NCSEA - Frequently Misunderstood Seismic Provisions - 2020-06-18 - Full Page

Frequently
Misunderstood
Seismic
Provisions
June 18, 2020
Emily Guglielmo, S.E.
Martin/Martin, Inc.
Frequently Misunderstood Seismic
Provisions
• Seismic Design Category A
• Importance Factor
• Response Modification Coefficient, R
• Overstrength Factor, Ωo
• Drift
• Irregularities
• Redundancy Factor, ρ
• Vertical Seismic Load Effect, Ev
• Orthogonal Effects
• Seismic Weight, W
• Torsion
• Nonstructural Components, Fp
• Foundation Ties
• Reduction of Foundation Overturning
• Modal Analysis
• ASCE 7-16 Site Specific Response Spectrum
Seismic Design Category A
• Drift
• Irregularities
• Torsion
• Foundation Ties
• Modal Analysis
Seismic Design Category A
• ASCE 7-16 Section 1.4, 11.7
• Don’t Use Chapter 12
• Section 1.4: General
Structural Integrity
• 1% W, 5% beam
connections, 20% wall
connections
• Non-Structural Components
Exempt
Importance Factor
• Drift
• Irregularities
• Torsion
• Foundation Ties
• Modal Analysis
Importance Factor
• Table 1.5-2:
Importance Factor
Ie= 1.0, 1.25, 1.5
• Section 13.1.3: Component Importance Factor
Ip = 1.0, 1.5: Life Safety, Essential, Hazardous
Response Modification Coefficient, R
• Drift
• Irregularities
• Torsion
• Foundation Ties
• Modal Analysis
NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions
• The red line is the force vs.

displacement if the
structure responded
elastically.
• The green line is the actual
force vs. displacement of
the structure.
• The blue line is the code
force per IBC/ ASCE 7.
• Illustrates the significance
of design parameters
contained in ASCE 7.
– Response modification
coefficient, R
– Deflection amplification
factor, Cd
– System overstrength factor,
Ωo.
8
In ASCE 7, seismic design forces are calculated by dividing the force from a
linear response when subjected to the design ground motion by the
response modification coefficient, R.
9
R=1
• Like wind (elastic)

• Used by Nuclear and Military Essential
• ASCE 7-16 Proposal…
– No ductile detailing required?
– Permitted in all SDCs?
• Permitted for non-building structures, Chapter 15.
10
This proposal is an admission that it is too hard to design for
seismic properly, so we will let lazy, uneducated engineers continue
to be lazy and uneducated and design things stupidly. JUST VOTE
NO!
If you accept the concept that the R factor reduces elastic seismic design forces because of
system ductility, then by definition using an R of 1.0 should require no ductile detailing.
Logically, this concept should apply to all buildings in all regions. Good chapter headed in
the right direction.
Designers don’t need It is impossible for me to express all of my

another design approach. concerns with regard to this proposal
The profession wants ASCE adequately. It will introduce into seismic
7 to simplify what is already
design category D, E and F territory the
in the standard.
design of building structures without the
appropriate detailing. This is dangerous.
11
ASCE 7-22: New Systems for Table 12.2-1
• Composite shear walls
• Coupled special concrete shear walls
• CLT shear walls

