A Mid -cycle Snapshot Seismic Evaluation Of ASCE 31 -03 .
December 2010 PUC Meeting Summary – Appendix DBriefing on the Effort to Update ASCE 31 and 41Slide 1Proposed Updates to ASCE 31 and 41A Mid-cycle SnapshotBob PekelnickyVice-Chair and SecretariatUpdate for the BSSC PUCDecember 7, 2010Washington, DCSlide 2ASCE 31-03Seismic Evaluation ofExisting BuildingsASCE 41-06 SupplementNo. 1Seismic Rehabiliation ofExisting Buildings
Slide 3ASCE 31 & 41 Updates2013 Target to Issue UpdateSteering CommitteeChris Poland – ChairBob Pekelnicky – Vice Chair/SecretariatBrian KehoePeter SomersSubcommitteesASCE 31/41 Combine/Streamline – Peter SomersASCE 31 Update – Brian KehoeASCE 41 Update – Bob PekelnickySlide 4Short & Long Term IssuesSlide 5Committee Schedule Target 2013 Q1 2013 – White Cover Edition 2010 Focus: Checklists & 31/41Combine/streamline 2011 Focus: ASCE 41 2012 Focus: Balloting / Resolution Q3/Q4 2012 – Public Comments Quarterly Meetings
Slide 6All material presented hereinis in-progress and subject tochange based on committeeballotingSlide 7Combining ASCE 31 & 41 Prescriptive (T1 & T2) & Systematic (T3/41) One set of General Provisions Tier 1 will be set-up to stand alone Deficiency only T2 Points to ASCE 41 m-factors Full-building Tier 2 replaced with linear ASCE 41Slide 8Tier 1 Updates Benchmark Building “checklist” One General Building Checklist Supplemental Checklists based on building type Set of checklists only for Life Safety Supplement Checklists for ImmediateOccupancy Nonstructural Checklists for LS and IOcoinciding with the redefinition of NSperformance.
Slide 9ASCE 41 Issue Teams General Provisions / Seismic Hazard - Bob PekelnickyAnalysis – Mark MooreConcrete – Ken Elwood (Coord with ACI 369)Steel – Charles Roeder (Coord with AISC TC-9)Timber – Phil LineMasonry – John KariotisGeologic – John EganMaterial Testing – Mike Braund / Mike MayesConsistency & Clarifications – Chris TokasSlide 10General Provisions Updates Alternate Seismic Hazard “Paths” Code Equivalent Performance Objectives Existing Building Increased Risk Objectives Updated Levels of Seismicity Revised Nonstructural Performance LevelsSlide 11Code Equivalent Performance BSE-2: ASCE 7-10 MCER BSE-1: (2/3) * MCER Table Tying Occupancy (Risk) Category toStructural & Nonstructural Performance forboth BSE-1 & BSE-2 HazardsOccupancy / RiskCategoryI & IIBSE-1BSE-2S-LS / NS-LSS-CP / NS-NCIII?IVS-IO(?) / NS-OP (?)?
Slide 12Higher Risk Objectives BSE-2R 5% in 50 year probabilistic Mean deterministic cap 50% of BSE-2 floor BSE-1R: 20% in 50 year probabilistic 50% of BSE-1 floor Retain Basic Safety Objective & other ASCE41 performance objectivesSlide 135/50 vs. MCER5%-50yrMCER1.110.9Ratio0.80.70.6Note: nodeterministic cap0.50.40.30.2Southern California0.1012345678Northern CaliforniaPacific NWIntermountainCEUS9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35City Sequence #Slide 1420/50 vs. (2/3)*MCER20%-50yr( 2/3 x MCER )1.110.9Ratio0.80.70.60.50.40.30.2Southern California0.1012345678Northern CaliforniaPacific NWIntermountainCEUS9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35City Sequence #
Slide 15Collapse Risk MCERMCER0.055Probability of Collapse in ern California0.005012345678Northern CaliforniaPacific NWIntermountainCEUS9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35City Sequence #Slide 16Collapse Risk 0.75* 2% in 500.75 x 2%-50yr0.055Probability of Collapse in ern California0.005012345678Northern CaliforniaPacific NWIntermountainCEUS9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35City Sequence #Slide 17Collapse Risk 5% in 505%-50yr0.055Probability of Collapse in ern California0.005012345678Northern CaliforniaPacific NWIntermountainCEUS9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35City Sequence #
Slide 181-SecondShort-PeriodCollapse Risk SummaryRegionMCER0.75 x MCER0.75 x 2%-50yr5%-50yrSouthern California1.2%2.4%1.8%2.2%Northern California2.1%4.1%2.4%2.3%Pacific Northwest1.0%1.9%1.7%2.0%Intermountain West1.0%1.7%1.4%CEUS1.0%1.5%1.3%2.1%Weighted Mean1.2%2.1%1.6%2.1%2.1%RegionMCER0.75 x MCER0.75 x 2%-50yr5%-50yrSouthern California1.2%2.3%1.8%2.2%Northern California1.7%3.3%2.2%2.2%Pacific Northwest1.0%1.8%1.5%2.0%Intermountain West1.0%1.8%1.6%2.1%CEUS1.0%1.6%1.3%2.0%Weighted Mean1.1%2.0%1.6%2.1%Slide 19Level of Seismicity Revisions Match ASCE 7-10 Seismic DesignCategories Very Low SDC A (New Category) Low SDC B (Revision) Moderate SDC C (Revision) High SDC D, E, & F Goal is to remove inconsistenciesSlide 20Nonstructural Performance LevelRedefinition Life Safety Actual documented past cases of causing death,serious injury, or egress disruption in majorearthquakes. Position Retention / Immediate Occupancy Element has not moved or becomeunbraced/unanchored, but may not befunctional. Operational Element has been certified or designed to retainposition and be resilient such that it canimmediately return to operation.
