Seismic Design Of Buildings Geotechnical Aspects Conclusions And .
3/6/2018OutlineOutlineSeismic Design of BuildingsGeotechnical AspectsIntroductionQuick ReviewSpectral AccelerationHazard Maps and ParametersSite EffectsProceduresBuilding CodesGeneral ProcedureSite-Specific ProcedureSeismic Design CategoryImpacts on DesignConclusions and Closing RemarksJean Louis LocsinJanuary 27, 2018ObjectivesObjectives What areEarthquakeHazardsEarthquakeHazardsthe Relevant Geotechnical Seismic DesignStructural DamageParameters that Impact Building Designe.g., Northridge Earthquake, CA, 1994(Photo by Robert A. Eplett, FEMA Photo Library.) How toDetermine the Relevant Seismic DesignParameters What does Seismic Design CategoryMean for Your ProjectGround FailureEarthquakee.g., Niigata Earthquake, Japan, 1964(Photo from Engineering Research Center Library, UC Berkeley.)Firee.g. San Francisco Earthquake,1906(Photo by H. D. Chadwick, US Archiv ARCWEB.)Tsunamie.g., Indian Ocean Earthquake, 2004(Photo by Philip A. McDaniel, U.S. Navy photo.)1
3/6/2018Japan EarthquakeEarthquake2011 JapanJapan Earthquake Friday, March 11, 2011 at 2:46 pm local time Near the East Coast of Honshu, Depth 32 km (19.9 miles) below sea level Magnitude 9.0Epicentral distance: 177 km 110 miles0.92 g0.74 g0.65 gU.S. Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. DeNoris A. Mickle (Wikimedia)From USGS and Japan Building Research InstituteJapan EarthquakeThis photo was taken on April 12, 2011 in Asahigaoka 1 Chome, Onagawa-cho, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan.By Daisuke TSUDA, Flickr, (CC BY-SA 2.0)2
3/6/2018Codes & StandardsCurrentin SeismicThe PracticeCurrent Practicein SeismicDesignDesignSeismic HazardSite Effects 9th Edition of the Massachusetts Building CodeRisk Category(I, II, III, or IV)Design Response Spectrum (SDS & SD1) ASCE 7-10 – Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and OtherStructuresSeismic DesignCategoryStructural International Building Code (IBC) 2015OtherNon-StructuralFire ProtectionHaley & Aldrich, Inc. 2018SpectralAcceleration (g)SpectralAcceleration& Response SpectrumSpectralAccelerationThe Current Practice in Seismic DesignSeismic HazardSite EffectsPGASaDesign Response Spectrum (SDS & SD1)TfPeriod, T, (sec.)Risk Category(I, II, III, or IV)Maximum ResponsePGASaSeismic DesignCategoryTfSingle Degree-of-Freedom MassAccelerometerPGAStructuralEarthquake Excitation Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2018 Fire ProtectionOtherNon-StructuralHaley & Aldrich, Inc. 20113
3/6/2018Seismic HazardMapped Accelerations (ASCE 7-10 and IBC 2015) USGS Mapped or Code Tabulated Spectral Accelerations (0.2 and 1.0 s) 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years (return period of about 2500 years) Site Class B Risk-TargetedMapped Accelerations (ASCE 7-10 and IBC 2015)Short Period9th Edition of the Massachusetts Building Code1 s Period4
3/6/20189th Edition of the Massachusetts Building CodeUSGS Online ToolUSGS Online ToolThe Current Practice in Seismic DesignSeismic HazardSite EffectsDesign Response Spectrum (SDS & SD1)Risk Category(I, II, III, or IV)Seismic DesignCategoryStructural Fire ProtectionOtherNon-StructuralHaley & Aldrich, Inc. 20115
