Fema 450
Fema 450
Fema 450
2003 Edition
RECOMMENDED PROVISIONS
FOR SEISMIC REGULATIONS
FOR NEW BUILDINGS
AND OTHER STRUCTURES (FEMA 450)
Part 2: Commentary
The Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) was established in 1979 under the auspices of the
National Institute of Building Sciences as an entirely new type of instrument for dealing with the
complex regulatory, technical, social, and economic issues involved in developing and promulgating
building earthquake hazard mitigation regulatory provisions that are national in scope. By bringing
together in the BSSC all of the needed expertise and all relevant public and private interests, it was
believed that issues related to the seismic safety of the built environment could be resolved and
jurisdictional problems overcome through authoritative guidance and assistance backed by a broad
consensus.
The BSSC is an independent, voluntary membership body representing a wide variety of building
community interests. Its fundamental purpose is to enhance public safety by providing a national forum
that fosters improved seismic safety provisions for use by the building community in the planning,
design, construction, regulation, and utilization of buildings.
See the back of this Commentary volume for a full description of BSSC activities.
2003 BSSC BOARD OF DIRECTION
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Secretary
Charles Carter, Chief Structural Engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago,
Illinois
Ex-Officio
Members
BSSC STAFF
Prepared by the
Building Seismic Safety Council
for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency
ii
CONTENTS
Chapter 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS ....................................................................................1
1.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................................1
1.1.1 Purpose ..........................................................................................................1
1.2 SEISMIC USE GROUPS..............................................................................................4
1.2.5 Seismic Use group III structure access protection ........................................8
1.3 OCCUPANCY IMPORTANCE FACTOR...................................................................8
1.4 SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY.................................................................................8
1.4.2 Site limitation for Seismic Design Categories E and F ...............................10
1.5 SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY A ...........................................................................10
1.5.1 Lateral forces ..............................................................................................10
1.5.2 Connections.................................................................................................11
1.5.3 Anchorage of concrete or masonry walls ....................................................11
Chapter 2 QUALITY ASSURANCE ...................................................................................13
2.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................13
2.1.1 Scope ...........................................................................................................13
2.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................14
2.3 SPECIAL INSPECTION ............................................................................................15
2.3.9 Architectural components ...........................................................................15
2.3.10 Mechanical and electrical components......................................................15
2.4 TESTING ....................................................................................................................16
2.4.5 Mechanical and electrical equipment ..........................................................16
2.5 STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS ...........................................................................16
2.6 REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES ...............................................16
Chapter 3 GROUND MOTION ...........................................................................................17
3.1 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................17
3.1.3 Definitions...................................................................................................17
3.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................18
3.2.2 Procedure selection .....................................................................................18
3.3 GENERAL PROCEDURE..........................................................................................18
3.3.2 Site coefficients and adjusted acceleration parameters ...............................19
3.3.4 Design response spectrum ...........................................................................26
3.4 SITE SPECIFIC PROCEDURE..................................................................................27
3.4.2 Deterministic maximum considered earthquake .........................................29
3.5 SITE CLASSIFICATION FOR SEISMIC DESIGN ..................................................29
3.5.1 Site class definitions....................................................................................29
3.5.2 Steps for classifying a site ...........................................................................30
Chapter 4 STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................35
4.1 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................35
4.1.2 References ..................................................................................................35
4.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................35
4.2.1 Design basis ................................................................................................35
4.2.2 Combination of load effects ........................................................................39
4.3 SEISMIC-FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEM ................................................................44
4.3.1 Selection and limitations .............................................................................44
4.3.2 Configuration ..............................................................................................47
4.3.3 Redundancy.................................................................................................51
iii
iv
vi
vii
viii
Chapter 1 Commentary
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Chapter 1 sets forth general requirements for applying the analysis and design provisions contained in
Chapters 2 through 14 of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings and Other Structures. It is similar to what might be incorporated in a code as administrative
regulations.
Chapter 1 is designed to be as compatible as possible with normal code administrative provisions, but it
is written as the guide to use of the rest of the document, not as a regulatory mechanism. The word
shall is used in the Provisions not as a legal imperative, but simply as the language necessary to
ensure fulfillment of all the steps necessary to technically meet a minimum standard of performance.
It is important to note that the Provisions is intended to serve as a resource document for use by any
interested member of the building community. Thus, some users may alter certain information within
the Provisions (e.g., the determination of which use groups are included within the higher Seismic Use
Groups might depend on whether the user concluded that the generally more-demanding design
requirements were necessary). It is strongly emphasized, however, that such tailoring should be
carefully considered by highly qualified individuals who are fully aware of all the implications of any
changes on all affected procedures in the analysis and design sequences of the document.
Further, although the Provisions is national in scope, it presents minimum criteria. It is neither intended
to nor does it justify any reduction in higher standards that have been locally established, particularly in
areas of highest seismicity.
Reference is made throughout the document to decisions and actions that are delegated to an unspecified
authority having jurisdiction. The document is intended to be applicable to many different types of
jurisdictions and chains of authority, and an attempt has been made to recognize situations where more
than technical decision-making can be presumed. In fact, the document anticipates the need to establish
standards and approval systems to accommodate the use of the document for development of a
regulatory system. A good example of this is in Sec. 1.1.2.5 where the need for well-established criteria
and systems of testing and approval are recognized even though few such systems are in place. In some
instances, the decision-making mechanism referred to is clearly most logically the province of a
building official or department; in others, it may be a law-making body such as a state legislature, a city
council, or some other state or local policy-making body. The term authority having jurisdiction has
been used to apply to all of these entities. A good example of the need for keeping such generality in
mind is provided by the California law concerning the design and construction of schools. That law
establishes requirements for independent special inspection approved and supervised by the Office of
the State Architect, a state-level office that does not exist in many other states.
Note that Appendix A to this Commentary volume presents a detailed explanation of the development of
Provisions Maps 1 through 24 and Appendix B describes development of the U.S. Geological Survey
seismic hazard maps on which the Provisions maps are based. An overview of the Building Seismic
Safety Council (BSSC) and its activities appears at the end of the volume.
1.1 GENERAL
1.1.1 Purpose. The goal of the Provisions is to present criteria for the design and construction of new
structures subject to earthquake ground motions in order to minimize the hazard to life for all structures,
to increase the expected performance of structures having a substantial public hazard due to occupancy
or use as compared to ordinary structures, and to improve the capability of essential facilities to function
after an earthquake. To this end, the Provisions provides the minimum criteria considered prudent for
the protection of life safety in structures subject to earthquakes. The Provisions document has been
reviewed extensively and balloted by the architectural, engineering, and construction communities and,
therefore, it is a proper source for the development of building codes in areas of seismic exposure.
Some design standards go further than the Provisions and attempt to minimize damage as well as protect
building occupants. For example, the California Building Code has added property protection in
relation to the design and construction of hospitals and public schools. The Provisions document
generally considers property damage as it relates to occupant safety for ordinary structures. For high
occupancy and essential facilities, damage limitation criteria are more strict in order to better provide for
the safety of occupants and the continued functioning of the facility.
Some structural and nonstructural damage can be expected as a result of the design ground motions
because the Provisions allow inelastic energy dissipation in the structural system. For ground motions
in excess of the design levels, the intent of the Provisions is for the structure to have a low likelihood of
collapse.
It must be emphasized that absolute safety and no damage even in an earthquake event with a
reasonable probability of occurrence cannot be achieved for most structures. However, a high degree of
life safety, albeit with some structural and nonstructural damage, can be achieved economically in
structures by allowing inelastic energy dissipation in the structure. The objective of the Provisions
therefore is to set forth the minimum requirements to provide reasonable and prudent life safety. For
most structures designed and constructed according to the Provisions, it is expected that structural
damage from even a major earthquake would likely be repairable, but the damage may not be
economically repairable.
Where damage control is desired, the design must provide not only sufficient strength to resist the
specified seismic loads but also the proper stiffness to limit the lateral deflection. Damage to
nonstructural elements may be minimized by proper limitation of deformations; by careful attention to
detail; and by providing proper clearances for exterior cladding, glazing, partitions, and wall panels.
The nonstructural elements can be separated or floated free and allowed to move independently of the
structure. If these elements are tied rigidly to the structure, they should be protected from deformations
that can cause cracking; otherwise, one must expect such damage. It should be recognized, however,
that major earthquake ground motions can cause deformations much larger than the specified drift limits
in the Provisions.
Where prescribed wind loading governs the stress or drift design, the resisting system still must conform
to the special requirements for seismic-force-resisting systems. This is required in order to resist, in a
ductile manner, potential seismic loadings in excess of the prescribed loads.
A proper, continuous load path is an obvious design requirement for equilibrium, but experience has
shown that it often is overlooked and that significant damage and collapse can result. The basis for this
design requirement is twofold:
1. To ensure that the design has fully identified the seismic-force-resisting system and its appropriate
design level and
2. To ensure that the design basis is fully identified for the purpose of future modifications or changes
in the structure.
Detailed requirements for selecting or identifying and designing this load path are given in the
appropriate design and materials chapters.
1.1.2.1 Scope. The scope statement establishes in general terms the applicability of the Provisions as a
base of reference. Certain structures are exempt and need not comply:
General Provisions
1. Detached one- and two-family dwellings in Seismic Design Categories A, B, and C are exempt
because they represent low seismic risks.
2. Structures constructed using the conventional light-frame construction requirements in Sec. 12.5 are
deemed capable of resisting the seismic forces imposed by the Provisions. While specific elements
of conventional light-frame construction may be calculated to be overstressed, there is typically a
great deal of redundancy and uncounted resistance in such structures. Detached one- and two-story
wood-frame dwellings have generally performed well even in regions of higher seismicity. The
requirements of Sec. 12.5 are adequate to provide the safety required for such dwellings without
imposing any additional requirements of the Provisions.
3. Agricultural storage structures are generally exempt from most code requirements because of the
exceptionally low risk to life involved and that is the case of the Provisions.
4. Structures in areas with extremely low seismic risk need only comply with the design and detailing
requirements for structures assigned to Seismic Design Category A.
The Provisions are not retroactive and apply only to existing structures when there is an addition,
change of use, or alteration. As a minimum, existing structures should comply with legally adopted
regulations for repair and rehabilitation as related to earthquake resistance. (Note: Publications such as
the Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of BuildingsA Prestandard [FEMA 310] and the
Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings [FEMA 356] are available.)
The Provisions are not written to prevent damage due to earth slides (such as those that occurred in
Anchorage, Alaska), to liquefaction (such as occurred in Niigata, Japan), or to tsunami (such as
occurred in Hilo, Hawaii). It provides for only minimum required resistance to earthquake ground
shaking, without settlement, slides, subsidence, or faulting in the immediate vicinity of the structure.
1.1.2.2 Additions. Additions that are structurally independent of an existing structure are considered to
be new structures required to comply with the Provisions. For additions that are not structurally
independent, the intent is that the addition as well as the existing structure be made to comply with the
Provisions except that an increase of up to 5 percent of the mass contributing to seismic forces is
permitted in any elements of the existing structure without bringing the entire structure into compliance
with the Provisions. Additions also shall not reduce the lateral force resistance of any existing element
to less than that required for a new structure.
1.1.2.3 Change of use. When a change in the use of a structure will result in the structure being
reclassified to a higher Seismic Use Group, the existing structure must be brought into compliance with
the requirements of the Provisions as if it were a new structure. Structures in higher Seismic Use
Groups are intended to provide a higher level of safety to occupants and in the case of Seismic Use
Group III to be capable of performing their safety-related function after a seismic event. An exception
is allowed when the change is from Seismic Use Group I to Seismic Use Group II where SDS is less than
0.3. The expense that may be necessary to upgrade such a structure because of a change in the Seismic
Use Group cannot be justified for structures located in regions with low seismic risk.
1.1.2.4 Alterations. Alterations include all significant modifications to existing structures that are not
classified as an addition. No reduction in strength of the seismic-force-resisting system or stiffness of
the structure shall result from an alteration unless the altered structure is determined to be in compliance
with the Provisions.
Like additions, an increase of not greater than 5 percent of the mass contributing to seismic forces is
permitted in any structural element of the existing structure without bringing the entire structure into
compliance with the Provisions.
The cumulative effects of alterations and additions should not increase the seismic forces in any
structural element of the existing structure by more than 5 percent unless the capacity of the element
subject to the increased seismic forces is still in compliance with the Provisions.
1.1.2.5 Alternate materials and alternate means and methods of construction. It is not possible for
a design standard to provide criteria for the use of all possible materials and their combinations and
methods of construction either existing or anticipated. While not citing specific materials or methods of
construction currently available that require approval, this section serves to emphasize the fact that the
evaluation and approval of alternate materials and methods require a recognized and accepted approval
system. The requirements for materials and methods of construction contained within the document
represent the judgment of the best use of the materials and methods based on well-established expertise
and historical seismic performance. It is important that any replacement or substitute be evaluated with
an understanding of all the ramifications of performance, strength, and durability implied by the
Provisions.
It also is recognized that until needed approval standards and agencies are created, authorities having
jurisdiction will have to operate on the basis of the best evidence available to substantiate any
application for alternates. If accepted standards are lacking, it is strongly recommended that
applications be supported by extensive reliable data obtained from tests simulating, as closely as is
practically feasible, the actual load and/or deformation conditions to which the material is expected to
be subjected during the service life of the structure. These conditions, where applicable, should include
several cycles of full reversals of loads and deformations in the inelastic range.
General Provisions
required for post-earthquake response and recovery. In a rural location where there may not be a major
hospital, the authority having jurisdiction may choose to require outpatient surgery clinics to be
designated Group III structures. On the other hand, these same clinics in a major jurisdiction with
hospitals nearby may not need to be designated Group III structures.
Group II structures are those having a large number of occupants and those where the occupants ability
to exit is restrained. The potential density of public assembly uses in terms of number of people warrant
an extra level of care. The level of protection warranted for schools, day care centers, and medical
facilities is greater than the level of protection warranted for occupancies where individuals are
relatively self-sufficient in responding to an emergency.
Group I contains all uses other than those excepted generally from the requirements in Sec. 1.1.2.1.
Those in Group I have lesser life hazard only insofar as there is the probability of fewer occupants in the
structures and the structures are lower and/or smaller.
In structures with multiple uses, the 1988 Edition of the Provisions required that the structure be
assigned the classification of the highest group occupying 15 percent or more of the total area of the
structure. This was changed in the 1991 Edition to require the structure to be assigned to the highest
group present. These requirements were further modified to allow different portions of a structure to be
assigned different Seismic Use Groups provided the higher group is not negatively impacted by the
lower group. When a lower group impacts a higher group, the higher group must either be seismically
independent of the other, or the two must be in one structure designed seismically to the standards of the
higher group. Care must be taken, however, for the case in which the two uses are seismically
independent but are functionally dependent. The fire and life-safety requirements relating to exiting,
occupancy, fire-resistive construction and the like of the higher group must not be reduced by
interconnection to the lower group. Conversely, one must also be aware that there are instances,
although uncommon, where certain fire and life-safety requirements for a lower group may be more
restrictive than those for the higher group. Such assignments also must be considered when changes are
made in the use of a structure even though existing structures are not generally within the scope of the
Provisions.
Consideration has been given to reducing the number of groupings by combining Groups I and II and
leaving Group III the same as is stated above; however, the consensus of those involved in the
Provisions development and update efforts to date is that such a merging would not be responsive to the
relative performance desired of structures in these individual groups.
Although the Provisions explicitly require design for only a single level of ground motion, it is expected
that structures designed and constructed in accordance with these requirements will generally be able to
meet a number of performance criteria, when subjected to earthquake ground motions of differing
severity. The performance criteria discussed here were jointly developed during the BSSC Guidelines
and Commentary for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings Project (ATC, 1995) and the Structural
Engineers Association of California Vision 2000 Project (SEAOC, 1995). In the system established by
these projects, earthquake performance of structures is defined in terms of several standardized
performance levels and reference ground motion levels. Each performance level is defined by a limiting
state in which specified levels of degradation and damage have occurred to the structural and
nonstructural building components. The ground motion levels are defined in terms of their probability
of exceedance.
Although other terminology has been used in some documents, four performance levels are commonly
described as meaningful for the design of structures. These may respectively be termed the operational,
immediate occupancy, life safety, and collapse prevention levels. Of these, the operational level
represents the least level of damage to the structure. Structures meeting this level when responding to
an earthquake are expected to experience only negligible damage to their structural systems and minor
damage to nonstructural systems. The structure will retain nearly all of its pre-earthquake strength and
stiffness and all mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and other systems necessary for the normal operation
of the structure are expected to be functional. If repairs are required, these can be conducted at the
convenience of the occupants.
The risk to life safety during an earthquake in a structure meeting this performance level is negligible.
Note, that in order for a structure to meet this level, all utilities required for normal operation must be
available, either through standard public service or emergency sources maintained for that purpose.
Except for very low levels of ground motion, it is generally not practical to design structures to meet
this performance level.
The immediate occupancy level is similar to the operational level although somewhat more damage to
nonstructural systems is anticipated. Damage to the structural systems is very slight and the structure
retains all of its pre-earthquake strength and nearly all of its stiffness. Nonstructural elements, including
ceilings, cladding, and mechanical and electrical components, remain secured and do not represent
hazards. Exterior nonstructural wall elements and roof elements continue to provide a weather barrier,
and to be otherwise serviceable. The structure remains safe to occupy; however, some repair and
clean-up is probably required before the structure can be restored to normal service. In particular, it is
expected that utilities necessary for normal function of all systems will not be available, although those
necessary for life safety systems would be provided. Some equipment and systems used in normal
function of the structure may experience internal damage due to shaking of the structure, but most
would be expected to operate if the necessary utility service was available. Similar to the operational
level, the risk to life safety during an earthquake in a structure meeting this performance level is
negligible. Structural repair may be completed at the occupants convenience, however, significant
nonstructural repair and cleanup is probably required before normal function of the structure can be
restored.
At the life safety level, significant structural and nonstructural damage has occurred. The structure may
have lost a substantial amount of its original lateral stiffness and strength but still retains a significant
margin against collapse. The structure may have permanent lateral offset and some elements of the
seismic-force-resisting system may exhibit substantial cracking, spalling, yielding, and buckling.
Nonstructural elements of the structure, while secured and not presenting falling hazards, are severely
damaged and cannot function. The structure is not safe for continued occupancy until repairs are
instituted as strong ground motion from aftershocks could result in life threatening damage. Repair of
the structure is expected to be feasible, however, it may not be economically attractive to do so. The
risk to life during an earthquake, in a structure meeting this performance level is very low.
At the collapse prevention level a structure has sustained nearly complete damage. The seismic-forceresisting system has lost most of its original stiffness and strength and little margin remains against
collapse. Substantial degradation of the structural elements has occurred including extensive cracking
and spalling of masonry and concrete elements and buckling and fracture of steel elements. The
structure may have significant permanent lateral offset. Nonstructural elements of the structure have
experienced substantial damage and may have become dislodged creating falling hazards. The structure
is unsafe for occupancy as even relatively moderate ground motion from aftershocks could induce
collapse. Repair of the structure and restoration to service is probably not practically achievable.
The design ground motion contained in the Provisions is taken as two-thirds of the maximum
considered earthquake ground motion. Such ground motion may have a return period varying from a
few hundred years to a few thousand years, depending on the regional seismicity. It is expected that
structures designed in accordance with the requirements for Group I would achieve the life safety or
better performance level for these ground motions. Structures designed in accordance with the
requirements for Group III should be able to achieve the Immediate Occupancy or better performance
level for this ground motion. Structures designed to the requirements for Group II would be expected to
achieve performance better than the life safety level but perhaps less than the immediate occupancy
level for this ground motion.
6
General Provisions
While the design ground motion represents a rare earthquake event, it may not be the most severe event
that could ever affect a site. In zones of moderate seismicity, it has been common practice in the past to
consider ground motion with a 98 percent chance of non-exceedance in 50 years, or an average return
period of 2,500 years, as being reasonably representative of the most severe ground motion ever likely
to affect a site. This earthquake has been variously termed a maximum credible earthquake, maximum
capable event and, most recently, a maximum considered earthquake. The recent terminology is
adopted here in recognition that ground motion of this probability level is not the most severe motion
that could ever effect the site, but is considered sufficiently improbable that more severe ground motions
need not practically be considered. In regions near major active faults, such as coastal California,
estimates of ground motion at this probability of exceedance can produce structural demands much
larger than has typically been recorded in past earthquakes. Consequently, in these zones, the maximum
considered earthquake is now commonly taken based on conservative estimates of the ground motion
from a deterministic event, representing the largest magnitude event that the nearby faults are believed
capable of producing.
It is expected that structures designed to the requirements for Group I would be capable of responding to
the maximum considered earthquake at a near collapse or better performance level. Structures designed
to the requirements for Group III should be capable of responding to such ground motions at the life
safety level. Structures designed and constructed to the requirements for Group II structures should be
capable of responding to maximum considered earthquake ground motions with a performance
intermediate to the near collapse and life safety levels.
from individual site conditions, quality of construction, structural systems, detailing, overall
configuration of the structure, inaccuracies in our analytical techniques, and a number of other complex
factors. As a result of these many factors, and intentional conservatism contained in the Provisions,
most structures will perform better than indicated in the figure and others will not perform as well.
1.2.5 Seismic Use Group III structure access protection. This section establishes the requirement for
access protection for Seismic Use Group III structures. There is a need for ingress/egress to those
structures that are essential post-earthquake facilities and this shall be considered in the siting and
design of the structure.
General Provisions
computed for the areas where these structures are located is determined more by the rarity of the event
with respect to the chosen level of probability than by the level of motion that would occur if a small but
close earthquake actually did occur. However, it is desirable to provide some protection against
earthquakes and many other types of unanticipated loadings. Thus, the requirements for Seismic Design
Category A provide a nominal amount of structural integrity that will improve the performance of
buildings in the event of a possible but rare earthquake even though it is possible that the ground
motions could be large enough to cause serious damage or even collapse. The result of design to
Seismic Design Category A requirements is that fewer building would collapse in the vicinity of such an
earthquake.
The integrity is provided by a combination of requirements. First, a complete load path for lateral
forces must be identified. Then it must be designed for a lateral force based on a 1 percent acceleration
of the mass. The minimum connection forces specified for Seismic Design Category A also must be
satisfied.
The 1 percent value has been used in other countries as a minimum value for structural integrity. For
many structures, design for the wind loadings specified in the local buildings codes normally will
control the lateral force design when compared to the minimum integrity force on the structure.
However, many low-rise, heavy structures or structures with significant dead loads resulting from heavy
equipment may be controlled by the nominal 1 percent acceleration. Also, minimum connection forces
may exceed structural forces due to wind in some structures.
Seismic Design Category B includes Seismic Use Group I and II structures is regions of seismicity
where only moderately destructive ground shaking is anticipated. In addition to the requirements for
Seismic Design Category A, structures in Seismic Design Category B must be designed for forces
determined using Maps 1 through 24.
Seismic Design Category C includes Seismic Use Group III structures in regions where moderately
destructive ground shaking may occur as well as Seismic Use Group I and II structures in regions with
somewhat more severe ground shaking potential. In Seismic Design Category C, the use of some
structural systems is limited and some nonstructural components must be specifically designed for
seismic resistance.
Seismic Design Category D includes structures of Seismic Use Group I, II, and III located in regions
expected to experience destructive ground shaking but not located very near major active faults. In
Seismic Design Category D, severe limits are placed on the use of some structural systems and irregular
structures must be subjected to dynamic analysis techniques as part of the design process.
Seismic Design Category E includes Seismic Use Group I and II structures in regions located very close
to major active faults and Seismic Design Category F includes Seismic Use Group III structures in these
locations. Very severe limitations on systems, irregularities, and design methods are specified for
Seismic Design Categories E and F. For the purpose of determining if a structure is located in a region
that is very close to a major active fault, the Provisions use a trigger of a mapped maximum considered
earthquake spectral response acceleration parameter at 1-second period, S1, of 0.75 or more regardless of
the structures fundamental period. The mapped short period acceleration, SS, was not used for this
purpose because short period response accelerations do not tend to be affected by near-source conditions
as strongly as do response accelerations at longer periods.
Local or regional jurisdictions enforcing building regulations need to consider the effect of the maps,
typical soil conditions, and Seismic Design Categories on the practices in their jurisdictional areas. For
reasons of uniformity of practice or reduction of potential errors, adopting ordinances could stipulate
particular values of ground motion, particular Site Classes, or particular Seismic Design Categories for
all or part of the area of their jurisdiction. For example:
1. An area with an historical practice of high seismic zone detailing might mandate a minimum
Seismic Design Category of D regardless of ground motion or Site Class.
2. A jurisdiction with low variation in ground motion across the area might stipulate particular values
of the ground motion rather than requiring use of the maps.
3. An area with unusual soils might require use of a particular Site Class unless a geotechnical
investigation proves a better Site Class.
There are two limits on period for permission to ignore SD1 when establishing the Seismic Design
Category. The first rule, requiring Ta be less than 80% of Ts, allows some conservatism for the
uncertainty in estimating periods. The second rule only applies where a different period is used for
computing drift than for computing forces. In that case, the period used for establishing drift must be
less than the corner period, Ts. It should be noted that the period used for establishing drift could simply
be Ta and, as such, does not require that the actual building period be calculated.
1.4.2 Site limitation for Seismic Design Categories E and F. The forces that result on a structure
located astride the trace of a fault rupture that propagates to the surface are extremely large and it is not
possible to reliably design a structure to resist such forces. Consequently, the requirements of this
section limit the construction of buildings in Seismic Design Categories E and F on sites subject to this
hazard. Similarly, the effects of landsliding, liquefaction, and lateral spreading can be highly damaging
to a building. However, the effects of these site phenomena can more readily be mitigated through the
incorporation of appropriate design measures than can direct ground fault rupture. Consequently,
construction on sites with these hazards is permitted if appropriate mitigation measures are included in
the design.
10
General Provisions
minimum level of lateral force. In this analysis procedure, a series of static lateral forces equal to 1
percent of the weight at each level of the structure is applied to the structure independently in each of
two orthogonal directions. The structural elements of the seismic-force-resisting system then are
designed to resist the resulting forces in combination with other loads under the load combinations
specified by the building code.
The selection of 1 percent of the building weight as the design force for Seismic Design Category A
structures is somewhat arbitrary. This level of design lateral force was chosen as being consistent with
prudent requirements for lateral bracing of structures to prevent inadvertent buckling under gravity
loads and also was believed to be sufficiently small as to not present an undue burden on the design of
structures in zones of very low seismic activity.
The seismic weight W is the total weight of the building and that part of the service load that might
reasonably be expected to be attached to the building at the time of an earthquake. It includes
permanent and movable partitions and permanent equipment such as mechanical and electrical
equipment, piping, and ceilings. The normal human live load is taken to be negligibly small in its
contribution to the seismic lateral forces. Buildings designed for storage or warehouse usage should
have at least 25 percent of the design floor live load included in the weight, W. Snow loads up to 30 psf
(1400 Pa) are not considered. Freshly fallen snow would have little effect on the lateral force in an
earthquake; however, ice loading would be more or less firmly attached to the roof of the building and
would contribute significantly to the inertia force. For this reason, the effective snow load is taken as
the full snow load for those regions where the snow load exceeds 30 psf with the proviso that the local
authority having jurisdiction may allow the snow load to be reduced up to 80 percent. The question of
how much snow load should be included in W is really a question of how much ice buildup or snow
entrapment can be expected for the roof configuration or site topography, and this is a question best left
to the discretion of the local authority having jurisdiction.
1.5.2 Connections. The requirements in this section are a simplified version of the material found in
Sec. 4.6.1.1. For Seismic Design Category A, 5 percent is always greater than 0.133 times SDS.
1.5.3 Anchorage of concrete or masonry walls. The intent of this section is to ensure that out-ofplane inertia forces generated within a concrete or masonry wall can be transferred to the adjacent roof
or floor construction. The transfer can be accomplished only by reinforcement or anchors.
11
12
Chapter 2 Commentary
QUALITY ASSURANCE
2.1 GENERAL
2.1.1 Scope. Quality assurance (control and verification) for structures assigned to Seismic Design
Categories C, D, E and F, is necessary due to the complexity of the seismic-force-resisting systems and
is important because of the serious consequences of the failure of structures. The level of quality
assurance varies with the degree of seismic risk.
Quality Assurance requirements involve many aspects of the structural design and construction
processfrom the selection of the design team and their suitability for the project to the capabilities of
the construction contractor(s) and subcontractors, whether selected by qualification or by low bid.
Where structures are to be located in areas with a high probability of having damaging earthquake
ground motion, adequate quality assurance is required to provide life safety. Unfortunately, in recent
seismic events there have been numerous earthquake-related failures that are directly traceable to poor
design or poor quality control during construction; these deficiencies must be eliminated. The
earthquake requirements included in the Provisions rely heavily upon the concept of adequate quality
control and verification to assure sound construction. It is important that all parties involved in the
design and construction process understand and support the quality assurance requirements
recommended in the Provisions.
The technological complexity of the design of modern structures necessitates employment of a team of
registered design professionals. Each member in responsible charge of design of each element or
system of the structure must be qualified and licensed by the jurisdiction to practice in their technical
fields of practice. Structures located at a site with a potential to have damaging earthquake ground
motion must be designed to withstand the resulting seismic forces and accommodate element
displacements.
Every element of a structure is a part of a continuous load path transmitting seismic forces from and to
the foundations, which must be adequately strengthened and appropriately anchored to resist the seismic
forces and to accommodate the resulting displacements. Many of the failures in recent earthquakes have
been attributed to weak links in the seismic-force-resisting load paths. Since the connections between
adjacent elements of the structure often involve different registered design professionals and different
construction trades during installation, it is imperative that these connections be adequately described in
the construction documents and observed during installation. In order to accommodate these constraints
and produce a coordinated design, the registered design professionals must function as an integrated and
well coordinated team.
The selection of the size and configuration of the structure, and the type of structural seismic-forceresisting system(s) selected, can have a significant impact on the performance of the structure in an
earthquake. Since the selection can affect the design and cost of construction of almost every element
of the structure, it is essential that the entire design team participate in making these preliminary design
decisions and appropriately accommodate them in their design. While not required by the Provisions, it
is recommended that a quality assurance plan be prepared for the design process.
For quality assurance during construction, the following is included in the Provisions: (1) the registered
design professional(s) in responsible charge of the design specifies the quality assurance requirements;
(2) the prime contractor(s) exercises the control necessary to achieve the required quality; and (3) the
owner monitors the construction process by means of consultants who perform special inspections,
observations, and testing. It is important that all of the parties involved recognize their responsibilities,
understand the procedures, and are capable of carrying them out. Because the contractor and specialty
subcontractors are performing the work and exercising control of quality, it is essential that the special
inspections and tests be performed by someone not in their direct employ. For this reason, the special
13
Quality Assurance
assurance plan. It is important to emphasize that this exemption only applies to the preparation of a
quality assurance plan. All special inspections and testing that are otherwise required by the Provisions
must be performed.
2.4 TESTING
15
16
Chapter 3 Commentary
GROUND MOTION
3.1 GENERAL
3.1.3 Definitions. The Provisions are intended to provide uniform levels of performance for
structures, depending on their occupancy and use and the risk to society inherent in their failure. Sec.
1.2 of the Provisions establishes a series of Seismic Use Groups, which are used to assign each
structure to a specific Seismic Design Category. It is the intent of the Provisions that meeting the
seismic design criteria will provide a uniform margin against failure for all structures within a given
Seismic Use Group.
In past editions of the Provisions, seismic hazards around the nation were defined at a uniform 10
percent probability of exceedance in 50 years and the design requirements were based on assigning a
structure to a Seismic Hazard Exposure Group and a Seismic Performance Category. While this
approach provided for a uniform likelihood throughout the nation that the design ground motion would
not be exceeded, it did not provide for a uniform probability of failure for structures designed for that
ground motion. The reason for this is that the rate of change of earthquake ground motion versus
likelihood is not constant in different regions of the United States.
The approach adopted in the Provisions is intended to provide for a uniform margin against collapse at
the design ground motion. In order to accomplish this, ground motion hazards are defined in terms of
maximum considered earthquake ground motions. The maximum considered earthquake ground
motions are based on a set of rules that depend on the seismicity of an individual region. The design
ground motions are based on a lower bound estimate of the margin against collapse inherent in
structures designed to the Provisions. This lower bound was judged, based on experience, to
correspond to a factor of about 1.5 in ground motion. Consequently, the design earthquake ground
motion was selected at a ground shaking level that is 1/1.5 (2/3) of the maximum considered
earthquake ground motion.
