated ground motion which can result from an earthquake event triggered within the New Madrid Seismic Zone could be up to 17% greater than the anticipated ground motions in Los Angeles and up to 92% greater than anticipated ground motions in San Francisco for comparably significant earthquake events in those areas. But what is the likelihood of such an event happening? USGS reports indicate the chance of having a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake over the next 30 years is greater than 65% for Los Angeles and the chance of having a 6.0 or greater magnitude earthquake in the next 50 years within the New Madrid Zone is between 25 to 40 percent. And while a M6.0 earthquake in Memphis is smaller than the 6.7 considered for Los Angeles, it must be remembered that the capacity to resist such earthquakes is significantly less due to far less stringent building practices in the New Madrid region.

Haiti’s devastating earthquake highlights what could happen in Middle America near the vicinity of New Madrid, Missouri. Over 70% of the building inventory in Port-au-Prince collapsed, was significantly damaged or was deemed unusable for a considerable time. The majority of the affected buildings were unreinforced masonry buildings with and without nominally reinforced concrete frames. Middle America has a similarly high number of unreinforced masonry buildings which, while of slightly different vintage or construction practice, have equally low capacity to resist significant ground shaking. Pictures of downtown Port-au-Prince give vivid examples of what could happen to downtown Main Streets across the New Madrid region.

The Haiti earthquake also provides a view of the impact to society beyond the damage. The collapse of a significant number of schools in Haiti has placed a huge burden on the next generation. So many schools failed in the Port-au-Prince region that the national government suspended the school year for approximately 3 months nationwide, and while many schools outside of the immediate Port-au-Prince region are back to teaching, a significant number of students are still without classrooms in Haiti. As another example, in Chile, the extent of major damage to schools following its M9.0 earthquake three months after Haiti was less impactful; however, the loss of operations due to interior damage and disruption of contents still resulted in closed school buildings for months after the event. The disruption of their education will likely impact this generation of students well beyond the immediate recovery and rebuilding of these two nations.

Business Disruption Risks

Disruption or continuity of business can be just as critical to the recovery of a devastated region as is ability to protect and care for the injured. In Haiti, the garment industry is a major contributor to the national economy. It was imperative that the manufacturers were able to ensure their clients that the production of apparel was operational within days after the earthquake. Had a lengthy down-time ensued, clients likely would have shifted contracts to other providers in different nations, resulting in a critical loss to Haiti’s economic ability to respond and rebuild. It is reported that the massive damage to the port facilities in Kobe, Japan (1995 6.8M) caused much of that port’s shipping commerce to move elsewhere. One of the world’s busiest ports prior to the earthquake, Kobe has yet to regain its former status as Japan’s principal shipping port.

Firestorm and MHP, Inc. Structural Engineers continue to support our clients throughout the United States with preparedness planning and disaster response by participating in post-earthquake reconnaissance in Haiti, maintaining an extensive portfolio of seismic and risk assessment and mitigation experience, and developing continuity plans with clients to ensure better response before, during, and after a disruption or disaster. Preparations are underway for this year’s Great Central U.S. Shakeout (scheduled for February 7, 2012, at 10:15 a.m. CST, http://www.shakeout.org/centralus/). Regardless of your location, we encourage you to look to the Great Central U.S. Shakeout as a great opportunity to test your preparedness. More information on topics like this is forthcoming in our structurally-focused preparedness webinar series for 2012.

Operational Risk

HEADLINE:  Fire devastates Cerritos strip mall

SUMMARY:  About $5.5 million in damage was done to a Cerritos shopping center early Sunday after firefighters were too late to save the building, Los Angeles County Fire Capt. Mark Savage said. “It started collapsing when we were here so we had to pull out,” he said. Firefighters were called to the blaze at the Fountain Plaza Mall at South Street and Gridley Road about 2 a.m.

STORY LINK

ANALYSIS:  How much do you know about the other tenants in your building?

Unless you own and occupy the entire facility your business is housed in, you are vulnerable not only to natural and man-made disasters, terrorism, and communicable illness / pandemic exposures, but also to the side effects of those same hazards as they happen to other tenants and businesses located around and adjacent to your business.

