ASCE 7-16 SSC Ballot 3 – Ballot Items - SEAM
ASCE 7-16 SSC Ballot 3 – Ballot ItemsIf viewing this in a web browser open the bookmarks panel to enable easier navigation or openthe file in Adobe Acrobat Reader or equivalent PDF viewer.Ballot Item Proposal1Approve TC-01-CH11-01r01 11.4.2-11.4.3 Commentary Crouse (2 files.Revised from SSC Ballot 2)2Approve TC-01-CH11-02r01 11.8.3 Commentary Crouse (2 files. Revisedfrom SSC Ballot 2))3Approve TC-02 7-10PubProp043-SSC-Sec12.4.2.3 Lawson4Approve TC-02 7-10PubProp044-SSC-Sec12.4.3.2 Lawson5Approve TC-02 7-10PubProp045-SSC-Sec12.10.1.1 Lawson6Approve TC-02 7-10PubProp046-SSC-Sec12.11.1 Lawson7Approve TC-02 7-10PubProp052-SSC-Sec 12 12 3 Karim-OSHPD8Approve TC-02-CH11-019R009Approve TC-02-CH12-020R0110Approve TC-02-CH12-021R0011Approve TC-02-CH12-022R0012Approve TC-02-CH12-025r0013Approve TC-02-CH12-028r0114Approve TC-02-CH12-030r00-12.8.1.1 BCJ15Approve TC-02-CH12-031r00-12.5.316Approve TC-02-CH12-032r0017Approve TC-02-CH12-034r00 PUC18Approve TC-03-CH12-01r0019Approve TC-03-CH12-02r0020Approve TC-03-CH19-01r0021Approve TC-04-CH01-01r0022Approve TC-08-CH13-11r00 13.1.4 20 lb exemption23Approve TC-08-CH13-12r00 13.6.2 component period24Approve TC-08-CH13-13r00 13.6 distribution systems25Approve TC-08-CH13-14r00 13.5.6 drywall ceilings26Approve TC-08-CH13-15r00 13.5.6 egress27Approve TC-08-CH13-16r00 13.3.1 horizontal spectra28Approve TC-08-CH13-17r00 Table13.5-1 walls and chimneys29Approve TC-08-CH13-18r00 Table13.5-1 wall elements and connections30Approve TC-08-CH23-03r00 NFPA 13 201331Approve TC-09-CH11A-01r0132Approve TC-12-CH17-01r01 Chapter 17 Replacement33Approve TC-12-CH18-01r01 Chapter 18 Replacement
TC-01-CH11-01r01 11.4.2-11.4.3 Crouse.docxASCE 7-10 Change Proposal FormProposals to revise the ASCE 7 Standards must be submitted using this form and are to be submitted viaemail to Paul Sgambati, Director, Codes and Standards, a psgambati@asce.org.Submitted by:C.B. Crouse206-438-2076cb.crouse@urs.comSubmission date: 12/21/2013Revision date:Considered by ASCE 7 Subcommittee on: Seismic LoadsSC Committee Action on Proposal: For Committee Use Date: Click here to enter a date.SCOPE – ASCE/SEI 7-10 Section: 11.4.2 & 11.4.3(NOTE: Proposals submitted for the wind load provisions will be required to include a sampleproblem, if applicable. The Chair will contact you with the requirements.)PROPOSAL FOR CHANGE: (Use strike-out and underline format to indicate text to bereplaced and new text, respectively. Include related modification/proposed addition toCommentary below.)Modify ASCE 7-10, Sections 11.4.2 and 11.4.3 and revise commentary, C11.4 for the 2016Provisions.11.4.2 Site ClassBased on the site soil properties, the site shall be classified as Site Class A, B, C, D, E, or F in accordancewith Chapter 20. Where the soil properties are not known in sufficient detail to determine the site class,Site Class D, subject to the requirements of Section11.4.3, shall be used unless the authority havingjurisdiction or geotechnical data determines Site Class E or F soils are present at the siteFor situations in which site investigations, performed in accordance with Chapter 20, reveal rockconditions consistent with Site Class B, but site-specific velocity measurements are not made, the sitecoefficients Fa and Fv shall be taken as unity (1.0).