Slide 21Analysis – Short Term How to determine m-factors and backbone curves Incorporate FEMA P440a material Update foundation rocking J-factor Add broad response history analysis criteria(number of records, scaling, etc.) Address how force controlled components can bemodeled in NDP Expand/rewrite the protective systems chapters Incorporate ATC 76-6 results (relax LDP and CMP) Reconcile pushover and response spectraapproach with max direction spectra.Slide 22Geologic Issues Create performance based liquefactionprovisions Provide guidance on hazard to evaluateliquefaction Provide guidance on structuralconsequences of differential settlement,lateral spreading and bearing lossSlide 23Material Testing Issues Revise “Usual Testing” Requirements forKappa 1.0 Review and update testing requirementsfor all materials Long Term Revise Kappa Factor to be based onaction / consequence dependent Update testing requirements for allmaterials
Slide 24Concrete Update ASCE 41 based on balloted changes in ACI 369.Including:o Changes to connector provisions (removal of 0.5 factorfor cracking).o Referencing to ACI material and condition assessmentdocuments.o Editorial and minor organizational changes. No Update to Shear Wall m-factors thiscycle without funded effortSlide 25Steel Issues Add BRBF information Add acceptance criteria for braced framegusset plates acting as momentconnections. How to deal with braced frame beamcolumn moment connections w/ gussetplates Verify the moment connection rotationlimits In general update references to the latestAISC manual, currently referencing AISCLRFD 1999.Slide 26Wood / Light Frame Update to 2005 NDS & 2008 SDPWS Dealing with existing connectors Default strength and stiffness values forwood diaphragms Adding separate provisions for Coldform steel a Long Term issue
Slide 27Masonry Issues Incorporate ASCE 31 special URMprocedure into ASCE 41 Nonlinear URM Provisions need review All In-fill provisions updated Update Reinforced Masonry
Briefing on the Effort to Update ASCE 31 and 41 Slide 1 Proposed Updates to ASCE 31 and 41 A Mid -cycle Snapshot Update for the BSSC PUC December 7, 2010 Washington, DC Bob Pekelnicky Vice - Chair and Secretariat Slide 2 ASCE 31 -03 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings ASCE 41 - 06 Supplement No. 1 Seismic Rehabiliation of Existing Buildings
MITSUBISHI METALWOOD CUSTOM SHAFTS OPTIONS mitsubishirayongolf.com Model Flex Weight Torque Tip Size Butt Size Launch Spin Tip Stiffness Fubuki J 60 X 66 3.9 0.335 0.600 Mid Mid Mid S 64 3.9 0.335 0.600 Mid Mid Mid R 61 3.9 0.335 0.600 Mid Mid Mid Fubuki J 70 X 74 3.6 0.335 0.600 Mid
Low Mid High Launch Spin Low Mid High Launch Spin KBS Hi-Rev 2.0 Wedge Flex R S X Tip.355" .355" .355" Weight (g) 115 125 135 Torque N/A N/A N/A Launch Mid Mid Mid Program Stock Stock Stock KBS TOUR 105 Flex R S X Tip.355" .355" .355" Weight (g) 105 110 115 Torque 2.5 2.5 2.5 Launch Mid-High Mid-High Mid-High Spin Mid-High M
The Seismic Tables defined in Pages 5 & 6 are for a seismic factor of 1.0g and can be used to determine brace location, sizes, and anchorage of pipe/duct/conduit and trapeze supports. The development of a new seismic table is required for seismic factors other than 1.0g and must be reviewed by OSHPD prior to seismic bracing. For OSHPD,
EXAMPLE 9 SEISMIC ZONE 1 DESIGN 1 2018 Design Example 9 Example 9: Seismic Zone 1 Design Example Problem Statement Most bridges in Colorado fall into the Seismic Zone 1 category. Per AASHTO, no seismic analysis is required for structures in Zone 1. However, seismic criteria must be addressed in this case.
SC2493 Seismic Technical Guide, Light Fixture Hanger Wire Requirements SC2494 Seismic Technical Guide, Specialty and Decorative Ceilings SC2495 Seismic Technical Guide, Suspended Drywall Ceiling Construction SC2496 Seismic Technical Guide, Seismic Expansion joints SC2497 Seismic
Peterson, M.D., and others, 2008, United States National Seismic Hazard Maps ․ Frankel, A. and others, Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps ․ Frankel, A. and others, 1996, National Seismic Hazard Maps Evaluation of the Seismic Zoninig Method ․ Cornell, C.A., 1968, Engineering seismic risk analysis
To develop the seismic hazard and seismic risk maps of Taungoo. In developing the seismic hazard maps, probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) method is used. We developed the seismic hazard maps for 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (475 years return period) and 2 % probability in 50 years (2475 years return period). The seisic
2.1 ASTM Standards:2 C165 Test Method for Measuring Compressive Properties of Thermal Insulations C203 Test Methods for Breaking Load and Flexural Proper-ties of Block-Type Thermal Insulation C303 Test Method for Dimensions and Density of Pre-formed Block and Board–Type Thermal Insulation C390 Practice for Sampling and Acceptance of Thermal Insulation Lots C578 Specification for Rigid .