3/6/2018Site EffectsSite EffectsSite EffectsSite EffectsExample: 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, ML 7.0 At Treasure Island vs. Yerba Buena Island 50 miles (80 km) from the epicenterLoma Prieta Earthquake, ML 7.0Treasure IslandGoogle ProYerba Buena IslandTreasure Island and Yerba BuenaBy Telstar LogisticsMap from Google Pro / Data from ProShakeLoma PrietaEarthquakeEpicenterOaklandSan FranciscoThe Current Practice in Seismic DesignSite EffectsSite EffectsSeismic HazardSite EffectsGeneral OR Site-SpecificFillDesign Response Spectrum (SDS & SD1)Young BayMudRisk Category(I, II, III, or IV)RockMedium DenseSandSeismic DesignCategoryOld Bay MudFine Gravely SandClay and ShaleRockStructuralLoma Prieta Earthquake, ML 7.0 Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2011 Fire ProtectionOtherNon-StructuralHaley & Aldrich, Inc. 20116
3/6/2018Site Effects– GeneralProcedureGeneralProcedureSite Effects– Site SpecificSite-SpecificProcedureORPeriod, T, (sec.)Site Response atFoundation LevelAveraged SoilPropertiesSoil ColumnsSoil ColumnsRockRockPeriod, T, (sec.)Earthquake Excitation(Graph after Borcherdt, 1994)Site EffectsGeneralProcedureSDS & SD1 by–GeneralProcedure(Graph after Borcherdt, 1994)Site EffectsGeneralProcedureSDS & SD1 SS1From SeismicHazard Maps S1From SeismicHazard Maps (MCER)7
3/6/2018Site EffectsGeneralProcedureSDS & SD1 by–GeneralProcedureSite ClassSite Class ASCE 7-10 Table S1xFvAmplification FactorsFunction ofFrom SeismicSite ClassHazard Maps (MCER)Site ClassSite Class ASCE 7-10 Table 20.3-1From: International Building Code 2009 and ASCE 7-10From: International Building Code 2009 and ASCE 7-10Site ClassSite Class ASCE 7-10 Table 20.3-1Total distancetraveled byshear wave( 100 ft)From: International Building Code 2009 and ASCE 7-108
3/6/2018Site ClassSite Class ASCE 7-10 Table 20.3-1Site ClassSite ClassTotal distancetraveled byshear wave( 100 ft) ASCE 7-10 Table 20.3-1Total travel timefor shear waveto travelthrough allsublayersTotal distancetraveled byshear wave( 100 ft)Total travel timefor shear waveto travelthrough allsublayersAverage SPT N and Average Su are calculated in thesame way as Average vs.From: International Building Code 2009 and ASCE 7-10Site ClassInvestigationsSite Class–– SiteSite Investigations Conventional Methods – Standard Penetration Test (SPT NValues) and SamplingFrom: International Building Code 2009 and ASCE 7-10Site EffectsGeneralProcedureSDS & SD1 iteEffects Geophysical Methods – Cross-hole Testing, Seismic CPTMeasurements of Shear Wave Velocity, and OthersSSxFa Correlations – SPT N or Cone Resistance Correlated to ShearWave VelocityS1xFvAmplification FactorsFunction ofFrom SeismicSite ClassHazard Maps (MCER)9
3/6/2018Site EffectsSiteCoefficientsSite Effects–– SiteCoefficientsFa & Fv IBC 2015Site EffectsSiteCoefficientsSite Effects–– SiteCoefficientsFa & Fv IBC 2015Hazard Maps giveSs for Site Class BHazard Maps giveS1 for Site Class BFrom: International Building Code 2015Site EffectsSiteCoefficientsSite Effects–– SiteCoefficientsFa & Fv IBC 2015From: International Building Code 2015Site EffectsSiteCoefficientsSite Effects–– SiteCoefficientsFa & FvSeattle IBC 20150.2171.366“Better” than B“Worse” than BBoston0.0690.529“Better” than B“Worse” than BFrom: International Building Code 2015From: International Building Code 201510