11.4.3 Site Coefficients and Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER)The MCER spectral response acceleration parameter for short periods (SMS) and at 1 s (SM1),adjusted for Site Class effects, shall be determined by Eqs. 11.4-1 and 11.4-2, respectively.SMS FaSS(11.4-1)SM1 FvS1(11.4-2)whereSS the mapped MCER spectral response acceleration parameter at short periods as determinedin accordance with Section 11.4.1, andS1 the mapped MCER spectral response acceleration parameter at a period of 1 s as determinedin accordance with Section 11.4.1where site coefficients Fa and Fv are defined in Tables 11.4-1 and 11.4-2, respectively. WhereSite Class D is selected as the default site class per Section 11.4.2, the value of Fa shall not beless than 1.2. Where the simplified design procedure of Section 12.14 is used, the value of Fashall be determined in accordance with Section 12.14.8.1, and the values for Fv, SMS, and SM1need not be determined.Table 11.4-1 Site Coefficient, FaMapped Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Spectral ResponseAcceleration Parameter at Short PeriodSiteClassSS 0.25SS 0.5SS 0.75SS 1.0SS 1.25SS 1.5A0.80.80.80.80.80.8B1.0 0.91.0 0.91.0 0.91.0 0.91.0 0.90.9C1.2 1.31.2 1.31.1 1.21.0 1.21.0 1.21.2D1.61.41.21.11.01.0E2.5 2.41.71.2 1.30.9 1.10.9 1.00.8FSee Section 11.4.7Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of SS.
Table 11.4-2 Site Coefficient, FvMapped Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER)Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1-s PeriodSiteClassS1 0.1S1 0.2S1 0.3S1 0.4S1 0.5 S1 0.60.80.80.8A0.80.80.8B1.0 0.81.0 0.81.0 0.81.0 0.81.0 0.80.8C1.7 1.51.6 1.51.51.4 1.51.3 1.51.4D2.42.0 2.21.8 2.01.6 1.91.5 1.81.7E3.5 4.23.2 3.32.82.42.4 2.22.0FSee Section 11.4.7Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S1.COMMENTARY CHANGE: (Use strike-out and underline format to indicate text to bereplaced and new text, respectively.)See separate file: TC-01-CH11-CC1 r1 (Commentary)REASON FOR PROPOSAL: (a reason statement providing the rationale for the proposedchange must be provided – attach additional pages if necessary).This proposal is presented by a working group (listed in Table 1) assembled by the Pacific EarthquakeEngineering Research center (PEER center) as part of the NGA-West 2 project (NGA Next-GenerationAttenuation). This project has produced updated models for computing ground motion intensity measuresfrom shallow crustal earthquake in tectonically active regions. The working group activities occurred asTask 8 of the project, so the team is referred to as the Task 8 working group.
Table 1. NGA-West2 Task 8 working groupGraduate studentEmel Seyhan, UCLAC. B. Crouse, URS Corporation, Seattle, WADonald Anderson, CH2MHill, Bellevue, WAI. M. Idriss, Santa Fe, NMKenneth W. Campbell, EQECAT, Beaverton, ORProject teamMaury S. Power, AMEC, Oakland, CARobert W. Graves, USGS, Pasadena, CARoger D. Borcherdt, USGS, Menlo Park, CAWalter J. Silva, PEA, El Cerrito, CAThomas Shantz, Caltrans, Sacramento, CAPrincipal InvestigatorJonathan P. Stewart, UCLAProject DirectorYousef Bozorgnia, PEER, Berkeley, CAThe Task 8 working group examined site effects from the NGA-West 2 data set, which is the largestground motion data set assembled world-wide, consisting of over 19000 recordings from over 500earthquake events. Working group members worked in close collaboration with the NGA-West 2 datateam and model developers, four of whom are also members of the working group. The results of theTask 8 research activities in the areas of database development and site effects modeling are given inreports by Ancheta et al. (2013) and Stewart and Seyhan (2013).Part of the Task 8 scope was to examine the need for changing the ASCE-7 site factors, which have beenin place in various documents since the early 1990s. The need for changes in the factors is described inChapters 2 and 3 of Stewart and Seyhan (2013) as well as in a peer-reviewed publication by Seyhan andStewart (2012). They show that current ASCE-7 site factors have discrepancies with respect to the siteterms in the original (2008 version) of the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) ground motion predictionequations (GMPEs) when the NGA site terms are expressed relative to the B-C boundary defined by anaverage shear wave velocity in the upper 30 m of Vs30 760 m/s (i.e., the reference velocity used in theUSGS national maps). The discrepancies are in both the linear site amplification (for Classes B, C, D,and E) and the degree of nonlinearity (Classes C and D). The misfits are towards larger linear site factorsand stronger nonlinearity in the ASCE-7 factors relative to the NGA factors. The differences in linear sitefactors result largely from the ASCE-7 factors having been normalized to a Vs30 of about 1050 m/s insteadof the mapped value of 760 m/s. The levels of nonlinearity in the ASCE-7 factors were also shown to begenerally stronger than those in recent simulation-based models as well as empirically-based models usedto develop the original NGA site terms.Based in part on the aforementioned findings, it was decided to develop recommended new site factorsfor application in ASCE-7. To support this objective, a semi-empirical site amplification model wasdeveloped that leverages both the empirical data and site response simulations assembled in support of theNGA-West2 project, which is described in Stewart and Seyhan (2013). This model predicts siteamplification as a function of period (T), Vs30 at the site of interest, and the amplitude of the expectedground motion level at the site had the ground condition been rock (represented by a median peakacceleration referred to as PGAr). The model has been reviewed and vetted both by the Task 8 workinggroup and by the broader NGA-West 2 GMPE developer team.The Task 8 working group carefully considered and discussed over a period of approximately two years
