Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Are You Communicating Seismic Concepts Correctly

    Uploaded by

    jj710
    9 views3 pages
    Are You Communicating Seismic Concepts Correctly?

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Are You Communicating Seismic Concepts Correctly?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views3 pages

    Are You Communicating Seismic Concepts Correctly

    Uploaded by

    jj710
    Are You Communicating Seismic Concepts Correctly?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3
    Are You Communicating Seismic Concepts Correctly? premiere tructural engineers know the mechanics of International YI Cee S Bolling bt col agce 0 to PRACTICES know how co get S, and S; fora site and apply the equations to calculate aseismic esponse coefficient (C) chat is used to calculate the seismic base shear, which is used to sie the seismic resisting clements of the building. However, many do not understand the background behind the equations and the coeficients. The purpose ofthis article iso ‘establish a foundation fora common understand: ing as an aid in discussing seismic concepts with ‘owners, clients, and other engineers. Earthquakes vs. Ground Motion wand motion Engineers design for a specific g shaking intensity, nota specific earthquake. “The IBC mandates the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) must be considered in the design process Earthquakes cause the catth to shake. Ie i che ground shaking caused by the earthquake hat cases building movement and damage. The code writers didnt do usany fivors by using the terms Masinuom Considered Earthquake and Design Earthguate (sometimes refered to asthe Design Basis Earthquake). Using chese terms alone implies that we are designing for a specific earch- ‘quake. The MCE isa ground shaking intensity given asa response acceleration, which is gener ally caused by a range of earthquakes of different ‘maghicudes from several earthquake sources, or in some areas, a single earthquake from a dominanc earthquake source. Engincers should be clear and use the phrase Maximum Considered Fardhguake Ground Motion wo emaphasize that itis the ground ‘motion shaking incensity we are designing for and not the earthquake. Beginning in 2012, the IBC established a tsk: modified MCE, which is based ona. uniform risk of building collapse (1% in 50 years or 1/5000 per yea), and results in che same rsk ofa building collapse in New York, Atlanta, Seat, andthe rest ofthe country. The Uniform Hazard MCE ground shaking intensity i no longer used in building design See Talking Point #16). o gethe MCE, the Unifoer Hazard ground shaking intensity i increased or decreased uni here isa 19 probability of building collapse in 50 years. In mos areas of che country, the code shaking intensity is reduced from the Uniform Hazard, meaning tha shaking imensic ‘matching the MCE sikely wo occur more often than shaking intensity matching che older MCE. The MCE isthe ground shaking intensity that the IBC requires to be considered, but larger shaking intensities are possible, In realty, the MCE, should be thought of as ‘ground shal ed g intensity that must be consi Aspecfic fault ruprare or aspecfic magnitude earth {quake may nor causean MCE level ground shaking incensiy. A faulecould rupeure many times before it results in the MCE, level ground shaking intensity being reached or exceeded. The maximum expected ‘earthquake on a fault may nor cause an MCE level ‘ground shaking intensity, bue conversely iis also Possible thar ir could cause the MCE level ground shaking intensity o be exceeded Even though the MCEy isthe considered ground shaking intensicy, building design and perfor mance i usually based on an intensity of 34 ofthe MCE (see Talking Poine #8), which this article wll call che design ground shaking incensit. Code Performance Expectations Ie is important co understand the life saery per formance expectations of the code and to be able to clearly communicate these to clients and build ing owners. Although the term Life Safety has specific mean- ing to engineers itcan have other interpretations and be misconstrued by clients and owners. Three key damage stares not specifically men- tioned but implied by the IBC are Immediate Occupancy, Life Safery, and Collapse Prevention, A building owner who would be satisfied with 2 Collapse Prevention damage state may say that they want a Life Safety damage stare because they misunderstand the terms. Here are simple definitions of performance expec ‘+ Immediate Occupancy: A building can be used after some cleanup occurs and can be occupied during the repairs to fix building damage. «+ Life Safery. A building could have significant seructural damage, but ic hha reserve structural capacity to resist afvershocks. The building may not be able to be occupied until after repairs are made, + Collapse Prevention: A building has been pphod tothe limits of ies strength and st and is on the verge of collapse. Aftershocks may cause the building to collapse For an accurate discussion of performance expectation, engineers must provide clients and building owners with a clear understanding ofthe expected building performance and the ground shaking intensity at which thar building per- formance is expected to occur. “The implied safety objective ofthe IBC isto achieve Life Safety ifthe building site experi ences aground shaking intensiy equal to the design ground shaking intensity (4 MCE) and to achieve Collapse Prevention if the building sice experiences a ground shaking incensty equal tothe MCE. “The IBC uses a Seismic Importance Factor of 1.5 for essential facilities to increase the strength of the building and reduce the duc- tility demand on the structure. The objective foran essential facility such asa hospital isto achieve Immediate Occupancy ifthe building site experiences ground shaking intensity equal tothe design ground shak- ing intensity (4 MCEq) and co achieve Life Safety ifthe building ste experiences 4 ground shaking intensity equal to the MCE. Note that a hospital may not be ‘operational if it experiences the MCE ‘ound shaking intensity. Talking Point #9 “The risk of collapse is reduced for build- ings that are designed using Seismic Importance Factors of 1.25 or 1.5. Seismic Imporcance Factors are intended to improve the building performance at the design ground shaking intensity @ MCEq) and atthe MCE, ground shaking intensity. Ths is accomplished by reduc- ing the Response Modification Factor (R). Note that the Seismic Importance Factoris notapplied to the demand coef- ficient (Ss oF Sp) Talking Point #10 “The IBC allows fora very small risk of building collapse. 1) There isa 1% in 50 years probability (1/5000 per yeae)thaca building will collapse due w a seismic event. 2) Up to 10% of buildings designed and constructed per the IBC could experience some collapse ‘when subjected to the MCE ground shaking intensity. Talking Point #11 "Nonsrucural components redesigned forthe design ground shaking intensity (?4 MCE,), and there are no performance goals for 2 ‘MCE level ground shaking inten: ‘Ar che design ground shaking intensity @ MCE,), components wich an I, = 1.0 can be expected to have major damage, bat significant filling hazards are avoided, ‘Components with an I= 15 can have lm ited damage, butshould remain functional “There should be no expectation that esental ‘components willbe operational for the MCE ground shaking intensity. At MCEs intensny, nonstructural elements ma fll causing loal- ined deaths Code Ground Motions “The following isa very brief description cov- ering basic concepts about how the S, and S; values found on the USGS website are derived. These values could be based on eicher a deterministic or a probabilistic ground ‘motion shaking intensity. Deterministic Ground Motions Talking Point #12 Adeterminisic ground motion analysis foraspe-

    You might also like