For most regions of the nation, the maximum considered earthquake ground motion is defined with a
uniform probability of exceedance of 2 percent in 50 years (return period of about 2500 years). While
stronger shaking than this could occur, it was judged that it would be economically impractical to
design for such very rare ground motions and that the selection of the 2 percent probability of
exceedance in 50 years as the maximum considered earthquake ground motion would result in
acceptable levels of seismic safety for the nation.
In regions of high seismicity, such as coastal California, the seismic hazard is typically controlled by
large-magnitude events occurring on a limited number of well-defined fault systems. Ground shaking
calculated at a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years would be much larger than that which
would be expected based on the characteristic magnitudes of earthquakes on these known active faults.
This is because these major active faults can produce characteristic earthquakes every few hundred
years. For these regions, it is considered more appropriate to directly determine maximum considered
earthquake ground motions based on the characteristic earthquakes of these defined faults. In order to
provide for an appropriate level of conservatism in the design process, when this approach to
calculation of the maximum considered earthquake ground motion is used, the median estimate of
ground motion resulting for the characteristic event is multiplied by 1.5.
Sec. 4.1.1 of the Provisions defines the maximum considered earthquake ground motion in terms of the
mapped values of the spectral response acceleration at short periods, SS , and at 1 second, S1 , for Class
B sites. These values may be obtained directly from Maps 1 through 24, respectively. A detailed
explanation for the development of Maps 1 through 24 appears as Appendix A to this Commentary
volume. The procedure by which these maps were created, as described above and in Appendix A, is
17
18
Ground Motion
Sec. 3.5.1 provides a categorization of the various classes of site conditions, as they affect the design
response acceleration parameters. Sec. 3.5.2 describes the steps by which sites can be classified as
belonging to one of these Site Classes.
3.3.2 Site coefficients and adjusted acceleration parameters. The site coefficients Fa and Fv
presented in Provisions Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 are based on the research described in the following
paragraphs.
It has long been recognized that the effects of local soil conditions on ground motion characteristics
should be considered in building design. The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake provided abundant strong
motion data that was used extensively together with other information in introducing the site
coefficients Fa and Fv into the 1994 Provisions.
The amount of ground motion amplification by a soil deposit relative to bedrock depends on the wavepropagation characteristics of the soil, which can be estimated from measurements or inferences of
shear-wave velocity and in turn the shear modulus for the materials as a function of the level of
shaking. In general, softer soils with lower shear-wave velocities exhibit higher amplifications than
stiffer soils with higher shear velocities. Increased levels of ground shaking result in increased soil
stress-strain nonlinearity and increased soil damping which in general reduces the amplification,
especially for shorter periods. Furthermore, for soil deposits of sufficient thickness, soil amplification
is generally greater at longer periods than at the shorter periods. Based on the studies summarized
below, values of the soil amplification factors (site coefficients) shown in Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 were
developed as a function of site class and level of ground shaking. Table 3.3-1 presents the short-period
site coefficient, Fa; Table 3.3-2 presents the long-period site coefficient, Fv. As described in Sec. 3.5,
Site Classes A through E describe progressively softer (lower shear wave velocity) soils.
Strong-motion recordings obtained on a variety of geologic deposits during the Loma Prieta earthquake
of October 17, 1989 provided an important empirical basis for the development of the site coefficients
Fa and Fv. Figure C3.3.2-1 presents average response spectra of ground motions recorded on soft clay
and rock sites in San Francisco and Oakland during the Loma Prieta earthquake. The peak acceleration
(which plots at zero-period of the response spectra) was about 0.08 to 0.1 g at the rock sites and was
amplified two to three times to 0.2 g or 0.3 g at the soft soil sites. The response spectral accelerations
at short periods (~ 0.2 or 0.3 second) were also amplified on average by factors of 2 or 3. It can be
seen in Figure C3.3.2-1 that, at longer periods between about 0.5 and 1.5 or 2 seconds, the
amplifications of response spectra on the soft clay site relative to rock were even greater, ranging from
about 3 to 6 times. Ground motions on stiff soil sites were also observed to be amplified relative to
rock sites during the Loma Prieta earthquake, but by smaller factors than on soft soils.
19
Figure C3.3.2-1. Average spectra recorded during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in San
Francisco Bay area at rock sites and soft soil sites (modified after Housner, 1990).
Average amplification factors derived from the Loma Prieta earthquake data with respect to firm to
hard rock for short-period (0.1-0.5 sec), intermediate-period (0.5-1.4 sec), mid-period (0.4-2.0 sec),
and long-period (1.5-5.0 sec) bands, show that a short-period factor and a mid-period factor (the midperiod factor was later renamed the long-period factor in the NEHRP Provisions) are sufficient to
characterize the response of the local site conditions (Borcherdt, 1994). This important result is
consistent with the two-factor approach to response spectrum construction summarized in Figure
C3.3.2-2. Empirical regression curves fitted to these amplification data as a function of mean shear
wave velocity at a site are shown in Figure C3.3.2-3.
20
Ground Motion
7
Loma Prieta Strong-Motion Data
Fa - 95%
Fa = (997 / Vs )^0.36
Fa +95%
Fv - 95%
Fv = (1067 / Vs )^0.64
Fv + 95%
Fa (0.1g) for Site Class Intervals
Fv (0.1g) for Site Class Intervals
Site Class E
Soft soils
Site Class D
4
Site Class B
Firm to Hard rocks
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
Figure C3.3.2-3. Short-period Fa and long-period Fv site coefficients with respect to site class B
(firm to hard rocks) inferred as a continuous function of shear-wave velocity from empirical
regression curves derived using Loma Prieta strong-motion recordings. The 95 percent
confidence intervals for the ordinate to the true population regression line and the corresponding
site coefficients in Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 for 0.1g acceleration are plotted. The curves show that a
two factor approach with a short- and a long-period site coefficient is needed to characterize the
response of near surface deposits (modified from Borcherdt 1994).
The curves in Figure C3.3.2-3 provide empirical estimates of the site coefficients Fa and Fv as a
function of mean shear wave velocity for an input peak ground accelerations on rock equal to about 0.1
g (Borcherdt, 1994; Borcherdt and Glassmoyer, 1994) The empirical amplification factors predicted by
these curves are in good agreement with those obtained from empirical analyses of Loma Prieta data
21
Figure C3.3.2-4. Calculation of average ratios of response spectra (RRS) curves for 5 percent
damping from records of 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake on soft soil sites. The middle curve gives
the geometric average ratio as function of the period. The top and bottom curves show the range
from plus to minus one standard deviation of the average of the logarithms of the ratios. The
vertical lines show the range from plus to minus standard deviation of the logarithms of the
ratios (Joyner et al., 1994).
The values of Fa and Fv obtained directly from the analysis of ground motion records from the Loma
Prieta earthquake were used to calibrate numerical one-dimensional site response analytical techniques,
including equivalent linear as well as nonlinear programs. The equivalent linear program SHAKE
(Schnabel et al. 1972), which had been shown in previous studies to provide reasonable predictions of
soil amplification during earthquakes (e.g., Seed and Idriss 1982), was used extensively for this
calibration. Seed et al. (1994) and Dobry et al. (1994) showed that the one-dimensional model
provided a good first-order approximation to the observed site response in the Loma Prieta earthquake,
especially at soft clay sites. Idriss (1990, 1991) used these analysis techniques to study the
amplification of peak ground acceleration on soft soil sites relative to rock sites as a function of the
peak acceleration on rock. Results of these studies are shown in Figure 3.3.2-5, illustrating that the
large amplifications of peak acceleration on soft soil for low rock accelerations recorded during the
1985 Mexico City earthquake and the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake should tend to decrease rapidly as
rock accelerations increases above about 0.1 g.
22
Ground Motion
Figure C3.3.2-5. Relationships between maximum acceleration on rock and other local site
conditions (Idriss, 1990, 1991).
After calibration, these equivalent linear and nonlinear one-dimensional site response techniques were
used to extrapolate the values of Fa and Fv to larger rock accelerations of as much as 0.4g or 0.5g.
Parametric studies involving combinations of hundreds of soil profiles and several dozen input
earthquake rock motions provided quantitative guidelines for extrapolation of the Loma Prieta
earthquake results (Seed et al. 1994; Dobry et al. 1994). Figure C3.3.2-6 summarizes some results of
these site response analyses using the equivalent linear method. This figure presents values of peak
amplification of response spectra at long periods for soft sites (termed maximum Ratio of Response
Spectra, RRSmax) calculated using the equivalent linear approach as a function of the plasticity index
(PI) of the soil and the rock shear wave velocity Vr for both weak (0.1 g) and strong (0.4 g) input rock
shaking. The effect of PI is due to the fact that soils with higher PI exhibit less stress-strain
nonlinearity and a lower material damping (Vucetic and Dobry 1991). For peak rock acceleration =
0.1 g, Vr = 4,000 ft/sec (1220 m/s) and PI = 50, roughly representative of San Francisco Bay area soft
sites in the Loma Prieta earthquake, RRSmax = 4.4, which for a soil shear wave velocity of 150 m/sec
coincides with the upper part of the range in Figure 3.3.2-3 inferred from the ground motion records.
Note the reduction of this value of RRSmax from 4.4 to about 3.3 in Figure C3.3.2-6 when peak rock
acceleration = 0.4 g, due to soil nonlinearity. Results such as those in Figure C3.3.2-6 provided the
basis for the values of Fa and Fv shown in the right-most four columns of Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-2.
23
Figure C3.3.2-6. Variation of RRSmax of uniform layer of soft clay on rock from equivalent
linear site response analyses (Dobry et al., 1994).
Graphs and equations that provide a framework for extrapolation of Fa and Fv from Loma Prieta results
to larger input ground motion levels continuously as a function of site conditions (shear-wave velocity)
are shown in Figure C3.3.2-7. The site coefficients in Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 are superimposed on this
figure. These simple curves were developed to reproduce the site coefficients for site classes E and B
and provide approximate estimates of the coefficients for the other Site Classes at various ground
acceleration levels. The equations describing the curves indicate that the amplification at a site is
proportional to the shear velocity ratio (impedance ratio) with an exponent that varies with the input
ground motion level (Borcherdt, 1994).
24
Ground Motion
10.0
F a = (v B / v S )
Site Class E
Soft soils
Site Class D
Stiff clays and
Sandy soils
ma
= ( 1050 m/s /v S )
Site Class C
Gravelly soils and
Soft rocks
ma
Site Class B
Firm to Hard
rocks
1.0
I=0.1g; ma = 0.35
I=0.3g; ma = 0.10
I=0.2g; ma = 0.25
I=0.4g; ma = -0.05
Fa (0.1g) for Site Class Intervals
Fa from Table 3.3-1
0.1
(a)
100
1000
Mean Shear-Wave Velocity to 30 m (100 ft) (v S , m/s)
10
Site Class E
Soft soils
F v = (v B / v S ) m v = ( 1050 m/s /v S ) m v
Site Class D
Stiff clays and Sandy soils
Site Class C
Gravelly soils and
Soft rocks
Site Class B
Firm to Hard
rocks
I=0.1g; mv = 0.65
I=0.2g; mv = 0.60
I=0.3g; mv = 0.53
I=0.4g; mv = 0.45
Fv (0.1g) for Site Class Intervals
Fv from Table 3.3-2
(b)
0.1
100
1000
Mean Shear-Velocity to 30 m (100 ft) (v S , m/s)
Figure C3.3.2-7. Graphs and equations that provide a simple framework for inference of (a) Fa
and (b) Fv values as a continuous function of shear velocity at various input acceleration levels.
Site coefficients in Table 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 are superimposed. These simple curves were developed
to reproduce the site coefficients for site classes E and B and provide approximate estimates of
the coefficients for the other site classes at various ground acceleration levels (from Borcherdt
1994).
A more extensive discussion of the development of site coefficients is presented by Dobry, et al.
(2000). Since the development of these coefficients and the development of a community consensus
regarding their values in 1992, recent earthquakes have provided additional strong motion data from
which to infer site amplifications. Analyses conducted on the basis of these more recent data are
reported by a number of researchers, including Crouse and McGuire, 1996; Dobry et al., 1999; Silva et
al., 2000; Joyner and Boore, 2000; Field, 2000; Steidl, 2000; Rodriquez-Marek et al., 2001; Borcherdt,
2002, and Stewart et al., 2003. While the results of these studies vary, overall the site amplification
25
S a = Sv =
2
Sv
T
(C3.3-1)
where is the circular frequency of motion, T is the period, and Sv is the constant spectral response
velocity. Thus the site design spectral response acceleration at 1 second, Sa1, is simply related to the
constant spectral velocity for the spectrum as follows:
S a1 = 2 Sv
(C3.3-2)
and the spectral response acceleration at any period in the constant velocity range can be obtained from
the relationship:
Sa =
S D1
T
(C3.3-3)
The constant displacement domain of the response spectrum is not included on the generalized
response spectrum because relatively few structures have a period long enough to fall into this range.
Response accelerations in the constant displacement domain can be related to the constant
displacement by a 1/T2 relationship. Sec. 5.3 of the Provisions, which provides the requirements for
modal analysis also provides instructions for obtaining response accelerations in the very long period
range.
The TL maps were prepared following a two-step procedure. The first step consisted of establishing a
correlation between earthquake magnitude and TL. This correlation was established by (1) determining
the corner period between intermediate and long period motions based on seismic source theory and (2)
examining the response spectra of strong motion accelerograms recorded during moderate and large
magnitude earthquakes. This corner period, Tc, marks the transition between the constant displacement
and constant velocity segments of the Fourier spectrum representing a theoretical fault-rupture
displacement history. Tc, which was considered an approximation for TL, was related to moment
magnitude, M, through the formula, log Tc = -1.25 + 0.3 M. This formula was selected from several
available formulas based on comparisons of Tc predicted by this equation and TL estimated from strong
motion accelerograms with reliable long period content. The results were used to establish the
following half-unit ranges of M for given values of Tc..
26
Ground Motion
Tc (sec)
6.0 6.5
6.5 7.0
7.0 7.5
7.5 8.0
12
8.0 8.5
16
8.5 9.0+
20
To determine the TL values for the U.S., the USGS constructed maps of the modal magnitudes (Md) in
half-unit increments (as shown in the above table). The maps were prepared from a deaggregation of
the 2 percent in 50-yr hazard for Sa (T = 2 sec), the response spectral acceleration at an oscillator period
of 2 sec. (for HI the deaggregation was only available for T = 1 sec). The Md that was computed
represented the magnitude interval that had the largest contribution to the 2 percent in 50-yr hazard for
Sa.
The Md maps were judged to be an acceptable approximation to values of Md that would be obtained if
the deaggregation could have been computed at the longer periods of interest. These Md maps were
color coded to more easily permit the eventual construction of the TL maps. Generally the TL maps
corresponded to the Md maps, but some smoothing of the boundaries separating TL regions was
necessary to make them more legible. A decision was made to limit the TL in the broad area in the
central and eastern U.S., which had an Md of 16 sec, to 12 sec, Likewise, the TL for the areas affected
by the great megathrust earthquakes in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, was limited to 16 sec.
Provisions Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 and Sec. 3.5.1 require that site-specific geotechnical investigations
and dynamic site response analysis be performed for sites having Site Class F soils. Guidelines are
provided below for conducting site-specific investigations and site response analyses for these soils.
These guidelines are also applicable if it is desired to conduct dynamic site response analyses for other
site classes.
Site-specific geotechnical investigation: For purposes of obtaining data to conduct a site response
27
1. Modeling the soil profile: Typically, a one-dimensional soil column extending from the ground
surface to bedrock is adequate to capture first-order site response characteristics. For very deep
soils, the model of the soil columns may extend to very stiff or very dense soils at depth in the
column. Two- or three-dimensional models should be considered for critical projects when two or
three-dimensional wave propagation effects should be significant (e.g., in basins). The soil layers
in a one-dimensional model are characterized by their total unit weights and shear wave velocities
from which low-strain (maximum) shear moduli may be obtained, and by relationships defining the
nonlinear shear stress-strain relationships of the soils. The required relationships for analysis are
often in the form of curves that describe the variation of soil shear modulus with shear strain
(modulus reduction curves) and by curves that describe the variation of soil damping with shear
strain (damping curves). In a two- or three-dimensional model, compression wave velocities or
moduli or Poisson ratios also are required. In an analysis to estimate the effects of liquefaction on
soil site response, the nonlinear soil model also must incorporate the buildup of soil pore water
pressures and the consequent effects on reducing soil stiffness and strength. Typically, modulus
reduction curves and damping curves are selected on the basis of published relationships for
similar soils (e.g., Seed and Idriss, 1970; Seed et al., 1986; Sun et al., 1988; Vucetic and Dobry,
1991; Electric Power Research Institute, 1993; Kramer, 1996). Site-specific laboratory dynamic
tests on soil samples to establish nonlinear soil characteristics can be considered where published
relationships are judged to be inadequate for the types of soils present at the site. Shear and
compression wave velocities and associated maximum moduli should be selected on the basis of
field tests to determine these parameters or published relationships and experience for similar soils
in the local area. The uncertainty in soil properties should be estimated, especially the uncertainty
in the selected maximum shear moduli and modulus reduction and damping curves.
2. Selecting input rock motions: Acceleration time histories that are representative of horizontal rock
motions at the site are required as input to the soil model. Unless a site-specific analysis is carried
out to develop the rock response spectrum at the site, the maximum considered earthquake (MCE)
rock spectrum for Site Class B rock can be defined using the general procedure described in Sec.
3.3. For hard rock (Site Class A), the spectrum may be adjusted using the site factors in
Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-2. For profiles having great depths of soil above Site Class A or B rock,
consideration can be given to defining the base of the soil profile and the input rock motions at a
depth at which soft rock or very stiff soil of Site Class C is encountered. In such cases, the MCE
rock response spectrum may be taken as the spectrum for Site Class C defined using the site factors
in Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-2. Several acceleration time histories of rock motions, typically at least
four, should be selected for site response analysis. These time histories should be selected after
evaluating the types of earthquake sources, magnitudes, and distances that predominantly
contribute to the seismic hazard at the site. Preferably, the time histories selected for analysis
should have been recorded on geologic materials similar to the site class of materials at the base of
the site soil profile during earthquakes of similar types (e.g. with respect to tectonic environment
and type of faulting), magnitudes, and distances as those predominantly contributing to the site
28
Ground Motion
seismic hazard. The U.S. Geological Survey national seismic hazard mapping project website
(http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/) includes hazard deaggregation options and can be used to
evaluate the predominant types of earthquake sources, magnitudes, and distances contributing to
the hazard. Sources of recorded acceleration time histories include the data bases of the
Consortium of Organizations for Strong Motion Observation Systems (COSMOS) Virtual Data
Center web site (db.cosmos-eq.org) and the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center
(PEER) Strong Motion Data Base website (http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/). Prior to analysis, each
time history should be scaled so that its spectrum is at the approximate level of the MCE rock
response spectrum in the period range of interest. It is desirable that the average of the response
spectra of the suite of scaled input time histories be approximately at the level of the MCE rock
response spectrum in the period range of interest. Because rock response spectra are defined at the
ground surface rather than at depth below a soil deposit, the rock time histories should be input in
the analysis as outcropping rock motions rather than at the soil-rock interface.
3. Site response analysis and results interpretation: Analytical methods may be equivalent linear or
nonlinear. Frequently used computer programs for one-dimensional analysis include the
equivalent linear program SHAKE (Schnabel et al., 1972; Idriss and Sun, 1992) and the nonlinear
programs DESRA-2 (Lee and Finn, 1978), MARDES (Chang et al., 1991), SUMDES (Li et al.,
1992), D-MOD (Matasovic, 1993), TESS (Pyke, 1992), and DESRAMUSC (Qiu, 1998). If the
soil response is highly nonlinear (e.g., high acceleration levels and soft soils), nonlinear programs
may be preferable to equivalent linear programs. For analysis of liquefaction effects on site
response, computer programs incorporating pore water pressure development (effective stress
analyses) must be used (e.g., DESRA-2, SUMDES, D-MOD, TESS, and DESRAMUSC).
Response spectra of output motions at the ground surface should be calculated and the ratios of
response spectra of ground surface motions to input outcropping rock motions should be
calculated. Typically, an average of the response spectral ratio curves is obtained and multiplied
by the MCE rock response spectrum to obtain a soil response spectrum. Sensitivity analyses to
evaluate effects of soil property uncertainties should be conducted and considered in developing
the design response spectrum.
3.4.2 Deterministic maximum considered earthquake. It is required that ground motions for the
deterministic maximum considered earthquake be based on characteristic earthquakes on all known
active faults in a region. As defined in Sec. 3.1.3, the magnitude of a characteristic earthquake on a
given fault should be a best-estimate of the maximum magnitude capable for that fault but not less than
the largest magnitude that has occurred historically on the fault. The maximum magnitude should be
estimated considering all seismic-geologic evidence for the fault, including fault length and
paleoseismic observations. For faults characterized as having more than a single segment, the potential
for rupture of multiple segments in a single earthquake should be considered in assessing the
characteristic maximum magnitude for the fault.
However, in recognition of the fact that in many cases the shear wave velocities are not available,
alternative definitions of the site classes also are included in the 2003 Provisions. They use the
standard penetration resistance for cohesionless and cohesive soils and rock and the undrained shear
strength for cohesive soils only. These alternative definitions are rather conservative since the
correlation between site amplification and these geotechnical parameters is more uncertain than the
correlation with v s . That is, there will be cases where the values of Fa and Fv will be smaller if the site
29
The site class should reflect the soil conditions that will affect the ground motion input to the structure
or a significant portion of the structure. For structures receiving substantial ground motion input from
shallow soils (e.g. structures with shallow spread footings, laterally flexible piles, or structures with
basements where it is judged that substantial ground motion input to the structure may come through
the side walls), it is reasonable to classify the site on the basis of the top 100 ft (30 m) of soils below
the ground surface. Conversely, for structures with basements supported on firm soils or rock below
soft soils, it is reasonable to classify the site on the basis of the soils or rock below the mat, if it can be
justified that the soft soils contribute very little to the response of the structure.
Buildings on sloping bedrock sites and/or having highly variable soil deposits across the building area
require careful study since the input motion may vary across the building (for example, if a portion of
the building is on rock and the rest is over weak soils). Site-specific studies including two- or three30
Ground Motion
dimensional modeling may be appropriate in such cases to evaluate the subsurface conditions and site
and superstructure response. Other conditions that may warrant site-specific evaluation include the
presence of low shear wave velocity soils below a depth of 100 ft (30 m), location of the site near the
edge of a filled-in basin, or other subsurface or topographic conditions with strong two- and threedimensional site-response effects. Individuals with appropriate expertise in seismic ground motions
should participate in evaluations of the need for and nature of such site-specific studies.
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, N.A., 2000, Effects of rupture directivity on probabilistic seismic hazard analysis:
Proceedings, Sixth International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Palm Springs, California.
Borcherdt, R.D., 2002, Empirical evidence for site coefficients in building-code provisions, Earthquake
Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, v. 18, No. 2, p. 189-217.
Borcherdt, R.D., 1994, Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design (methodology and
justification), Earthquake Spectra, 10, 617-653, (Simplified site classes and empirical amplification
factors for site dependent code provisions, Proceedings of the 1992 NCEER/SEAOC/BSSC Workshop
on Site Response During Earthquakes and Seismic Code Provisions, G.R. Martin, ed., University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, November 18-20, 1992, National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research Special Publication NCEER-94-SP01, Buffalo, New York).
Borcherdt, R.D., and Glassmoyer, G., 1994, Influences of local geology on strong and weak ground
motions in the San Francisco Bay region, California, and their implications for site-specific code
provisions, in The Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 17, 1989 Strong Ground Motion, R.D.
Borcherdt, ed., U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1551-A, A77-A108.
Chang, C.-Y., C. M. Mok, M. S. Power, and Y. K. Tang. 1991. Analysis of Ground Response at
Lotung Large-Scale Soil-Structure Interaction Experiment Site, Report NP-7306-SL. Palo Alto,
California: Electric Power Research Institute.
Crouse, C.B., and McGuire, J.W., 1996, Site response studies for purposes of revising NEHRP Seismic
Provisions, Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, v. 12, no. 3.
Dobry, R., Ramos, R., and Power, M.S., 1999, Site factors and site categories in seismic codes,
Technical Report MCEER-99-0010, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.
Dobry, R., Borcherdt, R., Crouse, C.B., Idriss, I.M., Joyner, W.B., Martin, G.R., Power, M.S., Rinne,
E.E., Seed, R.B., 2000, New Site coefficients and site classifications system used in recent building
seismic code provisions, Earthquake Spectra 16 (1); 41-67.
Dobry, R., Martin, G. R., Parra, E., and Bhattacharyya, A., 1994, Development of site-dependent ratios
of elastic response spectra (RRS) and site categories for building seismic codes, Proceedings of the
1992 NCEER/SEAOC/BSSC Workshop on Site Response During Earthquakes and Seismic Code
Provisions, G.R. Martin, ed., University of Southern California, Los Angeles, November 18-20, 1992,
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research Special Publication NCEER-94-SP01, Buffalo,
NY.
Electric Power Research Institute. 1993. Guidelines for Determining Design Basis Ground Motions,
Report EPRI TR-102293. Palo Alto, California.
Field, E.H., 2000, A modififed ground motion attenuation relationship for southern California that
accounts for detailed site classification and a basin depth effect, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, 90, S209-S221.
Housner, G.W., 1990, Competing against time: Report to Governor George Duekmejian from the
Governers Board of Inquiry on the 1989 Loma Pireta earthquake, May.
Idriss, I. M. 1990, Response of Soft Soil Sites During Earthquakes. In Proceedings of the
31
Ground Motion
Silva, W., Darragh, R., Gregor, N., Martin, G., Abrahamson, N., and Kircher, C., 2000, Reassessment
of site coefficients and near-fault factors for building code provisions; Program Element: II, 98-HQGR-1010, Report to USGS.
Somerville, P.G., Smith, N.F., Graves, R.W., and Abrahamson, N.A., 1997, Modification of empirical
strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture
directivity: Seismological Research Letters, v. 68, p. 199-222.
Stewart, J.P, Liu, A.H., and Choi, Y., 2003, Amplification factors for spectral acceleration in
tectonically active regions, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 93(1), 332-352.
Steidl, J.H., 2000, Site response is southern California for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 90, S149-S169.
Sun, J. I., R. Golesorkhi, and H. B. Seed. 1988. Dynamic Moduli and Damping Ratios for Cohesive
Soils, Report UBC/EERC-88/15. Berkeley: University of California, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center.
Vucetic, M., and R. Dobry. 1991. Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 1: 89-107.
33
34
Chapter 4 Commentary
STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERA
4.1 GENERAL
4.1.2 References. ASCE 7 is referenced for the combination of earthquake loadings with other loads as
well as for the computation of other loads; it is not referenced for the computation of earthquake loads.
Figure C4.2-1 indicates the significance of design parameters contained in the Provisions including the
response modification coefficient, R, the deflection amplification factor, Cd, and the structural
overstrength coefficient 0. The values of the response modification coefficient, R, structural
overstrength coefficient, 0, and the deflection amplification factor, Cd, provided in Table 4.3-1, as well
as the criteria for story drift, including P-delta effects, have been established considering the
characteristics of typical properly designed structures. If excessive optimization of a structural design
is performed, with lateral resistance provided by only a few elements, the successive yield hinge behavior
depicted in Figure C4.2-1 will not be able to form and the values of the design parameters contained in
the Provisions may not be adequate to provide the intended seismic performance.
The response modification coefficient, R, essentially represents the ratio of the forces that would develop
under the specified ground motion if the structure had an entirely linearly elastic response to the
prescribed design forces (see Figure C4.2-1). The structure is to be designed so that the level of
significant yield exceeds the prescribed design force. The ratio R, expressed by the equation:
36
R=
VE
VS
(C4.2-1)
is always larger then 1.0; thus, all structures are designed for forces smaller than those the design ground
motion would produce in a structure with completely linear-elastic response. This reduction is possible
for a number of reasons. As the structure begins to yield and deform inelastically, the effective period of
response of the structure tends to lengthen, which for many structures, results in a reduction in strength
demand. Furthermore, the inelastic action results in a significant amount of energy dissipation, also
known as hysteretic damping, in addition to the viscous damping. The combined effect, which is also
known as the ductility reduction, explains why a properly designed structure with a fully yielded strength
(Vy in Figure C4.2-1) that is significantly lower than the elastic seismic force demand (VE in Figure
C4.2-1) can be capable of providing satisfactory performance under the design ground motion excitations.
Defining a system ductility reduction factor Rd as the ratio between VE and VY (Newmark and Hall, 1981):
Rd =
VE
VY
(C4.2-2)
then it is clear from Figure C4.2-1 that the response modification coefficient, R, is the product of the
ductility reduction factor and structural overstrength factor (Uang, 1991):
R = Rd 0
(C4.2-3)
The energy dissipation resulting from hysteretic behavior can be measured as the area enclosed by the
force-deformation curve of the structure as it experiences several cycles of excitation. Some structures
have far more energy dissipation capacity than do others. The extent of energy dissipation capacity
available is largely dependent on the amount of stiffness and strength degradation the structure undergoes
as it experiences repeated cycles of inelastic deformation. Figure C4.2-2 indicates representative loaddeformation curves for two simple substructures, such as a beam-column assembly in a frame. Hysteretic
curve (a) in the figure is representative of the behavior of substructures that have been detailed for ductile
behavior. The substructure can maintain nearly all of its strength and stiffness over a number of large
cycles of inelastic deformation. The resulting force-deformation loops are quite wide and open,
resulting in a large amount of energy dissipation capacity. Hysteretic curve (b) represents the behavior of
a substructure that has not been detailed for ductile behavior. It rapidly loses stiffness under inelastic
deformation and the resulting hysteretic loops are quite pinched. The energy dissipation capacity of such
a substructure is much lower than that for the substructure (a). Structural systems with large energy
dissipation capacity have larger Rd values, and hence are assigned higher R values, resulting in design for
lower forces, than systems with relatively limited energy dissipation capacity.
38
(Additive)
(Counteracting)
where D, E, L, and S are, respectively, the effects of dead, earthquake, live, and snow loads.
The design basis expressed in Sec. 4.2.1 reflects the fact that the specified earthquake loads are at the
design level without amplification by load factors; thus, for sufficiently redundant structures, a load factor
of 1.0 is assigned to the earthquake load effects in Eq. 4.2-1 and 4.2-2.
4.2.2.1 Seismic load effect. In Eq. 4.2-1 and 4.2-2 , a factor of 0.2SDS was placed on the dead load to
account for the effects of vertical acceleration. The 0.2SDS factor on dead load is not intended to represent
the total vertical response. The concurrent maximum response of vertical accelerations and horizontal
accelerations, direct and orthogonal, is unlikely and, therefore, the direct addition of responses was not
considered appropriate.
The factor was introduced into Eq. 4.2-1 and 4.2-2 in the 1997 Provisions. This factor, determined in
accordance with Sec. 4.3.3, relates to the redundancy inherent in the seismic-force-resisting system and is,
in essence, a reliability factor, penalizing designs which are likely to be unreliable due to concentration of
the structure=s resistance to lateral forces in a relatively few elements.
There is very little research that speaks directly to the merits of redundancy in buildings for seismic
resistance. The SAC joint venture recently studied the relationships between damage to welded steel
moment frame connections and redundancy (Bonowitz et al., 1995). While this study found no specific
correlation between damage and the number of bays of moment resisting framing per moment frame, it
did find increased rates of damage in connections that resisted loads for larger floor areas. This study
included modern low-, mid-, and high-rise steel buildings.
