Upgrades Of Seismic Design Standards For Nonstructural .
Upgrades of Seismic DesignStandards for NonstructuralComponents and NonbuildingStructures in MOTEMSRakesh K. Goel, PhD, PE, F.ASCE, F.SEICal Poly, San Luis Obisporgoel@calpoly.edu R.K. Goel10/16/20181
Objectives Provide background for MOTEMSprovisions Highlight underlying assumptions Provide observations based on resultsfrom analytical study R.K. Goel10/16/20182
ASCE 7 Provisions0.4apSDSWp z Fp 1 2 Rph Ip0.3SDS I pWp Fp 1.6SDS I pWpor 0.3 0.4ap (1 2 z h )Rp 1.6Lower and upper limits based on judgement R.K. Goel10/16/20183
ASCE 7 ProvisionsSDS Short period spectral accelerationap Component amplification factorI p Component importance factorRp Component response modification factorWp Component operating weightz height in structure of point of attachment ofcomponent with respect to baseh average roof height of structure with respectto the base R.K. Goel10/16/20184
ASCE 7 Formula Backgroundz ( 0.4SDS ) 1 2 aph Fp WpRpDesignPeak GroundAcceleration R.K. GoelIp10/16/20185
ASCE 7 Formula Backgroundz ( 0.4SDS ) 1 2 aph Fp WpRpPeak GroundAcceleration R.K. GoelAmplification of PGAto Bottom of NonstructuralComponentIp10/16/20186
ASCE 7 Formula Backgroundz ( 0.4SDS ) 1 2 aph Fp WpRpPeak GroundAcceleration R.K. GoelAmplification of PGAto Bottom of NonstructuralComponentAmplification ofAcceleration due toComponentFlexibilityIp10/16/20187
MOT Applicationz ( 0.4SDS ) 1 2 aph Fp WpRpIp(1 2z/h) 3 R.K. Goel10/16/20188
MOTEMS Formulaz ( 0.4SXS ) 1 2 apI ph Fp WpRp R.K. Goel( 0.4SXS )( 3 ) apI pWpRp1.2S XS apI pWpRp10/16/20189
MOTEMS FormulaFp 1.2S XS apI pWpRp0.3S XS I pWp Fp 1.6S XS I pWp1.2aPor 0.3 1.6RP R.K. Goel10/16/201810
MOTEMS Formula ap 1.0 for rigid components (period 0.06 sec)or rigidly attached components ap 2.5 for flexible components (period 0.06sec) or flexibly attached components Ip 1.5 for critical components Ip 1.0 for other components Rp Value listed in Table 31F-4-5– Rp generally based on some testing, someobservations on performance during pastearthquakes, and a lot on judgement R.K. Goel10/16/201811
ASCE 7 Alternate Equation If acceleration, ai, at the point ofattachment of the component is knownai apWpFp AxRpIp0.3SDS I pWp Fp 1.6SDS I pWp R.K. Goel10/16/201812
MOT ApplicationFp ai apI p AxWpRp m max A or B Acceleration at Point of Attachment ofNonstructural Component R.K. Goel10/16/2018 mAx 1.2 avg 2Torsional Amplification13
Estimation of ai Marine Oil Terminals are, in most cases,similar to single-degree-of-freedom (SDF)systems Damping is typically low (5%) For such cases, ai spectral accelerationfor design earthquake R.K. Goel10/16/201814
Relationship between ai and SA For low damping values (e.g., 5%), ai for aSDF system is essentially equal tospectral acceleration, SA R.K. Goel10/16/201815
MOTEMS Alternate EquationFp apSAI p AxWpRp0.3SDS I pWp Fp 1.6SDSI pWpSA Spectral acceleration at period equal toelastic fundamental period of the MOTstructure R.K. Goel10/16/201816
Alternate Procedure to Estimate ap If fundamental period of the structure, T,and of the component, Tp, are know, apmay be estimated from R.K. Goel10/16/201817
Underlying Assumptions Calculation of forces only for Level 2 designearthquake Formula for Fp is developed primarily based onlinear-elastic studies Formula for Fp does not take into considerationpossible nonlinearity of the MOT at design-levelearthquake– Accelerations transmitted from base to top of theMOT deck are expected to reduce due to systemnonlinearity R.K. Goel10/16/201818
Limits of MOTEMS Procedure MOTEMS procedure is not applicable fornonstructural component or nonbuilding system– Supported by other nonstructural systempermanently attached to MOT,– Supported by other structure permanently attached toMOT,– Attached to multiple MOTs,– Attached to structure and ground. Use rational approach subject to divisionapproval. R.K. Goel10/16/201819
ap 2.5, Ip 1.0 R.K. Goel10/16/201820
ap 2.5, Ip 1.0 R.K. Goel10/16/201821
Summary MOTEMS presents a simple formula forestimating seismic forces in nonstructuralcomponents and nonbuilding structures supportedon MOT structure– Based on ASCE 7 provisions– Does not consider nonlinearity in the primary system Analytical study suggests that MOTEMS willprovide conservative estimate of forces whenprimary system is deformed beyond linear elasticlimit R.K. Goel10/16/201822
p 1.0 for rigid components (period 0.06 sec) or rigidly attached components a p 2.5 for flexible components (period 0.06 sec) or flexibly attached components I p 1.5 for critical components I p 1.0 for other components R p Value listed in Table 31F-4-5 –R p generally based on some testing, some
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.
the seismic design of dams. KEYWORDS: Dam Foundation, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, Seismic Design 1. INTRODUCTION To perform seismic design or seismic diagnosis, it is very important to evaluate the earthquake hazard predicted for a dam site in order to predict earthquake damage and propose disaster prevention measures. There are two .
Seismic design framework [Discussion focused on AWWA M41 Proposed Chapter] Seismic framework steps: 1. Identify service priorities 2. Establish level of service goals 3. Establish design earthquake 4. Evaluate project specific seismic hazards 5. Establish design standards and methods 6. Design for seismic risk mitigation AWWA M41 Chapter 14.
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,
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
This analysis complied with these provisions by using the USGS 2014 National Seismic Hazard Map seismic model as implemented for the EZ-FRISK seismic hazard analysis software from Fugro Consultants, Inc. For this analysis, we used a catalog of seismic sources similar to the one used to produce the 2014 National Seismic Hazard Maps developed by .