In this unfortunate case, the flames from the restaurant fire quickly spread through the remainder of the building to engulf 10 businesses on the top floor.

• Who knew about this incident, and finally notified the fire department?
• Was it someone from the restaurant, or a concerned passer-by?
• Did the restaurant’s plan include some sort of automatic notification system alerting the incident response team when the internal fire suppression system became engaged?
• Did the restaurant have an emergency response plan?

These questions lead easily into other questions that we may ask ourselves – do you know your property management’s emergency notification process and incident management plan? What is the building or property management’s business continuity plan for your facility? Does your property management require tenants to have and maintain business continuity plans?

Even the best laid plans may prove useless if your business plans do not coordinate, even slightly, with the other plans in place by building or property management for the site you occupy.

Other threats to your business may arise from tenants near or in your building that may invite terrorism or other threats, such as an FBI or other government branch, a foreign nation’s consul, etc.

What i s your plan for dealing with events that may affect those businesses?

Firestorm’s business continuity protection begins with a proprietary Benchmark/Gap Analysis of an organization’s existing plans, processes and procedures. Our comprehensive Benchmark/Gap Analysis service focuses on operations, emergency response, employees, organization, systems, facilities, communication, and risks – internal and external – that an organization faces.

Using this analysis, businesses and organizations are able to further understand the risks to the organization, and develop plans that can address or mitigate the risks. Understanding the depths of exposure your organization has, can ensure performance goals and objectives are achieved.

As this unfortunate instance shows, business may not have control over the timing of events affecting the organization when you share tenancy with other business owners. However, it is best to start planning a risk mitigation process with a full understanding of the risks entailed before the lack of adequate planning results in a future disruption becoming a real disaster.

Ken O’Dell, Marisol Shankar, and MHP are Firestorm partners and frequent contributors to the Firestorm Disaster Due Diligence Newsletter. To read the current newsletter in its entirety, view archives of previous Newsletters, or to sign up to receive updates, visit Firestorm Disaster Due Diligence.

Next Thursday is The  Great California ShakeOut…

It is not often that we know when the BIG ONE will hit… but Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 10:20am, California is going to be ROCKED!

MHP is, of course, a participant and at our offices, we will be conducting a small test exercise. We encourage you and all our valued clients to do the same, or at the very least, practice protecting yourself during earthquake shaking using Drop! Cover! Hold on! Register yourself or your firm here: http://www.shakeout.org/register/

Feel free to email Ken O’Dell or Marisol Shankar, or call us at (562) 985-3200 if you have any questions about how to conduct your own drill.

Be counted in the largest earthquake drill ever, and be the example that motivates others to participate and get prepared!

HEADLINE: September 29, WTTG 5 District of Columbia – (District of Columbia) Engineers find ‘expected ’ damage at monument.

SUMMARY: The team inspecting earthquake damage at the Washington Monument in Washington D.C. is finding ‘expected’ problems with the exterior stones which support the structure. A National Park Service (NPS) spokesman said the agency believes the monument remains structurally sound. “They have identified areas of interest that need further examination.” The monument grounds are closed to tourists.

ANALYSIS: Having been to the top of the Washington Monument on numerous occasions while living on the East Coast, it is with considerable interest that I have watched the stories develop regarding the Virginia Earthquake and, in particular, the inspection of the Monument. My interest is heightened by the fact that I’m a practicing structural engineer in Southern California with ties remaining in the DC area, including my Virginia Professional Engineer’s license. Interestingly enough, early in my career, I had the opportunity to conduct a seismic risk study for another of the large buildings bordering the National Mall. With that understanding comes an awareness that the earthquake which occurred was not outside the realm of possibility or expectation. With the adoption of recent codes such as the International Building Code (IBC) on a more consistent national basis, the potential for, and effects of, earthquake generated ground shaking are becoming better understood and more specifically addressed in areas of our nation outside the “familiar earthquake region” of the West Coast.

