S - 27 - Seismic Design Provisions - Part 3

SEISMIC DESIGN PROVISIONS
OF BNBC 2020 –
CONFIGURATION AND
STRUCTURAL IRREGULARITY
Date: 08 February 2022
Session 27: Seismic 03
Dr. S. K. Ghosh
President, S. K. Ghosh Associates LLC
S-8A SEng PRP
Training Program
BUILDING CONFIGURATION
02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

Road Map
▪Earthquake experiences with irregular structures
▪Horizontal structural irregularities
▪Vertical structural irregularities
Note: All references are to ASCE 7-10, adopted by the 2012

and 2015 IBC.

Configuration
Relative arrangement of parts; something produced

by such arrangement.

Structural Configuration
▪Horizontal (Plan) Configuration

▪Vertical Configuration
Photo Credit: EERI Earthquake Damage Slide Set

Structural Configuration and Seismic
Performance
The configuration of a structure can significantly
affect its performance during a strong earthquake
that produces the ground motion contemplated in
the IBC/ASCE 7.

Structural Configuration and Seismic
Performance
▪IBC/ASCE 7 seismic design provisions were
developed basically for regular buildings.
▪Past earthquakes have repeatedly shown that
irregular buildings suffer greater damage than
regular buildings.
▪This happens even with good design and
construction.

Earthquake Experience
Magnitude 7.1
Loma Prieta, CA
October 17, 1989
Three and four story wood frame, brick veneer buildings in
the Marina District of San Francisco sustained damage as a
consequence of the ground shaking (10%g at rock sites, 20
to 30%g on sites underlain by bay mud) and liquefaction.
The soft first story made the buildings more vulnerable.
Buildings at corners of blocks sustained heavier damage
than those within the block.

Marina District…a “stiffness” issue (SOFT STORY)

Magnitude 6.5
San Fernando, CA
February 9, 1971
Failure of columns of “SOFT STORY” Olive View Hospital.

The failure of the canopy pinned the ambulances, rendering
them useless. Ground shaking is estimated to have reached
approximately 100%g at the site.



Magnitude 7.9
Philippines
August 16, 1976
Damage to reinforced concrete building. Torsion (or twisting) of

structures is a common cause of failure when the centers of mass
and stiffness are different. Buildings at corners of blocks are often
more vulnerable than those within the block because two sides are
open (e.g. glass windows for advertising) and two sides are solid
(e.g. at property lines). The first floor has pancaked.


Magnitude 8.0
Mexico City
Sept. 19, 1985
Triangular structures(“flat iron”
buildings) created because the
streets are not at right angles
with each other are even more
vulnerable than square
buildings at corners of blocks.
These buildings have only one Photo Credit: EERI Earthquake Damage Slide Set
solid and two glass walls. Note
the torsional distress.
Reasons for Poor Seismic Performance
of Irregular Structures
In a regular structure, inelastic demands produced
by strong ground shaking tend to be well distributed
throughout the structure, resulting in a dispersion of
energy dissipation and damage.
In irregular structures, inelastic behavior can
concentrate in the zone of irregularity, resulting in
rapid failure of structural elements in these areas.

Reasons for Poor Seismic Performance
of Irregular Structures
Some irregularities
introduce unanticipated
stresses into the structure,
which designers frequently
overlook when detailing the
structural system.

Reasons for Poor Seismic Performance of
Irregular Structures
Elastic analysis methods typically employed in

structural design often cannot predict the
distribution of earthquake demands in an irregular
structure very well, leading to inadequate design in
the zone of irregularity.

Code Regulations Concerning Irregular
Structures
▪Introduced in the 1988 Uniform Building Code (UBC).
Evolved since then.
▪Thrust is to encourage that buildings be designed to
have regular configurations.
▪Important feature is prohibition of gross irregularity in
buildings located on sites close to major faults, where
very strong ground motion and extreme inelastic
demands can be experienced.