Another study (Wood, 1991) that addresses the potential effects of redundancy evaluated the performance
of 165 Chilean concrete buildings ranging in height from 6 to 23 stories. These concrete shear wall
39
40
Design Overstrength
Material Overstrength
Fn
i
3
2
F2
Inadequate
Strength
FE/R
E/R
Design drift
Lateral Force
System Overstrength
Design force
CdE/R
El
as
tic
Re
sp
on
s
FE
42
Design
Material
System
Overstrength Overstrength Overstrength
1.5-2.5
1.2-1.6
1.0-1.5
2-3.5
1.0-2.0
1.2-1.6
1.0-2.0
2-3.5
1.0-1.5
1.2-1.6
1.5-2.5
2-3.5
1.0-2.0
1.2-1.6
1.0-1.5
2-2.5
Braced frames
1.5-2.0
1.2-1.6
1.0-1.5
1.5-2
1.0-1.5
1.2-1.6
1.0-1.5
1.5-2.5
1.0-1.5
1.2-1.6
1.0-1.5
1.5-2.5
1.0-2.0
0.8-2.0
1.0-2.0
2-3
1.0-2.0
0.8-2.0
1.0-2.0
2-3
1.1-1.75
1.2-1.6
1.0-1.5
1.5-2.5
1.0-0.5
1.2-2.0
1.0-2.0
2.5-3.5
In recognition of the fact that it is difficult to accurately estimate the amount of overstrength a structure
will have, based solely on the type of seismic-force-resisting system that is present, in lieu of using the
values of the overstrength coefficient 0 provided in Table 4.3-1, designers are encouraged to base the
maximum forces used in Eq. 4.3-3 and 4.3-4 on the results of suitable nonlinear analysis of the structure.
Such analyses should use the actual expected (rather than specified) values of material and section
properties. Appropriate forms of such analyses could include a plastic mechanism analysis, a static
pushover analysis, or a nonlinear response history analysis. If a plastic mechanism analysis is utilized,
the maximum seismic force that ever could be produced in the structure, regardless of the ground motion
experienced, is estimated. If static pushover or nonlinear response history analyses are employed, the
forces utilized for design as the maximum force should probably be those determined for Maximum
Considered Earthquake level ground shaking demands.
While overstrength can be quite beneficial in permitting structures to resist actual seismic demands that
are larger than those for which they have been specifically designed, it is not always beneficial. Some
elements incorporated in structures behave in a brittle manner and can fail in an abrupt manner if
substantially overloaded. The existence of structural overstrength results in a condition where such
overloads are likely to occur, unless they are specifically accounted for in the design process. This is the
purpose of Eq. 4.3-3 and 4.3-4.
One case where structural overstrength should specifically be considered is in the design of column
elements beneath discontinuous braced frames and shear walls, such as occurs at vertical in-plane and
out-of-plane irregularities. Overstrength in the braced frames and shear walls could cause buckling
failure of such columns with resulting structural collapse. Columns subjected to tensile loading in which
splices are made using partial penetration groove welds, a type of joint subject to brittle fracture when
overloaded, are another example of a case where the seismic effect with overstrength should be used.
Other design situations that warrant the use of these equations are noted throughout the Provisions.
Although the Provisions note the most common cases in which structural overstrength can lead to an
undesirable failure mode, it is not possible for them to note all such conditions. Therefore, designers
using the Provisions should be alert to conditions where the isolated independent failure of any element
can lead to a condition of instability or collapse and should use the seismic effect with overstrength of Eq.
43
46
4.3.1.4.2 Interaction effects. This section relates to the interaction of elements of the seismic-forceresisting system with elements that are not part of this system. A classic example of such interaction is
the behavior of infill masonry walls used as architectural elements in a building provided with a seismicforce-resisting system composed of moment resisting frames. Although the masonry walls are not
intended to resist seismic forces, at low levels of deformation they will be substantially more rigid than
the moment resisting frames and will participate in lateral force resistance. A common effect of such
walls is that they can create shear-critical conditions in the columns they abut by reducing the effective
flexural height of these columns to the height of the openings in the walls. If these walls are neither
uniformly distributed throughout the structure nor effectively isolated from participation in lateral force
resistance, they can also create torsional irregularities and soft story irregularities in structures that would
otherwise have regular configuration.
Infill walls are not the only elements not included in seismic-force-resisting systems that can affect a
structure=s seismic behavior. For example, in parking garage structures, the ramps between levels can act
as effective bracing elements and resist a large portion of the seismically induced forces. They can induce
large thrusts in the diaphragms where they connect, as well as large vertical forces on the adjacent
columns and beams. In addition, if not symmetrically placed in the structure they can induce torsional
irregularities. This section requires consideration of these potential effects.
4.3.1.6 Seismic Design Category F. Sec. 4.3.1.6 covers Category F, which is restricted to essential
facilities on sites located within a few kilometers of major active faults. Because of the necessity for
reducing risk (particularly in terms of providing life safety or maintaining function by minimizing
damage to nonstructural building elements, contents, equipment, and utilities), the height limitations for
Category F are reduced. Again, the limits100 ft (30 m) and 160 ft (49 m)are arbitrary and require
further study. The developers of these requirements believe that, at present, it is advisable to establish
these limits, but the importance of having more stringent requirements for detailing the seismic-forceresisting system as well as the nonstructural components of the building must be stressed. Such
requirements are specified in Sec. 4.6 and Chapters 8 through 12.
4.3.2 Configuration. The configuration of a structure can significantly affect its performance during a
strong earthquake that produces the ground motion contemplated in the Provisions. Configuration can be
divided into two aspects: plan configuration and vertical configuration. The Provisions were basically
derived for buildings having regular configurations. Past earthquakes have repeatedly shown that
buildings having irregular configurations suffer greater damage than buildings having regular
configurations. This situation prevails even with good design and construction. There are several reasons
47
48
Where there are discontinuities in the path of lateral force resistance, the structure can no longer be
considered to be regular. The most critical of the discontinuities to be considered is the out-of-plane
offset of vertical elements of the seismic-force-resisting elements. Such offsets impose vertical and
lateral load effects on horizontal elements that are, at the least, difficult to provide for adequately.
Where vertical elements of the lateral-force-resisting system are not parallel to or symmetric about major
orthogonal axes, the static lateral force procedures of the Provisions cannot be applied as given and, thus,
the structure must be considered to be irregular.
4.3.2.3 Vertical irregularity. Sec. 4.3.2.3 indicates, by reference to Table 4.3-3, under what
circumstances a structure must be considered to have a vertical irregularity. Vertical configuration
irregularities affect the responses at the various levels and induce loads at these levels that are
significantly different from the distribution assumed in the equivalent lateral force procedure given in
Sec. 5.2.
A moment resisting frame building might be classified as having a vertical irregularity if one story were
much taller than the adjoining stories and the design did not compensate for the resulting decrease in
stiffness that would normally occur. Examples of vertical irregularities are illustrated in Figure C4.3-4.
49
51
56
Figure 4.6-1 Collector element used to (a) transfer shears and (b)
transfer drag forces from diaphragm to shear wall
Consider a building as shown in the plan with four short shear walls at the corners arranged as shown.
For north-south earthquake forces, the diaphragm shears on Line AB are uniformly distributed between A
and B if the chord reinforcing is assumed to act on Lines BC and AD. However, wall A is quite short so
reinforcing steel is required to collect these shears and transfer them to the wall. If Wall A is a quarter of
the length of AB, the steel must carry, as a minimum, three-fourths of the total shear on Line AB. The
same principle is true for the other walls. In Figure C4.6-1 reinforcing is required to collect the shears or
drag the forces from the diaphragm into the shear wall. Similar collector elements are needed for most
shear walls and for some frames.
4.6.1.9 Diaphragms. Diaphragms are deep beams or trusses that distribute the lateral loads from their
origin to the components where such forces are resisted. Therefore, diaphragms are subject to shears,
bending moments, direct stresses (truss member, collector elements), and deformations. The
deformations must be minimized in some cases because they could overstress the walls to which the
diaphragms are connected. The amount of deflection permitted in the diaphragm must be related to the
ability of the walls to deflect (normal to the direction of force application) without failure.
A detail commonly overlooked by many engineers is the requirement to tie the diaphragm together so that
it acts as a unit. Wall anchorages tend to tear off the edges of the diaphragm; thus, the ties must be
extended into the diaphragm so as to develop adequate anchorage. During the San Fernando earthquake,
seismic forces from the walls caused separations in roof diaphragms 20 or more feet (6 m) from the edge
in several industrial buildings.
Where openings occur in shear walls or diaphragms, temperature trim bars alone do not provide
adequate reinforcement. The chord stresses must be provided for and the chords anchored to develop the
chord stresses by embedment. The embedment must be sufficient to take the reactions without
57
REFERENCES
Bonowitz, D., N. Youssef, and J. L. Gross. 1995. A survey of steel moment-resisting frames buildings
affected by the 1994 Northridge earthquake, Report no. NISTIR 5625, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 1994. Preliminary Reconnaissance Report: Northridge
Earthquake.
SAC Joint Venture. 1995. Analytical Investigation of Buildings Affected by the 1994 Northridge
Earthquake, Volumes 1 and 2, SAC 95-04A and B. SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA.
Uang, C-M. 1991. Establishing R (or Rw) and Cd Factors for Building Seismic Provisions, Journal of
Structural Engineering, vol. 117, no. 1, pp. 19-28, ASCE.
Wood, S. L. 1991. Performance of Reinforced Concrete Buildings During the 1985 Chile Earthquake,
EERI Spectra, November.
58
In recent years, engineers and building officials have become concerned that the Provisions, and the
building codes based on these Provisions, have become increasingly complex and difficult to understand
and to implement. The basic driving force for this increasing complexity is the desire of the Provisions
Update Committee to provide design guidelines that will provide for the reliable performance of
structures. Since the response of buildings to earthquake ground shaking is by nature, very complex,
realistic accounting for these effects leads to increasingly complex provisions. However, many of the
current provisions have been added as prescriptive requirements relating to the design of irregularities in
structural systems. It has been recognized that in order for buildings to be reliably constructed to resist
earthquakes, it is necessary that the designers have sufficient understanding of the design provisions so
that they can be properly implemented. It is feared that the typical designers of smaller, simpler
structures, which possibly represent more than 90 percent of construction in the United States, may have
difficulty understanding what the Provisions require in their present complex form.
In recognition of this, as part of the BSSC 2000 Provisions Update Cycle, a special task force was
commissioned by BSSC to develop simplified procedures, acting as an ad-hoc group reporting to TS-2.
The approach was to develop a simplified set of the Provisions for easier application to low-rise, stiff
structures. The procedure was designed to be used within a defined set of structures deemed to be
sufficiently regular in configuration to allow a reduction of prescriptive requirements. The procedure
was refined and tested over the 2000 and 2003 cycles. It is presented as a stand-alone alternate
procedure to Chapter 4. Significant characteristics of this alternative chapter include the following:
1.
The simplified procedure would apply to structures up to three stories high in Seismic Design
Categories B, C, D, and E, but would not be allowed for systems for which the design is typically
controlled by considerations of drift. The task group concluded that this approach should be
limited to certain structural systems in order to avoid problems that would arise from omitting the
drift check for the drift-controlled systems (steel moment frames, for example). The simplified
procedure is allowed for bearing wall and building frame systems, provided that several
prescriptive rules are followed that result in a torsionally resistant, regular layout of lateral-loadresisting elements.
2.
Given the prescriptive rules for system configuration, the definitions, tables, and design
provisions for system irregularities become unnecessary.
3.
The table of basic seismic-force-resisting systems has been shortened to include only allowable
systems, and deflection amplification factors are not used and have been eliminated from the
table.
4.
Design and detailing requirements have been consolidated into a single set of provisions that do
not vary with Seismic Design Category, largely due to sections rendered unnecessary with the
prohibition of system irregularities.
5.
6.
The procedure is limited to Site Classes A to D. At the same time, it is helpful in the simplified
method to have default Site Class Fa values for buildings and regions where detailed geotechnical
investigations may not be available to the structural engineer. A simple definition of rock sites is
provided in Sec. Alt. 4.6.1. As a practical matter, it should be known from a rudimentary
geotechnical investigation whether a site is rock or soil, and so additional seismic shear wave
velocity tests or special 100-ft. deep borings will not be necessary when utilizing this procedure.
59
Vertical shear distribution is based on tributary weight. As a result, the special formula for
calculation of diaphragm forces is removed, and calculations of diaphragm forces are greatly
simplified. The base shear is based on the short period plateau and does not require calculation of
the period. This base value is increased 25 percent to account for the vertical distribution method
as well as other simplifications. A calibration study, Figure CAlt.4-1, covering a wide range of
conditions indicates that the 25 percent adequately covers the simplifications without being overly
conservative.
8.
Simple rigidity analysis will be required for rigid diaphragm systems, but analysis of accidental
torsion and dynamic amplification of torsion would not be required. Untopped metal deck, wood
panel, or plywood sheathed diaphragms may be considered flexible, representing another
simplification in calculations.
9.
Calculations for period, drift, or P-delta effects need not be performed. 1percent drift is assumed
when needed by requirements not covered in the simplified provisions. For example, in ACI 318,
gravity columns are required to be designed for the calculated drift or to be specially detailed.
60
Calibration Study
Fa =
Sds =
1.25Sds =
Fa Values
Site Class
A
B
C
D
(hard rock)
(rock)
(soft rock)
(stiff soil)
V =1.25SDS / R
Z=0.13
Ss=0.50
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
Z=0.20
Ss=0.75
0.80
1.00
1.10
1.20
Z=0.27
Ss=1.00
0.80
1.00
1.00
1.10
Z>=0.33
Ss>=1.25
0.80
1.00
1.00
1.00
Ss=0.75
1.25
1.00
0.91
1.17
Ss=1.00
1.25
1.00
1.00
1.27
Ss>=1.25
1.25
1.00
1.00
1.40
(hard rock)
(rock)
(soft rock)
(stiff soil)
Ss<=0.25
1.25
1.00
0.83
0.88
Ss=0.50
1.25
1.00
0.83
1.00
Ratio of base shear for all buildings and overturning moment for one-story buildings
Site Class
A
B
C
D
(hard rock)
(rock)
(soft rock)
(stiff soil)
Ss<=0.25
1.56
1.25
1.04
1.09
Ss=0.50
1.56
1.25
1.04
1.25
Ss=0.75
1.56
1.25
1.14
1.46
Ss=1.00
1.56
1.25
1.25
1.59
Ss>=1.25
1.56
1.25
1.25
1.75
(hard rock)
(rock)
(soft rock)
(stiff soil)
Ss.<=0.25
1.44
1.15
0.96
1.01
Ss=0.50
1.44
1.15
0.96
1.15
Ss=0.75
1.44
1.15
1.05
1.34
Ss=1.00
1.44
1.15
1.15
1.46
Ss>=1.25
1.44
1.15
1.15
1.61
(hard rock)
(rock)
(soft rock)
(stiff soil)
Ss<=0.25
1.38
1.10
0.92
0.96
Ss=0.50
1.38
1.10
0.92
1.10
Ss=0.75
1.38
1.10
1.00
1.28
Ss=1.00
1.38
1.10
1.10
1.40
Ss>=1.25
1.38
1.10
1.10
1.54
Bold values indicates Seismic Design Category D in the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure.
Bold Italic values indicates Seismic Design Category B in the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure.
Figure CAlt.4-1 Calibration Study.
61
62
Chapter 5 Commentary
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
5.1 GENERAL
The equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure specified in Sec. 5.2 is similar in its basic concept to
SEAOC recommendations in 1968, 1973, and 1974, but several improved features have been
incorporated. A significant revision to this procedure, which more closely reflects the ground motion
response spectra, was adopted in the 1997 Provisions in parallel with a similar concept developed by
SEAOC.
The modal superposition method is a general procedure for linear analysis of the dynamic response of
structures. In various forms, modal analysis has been widely used in the earthquake-resistant design of
special structures such as very tall buildings, offshore drilling platforms, dams, and nuclear power plants,
for a number of years; however, its use is also becoming more common for ordinary structures as well.
Prior to the 1997 edition of the Provisions, the modal analysis procedure specified in Sec. 5.3 was
simplified from the general case by restricting consideration to lateral motion in a single plane. Only one
degree of freedom was required per floor for this type of analysis. In recent years, with the advent of
high-speed, desktop computers, and the proliferation of relatively inexpensive, user-friendly structural
analysis software capable of performing three dimensional modal analyses, such simplifications have
become unnecessary. Consequently, the 1997 Provisions adopted the more general approach describing a
three-dimensional modal analysis of the structure. When modal analysis is specified by the Provisions, a
three-dimensional analysis generally is required except in the case of highly regular structures or
structures with flexible diaphragms.
The ELF procedure of Sec. 5.2 and the response spectrum procedure of Sec. 5.3 are both based on the
approximation that the effects of yielding can be adequately accounted for by linear analysis of the
seismic-force-resisting system for the design spectrum, which is the elastic acceleration response
spectrum reduced by the response modification factor, R. The effects of the horizontal component of
ground motion perpendicular to the direction under consideration in the analysis, the vertical component
of ground motion, and torsional motions of the structure are all considered in the same simplified
approaches in the two procedures. The main difference between the two procedures lies in the
distribution of the seismic lateral forces over the height of the building. In the modal analysis procedure,
the distribution is based on properties of the natural vibration modes, which are determined from the mass
and stiffness distribution. In the ELF procedure, the distribution is based on simplified formulas that are
appropriate for regular structures as specified in Sec. 5.2.3. Otherwise, the two procedures are subject to
the same limitations.
The simplifications inherent in the ELF procedure result in approximations that are likely to be
inadequate if the lateral motions in two orthogonal directions and the torsional motion are strongly
coupled. Such would be the case if the building were irregular in its plan configuration (see Sec. 4.3.2.2)
or if it had a regular plan but its lower natural frequencies were nearly equal and the centers of mass and
resistance were nearly coincident. The modal analysis method introduced in the 1997 Provisions includes
a general model that is more appropriate for the analysis of such structures. It requires at least three
degrees of freedom per floortwo for translational motion and one for torsional motion.
The methods of modal analysis can be generalized further to model the effect of diaphragm flexibility,
soil-structure interaction, etc. In the most general form, the idealization would take the form of a large
number of mass points, each with six degrees of freedom (three translational and three rotational)
connected by generalized stiffness elements.
63
Figure C5.2-2 Measured building period for momentresisting steel frame structures.
67
Response modification factor. The factor R in the denominator of Eq. 5.2-2 and 5.2-3 is an empirical
response reduction factor intended to account for damping, overstrength, and the ductility inherent in the
structural system at displacements great enough to surpass initial yield and approach the ultimate load
displacement of the structural system. Thus, for a lightly damped building structure of brittle material
that would be unable to tolerate any appreciable deformation beyond the elastic range, the factor R would
be close to 1 (that is, no reduction from the linear elastic response would be allowed). At the other
extreme, a heavily damped building structure with a very ductile structural system would be able to
withstand deformations considerably in excess of initial yield and would, therefore, justify the assignment
of a larger response reduction factor R. Table 4.3-1 in the Provisions stipulates R factors for different
types of building systems using several different structural materials. The coefficient R ranges in value
from a minimum of 1 for an unreinforced masonry bearing wall system to a maximum of 8 for a special
moment frame system. The basis for the R factor values specified in Table 4.3-1 is explained in the
Commentary to Sec. 4.2.1.
The effective value of R used in the base shear equation is adjusted by the occupancy importance factor I.
The value of I, which ranges from 1 to 1.5, has the effect of reducing the amount of ductility the structure
will be called on to provide at a given level of ground shaking. However, it must be recognized that
added strength, by itself, is not adequate to provide for superior seismic performance in buildings with
critical occupancies. Good connections and construction details, quality assurance procedures, and
limitations on building deformation or drift are also important to significantly improve the capability for
maintenance of function and safety in critical facilities and those with a high-density occupancy.
Consequently, the reduction in the damage potential of critical facilities (Group III) is also handled by
using more conservative drift controls (Sec. 4.5.1) and by providing special design and detailing
requirements (Sec. 4.6) and materials limitations (Chapters 8 through 12).
Ta = Ct hn3/ 4
69
A large number of strong motion instruments have been placed in buildings located within zones of high
seismic activity by the U.S. Geological Survey and the California Division of Mines and Geology. Over
the past several years, this has allowed the response to strong ground shaking for a significant number of
these buildings to be recorded and the fundamental period of vibration of the buildings to be calculated.
Figures C5.2-1, C5.2-2, and C5.2-3, respectively, show plots of these data as a function of building height
for three classes of structures. Figure C5.2-1 shows the data for moment-resisting concrete frame
buildings; Figure C5.2-2, for moment-resisting steel frame buildings; and Figure C5.2-3, for concrete
shear wall buildings. Also shown in these figures are equations for lines that envelop the data within
approximately a standard deviation above and below the mean.
For the 2000 Provisions, Eq. 5.2-6 is revised into a more general form allowing the statistical fits of the
data shown in the figures to be used directly. The values of the coefficient Cr and the exponent x given in
Table 5.2-2 for these moment-resisting frame structures represent the lower bound (mean minus one
standard deviation) fits to the data shown in Figures C5.2-1 and C5.2-2, respectively, for steel and
concrete moment frames. Although updated data were available for concrete shear wall structures, these
data do not fit well with an equation of the form of Eq. 5.2-6. This is because the period of shear wall
buildings is highly dependent not only on the height of the structure but also on the amount of shear wall
present in the building. Analytical evaluations performed by Chopra and Goel (1997 and 1998) indicate
that equations of the form of Eq. 5.2-8 and 5.2-9 provide a reasonably good fit to the data. However, the
form of these equations is somewhat complex. Therefore, the simpler form of Eq. 5.2-6 contained in
earlier editions of the Provisions was retained with the newer, more accurate formulation presented as an
alternative.
Updated data for other classes of construction were not available. As a result, the Cr and x values for
other types of construction shown in Table 5.2-2 are values largely based on limited data obtained from
the 1971 San Fernando earthquake that have been used in past editions of the Provisions. The optional
use of T = 0.1N (Eq. 5.2-7) is an approximation for low to moderate height frames that has long been in
use.
In earlier editions of the Provisions, the Cu coefficient varied from a value of 1.2 in zones of high
seismicity to a value of 1.7 in zones of low seismicity. The data presented in Figures C5.2-1, C5.2-2, and
C5.2-3 permit direct evaluation of the upper bound on period as a function of the lower bound, given by
Eq. 5.2-6. This data indicates that in zones of high seismicity, the ratio of the upper to lower bound may
more properly be taken as a value of about 1.4. Therefore, in the 2000 Provisions, the values in
Table 5.2-1 were revised to reflect this data in zones of high seismicity while retaining the somewhat
subjective values contained in earlier editions for the zones of lower seismicity.
For exceptionally stiff or light buildings, the calculated T for the seismic-force-resisting system may be
significantly shorter than Ta calculated by Eq. 5.2-6. For such buildings, it is recommended that the
period value T be used in lieu of Ta for calculating the seismic response coefficient, Cs.
Although the approximate methods of Sec. 5.2.2.1 can be used to determine a period for the design of
structures, the fundamental period of vibration of the seismic-force-resisting system should be calculated
according to established methods of mechanics. Computer programs are available for such calculations.
One method of calculating the period, probably as convenient as any, is the use of the following formula
based on Rayleighs method:
n
T = 2
wi i
i =1
n
g Fi i
i =1
where:
Fi =
70
(C5.2-1)
i =
the static lateral displacement at Level i due to the forces Fi computed on a linear elastic
basis, and
The calculated period increases with an increase in flexibility of the structure because the term in the
Rayleigh formula appears to the second power in the numerator but to only the first power in the
denominator. Thus, if one ignores the contribution of nonstructural elements to the stiffness of the
structure in calculating the deflections , the deflections are exaggerated and the calculated period is
lengthened, leading to a decrease in the seismic response coefficient Cs and, therefore, a decrease in the
design force. Nonstructural elements participate in the behavior of the structure even though the designer
may not rely on them to contribute any strength or stiffness to the structure. To ignore them in
calculating the period is to err on the unconservative side. The limitation of CuTa is imposed as a
safeguard.
5.2.3 Vertical distribution of seismic forces. The distribution of lateral forces over the height of a
structure is generally quite complex because these forces are the result of superposition of a number of
natural modes of vibration. The relative contributions of these vibration modes to the total forces depends
on a number of factors including the shape of the earthquake response spectrum, the natural periods of
vibration of the structure, and the shapes of vibration modes that, in turn, depend on the distribution of
mass and stiffness over the height. The basis of this method is discussed below. In structures having only
minor irregularity of mass or stiffness over the height, the accuracy of the lateral force distribution as
given by Eq. 5.2-11 is much improved by the procedure described in the last portion of Sec. 5.1 of this
commentary. The lateral force at each level, x, due to response in the first (fundamental) natural mode of
vibration is given by Eq. C5.2-2 as follows:
wx x1
f x1 = V1 n
w1i1
i =1
(C5.2-2)
where:
V1 =
wi =
i =
This is the same as Eq. 5.3-7 in Sec. 5.3.5 of the Provisions, but it is specialized for the first mode. If V1
is replaced by the total base shear, V, this equation becomes identical to Eq. 5.2-11 with k = 1 if the first
mode shape is a straight line and with k = 2 if the first mode shape is a parabola with its vertex at the base.
It is well known that the influence of modes of vibration higher than the fundamental mode is small in the
earthquake response of short period structures and that, in regular structures, the fundamental vibration
mode departs little from a straight line. This, along with the matters discussed above, provides the basis
for Eq. 5.2-11 with k = 1 for structures having a fundamental vibration period of 0.5 seconds or less.
It has been demonstrated that although the earthquake response of long period structures is primarily due
to the fundamental natural mode of vibration, the influence of higher modes of vibration can be
significant and, in regular structures, the fundamental vibration mode lies approximately between a
straight line and a parabola with the vertex at the base. Thus, Eq. 5.2-11 with k = 2 is appropriate for
structures having a fundamental period of vibration of 2.5 seconds or longer. Linear variation of k
between 1 at a 0.5 second period and 2 at a 2.5 seconds period provides the simplest possible transition
between the two extreme values.
71
5.2.4 Horizontal shear distribution. The story shear in any story is the sum of the lateral forces acting
at all levels above that story. Story x is the story immediately below Level x (Figure C5.2-4). Reasonable
and consistent assumptions regarding the stiffness of concrete and masonry elements may be used for
analysis in distributing the shear force to such elements connected by a horizontal diaphragm. Similarly,
the stiffness of moment or braced frames will establish the distribution of the story shear to the vertical
resisting elements in that story.
5.2.4.1 and 5.2.4.2 Inherent and accidental torsion. The torsional moment to be considered in the
design of elements in a story consists of two parts:
1. Mt, the moment due to eccentricity between centers of mass and resistance for that story, which is
computed as the story shear times the eccentricity perpendicular to the direction of applied earthquake
forces.
2. Mta, commonly referred to as accidental torsion, which is computed as the story shear times the
accidental eccentricity, equal to 5 percent of the dimension of the structure (in the story under
consideration) perpendicular to the direction of the applied earthquake forces.
Computation of Mta in this manner is equivalent to the procedure in Sec. 5.2.4.2 which implies that the
dimension of the structure is the dimension in the story where the torsional moment is being computed
and that all the masses above that story should be assumed to be displaced in the same direction at one
time (for example, first, all of them to the left and, then, to the right).
Dynamic analyses assuming linear behavior indicate that the torsional moment due to eccentricity
between centers of mass and resistance may significantly exceed Mt (Newmark and Rosenblueth, 1971).
However, such dynamic magnification is not included in the Provisions, partly because its significance is
not well understood for structures designed to deform well beyond the range of linear behavior.
72
73
In the design of the foundation, the overturning moment calculated at the foundation-soil interface may be
reduced to 75 percent of the calculated value using Eq. 5.2-14. This is appropriate because a slight
uplifting of one edge of the foundation during vibration leads to reduction in the overturning moment and
because such behavior does not normally cause structural distress.
5.2.6 Drift determination and P-delta effects. This section defines the design story drift as the
difference of the deflections, x, at the top and bottom of the story under consideration. The deflections,
x, are determined by multiplying the deflections, xe (determined from an elastic analysis), by the
deflection amplification factor, Cd, given in Table 4.3-1. The elastic analysis is to be made for the
seismic-force-resisting system using the prescribed seismic design forces and considering the structure to
be fixed at the base. Stiffnesses other than those of the seismic-force-resisting system should not be
included since they may not be reliable at higher inelastic strain levels.
The deflections are to be determined by combining the effects of joint rotation of members, shear
deformations between floors, the axial deformations of the overall lateral resisting elements, and the shear
and flexural deformations of shear walls and braced frames. The deflections are determined initially on
the basis of the distribution of lateral forces stipulated in Sec. 5.2.3. For frame structures, the axial
deformations from bending effects, although contributing to the overall structural distortion, may or may
not affect the story-to-story drift; however, they are to be considered. Centerline dimensions between the
frame elements often are used for analysis, but clear-span dimensions with consideration of joint panel
zone deformation also may be used.
For determining compliance with the story drift limitation of Sec. 4.5.1, the deflections, x, may be
calculated as indicated above for the seismic-force-resisting system and design forces corresponding to
the fundamental period of the structure, T (calculated without the limit T CuTa specified in Sec. 5.2.2),
may be used. The same model of the seismic-force-resisting system used in determining the deflections
must be used for determining T. The waiver does not pertain to the calculation of drifts for determining
P-delta effects on member forces, overturning moments, etc. If the P-delta effects determined in Sec.
5.2.6.2 are significant, the design story drift must be increased by the resulting incremental factor.
The P-delta effects in a given story are due to the eccentricity of the gravity load above that story. If the
story drift due to the lateral forces prescribed in Sec. 5.2.3 were , the bending moments in the story
would be augmented by an amount equal to times the gravity load above the story. The ratio of the
P-delta moment to the lateral force story moment is designated as a stability coefficient, , in Eq. 5.2-16.
If the stability coefficient is less than 0.10 for every story, the P-delta effects on story shears and
moments and member forces may be ignored. If, however, the stability coefficient exceeds 0.10 for any
story, the P-delta effects on story drifts, shears, member forces, etc., for the whole structure must be
determined by a rational analysis.
An acceptable P-delta analysis, based upon elastic stability theory, is as follows:
74
There exists a wide variety of methods for calculation of natural periods and associated mode shapes, and
no one particular method is required by the Provisions. It is essential, however, that the method used be
one based on generally accepted principles of mechanics such as those given in well known textbooks on
structural dynamics and vibrations (Clough and Penzien, 1975; Newmark and Rosenblueth, 1971;
Thomson, 1965; Wiegel, 1970). Although it is expected that in many cases computer programs, whose
accuracy and reliability are documented and widely recognized, will be used to calculate the required
natural periods and associated mode shapes, their use is not required.
5.3.4 Modal base shear. A central feature of modal analysis is that the earthquake response is
considered as a combination of the independent responses of the structure vibrating in each of its
important modes. As the structure vibrates back and forth in a particular mode at the associated period, it
experiences maximum values of base shear, story drifts, floor displacements, base (overturning) moments,
etc. In this section, the base shear in the mth mode is specified as the product of the modal seismic
coefficient Csm and the effective weight Wm for the mode. The coefficient Csm is determined for each
mode from Eq. 5.3-3 using the spectral acceleration Sam at the associated period of the mode, Tm, in
addition to the R, which is discussed elsewhere in the Commentary. An exception to this procedure
occurs for higher modes of those structures that have periods shorter than 0.3 second and that are founded
on soils of Site Class D, E, or F. For such modes, Eq. 5.3-4 is used. Equation 5.3-4 gives values ranging
from 0.4SDS/R for very short periods to SDS/R for Tm = 0.3. Comparing these values to the limiting values
of Cs of SDS/R for Site Class D, it is seen that the use of Eq. 5.3-4, when applicable, reduces the modal
base shear. This is an approximation introduced in consideration of the conservatism embodied in using
the spectral shape specified in Sec. 3.3.4. The spectral shape so defined is a conservative approximation
to average spectra that are known to first ascend, level off, and then decay as period increases. The
design spectrum defined in Sec. 3.3.4 is somewhat more conservative. For Site Classes A, B, and C, the
ascending portion of the spectra is completed at or below periods of 0.1 to 0.2 second. On the other hand,
for soft soils the ascent may not be completed until a larger period is reached. Equation 5.3-4 is then a
replacement for the spectral shape for Site Classes D, E and F and short periods that is more consistent
with spectra for measured accelerations. It was introduced because it was judged unnecessarily
77
Modal forces at each level are given by Eq. 5.3-6 and 5.3-7 and are expressed in terms of the seismic
weight assigned to the floor, the mode shape, and the modal base shear Vm. In applying the forces Fxm to
the structure, the direction of the forces is controlled by the algebraic sign of fxm. Hence, the modal forces
for the fundamental mode will all act in the same direction, but modal forces for the second and higher
modes will change direction as one moves up the structure. The form of Eq. 5.3-6 is somewhat different
from that usually employed in standard references and shows clearly the relation between the modal
forces and the modal base shear. It, therefore, is a convenient form for calculation and highlights the
similarity to Eq. 5.2-10 in the ELF procedure.