Overstrength Factor, Ωo
• Drift
• Irregularities
• Torsion
• Foundation Ties
• Modal Analysis
The Ωo coefficient approximates the inherent overstrength and can be broken down into
several components:
Ωo = ΩDΩMΩS
14
ASCE 7 Section 12.4.3.2
15
Question:
When do I need to design with load combinations with overstrength
factors, Ωo?
Answer:
IBC 1605.1 “Buildings shall be designed to resist the load
combinations with overstrength factor specified in Section 12.4.3.1
of ASCE 7 where required by Section 12.2.5.2, 12.3.3.3, or
12.10.2.1…”
16
12.2.5.2: Cantilever Column Systems, SDC B-F
Foundations and other elements used to provide overturning
resistance at the base of cantilever column elements shall have
the strength to resist the load combinations with overstrength
factors of Section 12.4.3.2.
17
12.3.3.3: Elements Supporting Discontinuous Walls
or Frames, SDC B-F
Columns, beams, trusses, or slabs supporting discontinuous walls or frames shall have the
strength to resist the maximum axial force that can develop in accordance with the load
combinations with overstrength factors of Section 12.4.3.2.
MASONRY
SHEAR WALL
ELEMENTS SUPPORTING
DISCONTINOUS WALL
12.10.2.1: Collector Elements, SDC C-F
Collector elements, splices, and their connections to resisting elements shall resist
the load combinations of Section 12.4.3.2.
• 12.4 Load Combinations with Omega zero
• 12.2.5.2 Cantilever Columns SDC B,C,D,E,F
• 12.10.2.1 Collectors SDC C,D,E,F
• 12.3.3.3 Columns, Beams Supporting
Discontinuous Walls or Frames SDC B,C,D,E,F
• 12.13.6.5 Pile Anchorage SDC D,E,F
• Material Specifications: SDC B,C,D,E,F
• AISC where R>3
• ACI Chapter 21, Appendix D, Etc.
20
Where the tabulated value of the overstrength factor, Ωo, is greater than or equal to 2½, Ω0 is
permitted to be reduced by subtracting the value of 1/2 for structures with flexible diaphragms.
ASCE 7-16 Change
Requires the use of Ω0 for transfer diaphragms

(Horizontal Irregularity Type 4—Out-of-Plane Offset)
Increased by Ω0
Drift
• Drift
• Irregularities
• Torsion
• Foundation Ties
• Modal Analysis
Drift
Deflection amplification factor, Cd
In ASCE 7, the elastic deformations (ΔS) calculated under reduced

forces are multiplied by Cd to estimate the actual inelastic
deflections.
Drift
<Δa
Drift
12.12.3 Structural Separation and Property Line
Setback
Irregularities
• Drift
• Irregularities
• Torsion
• Foundation Ties
• Modal Analysis
Irregularities
• Code provisions were developed for buildings with
regular configurations.
• Earthquakes have repeatedly shown that irregular
configurations lead to greater damage.
• Code regulations regarding irregularities
were first introduced in 1988 UBC.
Horizontal Irregularities
Horizontal Irregularities
Vertical Irregularities
Vertical Irregularities
ATC-123: ASCE 7-22
ATC-123: ASCE 7-22
ATC-123: ASCE 7-22
Redundancy Factor, ρ
• Drift
• Irregularities
• Torsion
• Foundation Ties
• Modal Analysis
• Damage from the 1994 Northridge earthquake was
concentrated in buildings with low redundancy.
• The code was modified to increase redundancy for
structures in Seismic Design Categories D, E and F.
• For structures with low inherent redundancy, the
required design forces are (arbitrarily?) amplified to
increase strength and resistance to damage.
37
ASCE 7-16
12.3.4.1: Conditions Where the Value of ρ is 1.0.

• Several conditions
12.3.4.2: Redundancy Factor, ρ, for SDC D, E, F

• Either ρ = 1.0 or 1.3
38
Redundancy Factor, ρ= 1.0
1. Structures assigned to Seismic Design Category B or C.
2. Drift calculation and P-delta effects.
3. Design of nonstructural components (Chapter 13).
Examples: Mechanical/ electrical
components, ceilings, cabinets.
4. Design of non-building structures that are not similar to

buildings (Chapter 15).
Examples: Tanks, amusement structures/ monuments, signs
and billboards, cooling towers.
39
Redundancy Factor, ρ=1.0
5. Design of collector elements, splices and their connections for which the load
combinations with overstrength factor of 12.4.3.2 are used.
6. Design of members or connections where the load combinations with
overstrength of 12.4.3.2 are required for design.
7. Diaphragm loads determined using Eq. 12.10-1.
8. Structures with damping systems designed in

