MC Endeavors Inc (MSMY)

[zigzagman]

$MSMY 's New Acquisition Target:

Press Release Source: MC Endeavors, Inc. On Monday May 2, 2011, 8:10 am EDT

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/MC-Endeavors-Announces-MOU-bw-363249604.html?x=0&.v=1

MC Endeavors Announces MOU with Seismic Foundation Control for Earthquake Resistant Base Isolator Technology:

Seismic vibration-dampening systems complete the protection of MCE’s Lamisteel residential and small commercial buildings from earthquake damage at an economical cost.

Seismic Foundation Control, Inc. - Services:

http://www.seismicfoundation.com/services

Seismic Foundation system supports the house and absorbs the shock of an earthquake thus significantly reducing damage during an earthquake.



"Quake Guard: Durable Foundation Support and Reliable Family Protection" the Base Isolator Unit:

Quake Guard," the company's principal product, is protected by patent number US 6,324,795 B1. Quake Guard is a three-part system consisting of a ball and socket casing and an elastomeric pad of rubber and steel plates vulcanized together with a metal or wood frame on which the building's floor is attached. This base isolator is a low occurrence, high amplitude elastomer. The elastomer pads are similar in construction to those currently used for bridges and large buildings.

This three-part system is designed to absorb energy and reduce acceleration from earthquakes. A building and its contents supported by these units will experience substantially reduced shaking and damage in the event of an earthquake. These foundations are superior to any other foundation for use on compressive or expansive soils such as adobe, clay or bay mud, which create stress and movement in traditional concrete foundations.

Watch the video of this product in action here:

http://www.seismicfoundation.com/ever_level_news_clip_



Seismic Isolators for Residential Buildings:

John J. Armstrong, President & CEO;
Shyam N. Shukla, Ph.D., P.E.;
Knud B. Pedersen, Ph.D., P.E.
Mary Jacak, Partners

Seismic Foundations Control, Inc.

Introduction

Geologists have found that the earth is divided in many tectonic plates which are constantly sliding. In doing so, they rub against each other and cause earthquakes. In California, the San Andreas fault, which has been in operation for millions of years, is perhaps the best example: The plate on the pacific side of the fault slides northward with each earthquake, separating itself from the continental plate with which it was once joined.

For a long time it was believed that the best way to protect a structure against earthquakes was to reinforce the structural parts and thus make them rigid. The building codes for design of structures against earthquakes were written mainly keeping this point of view in mind. However, it was observed that the pipes which were held by flexible supports survived an earthquake better than those held by rigid supports. That is how the concept of seismic isolation systems evolved. So far seismic isolation systems have been used mainly for multistoried buildings and long bridges. However, during the 1994 Sylmar (Northridge) earthquake in southern California, even two-story residential buildings, designed for probable earthquakes, were severely damaged. This led the authors to develop an isolation system for residential and commercial structures up to three stories high.

Isolation System

The seismic isolation system under discussion is recommended for one to three story residential and office buildings. The system consists of three parts, a ball-and-socket unit, and an elastomeric unit, the two supporting a stiff steel or wood beams on which the building rests. The lower part is the ball-and-socket joint made from a zinc-aluminum alloy. The alloy is light in weight and yet has the same strength as structural steel. It also has the advantage that it is self-lubricating and corrosion resistant. The elastomeric bearing, which has been tested, was 10 inches, in diameter and 6 inches in height. The vertical strain of the pad under a vertical load of 36 kips was 10 percent, and its equivalent viscous damping was 5 to 10 percent.

The elastomeric bearing pad is sandwiched between and vulcanized to two steel plates, which have four bolted holes, one at each corner. The upper and lower steel plates are bolted to the beam of the steel frame and the metal part of the ball-and-socket joint, respectively. The base of the ball-and-socket joint is connected to concrete slab or pier foundation by four bolts.

Model of Two-Story Wood Frame Structure

A test model was constructed as a two-story wood-frame structure with plan dimensions of 15 ft. by 10 ft. and a height of 20 feet. The exterior side of the walls of the structure was made up of 15/32 inch C-DX nailed with 10d @ 4 inch on centers to 2x6 studs @ 16 inch on centers. The interior side of the walls was 5/8 inch gypsum board. The first and second floors were made up of ¾ inch panel index 42/20 nailed with 10d @10 inch to 1 7/8 inch TJI PRO 250 centered @ 8 inches. The roof diaphragm was similar to the floor diaphragm, except that the supporting joists were 2x10 wood joists @ 12 inch on centers. The structure was supported on four steel beams W 12x26 around the edges.

The model represents a two-story prototype house of dimensions 40 feet by 60 feet in plan, which would be supported on 12 seismic isolators. The number of isolators supporting the prototype was arrived at by assuming that the design vertical load of an isolator is 20,000 pounds, and the live loads are of 20 pounds/square foot on the roof and 40 pounds /square foot on each floor. Since the model would be supported on 4 isolators, their tributary plan area is, (4/12)(40x60) = 800 sq. ft. Therefore, the superimposed load at roof level was 16,000 pounds and that on second-floor and first-floor levels each was 32,000 pounds. The structure was modeled as a stick with the masses lumped at roof and floor levels. The isolators were modeled as rotational and translation springs.