Horizontal Irregularities (Table 12.3-1)
1a. Torsional
1b. Extreme torsional (2000 IBC)
2. Reentrant corner
3. Diaphragm discontinuity
4. Out-of-plane offset
5. Nonparallel system

Vertical Irregularities (Table 12.3-2)
1a. Stiffness-soft story

1b. Stiffness-extreme soft story (2000 IBC)
2. Weight (mass)
3. Vertical geometric
4. In-plane discontinuity in vertical lateral force-
resisting element
5a. Discontinuity in lateral strength – weak story
5b. Discontinuity in lateral strength – extreme weak
story (ASCE 7-05/2006 IBC)

Seismic Design CodeMaster

1a. Torsional
1b. Extreme torsional
2. Reentrant corner
Whittier Earthquake
Oct 1, 1987
5. Nonparallel system Magnitude 5.1

Torsional Irregularities
davg
dmax
dmax ≤ 1.2davg ------------------- No irregularity

1.2davg < dmax ≤ 1.4davg ------- Irregularity
dmax > 1.4davg --------------------Extreme Irregularity
Calculation of dmax, davg includes accidental torsion, with Ax = 1.0.
Horizontal Irregularity 1a:
Torsional Irregularity
Refer to ASCE 7-10 Table 12.3-1

Horizontal Irregularity 1a:
Torsional Irregularity
Section SDC Description
12.3.3.4 D-F 25% increase in seismic forces in connections
in diaphragms and collectors
Table D-F Permitted analytical procedure
12.6.1
12.7.3 B-F 3-D structural model required
12.8.4.3 C-F Amplification of accidental torsion
12.12.1 C-F Design story drift based on largest difference in

deflection
16.2.2 B-F 3-D structural model required in nonlinear
response history procedure

Design Force Increase due to
Irregularities
12.3.3.4 Increase in Forces Due to Irregularities for
Seismic Design Categories D through F.
For structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D, E, or
F and having a horizontal structural irregularity of Type 1a
[torsional], 1b [extreme torsional], 2 [re-entrant corner], 3
[diaphragm discontinuity], or 4 [out-of-plane offset of LFRS
members]] in Table 12.3-1 or a vertical structural irregularity
of Type 4 [in-plane discontinuity of LFRS members] in Table
12.3-2, the design forces determined from Section 12.10.1.1
shall be increased 25 percent for the following elements of
the seismic force-resisting system:

Irregularities
(cont.)
1. Connections of diaphragms to vertical elements and
collectors.
2. Collectors and their connections, including connections to
vertical elements of the seismic force-resisting system.
EXCEPTION:
Forces calculated using the seismic load effects including
overstrength factor of Section 12.4.3 need not be increased.

Design Force Increase due to Irregularities

Irregularities

Permitted Analytical Procedures
Torsional modes of vibration may be excited, whose

effects may not be adequately represented by the
equivalent lateral force procedure.

12.8.4
Horizontal Distribution of Forces

12.8.4
Horizontal Distribution of Forces
▪Torsion
• Torsional moment due to difference in location of center
of mass and center of resistance
• Must be considered for non-flexible diaphragms
▪Accidental torsion
• For non-flexible diaphragms, must be included in addition
to the torsional moment
• Displacement of center of mass = 5% building dimension
perpendicular to direction of applied forces

12.8.4.3
Amplification of Torsion
For structures* assigned to SDC C, D, E, or F without
flexible diaphragm and with horizontal irregularity
Type 1a or 1b (Torsional Irregularity or Extreme
Torsional Irregularity), the accidental torsion Mta at
each floor level needs to be amplified by a factor:
2
 d max 
1.0  Ax =    3 .0 (12.8-14)
 1.2d 
 avg 
*Not applicable to light-frame construction in ASCE 7-10

Amplification of Torsion
02/08/2022 ASCE 7-10 Figure 12.8-1

URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT
Design story drift for Horizontal
Irregularity Type 1a or 1b
12.8.6 Story Drift Limit.