accordance with Chapter 18.
9. Out-of-plane wall anchorage (including

connections).
ASCE 7-10 12.3.4.2
ρ = 1.0 or 1.3
ρ = 1.3 unless ONE of the following conditions is met:
Condition 1: Can an individual element be removed from
the lateral force resisting system without:
• Causing the remaining structure to suffer a reduction
in story strength > 33%, or
• Creating an extreme torsional irregularity?
Condition 1: Requires Calculations
ASCE 7-16 12.3.4.2
ρ = 1.0 or 1.3
ρ = 1.3 unless ONE of the following conditions is met:
Condition 2: If a structure is regular in plan and there are at least 2 bays of

seismic force resisting perimeter framing on each side of the structure in each
orthogonal direction at each story resisting > 35% of the base shear.
Vertical Seismic Load Effect, Ev
• Drift
• Irregularities
• Torsion
• Foundation Ties
• Modal Analysis
Vertical Seismic Load Effect - Ev
Gravity and Earthquake Effects Additive
1.2D+Ev+Eh+L+0.2S
1.2D+0.2SDSD+ρQE+L+0.2S
=(1.2+0.2SDS)D+ρQE+L+0.2S
Gravity and Earthquake Effects Counteract

0.9D-Ev+Eh
0.9D-(0.2SDSD+ρQE)
=(0.9-0.2SDS)D-ρQE
Orthogonal Effects
• Drift
• Irregularities
• Torsion
• Foundation Ties
• Modal Analysis
Orthogonal Effects
Orthogonal Effects
• SDC C, E, E, F for irregular buildings
• SDC D, E, F for corner columns
12.5.2: SDC B forces are permitted to be applied in each orthogonal
directions and interaction effects are permitted to be neglected.
12.5.3: Two procedures permitted:

1) Orthogonal combination procedure with loading applied independently in orthogonal directions:
2) Simultaneous application of orthogonal ground motion.
IEEE 693 Equipment applies Orthogonal Effects

to all Conditions, Corner anchor bolts.
Seismic Weight, W
• Drift
• Irregularities
• Torsion
• Foundation Ties
• Modal Analysis
Seismic Weight, W
• Section 12.7.2
• No Live Load except:
• 25% of Storage
• Partitions 10 psf
• Permanent Equipment
• 20% of snow > 30psf
• Roof Gardens
Torsion
• Drift
• Irregularities
• Torsion
• Foundation Ties
• Modal Analysis
Torsion: Inherent, Accidental,
Amplification
δavg
δmax
Inherent Torsion, Mt
Inherent Torsion, Mt
Mt=E x eccentricity
Accidental Torsion, Mta
Inherent Torsion, Mt Accidental Torsion, Mta
Mt=E x eccentricity Mta=E x (eccentricity+5%L)

ASCE 7-16
• Section 12.8.4.2: Accidental torsional moments (Mta) be
applied for determination of horizontal irregularities.
• Mta need NOT be included when determining the seismic
forces E for:
– Design of the structure
– Determination of design story drift
• Except for two important cases…
ASCE 7-16
• These two cases are:
1. Structures assigned to Seismic Design Category B with Torsion: Type
1b horizontal irregularity
2. Structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E, and F with
Torsion: Type 1a and Type 1b horizontal structural irregularity
Amplification of Accidental Torsion:
Mta x Ax
δavg
δmax
58
Mta x Ax
δavg
δmax
59
Mta x Ax
Amplification of Accidental Torsion, Ax
61
Non-Structural Components, Fp
• Drift
• Irregularities
• Torsion
• Foundation Ties
• Modal Analysis
Nonstructural Components, Fp
• Masses further away from ground experience