When dedicated in 1885, the Washington Monument was the tallest building structure in the world. Although its “tallest structure reign” was cut short by the Eiffel Tower a mere three years later, at just over 555 feet tall the Washington Monument remains the tallest, free standing, unreinforced masonry or stone structure in the world. This means that the structure relies on the bond of the stone units and the mortar between them to maintain integrity. With over 125 years of service, the mortar joints appear to have passed the load test. Of course, with any structure, materials age and points of localized stress develop. Perhaps this begins to explain some of the reasons behind the observed cracks in the stone and loss of mortar beds. It should be noted that this is not unusual or necessarily unexpected. As the article points out, the damage so far observed is ‘expected’. Given the amount of ground shaking and the type of construction, it can be suggested that the Monument performed very well. So, what comes next?

Fortunately, experience with restoration of the Monument is not too far in the distant past. As recently as 1999, a renovation project completely enclosed the Monument in a scaffold so that cleaning of the stone and re-pointing of the mortar joints could be undertaken. Re-pointing is a method whereby old mortar is removed and new material is placed to re-bond joints that may have deteriorated over time or through excessive loading. As with previous renovation projects, some of the actual stone blocks will likely require replacement as well. Considering that masonry and stone buildings have been undergoing renovation for centuries (think of the historic buildings throughout the world), there is a considerable amount of experience to draw from. The process will not be overly complex, but it will be very detailed. With adequate time, energy and a bit of money, the Monument should be back to sharing the views of Washington “soon”.

Ken O’Dell and MHP are Firestorm partners and frequent contributors to the Firestorm Disaster Due Diligence Newsletter. To read the current newsletter in its entirety, view archives of previous Newsletters, or to sign up to receive updates, visit Firestorm Disaster Due Diligence.

Several months ago MHP joined with the USS IOWA Organizers to help bring the WWII Battleship to San Pedro as a permanent museum and monument. Nearly three football fields long and more than 14 stories high, the Iowa is one of the biggest warships ever built. On its last trip to San Francisco, sailors had to trim its mast by 13 feet to fit under the Golden Gate Bridge. For the new location in San Pedro, MHP has designed the quay towers and gangways for the public to access the ship, and will be the structural engineer of record for other current and future site improvements.

Read the full story here

According to an article in the June 22, 2011 edition of the Los Angeles Times, an earthquake such as the M7.8 scenario used during the Great California ShakeOut (a yearly exercise held statewide organized by the Earthquake County Alliance) will likely have a devastating effect on businesses and the economy.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-earthquake-report-20110622,0,1862720.story

In 2008, the United States Geological Survey indicated that the probability of a M6.7 or greater earthquake affecting the Los Angeles and Southern California regions was 67% and 97%, respectively. This earthquake magnitude was actually experienced during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Effectively, the question becomes when will the earthquake occur, not if more…

Long Beach Heritage’s Annual Loft Walk takes place at the International Tower this year, on Saturday, March 12, 2011. It’s a great opportunity to learn about the history of the building and meet the homeowners in a casual party-like atmosphere. Ken O’Dell, MHP Structural Engineer, will be on site providing a short presentation on the structural aspects of this building.

Come enjoy appetizers and drinks from 5-8pm. See LB Heritage website for more info and for tickets. www.lbheritage.com

Co-authored by Jesse E. Karns, David L. Houghton, Jong-Kook Hong, J. Kim (MHP, Inc.)

Presented in the Disproportionate Collapse Symposium, Austin, Texas, April 29-May 2, 2009; Published in the Proceedings of the ASCE 2009 Structures Congress.

Prepared by Jesse E. Karns (MHP, Inc.) and Henry A. Gallart (SidePlate Systems, Inc.)

Presented as an ASCE-sponsored continuing education New Seminar in Baltimore, MD (November 13-14, 2008), and Orlando, FL (February 26-27, 2009).

By Jesse E. Karns, David L. Houghton, Joonghwan Kim, Jong-Kook Hong (MHP, Inc.)

Prepared for the Office of the Chief Architect (OCA), General Services Administration (GSA), Washington, DC, January 10, 2008; Referenced as a government resource publication in DoD’s Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse (UFC 4-023-03, 14 July 2009).