. . . For structures assigned to Seismic Design
Category C, D, E, or F having horizontal irregularity
Types 1a or 1b of Table 12.3-1, the design story
drift, shall be computed as the largest difference of
the deflections of vertically aligned points at the
top and bottom of the story under consideration
along any edges of the structure.

1a. Torsional
1b. Extreme torsional
2. Reentrant corner
5. Nonparallel system
Feb. 23, 2010 Chile Earthquake O’Higgins Building (23 stories), Conception

Horizontal Irregularity 1b:
Extreme Torsional Irregularity

12.3.3.1:PROHIBITED IN SDC E & F!! [Non-
existent In Bangladesh]
Areas where S1 ≥ 0.75g (Shown in Red)

12.3.3.4 D 25% increase in seismic forces in connections in
diaphragms and collectors
Table D Permitted analytical procedure
12.6.1
12.7.3 B-D 3-D structural model required
12.8.4.3 C-D Amplification of accidental torsion
12.12.1 C-D Design story drift based on largest difference in

deflection
16.2.2 B-D 3-D structural model required in nonlinear response
history procedure

Supplement No. 1 to ASCE 7-10, which is referenced
by the 2015 IBC:
12.3.4.2 Redundancy Factor, ρ, for Seismic Design Categories
D through F. For structures assigned to Seismic Design Category
D and having Extreme Torsional Irregularity as defined in Table
12.3-1, Type 1b, ρ shall equal 1.3. For other structures assigned to
Seismic Design Category D, and for structures assigned to
Seismic Design Categories E or F, ρ shall equal 1.3 unless one of
the following two conditions is met, whereby ρ is permitted to be
taken as 1.0.

Horizontal Irregularity 2:
Reentrant Corner Irregularity
RE-ENTRANT CORNER EXISTS WHEN PROJECTION b > 0.15a, AND PROJECTION d > 0.15c
URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT
02/08/2022

12.3.3.4 D-F 25% increase in seismic forces in connections in
12.6.1

Re-entrant corners may form coupled wings, which
may respond in an opening and closing fashion.
This may give rise to high stresses in the vicinity of
re-entrant corners.

Diaphragm Discontinuity Irregularity
DIAPHRAGM DISCONTINUITY EXISTS WHEN AREA OF OPENING > 0.5ab OR

EFFECTIVE DIAPHRAGM STIFFNESS CHANGES MORE THAN 50% FROM ONE STORY TO
THE NEXT.


12.6.1


Q/A Horizontal Irregularity 3:
Q. If the roof diaphragm has an opening in it which

results in the stiffness of the 2nd floor diaphragm
being 50 percent stiffer than the roof, does that
make it irregular? The plan irregularity definition
says story to story.
A. Yes, it would be considered irregular...doesn't
matter if floor or roof.

Q. I was wondering whether you have heard

anything about any exceptions in applying the Type
3 horizontal irregularity. This is the diaphragm
stiffness irregularity. One test is if the diaphragm
stiffnesses at neighboring stories differ by more
than 50%. This has been around since the UBC.

Q (Contd.). It would appear that almost all

buildings get hit with this considering metal deck
roof diaphragms are always much more flexible
than the concrete over metal deck floor systems
below. If so, then does the whole building get the
penalty for the irregularity regardless of number of
stories, or just the offending diaphragm level?

A1. “I want to say that we exclude roof diaphragms

from the analysis because it is not a "story". The
intent seems related to buildings having floor
openings, etc. I admit I am having trouble finding a
specific exception or clarification to that regard,
however, I am trying to look closely at the definition
of the word "story“”.