The modal deflections at each level are specified by Eq. 5.3-8 and 5.3-9. These are the displacements
caused by the modal forces Fxm considered as static forces and are representative of the maximum
amplitudes of modal response for the essentially elastic motions envisioned within the concept of the
seismic response modification coefficient R. If the mode under consideration dominates the earthquake
response, the modal deflection under the strongest motion contemplated by the Provisions can be
estimated by multiplying by the deflection amplification factor Cd. It should be noted that xm is
proportional to xm (this can be shown with algebraic substitution for Fxm in Eq. 5.3-9) and will therefore
change direction up and down the structure for the higher modes.
5.3.6 Modal story shears and moments. This section merely specifies that the forces of Eq. 5.3-6
should be used to calculate the shears and moments for each mode under consideration. In essence, the
forces from Eq. 5.3-6 are applied to each mass, and linear static methods are used to calculate story shears
and story overturning moments. The base shear that results from the calculation should agree with
computed using Eq. 5.3-1.
5.3.7 Design values. This section specifies the manner in which the values of story shear, moment, and
drift and the deflection at each level are to be combined. The method used, in which the design value is
the square root of the sum of the squares of the modal quantities, was selected for its simplicity and its
wide familiarity (Clough and Penzien, 1975; Newmark and Rosenblueth, 1971; Wiegel, 1970). In
general, it gives satisfactory results, but it is not always a conservative predictor of the earthquake
response inasmuch as more adverse combinations of modal quantities than are given by this method of
combination can occur. The most common instance where combination by use of the square root of the
sum of the squares is unconservative occurs when two modes have very nearly the same natural period.
In this case, the responses are highly correlated and the designer should consider combining the modal
quantities more conservatively (Newmark and Rosenblueth, 1971). The complete quadratic combination
(CQC) technique provides somewhat better results than the square-root-of-the-sum-of-the-squares method
for the case of closely spaced modes.
78
81
82
The increase in period results from the flexibility of the foundation soil whereas the change in damping
results mainly from the effects of energy dissipation in the soil due to radiation and material damping.
These statements can be clarified by comparing the responses of rigidly and elastically supported systems
subjected to a harmonic excitation of the base.
83
Consider a linear structure of weight W, lateral stiffness k, and coefficient of viscous damping c (shown in
Figure C5.6-1) and assume that it is supported by a foundation of weight Wo at the surface of a
homogeneous, elastic halfspace.
The foundation mat is idealized as a rigid circular plate of negligible thickness bonded to the supporting
medium, and the columns of the structure are considered to be weightless and axially inextensible. Both
the foundation weight and the weight of the structure are assumed to be uniformly distributed over
circular areas of radius r. The base excitation is specified by the free-field motion of the ground surface.
This is taken as a horizontally directed, simple harmonic motion with a period To and an acceleration
amplitude am.
The configuration of this system, which has three degrees of freedom when flexibly supported and a
single degree of freedom when fixed at the base, is specified by the lateral displacement and rotation of
the foundation, y and , and by the displacement of the top of the structure, u, relative to its base. The
system may be viewed either as the direct model of a one-story structural frame or, more generally, as a
model of a multistory, multimode structure that responds as a single-degree-of-freedom system in its
fixed-base condition. In the latter case, h must be interpreted as the distance from the base to the centroid
of the inertia forces associated with the fundamental mode of vibration of the fixed-base structure and W,
k, and c must be interpreted as its generalized or effective weight, stiffness, and damping coefficient,
respectively. The relevant expressions for these quantities are given below.
The solid lines in Figures C5.6-2 and C5.6-3 represent response spectra for the steady-state amplitude of
the total shear in the columns of the system considered in Figure C5.6-1. Two different values of h/r and
several different values of the relative flexibility parameter for the soil and the structure, o, are
h
considered. The latter parameter is defined by the equation 0 =
in which h is the height of the
vsT
structure as previously indicated, vs is the velocity of shear wave propagation in the halfspace, and T is the
fixed-base natural period of the structure. A value of = 0 corresponds to a rigidly supported structure.
The results in Figures C5.6-2 and C5.6-3 are displayed in a dimensionless form, with the abscissa
representing the ratio of the period of the excitation, To, to the fixed-base natural period of the system, T,
and the ordinate representing the ratio of the amplitude of the actual base shear, V, to the amplitude of the
base shear induced in an infinitely stiff, rigidly supported structure.
The latter quantity is given by the product mam, in which m = W/g, g is the acceleration due to gravity,
and am is the acceleration amplitude of the free-field ground motion. The inclined scales on the left
represent the deformation amplitude of the superstructure, u, normalized with respect to the displacement
a T2
amplitude of the free-field ground motion d m = m 20 .
4
84
The damping of the structure in its fixed-base condition, , is considered to be 2 percent of the critical
value, and the additional parameters needed to characterize completely these solutions are identified in
Veletsos and Meek (1974), from which these figures have been reproduced.
Comparison of the results presented in these figures reveals that the effects of soil-structure interaction
are most strikingly reflected in a shift of the peak of the response spectrum to the right and a change in the
magnitude of the peak. These changes, which are particularly prominent for taller structures and more
flexible soils (increasing values of 0), can conveniently be expressed by an increase in the natural period
of the system over its fixed-base value and by a change in its damping factor.
Also shown in these figures in dotted lines are response spectra for single-degree-of-freedom (SDF)
oscillators, the natural period and damping of which have been adjusted so that the absolute maximum
(resonant) value of the base shear and the associated period are in each case identical to those of the
actual interacting systems. The base motion for the replacement oscillator is considered to be the same as
the free-field ground motion. With the properties of the replacement SDF oscillator determined in this
manner, it is important to note that the response spectra for the actual and the replacement systems are in
excellent agreement over wide ranges of the exciting period on both sides of the resonant peak.
85
It follows that, to the degree of approximation involved in the representation of the actual system by the
replacement SDF oscillator, the effects of interaction on maximum response may be expressed by an
increase in the fundamental natural period of the fixed-base system and by a change in its damping value.
In the following sections, the natural period of replacement oscillator is denoted by T% and the associated
damping factor by % . These quantities will also be referred to as the effective natural period and the
effective damping factor of the interacting system. The relationships between T% and T and between % and
are considered in Sec. 5.6.2.1.1 and 5.6.2.1.2.
86
Fundamental to these requirements is the assumption that the structure and the underlying soil are bonded
and remain so throughout the period of ground-shaking. It is further assumed that there is no soil
instability or large foundation settlements. The design of the foundation in a manner to ensure
satisfactory soil performance (for example, to avoid soil instability and settlement associated with the
compaction and liquefaction of loose granular soils), is beyond the scope of Sec. 5.6. Finally, no account
is taken of the interaction effects among neighboring structures.
Nature of interaction effects. Depending on the characteristics of the structure and the ground motion
under consideration, soil-structure interaction may increase, decrease, or have no effect on the magnitudes
of the maximum forces induced in the structure itself (Bielak, 1975; Jennings and Bielak, 1973; Veletsos,
1977; Veletsos and Meek, 1974; Veletsos and Nair, 1975). However, for the conditions stipulated in the
development of the requirements for rigidly supported structures presented in Sec. 5.2 and 5.3, soilstructure interaction will reduce the design values of the base shear and moment from the levels
applicable to a fixed-base condition. These forces therefore can be evaluated conservatively without the
adjustments recommended in Sec. 5.6.
Because of the influence of foundation rocking, however, the horizontal displacements relative to the base
of the elastically supported structure may be larger than those of the corresponding fixed-base structure,
and this may increase both the required spacing between structures and the secondary design forces
associated with the P-delta effects. Such increases generally are small for frame structures, but can be
significant for shear wall structures.
Scope. Two procedures are used to incorporate effects of the soil-structure interaction. The first is an
extension of the equivalent lateral force procedure presented in Sec. 5.2 and involves the use of
equivalent lateral static forces. The second is an extension of the simplified modal analysis procedure
presented in Sec. 5.3. In the latter approach, the earthquake-induced effects are expressed as a linear
combination of terms, the number of which is equal to the number of stories involved. Other more
complex procedures also may be used, and these are outlined briefly at the end of this commentary on
Sec. 5.6. However, it is believed that the more involved procedures are justified only for unusual
structures and when the results of the specified simpler approaches have revealed that the interaction
effects are indeed of definite consequence in the design.
5.6.2 Equivalent lateral force procedure. This procedure is similar to that used in the older SEAOC
recommendations except that it incorporates several improvements (see Sec. 5.2 of this commentary). In
effect, the procedure considers the response of the structure in its fundamental mode of vibration and
accounts for the contributions of the higher modes implicitly through the choice of the effective weight of
the structure and the vertical distribution of the lateral forces. The effects of soil-structure interaction are
accounted for on the assumption that they influence only the contribution of the fundamental mode of
vibration. For structures, this assumption has been found to be adequate (Bielak, 1976; Jennings and
Bielak, 1973; Veletsos, 1977).
5.6.2.1 Base shear. With the effects of soil-structure interaction neglected, the base shear is defined by
Eq. 5.2-1, V = CsW, in which W is the total seismic weight (as specified in Sec. 5.2.1) and Cs is the
dimensionless seismic response coefficient (as defined in Sec. 5.2.1.1). This term depends on the level of
seismic hazard under consideration, the properties of the site, and the characteristics of the structure itself.
87
(C5.6-1)
where W represents the generalized or effective weight of the structure when vibrating in its fundamental
natural mode. The terms in parentheses are used to emphasize the fact that Cs depends upon both T and .
The relationship between W and W is given below. The first term on the right side of Eq. C5.6-1
approximates the contribution of the fundamental mode of vibration whereas the second term
approximates the contributions of the higher natural modes. Inasmuch as soil-structure interaction may
be considered to affect only the contribution of the fundamental mode and inasmuch as this effect can be
expressed by changes in the fundamental natural period and the associated damping of the system, the
base shear for the interacting system, V% , may be stated (in a form analogous to Eq. C5.6-1) as follows:
V% = Cs (T% , % )W + Cs (T , )[W W ]
(C5.6-2)
The value of Cs in the first part of this equation should be evaluated for the natural period and damping of
the elastically supported system, T% and % , respectively, and the value of Cs in the second term part should
be evaluated for the corresponding quantities of the rigidly supported system, T and .
Before proceeding with the evaluation of the coefficients Cs in Eq. C5.6-2, it is desirable to rewrite this
formula in the same form as Eq. 5.6-1. Making use of Eq. 5.2-1 and rearranging terms, the following
expression for the reduction in the base shear is obtained:
V = Cs (T , ) Cs (T% , % ) W
(C5.6-3)
Within the ranges of natural period and damping that are of interest in studies of structural response, the
values of Cs corresponding to two different damping values but the same natural period (T), are related
approximately as follows:
0.4
Cs (T% , % ) = Cs (T% , )
(C5.6-4)
%
This expression, which appears to have been first proposed in Arias and Husid (1962), is in good
agreement with the results of studies of earthquake response spectra for systems having different damping
values (Newmark et al., 1973).
Substitution of Eq. C5.6-4 in Eq. C5.6-3 leads to:
0.4
%
V = Cs (T , ) Cs (T , ) W
(C5.6-5)
%
where both values of Cs are now for the damping factor of the rigidly supported system and may be
evaluated from Eq. 5.2-2 and 5.2-3. If the terms corresponding to the periods T and T% are denoted more
simply as Cs and C% s , respectively, and if the damping factor is taken as 0.05, Eq. C5.6-5 reduces to
Eq. 5.6-2.
Note that C% s in Eq. 5.6-2 is smaller than or equal to Cs because Eq. 5.2-3 is a nonincreasing function of
the natural period and T% is greater than or equal to T. Furthermore, since the minimum value of % is
taken as % = = 0.05 (see statement following Eq. 5.6-10), the shear reduction V is a non-negative
88
Equation 5.6-4 for the structural stiffness, k , is deduced from the well known expression for the natural
period of the fixed-base system:
1 W
T = 2
g k
(C5.6-6)
The effective height, h, is defined by Eq. 5.6-13, in which i1 has the same meaning as the quantity im in
Eq. 5.3-2 when m = 1. In the interest of simplicity and consistency with the approximation used in the
definition of W , however, a constant value of h = 0.7 hn is recommended where hn is the total height of
the structure. This value represents a good approximation for typical structures. As an example, it is
noted that for tall structures for which the fundamental natural mode increases linearly with height, the
exact value of h is 2/3hn. Naturally, when the gravity load of the structure is effectively concentrated at a
single level, hn must be taken as equal to the distance from the base to the level of weight concentration.
Foundation stiffnesses depend on the geometry of the foundation-soil contact area, the properties of the
soil beneath the foundation, and the characteristics of the foundation motion. Most of the available
information on this subject is derived from analytical studies of the response of harmonically excited rigid
circular foundations, and it is desirable to begin with a brief review of these results.
For circular mat foundations supported at the surface of a homogeneous halfspace, stiffnesses Ky and K
are given by:
8 y
Ky =
Gr
2 v
(C5.6-7)
and
89
(C5.6-8)
where r is the radius of the foundation; G is the shear modulus of the halfspace; v is its Poissons ratio;
and y and are dimensionless coefficients that depend on the period of the excitation, the dimensions of
the foundation, and the properties of the supporting medium (Luco, 1974; Veletsos and Verbic, 1974;
Veletsos and Wei, 1971). The shear modulus is related to the shear wave velocity, vs, by the formula:
G=
vs2
(C5.6-9)
in which is the unit weight of the material. The values of G, vs, and v should be interpreted as average
values for the region of the soil that is affected by the forces acting on the foundation and should
correspond to the conditions developed during the design earthquake. The evaluation of these quantities
is considered further in subsequent sections. For statically loaded foundations, the stiffness coefficients
y and are unity, and Eq. C5.6-7 and C5.6-8 reduce to:
Ky =
8Gr
2v
(C5.6-10)
K =
8Gr 3
3(1 v)
(C5.6-11)
and
Studies of the interaction effects in structure-soil systems have shown that, within the ranges of
parameters of interest for structures subjected to earthquakes, the results are insensitive to the
period-dependency of y and that it is sufficiently accurate for practical purposes to use the static stiffness
Ky, defined by Eq. C5.6-10. However, the dynamic modifier for rocking can significantly affect the
response of building structures. In the absence of more detailed analyses, for ordinary building structures
with an embedment ratio d/r < 0.5, the factor can be estimated as follows:
R/vsT
<0.05
1.0
0.15
0.85
0.35
0.7
0.5
0.6
where d equals depth of embedment and r can be taken as rm defined in Eq. 5.6-8.
The above values were derived from the solution for by Veletsos and Verbic (1973). In this solution
is a function of T%. To relate to T, a correction for period lengthening (T% / T ) was made assuming
h r ~0.5 to1.0
Foundation embedment has the effect of increasing the stiffnesses Ky and K. For embedded foundations
for which there is positive contact between the side walls and the surrounding soil, Ky and K may be
determined from the following approximate formulas:
8Gr 2 d
Ky =
1 +
2 v 3 r
and
90
(C5.6-12)
(C5.6-13)
in which d is the depth of embedment. These formulas are based on finite element solutions (Kausel,
1974).
Both analyses and available test data (Erden, 1974) indicate that the effects of foundation embedment are
sensitive to the condition of the backfill and that judgment must be exercised in using Eq. C5.6-12 and
C5.6-13. For example, if a structure is embedded in such a way that there is no positive contact between
the soil and the walls of the structure, or when any existing contact cannot reasonably be expected to
remain effective during the stipulated design ground motion, stiffnesses Ky and K should be determined
from the formulas for surface-supported foundations. More generally, the quantity d in Eq. C5.6-12 and
C5.6-13 should be interpreted as the effective depth of foundation embedment for the conditions that
would prevail during the design earthquake.
The formulas for Ky and K presented above are strictly valid only for foundations supported on
reasonably uniform soil deposits. When the foundation rests on a surface stratum of soil underlain by a
stiffer deposit with a shear wave velocity (vs) more than twice that of the surface layer (Wallace et al.,
1999), Ky and K may be determined from the following two generalized formulas in which G is the shear
modulus of the soft soil and Ds is the total depth of the stratum. First, using Eq. C5.6-12:
8Gr 2 d 1 r
Ky =
1 + 1 +
2 v 3 r 2 Ds
5 d
1 +
4 Ds
(C5.6-14)
d
1 + 0.7
Ds
(C5.6-15)
These formulas are based on analyses of a stratum supported on a rigid base (Elsabee et al., 1977; Kausel
and Roesset, 1975) and apply for r/Ds < 0.5 and d/r < 1.
The information for circular foundations presented above may be applied to mat foundations of arbitrary
shapes provided the following changes are made:
1. The radius r in the expressions for Ky is replaced by ra (Eq. 5.6-7), which represents the radius of a
disk that has the area, Ao, of the actual foundation.
2. The radius r in the expressions for K is replaced by rm (Eq. 5.6-8), which represents the radius of a
disk that has the moment of inertia, Io, of the actual foundation.
For footing foundations, stiffnesses Ky and K are computed by summing the contributions of the
individual footings. If it is assumed that the foundation behaves as a rigid body and that the individual
footings are widely spaced so that they act as independent units, the following formulas are obtained:
K y = k yi
(C5.6-16)
K = k xi yi2 + k i
(C5.6-17)
and
The quantity kyi represents the horizontal stiffness of the ith footing; kxi and ki represent, respectively, the
corresponding vertical and rocking stiffnesses; and yi represents the normal distance from the centroid of
the ith footing to the rocking axis of the foundation. The summations are considered to extend over all
footings. The contribution to K of the rocking stiffnesses of the individual footings, ki, generally is
small and may be neglected.
The stiffnesses kyi, kxi, and ki are defined by the formulas:
91
2 v 3 r
(C5.6-18)
d
4G r
k yi = i ai 1 + 0.4
r
1 v
(C5.6-19)
8G r 3mi
d
k i = i
1 + 2
r
3(1 v)
(C5.6-20)
and
in which di is the depth of effective embedment for the ith footing; Gi is the shear modulus of the soil
beneath the ith footing; rai = Aoi / is the radius of a circular footing that has the area of the ith footing,
Aoi; and rmi equals 4 4 I oi / the radius of a circular footing, the moment of inertia of which about a
horizontal centroidal axis is equal to that of the ith footing, Ioi, in the direction in which the response is
being evaluated.
For surface-supported footings and for embedded footings for which the side wall contact with the soil
cannot be considered to be effective during the stipulated design ground motion, di in these formulas
should be taken as zero. Furthermore, the values of Gi should be consistent with the stress levels
expected under the footings and should be evaluated with due regard for the effects of the dead loads
involved. This matter is considered further in subsequent sections. For closely spaced footings,
consideration of the coupling effects among footings will reduce the computed value of the overall
foundation stiffness. This reduction, in turn, will increase the fundamental natural period of the system,
T% , and increase the value of V, the amount by which the base shear is reduced due to soil-structure
interaction. It follows that the use of Eq. C5.6-16 and 5.6-17 will err on the conservative side in this case.
The degree of conservatism involved, however, will partly be compensated by the presence of a basement
slab that, even when it is not tied to the structural frame, will increase the overall stiffness of the
foundation.
The values of Ky and K for pile foundations can be computed in a manner analogous to that described in
the preceding section by evaluating the horizontal, vertical, and rocking stiffnesses of the individual piles,
kyi, kxi, and ki, and by combining these stiffnesses in accordance with Eq. C5.6-16 and C5.6-17.
The individual pile stiffnesses may be determined from field tests or analytically by treating each pile as a
beam on an elastic subgrade. Numerous formulas are available in the literature (Tomlinson, 1994) that
express these stiffnesses in terms of the modulus of the subgrade reaction and the properties of the pile
itself. These stiffnesses sometimes are expressed in terms of the stiffness of an equivalent freestanding
cantilever, the physical properties and cross-sectional dimensions of which are the same as those of the
actual pile but the length of which is adjusted appropriately. The effective lengths of the equivalent
cantilevers for horizontal motion and for rocking or bending motion are slightly different but are often
assumed to be equal. On the other hand, the effective length in vertical motion is generally considerably
greater.
The soil properties of interest are the shear modulus, G, or the associated shear wave velocity, vs; the unit
weight, ; and Poissons ratio, v. These quantities are likely to vary from point to point of a construction
site, and it is necessary to use average values for the soil region that is affected by the forces acting on the
foundation. The depth of significant influence is a function of the dimensions of the foundation base and
of the direction of the motion involved. The effective depth may be considered to extend to about 0.75ra
below the foundation base for horizontal motions, 2ra for vertical motions, and to about 0.75rm for
rocking motion. For mat foundations, the effective depth is related to the total plan dimensions of the mat
whereas for structures supported on widely spaced spread footings, it is related to the dimensions of the
individual footings. For closely spaced footings, the effective depth may be determined by superposition
of the pressure bulbs induced by the forces acting on the individual footings.
92
o = os + ob
(C5.6-21)
in which os represents the contribution of the weight of the soil and ob represents the contribution of
the superimposed weight of the structure and foundation. The first term is defined by the formula:
1 + 2Ko
3
os =
(C5.6-22)
in which x is the depth of the soil below the ground surface, is the average effective unit weight of the
soil to the depth under consideration, and Ko is the coefficient of horizontal earth pressure at rest. For
sands and gravel, Ko has a value of 0.5 to 0.6 whereas for soft clays, Ko 1.0. The pressures ob
developed by the weight of the structure can be estimated from the theory of elasticity (Poulos and Davis,
1974). In contrast to os which increases linearly with depth, the pressures ob decrease with depth. As
already noted, the value of vso should correspond to the average value of o in the region of the soil that
is affected by the forces acting on the foundation.
For clean sands and gravels having e < 0.80, the low-amplitude shear wave velocity can be calculated
approximately from the formula:
vso = c1 (2.17 e)( )0.25
(C5.6-23)
in which c1 equals 78.2 when is in lb/ft2 and vso is in ft/sec; c1 equals 160.4 when is in kg/cm2 and
vso is in m/sec; and c1 equals 51.0 when is in kN/m2 and vso is in m/sec.
For angular-grained cohesionless soils (e > 0.6), the following empirical equation may be used:
vso = c2 (2.97 e)( )0.25
(C5.6-24)
in which c2 equals 53.2 when is in lb/ft2 and vso is in ft/sec; c2 equals 109.7 when is in kg/cm2 and
vso is in m/sec; and c2 equals 34.9 when is in kN/m2 and vso is in m/sec.
Equation C5.6-24 also may be used to obtain a first-order estimate of vso for normally consolidated
cohesive soils. A crude estimate of the shear modulus, Go, for such soils may also be obtained from the
relationship:
Go = 1,000su
(C5.6-25)
in which su is the shearing strength of the soil as developed in an unconfined compression test. The
coefficient 1,000 represents a typical value, which varied from 250 to about 2,500 for tests on different
soils (Hara et al., 1974; Hardin and Drnevich, 1975).
These empirical relations may be used to obtain preliminary, order-of-magnitude estimates. For more
accurate evaluations, field measurements of vso should be made. Field evaluations of the variations of vso
93
rh 1.12h 2
T% = T 1 + 25 2 2 1 +
2
vs T r
(C5.6-26)
The value of the relative weight parameter, , is likely to be in the neighborhood of 0.15 for typical
structures.
5.6.2.1.2 Effective damping. Equation 5.6-9 for the overall damping factor of the elastically supported
structure, % , was determined from analyses of the harmonic response at resonance of simple systems of
the type considered in Figures C5.6-2 and 5.6-3. The result is an expression of the form (Bielak, 1975;
Veletsos and Nair, 1975) of:
% = 0 +
0.05
3
T%
T
(C5.6-27)
in which o represents the contribution of the foundation damping, considered in greater detail in the
following paragraphs, and the second term represents the contribution of the structural damping. The
latter damping is assumed to be of the viscous type. Equation C5.6-27 corresponds to the value of
= 0.05 used in the development of the response spectra for rigidly supported systems employed in
Sec. 5.2.
The foundation damping factor, o, incorporates the effects of energy dissipation in the soil due to the
following sources: the radiation of waves away from the foundation, known as radiation or geometric
damping, and the hysteretic or inelastic action in the soil, also known as soil material damping. This
94
4 Ds
vs
(C5.6-28)
is smaller than the natural period of the flexibly supported structure, T%. The quantity Ds in this formula
represents the depth of the stratum. It follows that the values of o presented in Figure 5.6-1 are
applicable only when:
Ts 4 Ds
=
1
T% vsT%
(C5.6-29)
Ts 4 Ds
=
<1
T% vsT%
(C5.6-30)
For
the effective value of the foundation damping factor, o , is less than o, and it is approximated by the
second degree parabola defined by Eq. 5.6-10.
For Ts / T% = 1, Eq. 5.6-10 leads to o = o whereas for Ts / T% = 0, it leads to 0 = 0, a value that clearly
does not provide for the effects of material soil damping. It may be expected, therefore, that the
computed values of 0 corresponding to small values of Ts / T% will be conservative. The conservatism
involved, however, is partly compensated by the requirement that % be no less than % = = 0.05.
5.6.2.2 and 5.6.2.3 Vertical distribution of seismic forces and other effects. The vertical distributions
of the equivalent lateral forces for flexibly and rigidly supported structures are generally different.
However, the differences are inconsequential for practical purposes, and it is recommended that the same
distribution be used in both cases, changing only the magnitude of the forces to correspond to the
appropriate base shear. A greater degree of refinement in this step would be inconsistent with the
approximations embodied in the requirements for rigidly supported structures.
With the vertical distribution of the lateral forces established, the overturning moments and the torsional
effects about a vertical axis are computed as for rigidly supported structures. The above procedure is
applicable to planar structures and, with some extension, to three-dimensional structures.
5.6.3 Response spectrum procedure. Studies of the dynamic response of elastically supported,
multi-degree-of-freedom systems (Bielak, 1976; Chopra and Gutierrez, 1974; Veletsos, 1977) reveal that,
within the ranges of parameters that are of interest in the design of structures subjected to earthquakes,
soil-structure interaction affects substantially only the response component contributed by the
fundamental mode of vibration of the superstructure. In this section, the interaction effects are considered
only in evaluating the contribution of the fundamental structural mode. The contributions of the higher
modes are computed as if the structure were fixed at the base, and the maximum value of a response
96
2
wii1 )
(
=
(C5.6-31)
wii21
which is the same as Eq. 5.3-2, and h is computed from Eq. 5.6-13. The quantity i1 in these formulas
represents the displacement amplitude of the ith floor level when the structure is vibrating in its
fixed-base, fundamental natural mode. The structural stiffness, k , is obtained from Eq. 5.6-4 by taking
W = W1 and using for T the fundamental natural period of the fixed-base structure, T1. The fundamental
natural period of the interacting system, T% , is then computed from Eq. 5.6-3 (or Eq. 5.6-5 when
1
applicable) by taking T = T1. The effective damping in the first mode, , is determined from Eq. 5.6-9
(and Eq. 5.6-10 when applicable) in combination with the information given in Figure 5.6-1. The
quantity h in the latter figure is computed from Eq. 5.6-13.
With the values of T%1 and %1 established, the reduction in the base shear for the first mode, Vl, is
computed from Eq. 5.6-2. The quantities Cs and C% in this formula should be interpreted as the seismic
s
coefficients corresponding to the periods T1 and T%1 , respectively; % should be taken equal to %1 ; and W
should be determined from Eq. C5.6-31.
The sections on lateral forces, shears, overturning moments, and displacements follow directly from what
has already been noted in this and the preceding sections and need no elaboration. It may only be pointed
out that the first term within the brackets on the right side of Eq. 5.6-14 represents the contribution of the
foundation rotation.
5.6.3.3 Design values. The design values of the modified shears, moments, deflections, and story drifts
should be determined as for structures without interaction by taking the square root of the sum of the
squares of the respective modal contributions. In the design of the foundation, the overturning moment at
the foundation-soil interface determined in this manner may be reduced by 10 percent as for structures
without interaction.
The effects of torsion about a vertical axis should be evaluated in accordance with the requirements of
Sec. 5.2.4 and the P-delta effects should be evaluated in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 5.2.6.2,
using the story shears and drifts determined in Sec. 5.6.3.2.
Other methods of considering the effects of soil-structure interaction. The procedures proposed in
the preceding sections for incorporating the effects of soil-structure interaction provide sufficient
flexibility and accuracy for practical applications. Only for unusual structures and only when the
requirements indicate that the interaction effects are of definite consequence in design, would the use of
more elaborate procedures be justified. Some of the possible refinements, listed in order of more or less
increasing complexity, are:
1. Improve the estimates of the static stiffnesses of the foundation, Ky and K, and of the foundation
damping factor, 0, by considering in a more precise manner the foundation type involved, the effects
of foundation embedment, variations of soil properties with depth, and hysteretic action in the soil.
Solutions may be obtained in some cases with analytical or semi-analytical formulations and in others
by application of finite difference or finite element techniques. A concise review of available
analytical formulations is provided in Gazetas (1991). It should be noted, however, that these
97
REFERENCES
Anderson, D. G., and F. E. Richart, Jr. 1976. Effects of Straining on Shear Modulus of Clays. Journal
of the ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Division 102 (679):975-987.
Arias, A., and R. Husid. 1965. Influence of Damping on Earthquake Response of Structures. Revista
del IDIEM 1 (3). In Spanish.
Ballard, R. F., and F. G. McLean. 1975. Seismic Field Methods for In Situ Moduli. In Proceedings of
the Conference on In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, Vol. I, pp. 121-150. North Carolina State
University.
Bernal, D. 1987. Amplification Factors for Inelastic Dynamic P-delta Effects in Earthquake Analysis.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 15:835-881.
Bielak, J. 1976. Modal Analysis for Building-Soil Interaction. Journal of the ASCE Engineering
Mechanics Division 102 (EM5):771-786.
Bielak, J. 1975. Dynamic Behavior of Structures with Embedded Foundations. In Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 3, pp. 259-274.
Borja, R. I., H. A. Smith, W-H. Wu, and A. P. Amies. 1992. A methodology for nonlinear soil-structure
interaction effects using time-domain analysis techniques, Report 101. Stanford, California: Blume
Earthquake Engineering Center.
Chang, G.A. and Mander, J.B., Seismic Energy Based Fatigue Damage Analysis of Bridge Columns:
Part II-Evaluation of Seismic Demand, NCEER-94-0013, National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1994.
98
101
102
Appendix to Chapter 5
NONLINEAR STATIC PROCEDURE
A5.2 NONLINEAR STATIC PROCEDURE
The nonlinear static procedure is intended to provide a simplified approach for directly determining the
nonlinear response behavior of a structure at different levels of lateral displacements, ranging from initial
elastic response through development of a failure mechanism and initiation of collapse. Response
behavior is gauged by measurement of the strength of the structure, at various increments of lateral
displacement.
Usually the shear resisted by the system at yield of the first element of the structure is defined as the
elastic strength, although this may not correspond to yield of the entire structure. When traditional
linear methods of design (using R factors) are employed, this elastic strength will not be less than the
design base shear.
If a structure is subjected to larger lateral loads than that represented by the elastic strength, a number of
elements will yieldeventually forming a mechanism. For most structures, multiple configurations of
mechanisms are possible. The mechanism caused by the smallest set of forces is likely to appear before
others do. That mechanism is considered to be the dominant mechanism. Standard methods of plastic or
limit analysis can be used to determine the strength corresponding to such mechanisms. However, such
limit analysis cannot determine the deformation at the onset of such a mechanism. If the yielding
elements are able to strain harden, the mechanism will not allow an increase of deformations without
some increase of lateral forces and the mechanism is stable. Moreover, it can be considered as a flexible
version of the original frame structure. Figure CA5.2-1, which shows a plot of the lateral structural
strength vs. deformation (or pushover curve) for a hypothetical structure, illustrates these concepts.
103
Fi =
wi hik
V
w j hik
(CA5.2-1)
where, F, w, h and V are the story inertia force, story weight, story height, and base shear,
respectively; k is a coefficient ranging between 1 and 2, as defined in Provisions Sec. 5.2.3.
2. A better approximation, using the dominant mode of vibration (such as the first mode in moderate
height building structures):
Fi =
wii
V
wii
(CA5.2-2)
where, i is the dominant mode shape. This approximation allows the three-dimensional distribution
of inertia forces to be obtained when such considerations are important.