3/6/2018Site EffectsSiteCoefficientsSite Effects–– SiteCoefficientsFa & FvSite EffectsGeneralProcedureSDS & SD1 by–GeneralProcedureSeattle IBC MCERAccelerationsSiteEffectsSSxFa SMSS1xFv SM1Boston0.5290.069Amplification FactorsFunction ofFrom SeismicSite ClassHazard Maps (MCER)i.e., by Site-Specific AnalysisFrom: International Building Code 2015Site EffectsGeneralProcedureSDS & SD1 lProcedureDesignSpectra byProcedure0.7SSS1SiteEffectsxxFaFvxx2/32/3BOSTON, MA0.6DesignAccelerations SDSSD15% DampingSpectrum for Site Class E0.5Spectral Acceleration, 4SDS for ESpectrum for Site Class D0.3SDS for D0.2SD1 for E0.1SD1 for D00Amplification FactorsFunction ofFrom SeismicSite ClassHazard Maps (MCER)Two-Parameter Definitionof Generic Spectrum0.511.522.533.54Period, sec Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 201811
ignSpectra byProcedureSite-SpecificAnalysisSite-Specific ResponseResponse Analysis0.7BOSTON, MA0.6Where Required?Spectrum for Site Class E0.5Spectral Acceleration, g5% Damping Site Class F – one or more of the following0.4Spectrum for Site Class D0.3 Liquefiable soils, quick & highly sensitive clays, collapsibleweakly cemented soils. 10 ft of Peats and/or highly organic clays. Very high plasticity clays ( 25 ft with PI 75). 120 ft of soft/medium stiff clays.Spectrum for Site Class CSpectrum for Site Class B0.20.1000.511.522.533.54 If not required, sometimes performed to reduce design spectralaccelerations (but with Code limitation)Period, sec Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2018ExampleofofSiteClassFExampleSite ClassFMA Building Code – Liquefaction Screening Plots Liquefiable soilsNiigata 1964; Photo from Engineering ResearchCenter Library, UC BerkeleyChristchurch 2011; Photo by: Tim /2.0/deed.en12
3/6/2018Simplified Liquefaction AnalysesSite-SpecificAnalysisSite-Specific ResponseResponse AnalysisGround Surface Youd & Idriss (2001), Boulanger & Idriss (2014), etc. Demand Peak horizontal acceleration (amax) – ASCE 7-10, use MCEG (i.e., not adjusted forrisk) ResistanceFillVs-FillOrganicsVs-Org.1-DAnalysis SPT N-values (usual data) Fines ContentClayVs-ClayVs-TillTillVs-RockRock Site-SpecificAnalysisSite-Specific ResponseResponse AnalysisHaley & Aldrich, Inc. 2011Site-SpecificAnalysisSite-Specific ResponseResponse AnalysisGround SurfaceGround layRock Motion (a vs. t), MCERock Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2011Vs-RockRock Motion (a vs. t), Rock40Time, sec Vs-Rock0.20Acceleration, gVs-TillAcceleration, gTill0.100.00-0.10-0.200510152025303540Time, secHaley & Aldrich, Inc. 201113
3/6/2018Site-SpecificAnalysisSite-Specific ResponseResponse AnalysisSite-SpecificAnalysisSite-Specific ResponseResponse AnalysisGround Surface MotionGround Surface Motion0.20Acceleration, gAcceleration, g0.20Ground Surface0.100.00Ground 0051015Time, csVs-Org.0.90.85% DampingResponseSpectrum atGroundSurfaceSpectral Acceleration, g0.71-DAnalysis1-DAnalysisClay00Acceleration, gAcceleration, 035Rock40Time, sec Site-Specific Response ime, secHaley & Aldrich, Inc. 2011Site-SpecificAnalysisSite-Specific ResponseResponse Analysis0.90.95%Damping0.80.70.7Spectral Acceleration, g0.60.5Spectra of the MCE RockMotions0.45%Damping0.8Spectra of Computed MCEMotions0.6Spectral Acceleration, g1Rock Motion (a vs. t), MCE0.200.10-0.20Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 20110.30.20.100.52/3 Spectra of Computed MCEMotions0.40.3Mean Plus 1SD of 2/3 MCE ComputedSpectra0.20.1000.511.522.533.540Period, secHaley & Aldrich, Inc. 20110.5Period, sec-0.10Site-SpecificResponseMCE Rock Spectra& Site EffectsAnalysis 0.40.30.1ClayRock Motion (a vs. t), MCE 0.5Vs-ClayVs-TillRock0.60.2Vs-ClayTill40Time, secFill0.511.522.533.54Period, sec Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 201114