A2. “I agree that the intent is probably to compare the floor
diaphragm stiffnesses of adjacent stories. Each story has a floor
diaphragm. In a 5 story building, the 5th floor is the diaphragm
for the 5th story, the 4th floor is the diaphragm for the 4th story,
and so on. Having said that, there does not appear to be an
exception that excludes the roof diaphragm nor does the
language in the code explicitly exclude the roof diaphragm so it is
a little problematic to say it doesn't apply to the roof diaphragm.
The requirement dates back to the 1988 UBC so it may have
been part of the "Plan Configuration" provisions in ATC 3-06. I
don't have a copy of ATC 3-06, so I'm not sure about this.”

A3. “Oddly enough, I can’t find any indication that it has been
dealt with before in code opinion or examples. I would like to
believe that roof diaphragms are not included in this
assessment, because so many more buildings would be
irregular. I’m guessing it is typically overlooked by default. If
you really split hairs on the definition of story it only goes to
the top of the rafters on the topmost floor, so the roof
diaphragm is not part of the topmost story – there problem
solved! Would that work?”
See definition of STORY in 2012 IBC Section 202.

Out-of-Plane Offset Irregularity
ASCE 7-10 clarifies: at least one of the vertical elements




12.3.3.3 B-F Overstrength factor for elements supporting
discontinuous walls or frames
12.6.1

history procedure

Nonparallel System Irregularity

Nonparallel system Irregularity exists when the vertical

lateral force-resisting elements are not parallel to or
symmetric about the major orthogonal axes of the Seismic
force-resisting system.

12.5.3 C-F Orthogonal load combinations

12.6.1

history procedure

12.5 Direction of Loading
12.5.2 SDC B.
The design seismic forces are permitted to be
applied independently in each of two orthogonal
directions and orthogonal interaction effects are
permitted to be neglected.

12.5.3 SDC C.
Structures that have horizontal structural
irregularity Type 5 of Table 12.3-1, shall use one
of the following procedures.

12.5.2 Direction of Loading
12.5.3 SDC C.
a. Orthogonal Combination Procedure.
ELF, modal response spectrum, or linear
response history analysis, with loading applied
independently in any two orthogonal
directions…
100% + 30%

y
3
4 2
1
y y
Vx3 Vy3
Vx4 Vx2 Vy4 Vy2

EQx
EQy
x x
Vx1 Vy1
In-plane shear in shear walls from earthquakes in x and y

directions
y y
Vx3 + 0.3Vy3 0.3Vx3 + Vy3
Vx4 + 0.3Vy4 0.3Vx4 + Vy4

Vx2 + 0.3Vy2 0.3Vx2 + Vy2
EQx
EQy
x x
Vx1 + 0.3Vy1 0.3Vx1 + Vy1
Case 1 Case 2
Design in-plane shear in shear walls considering orthogonal
effects is the maximum from Case 1 and Case 2

12.5.3 SDC C.
b. Simultaneous Application of Orthogonal Ground
Motion.
Linear or nonlinear response history analysis, with

orthogonal pairs of ground motion acceleration
histories applied simultaneously.

Vertical Irregularities (Table 12.3-2)
1a. Stiffness – soft story
1b. Stiffness – extreme soft story (2000 IBC)
2. Weight (mass)
3. Vertical geometric
4. In-plane discontinuity in vertical lateral-force-resisting
elements
5a. Discontinuity in lateral strength – weak story,
5b. Discontinuity in lateral strength – extreme weak story (ASCE
7-05/2006 IBC)

Vertical Irregularity 1a:
Stiffness-Soft Story Irregularity
SOFT STORY STIFFNESS < 70% STORY STIFFNESS ABOVE OR

< 80% [AVERAGE STORY STIFFNESS OF 3 STORIES ABOVE]


12.6.1

Vertical Irregularity 1b:
Stiffness-Extreme Soft Story Irregularity
SOFT STORY STIFFNESS < 60% STORY STIFFNESS ABOVE OR

< 70% [AVERAGE STORY STIFFNESS OF 3 STORIES ABOVE]