Peer reviewed by Jesse E. Karns, David L. Houghton, Joonghwan Kim, Kyungkoo Lee (MHP, Inc.), and Bruce E. Hall (GSA, Office of Chief Architect)

Structural Engineering Research Frontiers Proceedings, Research Frontiers – Track 2, Blast Effects on Structural Connections and Systems, ASCE 2007 Structures Congress, hosted by the Structural Engineering Institute (SEI), Long Beach, CA (May 16-19, 2007).

By Jesse E. Karns (MHP, Inc.) and Enrique A. Gallart (SidePlate Systems, Inc.)

Prepared for H3 Hardy Collaboration Architecture LLC and General Services Administration, Sunbelt Region 3 – Southeast. (January 31, 2007).

By Jesse E. Karns, David L. Houghton, Joonghwan Kim and Kyungkoo (MHP, Inc.) and Bruce E. Hall (GSA, Office of Chief Architect)

Presented at and published in the Proceedings of the 77th Shock & Vibration Symposium, session on Structure Response to Shock and Vibration Loads, Paper U-029, hosted by the Shock and Vibration Information Analysis Center (SAVIAC), Monterey, CA (October 29 – November 3, 2006).

By Jesse E. Karns, David L. Houghton, Joonghwan Kim and Kyungkoo (MHP, Inc.) and Bruce E. Hall (GSA, Office of Chief Architect)

Presented at and published in the proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on Military Aspects of Blast and Shock (MABS), organized by Defence Research &v Development Canada (DRDC) Suffield, Calgary, Alberta, Canada (October 2-6, 2006).

By Jesse E. Karns, David L. Houghton, Joonghwan Kim, and Kyungkoo Lee (MHP, Inc.) and Bruce E. Hall (GSA, Office of Chief Architect)

Published in the Proceedings of the ASCE 2006 Structures Congress, session on Extreme Event Loadings, hosted by the Structural Engineering Institute (SEI), St. Louis, MO (May 18-20, 2006).

Prepared and presented by Jesse E. Karns (MHP, Inc.) and Henry A. Gallart (SidePlate Systems, Inc.)

Presented as an ASCE-sponsored continuing education revised New Seminar in New York City, NY (November 3-4, 2005), San Antonio, TX (January 19-20, 2006, and Chicago, IL (March 23-24, 2006).

Prepared by Jesse E. Karns (MHP, Inc.) and Henry A. Gallart (SidePlate Systems, Inc.)

Presented as an ASCE-sponsored continuing education New Seminar in Baltimore, MD, (January 20-21, 2005), and Scottsdale, AZ (February 24-25, 2005).

By Jesse E. Karns and David L. Houghton (MHP, Inc.)

Presented at and published in the Proceedings of the 75th Shock & Vibration Symposium, session on Blast Design, hosted by the Shock and Vibration Information Analysis Center (SAVIAC),Virginia Beach, VA (October 17-22, 2004).

By David L. Houghton and Jesse E. Karns (MHP, Inc.)

Presented at and published in the Proceedings of the SAME 2004 National Education & Training Conference, Track 1 – Engineering Challenges, Adaptations and Solutions, hosted by the Society of American Military Engineers (SAME), San Antonio, TX (May 17-21, 2004).

By David L. Houghton, Jesse E. Karns (MHP, Inc.) and Enrique A. Gallart (SidePlate Systems, Inc.)

Prepared for URS Corporation, Atlanta, GA, funded by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Southern Region, Atlanta, GA. (May 16, 2003).

By Jesse E. Karns (MHP, Inc.) and Enrique A. Gallart (SidePlate Systems, Inc.)

Prepared for The Benham Companies,Inc. and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USACE District: Kansas, Missouri. (February 12, 2004).

By Jesse E. Karns (MHP, Inc.) and Enrique A. Gallart (SidePlate Systems, Inc.)

Prepared for HLM Design and General Services Administration Region 3 – Mid Atlantic. (January 23, 2004).

By Jesse E. Karns and David L. Houghton (MHP, Inc.)

Presented at and published in the Proceedings of the 74th Shock & Vibration Symposium, session on Structure Response to Shock and Vibration Loads, Paper U-031, hosted by the Shock and Vibration Information Analysis Center (SAVIAC), San Diego, CA (October 26-31, 2003).