3/6/2018Site-Specific Response AnalysisSite-SpecificResponse AnalysisDesign SpectrumDesign Impacts of Seismic Code Provisions0.9Seismic Hazard5% Damping0.8Spectral Acceleration, gSite EffectsSpectrum for Site Class E0.70.6Recommended Design Spectrum0.5Design Response Spectrum (SDS & SD1)80% of Spectrum for SiteClass E0.40.3Risk Category(I, II, III, or IV)Mean Plus 1SD of 2/3 MCEComputed Spectra0.2Seismic DesignCategory0.1000.511.522.533.54Period, secStructural Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 2011 SeismicDesignCategorySeismicDesign Category IBC 2015 IBC 2015SDS RangesSDS RangesSD1 RangesSD1 RangesTables From: International Building Code 2015OtherNon-StructuralHaley & Aldrich, Inc. 2011SeismicDesignCategorySeismicDesign CategoryAccording to Code: if different between SDS and SD1, take the more severe seismic design categoryirrespective of fundamental period of the structure.Fire ProtectionLow hazard tohuman life inevent of failure,e.g.,agriculturalfacilities, minorstoragefacilitiesAccording to Code: if different between SDS and SD1, take the more severe seismic design categoryirrespective of fundamental period of the structure.Tables From: International Building Code 201515
3/6/2018SeismicDesignCategorySeismicDesign CategorySeismicDesignCategorySeismicDesign Category IBC 2015 IBC 2015Substantialhazard tohuman life inevent of failure,e.g., publicassembly,educationfacilities,certain publicutility facilities.SDS RangesSD1 acilities,emergencyresponsecenters, etc.SDS RangesSD1 RangesAccording to Code: if different between SDS and SD1, take the more severe seismic design categoryirrespective of fundamental period of the structure.Tables From: International Building Code 2015OccupancyRisk)and Performance LevelOccupancy(orCategoryandCategoryPerformance LevelAccording to Code: if different between SDS and SD1, take the more severe seismic design categoryirrespective of fundamental period of the structure.Tables From: International Building Code 2015OccupancyRisk)and Performance LevelOccupancy(orCategoryandCategoryPerformance LevelCodeFrom: 2009 NEHRP RECOMMENDED SEISMIC PROVISIONS FOR NEW BUILDINGS ANDOTHER STRUCTURES: PART 2, COMMENTARY TO ASCE/SEI 7-05From: 2009 NEHRP RECOMMENDED SEISMIC PROVISIONS FOR NEW BUILDINGS ANDOTHER STRUCTURES: PART 2, COMMENTARY TO ASCE/SEI 7-0516
3/6/2018OccupancyRisk)and Performance LevelOccupancy(orCategoryandCategoryPerformance LevelSeismicDesignCategorySeismicDesign Category0.7Increasing Performance Level5% Damping0.6BOSTON, MASpectral Acceleration, g0.5Code0.40.3E0.2D0.1000.511.5Period, secFrom: 2009 NEHRP RECOMMENDED SEISMIC PROVISIONS FOR NEW BUILDINGS ANDOTHER STRUCTURES: PART 2, COMMENTARY TO ASCE/SEI 7-05 SeismicDesignCategorySeismicDesign CategoryHaley & Aldrich, Inc. 2018SeismicDesignCategorySeismicDesign Category0.70.7SDSSpectral Acceleration, g0.50.5RISK CAT. RISK CAT.IVI OR II, IIIC0.4DSDS0.5Therefore, for Boston Risk Cat. I or II, III: Site Class E leads to SDC C Site Class D leads to SDC BSEISMIC DESIGNCATEGORYBASED ON SD10.33BCESD1 