Stiffness-Extreme Soft Story
12.3.3.1:PROHIBITED IN SDC E & F!! [Non-existent
In Bangladesh]

Stiffness-Extreme Soft Story

12.6.1

Vertical Irregularity 2:
Weight (Mass) Irregularity
STORY MASS > 150% ADJACENT STORY MASS

(A ROOF THAT IS LIGHTER THAN THE FLOOR BELOW NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED)
12.6.1

Vertical Irregularities
Exception 1 to 12.3.2.2
Vertical structural irregularities of Types 1a, 1b, or 2

in Table 12.3-2 do not apply where no story drift
ratio under design lateral seismic force is greater
than 130 percent of the story drift ratio of the next
story above. Torsional effects need not be
considered in the calculation of story drifts. The
story drift ratio relationship for the top two stories of
the structure are not required to be evaluated.

Vertical Irregularities
Exception 2 to 12.3.2.2
Irregularities Types 1a, 1b, and 2 of Table 12.3-2 are

not required to be considered for one-story buildings
in any seismic design category or for two-story
buildings assigned to Seismic Design Categories B,
C, or D.

Typical Plan of Example Building
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
26-m
7.9 0 7.9-0
26 m 26-m
7.9 0 26-m
7.9 0 26-m
7.9 0 26-m0
7.9 7.9-m
26 0
6.7 m
22−
B N
22−
6.7 m
22−
6.7 m

Typical Elevation of Example Building
12
11
10
11@
[email protected] m
12-0 7
=40.7 m
=132-0
6
1
16-0
4.9 m

Vertical Structural Irregularity
2nd story
3.7 m Stiffness ratio =
1st story Stiffness of first to second story =
(1/4.93)/(1/3.73) =0.42 < 0.60
4.9 m
Thus, per Table 12.3-2, Stiffness-Extreme Soft Story

Irregularity (Vertical Irregularity Type 1b) should be
considered.
▪Exception 1 to ASCE 7-05 Section 12.3.2.2

Vertical structural irregularities of Type 1a, 1b, or 2
in ASCE Table 12.3-2 do not apply where no story
drift ratio under design lateral seismic force is
greater than 130 percent of the story drift ratio of
the next story above.
 de1  de2 − de1
   1.3
 h1  h2

Analysis Results (E-W Direction)
Lateral forces, displacements and interstory drifts due to
seismic forces in E-W directions
Story Force (kN) δxe (mm) δx (mm) Δ (mm)
12 1223 89 490 11
11 1192 87 479 19
10 1041 84 460 27
9 899 79 433 33
8 761 73 400 39
7 632 66 361 43
6 507 58 318 48
5 396 49 270 50
4 289 40 220 52
3 196 30 168 54
2 116 21 114 54
1 53 11 60 60
E-W Direction:
𝛿𝑒1 11
= = 0.00224
ℎ1 4.9 × 1000
𝛿𝑒2 − 𝛿𝑒1 21 − 11
1.3 = 1.3 = 0.00352 > 0.00224
ℎ2 3.7 × 1000
Thus, structural irregularity of Type 1b is deemed NOT to exist.

Irregularity exists if the effective
mass of any story is more than 150%
of the effective mass of an adjacent
story.
Exception: Irregularity does not
exist if no story drift ratio is greater
than 1.3 times drift ratio of story above.
Exception: Not required to be considered

for one-story buildings in any seismic
design category or for two-story
buildings assigned to Seismic Design
Categories B, C, or D.
Exceptions apply to Types 1 a and b as
Source: FEMA
well as to Type 2.
Vertical Geometric Irregularity
HORIZONTAL DIMENSION OF LATERAL FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEM IN STORY > 130% OF

THAT IN ADJACENT STORY

di+1
Irregularity exists if the dimension of
the lateral force resisting system at
di any story is more than 130% of that
for any adjacent story
di-1
Source: FEMA

