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.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Números.
Advertisements

Trend for Precision Soil Testing % Zone or Grid Samples Tested compared to Total Samples.
Trend for Precision Soil Testing % Zone or Grid Samples Tested compared to Total Samples.
AGVISE Laboratories %Zone or Grid Samples – Northwood laboratory
Trend for Precision Soil Testing % Zone or Grid Samples Tested compared to Total Samples.
FIG_18.jpg.
Worksheets.
Sequential Logic Design
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Seismic Design of Bridges
Create an Application Title 1Y - Youth Chapter 5.
Add Governors Discretionary (1G) Grants Chapter 6.
CALENDAR.
CHAPTER 18 The Ankle and Lower Leg
2.11.
The 5S numbers game..
A Fractional Order (Proportional and Derivative) Motion Controller Design for A Class of Second-order Systems Center for Self-Organizing Intelligent.
Numerical Analysis 1 EE, NCKU Tien-Hao Chang (Darby Chang)
The basics for simulations
Charlie Burchfield – Univ. of Mississippi
Prepared by: Hamed Odeh Submitted to: Dr.Monther Diab
Regression with Panel Data
1 Prediction of electrical energy by photovoltaic devices in urban situations By. R.C. Ott July 2011.
Copyright © 2012, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved. 1 Chapter 7 Modeling Structure with Blocks.
consulting engineers and scientists
FAFSA on the Web Preview Presentation December 2013.
CSE 6007 Mobile Ad Hoc Wireless Networks
MaK_Full ahead loaded 1 Alarm Page Directory (F11)
Facebook Pages 101: Your Organization’s Foothold on the Social Web A Volunteer Leader Webinar Sponsored by CACO December 1, 2010 Andrew Gossen, Senior.
When you see… Find the zeros You think….
2011 WINNISQUAM COMMUNITY SURVEY YOUTH RISK BEHAVIOR GRADES 9-12 STUDENTS=1021.
Before Between After.
2011 FRANKLIN COMMUNITY SURVEY YOUTH RISK BEHAVIOR GRADES 9-12 STUDENTS=332.
Slide R - 1 Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Pearson Prentice Hall Active Learning Lecture Slides For use with Classroom Response.
12 October, 2014 St Joseph's College ADVANCED HIGHER REVISION 1 ADVANCED HIGHER MATHS REVISION AND FORMULAE UNIT 2.
THE NATIONAL GALLERY STRUCTURE CHART As at 30 JUNE 2010.
1 Non Deterministic Automata. 2 Alphabet = Nondeterministic Finite Accepter (NFA)
Static Equilibrium; Elasticity and Fracture
Resistência dos Materiais, 5ª ed.
Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved Chapter 11 Simple Linear Regression.
Lial/Hungerford/Holcomb/Mullins: Mathematics with Applications 11e Finite Mathematics with Applications 11e Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. All.
Employment Ontario Literacy and Basic Skills Performance Management Reports Training For Service Providers.
WARNING This CD is protected by Copyright Laws. FOR HOME USE ONLY. Unauthorised copying, adaptation, rental, lending, distribution, extraction, charging.
9. Two Functions of Two Random Variables
A Data Warehouse Mining Tool Stephen Turner Chris Frala
1 Dr. Scott Schaefer Least Squares Curves, Rational Representations, Splines and Continuity.
1 Non Deterministic Automata. 2 Alphabet = Nondeterministic Finite Accepter (NFA)
ENGINEERING MECHANICS CHAPTER 7
Presented to: By: Date: Federal Aviation Administration FAA Safety Team FAASafety.gov AMT Awards Program Sun ‘n Fun Bryan Neville, FAASTeam April 21, 2009.
úkol = A 77 B 72 C 67 D = A 77 B 72 C 67 D 79.
Seismic Code Highlights Determining what level of Seismic Restraints are Required Arkansas Fire Prevention Code 2002 Based on the IBC 2000.
Charles SCAWTHORN Junji KIYONO Kyoto University Earthquake Risk Reduction 3- Mitigation and ERR Program Development 1. Concepts and Terminology 2. Hazard,
Lecture 2 January 19, 2006.
IRENG07 1 Seismic Consideration Discussion for The Interaction Region Fred Asiri-SLAC.
Characterization of Ground Motion Hazard PEER Summative Meeting - June 13, 2007 Yousef Bozorgnia PEER Associate Director.
LESSONS FROM PAST NOTABLE EARTHQUAKES. Part III Walter Hays, Global Alliance for Disaster Reduction, Vienna, Virginia, USA.
December 3-4, 2007Earthquake Readiness Workshop Seismic Design Considerations Mike Sheehan.
Feasibility Level Evaluation of Seismic Stability for Remedy Selection Senda Ozkan, Tetra Tech Inc. Gary Braun, Tetra Tech Inc.
LIQUEFACTION FAILURE OF FOUNDATION - STRUCTURE COLLAPSE.
LESSONS FROM PAST NOTABLE EARTHQUAKES. Part IV Walter Hays, Global Alliance for Disaster Reduction, Vienna, Virginia, USA.
Overview of the “Recommended LRFD Seismic Design Specifications for Highway Bridges” Ian M. Friedland, P.E. Bridge Technology Engineer Federal Highway.
Translating the 2009 Provisions into ASCE 7-10: Ground Motions Maps
EERI Seminar on Next Generation Attenuation Models Updates to Maps for the 2015 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC)
Printout 4 slides per page, give for questions by
Project 17 Report to Provisions Update Committee April 12, 2017
BRIDGES MOST IMPORTANT GEOTECHNICAL EFFECT- LIQUEFACTION
Seismic rated enclosures
Earthquake Load Formulation using ASCE7-05
Dr. Praveen K. Malhotra, P.E.
Presentation transcript:

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 engineers and scientists AEG Inland Empire Chapter Continuing Education Series May 31, 2014

Overview Design earthquakes Maximum direction Risk-targeted General procedure Examples Geotechnical Requirements Summary Outline

Building Code Cycle 2012 NEHRP 2009ASCE 7-10IBC 2012 (Effective January 1, 2014)

Source, Path and Site

Evaluating Seismic Hazard and Ground Motions

Some definitions Definitions –Hazard: a phenomenon that has the potential to cause damage –Risk: the probability that damage will occur In general, it is accepted that Earthquake Hazard cannot be avoided Hence, the philosophy behind building codes is to “mitigate risk” –We can’t avoid earthquakes, so we will build structures that can withstand earthquakes Key concept: acceptable risk

MCE R The most severe earthquake effects considered by ASCE 7-10 determined for the orientation that results in the largest maximum response to horizontal ground motions and with adjustment for targeted risk (ASCE 7-10, Chapter 11, p.60) RISK-TARGETED MAXIMUM CONSIDERED EARTHQUAKE (MCE R ) GROUND MOTION RESPONSE ACCELERATION

MCE G The most severe earthquake effects considered by ASCE 7-10 determined for geometric mean peak ground acceleration and without adjustment for targeted risk The MCE G PGA adjusted for site effects (PGA M ) is used for evaluation of liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismic settlements, and other soil related issues. MAXIMUM CONSIDERED EARTHQUAKE GEOMETRIC MEAN (MCE G ) PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION (ASCE 7-10, Chapter 11, p.60)

Orientation of Maximum Response (Max. direction)

Maximum direction

Geomean and maximum S a (Whittaker et al 2009)

Landers, Joshua Tree

Loma Prieta, LGPC

DUZCE, BOLU

Directivity Effects on Ground Motions

Comparison of various models S aRotD100 /S aRotD50 (Shahi and Baker 2013)

Ground motion values contoured on maps incorporate factors to adjust from a geometric mean to the maximum response regardless of direction These factors are 1.1 for 0.2 second spectral response acceleration (S S ) and 1.3 for 1.0 second spectral response acceleration (S 1 ) Maximum Response (ASCE 7-10, Figures 22-1 through 22-6)

General procedure Use mapped values and tables from code USGS Seismic design maps web application

Seismic Ground Motion Values (ASCE 7-10, Chapter 11, p.65-66)

S S, S 1 Fa, Fv S MS, S M1 S DS, S D1 Site Class B

Site Classification (ASCE 7-10, Chapter 20, p.204)

Site Coefficient F a Site class Mapped risk-targeted MCE R S a at short second S s ≤ 0.25S s = 0.50S s = 0.75S s = 1.0S s ≥ 1.25 A0.8 B1.0 C D E FSite-specific study required (Chapter 11, p.66)

Site Coefficient F v Site class Mapped risk-targeted MCE R S a at 1 second S 1 ≤ 0.1S 1 = 0.2S 1 = 0.3S 1 = 0.4S 1 ≥ 0.5 A0.8 B1.0 C D E FSite-specific study required (Chapter 11, p.66)