several issues that directly influence how site factors (such as those in ASCE-7) should be computed fromsite amplification models such as that described in the preceding paragraph. These issues include theregion from which the ground motion data was recorded, the value of Vs30 that site factors are referencedto (commonly referred to as a reference velocity, Vref), and the manner by which nonlinearity in siteamplification is evaluated and parameterized.Of these issues, the reference velocity (Vref) presented the most difficulty in reaching consensus within theTask 8 working group. One opinion was that the reference velocity (Vref) should be taken as 1050 m/s.The rationale for this choice was that approximately this value was obtained from reference siteregressions using several dozen Loma Prieta earthquake recordings, as described by Borcherdt (1994).The second opinion was that Vref should be taken as the value used in the USGS national hazard maps, sothat site amplification from the factors would be expressed relative to the mapped ground motion levels.The committee ultimately came to the unanimous view, confirmed by vote in a June 2012 meeting, thatthe second approach was preferred as it is more in keeping with how the national maps and site factors arecurrently configured and used. In particular, the Fa and Fv equations yield unity for vs (Vs30) 760 m/s,which is the same Vs30 value used to create the Ss and S1 maps in Chapter 22 of ASCE-7.The issue of data regionalization arose because the international NGA-West2 data set indicates differentslopes in log amplification – log (Vs30) relations for investigated regions including California, Japan, andTaiwan. Two approaches were considered. The first was to base the site factors on slopes derived fromCalifornia data alone, since much of the US seismic hazard is from California and hence the impact of theASCE-7 code language is particularly strong there. The second approach was to base the slope on a nonregionalized version of the site amplification model in which all data is combined, since the ASCE-7 sitefactors are applied broadly and the diversity of regions contributing data to NGA-West2 comes closer tocapturing the range of conditions in application regions. The second (non-regionalized) approach wasselected.The issue of nonlinearity, while important, was non-controversial. The approach described in Chapter 4 ofStewart and Seyhan (2013), which combines both empirical data analysis with the results of groundresponse simulations, was thought to be reasonable.The recommended site factors were computed by averaging coefficients describing the Vs30-scaling andnonlinearity from the semi-empirical model over the respective period ranges of 0.1-0.5 sec for Fa and0.4-2.0 sec for Fv. The periods utilized for this averaging are a subset of those from the NGA-West 2GMPEs having approximate equal spacing on a log axis:For Fa: 0.1, 0.11, 0.13, 0.14, 0.16, 0.18, 0.20, 0.22, 0.25, 0.28, 0.32, 0.35, 0.4, 0.45, 0.5 sec.For Fv: 0.4, 0.45, 0.50, 0.60, 0.65, 0.70, 0.80, 0.90, 1.0, 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0 sec.Further details on the computation of the site factors are given in Chapter 5 of Stewart and Seyhan (2013).For relatively weak levels of shaking, the recommended ASCE-7 site factors are generally smaller thancurrent values, which is due in part to the change in reference velocity from 1050 to 760 m/s. For strongershaking levels and Class C, D, and E soils, the recommended site factors become close to, or slightlygreater than, those used currently because of reduced levels of nonlinearity, especially at long period (i.e.,in the Fv parameter). Factors for soft soil (Class E) have been conservatively biased as described incommentary in response to expert opinion on the original proposal.References:Ancheta, TD, RB Darragh, JP Stewart, E Seyhan, WJ Silva, BSJ Chiou, KE Woodell, RW Graves, AR Kottke, DM,Boore, T Kishida, and JL Donahue (2013). “PEER NGA-West 2 Database,” PEER Report 2013/03, PacificEarthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
Borcherdt, RD (1994). “Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design (Methodology and Justification),”Earthquake Spectra, 10, 617-653.Seyhan, E. and JP Stewart (2012). “Site response in NEHRP Provisions and NGA models,” in GeotechnicalEngineering State of the Art and Practice: Volume of Keynote Lectures from GeoCongress 2012, Oakland, CA,ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 226, K Rollins and D Zekkos (eds.), 359-379.Stewart, JP and E Seyhan (2013). “Semi-empirical nonlinear site amplification and its application in NEHRP sitefactors,” PEER Report 2013/13, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,Berkeley, CA.