12.6.1

In-Plane Discontinuity
THERE IS AN IN-PLANE OFFSET OF A VERTICAL SEISMIC FORCE-RESISTING ELEMENT RESULTING

IN OVERTURNING DEMANDS ON A SUPPORTING BEAM, COLUMN, TRUSS, OR SLAB.
Irregularity exists if there is an in-

plane offset of a vertical seismic
force-resisting element resulting in
d overturning demands on a
supporting beam, column, truss, or
offset
slab.
Source: FEMA

12.3.3.3 B-F Overstrength factor for elements supporting
discontinuous walls or frames
12.6.1

Weak Story Irregularity
“WEAK STORY” LATERAL STRENGTH < 80% LATERAL STRENGTH ABOVE STORY
LATERAL STRENGTH = TOTAL STRENGTH OF SEISMIC FORCE-RESISTING ELEMENTS

12.3.3.1:PROHIBITED IN SDC E & F!! [Non-existent
In Bangladesh]

12.6.1

Vertical Irregularity 5b (worst of the worst):
Extreme Weak Story Irregularity
“WEAK STORY” LATERAL STRENGTH < 65% LATERAL STRENGTH

ABOVE STORY
LATERAL STRENGTH = TOTAL STRENGTH OF SEISMIC FORCE-

RESISTING ELEMENTS

12.3.3.1:PROHIBITED IN SDC D, E & F!!

12.3.3.2 Extreme Weak Stories.
Structures with a vertical irregularity Type 5b as
defined in Table 12.3-2, shall not be over two stories
or 9.1 m in structural height, hn.
EXCEPTION: The limit does not apply where the
“weak” story is capable of resisting a total seismic
force equal to o times the design force prescribed
in Section 12.8.

Vertical Irregularity 5a, 5b: Weak Story
and Extreme Weak Story Irregularities
Irregularity (5a) exists if the lateral
strength of any story is less than 80%
of the strength of the story above.
An extreme irregularity (5b) exists

If the lateral strength of any story is
less than 65% of the strength of the
story above.
Irregularities 5a and 5b are NOT

PERMITTED in SDC E or F.
Irregularity 5b not permitted in SDC D.
Source: FEMA
Questions?
Thank you

S - 27 - Seismic Design Provisions - Part 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S - 27 - Seismic Design Provisions - Part 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

S - 27 - Seismic Design Provisions - Part 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEISMIC DESIGN PROVISIONS

Session 27: Seismic 03

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

▪Earthquake experiences with irregular structures

▪Horizontal structural irregularities

▪Vertical structural irregularities

Note: All references are to ASCE 7-10, adopted by the 2012

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

Relative arrangement of parts; something produced

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

▪Horizontal (Plan) Configuration

Photo Credit: EERI Earthquake Damage Slide Set

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

Photo Credit: EERI Earthquake Damage Slide Set

Marina District…a “stiffness” issue (SOFT STORY)

Photo Credit: EERI Earthquake Damage Slide Set

Failure of columns of “SOFT STORY” Olive View Hospital.

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

Photo Credit: EERI Earthquake Damage Slide Set

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

Damage to reinforced concrete building. Torsion (or twisting) of

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

Photo Credit: EERI Earthquake Damage Slide Set

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

Elastic analysis methods typically employed in

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

1a. Stiffness-soft story

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

dmax ≤ 1.2davg ------------------- No irregularity

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

12.8.4.3 C-F Amplification of accidental torsion

12.12.1 C-F Design story drift based on largest difference in

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

Torsional modes of vibration may be excited, whose

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

*Not applicable to light-frame construction in ASCE 7-10

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

02/08/2022 ASCE 7-10 Figure 12.8-1

12.8.6 Story Drift Limit.

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

Areas where S1 ≥ 0.75g (Shown in Red)

12.8.4.3 C-D Amplification of accidental torsion

12.12.1 C-D Design story drift based on largest difference in

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT

02/08/2022 URP | RAJUK | S-8 COMPONENT