S DS = 2/3*S MS = S D1 =2/3*S M1 =0.454 S S1S1 S M1 =F v *S 1 T o =0.10T S =0.48 S a = S DS ( T/T o ) PGA = 0.4 S DS = S DS /2.5 PGA = 0.378g SAN DIEGO SITE SITE CLASS C (F a = 1.0, F v = 1.3) Period (seconds) Spectral Acceleration (g) MCE R Site Class B MCE R Site Class C DE = 2/3 MCE R 5 percent damping S a = S D1 /T T o = 0.2 S D1 /S DS T s = S D1 /S DS *F a = S MS

Risk Category of Buildings Use or occupancy of buildings and structuresRisk category Buildings and other structures that represent a low risk to human life in the event of failure I All buildings and other structures except those listed in Risk Categories I, III, and IV II Buildings and other structures, the failure of which could pose a substantial risk to human life III Buildings and other structures designated as essential facilities. Buildings and other structures, the failure of which could pose a substantial hazard to the community IV (Chapter 1, p.2)

Seismic Design Category based on S 1 Value of S DS Risk category I or II or IIIIV S 1 ≥ 0.75EF S 1 < 0.75See following tables (Chapter 11, p. 67)

Seismic Design Category based on S DS Value of S DS Risk category I or II or IIIIV S DS < 0.167AA ≤ S DS < 0.33BC 0.33 ≤ S DS < 0.50CD 0.50 ≤ S DS DD (Chapter 11, p. 67)

Seismic Design Category based on S D1 Value of S DS1 Risk category I or II or IIIIV S D1 < 0.067AA ≤ S D1 < 0.133BC ≤ S D1 < 0.20CD 0.20 ≤ S D1 DD (Chapter 11, p. 67)

Seismic design category D through F For liquefaction studies PGA M = F PGA PGA PGA M = MCE G PGA adjusted for site effects PGA = Mapped MCE G PGAs F PGA = Site coefficients (see table) (ASCE 7-10, Section , p.68-69)

Site coefficient F PGA Site class Mapped MCE G PGA PGA ≤ 0.1PGA = 0.2PGA = 0.3PGA = 0.4PGA ≥ 0.5 A0.8 B1.0 C D E FSite-specific study required (ASCE 7-10, Chapter 11, p.68)

Location of three selected sites Rose Canyon- Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone Coronado Bank Fault Zone San Diego Trough Fault Zone

Comparison of design response spectra

Site 2

Site 3

Site 2

Site Class E? Watch out!

Site Class E?

Site Class E? S M1 > S MS !

Comparison of S DS (Luco 2009)

Comparison of S D1

S DS – Southern California (OSHPD 2012)

S DS – Northern California

Maxima and Minima Values for California Maxima S s = 3.73 g S 1 = 1.28 g Minima S s = g S 1 = g S DS = 0.22 g S D1 = 0.17 g

Seismic design category D through F For seismic lateral earth pressures: The determination of dynamic seismic lateral earth pressures on foundation walls and retaining walls supporting more than 6 feet (1.83m) of backfill height due to design earthquake ground motions (2013 CBC, Section 1803A.5.12, p. 177)

Seismic design category D through F An assessment of potential consequences of liquefaction and soil strength loss, including, but not limited to: -Estimation of total and differential settlement -Lateral soil movement -Lateral soil loads on foundations -Reduction in foundation soil-bearing capacity and lateral soil reaction -Soil downdrag and reduction in axial and lateral soil reaction for pile foundations -Increases in soil lateral pressures on retaining walls (2013 CBC, Section 1803A.5.12, p. 177)

Seismic design category D through F Discussion of mitigation measures such as, but not limited to: -Selection of appropriate foundation type and depths -Selection of appropriate structural systems to accommodate anticipated displacements and forces -Ground stabilization -Any combination of these measures and how they shall be considered in the design of the structure (2013 CBC, Section 1803A.5.12, p. 177)

Geotechnical Peer Review (DSA-SS and DSA-SS/CC) When alternate foundations designs or ground improvements are employed or where slope stabilization is required, a qualified peer review by a California-licensed geotechnical engineer, in accordance with Section 3422, may be required by the enforcement agency. In Section 3422, where reference is made to structural or seismic-resisting system, it shall be replaced with geotechnical, foundation, or ground improvement, as appropriate. (2013 CBC, Section 1803A.8, p. 178)

Retaining Walls – Design lateral soil loads Retaining walls shall be designed for the lateral loads determined by a geotechnical investigation in accordance with Section 1803A and shall not be less than eighty percent of the lateral soil loads determined in accordance with Section 1610A. (2013 CBC, Section 1803A.8, p. 178)

Table 1610A.1 Lateral Soil Load (2013 CBC, Section 11610A, p. 87)

Contact Jorge F. Meneses, PhD, PE, GE, D.GE, F.ASCE (760) For further information