RISK CAT. RISK CAT.I OR II, IIIIV0.20.1670.10.6BOSTON, MA0.30.2BBSEISMIC DESIGNCATEGORYBASED ON SDS5% DampingSpectral Acceleration, gSEISMIC DESIGNCATEGORYBASED ON SDS0.6DCDBC0.1330.5C0.4Therefore, for Boston Risk Cat. IV: Site Class E leads to SDC D Site Class D leads to SDC CDSEISMIC DESIGNCATEGORYBASED ON SD10.33BC0.2ESD1 RISK CAT. RISK CAT.I OR II, iod, sec 5% DampingBOSTON, MA0.30.067BRISK CAT. RISK CAT.IVI OR II, IIIHaley & Aldrich, Inc. 20180.511.5Period, sec Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 201817
al DesignExampleExampleDesign Impacts of Seismic Code ProvisionsSeismic HazardSite Effects Proposed Building, 10 story, 400,000 sq. ft. Initial Site Class from Borings/SPT was E (SDC C)Design Response Spectrum (SDS & SD1)Risk Category(I, II, III, or IV) Cross-hole Shear Wave Measurements Performed at Site Average Shear Wave Velocity 600 ft/s, Site Class D (SDC B)Seismic DesignCategory Cost Savings on Steel 2.50/sq. ft. (total 1.1M!!)Structural Fire ProtectionOtherNon-StructuralHaley & Aldrich, Inc. 2011ImpactsononFireProtectionImpactsFire tructuralComponentsImpactsOther Non-StructuralComponents IBC 2015 Architectural, Mechanical, Electrical & Other Non-StructuralSystems and Components 9th Edition MA Building Code – High-Rise Building defined as abuilding more than 70 ft in height above grade plane. Our Experience: Cost of Water Tank between 100-200k PlusProgram IssuesFEMA News PhotoFEMA News PhotoFEMA News Photo18
gRemarks Code Seismic Provisions (esp. SDC) Can Have Significant CostImpacts on a Project Relevant GeotechnicalSeismic Design Parametersthat Impact Building Design Site-Specific Response Analysis May Reduce Seismic Loads butNot Necessarily Improve SDC How toDetermine Relevant Seismic Design Good Field Investigation Program May Provide Significant CostBenefits What Seismic Design CategoryParametersMeans for YourProjectThank you!Any questions?19
From Seismic Hazard Maps (MCE R) Site Effects Amplification Factors Function of Site Class Site Effects -General Procedure. 3/6/2018 10 Site Effects -Site Coefficients F a& F v From: International Building Code 2015 IBC 2015 Site Effects -Site Coefficients Hazard Maps give
Geotechnical Design & Construction Mir Zaheer P.E. INDOT Geotechnical Services Division Geotechnical Report A tool used to communicate the site conditions and design and construction recommendations to the roadway design, bridge design, and construction personnel. Comprehensive Geotechnical Reports (GRs):
In the past the USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps website has been used for characterizing the seismic hazard for a specific site. However, in an effort to make the 2014 USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps static the maps will be hosted at a different location which is not known at this time. WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual, M46-03.11, 2015.
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 .
Should tall buildings be treated like other buildings? Tall buildings are occupied by hundreds if not thousands of people The consequence of failure of tall buildings is much more severe than an ordinary building Codes provide a “one size fits all” approach to seismic design. Tall buildings as small class of specialized
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