3. A still more complete approximation using several significant modes of vibration. In such cases the
modes for which the total equivalent modal mass exceed 90 percent should be included. The load
configuration is given by:
1/ 2
( )( S S ) 2
ai
ad
i d
wiid
(CA5.2-3)
V
2 1/ 2
wiid
2
( i d ) ( Sai S ad )
where, i and Sai are the modal participation factor and the spectral acceleration, respectively, and
subscript d indicates the dominant mode. ( i = wii ; where the mode shapes, , are mass
Fi =
normalizedthat is
wii2
g = 1 .)
4. An approximation that takes into account both higher mode contributions and changes in the loading
due to yielding of the structure. In this case the load configuration described by Eq. CA5.2-3) is
calculated and reevaluated when the modal characteristics of the structure change as it yields. Such
procedure has also termed an adaptive push-over analysis.
The Provisions adopt the simplest of these approaches, indicated as item 1 above, though use of the more
complex approaches is not precluded. Nonlinear static analysis options exist in several commercially
available and public-domain analysis platforms.
A5.2.3 Target displacement. The nonlinear analysis should be continued by increasing the amplitude of
the pattern of lateral loads until the deflections at the control point exceeds 150 percent of the target
displacement. The expected inelastic deflection at each level shall be determined by combining the
elastic modal values as obtained from Sec. 5.3.5 and 5.3.6 multiplied by the factor
C=
(1 Ts
Rd
T1 )
+ (Ts T1 )
(CA5.2-4)
where Ts is the characteristic period of the response spectrum, defined as the period associated with the
transition from the constant-acceleration segment of the spectrum to the constant-velocity segment of the
spectrum and Rd is the ratio of the total design base shear to the fully yielded strength of the major
mechanism, which can be obtained according to Rd = R/o, with R and o given in Table 4.3-1. The
combination shall be carried out by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of each of the modal
values or by the complete quadratic combination technique.
The recommendation linking the expected inelastic deformation to the elastic is based on an approach
originally suggested by Newmark and on later studies by several other researchers. These are described
below.
105
Rd = 1 + r c 1 / r 1
c
(CA5.2-5)
where,
c=
Ta
b
+
a
T
1+ T
(CA5.2-6)
In the above, T, is the period of vibration of the structure and r is the strength ratio. Rd is defined above.
In 1994, Chang and Mander performed analytical studies based on an envelope of five recorded ground
motions. The following inelastic dynamic magnification factor that relates the maximum inelastic
displacement to the elastic spectral displacement was obtained.
n
1 T 1
RD = 1 PV + 1
r
r T
(CA5.2-7)
where TPV is the period at which the maximum spectral velocity response occurs, and
n = 1.2 + 0.025r for TPV # 1.2 sec.
(CA5.2-8)
(CA5.2-9)
In 1992, Vidic, Fajfar, and Fischinger recommended simplified expressions derived from the study of the
mean strength reduction factors computed from twenty ground motions recorded in the Western United
States as well as in the 1979 Montenegro, Yugoslavia, earthquake. Systems with bilinear and stiffness
degrading (Q-model) hysteric behavior and viscous damping proportional to the mass and the
instantaneous stiffness were considered, resulting in the following expression:
1T 1
RD = 1 0 + 1
rT r
(CA5.2-10)
ev V
ea A
(CA5.2-11)
where V and A are the peak ground velocity and peak ground acceleration, respectively. For the 20
ground motions considered in the study, the mean amplification factors ea and ev are 2.5 and 2.0,
respectively.
Miranda and Bertero (1994) suggested simplified expressions derived from the study of the mean strength
reduction factors computed from 124 ground motions recorded on a wide range of soil conditions. The
study considered 5-percent-damped bilinear systems undergoing displacement ductility ratios between 2
and 6. Based on the local site conditions at the recording station, ground motions were classified into
three groups: rock sites, and soft soil sites. In addition to the influence of soil conditions, the study
considered the influence of magnitude and epicentral distance on strength reduction factors. The study
concluded that soil conditions influence the reduction factors significantly (particularly for soft soil sites)
106
(CA5.2-12)
with,
=1+
2
3
1
1
3
exp ln T
10T T 2T
5
2
(CA5.2-13)
=1+
2
1
2
1
exp 2 ln T
12T T 5T
5
(CA5.2-14)
(CA5.2-15)
where T is the period of vibration of the structure and Tg is the characteristic ground motion period.
The recommended formulation contained in the Provisions is a combination of the recommendations of
Krawinkler et al and of Vidic et al with some simplification. The Provisions require that the analysis be
continued until the deflection at the control point exceeds 150 percent of the target displacement in order
to account for inaccuracy due to this simplification and because small variations in strength (due to
modeling or due to imprecise construction) can lead to large displacement variations in the inelastic
range.
A5.2.5 Design review. See Commentary Sec. 5.5.4.
107
108
Chapter 6 Commentary
ARCHITECTURAL, MECHANICAL, AND ELECTRICAL COMPONENT
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
6.1 GENERAL
6.1.1 Scope. The general requirements establish minimum design levels for architectural, mechanical,
electrical, and other nonstructural systems and components recognizing occupancy use, occupant load,
need for operational continuity, and the interrelation of structural and architectural, mechanical,
electrical, and other nonstructural components. Several classes of components are not subject to the
Provisions:
1. All components in Seismic Design Category A are exempted because of the lower seismic input for
these items.
2. All mechanical and electrical components in Seismic Design Categories B and C are exempted if
they have an importance factor (Ip) equal to 1.00 because of the low acceleration and the
classification that they do not contain hazardous substances and are not required to function to
maintain life safety.
3. All components in all Seismic Design Categories, weighing less than 400 pounds (1780 N), and
mounted 4 ft (1.22 m) or less above the floor are exempted if they have an importance factor (Ip)
equal to 1.00, because they do not contain hazardous substances, are not required to function to
maintain life safety, and are not considered to be mounted high enough to be a life-safety hazard if
they fall.
Storage racks are considered nonbuilding structures and are covered in Provisions Chapter 14. See
Commentary Sec. 14.3.5.
Storage tanks are considered nonbuilding structures and are covered in Provisions Chapter 14. See
Commentary Sec. 14.4.7.
When performing seismic design of nonstructural components, be aware that there may be important
non-seismic requirements outside the scope of the building code, that may be affected by seismic
bracing. For example, thermal expansion is often a critical design consideration in pressure piping
systems, and bracing must be arranged in a manner that accommodates thermal movements. The design
for seismic loads should not compromise the functionality, durability, or safety of the overall system,
and this may require substantial collaboration and cooperation between the various disciplines in the
design team. In some cases, such as essential facilities or hazardous environments, it may be
appropriate to consider performance levels higher than what is required by the building code (for
example, operability of a piping system, rather than leak tightness).
For some components, such as exterior walls, the wind design forces may be higher than the seismic
design forces. Even when this occurs, the seismic detailing requirements may still govern the overall
structural design. Whenever this is a possibility, it should be investigated early in the structural design
process.
110
113
p
NCEERSTUDY
2.5
1991 NEHRP
2.0
(Reference)
1.0
0.5
0.6
0.7
1.0
1.4
2.0
Tp/T
Figure C6.2-1 NCEER formulation for app as function of structural and component
periods
Eq. 6.2-1 represents a trapezoidal distribution of floor accelerations within the structure, linearly
varying from the acceleration at the ground (0.4SDS) to the acceleration at the roof (1.2SDS). The ground
acceleration (0.4SDS) is intended to be the same acceleration used as design input for the structure itself
and includes site effects.
Examination of recorded in-structure acceleration data in response to large California earthquakes
reveals that a reasonable maximum value for the roof acceleration is four times the input ground
acceleration to the structure. Earlier work (Drake and Bachman, 1996, 1995 and 1996) indicated that
the maximum amplification factor of four seems suitable (Figure C6.2-2). However, a close
examination of recently recorded strong motion data at sites with peak ground accelerations in excess of
0.1g indicates that an amplification factor of three is more appropriate (Figure C6.2-3). In the lower
portions of the structure (the lowest 20 percent of the structure), both the amplification factors of three
and four do not bound the mean plus one standard deviation accelerations. However, the minimum
design force in Eq. 6.2-4 provides a lower bound in this region.
114
At periods greater than Ts (where Ts = SD1/SDS), the acceleration response of structures ground reduces
because the design ground motion acceleration response spectra beyond Ts starts to reduce by the ratio
of Ts / T (where T is the fundamental period of the primary structure). Since this reduction in the design
forces for the primary structure is accounted for in design force equations, it is justifiable to make a
similar type of reduction in the design forces of non-structural components. However, in observing the
actual in-structure response spectra of acceleration recordings measured at the roof levels of buildings
with a range of fundamental periods, this reduction in response typically begins at periods about 25
percent greater than TS. Therefore, the transition period, Tflx at the top of the primary structure at which
forces begin reducing by a ratio of Tp/T has been lengthened by 25 percent to account for this
observation. At the ground level (z = 0) the adjustment is 0 percent since the effect of the structure
response has no influence on the non-structural component response. A linear interpolation is used
between the top and bottom of the structure.
A lower limit for Fp is set to assure a minimal seismic design force. The minimum value for Fp was
determined by setting the quantity apAp/Rp equal 0.3SDS for consistency with current practice.
115
117
1. Where loss of integrity and/or connection failure under seismic motion poses a direct hazard in that
the components may fall on building occupants.
2. Where loss of integrity and/or connection failure may result in a hazard for people outside of a
building because components such as exterior cladding and glazing may fall on them.
3. Where failure or upset of interior components may impede access to a required exit.
118
120
121
Table C6.3-1 Glass Types Included in Storefront and Mid-Rise Dynamic Racking Tests
Glass Type
6 mm (1/4 in.) annealed monolithic
Storefront Tests
Mid-Rise Tests
T
T
123
T
T
The serviceability test lasted approximately 55 seconds and incorporated drift amplitudes ranging from
" 6 to " 44 mm (" 0.25 to " 1.75 in.). The drift pattern in the ultimate test was formed by doubling
each drift amplitude in the serviceability test. Both tests were performed at a nominal frequency of 0.8
Hz.
Experimental results indicated that for all glass types tested, serviceability limit states associated with
glass edge damage and gasket seal degradation in the storefront wall system were exceeded during the
moderate earthquake simulation (that is, the serviceability test). Ultimate limit states associated with
major cracking and glass fallout were reached for the most common storefront glass type, 6 mm (1/4 in.)
annealed monolithic glass, during the severe earthquake simulation (that is, the ultimate test). This
observation is consistent with a reconnaissance report of damage resulting from the Northridge
Earthquake (EERI, 1994). More information regarding the storefront wall system tests is included in
Behr, Belarbi, and Brown (1995). In addition to the serviceability and ultimate tests, increasingamplitude crescendo tests, similar to those described below for the mid-rise tests, were performed at a
frequency of 0.8 Hz on selected storefront glass types. Results of these crescendo tests are reported in
Behr, Belarbi, and Brown (1995) and are included in some of the comparisons made below.
Mid-rise curtain wall system tests. Another series of tests focused on the behavior of glass panels in a
popular curtain wall system for mid-rise buildings. All mid-rise glass types in Table C6.3-1 were tested
with a dry-glazed wall system that uses polymeric (rubber) gaskets wedged between the glass edges and
the curtain wall frame to secure each glass panel perimeter. In addition, three glass types were tested
with a bead of structural silicone sealant on the vertical glass edges and dry glazing gaskets on the
horizontal edges (that is, a two-side structural silicone glazing system). Six specimens of each glass
type were tested.
Crescendo tests were performed on all mid-rise test specimens. As described by Behr and Belarbi
(1996), the crescendo test consisted of a series of alternating ramp-up and constant amplitude
intervals, each containing four sinusoidal-shaped drift cycles. Each drift amplitude step (that is, the
increase in amplitude between adjacent constant amplitude intervals, which was achieved by completing
the four cycles in the intermediary ramp-up interval) was " 6 mm (" 0.25 in.). The entire crescendo test
sequence lasted approximately 230 seconds. Crescendo tests on mid-rise glass specimens were
conducted at 1.0 Hz for dynamic racking amplitudes from 0 to 114 mm (0 to 4.5 in.), 0.8 Hz for
amplitudes from 114 to 140 mm (4.5 to 5.5 in.), and 0.5 Hz for amplitudes from 140 to 152 mm (5.5 to
6 in.). These frequency reductions at higher racking amplitudes were necessary to avoid exceeding the
capacity of the hydraulic actuator ram in the dynamic racking test rig.
The drift magnitude at which glass cracking was first observed was called the serviceability drift
limit, which corresponds to the drift magnitude at which glass damage would necessitate glass
replacement. The drift magnitude at which glass fallout occurred was called the ultimate drift limit,
which corresponds to the drift magnitude at which glass damage would become a life safety hazard.
This ultimate drift limit for architectural glass is related to fallout in Sec. 6.3.7 of the Provisions,
noting that horizontal racking displacements (drifts) in the crescendo tests were typically applied to test
specimens having panel heights of only 1.8 m (6 ft).
124
125
Figure C6.3-2 Seismic drift limits from crescendo tests on architectural glass
126
Figure C6.3-2 (continued) Seismic drift limits from crescendo tests on architectural glass
The "152 mm (" 6 in.) racking limit of the test rig, when applied over the 1829 mm (72 in.) height of
glazing panel specimens represents a severe story drift index of more than 8 percent. This 8 percent
127
134
RELATED CONCERNS
Maintenance. Mechanical and electrical devices installed to satisfy the requirements of the Provisions
(for example, resilient mounting components or certain protecting devices) require maintenance to
ensure their reliability and to provide protection in case of a seismic event for which they are designed.
Specifically, rubber-in-shear mounts or spring mounts (if exposed to weathering) may deteriorate with
time and, thus, periodic testing is required to ensure that their damping action will be available during
an earthquake. Pneumatic mounting devices and electric switchgear must be maintained free of dirt and
corrosion. How a regulatory agency could administer such periodic inspections has not been
determined, so requirements to cover these situations have not been included.
Tenant improvements. It is intended that the requirements in Chapter 6 also apply to newly
constructed tenant improvements that are listed in Tables 6.3-1 and 6.4-1 and that are installed at any
time during the life of the structure.
Minimum standards. Criteria represented in the Provisions represent minimum standards. They are
designed to minimize hazard for occupants and to improve the likelihood of functioning of facilities
required by the community to deal with the consequences of a disaster. They are not designed to protect
the owner's investment, and the designer of the facility should review with the owner the possibility of
exceeding these minimum standards so as to limit his economic risk.
The risk is particularly acute in the case of sealed, air-conditioned structures where downtime after a
disaster can be materially affected by the availability of parts and labor. The parts availability may be
significantly worse than normal because of a sudden increase in demand. Skilled labor also may be in
short demand since available labor forces may be diverted to high priority structures requiring repairs.
Architect-Engineer design integration. The subject of architect-engineer design integration is raised
here because it is believed that all members of the profession should clearly understand that Chapter 6 is
a compromise based on concerns for enforcement and the need to develop a simple, straightforward
approach. It is imperative that, from the outset, architectural input concerning definition of occupancy
classification and the required level of seismic resistance be properly considered in the structural
engineers approach to seismic safety if the design profession as a whole is to make any meaningful
impact on the public awareness of this matter. It is hoped that, as the design profession gains more
knowledge and sophistication in the use of seismic design, a more comprehensive approach to
earthquake design requirements will be developed.
REFERENCES
ANCO Engineers, Inc. 1983. Seismic Hazard Assessment of Non-Structural ComponentsPhase I,
Final Report for National Science Foundation from ANCO Engineers, Inc., Culver City, California,
September.
Bachman, R. E, and R. M. Drake. 1996. A Study To Empirically Validate the Component Response
Modification Factors in the 1994 NEHRP Provisions Design Force Equations for Architectural,
Mechanical, and Electrical Components, letter report to the National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research, July.
Bachman, R. E., R. M. Drake, and P. J. Richter. 1993. 1994 Update to 1991 NEHRP Provisions for
Architectural, Mechanical, and Electrical Components and Systems, letter report to the National Center
for Earthquake Engineering Research, February 22.
Behr, R.A., Belarbi, A. and Brown, A.T., 1995, Seismic Performance of Architectural Glass in a
Storefront Wall System, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 367-391.
Behr, R.A. and Belarbi, A., 1996, Seismic Tests Methods for Architectural Glazing Systems,
Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 129-143.
135
136
137
138
Chapter 7 Commentary
FOUNDATION DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
7.1 GENERAL
7.1.1 Scope. The minimum foundation design requirements that might be suitable when any
consideration must be given to earthquake resistance are set forth in Chapter 7. It is difficult to separate
foundation requirements for minimal earthquake resistance from the requirements for resisting normal
vertical loads. In order to have a minimum base from which to start, this chapter assumes compliance
with all basic requirements necessary to provide support for vertical loads and lateral loads other than
earthquake. These basic requirements include, but are not limited to, provisions for the extent of
investigation needed to establish criteria for fills, slope stability, expansive soils, allowable soil
pressures, footings for specialized construction, drainage, settlement control, and pile requirements and
capacities. Certain detailing requirements and the allowable stresses to be used are provided in other
chapters of the Provisions as are the additional requirements to be used in more seismically active
locations.
140
Mitigation of slope instability hazard. With respect to slope instability, three general mitigative
measures might be considered: design the structure to resist the hazard, stabilize the site to reduce the
hazard, or choose an alternative site. Ground displacements generated by slope instability are similar in
destructive character to fault displacements generating similar senses of movement: compression, shear,
extension or vertical. Thus, the general comments on structural design to prevent damage given under
mitigation of fault displacement apply equally to slope displacement. Techniques to stabilize a site
include reducing the driving forces by grading and drainage of slopes and increasing the resisting forces
by subsurface drainage, buttresses, ground anchors, reaction piles or shafts, ground improvement using
densification or soil mixing methods, or chemical treatment.
141
) ( o
o ) r d
(C7.4-1)
where (amax/g) = peak horizontal acceleration at ground surface expressed as a decimal fraction of
gravity, 0 = the vertical total stress in the soil at the depth in question, 0' = the vertical effective stress
at the same depth, and rd = deformation-related stress reduction factor.
The peak ground acceleration, amax, commonly used in liquefaction analysis is that which would occur at
the site in the absence of liquefaction. Thus, the amax used in Eq. C7.4-1 is the estimated rock
acceleration corrected for soil site response but with neglect of excess pore-water pressures that might
develop. The acceleration can be determined using the general procedure described in Sec. 3.3 and
taking amax equal to SDS/2.5. Alternatively, amax can be estimated from: (1) values obtained from the
USGS national ground motion maps [see internet website http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/] for a
selected probability of exceedance, with correction for site effects using the Fa site factor in Sec. 3.3; or
(2) from a site-specific ground motion analysis conforming to the requirements of Sec. 3.4.
The stress reduction factor, rd, used in Eq. C7.4-1 was originally determined using a plot developed by
Seed and Idriss (1971) showing the reduction factor versus depth. The consensus from the Liquefaction
Workshop was to represent rd by the following equations:
rd = 1.0 0.00765z for z 9.15 m
(C7.4-2)
rd = 1.174 0.267z for 9.15 m < z 23 m
It should be noted that because nearly all the field data used to develop the simplified procedure are for
depths less than 12 m, there is greater uncertainty in the evaluations at greater depths. The second step
in the liquefaction hazard evaluation using the empirical approach usually involves determination of the
normalized cyclic resistance ratio (CRR). The most commonly used empirical relationship for
determining CRR was originally compiled by Seed et al. (1985). This relationship compares CRR with
corrected Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance, (N1)60, from sites where liquefaction did or did not
develop during past earthquakes. Figure C7.4-3 shows this relationship for Magnitude 7.5 earthquakes,
with an adjustment at low values of CRR recommended by the Liquefaction Workshop. Similar
relationships have been developed for determining CRR from CPT soundings, from BHT blowcounts,
and from shear wave velocity data, as discussed by Youd et al. (2001) and as presented in detail in
NCEER (1997). Only the SPT method is presented herein because of its more common use.
143
Figure C7.4-3. SPT clean sand base curve for magnitude 7.5 earthquakes with data from
liquefaction case histories. (Modified from Seed et al., 1985). (NCEER, 1997; Youd et al., 2001).
In Figure C7.4-3, CRRs calculated for various sites are plotted against (N1)60, where (N1)60 is the SPT
blowcount normalized for an overburden stress of 100 kPa and for an energy ratio of 60 percent. Solid
symbols represent sites where liquefaction occurred and open symbols represent sites where surface
evidence of liquefaction was not found. Curves were drawn through the data to separate regions where
liquefaction did and did not develop. As shown, curves are given for soils with fines contents (FC)
ranging from less than 5 to 35 percent.
While Figure C7.4-3 provides information about the variation in CRR with fines content, the preferred
approach from the Liquefaction Workshop for adjusting for fines is to correct (N1)60 to an equivalent
clean sand value, (N1)60cs using the following equations:
(N1)60cs = + (N1)60
where and = coefficients determined from the following relationships:
= 0 for FC 5%
= exp[1.76 (190/FC2)] for 5% < FC < 35%
= 5.0 for FC 35%
144
(C7.4-3)
= 1.0 for FC 5%
= [0.99 + (FC1.5/1,000) for 5% < FC < 35%
= 1.2 for FC 35%
Several other corrections are made to (N1)60, as represented in the following equation:
(N1)60 = NmCNCECBCRCS
(C7.4-4)
(C7.4-5)
where the maximum value of CN is equal to 1.7. The effective vertical stress, vo, is the stress at the
time of the SPT measurement. Youd et al. (2001) caution that other means should be used to evaluate
CN if vo is greater than 300 kPa.
TABLE C7.4-1
Corrections to SPT modified from Skempton 1986) as listed by Robertson and Wride (1998) (from
Youd et al., 2001)
Factor
Equipment variable
Term
Correction
Overburden pressure
---
CN
(Pa/vo) 0.5
Overburden pressure
---
CN
CN < 1.7
Energy ratio
Donut hammer
CE
0.5 1.0
Energy ratio
Safety hammer
CE
0.7 1.2
Energy ratio
CE
0.8 1.3
Borehole diameter
65 115 mm
CB
1.0
Borehole diameter
150 mm
CB
1.05
Borehole diameter
200 mm
CB
1.15
Rod length
<3
CR
0.75
Rod length
34m
CR
0.8
Rod length
4 -6 m
CR
0.85
Rod length
6 10 m
CR
0.95
Rod length
10 30 m
CR
1.0
Sampling method
Standard sampler
CS
1.0
Sampling method
CS
1.1 1.3
It is very important that the engineer consider these correction factors when conducting the liquefaction
analyses. Failure to consider these corrections can result in inaccurate liquefaction estimates leading
145
Figure C7.4-4. Magnitude scaling factors derived by various investigators. (NCEER, 1997; Youd
et al., 2001)
The magnitude, M, needed to determine a magnitude scaling factor from Figure C7.4-4 should
correspond to the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE). Where the general procedure for ground
motion estimation is used (Sec. 3.3) and the MCE is determined probabilistically, the magnitude used in
these evaluations can be obtained from deaggregation information available by latitude and longitude
from the USGS website (http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/). Where the general procedure (Sec. 3.3) is
used and the MCE is bounded deterministically near known active fault sources (Commentary Appendix
A), the magnitude of the MCE should be the characteristic maximum magnitude assigned to the fault in
the construction of the MCE ground motion maps. Where the site-specific procedure for ground motion
estimation is used (Sec. 3.4), the magnitude of the MCE should be similarly determined from the sitespecific analysis. In all cases, it should be remembered that the likelihood of liquefaction at the site (as
defined later by the factor of safety FL in Eq. C7.4-6) is determined jointly by amax and M and not by
amax alone. Because of the longer duration of strong ground-shaking, large distant earthquakes may in
146
(C7.4-6)
If FL is greater than one, then liquefaction should not develop. If at any depth in the sediment profile,
FL is equal to or less than one, then there is a liquefaction hazard. Although the curves shown in Figure
C7.4-3 envelop the plotted data, it is possible that liquefaction may have occurred beyond the enveloped
data and was not detected at ground surface. For this reason a factor of safety of 1.2 to 1.5 is usually
appropriate for building sites with the actual factor selected on the basis of the importance of the
structure and the potential for ground displacement at the site.
Additional guidance on the selection of the appropriate factor of safety is provided by Martin and Lew
1999. They suggest that the following factors be considered when selecting the factor of safety:
1. The type of structure and its vulnerability to damage.
2. Levels of risk accepted by the owner or governmental regulations with questions related to design
for life safety, limited structural damage, or essentially no damage.
3. Damage potential associated with the particular liquefaction hazards. Flow failures or major lateral
spreads pose more damage potential than differential settlement. Hence factors of safety could be
adjusted accordingly.
4. Damage potential associated with design earthquake magnitude. A magnitude 7.5 event is
potentially more damaging than a 6.5 event.
5. Damage potential associated with SPT values; low blow counts have a greater cyclic strain
potential than higher blowcounts.
6. Uncertainty in SPT- or CPT- derived liquefaction strengths used for evaluations. Note that a change
in silt content from 5 to 15 percent could change a factor of safety from, say, 1.0 to 1.25.
7. For high levels of design ground motion, factors of safety may be indeterminate. For example, if
(N1)60) = 20, M = 7.5, and fines content = 35 percent, liquefaction strengths cannot be accurately
defined due to the vertical asymptote on the empirical strength curve.
Martin and Lew (1999) indicate that the final choice of an appropriate factor of safety must reflect the
particular conditions associated with the specific site and the vulnerability of site-related structures.
Table C7.4-2 summarizes factors of safety suggested by Martin and Lew.
Table C7.4-2. Factors of safety for liquefaction hazard assessment (from Martin and Lew,
1999).
Consequences of
Liquefaction
Settlement
Surface Manifestations
Lateral Spread
(N1)60)cs
Factor of Safety
15
1.1
30
1.0
15
1.2
30
1.0
15
1.3
30
1.0
147
149
Figure C7.4-5. Measured versus predicted displacements for displacements up to 2 meters. (Youd
et al., 2002).
Liquefaction-induced deformations are not directly proportional to ground motions and may be more
than 50 percent higher for maximum considered earthquake ground motions than for design earthquake
ground motions. The liquefaction potential and resulting deformations for ground motions consistent
with the maximum considered earthquake should also be evaluated and, while not required in the
Provisions, should be used by the registered design professional in checking for building damage that
may result in collapse. In addition, Seismic Use Group III structures should be checked for their
required post-earthquake condition.
Mitigation of liquefaction hazard. With respect to the hazard of liquefaction, three mitigative
measures might be considered: design the structure to resist the hazard, stabilize the site to reduce the
hazard, or choose an alternative site. Structural measures that are used to reduce the hazard include
deep foundations, mat foundations, or footings interconnected with ties as discussed in Sec. 7.4.3. Deep
foundations have performed well at level sites of liquefaction where effects were limited to ground
settlement and ground oscillation with no more than a few inches of lateral displacement. Deep
foundations, such as piles, may receive reduced soil support through the liquefied layer and may be
subjected to transient lateral displacements across the layer. Well reinforced mat foundations also have
performed well at localities where ground displacements were less than 1 ft, although re-leveling of the
structure has been required in some instances (Youd, 1989). Strong ties between footings also should
provide increased resistance to damage where differential ground displacements are less than a foot.
Evaluations of structural performance following two recent Japanese earthquakes, 1993 Hokkaido
Nansei-Oki and 1995 (Kobe) Hyogo-Ken Nanbu, indicate that small structures on shallow foundations
performed well in liquefaction areas. Sand boil eruptions and open ground fissures in these areas
indicate minor effects of liquefaction, including ground oscillation and up to several tenths of a meter of
lateral spread displacement. Many small structures (mostly houses, shops, schools, etc.) were
150
PAE = (1/ 2 ) H 2 (1 kv ) K AE
(C7.5-1)
where: PAE is the total (static + dynamic) lateral thrust, is unit weight of backfill soil, H is height of
backfill behind the wall, kV is vertical ground acceleration divided by gravitational acceleration, and KAE
is the static plus dynamic lateral earth pressure coefficient which is dependent on (in its most general
form) angle of friction of backfill, angle of wall friction, slope of backfill surface, and slope of back face
of wall, as well as horizontal and vertical ground acceleration. The formulation for KAE is given in
textbooks on soil dynamics (Prakash, 1981; Das, 1983; Kramer, 1996) and discussed in detail by
Ebeling and Morrison (1992).
Seed and Whitman (1970), as a convenience in design analysis, proposed to evaluate the total lateral
thrust, PAE, in terms of its static component (PA) and dynamic incremental component (PAE):
PAE = PA + PAE
(C7.5-2a)
K AE = K A + K AE
(C7.5-2b)
PAE = (1/ 2) H 2 K AE
(C7.5-2c)
or
or
Seed and Whitman (1970), based on a parametric sensitivity analysis, further proposed that for practical
purposes:
K AE = (3/ 4) K h
(C7.5-3a)
(C7.5-3b)
For uniform, constant kh applied throughout the elastic backfill, Wood (1973) developed the dynamic
thrust, PE, acting on smooth rigid nonyielding walls as:
PE = Fkh H 2
(C7.5-4a)
The value of F is approximately equal to unity (Whitman, 1991) leading to the following approximate
formulation for a rigid nonyielding wall on a rigid base:
PE = kh H 2
(C7.5-4b)
As for yielding walls, the point of application of the dynamic thrust is taken typically at a height of 0.6H
above the base of the wall.
It should be noted that the model used by Wood (1973) does not incorporate any effect on the pressures
of the inertial response of a superstructure connected to the top of the wall. This effect may modify the
interaction between the soil and the wall and thus modify the pressures from those calculated assuming
a rigid wall on a rigid base. The subject of soil-wall interaction is addressed in the following sections.
This section also provides further discussion on the applicability of the Wood and the M-O
formulations.
Soil-structure-interaction approach and modeling for wall pressures. Lam and Martin (1986),
Soydemir and Celebi (1992), Veletsos and Younan (1994a and 1994b), and Ostadan and White (1998),
among others, argue that the earth pressures acting on the walls of embedded structures during
earthquakes are primarily governed by soil-structure interaction (SSI) and, thus, should be treated
differently from the concept of limiting equilibrium (that is, M-O method). Soil-structure interaction
includes both a kinematic componentthe interaction of a massless rigid wall with the adjacent soil as
modeled by Wood (1973)and an inertial componentthe interaction of the wall, connected to a
responding superstructure, with the adjacent soil. Detailed SSI analyses incorporating kinematic and
inertial interaction may be considered for the estimation of seismic earth pressures on critical walls.
Computer programs that may be utilized for such analyses include FLUSH (Lysmer et. al, 1975) and
SASSI (Lysmer et al., 1981).
Ostadan and White (1998) have observed that for embedded structures subjected to ground shaking, the
characteristics of the wall pressure amplitudes vs. frequency of the ground motion were those of a
single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system and proposed a simplified method to estimate the magnitude
157
During ground shaking, the presence of water in the pores of a backfill can influence the seismic loads
that act on the wall in three ways (Ebeling and Morrison, 1992; Kramer, 1996): (1) by altering the
inertial forces within the backfill, (2) by developing hydrodynamic pressures within the backfill and (3)
by generating excess porewater pressure due to cyclic straining. Effects of the presence of water in
cohesionless soil backfill on seismic wall pressures can be estimated using formulations presented by
Ebeling and Morrison (1992).
A soil liquefaction condition behind a wall may under the design earthquake have a pronounced effect
on the wall pressures during and for some time after the earthquake. At present (1999), there is no
general consensus established for estimating lateral earth pressures for liquefied backfill conditions.
One simplified and probably somewhat conservative approach is to treat the liquefied backfill as a
heavy viscous fluid exerting a hydrostatic pressure on the wall. In this case, the viscous fluid has the
total unit weight of the liquefied soil. If unsaturated soil is present above the liquefied soil, it is treated
as a surcharge that increases the fluid pressure within the underlying liquid soil by an amount equal to
the thickness times the total unit weight of the surcharge soil. In addition to these static fluid
pressures exerted by a liquefied backfill, hydrodynamic pressures can be exerted by the backfill. The
magnitude of any such hydrodynamic pressures would depend on the level of shaking following
liquefaction. Hydrodynamic effects may be estimated using formulations presented by Ebeling and
Morrison (1992).
7.5.3 Foundation ties. The additional requirement is made that spread footings on soft soil profiles
should be interconnected by ties. The reasoning explained above under Sec. 7.4.3 also applies here.
7.5.4 Special pile and grade beam requirements. For Seismic Design Categories D, E, and F,
additional pile reinforcement over that specified for Seismic Design Category C buildings is required.