1C11.4 SEISMIC GROUND MOTION VALUES2345678910111213The seismic ground motion values of Section 11.4 are defined by 0.2 s and 1 s spectral response accelerations (5%of critical damping) for the mapped values of risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) groundmotions provided in Chapter 22. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) prepared the mapped values ofMCER ground motions of Chapter 22 in accordance with (1) the site-specific ground motion procedures of Section21.2, (2) updates of the United States national seismic hazard maps (Peterson et. al., 2008), and (3) results of relatedresearch (Huang et al., 2008). The mapped values of MCER ground motion parameters Ss and S1 are derived as thelesser of the probabilistic MCER spectral response acceleration (Section 21.2.1) and deterministic MCER spectralresponse acceleration (Section 21.2.2) at any location. The deterministic MCER spectral response acceleration has alower limit as shown in Figure 21.2-1. The USGS calculated the probabilistic (MCER) spectral responseacceleration using the iterative procedure (Method 2) of Section 21.2.1.2 (Luco et al., 2007). Mapped values ofMCER ground motions are governed by probabilistic MCER response spectral acceleration, except at high hazardsites located relatively close to an active fault.1415161718192021The basis for the mapped values of the MCER ground motions in ASCE/SEI 7-10 is significantly different from thatof the mapped values of MCE ground motions in previous editions of ASCE/SEI 7. These differences include use of(1) probabilistic ground motions that are based on uniform collapse risk, rather than uniform hazard, (2)deterministic ground motions that are based on the 84th percentile (approximately 1.8 times median), rather than 1.5times median response spectral acceleration for sites near active faults, and (3) ground motion intensity that is basedon maximum, rather than the average (geometrical mean), response spectra acceleration in the horizontal plane.Except for determining the MCEG PGA values in Chapters 11 and 21, the mapped values are given as MCER spectralresponse accelerations.222324252627282930The approach adopted in Section 11.4 is intended to provide for a more uniform collapse risk for structures designedusing the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) ground motions. The MCER ground motions areexpected to result in structures with a 1% probability of collapse in 50 years, based on the probabilistic seismichazard at each site and a probabilistic estimate of the margin against collapse inherent in structures designed to theseismic provisions in the standard (collapse fragility). In previous editions of ASCE/SEI 7, the lower bound marginwas judged, based on experience, to correspond to a factor of about 1.5 in ground motions. In ASCE/SEI 7-10 theuncertainty in this margin is accounted for with the collapse fragility defined in Section 21.2.1.2. Nevertheless, thedesign earthquake ground motion is based on 1/1.5 (or 2/3) of MCER ground motion for consistency with previouseditions of the standard. This factor has been taken into account in developing the MCER ground motions.3132333435363738Probabilistic (MCER) ground motions are based on the assumption that buildings designed in accordance withASCE/SEI 7-10 have a collapse probability of not more than 10 percent, on average, if MCER ground motions occurat the building site. The conditional probability of 10 percent is an idealized collapse safety goal of FEMA P-695(FEMA, 2009). The FEMA P-695 study investigated the collapse probability of a limited number of different typesof seismic force-resisting systems and found that systems designed in accordance with ASCE/SEI 7-10 generallyconform to the 10 percent collapse safety goal. While stronger shaking could occur, it was judged economicallyimpractical to design for such ground motions and that MCER ground motions based on a 1 percent probability ofcollapse in 50 years provides an acceptable level of seismic safety.39404142434445464748In regions of high seismicity, such as in many areas of California, the seismic hazard is typically controlled by largemagnitude events occurring on a limited number of well-defined fault systems. Probabilistic ground motionscalculated for a 1 percent probability of collapse in 50 years can be significantly larger than deterministic groundmotions based on the