higher accelerations
• Higher mode effects cause higher
accelerations than first mode effects at lower
floors
• Forces may be 1.5 to 2.5 times higher at roof
than at-grade
ASCE 7-16
ASCE 7-22?
• New force equation that considers the influence of the structure
characteristics on lateral force based on the ATC-120 project
• New provisions for the design of rooftop structures
• New provisions for component support structures and platforms
Foundation Ties
• Drift
• Irregularities
• Torsion
• Foundation Ties
• Modal Analysis
Foundation Ties
• Pile Caps SDC C,D,E,F
• Spread Footings SDC E, F (Liquefiable Sites)
Reduction of Foundation Overturning
• Drift
• Irregularities
• Torsion
• Foundation Ties
• Modal Analysis
Reduction of Foundation Overturning
• At Soil-Foundation Interface
• Can reduce by 25% if designed with
equivalent lateral force procedure.
• Can reduce by 10% if designed with modal
analysis procedure.
Modal Analysis
• Drift
• Irregularities
• Torsion
• Foundation Ties
• Modal Analysis
Modal Analysis
72
Modal Analysis
Modal Analysis
When do you have
to use modal or
time history
analysis?
Torsion
Geometric
Soft Story
Mass
Modal Analysis
ASCE 7-16: 100% Mass Participation
ASCE 7-10 ASCE 7-16

12.9.1 Number of Modes 12.9.1 Number of Modes
... The analysis shall include a … The analysis shall include a
sufficient number of modes to obtain sufficient number of modes to obtain
a combined modal mass participation a combined modal mass participation
of at least 90 percent of the actual mass of 100% of the structure’s mass. For
in each of the orthogonal this purpose, it shall be permitted to
horizontal directions of response represent all modes with periods less
considered by the model. than 0.05 s in a single rigid body mode
that has a period of 0.05 s.
Exception: Alternatively,... at least 90
percent of the actual mass in each of
the orthogonal horizontal directions...
Modal Analysis
ASCE 7-16: Scaling of Forces
ASCE 7-10 ASCE 7-16

12.9.4.1 Scaling of Forces 12.9.4.1 Scaling of Forces
… Where the combined response … Where the combined response
for the modal base shear (Vt) is less for the modal base shear (Vt) is less
than 85 percent of the calculated base than 100 percent of the calculated
shear (V) using the equivalent lateral base shear (V) using the equivalent
force procedure, the forces shall be lateral force procedure, the forces
multiplied by 0.85V / Vt shall be multiplied by V/Vt
Modal Analysis
ASCE 7-22?
Modal Analysis
ASCE 7-22?
ASCE 7-16 Site Specific Response
Spectrum
• Drift
• Irregularities
• Torsion
• Foundation Ties
• Modal Analysis
ASCE 7-16 Requirement for Site
Specific Respond Spectrum
• Summary and background of current ASCE 7-16
Requirements
• Introduction to Multi-Period Response Spectra (MPRS)
ASCE 7-22
• Comparison of relative values of SMS and SM1 between
ASCE 7-10, ASCE 7-16 and ASCE 7-22
• Overview of USGS on-line tool prepared for BSSC to
evaluate the 2020 NEHRP Provisions seismic design
map
ASCE 7-16 Site-Specific Ground Motion
Procedures
• Included updates to the Fa and Fv Tables (11.4-1
and 11.4-2)
• Requirement to perform site-specific ground
motion hazard analysis for:
• Why were these requirements implemented?