Adequate pile ductility is required and provision must be made for additional reinforcement to ensure,
as a minimum, full ductility in the upper portion of the pile.
Special consideration is required in the design of concrete piles subject to significant bending during
earthquake shaking. Bending can become crucial to pile design where portions of the foundation piles
are supported in soils such as loose granular materials and/or soft soils that are susceptible to large
deformations and/or strength degradation. Severe pile bending problems may result from various
combinations of soil conditions during strong ground shaking, for example:
158
160
High strength hard drawn wire with higher yield strengths is permitted to be used for transverse circular
spiral reinforcement of precast prestressed concrete piles. Pile test specimens using this type of
transverse reinforcement include the research done by Park and Hoat Joen (1990). High strength hard
drawn wire has yield strengths between 150 and 200 ksi. fyh is conservatively limited to 85 ksi for this
steel because hard drawn wire has limited ductililty.
7.5.4.5 Steel Piles. AISC Seismic (2002), Part I, Section 8.6 provides seismic design and detailing
provisions for steel H-piles which should be used in conjunction with these provisions.
REFERENCES
AISC, 2002, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, Illinois.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Technical Committee on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering. 1998.
Seismic Guidelines for Ports, edited by S. D. Werner, Monograph 12.
Bardet, J.P., Tobita, T., Mace, N., and Hu, J., 2002, Regional modeling of liquefaction-induced ground
deformation, Earthquake Spectra, 18(1), 19-46.
Blake, T.F., Hollingsworth, R.A., and Stewart, J.P., editors 2002, Recommended procedures for
implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for analyzing and mitigating landslide
161
162
163
165
166
Appendix to Chapter 7
GEOTECHNICAL ULTIMATE STRENGTH DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS AND
FOUNDATION LOAD-DEFORMATION MODELING
M us =
LP
2
q
1
q c
where
167
Vertical Load
P
BL
B=
Figure CA7.2.2-1.
The ultimate lateral load capacity of a footing may be assumed equal to the sum of the best-estimated
ultimate soil passive resistance against the vertical face of the footing plus the best-estimated ultimate
soil friction force on the footing base. The determination of ultimate passive resistance should consider
the potential contribution of friction on the face of the footing on the passive resistance.
For piles, the best-estimated ultimate vertical load capacity (for both axial compression and axial tensile
loading) should be determined using accepted foundation engineering practice. When evaluating axial
tensile load capacity, consideration should be given to the capability of pile cap and splice connections
to take tensile loads.
The ultimate moment capacity of a pile group should be determined assuming a rigid pile cap, leading to
an initial triangular distribution of axial pile loading from applied overturning moments. However, full
axial capacity of piles may be mobilized when computing ultimate moment capacity, in a manner
analogous to that described for a footing in Figure CA7.2.2-1. The ultimate lateral capacity of a pile
group may be assumed equal to the best-estimated ultimate passive resistance acting against the edge of
the pile cap and the additional passive resistance provided by piles.
Resistance factors, , are provided to factor ultimate foundation load capacities, Qus, to reduced
capacities, Qus, used to check foundation acceptance criteria. The values of recommended in the
Provisions are higher than those recommended in some codes and specifications for long-term static
loading. The development of resistance factors for static loading has been based on detailed reliability
studies and on calibrations to give designs and factors of safety comparable to those given by allowable
stress design. As indicated in the first paragraph of this section, mobilized strengths for seismic loading
conditions are expected to be somewhat higher than the static strengths specified for use in obtaining
values of Qus, especially for cohesive soils. In the absence of any detailed reliability studies for seismic
loading conditions, Values of equal to 0.8 and 0.7 were selected for cohesive and cohesionless soils,
respectively, where geotechnical site investigations, including laboratory or insitu tests, are conducted,
168
169
Figure CA7.2.3-1.
170
Figure CA7.2.3-2.
Consider the spread footing shown in Figure CA 7.2.3-3 with an applied vertical load (P), lateral load
(H), and moment (M). The soil characteristics might be modeled as two translational springs and a
rotational spring, each characterized by a linear elastic-stiffness and a plastic capacity. The use of a
Winkler spring model acting in conjunction with the foundation to eliminate the rotational spring may
also be used, as shown in Figure CA7.2.3-4. The Winkler model can capture more accurately
progressive mobilization of plastic capacity during rocking behavior. Note the lateral action is normally
uncoupled from the vertical and rotational action. Many foundation systems are relatively stiff and
strong in the horizontal direction, due to passive resistance against the face of footings or basement
walls, and friction beneath footings and floor slabs. Comparisons of horizontal stiffness of the
foundation and the structure can provide guidance on the need to include horizontal foundation stiffness
in demand or capacity analyses. In general, foundation rocking has the most influence on structural
response. Slender shear wall structures founded on strip footings, in particular, are most sensitive to the
effects of foundation rocking.
Figure CA7.2.3-3.
Assuming a shallow footing foundation may be represented by an embedded rigid plate in an elastic
half-space, classical elastic solutions may be used to compute the uncoupled elastic stiffness parameters.
Representative solutions are described in Commentary to Sec. 5.6. Solutions developed by Gazetas
(1991) are also often used, as described in ATC (1996). Dynamic soil properties (i.e. properties
consistent with seismic wave velocities and associated moduli of the soils as opposed to static soil
moduli) should be used in dynamic soil solutions. The effects of nonlinearity on dynamic soil
properties should be incorporated using the reduction factors in Sec. 5.6.2.1.1 or based on a site-specific
study.
171
Figure CA 7.2.3-4.
In the case of pile groups, the uncoupled spring model shown in Figure CA 7.2.3-3 may also be used,
where the footing represents the pile cap. In the case of the vertical and rotational springs, it can be
assumed that the contribution of the pile cap is relatively small compared to the contribution of the piles.
In general, mobilization of passive pressures by either the pile caps or basement walls will control
lateral spring stiffness. Hence, estimates of lateral spring stiffness can be computed using elastic
solutions as for footings. In instances where piles may contribute significantly to lateral stiffness (i.e.,
very soft soils, battered piles), solutions using beam-column pile models are recommended.
Axial pile group stiffness spring values, ksv, are generally in the range given by:
0.5 AE
n =1
ksv =
2 AE
n =1
to
where
A = Cross-sectional area of a pile,
E = Modulus of elasticity of piles,
L = Length of piles , and
N = Number of piles in group.
Values of axial stiffness depend on complex nonlinear interaction of the pile and soil (NEHRP, 1997b).
For simplicity, best estimate values of AE/L and 1.5 AE/L are recommended for piles where axial
capacity is primarily controlled by end bearing and side friction, respectively.
The rocking spring stiffness values, ksr, about each horizontal pile cap axis may be computed by
assuming each axial pile spring acts as a discrete Winkler spring. The rotational spring constant
(moment per unit rotation) is then given by:
N
2
ksr = k vn S n
n =1
172
Example
CIDH piers
173
174
Chapter 8 Commentary
STEEL STRUCTURE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
8.1 GENERAL
8.1.2 References. The reference documents presented in this section are the current specifications for
the design of steel members, systems, and components in buildings as approved by the American
Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Steel Joist Institute (SJI).
Revise the AISC Seismic Commentary Sec. C9.3 as follows: At the end of the second paragraph add
the following: This provision requires that the panel zone be proportioned using the method used to
proportion the panel zone thickness of successfully tested connections. This should not be construed to
mean that the thickness is required to be the same as the tested connection, only that the same method
must be used to proportion it. For example, if the test were performed on a one-sided connection and
the same beam and column sizes were used in a two-sided connection, the panel zone would be twice as
thick as that of the tested connection.
175
176
Availability of beam, column, and brace sizes that reasonably match those to be used in the
actual building frame
=
=
F y A
= P max
F y A T max
F yA
= T max
F yA
F yA
where Pmax is the maximum compression force and Tmax is the maximum tension force within
deformations corresponding to 150 percent of the Design Story Drift (these deformations are defined
as 1.5Dbm in the Appendix on testing). The acceptance criteria for testing require that values of and
be greater than or equal to 1.0 for buckling-restrained braces.
8.6.3.2.3 Quality Assurance. The design provisions for BRBFs are predicated on reliable brace
performance. In order to assure this performance, a quality assurance plan is required. These
measures are in addition to those covered in the code of standard practice and Sec. 18. Examples of
measures that may provide quality assurance are:
Certification should include documentation that the manufacturers quality assurance plan is
in compliance with the requirements of the BRBF Provisions, the Seismic Provisions for
Structural Steel Buildings, and the Code of Standard Practice. The manufacturing and
quality control procedures should be equal to, or better, than those used to manufacture
brace test specimens.
179
180
182
183
Deformation
Inelastic
Cumulative
Inelastic
Deformation
6 @ Dby= 0Dby
= 6*4*(Dby Dby)
= 0Dby
0Dby
4 @ 0.5Dbm= 16Dby
= 4 @ 2.0Dby
= 4*4*(2.0Dby Dby) = 16Dby 0Dby +16Dby
4 @ Dbm= 64Dby
= 4 @ 4.0Dby
= 4*4*(4.0Dby Dby) = 48Dby 16Dby +48Dby
2 @ 1.5Dbm= 104Dby = 2 @ 6.0Dby
= 2*4*(6.0Dby Dby) = 40Dby 64Dby +40Dby
3 @ Dbm= 140Dby
= 3 @ 4.0Dby
= 3*4*(4.0Dby Dby) = 36Dby 104Dby +36Dby
Cumulative Inelastic Deformation at End of Protocol
= 140 Dby
Dynamically applied loads are not required by these provisions. The use of slowly applied cyclic
loads, widely described in the literature for brace specimen tests, is acceptable for the purposes of
these provisions. It is recognized that dynamic loading can considerably increase the cost of testing,
and that few laboratory facilities have the capability to apply dynamic loads to very large-scale test
specimens. Furthermore, the available research on dynamic loading effects on steel test specimens
has not demonstrated a compelling need for such testing.
If rate-of-loading effects are thought to be potentially significant for the steel core material used in
the prototype, it may be possible to estimate the expected change in behavior by performing coupon
tests at low (test cyclic loads) and high (dynamic earthquake) load rates. The results from brace
tests would then be factored accordingly.
184
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
BOND-PREVENTING
LAYER
CORE PROJECTION
TRANSITION SEGMENT
PLATE
BOND-PREVENTING
LAYER
YIELDING SEGMENT
185
Tension
Tmax= wFyA
Ty = RyFyA
Compression
-Dbm
-Dby
Dby
Dbm
Py
Pmax=-bwFyA
186
PINNED JOINT
(typ.)
900 kN ACTUATOR
(typ.)
BRACING
(typ.)
ANCHOR BLOCK
(typ.)
PINNED JOINT
(typ.)
187
Eccentric Loading
of Brace
Loading of Brace
with
Constant Imposed
Loading of Braced
Frame
188
Level 4
Horizontal Boundary
Element (HBE)
Panel 4
Level 3
Vertical Boundary
Element (VBE)
Panel 3
Level 2
Web Element
Panel 2
Level 1
Panel 1
189
190
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
-1000
-2000
Test
Strip Model: Assembly
Strip Model: Frame Only
-3000
-4000
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
80
192
193
= expected shear strength, at the base of the wall, determined for the web
thickness supplied
= 0.5 Ry Fy tw L sin2
Vu
In determining the loads in VBEs, the amplification factor, B, need not be taken as greater than
R.
The VBE design axial forces shall be determined from overturning moments defined as
follows:
(i) the moment at the base is BMu, where Mu is the factored seismic overturning moment at the
base of the wall corresponding to the force Vu;
(ii) the moment BMu extends for a height H but not less than two stories from the base; and
(iii) the moment decreases linearly above a height H to B times the overturning moment at one
story below the top of the wall, but need not exceed R times the factored seismic overturning
moment at the story under consideration corresponding to the force Vu.
The local bending moments in the VBEs due to tension field action in the web shall be
multiplied by the amplification factor B.
Preliminary Design
For preliminary proportioning of HBEs, VBEs, and webs, a SSPW wall may be approximated
by a vertical truss with tension diagonals. Each web is represented by a single diagonal tension
brace within the story. For an assumed angle of inclination of the tension field, the web
thickness, tw, may be taken as:
tw =
2 A s sin
L sin 2
where
A = area of the equivalent tension brace
= angle between the vertical and the longitudinal axis of the equivalent diagonal
brace
L = the distance between VBE centerlines
= assumed angle of inclination of the tension field measured from the vertical per
Sec. 8.7.4
s = the system overstrength factor as defined by FEMA 369 and taken as 1.2 for
SSPWs (Berman and Bruneau 2003).
Determination of A is originally estimated from an equivalent brace size to meet the structures
drift requirements.
8.7.6.3 Boundary Element Compactness. Some amount of local yielding is expected in the
HBEs and VBEs to allow development of the plastic mechanism of SSPW systems. For that
reason, HBEs and VBEs shall comply with the requirements in AISC Seismic Table I-8-1 for
SMFs.
8.7.6.5 Lateral Bracing. Providing stability of SSPW systems boundary elements is necessary
for proper performance of the system. The lateral bracing requirements for HBEs are provided
194
195
196
197
198
Chapter 9 Commentary
CONCRETE STRUCTURE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
9.1 GENERAL
9.1.2 References. The main concern of Chapter 9 is the proper detailing of reinforced concrete
construction for earthquake resistance. The bulk of the detailing requirements in this chapter are
contained in ACI 318. The commentary for ACI 318 contains a valuable discussion of the rationale
behind detailing requirements and is not repeated here.
E1,E2
= peak lateral resistance for positive and negative loading, respectively, for third cycle of loading
sequence.
f1
hw
K, K
= initial stiffness for positive and negative loading, respectively, for first cycle
1,2
= drift ratios at peak lateral resistance for positive and negative loading, respectively, for third
cycle of loading sequence..
1',2'
= drift ratios for zero lateral load for unloading at stiffness K, K from peak positive and
negative lateral resistance, respectively, for third cycle of loading sequence. (Figure C9.6.2.4)
= lateral displacement, in. or mm. See Figures. C9.6.2.2.1, C9.6.2.2.2 and C9.6.2.2.3
= allowable story drift, in. or mm. See Table 9.5.2.8 of SEI/ASCE 7-02
9.6.2 Definitions
9.6.2.1 Coupling elements. Coupling elements are connections provided at specific intervals along the
vertical boundaries of adjacent structural walls. Coupled structural walls are stiffer and stronger than the
same walls acting independently. For cast-in-place construction effective coupling elements are typically
coupling beams having small span-to-depth ratios. The inelastic behavior of such beams is normally
controlled by their shear strength. For precast construction, effective coupling elements can be precast
beams connected to the adjacent structural walls either by post-tensioning, ductile mechanical devices, or
grouted-in-place reinforcing bars. The resultant coupled construction can be either emulative of cast-in201
202
Figure C9.6.2.2.2 illustrates several possible components of the displacement for a wall that is
effectively solid while Figure C9.6.2.2.3 illustrates two possibly undesirable components of the
displacement . Regardless of the mode of deformation of the wall, the lateral force causes the wall at B
to displace horizontally by an amount . The drift ratio is the angular rotation of the wall chord with
respect to the vertical and for the setup shown equals / hw where hw is the wall height and is equal to the
distance between the foundation support at A and the load point at B.
Where prestressing steel is used in wall members, the stress fps in the reinforcement at the nominal and the
probable lateral resistance shall be calculated in accordance with Sec. 18.7 of ACI 318.
9.6.2.3 Global toughness. These provisions describe acceptance criteria for special precast structural
walls based on validation testing. The requirements of Sec. 21.2.1.5 of ACI 318 concerning toughness
cover both to the energy dissipation of the wall system which, for monolithic construction, is affected
primarily by local plastic hinging behavior and the toughness of the prototype structure as a whole. The
203
For Figure C9.6.2.5, it is assumed that the test module has exhibited different initial stiffnesses, K and
K, for positive and negative lateral forces and that the peak lateral resistances for the third cycle for the
positive and negative loading directions, E1 and E2, also differ. The area of the hysteresis loop for the
third cycle, Ah, is hatched. The circumscribing figure consists of two parallelograms, ABCD and DFGA.
The slopes of the lines AB and DC are the same as the initial stiffness, K, for positive loading and the
slopes of the lines DF and GA are the same as the initial stiffness, K, for negative loading. The relative
energy dissipation ratio concept is similar to the equivalent viscous damping concept used in Sec. 13.9.3
of the 2000 NEHRP Provisions and Commentary for required tests of seismic isolation systems.
For a given cycle the relative energy dissipation ratio, , is the area, Ah, inside the lateral force-drift ratio
loop for the module, divided by the area of the effective circumscribing parallelograms ABCD and
DFGA. The areas of the parallelograms equal the sum of the absolute values of the lateral force strengths,
E1 and E2, at the drift ratios 1 and 2 multiplied by the sum of the absolute values for the drift ratios 1'
and 2'.
9.6.3 Scope and general requirements. While only ACI Committee 318 can determine the
requirements necessary for precast walls to meet the provisions of Sec. 21.2.1.5 of ACI 318, Sec. 1.4 of
204
be used in the prototype is that same value. Each characteristic in-plane configuration of walls, or coupled
walls, in the prototype structure must also be tested. Thus, as a minimum for one-way structural walls,
two modules with the configuration shown in Figure C9.6.2.2.1, and, for one way coupled walls, two
modules with the configuration shown in either Figure C9.6.5.1(a) or in Figure C9.6.5.1(b), must be
tested. In addition, if intersecting wall systems are to be used then the response of the wall systems for
the two orthogonal directions needs to be tested. For two-way wall systems and coupled wall-frame
systems, testing of configurations other than those shown in Figures C9.6.2.2.1 and C9.6.5.1 may be
appropriate when it is difficult to realistically model the likely dominant earthquake deformations using
orthogonal direction testing only.
This provision should not be interpreted as implying that only two tests will need to be made to qualify a
generic system. During the development of that system it is likely that several more tests will have been
made, resulting in progressive refinements of the mathematical model used to describe the likely
performance of the generic structural wall system and its construction details. Consequently, only one
test of each module type for each limiting engineering design condition, at a specified minimum scale and
subjected to specific loading actions, may be required to validate the system. Further, as stated in Sec.
9.6.9.1, if any one of those modules for the generic wall system fails to pass the validation testing
207
An example of the test sequence specified in Sec. 9.6.7.2 through 9.6.7.6 is illustrated in Figure C9.6.7.
The sequence is intended to ensure that displacements are increased gradually in steps that are neither too
large nor too small. If steps are too large, the drift capacity of the system may not be determined with
sufficient accuracy. If the steps are too small, the system may be unrealistically softened by loading
repetitions, resulting in artificially low maximum lateral resistances and artificially high maximum drifts.
Also, when steps are too small, the rate of change of energy stored in the system may be too small
compared with the change occurring during a major event. Results, using such small steps, can mask
undesirable brittle failure modes that might occur in the inelastic response range during a major event.
Because significant diagonal cracking is to be expected in the inelastic range in the web of walls, and in
particular in squat walls, the pattern of increasing drifts used in the test sequence can markedly affect
diagonal crack response in the post-peak range of behavior.
The drift capacity of a building in a major event is not a single quantity, but depends on how that event
shakes the structure. In the forward near field, a single pulse may determine the maximum drift demand,
in which case a single large drift demand cycle for the test module would give the best estimation of the
drift capacity. More often, however, many small cycles precede the main shock and that is the scenario
represented by the specified loading.
There is no requirement for an axial load to be applied to the wall simultaneously with the application of
the lateral displacements. In many cases it will be conservative not to apply axial load because, in
general, the shear capacity of the wall and the resistance to slip at the base of the wall increase as the axial
load on the wall increases. However, as the height of the wall increases and the limiting drift utilized in
the design of the wall increases, the likelihood of extreme fiber crushing in compression at maximum
drift increases, and the importance of the level of axial load increases. The significance of the level of
209
f c
To compensate for the use of the R value, IBC Sec. 1617.4.6 requires that the drift determined by an
elastic analysis for the code-prescribed seismic forces be multiplied by a deflection amplification factor,
Cd ,to determine the design story drift and that the design story drift must be less than the allowable story
drift. In building frame systems, structural walls satisfying the requirements of Sec. 21.7of ACI 318 are
assigned a Cd value of 5. However, research8 has found that design story drift ratios determined in the
foregoing manner may be too low. Drift ratios of 6 times IBC-calculated values, (rather than 5), are more
representative of the upper bounds to expected drift ratios. The value of 6 is also in agreement with the
finding that the drift ratio of an inelastic structure is approximately the same as that of an elastic structure
with the same initial period. For flexure controlled walls the value of 6/5 times the present IBC limits on
calculated drift ratio, would lead to a limit on real drift ratios of up to 0.024.
Duffy et al. reviewed experimental data for shear walls to define post-peak behavior and limiting drift
ratios for walls with height to length ratios between 0.25 and 3.5. Seo et al. re-analyzed the data of Duffy
et al. together with data from tests conducted subsequent to the analysis of Duffy et al. Duffy et al.
established that for squat walls with web reinforcement satisfying ACI 318-02 requirements and height to
length ratios between 0.25 and 1.1, there was a significant range of behavior for which drifts were still
reliable in the post-peak response region. Typically the post-peak drift increased by 0.005 for a 20
percent degradation in capacity under cyclic loading. For greater values of degradation, drifts were less
reliable. That finding has also been confirmed through tests conducted by Hidalgo et al.13 on squat walls
with effective height to length ratios ranging between 0.35 and 1.0. Values of the drift ratio of the walls
at inclined cracking and at peak capacity varied little with web reinforcement. By contrast, drifts in the
post-peak range were reliable to a capacity equal to 80 percent of the peak capacity and were 0.005
greater than the drifts at peak capacity provided the walls contained horizontal and vertical web
reinforcement equal to 0.25 percent.
From an analysis of the available test data, and from theoretical considerations for a wall rotating
210
211
9.6.9.1.1. Where nominal strengths for opposite loading directions differ, as is likely for C-, L- or Tshaped walls, the criterion of Sec. 9.6.9.1.1 applies separately to each direction.
9.6.9.1.2. At high cyclic-drift ratios, strength degradation is inevitable. To limit the level of degradation
so that drift ratio demands do not exceed anticipated levels, a maximum strength degradation of 0.20Emax
is specified. Where strengths differ for opposite loading directions, this requirement applies
independently to each direction.
9.6.9.1.3. If the relative energy dissipation ratio is less than 1/8, there may be inadequate damping for the
building as a whole. Oscillations may continue for some time after an earthquake, producing low-cycle
fatigue effects, and displacements may become excessive.
If the stiffness becomes too small around zero drift ratio, the structure will be prone to large
displacements for small lateral force changes following a major earthquake. A hysteresis loop for the
third cycle between peak drift ratios of 1/10 times the limiting drift ratio given by Eq. 9.6.1, that has the
form shown in Figure C9.6.9.1, is acceptable. At zero drift ratio, the stiffnesses for positive and negative
loading are about 11 percent of the initial stiffnesses. Those values satisfy Sec. 9.6.9.1.3. An
unacceptable hysteresis loop form would be that shown in Figure C9.6.9.1.3 where the stiffness around
zero drift ratio is unacceptably small for both positive and negative loading.
212
REFERENCES
ACI Innovation Task Group I and Collaborators. 2001. Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on
Structural Testing (T1.1-01) and Commentary(T1.1R-01). American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 2001, 10p.
ACI Innovation Task Group I and Collaborators. 2001 Special Hybrid Moment Frames Composed of
Discretely Jointed Precast and Post-Tensioned Concrete Members (ACI T1.2-XX) and Commentary (ACI
T1.2R-XX), ACI Structural Journal,.98 (5):771-784.
Ali, A. and J.K. Wight. 1990. Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls with Staggered Opening
Configurations Under Reversed Cyclic Loading, Report UMCE 90-05, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Building Seismic Safety Council. 1987. Guide to Use of NEHRP Recommended Provisions in
Earthquake Resistant Design of Buildings, 1985 Edition. Washington, D.C.: FEMA.
Building Seismic Safety Council, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings and Other Structures, 2000. FEMA 368 and 369. Washington, D.C.
Cheok, G. S., and H. S. Lew. 1991. Performance of Precast Concrete Beam-to-Column Connections
Subject to Cyclic Loading, PCI Journal, 36, (3):56-67.
Duffy, T.A., A.Goldman, and C.R. Farrar. 1993. Shear Wall Ultimate Drift Limits, Report
NUREG/CR-6104, LA-12649-MS. U.S. Nuclear Regularity Commission.
Elliott, K. S., G. Davies, and W. Omar. 1992. Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of Precast
Concrete Hollow-Cored Slabs Used as Horizontal Floor Diaphragms, The Structural Engineer, 70,
(10):175-187.
Englekirk, R. E. 1987. Concepts for the Development of Earthquake Resistant Ductile Frames of
Precast Concrete, PCI Journal, 32, (1).
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2000. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
213
215
216
Appendix to Chapter 9
UNTOPPED PRECAST DIAPHRAGMS
Although not directly addressed in the code, untopped precast components have been used as
diaphragms in high seismic regions. Untopped hollow-core planks with grouted joints and end chords
have performed successfully both in earthquakes and in laboratory tests, (Elliot et al., 1992;
Menegotto, 1994; Priestley et al., 1999). Experience has also demonstrated the unsuccessful use of
cast-in-place concrete topping as diaphragms (Iverson and Hawkins, 1994). Where problems have
occurred, they have not been inherently with the precast construction, but the result of a failure to
address fundamental requirements of structural mechanics.
This section provides conditions that are intended to ensure that diaphragms composed of precast
components are designed with attention to the principles required for satisfactory behavior. Each
condition addresses requirements that should be considered for all diaphragms, but which are
particularly important in jointed construction. Specific attention should be paid to providing a
complete load path that considers force transfer across all joints and connections.
Test Procedures:
1. Prior to testing, a design procedure should have been developed for prototype connections having
the generic form that is to be tested for acceptance.
2. That design procedure should be used to proportion the test specimens.
3. Specimens should not be less than two-thirds scale.
4. Test specimens should be subject to a sequence of reversing cycles having increasing limiting
displacements.
5. Three fully reversed cycles should be applied at each limiting displacement.
6. The maximum load for the first sequence of three cycles should be 75 percent of the calculated
nominal strength of the connection, En.
7. The stiffness of the connection should be defined as 75 percent of the calculated nominal strength
of the connection divided by the corresponding measured displacement, m.
8. Subsequent to the first sequence of three cycles, limiting displacements should be incremented by
values not less than 1.0, and not more than 1.25 times m.
Acceptance Criteria:
1. The connection should develop a strength, Emax, greater than its calculated nominal strength, En.
2. The strength, Emax, should be developed at a displacement not greater than 3m.
3. For cycling between limiting displacements not less than 3m, the peak force for the third loading
cycle for a given loading direction should not be less than 0.8 Emax for the same loading direction.
Results of reversed cyclic loading tests on typical connections are reported in Spencer (1986) and
Pincheira et al. (1998).
A9.2.4 Cast-in-place strips. Successful designs may include a combination of untopped precast
components with areas of concrete topping in locations of high force demand or concentration. Such
topping can allow for continuity of reinforcement across joints. For such designs, the requirements for
topping slab diaphragms apply to the topped portions.
A9.2.5 Deformation compatibility. An important element in the Provisions is attention to
deformation compatibility requirements. Reduction in effective shear and flexural stiffness for the
diaphragm is appropriate in evaluating the overall effects of drift on elements that are not part of the
seismic-force-resisting system. This approach should encourage the use of more vertical elements to
achieve shorter spans in the diaphragm and result in improved system redundancy and diaphragm
continuity. Redundancy will also improve the overall behavior should any part of the diaphragm yield
in a catastrophic event.
REFERENCES
Elliot, K. S., G. Davies, and W. Omar. 1992. Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of Precast
Concrete Hollow-cored Slabs Used as Horizontal Floor Diaphragms. The Structural Engineer, 70
(10) 175-187.
Fleischman, R. B., R. Sause, S. Pessiki, and A. B. Rhodes. 1998. Seismic Behavior of Precast
Parking Structure Diaphragms. PCI Journal, 43 (1): 38-53.
Iverson, J. K., and N. M. Hawkins. 1994. Performance of Precast/Prestressed Concrete Building
Structures During the Northridge Earthquake, PCI Journal 39(2): 38-55.
Menegotto, M. 1994. Seismic Diaphragm Behavior of Untopped Hollow-Core Floors,
Proceedings, F.I.P. Congress, Washington, D.C.
218
219
220
Chapter 10 Commentary
COMPOSITE STEEL AND CONCRETE STRUCTURE DESIGN
REQUIREMENTS
10.1 GENERAL
The 1994 Edition of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions included a new chapter on composite steel
and concrete structures. The requirements in that chapter have been updated and incorporated in Part II
of the 1997 Edition of the AISC Seismic Provisions. This edition of the NEHRP Recommended
Provisions includes by reference Part II of the AISC Seismic Provisions (1997) together with the
underlying AISC-LRFD (1999) and ACI 318 (1999) standards. Part II of the AISC Seismic Provisions
provides definitions for composite systems consistent with the system designations in Table 4.3-1 and
specifies requirements for the seismic design of composite systems and components.
221
222
Chapter 11 Commentary
MASONRY STRUCTURE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
11.1.2 References. The main concern of Chapter 11 is the proper detailing of masonry construction for
earthquake resistance. The bulk of the detailing requirements in this chapter are contained in ACI
530/ASCE 5/TMS 402. The commentary for ACI 530/ASCE 5/TMS 402 contains a valuable discussion
of the rationale behind detailing requirements that is not repeated here.
11.2.1.5.1 Shear keys. Shear keys provide resistance to the movement of shear walls when yielding of
the reinforcing steel occurs. This phenomenon was observed in tests by Klingner. (Leiva and Klingner
1991). There has been no field verification of shear wall movement under seismic events. The shear
key requirements are based on judgment and sizes are based on current construction procedures.
11.2.2.3 Article 1.3 permits the use of structural clay wall-tile meeting the requirements of ASTM C 34.
At the time of publication, it was felt that the existing detailing requirements for masonry elements did
not adequately address the brittle nature of clay wall-tile units.
11.2.2.11 The nominal shear strength of coupling beams must be equal to the shear caused by
development of a full yield hinge at each end of the coupling beams. This nominal shear strength is
estimated by dividing the sum of the calculated yield moment capacity of each end of the coupling
beams, M1 and M2, by the clear span length, L.
A coupling beam may consist of a masonry beam and a part of the reinforced concrete floor system.
Reinforcement in the floor system parallel to the coupling beam should be considered as a part of the
coupling beam reinforcement. The limit of the minimum width of floor that should be used is six times
the floor slab thickness. This quantity of reinforcement may exceed the limits of Sec. 3.2.3.5 but should
be used for the computation of the normal shear strength.
11.2.2.12 The theory used for design of beams has a limited applicability to deep beams. Shear warping
of the cross section and a combination of diagonal tension stress and flexural tension stress in the body
of the deep beam requires that deep beam theory be used for design of members that exceed the
specified limits of span to depth ratio. Analysis of wall sections that are used as beams generally will
result in a distribution of tensile stress that requires the lower one-half of the beam section to have
uniformly distributed reinforcement. The uniform distribution of reinforcement resists tensile stress
caused by shear as well as flexural moment.
The flexural reinforcement for deep beams must meet or exceed the minimum flexural reinforcement
ratio of Sec. 3.2.4.3.2. Additionally, horizontal and vertical reinforcement must be distributed
throughout the length and depth of deep beams and must provide reinforcement ratios of at least
0.0007bd. Distributed flexural reinforcement may be included in the calculations of the minimum
distributed reinforcement ratios.
11.2.2.13 Corrugated sheet metal ties are prohibited from use in Seismic Design Categories E and F due
to their decreased capacity in transferring loads.
11.2.2.14 Masonry pryout refers to a failure mode of a shear anchor in which the embedded end of the
anchor moves opposite to the direction of applied shear, prying out a roughly semi-conical body of
masonry (concrete, as applicable) behind the anchor. It is not the same as a breakout, which refers to
a failure mode of a shear anchor in which a body of masonry (or concrete, as applicable) is broken off
between the anchor and a free edge, in the direction of applied shear.
223
The tensile capacity of a bent-bar anchor bolt (J- or L-bolt) is governed by yield and fracture of the
anchor steel, by tensile cone breakout of the masonry, or by straightening and pullout of the anchor from
the masonry. Capacities corresponding to the first two failure modes are calculated as for headed
anchor bolts. Pullout capacity is calculated as proposed by Shaikh (1996). Possible contributions to
tensile pullout capacity due to friction are neglected.