characteristic magnitudes of earthquakes on these known active faults. Probabilistic groundmotions tend to be greater when major active faults produce characteristic earthquakes every few hundred years,rather than at longer return periods. For these regions, it is considered more appropriate to determine MCER groundmotions directly by deterministic methods based on a conservative estimate of the ground shaking associated withcharacteristic earthquakes of well-defined fault systems. In order to provide an appropriate level of conservatism inthe design process, 84th percentile ground motions are used to define deterministic (MCER) ground motion whichare estimated as median ground motions for characteristic events multiplied by 1.8 (Huang, et al., 2008).495051The smaller deterministic (MCER) ground motions result in a probability of collapse in 50 years greater than thetargeted 1 percent of probabilistic (MCER) ground motions, but the assumption of not more than a 10 percentprobability of collapse if the MCER ground motion occurs at the building site still applies. It was judged
525354economically impractical to design buildings in high seismic regions located near active faults for more than 84thpercentile ground motions of characteristic earthquakes, and that a 10 percent probability of collapse if these groundmotions occur at the building site provides an acceptable level of safety.555657C11.4.1 Mapped Acceleration ParametersIn the general procedure, seismic design values are computed from mapped values of the spectral responseacceleration at short periods, SS , and at 1
32 Approve TC-12-CH17-01r01 Chapter 17 Replacement . TC-01-CH11-01r01_11.4.2-11.4.3_Crouse.docx ASCE 7-10 Change Proposal Form Proposals to revise the ASCE 7 Standards must be submitted using this form and are to be submitted via email to Paul Sgambati, Director, Codes and Standards, a psgambati@asce.org. .
TZ 215 Wireless-N TotalSecure 1-year 01-SSC-4984 Service description SKU Comprehensive Gateway Security Suite 1-year 01-SSC-4793 01-SSC-4757 Intelligence, Control and Visualization 1-year Content/URL Filtering 1-year 01-SSC-4763 Comprehensive Anti-Spam Service 1-year 01-SSC-4787 8x5 support 1-year 01-SSC-4769 24x7 support 1-year 01-SSC-4775
NCS eNewsletter Archives: go to www.asce-ncs.org and view along the sidebar. Address Changes: Call 1-800-548-ASCE, e-mail member@asce.org, visit www.asce.org, or write: ASCE - Membership, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191. Include your membership number. Newsletter Officers (2020-2021) Mike Venezia, President
TZ 215 Wireless-N TotalSecure 1-year 01-SSC-4984 Service description SKU Comprehensive Gateway Security Suite 1-year 01-SSC-4793 01-SSC-4757 Intelligence, Control and Visualization 1-year Content/URL Filtering 1-year 01-SSC-4763 Comprehensive Anti-Spam Service 1-year 01-SSC-4787 8x5 support 1-year 01-SSC-4769 24x7 sup
Mat riel TZ 205 : c bl 01-SSC-6945 Mat riel TZ 205 : Wireless-N 01-SSC-6947 Mat riel TZ 205 : Wireless-N International 01-SSC-4883 TZ 205 TotalSecure 1 an 01-SSC-4906 TZ 205 Wireless-N TotalSecure 1 an 01-SSC-4908 TZ 205 Wireless-N TotalSecure International 1 an 01-SSC-4910 Description des se
BACKGROUND ON ASCE 41 ASCE 41-13 is an update and combination of the ASCE 41-06 and ASCE 31-03 stan-dards, which are intended for the seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. ASCE 41-13 establishes tables of accepta
of ASCE 7-10 for mid-period buildings at Site Class D sites. Overview of ASCE 7-16 Seismic Design Methods and Parameters . 11.4-1, ASCE 7-The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Standard, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-16, inc
This document, also available on the ASCE Student Conferences page of the ASCE Website, defines the 2022 ASCE Innovation Contest and the rules for both the student symposium and Society-wide finals competition levels. Requests for Information (RFI) should be sent to student@asce.org with the subject line "ASCE Innovation Contest RFI."
Grade 2 ELA Week of April 13-17, 2020 Day Skill Instructions Monday . There was a city park very close to their apartment. The park was really big. Maybe part of it could be turned into a park for dogs. Then Oscar s puppy would have a place to run! 4 Now Oscar needed to turn his idea into a plan. Oscar worked very hard. He wrote letters to newspapers. He wrote to the mayor about his idea for .
