Project 17 Report to Provisions Update Committee April 12, 2017

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Evaluating and Communicating Seismic Risk in Low Probability - High Consequence Earthquake Regions Terry E. Tullis Brown University Chair, National Earthquake.

Advertisements

Updates on Ground Motion and Geotechnical Data Requirements in the 2013 CBC Jorge F. Meneses, PhD, PE, GE, D.GE, F.ASCE Carlsbad, California consulting.

EPRI/SOG Mmax –Six earth-science teams, diverse methods largest observed eq (+ increment) catalog statistics – extreme occurrences seismogenic feature:

2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II1 UCERF3.2: Hazard Implications Hazard comparison metrics Inversion testing –Convergence and eqn. set weighting.

Ground Motions Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering: Steve Kramer

Seismic Code Highlights Determining what level of Seismic Restraints are Required Arkansas Fire Prevention Code 2002 Based on the IBC 2000.

SPATIAL CORRELATION OF SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS Paolo Bazzurro, Jaesung Park and Nimal Jayaram 1.

Seismic Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings Ronald O. Hamburger Senior Principal Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. Quake Summit 2010 October 8, 2010.

TBI Committee Members Y. Bozorgnia C.B. Crouse J.P. Stewart

Further Development of Site Response in NGA Models PEER Lifelines Program NGA-West2 Project Topic #8 Working Group Meeting Kickoff MeetingApril 20, 2010.

Keck Telescope Seismic Upgrade Design Support - Progress Report Frank Kan Andrew Sarawit 4 May 2011 (Revised 5 May 2011)

IRENG07 1 Seismic Consideration Discussion for The Interaction Region Fred Asiri-SLAC.

New “Risk-Targeted” Seismic Maps Introduced into USA Building Codes

GMSM Methodology and Terminology Christine Goulet, UCLA GMSM Core Members.

© Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. 1 Development of Performance-based Seismic Design Standards & Criteria Ronald O. Hamburger, SE, SECB Senior.

Further Development of Site Response in NGA Models PEER Lifelines Program NGA-West2 Project Topic #8 Working Group Meeting Meeting #2October 26, 2010.

Science for a changing world The USGS and the Development of the Nevada Great Basin Community Velocity Model.

Characterization of Ground Motion Hazard PEER Summative Meeting - June 13, 2007 Yousef Bozorgnia PEER Associate Director.

Code Minimum Base Shear Requirements February 2007 Joe Maffei RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE.

PEER “Sponsored” Research Projects Yousef Bozorgnia, Ph.D., P.E. PEER Associate Director October 9, 2007.

Seismic Instrumentation and Monitoring Needs of US Nuclear Power Plants Dr. Annie Kammerer Seismic Instrumentation Technology Symposium November 2009.

Seismic Upgrade Risk versus Benefit Shawn Callahan Mike Pollard 5/31/11.

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency US NRC Approach for Seismic Hazard Assessments INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON LESSONS LEARNED FROM STRONG EARTHQUAKES.

Michael Hodges, Chris Kohlenberger, Nolan Mattox, and Christian Vanderwall Seismic Hazard Map Plugin Improvement of ShakeMap Plugin Custom Color Maps Team.

Review and Validation of ISAT Performance Levels for 2006 and Beyond MetriTech, Inc. Champaign, IL MetriTech, Inc. Champaign, IL.

Updating the Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges Status update for the Mid-America Ground Motion Workshop February 2003.

Feasibility Level Evaluation of Seismic Stability for Remedy Selection Senda Ozkan, Tetra Tech Inc. Gary Braun, Tetra Tech Inc.

Opportunities for NEES Research Utilization Robert D Hanson Professor Emeritus University of Michigan.

Major Ongoing Ground Motion Research Programs at PEER Yousef Bozorgnia, Ph.D., P.E. PEER, University of California, Berkeley.

FEMA/ EARTH SCIENCE ASPECTS OF HAZUS Ivan Wong Seismic Hazards Group URS Corporation Oakland, CA.

Earthquake hazard isn’t a physical thing we measure. It's something mapmakers define and then use computer programs to predict. To decide how much to believe.

Many Faults, Many Rupture Scenarios for So. NV J. Louie, EGGE 3/25/2011  Japan and Christchurch Lesson: Don’t Ignore Worst Case! dePolo, 2008, NBMG Map.

Probabilistic Ground Motions for Scoggins Dam, Oregon Chris Wood Seismotectonics & Geophysics Group Technical Service Center July 2012.

Overview of the “Recommended LRFD Seismic Design Specifications for Highway Bridges” Ian M. Friedland, P.E. Bridge Technology Engineer Federal Highway.