224
REFERENCES
Abboud, B. E., X. Lu, and F. C. Schmitt. 1993. An Evaluation of Three Current Deflection Methods
for Predicting the Lateral Deflection of Masonry Walls. In Proceedings of the Sixth North American
Masonry Conference, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp.73-85.
Abboud, B. E., and A. A. Hamid. 1987. A Comparative Study of the Flexural Behavior of Reinforced
Block Masonry and Reinforced Concrete Using Small Scale Model Walls. In Proceedings of the
Fourth North American Masonry Conference, Los Angeles, California.
Abboud, B. E., A. A. Hamid, and H. G. Harris. 1990. Small Scale Modeling of Concrete Block
Masonry Structures, ACI Structural Journal 87(2):145-155.
Abboud, B. E. 1987. The Use of Small Scale Direct Models for Concrete Block Masonry Assemblages
and Slender Reinforced Walls Under Out-of-Plane Loads, Doctoral Thesis, Drexel University,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Blondet, J. M., R. L. Mayes, T. E. Kelley, R. R. Villablanca, and R. E. Klingner. 1989. Performance of
Engineered Masonry in the Chilean Earthquake of March 3, 1985: Implications for U.S. Design
Practice. Austin: Phil Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory, University of Texas.
Brown, R. H., and A. R. Whitlock. 1983. Strength of Anchor Bolts in Grouted Masonry, ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering 109(6).
CEB. 1995. Design of Fastenings in Concrete (Draft CEB Guide, Parts 1 to 3) and Fastenings for
Seismic Retrofitting (State-of-the-Art Report on Design and Application), Task Group 3.5
(Embedments), Euro-International Concrete Committee (CEB), CEB Bulletin D=Information 226.
Comite Euro-International du Beton.
Chen, S. W., P. A. Hidalgo, R. L. Mayes, R. W. Clough, and H. D. McNiven. 1978. Cyclic Loading
Tests of Masonry Single Piers, Vol. 2, EERC Report UCB/EERC-78/27. Berkeley: University of
California Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
Fattal, S. G. 1993a. Strength of Partially Grouted Masonry Shear Walls, Report NIST 5147.
Gaithersburg, Maryland: National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Fattal, S. G. 1993b. The Effect of Critical Parameters on the Behavior of Partially Grouted Masonry
Shear Walls Under Lateral Loads, NIST Report NISTIR 5116. Gaithersburg, Maryland: National
Institute of Standards and Technology.
Fattal, S. G., and D. R. Todd. 1991. Ultimate Strength of Masonry walls: Prediction vs. Test Results,
NIST Report NISTIR 4633. Gaithersburg, Maryland: National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Hamid, A. A., M. K. Hatem, H. G. Harris, and B. E. Abboud. 1990. Hysteretic Response and
Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls Under Out-of-Plane Loading. In Proceedings of the
Fifth North American Conference, Urbana, Illinois, pp. 397-410.
225
226
1.1-1:
Atkinson and Kingsley, Comparison of the Behavior of Clay & Concrete Masonry in
Compression, September 1985. 151 pgs.
1.2(a)-1:
Hamid, A. A., G. F. Assis, and H. G. Harris, Material Models for Grouted Block Masonry,
August 1988. 67 pgs.
1.2(a)-2:
Assis, G. F., A. A. Hamid, and H. G. Harris, Material Models for Grouted Block Masonry,
August 1989. 134 pgs.
1.2(b)-1:
Young, J. M., and R. H. Brown, Compressive Stress Distribution of Grouted Hollow Clay
Masonry Under Strain Gradient, May 1988, 170 pgs.
1.3-1:
Atkinson, R. H., An Assessment of Current Material Test Standards for Masonry Limit
States Design Methods, June 1991. 38 pgs.
2.1-1:
Hart, G., and M. Basharkhah, Slender Wall Structural Engineering Analysis Computer
Program (Shwall, Version 1.01), September 1987. 68 pgs.
2.1-2:
Hart, G., and M. Basharkhah, Shear Wall Structural Engineering Analysis Computer
Program (Shwall, Version 1.01). September 1987. 75 pgs.
2.1-3:
Nakaki, D., and G. Hart, Uplifting Response of Structures Subjected to Earthquake Motions,
August 1987. 200 pgs.
2.1-4:
Hart, G., N. Sajjad, and M. Basharkhah, Inelastic Column Analysis Computer Program
(INCAP, Version 1.01), March 1988.
2.1-5:
Hong, W. K., G. C. Hart, and R. E. Englekirk, Force-Deflection Evaluation and Models for
University of Colorado Flexural Walls, December 1989.
2.1-6:
Hart, G. C., J. W. Jaw, and Y. K. Low, SCM Model for University of Colorado Flexural
Walls, December 1989. 31 pgs.
2.1-7:
Hart, G. C., N. Sajjad, and M. Basharkhah, Inelastic Masonry Flexural Shear Wall Analysis
Computer Program, February 1990. 41 pgs.
2.1-8:
2.1-9:
2.1-10:
2.1-12:
2.2-1:
2.2-2:
Ewing, R. D., Parametric Studies on Reinforced Masonry Shear Walls Using FEM/I, A
Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis Program, March 1992.
2.2-3:
2.3-1:
Ewing, R., J. Kariotis, and A. El-Mustapha, LPM/I, A Computer Program for the
Nonlinear, Dynamic Analysis of Lumped Parameter Models, August, 1987. 200 pgs.
2.3-2:
Kariotis, J., A. El-Mustapha, and R. Ewing, Influence of Foundation Model on the Uplifting
of Structures, July 1988. 50 pgs.
2.3-3:
2.3-4:
Kariotis, J., A. Rahman, O. Waqfi, and R. Ewing, Version 1.03 LPM/I - A Computer
Program for the Nonlinear, Dynamic Analysis of Lumped Parameter Models, February
1992. 227 pgs.
2.3-5:
Kariotis, J., O. Waqfi, and R. Ewing, R., A Computer Program Using Beam Elements for
the Nonlinear, Dynamic Analysis of Lumped Parameter Models, February 1992. 96 pgs.
2.3-6:
Kariotis, J., and O. Waqfi, Comparison of the Dynamic Response of a Damped MDOF
Nonlinear Beam Model with an Equivalent SDOF Hysteretic Model, April 1992. 88 pgs.
2.3-7:
Kariotis, J., and O. Waqfi, Recommended Procedure for Calculation of the Balanced
Reinforcement Ratio, February 1992. 73 pgs.
2.4(b)-1:
3.1(a)-1:
Scrivener, J., Summary of Findings of Cyclic Tests on Masonry Piers, June 1986. 7 pgs.
3.1(a)-2:
3.1(b)-1:
Seible, F., and H. LaRovere, Summary of Pseudo Dynamic Testing, February 1987. 46 pgs.
3.1(b)-2:
3.1(c)-1:
3.1(c)-2:
Leiva, G., and R. Klingner, In-plane Seismic Resistance of Two-story Concrete Masonry
Shear Walls with Openings, August 1991. 326 pgs.
3.2(a)-1:
Hamid, A., B. Abboud, M. Farah, K. Hatem, and H. Harris, Response of Reinforced Block
Masonry Walls to Out-of-Plane Static Loads, September 1989. 120 pgs.
228
3.2(b)-2:
Blondet, M., and R. L. Mayes, The Transverse Response of Clay Masonry Walls Subjected
to Strong Motion Earthquakes, Vol. 1: General Information, April 1991. 172 pgs.
3.2(b)-2:
Blondet, M., and R. L. Mayes, The Transverse Response of Clay Masonry Walls Subjected
to Strong Motion Earthquakes, Vol. 2: Walls No. 4 and 6 (Group 1), April 1991. 267 pgs.
3.2(b)-2:
Blondet, M., and R. L. Mayes, The Transverse Response of Clay Masonry Walls Subjected
to Strong Motion Earthquakes, Vol. 3: Walls No. 8, 9, 10 and 11 (Group 2), April 1991.
310 pgs.
3.2(b)-2:
Blondet, M., and R. L. Mayes, The Transverse Response of Clay Masonry Walls Subjected
to Strong Motion Earthquakes, Vol. 4: Walls No. 3, 5, and 7 (Group 3), April 1991. 256
pgs.
4.1-1:
He, L., and M. J. N. Priestley, Seismic Behavior of Flanged Masonry Shear Walls, May
1988. 119 pgs.
4.1-2:
He, L., and M. J. N. Priestley, Seismic Behavior of Flanged Masonry Shear Walls - Final
Report, November 1992. 279 pgs.
4.2-1:
4.2-2:
5.1-1:
Porter, M., and A. Sabri, Plank Diaphragm Characteristics, July 1990. 226 pgs.
5.2-1:
Porter, M., F. Yeomans, and A. Johns, Assembly of Existing Diaphragm Data, July 1990.
142 pgs.
6.2-1:
6.2-2:
Soric, Z., and L. Tulin, Bond Splices in Reinforced Masonry, August 1987. 296 pgs.
7.1-1:
Paulson, T., and D. Abrams, Measured Inelastic Response of Reinforced Masonry Building
structures to Earthquake Motions, October 1990. 294 pgs.
8.1-1:
Hart, G., A Limit State Design Method for Reinforced Masonry, June 1988.
8.1-2:
Hart, G., Expected Value Design in the Context of a Limit Sate Design Methodology,
February 1990.
8.2-1:
Hart, G., and G. T. Zorapapel, Reliability of Concrete Masonry Wall Structures, December
1991. 229 pgs.
8.2-2:
8.2-3:
Hart, G., and J. Jang, Seismic Performance of Masonry Wall Frames, December 1991.
9.1-1:
9.1-2:
Kariotis, J. C., and O. M. Waqfi, Trial Designs Made in Accordance with Tentative Limit
States Design Standards for Reinforced Masonry Buildings, February 1992. 184 pgs.
9.2-1:
Seible, F., Report on Large Structures Testing Facilities in Japan, September 1985. 120
pgs.
229
Seible, F., Design and Construction of the Charles Lee Powell Structural Systems
Laboratory, November 1986. 65 pgs.
9.2-3:
Seible, F., The Japanese Five-story Full Scale Reinforced Masonry Building Test, January
1988. 100 pgs.
9.2-4:
11.1-1:
TCCMaR, Summary Report: U.S. Coordinated Program for Masonry Building Research,
September 1985 to August 1986. 190 pgs.
11.1-2:
TCCMaR, Status Report: U.S. Coordinated Program for Masonry Building Research,
November 1988. 170 pgs.
230
Chapter 12 Commentary
WOOD STRUCTURE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
12.1 GENERAL
12.1.2 References. Wood construction practices have not been codified in a form that is standard
throughout the country. The 2003 Provisions incorporates by reference the AF&PA ASD/LRFD
Supplement, Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic (SDPWS) and the 2003 International
Residental Code (IRC). Many wood frame structures are a combination of engineered wood and
conventional light-frame construction. Wood also is used in combination with other materials
(American Institute of Timber Construction, 1985; Breyer, 1993; Faherty and Williamson, 1989;
Hoyle and Woeste, 1989; Somayaji, 1992; Stalnaker and Harris, 1989). The requirements of the
model building codes were used as a resource in developing the requirements introduced in the 1991
Provisions and further modified since then. The general requirements of Chapter 12 cover construction
practices necessary to provide a performance level of seismic resistance consistent with the purposes
stated in Chapter 1. These requirements also may be related to gravity load capacity and wind force
resistance which is a natural outgrowth of any design procedure. For the 2003 Provisions, the
reference documents continue to be grouped according to their primary focus into three subsections:
Sec. 12.1.2.1, Engineered Wood Construction; Sec. 12.1.2.2, Conventional Construction; and Sec.
12.1.2.3, Materials Standards.
might be appropriate for the entire seismic-force-resisting system. The absence of a ceiling diaphragm
may also create a configuration that is non-conventional. The requirement for engineering portions of
a conventional construction structure to maintain lateral-force resistance and stiffness is added to
provide displacement compatibility.
Alternate strength of members and connections. It remains the intent of the Provisions that load
and resistance factor design be used. When allowable stress design is to be used, however, the
factored resistance of members and connections subjected to seismic forces acting alone or in
combination with other prescribed loads shall be determined using a capacity reduction factor, , times
2.16 times the allowable stresses permitted in the National Design Specification for Wood
Construction (NDS) and supplements (AF&PA, 1991). The allowable stresses used shall not include a
duration of load factor, CD. The value of the capacity reduction factor, , shall be as follows:
Wood members
In flexure
= 1.00
In compression
= 0.90
In tension
= 1.00
= 1.00
Connectors
Anchor bolts, bolts, lag bolts, nails, screws, etc.
= 0.85
= 0.40
These soft conversions from allowable stress design values to load and resistance factor design
values first appeared in Sec. 9.2 in the 1994 Provisions. An alternative method of calculating soft
conversions is provided in ASTM D 5457-93. The reader is cautioned, however, that the loads and
load combinations to be used for conversion are not specified so it is incumbent upon the user to
determine appropriate conversion values. Wood frame structures assigned to Seismic Design
Category A, other than one- and two-family dwellings, must comply with Sec. 12.4 or if engineered
need only comply with the reference documents and Sec. 1.5. Exceptions addressing one- and twofamily detached dwellings appear in Sec.
12.2.1 Seismic Design Categories B, C, and D. Seismic Design Categories B, C, and D were
combined in the 1997 Provisions. At the same time, subsections on material limitations and
anchorage requirements were moved. This was based on the philosophy that detailing requirements
should vary based on R value rather than seismic design category.
Structures assigned to Seismic Design Categories B, C, and D are required to meet the minimum
construction requirements of Sec. 12.4 (Sherwood and Stroh, 1989) or must be engineered using
standard design methods and principles of mechanics. Conventional light-frame construction
requirements were modified in the 1991 Provisions to limit the spacing between braced wall lines
based on calculated capacities to resist the loads and forces imposed.
Engineered structures assigned to Seismic Design Categories B, C, and D are required to conform to
the provisions of Sec. 12.2 and 12.3. Included in these sections are general design limitations, limits
on wood resisting forces contributed by concrete or masonry, shear wall and diaphragm aspect ratio
limitations, and requirements for distribution of shear to vertical resisting elements.
232
12.2.2 Seismic Design Categories E and F. If the provisions of Chapter 12 apply, Seismic Design
Category E and F structures require an engineered design. Conventional construction is not
considered rigorous enough for structures expected to be functional following a major seismic event.
For Seismic Design Category E and F structures, close attention to load path and detailing is required.
Structures assigned to Seismic Design Category E and F require blocked diaphragms. Structural-use
panels must be applied directly to the framing members; the use of gypsum wallboard between the
structural-use panels and the framing members is prohibited because of the poor performance of nails
in gypsum. Restrictions on allowable shear values for structural-use shear panels when used in
conjunction with concrete and masonry walls are intended to provide for deformation compatibility of
the different materials.
12.2.3.1 Discussion of cyclic test protocol is included in ATC (1995), Dolan (1996), and Rose (1996).
12.2.3.2 and 12.2.3.7 The mid-span deflection of a simple-span, blocked wood structural panel
diaphragm uniformly nailed throughout may be calculated by use of the following formula:
( c X )
5vL3
vL
+
+ 0.188Len +
8bEA 4Gt
2b
where:
maximum shear due to factored design loads in the direction under consideration, lb/ft
(kN/m).
Gt
en
(cX) =
sum of individual chord-splice slip values on both sides of the diaphragm, each
multiplied by its distance to the nearest support, in. (mm).
If not uniformly nailed, the constant 0.188 in the third term must be modified accordingly. See ATC 7
(Applied Technology Council, 1981).
This formula was developed based on engineering principles and monotonic testing. Therefore, it
provides an estimate of diaphragm deflection due to loads applied in the factored resistance shear
range. The effects of cyclic loading and resulting energy dissipation may alter the values for nail
deformation in the third term, as well as chord splice effects of the fourth term, if mechanically-spliced
wood chords are used. The formula is not applicable to partially-blocked diaphragms.
The deflection of a blocked wood structural panel shear wall may be calculated by use of the following
formula.
=
8vh3 vh
h
+
+ 0.75hen + d a
bEA Gt
b
where:
maximum shear due to factored design loads at the top of the wall, lb/ft (kN/m).
233
elastic modulus of boundary element (vertical member at shear wall boundary), psi (MPa).
area of boundary element cross-section (vertical member at shear wall boundary), in.2
(mm2).
Gt =
en =
da =
deflection due to anchorage details ( rotation and slip at hold downs), in. (mm).
Guidance for use of the above two equations can be found in the references.
One stipulation is that there are no accepted rational methods for calculating deflections for
diaphragms and shear walls that are sheathed with materials other than wood structural panel products
fastened with nails. Therefore, if a rational method is to be used, the capacity of the fastener in the
sheathing material must be validated by acceptable test procedures employing cyclic forces or
displacements. Validation must include correlation between the overall stiffness and capacity
predicted by principles of mechanics and that observed from test results. A diaphragm or shear wall
sheathed with dissimilar materials on the two faces should be designed as a single-sided wall using the
capacity of the stronger of the materials and ignoring the weaker of the materials.
TABLE C12.2A
en FASTENER SLIP EQUATIONS FOR USE IN CALCULATING DIAPHRAGM
AND SHEAR WALL DEFLECTION DUE TO FASTENER SLIP
Fastener
Minimum
Penetration
(in.)
6d common nail
1-1/4
180
8d common nail
1-3/8
220
(Vn/857)1.869
(Vn/616)3.018
1-1/2
260
(Vn/977)1.894
(Vn/769)3.276
14-ga staple
1 to <2
140
(Vn/902)1.464
(Vn/596)1.999
14-ga staple
>2
170
(Vn/674)1.873
(Vn/461)2.776
Maximum Fastener
Loads - Vn
(lb/fastener)
234
TABLE C12.2B
VALUES OF Gt FOR USE IN CALCULATING DEFLECTION OF
WOOD STRUCTURAL PANEL DIAPHRAGMS AND SHEAR WALLS
235
Thickness
STRUCTURAL I
OTHER
TYPE
(in.)
Marine
All Other
Plywood
Grades
31,000
31,000
24,000
11/32
33,000
33,000
25,500
3/8
34,000
34,000
26,000
15/32
49,500
49,500
38,000
50,000
50,000
38,500
Sanded
19/32
63,500
63,500
49,000
Plywood
5/8
64,500
64,500
49,500
23/32
65,500
65,500
50,500
66,500
66,500
51,000
7/8
68,500
68,500
52,500
95,500
95,500
73,500
1-1/8
97,500
97,500
75,000
For SI: 1 inch = 25.4 mm, 1 pound/inch of panel depth or width = 0.1751 N/mm.
1. Applies to plywood with 5 or more layers; for 5 ply/3 layer plywood, use values for 4 ply.
Effect of Green Lumber Framing on Diaphragms and Shear Walls: A recent study of wood
structural panel shear walls (APA Report T2002-53) fabricated with wet lumber and tested when dry
shows that shear stiffness is affected to a much larger degree than shear strength when compared to
control specimens fabricated with dry lumber and tested when dry. The shear strength of walls
fabricated with wet lumber showed negligible reductions (0-7 percent) when compared to control
specimens. The shear stiffness of walls fabricated with wet lumber was always reduced when
compared to control specimens. Observed reductions in stiffness were consistent with predicted
stiffness reductions based on use of Eq. C12.2A and nail slip values specified in Table C12.2A. For
example, measured deflection of a standard wall configuration at the shear wall factored unit shear
value was approximately 2.5 times the deflection of the control specimen and predicted deflections
were within 0.05 inches of the test deflection for both the fabricated wet specimen and control
specimen.
As a result of these tests, direct consideration of shear wall stiffness is recommended in lieu of
applying shear wall strength reductions when wood structural panel shear walls are fabricated with
wet lumber (e.g. moisture content > 19 percent). To address reduced shear stiffness for shear walls
fabricated with wet lumber, story drift calculations should be based on en values for lumber with
moisture content > 19 percent to determine compliance with allowable story drift limits of the
Provisions. A similar relationship can be expected when analyzing the deflection of diaphragms.
The designer should keep in mind that deflection equations are verified for walls with wood
structural panel sheathing only and does not address the increased stiffness provided by finish
materials such as gypsum and stucco. The CUREE-Caltech Woodframe project illustrated that
finishes such as gypsum wallboard and stucco increase the stiffness of the walls. While these
236
Calculations of deflection of shear walls should include the effects of crushing under the
compression chord, uplift of the tension chord, slip in the tie-down anchor with respect to the post,
and shrinkage effects of the platforms, which primarily consist of floor framing members.
Movement associated with these variables can be significant and neglecting their contribution to the
lateral displacement of the wall will results in a significant under-estimation of the deflection.
Custom tie-down devices are permitted to be designed using methods for the particular materials
used and AF&PA/ASCE 16 under alternative means and methods.
Tie-down devices that permit significant vertical movement between the tie-down and the tie-down
post can cause failure in the nails connecting the shear wall sheathing to the sill plate. High tension
and tie-down rotation due to eccentricity can cause the bolts connecting the tie-down bracket to the
tie-down post to pull through and split the tie-down post. Devices that permit such movement
include heavily loaded, one-sided, bolted connections with small dimensions between elements
resisting rotation due to eccentricity. Any device that uses over-drilled holes, such as most bolted
connections, will also allow significant slip to occur between the device and the tie-down post
before load is restrained. Both the NDS and the steel manual specify that bolt holes will be overdrilled as much as 1/16 in. (2 mm). This slip is what causes much of the damage to the nails
connecting the sheathing to the sill plate. Friction between the tie-down post and the device cannot
be counted on to resist load because relaxation in the wood will cause a loss of clamping and,
therefore, a loss in friction over time. This is why all tests should be conducted with the bolts
finger tight as opposed to tightening with a wrench.
Cyclic tests of tie-down connections must follow a pattern similar to the sequential phased
displacement (SPD) tests used by Dolan (1996) and Rose (1996). These tests used full wall
assemblies and therefore induced deflection patterns similar to those expected during an earthquake.
If full wall assembly tests are not used to test the tie-down devices, it must be shown that the
expected rotation as well as tension and compression are used. This is to ensure that walls using the
devices will be able to deform in the intended manner. This allows the registered design
professional to consider compatibility of deformations when designing the structure.
Splitting of the bottom plate of the shear walls has been observed in tests as well as in structures
subjected to earthquakes. Splitting of plates remote from the end of the shear wall can be caused by
the rotation of individual sheathing panels inducing upward forces in the nails at one end of the
panel and downward forces at the other. With the upward forces on the nails and a significant
distance perpendicular to the wall to the downward force produced by the anchor bolt, high crossgrain bending stresses occur. Splitting can be reduced or eliminated by use of large plate washers
that are sufficiently stiff to reduce the eccentricity and by use of thicker sill plates. Thicker sill
plates (3 in. nominal, 65 mm) are recommended for all shear walls for which Table 12.2-3a (or 12.23b) requires 3 in. nominal (65 mm) framing to prevent splitting due to close nail spacing. This is to
help prevent failure of the sill plate due to high lateral loading and cross-grain bending.
237
239
A diaphragm is a nearly horizontal structural unit that acts as a deep beam or girder when flexible in
comparison to its supports and as a plate when rigid in comparison to its supports. The analogy to a
girder is somewhat more appropriate since girders and diaphragms are made up as assemblies
(American Plywood Association, 1991; Applied Technology Council, 1981). Sheathing acts as the
web to resist the shear in diaphragms and is stiffened by the framing members, which also provide
support for gravity loads. Flexure is resisted by the edge elements acting like flanges to resist
induced tension or compression forces. The flanges may be top plates, ledgers, bond beams, or
any other continuous element at the perimeter of the diaphragm.
The flange (chord) can serve several functions at the same time, providing resistance to loads and
forces from different sources. When it functions as the tension or compression flange of the
girder, it is important that the connection to the web be designed to accomplish the shear
transfer. Since most diaphragm flanges consist of many pieces, it is important that the splices be
designed to transmit the tension or compression occurring at the location of the splice and to
recognize that the direction of application of seismic forces can reverse. It should also be
recognized that the shear walls parallel to the flanges may be acting with the flanges to distribute the
diaphragm shears. When seismic forces are delivered at right angles to the direction considered
previously, the flange becomes a part of the reaction system. It may function to transfer the
diaphragm shear to the shear wall(s), either directly or as a drag strut between segments of shear
walls that are not continuous along the length of the diaphragm.
For shear walls, which may be considered to be deep vertical cantilever beams, the flanges are
subjected to tension and compression while the webs resist the shear. It is important that the
flange members, splices at intermediate floors, and the connection to the foundation be detailed
and sized for the induced forces.
The webs of diaphragms and shear walls often have openings. The transfer of forces around
openings can be treated similarly to openings in the webs of steel girders. Members at the edges of
openings have forces due to flexure and the higher web shear induced in them and the resultant
forces must be transferred into the body of the diaphragm beyond the opening.
In the past, wood sheathed diaphragms have been considered to be flexible by many registered
design professionals and model code enforcement agencies. The newer versions of the model codes
now recognize that the determination of rigidity or flexibility for determination of how forces will be
distributed is dependent on the relative deformations of the horizontal and vertical force-resisting
elements. Wood sheathed diaphragms in structures with wood frame shear walls with various types
of sheathing may be relatively rigid compared with the vertical resisting system and, therefore,
capable of transmitting torsional lateral forces. A diaphragm is considered to be flexible if its
240
The distribution of seismic forces to the vertical elements (shear walls) of the seismic-force-resisting
system is dependent, first, on the stiffness of the vertical elements relative to that of the horizontal
elements and, second, on the relative stiffness of the various vertical elements if they have varying
deflection characteristics. The first issue is discussed in detail in the Provisions, which define when
a diaphragm can be considered flexible or rigid and set limits on diaphragms that act in rotation or
that cantilever. The second is largely an issue of engineering mechanics, but is discussed here
because significant variations in engineering practice currently exist.
In situations where a series of vertical elements of the seismic-force-resisting system are aligned in a
row, seismic forces will distribute to the different elements according to their relative stiffness.
Typical current design practice is to distribute seismic forces to a line of wood structural panel
sheathed walls in proportion to the lengths of the wall segments such that each segment carries the
same unit load. Wood structural panel sheathed wall segments without openings can generally be
calculated to have a stiffness in proportion to the wall length when: the tie-down slip is ignored, the
241
For flexible diaphragms, seismic forces should be distributed to the vertical force-resisting elements
according to tributary area or simple beam analysis. Although rotation of the diaphragm may occur
because lines of vertical elements have different stiffness, the diaphragm is not considered stiff
enough to redistribute seismic forces through rotation. The diaphragm can be visualized as a singlespan beam supported on rigid supports.
For diaphragms defined as rigid, rotational or torsional behavior is expected and results in
redistribution of shear to the vertical force-resisting elements. Requirements for horizontal shear
distribution are in Sec. 5.2.4. Torsional response of a structure due to irregular stiffness at any level
within the structure can be a potential cause of failure. As a result, dimensional and diaphragm ratio
limitations are provided for different categories of rotation. Also, additional requirements apply
when the structure is deemed to have a torsional irregularity in accordance with Table 4.3-2, Item 1a
or 1b.
In order to understand limits placed on diaphragms acting in rotation, it is helpful to consider two
different categories of diaphragms. Category I includes rigid diaphragms that rely on force transfer
through rotation to maintain stability. An example would be an open front structure with shear walls
on the other three sides. For this more structurally critical category, applicable limitations are:
Diaphragm may not be used to resist forces contributed by masonry or concrete in structures over
one story.
The length of the diaphragm normal to the opening may not exceed 25 ft ( to perpendicular shear
walls), and diaphragm L/b ratios are limited as noted.
Additional limitations apply when rotation is significant enough to be considered a torsional
irregularity.
Category II includes rigid diaphragms that have two or more supporting shear walls in each of two
perpendicular directions but, because the center of mass and center of rigidity do not coincide,
redistribute forces to shear walls through rotation of the diaphragm. These can be further divided
into Category IIA where the center of rigidity and mass are separated by a small portion of the
structures least dimension and the magnitude of the rotation is on the order of the accidental
rotation discussed in Sec. 5.2.4.2. For this level of rotation, an exception may result in no particular
limitations being placed on diaphragm rotation for Category IIA. Category IIB, rigid diaphragms
242
Diaphragm cantilever may not exceed the lesser of 25 ft or two thirds of the diaphragm width.
Relative stiffness of vertical elements. In situations where a series of vertical elements of the
seismic-force-resisting system are aligned in a row, the forces will distribute to the different
elements according to their relative stiffnesses. This behavior needs to be taken into account
whether it involves a series of wood structural panel shear walls of different lengths, a mixture of
wood structural panel shear walls with diagonal lumber or non-wood sheathed shear walls, or a
mixture of wood shear walls with walls of some other material such as concrete or masonry.
Diaphragm aspect ratio. The L/b for a diaphragm is intended to be the typical definition for aspect
ratio. The diaphragm span, L, is measured perpendicular to the direction of applied force, either for
the full dimension of the diaphragm or between supports as appropriate. The width, b, is parallel to
the applied force (see Figure C12.3-1).
In general, unit shear values for wood structural panel sheathing have been based on tests of shear
wall panels with aspect ratios of 2/1 to 1/1. Narrower wall segments (that is, with aspect ratios
greater than 2/1) have been a recent concern based on damage observations following the Northridge
earthquake and based on results of recent research (Applied Technology Council, 1995; White and
Dolan, 1996). In response, various limitations on aspect ratios have been proposed. In the
Provisions, an aspect ratio adjustment, 2b/h, is provided to account for the reduced stiffness of
narrow shear wall segments. This adjustment is based on a review of numerous tests of narrow
aspect ratio walls by Technical Subcommittee 7. The maximum 3.5/1 aspect ratio is recommended
based on constructability issues (placement of tie-downs) as well as reduced stiffness of narrower
shear wall segments.
The perforated shear wall approach utilizes empirically based reductions of wood structural panel
shear wall capacities to account for the presence of openings that have not been specifically
designed and detailed for moment resistance. This method accounts for the capacity that is inherent
in standard construction, rather than relying on special construction requirements. It is not expected
that sheathed wall areas above and below openings behave as coupling beams acting end to end, but
rather that they provide local restraint at their ends. As a consequence significantly reduced
capacities are attributed to interior perforated shear wall segments with limited overturning restraint.
Example 1 and Example 2 provide guidance on the application of the perforated shear wall
approach.
245
1. The requirement that perforated shear wall segments be provided at each end of the perforated
shear wall ensures that a minimum length of full height sheathing, conforming to applicable
aspect ratio limits, is included at each end of a perforated shear wall.
2. A factored shear resistance not to exceed 0.64 klf, based on tabulated LRFD values, is provided
to identify a point beyond which other means of shear wall design are likely to be more
practical. Connection requirements associated with unadjusted shear resistance greater than
0.64 klf will likely not be practical as other methods of shear wall design will be more efficient.
3. Each perforated shear wall segment must satisfy the requirements for shear wall aspect ratios.
The 2b/h adjustment for calculation of unadjusted factored shear resistance only applies when
shear wall segments with h/b greater than 2:1 but not exceeding 3.5:1 are used in calculating
perforated shear wall resistance. When shear wall segments with h/b greater than 2:1 are present
in a perforated shear wall, but not utilized in calculation of perforated shear wall resistance,
calculation of unadjusted factored shear resistance should not include the 2b/h adjustment. In
many cases, due to the conservatism of the 2b/h adjustment, it is advantageous to simply ignore
the presence of shear wall segments with h/b greater than 2:1 when calculating perforated shear
wall resistance.
4. No out-of-plane offsets are permitted in a perforated shear wall. While the limit on out-of-plane
offsets is not unique to perforated shear walls, it is intended to clearly indicate that a perforated
shear wall shall not have out-of-plane (horizontal) offsets.
5. Collectors for shear transfer to each perforated shear wall segment provide for continuity
between perforated shear wall segments. This is typically achieved through continuity of the
wall double top plates or by attachment of perforated shear wall segments to a common load
distributing element such as a floor or roof diaphragm.
6. Uniform top-of-wall and bottom-of-wall elevations are required for use of the empirical shear
adjustment factors.
7. Limiting perforated shear wall height to 20 ft addresses practical considerations for use of the
method as wall heights greater than 20 ft are uncommon.
a. The width, L, of a perforated shear wall and widths L1, L2 and L3 of perforated shear
wall segments are shown in Figure C12.3-4. In accordance with the limitations and
anchorage requirements, perforated shear wall segments and overturning restraint
must be provided at each end of the perforated shear wall.