Earthquake

The earthquake was imposed in the longer of stiffer direction of the structure. The model structure was subjected to two earthquakes, namely the 1940 El Centro and the 1994 Sylmar (Northridge) earthquakes. The peak accelerations are 0.35g and 0.6g, respectively, for the two earthquakes. The model without isolators was also subjected to each earthquake to compare the structural response with and without isolators.

Results and Discussion

The results of a computer model are presented in Table 1. It may be noted that in the El Centro earthquake, displacements of the structure in the fixed (without isolators) at the roof level (Node 5) and the second floor level (Node 4) are 0.278 inch and 0.122 inch, respectively. With isolators the displacements relative to the first floor are 0.553 inch (= 4.53 - 3.977 inch.) at the roof level and 0.27 inch (= 4.247 - 3.977 inch) at the second-floor level. The shear forces in the second and first stories for the fixed structure are 12.56 kips and 28.49 kips, respectively, whereas they are 6.69 kips and 18.83 kips, respectively for the isolated structure. Thus we see that with the isolators, the relative displacement increased 1.99 and 2.21 times at roof and second-floor levels, respectively, but the shear forces reduced 53% and 66% at the second and first stories.

Tfix = 0.1797sec.;
Tiso = 1.0715 sec.

For isolated structures:
Kx = 3.75 k/in.,
Ky = 2240k in/rad,
Kz = 118 k/in.

In case of the Sylmar earthquake, in the fixed structure, the displacements at the roof and second floor are 0.328 and 0.143 respectively. The shear forces at the second and first story are 15.2kips and 32.97 kips, respectively. On the base-isolated structure, the relative displacements with respect to the first floor are 0.68 inch (=5.523 - 4.843 inch) and 0.331 inch (=5.174 - 4.843inch) at roof and second floor, respectively. The shear forces are 8.273 kips and 23.09 kips at second and first stories, respectively. Thus in the Sylmar earthquake, the relative displacement of the isolated structure increased 2.07 times and 2.31 times at roof and second floor levels, as compared to the fixed structure. The shear forces at second and first stories reduced 55% and 70%, respectively.


It may be mentioned here that a model with the above dimensions was tested, with the same two earthquakes, on a shake table at the structural laboratory of Nevada State University, Reno. The results are not available but the authors know that the results of the computer model and those of the shake table model compared very closely.

Conclusion

It may be concluded that the isolation system described has proved effective in reducing the shear forces in buildings, caused by earthquakes.

======================================

The choice to protect a new structure from seismic damage by utilizing seismic mitigation devices is influenced by two primary factors:

1. Family Safety & Security. Earthquake damage and residential damage can be financially crippling to a family. Concern about protecting capital investments and limiting liability are also major factors. Insurance companies are increasingly offering better rates to owners of protected structures. Structure developers and owners, as well as insurance companies offering earthquake policies need to be made aware of how Ever-Level's product can reduce risk.

2. Government regulation. In seismically active areas, government regulated building codes are steadily becoming much stricter regarding the ability of new structures to withstand serious damage from specified levels of seismic ground movement. U.S. states with seismically active areas such as California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska lead the world in mandating such new building code requirements. Japan also has widely adopted much stricter codes. Turkey, China and other rapidly developing countries are beginning to make serious building code changes in their high risk regions. Although third world countries with earthquake prone areas lag behind the developed world, great interest is being shown by them in seismic mitigation technologies. It is important to Ever-Level that the appropriate regulators world-wide are informed about Ever-level's products.

Choosing a specific technology or product(s) is influenced by the following factors:

1. Product Suitability and Performance. This is by far the most important buying decision factor. Each of the competing products in the market behave somewhat differently. Such criteria as damping effect, range of motion, motion threshold when the device activates, ability to return to the original state and harmonic properties are all considered in selecting a product for a specific application. Most structures are unique in height, width, design, construction materials, overall weight, rigidity and many other attributes. Ever-Level provides superior performance (confirmed by extensive testing) to competing products in the majority of instances.

2. Product Quality and Reliability. Because the product(s) become integral to a major capital investment (the building or structure), the decision maker must be convinced that the product quality is uniformly high and that it can be trusted to perform as expected over a long period of time. Ever-Level's technology is based on technology used for several years in larger buildings, and therefore it can be shown that Ever-Level's products will have a long-life span.

3. Price. This is surprisingly not the major motivator. However, it can be the deciding factor when comparing two specific products that are deemed suitable for the purpose. The Ever-Level is the most cost-effective product for its high level of effectiveness. Currently there are no other similar units in the market and therefore it is hard to compare prices.

4. Confidence in the Manufacturer. The buyer will not choose your product if he/she has any reservation about your ability to deliver consistently high quality products on time and within budget. Confidence in your levels of service and reliability of technical information is also a big factor. It is important that Ever-Level excel in all these areas and quickly build a solid reputation in the industry.

http://www.seismicfoundation.com/faq