By David L. Houghton and Jesse E. Karns (MHP, Inc.)

Prepared for the General Services Administration (GSA), Washington D.C.
(June 20, 2003).

By David L. Houghton and Jesse E. Karns (MHP, Inc.)

Prepared under subcontract to Applied Research Associates (ARA), Vicksburg, Mississippi, under the direction and funding of the General Services Administration (GSA), Washington D.C., Contract No. GS-10F-0298K.

By David L. Houghton, Jesse E. Karns, Michael B. Bryson, and Joonghwan Kim (MHP, Inc.)
Prepared for Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA), Vicksburg, Mississippi, under funding from the General Services Administration (GSA), Washington D.C., Contract No. GS-10F-0298K. (January 13, 2003).

By David L. Houghton and Jesse E. Karns (MHP, Inc.)

Presented at the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Convention, Santa Barbara, CA, Proceedings of the SEAOC 2002 Convention. (September 25-29, 2002).

By Reed Mosher of the U.S. Army Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC), formerly the Waterways Experiment Station (WES), John E. Crawford of Karagozian & Case, David L. Houghton (MHP, Inc.), and Theodor Krauthammer of the Protective Technology Center – Penn State

Prepared for to the American Society of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL (September 21, 2002).

by David L. Houghton and Jesse E. Karns (MHP, Inc.)

Presented at the Seventh U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering (7NCEE), hosted by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Boston, MA (July 21-25, 2002).

by David L. Houghton and Jesse E. Karns (MHP, Inc.)

Presented at, and published in, the proceedings of the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering (MCEER) Workshop: Lessons from the World Trade Center Terrorist Attack, New York City, NY (June 24-25, 2002).

by David L. Houghton and Jesse E. Karns (MHP, Inc.)

Presented at and published in the proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Military Aspects of Blast and Shock (MABS), hosted by U.S. Department of Defense, Las Vegas, NV (June 10-14, 2002).

by David L. Houghton and Jesse E. Karns (MHP, Inc.) and Enrique A. Gallart (SidePlate Systems, Inc.)

Prepared for URS Corporation, San Francisco, CA, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Renton, WA (February 28, 2002).

by John E. Crawford, David L. Houghton and Jesse E. Karns (MHP, Inc.)

Presented at and published in the Proceedings of the FAA Structural Seminar on Seismic and Progressive Collapse Resistant Structures for Air Traffic Control Towers, Renton, WA (January 23, 2002).

by David L. Houghton and Jesse E. Karns (MHP, Inc.)

Presented at and published in the Proceedings of the Society of American Military Engineers (SAME) National Symposium on Comprehensive Force Protection, The Citadel, Charleston, SC (November 1-2, 2001).

by John E. Crawford, David L. Houghton, Brian W. Dunn, and Jesse E. Karns, Karagozian & Case, Glendale, CA (October 12, 2001).

by John E. Crawford, David L. Houghton, Brian W. Dunn, and Jesse E. Karns, Karagozian & Case, Glendale, CA

Prepared for Combating Terrorism Technology Support Office, Technical Support Working Group (TSWG), Arlington, VA, under funding from Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), Alexandria, VA, Contract No. DAAD05-98-0011. (September 25, 2001).

by John E. Crawford, Theodor Kauthammer, and David L. Houghton, Karagozian & Case, Glendale, CA

Prepared for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), Alexandria, VA. (September 22, 2001).

By John E. Crawford, Brian D. Dunn, and David L. Houghton, Karagozian & Case, Glendale, CA
Prepared for Combating Terrorism Technology Support Office, Technical Support Working Group (TSWG), Arlington, VA under funding from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), Alexandria, VA, Contract No. DAAD05-98-C-0011. (March 28, 2001).

By David L. Houghton and Jesse E. Karns (MHP, Inc.)
Prepared for Pacific Division (PACDIV), Honolulu, HI, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFACENGCOM). (November 16, 2000).

By David L. Houghton (MHP, Inc.)

Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (12WCEE), Auckland, New Zealand (January 30 – February 4, 2000).