• What is the long-term plan?
Procedures
Procedures
Use of only two response
periods (0.2s and 1.0s) generally
not sufficient to accurately
represent response spectral
acceleration for all design
periods
• Reasonably Accurate (or
Conservative) for Stiff Soil Sites, Site
Classes A-C
• Generally Non-conservative for Soft
Soil Sites, Site Classes D-F whose
seismic hazard is dominated by large
magnitude events
Procedures
• Site Class C Example
Procedures
• Site Class D Example
Procedures
• Site Class D Example
Procedures
• Site Class E Example
Procedures
• Site Class E Example
Procedures
• Locations where a site-specific ground motion
analysis is required
Procedures
Exceptions to requiring a site-specific ground motion
hazard analysis:
• Structures on Site Class E sites with Ss ≥ 1.0, provided Fa taken
as from Site Class C
• Structures on Site Class D & E sites with S1 ≥ 0.2, provided Cs is
• determined by Eq. 12.8-2 for T ≤ 1.5Ts and
• taken as 1.5 times value computed by Eq. 12.8-3 for TL ≥ T > 1.5Ts or
Eq. 12.8-4 for T > TL
• Structures on Site Class E Sites with S1 ≥ 0.2, provided T ≤ Ts
and ELF is used for the analysis
Procedures
Site Class D & E sites with S1 ≥ 0.2, provided Cs is:

• determined by Eq. 12.8-2 for T ≤ 1.5Ts and
• 1.5 times value computed by Eq. 12.8-3 (TL ≥ T > 1.5Ts), Eq. 12.8-4 (T > TL)
ASCE 7-22 Multi-Period Response
Spectra and Design Parameters
• Replaces the need for performing a site-specific ground motion
hazard analysis and associated exceptions
• Makes changes to Chapters 11, 20, 21 and 22 (NOT Chapter 12)
• Eliminates the site coefficient (Fa and Fv) tables (and other text)
• Adds three more site classes (BC, CD, and DE) to reduce the step
function between site classes
• Provides a 22-point response spectrum
• Web-based tool available to provide the spectral acceleration
parameters (SMS, SM1, SDS and SD1) and response spectra.
Table 20.3-1 Site Classification updated to
include new site classes
Comparison: ASCE 7-10, 7-16, 7-22
SMS SM1
Relative values of SMS between ASCE 7-10, ASCE 7-16 and ASCE 7-22
Relative values of SMS between ASCE 7-10, ASCE 7-16 and ASCE 7-22
Relative values of SM1 between ASCE 7-10, ASCE 7-16 and ASCE 7-22
Relative values of SM1 between ASCE 7-10, ASCE 7-16 and ASCE 7-22
ASCE 7-22: Online Tools
• ASCE will update online tool to include ASCE 7-22
• Other providers (ATC, etc.) will likely do so as well
ASCE 7-22: Online Tools
Questions?

NCSEA - Frequently Misunderstood Seismic Provisions - 2020-06-18 - Full Page

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

NCSEA - Frequently Misunderstood Seismic Provisions - 2020-06-18 - Full Page

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

NCSEA - Frequently Misunderstood Seismic Provisions - 2020-06-18 - Full Page

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Frequently

• The red line is the force vs.

• Like wind (elastic)

Designers don’t need It is impossible for me to express all of my

• Composite shear walls

• Coupled special concrete shear walls

• CLT shear walls

ASCE 7 Section 12.4.3.2

Requires the use of Ω0 for transfer diaphragms

In ASCE 7, the elastic deformations (ΔS) calculated under reduced

12.3.4.1: Conditions Where the Value of ρ is 1.0.

12.3.4.2: Redundancy Factor, ρ, for SDC D, E, F

4. Design of non-building structures that are not similar to

7. Diaphragm loads determined using Eq. 12.10-1.

8. Structures with damping systems designed in

9. Out-of-plane wall anchorage (including

Condition 2: If a structure is regular in plan and there are at least 2 bays of

Gravity and Earthquake Effects Counteract

12.5.3: Two procedures permitted:

2) Simultaneous application of orthogonal ground motion.

IEEE 693 Equipment applies Orthogonal Effects

Inherent Torsion, Mt Accidental Torsion, Mta

Mt=E x eccentricity Mta=E x (eccentricity+5%L)

• Masses further away from ground experience

ASCE 7-10 ASCE 7-16

ASCE 7-10 ASCE 7-16

• Why were these requirements implemented?

Site Class D & E sites with S1 ≥ 0.2, provided Cs is:

You might also like