Epistemic Uncertainty on the Median Ground Motion of Next-Generation Attenuation (NGA) Models Brian Chiou and Robert Youngs The Next Generation of Research.

Translating the 2009 Provisions into ASCE 7-10: Ground Motions Maps

Crisis2007. Map data Enter GIS files,.shp (ArcGIS) format Not necessary. Only usefull to see where the sources are.

EERI Seminar on Next Generation Attenuation Models Development of Corresponding Building Code “Design” Maps Nicolas Luco Research Structural Engineer USGS.

RMR Task Force Decision Points for ERCOT Technical Advisory Committee April 3, 2003.

Scoring Criteria and Evaluation Process for the Used Oil Nonprofit Grant Program (7 th cycle – UNP7) FY 2006/2007; and the Used Oil Research, Testing,

1J. Baker Jack Baker Civil & Environmental Engineering Stanford University Use of elastic & inelastic response spectra properties to validate simulated.

Some General Implications of Results Because hazard estimates at a point are often dominated by one or a few faults, an important metric is the participation.

Department of Civil Engineering National Taiwan University National Taiwan University Generation of Uniform Hazard Accelerogram Representing from “Dominant.

GIS APPLICATIONS IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING: NORTHWEST TURKEY

NGA Project Review and Status Norm Abrahamson NGA Workshop #5 March, 2004.

Workshop and Work Group Program/Programmatic Overview By the California Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Analysis Work Group.

EERI Seminar on Next Generation Attenuation Models Updates to Maps for the 2015 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC)

A SAMPLING OF BRIDGE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA BY MARK YASHINSKY, CALTRANS OFFICE OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING Most bridge owners have adopted design criteria.

ARMA Spring Committees Low-Slope Committee March 24, 2009 Codes Steering Group Report Aaron R. Phillips, CSG Chair Staff: Michael Fischer, John Ferraro.

Basics Of Seismic Vibration Control

NGA Dataset Brian Chiou NGA Workshop #5 March 24, 2004.

SCEC UGMS Committee Meeting

2020 NEHRP Provisions Issues Ground Motion

NGA-East Tentative Plan

CE 5603 Seismic Hazard Assessment

NEHRP Research: U.S. Geological Survey

Philip J. Maechling (SCEC) September 13, 2015

Seismic rated enclosures

Lesson Objectives: I will be able to …

Earthquake Load Formulation using ASCE7-05

P17 SDC* Working Group Meeting 2 *Seismic Design Category

Seismic Design of Fatima Al Zahra Mosque

SCEC UGMS Committee Meeting No. 6

LDG requires Excel and macros enabled.

Dr. Praveen K. Malhotra, P.E.

End-Users Needs in Seismic Hazard Analysis

Notes on the Intensity Measure Breakout Session - PEER Annual Meeting - Jan. 17, 2002 · Testbeds will not provide definitive answers as to the best.

ASCE 7 – Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis

What’s New in Dimension

Presentation transcript:

Project 17 Report to Provisions Update Committee April 12, 2017 Ronald O. Hamburger, SE Project 17 Chair www.sgh.com

Project Goal Work jointly with USGS Review present basis for development of design value maps Evaluate issues Recommend improvement and an updated basis for development of maps suitable for adoption into the 2020 NEHRP Provisions, ASCE 7-2022 and IBC 2024

Key Work Areas Update site class definitions (add more) to better align with modern ground motion prediction equations Re-evaluate risk basis for maps Attempt to provide stability in mapped ground motions and their effects on design

Fa & Fv and Design Response Spectra Issue resolved Eliminate Fa and Fv site coefficients from the Provisions Site class effects (as well as basin effects, where possible) will be directly included in the hazard analysis USGS will publish spectral acceleration values for: Multiple site classes Multiple natural periods (0.01,…., 5 or 10 sec)

Re-evaluate Risk Basis for Maps Options- Stay with Risk Targeted MCER (1% collapse in 50 years) and deterministic caps (ASCE 7-10 & 7-16) Revert to Uniform Hazard MCE (2% exceedance probability in 50 years) w/ deterministic caps (ASCE 7-05) Revert to Uniform Hazard with lower return period (~1,000 years) & eliminate deterministic caps (new) Resolution None yet but slight preference for #1 followed by #3

Provide stability in mapped values Stability in ground-motion maps from code cycle to cycle not as important as stability in Seismic Design Categories (SDC) Currently being studied by NEHRP PUC (IT-01) The number of SDCs (currently 4 SDCs) The things SDCs determine The triggering ground motion levels for each Resolution Go to separate SDC Map, computed for a “conservative” default site class in each region Eliminate ability to adjust SDC based on site class