L1
L2
L3
L
Overturning Restraint (each end)
Opening adjustment factors are based on the following empirical equation for shear capacity ratio,
F, which relates the ratio of the shear capacity for a wall with openings to the shear capacity of a
fully sheathed wall (Sugiyama, 1981):
F=
r=
4
3 2r
1
1 + Ao
h Li
(C12.3-1a)
(C12.3-1b)
where:
r
Ao
= wall height,
Li
Agreement between Eq. C12.3-1a and tabulated opening adjustment factors is achieved by
recognizing that the tabulated opening adjustment factors are: (1) derived based on an assumption
that the height of all openings in a wall are equal to the maximum opening height; and, (2) applied to
the sum of the widths of the shear wall segments meeting applicable height-to-width ratios. The
assumption that the height of all openings in a wall are equal to the maximum opening height
conservatively simplifies tabular presentation of shear capacity adjustment factors for walls with
more than one opening height.
Early verification of Eq. C12.3-1a was based on testing of one-third and full-scale shear wall
assemblies (Yasumura, 1984; Sugiyama, 1994). More recently, substantial U.S. verification testing
of the influence of openings on shear strength and stiffness has taken place (APA, 1996; Dolan and
Johnson, 1996; Dolan and Heine, 1997; NAHB-RC, 1998) indicating shear wall performance is
consistent with predictions of Eq. C12.3-1a. Results of cyclic testing indicate that the loss in
strength due to cyclic loading is reduced for shear walls with openings, indicating good performance
relative to that of shear walls without openings. Figure C12.3-5 provides a graphical summary of
some recent U.S. verification testing. Data from monotonic tests of 12-ft shear walls (APA, 1996),
monotonic and cyclic tests of long shear walls with unsymmetrically placed openings (Dolan and
Johnson, 1996), and monotonic and cyclic tests of 16-ft and 20-ft shear walls with narrow wall
segments (NAHB-RC, 1998).
247
1.0
0.9
F=r/(3-2r)
APA - 1996
Dolan - 1996
NAHB-RC -1998
0.8
0.7
0.6
Shear
Capacity 0.5
Ratio, F
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Prescribed forces for shear and uplift connections ensure that the capacity of the wall is governed by
the sheathing to framing attachment (shear wall nailing) and not bottom plate attachment for shear
and/or uplift. Shear and uplift forces approach the unadjusted factored shear resistance of the
perforated shear wall segment as the shear load approaches the shear resistance of the perforated
shear wall. A continuous load path to the foundation based on this requirement and consideration of
other forces (for example, from the story above) shall be maintained. The magnitude of shear and
uplift varies as a function of overturning restraint provided and aspect ratio of the shear wall
segment.
248
Provisions require that distributed fastening for shear, v, and uplift, t, be provided over the length of
full-height sheathed wall sections. With no other specific requirements, the fastening between the
full height segments will be controlled by minimum construction fastening requirements. For
bottom plates on wood platforms this would only require one 16-penny nail at 16 in. on center. In
some cases, it may be preferable to extend a single bottom plate fastening schedule across the entire
length of the perforated shear wall rather than to require multiple fastening schedules.
Uplift anchorage between perforated shear wall ends. The resistance required for distributed
uplift anchorage, t, is the same as the required shear resistance, v. The adequacy of the distributed
uplift anchorage can be demonstrated using principles of mechanics and recent testing that
determined the capacity of shear wall segments without uplift anchorage. A 4-ft wide shear wall
segment with distributed anchorage of the base plate in lieu of an uplift anchor device provided
about 25 percent of the resistance of a segment with uplift anchorage; an 8-ft wide shear wall
segment resisted about 45 percent. When these are combined with the resistance adjustment factors,
overturning resistance based on the unadjusted factored shear resistance is adequate for perforated
shear wall segments with full height openings on each side. Conceptually the required distributed
uplift resistance is intended to provide the same resistance that anchor bolts spaced at 2 ft on center
provided for tested assemblies. While in the tested assemblies the bottom plates were fastened
down, for design it is equally acceptable to fasten down the studs with a strap or similar device,
since the studs will in turn restrain the bottom plate.
PSW Load path. A continuous load path to the foundation is required for the uplift resistance, T;
the compression resistance, C; the unit shear resistance, v; and the unit uplift resistance, t.
Consideration of accumulated forces (for example, from the stories above) is required. Where shear
walls occur at the same location at each floor (stack), accumulation of forces is reasonably
straightforward. Where shear walls do not stack, attention will need to be paid to maintaining a load
path for tie-downs at each end of the perforated shear wall, for compression resistance at each end of
each perforated shear wall segment, and for distributed forces v and t at each perforated shear wall
segment. Where ends of shear perforated shear wall segments occur over beams or headers, the
beam or header will need to be checked for the vertical tension and compression forces in addition to
gravity forces. Where adequate collectors are provided at lower floor shear walls, the total shear
wall load need only consider the average shear in the perforated shear wall segments above, and not
the average shear divided by the adjustment factor.
249
250
251
252
253
The anchorage connections used in engineered wood construction must be capable of resisting the
forces that will occur between adjacent members (beams and columns) and elements (diaphragms and
shear walls). These connections can utilize proprietary hardware or be designed in accordance with
principles of mechanics. Inadequate connections are often the cause of structural failures in wood
structures, and the registered design professional is cautioned to use conservative values for allowable
capacities since most published values are based on monotonic, not cyclic, load applications (U.S.
Department of Agriculture, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1971). Testing has
shown that some one-sided bolted connections subject to cyclic loading, such as tie-down devices, do
not perform well. This was substantiated by the poor performance of various wood frame elements in
structures in the January 1994 Northridge earthquake.
Concrete or masonry wall anchorages using toe nails or nails subject to withdrawal are prohibited by
the Provisions. It has been shown that these types of connections are inadequate and do not perform
well (U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1971).
Ledgers subjected to cross-grain bending or tension perpendicular to grain also have performed poorly
in past earthquakes, and their use is now prohibited by the Provisions.
Structures with geometric discontinuities in the lateral-force-resisting system have been observed to
sustain more earthquake and wind damage than structures without discontinuities. They have also
been observed to concentrate damage at the discontinuity location. For Seismic Design Categories C
and D, this section translates applicable irregularities from Tables 4.3-2 and 4.3-3 into limitations on
conventional light-frame construction. If the described irregularities apply to a given structure, it is
required that either the entire structure or the non-conventional portions be engineered in accordance
with the engineered design portions of the Provisions. The irregularities are based on similar model
code requirements. While conceptually these are equally applicable to all seismic design categories,
they are more readily accepted in areas of high seismic risk, where damage due to irregularities has
been observed repeatedly.
Application of engineered design to non-conventional portions rather than to the entire structure is a
common practice in some regions. The registered design professional is left to judge the extent of the
portion to be designed. This often involves design of the nonconforming element, force transfer into
the element, and a load path from the element to the foundation. A nonconforming portion will
sometimes have enough of an impact on the behavior of a structure to warrant that the entire seismicforce-resisting system receives an engineered design.
12.4.1.2.1 Out-of-plane offset. This limitation is based on Item 4 of Table 4.3-2 and applies when
braced wall panels are offset out-of-plane from floor to floor. In-plane offsets are discussed in another
item. Ideally braced wall panels would always stack above of each other from floor to floor with the
length stepping down at upper floors as less length of bracing is required.
Because cantilevers and set backs are very often incorporated into residential construction, the
exception offers rules by which limited cantilevers and setbacks can be considered conventional.
Floor joists are limited to 2 by 10 (actual: 12 by 93 in.; 38 by 235 mm) or larger and doubled at braced
wall panel ends in order to accommodate the vertical overturning reactions at the end of braced wall
panels. In addition the ends of cantilevers are attached to a common rim joist to allow for
redistribution of load. For rim joists that cannot run the entire length of the cantilever, the metal tie is
256
connecting joists on different levels can be provided, eliminating the irregularity. The IRC, Sec.
502.6.1, provides requirements for tying of floor joists.
12.4.1.2.5 Non-perpendicular walls. This limitation is based on Item 5 of Table 4.3-2 and applies to
nonperpendicular braced wall lines. When braced wall lines are not perpendicular to each other,
further evaluation is needed to determine force distributions and required bracing.
12.4.1.2.6 Large diaphragm opening. This limitation is based on Item 3 of Table 4.3-2 and attempts
to place a practical limit on openings in floors and roofs. Because stair openings are essential
toresidential construction and have long been used without any report of life-safety hazards resulting,
these are felt to be acceptable conventional construction. See Sec. 12.4.3.7 for detailing requirements
for permitted openings.
12.4.1.2.7 Stepped foundation. This limits a condition that can cause a torsional irregularity per
Item 1 of Table 4.3-2. Where heights of braced wall panels vary significantly, distribution of lateral
forces will also vary. If a structure on a hill is supported on 2-ft-high, braced cripple wall panels on
one side and 8-ft-high panels on the other, torsion and redistribution of forces will occur. An
engineered design for this situation is required in order to evaluate force distribution and provide
adequate wall bracing and anchor bolting. This limitation applies specifically to walls from the
foundation to the floor. While gable-end walls have similar variations in wall heights, this has not
been observed to be a significant concern in conventional construction. See Sec. 12.4.3.6 for detailing
requirements for permitted foundation stepping.
12.4.2 Braced walls
12.4.2.1 Spacing between braced wall lines. Table 12.4-1 prescribes the spacing of braced wall lines
and number of stories permitted for conventional construction structures. Figures C12.4-1 and C12.4257
The 1997 Provisions incorporated some of the wall anchorage, top plate, and braced wall panel
connection requirements from the model building codes. These are included for completeness of the
document and to clarify the requirement for the registered design professional. Additional
requirements for foundations supporting braced wall panels has also been added to provide guidance
and clarity for the registered design professional.
258
259
260
261
262
264
265
12.4.3.4 Braced wall panel connections. The exception provided in this section of the Provisions is
included due to the difficulty in providing a mechanism to transfer the diaphragm loads from a truss
roof system to the braced wall panels of the top story. This problem has been considered by the
Clackamas County, Oregon Building Codes Division, and an alternate to the CABO Building Code
Sec. 402.10 was written in 1993, and revised September 5, 1995. The details shown in Figure C12.414 through C12.4-17 are provided as suggested methods for providing positive transfer of the lateral
forces from the diaphragm through the web sections of the trusses to the top of the braced wall panels
below.
Figure C12.4-14 Suggested methods for transferring roof diaphragm load s to braced wall
panels.
267
268
REFERENCES
American Institute of Timber Construction. 1994. Timber Construction Manual. New York, New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
American Forest & Paper Association. 1991. ANSI/NFoPA NDS-1991. National Design
Specification for Wood Construction. Washington, D.C.: AF&PA.
American Forest & Paper Association. 1996. Manual of Wood Construction: Load and Resistance
Factor Design (LRFD). Washington, D.C.: AF&PA.
American Plywood Association. 1991. Design/Construction GuideDiaphragms. Tacoma,
Washington: APA.
American Plywood Association. 1994. Northridge California Earthquake, T94-5. Tacoma,
Washington.: APA.
American Plywood Association. 1996. Proposed Cyclic Testing Standard for Shear Walls. Tacoma,
Washington: APA.
APA B The Engineered Wood Association. 1996. Wood structural panel shear walls with gypsum
wallboard and window/door openings, Report 157. Tacoma, Washington: APA.
ASCE Committee on Wood Load and Resistance Factor Design for Engineered Wood Construction.
1988. A Pre Standard Report American Society of Civil Engineers. New York, New York: ASCE.
ASCE. 1995. Standard For Load and Resistance Factor For Engineered Wood Construction.
AF&PA/ASCE 16-95. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New York.
Applied Technology Council. 1981. Guidelines for the Design of Horizontal Wood Diaphragms,
ATC-7. Redwood City, California: ATC.
269
270
271
272
Chapter 13 Commentary
SEISMICALLY ISOLATED STRUCTURE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
13.1 GENERAL
Seismic isolation, commonly referred to as base isolation, is a design concept based on the premise that
a structure can be substantially decoupled from potentially damaging earthquake motions. By
substantially decoupling the structure from the ground motion, the level of response in the structure can
be reduced significantly from the level that would otherwise occur in a conventional, fixed-base
building. .
The potential advantages of seismic isolation and the recent advancements in isolation-system products
already have led to the design and construction of over 200 seismically isolated buildings and bridges in
the United States. A significant amount of research, development, and application activity has occurred
over the past 20 years. The following references provide a summary of some of the work that has been
performed: Applied Technology Council (ATC, 1986, 1993, and 2002), ASCE Structures Congress
(ASCE, 1989, 1991, 1993, and 1995), EERI Spectra (EERI, 1990), Skinner, et al. (1993), U.S.
Conference on Earthquake Engineering (1990 and 1994), and World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering (1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000).
In the mid-1980s, the initial applications identified a need to supplement existing codes with design
requirements developed specifically for seismically isolated buildings. Code development work
occurred throughout the late 1980s. The status of U.S. seismic isolation design requirements as of May
2003 is as follows:
1. In late 1989, the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) State Seismology
Committee adopted an Appendix to Chapter 2 of the SEAOC Blue Book entitled, General
Requirements for the Design and Construction of Seismic-Isolated Structures. These requirements
were submitted to the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) and were adopted by
ICBO as an appendix of the 1991 Uniform Building Code (UBC). The most current version of these
regulations may be found in the ASCE-7-02 (ASCE, 2003) and the 2003 International Building
Code (ICC, 2003)..
2. In 1991 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) initiated a 6-year program to develop
a set of nationally applicable guidelines for seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. These
guidelines (known as the NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings) were
published as FEMA 273. In 2000, FEMA 273 was republished, with minor amendments, as FEMA
356, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. The design and
analysis methods of the NEHRP Guidelines and the FEMA Prestandard parallel closely methods
required by the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for new buildings, except that more liberal
design is permitted for the superstructure of a rehabilitated building.
A general concern has long existed regarding the applicability of different types of isolation systems.
Rather than addressing a specific method of base isolation, the Provisions provides general design
requirements applicable to a wide range of possible seismic isolation systems.
Although remaining general, the design requirements rely on mandatory testing of isolation-system
hardware to confirm the engineering parameters used in the design and to verify the overall adequacy of
the isolation system. Some systems may not be capable of demonstrating acceptability by test and,
consequently, would not be permitted. In general, acceptable systems will: (1) remain stable for
273
Moderate
Major
F, I
F, I
F, I
Structural damage
F, I
F, I
F, I
Life safety
a
b
13.2.3.1 Design spectra. Site-specific design spectra must be developed for both the design earthquake
and the maximum considered earthquake if the structure is located at a site with S1 greater than 0.60 or
on a Class F site. All requirements for spectra are in Sec. 3.3 and 3.4.
13.2.4 Procedure selection. The design requirements permit the use of one of three different analysis
procedures for determining the design-level seismic loads. The first procedure uses a simple, lateralforce formula (similar to the lateral-force coefficient now used in conventional building design) to
prescribe peak lateral displacement and design force as a function of spectral acceleration and isolatedbuilding period and damping. The second and third methods, which are required for geometrically
complex or especially flexible buildings, rely on dynamic analysis procedures (either response spectrum
or time history) to determine peak response of the isolated building.
275
276
ELF Procedure
Response
Spectrum
Response
History
DD = (g/42)(SD1TD/BD)
DT 1.1D
0.9DT
0.9DT
DM = (g/4 )(SM1TM/BM)
DTM 1.1DM
0.8DTM
0.8DTM
Design shear Vb
(at or below the isolation system)
Vb = kDmaxDD
0.9Vb
0.9Vb
Design shear Vs
(regular superstructure)
Vs = kDmaxDD/RI
0.8Vs
0.6Vs
Design shear Vs
(irregular superstructure)
Vs = kDmaxDDRI
1.0Vs
0.8Vs
0.015hsx
0.015hsx
0.020hsx
Design displacement DD
Total design displacement - DT
Maximum displacement DM
277
The configuration of the isolation system for a seismically isolated building or structure should be
selected in such a way as to minimize any eccentricity between the center of mass of the superstructure
and the center of rigidity of the isolation system. In this way, the effect of torsion on the displacement
of isolation elements will be reduced. As for conventional structures, allowance for accidental
eccentricity in both horizontal directions must be considered. Figure C13.3-1 defines the terminology
used in the Provisions. Equation 13.3-5 (or Eq. 13.3-6 for the maximum considered earthquake)
provides a simplified formulae for estimating the response due to torsion in lieu of a more refined
analysis. The additional component of displacement due to torsion increases the design displacement at
the corner of the structure by about 15 percent (for a perfectly square building in plan) to about 30
percent (for a very long, rectangular building) if the eccentricity is 5 percent of the maximum plan
dimension. Such additional displacement, due to torsion, is appropriate for buildings with an isolation
system whose stiffness is uniformly distributed in plan. Isolation systems that have stiffness
concentrated toward the perimeter of the building or certain sliding systems that minimize the effects of
mass eccentricity will have reduced displacements due to torsion. The Provisions permits values of DT
as small as 1.1DD, with proper justification.
279
Fixed-Base
Isolated
0.025hsx/(Cd/R)
0.015hsx
II
0.020hsx/(Cd/R)
0.015hsx
III
0.015hsx/(Cd/R)
0.015hsx
0.020hsx/(Cd/R)
0.015hsx
II
0.015hsx/(Cd/R)
0.015hsx
III
0.010hsx/(Cd/R)
0.015hsx
Drift limits in Table C13.3-1 are divided by Cd/R for fixed-base structures since displacements
calculated for lateral loads reduced by R are factored by Cd before checking drift. The Cd term is used
throughout the Provisions for fixed-base structures to approximate the ratio of actual earthquake
response to response calculated for reduced forces. Generally, Cd is 1/2 to 4/5 the value of R. For
isolated structures, the RI factor is used both to reduce lateral loads and to increase displacements
(calculated for reduced lateral loads) before checking drift. Equivalency would be obtained if the drift
limits for both fixed-base and isolated structures were based on their respective R factors. It may be
noted that the drift limits for isolated structures are generally more conservative than those for
conventional, fixed-base structures, even when fixed-base structures are designed as Seismic Use Group
III buildings.
281
13.6 TESTING
The design displacements and forces developed from the Provisions are predicated on the basis that the
deformational characteristics of the base isolation system have been previously defined by a
comprehensive set of tests. If a comprehensive amount of test data are not available on a system, major
design alterations in the building may be necessary after the tests are complete. This would result from
variations in the isolation-system properties assumed for design and those obtained by test. Therefore, it
is advisable that prototype systems be tested during the early phases of design, if sufficient test data is
not available on an isolation system.
Typical force-deflection (or hysteresis) loops are shown in Figure C13.6-1; also included are the
definitions of values used in Sec. 13.6.2.
282
REFERENCES
ATC. 1982. An Investigation of the Correlation Between Earthquake Ground Motion and Building
Performance, ATC Report 10. Redwood City, California: Applied Technology Council,
ATC. 1986. Proceedings of a Seminar and Workshop on Base Isolation and Passive Energy
Dissipation, ATC Report 17. Redwood City, California: Applied Technology Council.
ATC. 1993. Proceedings of Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation, and Active
Control, ATC 17-1.,Redwood City, California: Applied Technology Council.
ATC. 2002. Seminar on Response Modification Technologies for Performance-Based Seismic Design,
ATC 17-2. Redwood City, California: Applied Technology Council.
AASHTO. 1999. Guide Specification for Seismic Isolation Design, Washington, D.C: American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
ASCE. 2003. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE-7-02, Reston, VA:
American Society of Civil Engineers.
ASCE. 1989, 1991, 1993, and 1995. Seismic Engineering: Research and Practice. New York City:
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Constantinou, M. C., C. W. Winters, and D. Theodossiou. 1993. Evaluation of SEAOC and UBC
analysis procedures, Part 2: Flexible superstructure, in Proceedings of a Seminar on Seismic Isolation,
Passive Energy Dissipation and Active Control, ATC Report 17-1. Redwood City, California: ATC.
Constantinou, M.C., P. Tsopelas, A. Kasalanati, and E. D. Wolff. 1999. Property modification factors
for seismic isolation bearings, Report No. MCEER-99-0012, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 1990. Seismic isolation: from idea to reality, Earthquake
Spectra Journal 6:2.
Hussain, S.M.. 1998. Testing and quality control issues for seismic isolation systems-an overview, in
Proceedings of of the Structural Engineers World Congress, Paper T163-4, San Francisco, CA.
International Code Council, 2003. International Building Code, Falls Creek, VA
Kircher, C. A., B. Lashkari, R. L. Mayes, and T. E. Kelly. 1988. Evaluation of nonlinear response in
seismically isolated buildings, in Proceedings of a Symposium on Seismic, Shock and Vibration
Isolation, ASTHMA PVP Conference.
284
285
286
Chapter 14 Commentary
NONBUILDING STRUCTURE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
14.1 GENERAL
14.1.1 Scope. Requirements concerning nonbuilding structures were originally added to the 1994
Provisions by the 1991-94 Provisions Update Committee (PUC) at the request of the BSSC Board of
Direction to provide building officials with needed guidance. In recognition of the complexity, nuances,
and importance of nonbuilding structures, the BSSC Board established 1994-97 PUC Technical
Subcommittee 13 (TS13), Nonbuilding Structures, in 1995. The duties of TS13 were to review the 1994
Provisions and Commentary and recommend changes for the 1997 Edition. The subcommittee comprised
individuals possessing considerable expertise concerning various specialized nonbuilding structures and
representing a wide variety of industries concerned with nonbuilding structures.
Building codes traditionally have been perceived as minimum standards of care for the design of
nonbuilding structures and building code compliance of these structures is required by building officials
in many jurisdictions. However, requirements in the industry standards are often at odds with building
code requirements. In some cases, the industry standards need to be altered while in other cases the
building codes need to be modified. Registered design professionals are not always aware of the
numerous accepted standards within an industry and may not know whether the accepted standards are
adequate. It is hoped that Chapter 14 of the Provisions appropriately bridges the gap between building
codes and existing industry standards.
One of the goals of TS13 was to review and list appropriate industry standards to serve as a resource.
These standards had to be included in the appendix. The subcommittee also has attempted to provide an
appropriate link so that the accepted industry standards can be used with the seismic ground motions
established in the Provisions. It should be noted that some nonbuilding structures are very similar to a
building and can be designed employing sections of the Provisions directly whereas other nonbuilding
structures require special analysis unique to the particular type of nonbuilding structure.
The ultimate goal of TS13 was to provide guidance to develop requirements consistent with the intent of
the Provisions while allowing the use of accepted industry standards. Some of the referenced standards
are consensus documents while others are not.
One good example of the dilemma posed by the conflicts between the Provisions and accepted design
practice for nonbuilding structures involves steel multilegged water towers. Historically, such towers
have performed well when properly designed in accordance with American Water Works Association
(AWWA) standards, but these standards differ from the Provisions that tension-only rods are required and
the connection forces are not amplified. However, industry practice requires upset rods that are preloaded
at the time of installation, and the towers tend to perform well in earthquake areas.
In an effort to provide the appropriate interface between the Provisions requirements for building
structures, nonstructural components, and nonbuilding structures; TS13 recommended that nonbuilding
structure requirements be placed in a separate chapter. The PUC agreed with this change. The 1997
Provisions Chapter 14 now provides registered design professionals responsible for designing
nonbuilding structures with a single point of reference.
Note that building structures, vehicular and railroad bridges, electric power substation equipment,
overhead power line support structures, buried pipelines and conduits, tunnels, lifeline systems, nuclear
power plants, and dams are excluded from the scope of the nonbuilding structure requirements. The
excluded structures are covered by other well established design criteria (e.g., electric power substation
equipment, power line support structures, vehicular and railroad bridges), are not under the jurisdiction of
287
289
ANSI K61.1
API 2510
ASCE Petro
ASME B31.8
ASME B96.1
ASME STS-1
ASTM F 1159
Standard Practice for the Design and Manufacture of Amusement Rides and
Devices (ASTM F 1159-97a), American Society for Testing and Materials, 1997.
ASTM C 1298
Standard Guide for Design and Construction of Brick Liners for Industrial
Chimneys (ASTM C 1298-95), American Society for Testing and Materials,
1995.
DOT 49CFR193
Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities: Federal Safety Standards (Title 49CFR Part
193), U.S. Department of Transportation, 2000.
NFPA 30
NFPA 58
NFPA 59
NFPA 59A
NCEL R-939
Ebeling, R. M., and Morrison, E. E., The Seismic Design of Waterfront Retaining
Structures, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, 1993.
NAVFAC DM-25.1
TM 5-809-10
Seismic Design for Buildings, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1992, Chapter 13
only.
14.1.5 Nonbuilding structures supported by other structures. This section has been developed to
provide an appropriate link between the requirements for nonbuilding structures and those for inclusion in
the rest of the Provisionsespecially the requirements for architectural, mechanical, and electrical
components.
II
III
Function
F-I
F-II
F-III
Hazard
H-I
H-II
H-III
Importance Factor
I = 1.0
I = 1.25
I = 1.5
Seismic Use Group: Neither the structure nor the contents are critical, therefore use Seismic Use
Group I.
Function: The water storage tank is neither a designated ancillary structure for post-earthquake
recovery, nor identified as an emergency back-up facilities for a Seismic Use Group III structure,
therefore use F-I.
291
Table 14.2-1 Seismic Use Groups and Importance Factors for Nonbuilding Structures
Seismic Use Group
II
III
Function
F-I
F-II
F-III
Hazard
H-I
H-II
H-III
Importance Factor
I = 1.0
I = 1.25
I = 1.5
Seismic Use Group: Neither the structure nor the contents are critical, therefore use Seismic Use
Group I.
Function: The storage rack is neither used for post-earthquake recovery, nor required for emergency
back-up, therefore use F-I.
Hazard: The contents are not hazardous. However, its use could cause a substantial public hazard
during an earthquake. Subject to the local authoritys jurisdiction it is H-II.
According to Sec. 14.3.5.2 the importance factor for storage racks in occupancies open to the general
public must be taken as 1.5.
Example 3. A water tank is located within an office building complex to supply the fire sprinkler system.
Table 14.2-1 Seismic Use Groups and Importance Factors for Nonbuilding Structures
Seismic Use Group
II
III
Function
F-I
F-II
F-III
Hazard
H-I
H-II
H-III
Importance Factor
I = 1.0
I = 1.25
I = 1.5
Seismic Use Group: The office building is assigned to Seismic Use Group I.
Function: The water tank is required to provide water for fire fighting. However since the building is
not a Seismic Use Group III structure, the water is used neither for post-earthquake recovery, nor for
emergency back-up, so use F-I.
Hazard: The content and its use are not hazardous to the public, therefore use H-I.
292
Table 14.2-1 Seismic Use Groups and Importance Factors for Nonbuilding Structures
Seismic Use Group
II
III
Function
F-I
F-II
F-III
Hazard
H-I
H-II
H-III
Importance Factor
I = 1.0
I = 1.25
I = 1.5
Seismic Use Group: The LNG tank is assigned to Seismic Use Group III.
Function: The tank is neither required to provide post-earthquake recovery nor used for emergency
back-up for a Seismic Use Group III structure, so use F-I.
Hazard: The tank contains a substantial quantity of high explosive and is near a city neighborhood.
Despite the diking, it is considered hazardous to the public in the event of an earthquake, so use H-III.
14.2.3 Design basis. The design basis for nonbuilding structures is based on either adopted references,
approved standards, or these Provisions. It is intended that the Provisions applicable to buildings apply to
nonbuilding structures, unless specifically noted in this Chapter.
14.2.4 Seismic force-resisting system selection and limitations. Nonbuilding structures similar to
buildings may be designed in accordance with either Table 4.3-1 or Table 14.2-2, including referenced
design and detailing requirements. For convenience, Table 4.3-1 requirements are repeated in Table 14.22.
Table 14.2-2 of the 2000 NEHRP Provisions for nonbuilding structures similar to buildings prescribed R,
o, and Cd values to be taken from Table 4.3-1, but prescribed less restrictive height limitations than
those prescribed in Table 4.3-1. This inconsistency has been corrected. Nonbuilding structures similar to
buildings which use the same R, o, and Cd values as buildings now have the same height limits,
restrictions and footnote exceptions as buildings. The only difference is that the footnote exceptions for
buildings apply to metal building like systems while the exceptions for nonbuilding structures apply to
pipe racks. In addition, selected nonbuilding structures similar to buildings have prescribed an option
where both lower R values and less restrictive height limitations are specified. This option permits
selected types of nonbuilding structures which have performed well in past earthquakes to be constructed
with less restrictions in Seismic Design Categories D, E and F provided seismic detailing is used and
design force levels are considerably higher. It should be noted that revised provisions are considerably
more restrictive than those prescribed in Table 4.3-1.
Nonbuilding structures not similar to buildings should be designed in accordance Table 14.2-3
requirements, including referenced design and detailing requirements.
Nonbuilding structures not referenced in either Table 14.2-2, Table 14.2-3, or Table 4.3-1 may be
designed in accordance with an adopted reference, including its design and detailing requirements.
It is not consistent with the intent of the Provisions to take design values from one table or standard and
design and/or detailing provisions from another.
293
Ferritto, J., Dickenson, S., Priestley N., Werner, S., Taylor, C., Burke D., Seelig W., and
Kelly, S., 1999, Seismic Criteria for California Marine Oil Terminals, Vol.1 and Vol.2,
Technical Report TR-2103-SHR, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Port
Hueneme, CA.
Priestley, N.J.N., Frieder Siebel, Gian Michele Calvi, Seismic Design and Retrofit of
Bridges, 1996, New York.
Seismic Guidelines for Ports, by the Ports Committee of the Technical Council on
Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, ASCE, edited by Stuart D. Werner, Monograph No. 12,
March 1998, published by ASCE, Reston, VA.
Marine Oil Terminal Engineering and Maintenance Standards, California State Lands
Commission, Marine Facilities Division, May 2002.
These alternative approaches have been developed over a period of many years by working groups within
the industry, and consider the historical experience and performance characteristics of these structures
that are very different than building structures.
The main emphasis of the performance-based design approach is to provide criteria and methods that
depend on the economic importance of a facility. Adherence to the performance criteria in the documents
listed above is expected to provide as least as much inherent life-safety, and likely much more, than for
buildings designed using the Provisions. However, the philosophy of these criteria is not to provide
uniform margins of collapse for all structures. Among the reasons for the higher inherent level of lifesafety for these structures are the following:
These structures have relatively infrequent occupancy, with few working personnel and very
low density of personnel. Most of these structures consist primarily of open area, with no
enclosed building structures which can collapse onto personnel. Small control buildings on
marine oil terminals or similar secondary structures are commonly designed in accordance
with the local building code.
These pier or wharf structures are typically constructed of reinforced concrete, prestressed
concrete, and/or steel and are highly redundant due to the large number of piles supporting a
single wharf deck unit. Tests done for the Port of Los Angeles at the University of California
at San Diego have shown that very high ductilities (10 or more) can be achieved in the design
of these structures using practices currently used in California ports.
Container cranes, loading arms, and other major structures or equipment on the piers or
wharves are specifically designed not to collapse in an earthquake. Typically, additional
piles and structural members are incorporated into the wharf or pier specifically to support
that item.
Experience has shown that seismic failure of wharf structures in zones of strong seismicity
is indicated not by collapse, but by economically unrepairable deformations of the piles. The
wharf deck generally remains level or slightly tilting but shifted out of position. Complete
failure that could cause life-safety concerns has not been known to ever occur historically due
to earthquake loading.
295
The performance-based criteria of the listed documents include repairability of the structure.
This service level is much more stringent than collapse prevention and would provide a
greater margin for life-safety.
Lateral load design of these structures is often governed by other marine loading conditions,
such as mooring or berthing.
14.3.4 Pipe racks. Free standing pipe racks supported at or below grade with framing systems that are
similar in configuration to building systems should be designed to satisfy the force requirements of
Sec. 5.2. Single column pipe racks that resist lateral loads should be designed as inverted pendulums.
See ASCE Petro.
14.3.5 Steel storage racks. This section is intended to assure comparable results from the use of the
RMI Specification, the NEHRP Provisions, and the IBC code approaches to rack structural design.
For many years the RMI has been working with the various committees of the model code organizations
and with the Building Seismic Safety Council and its Technical Subcommittees to create seismic design
provisions particularly applicable to steel storage rack structures. The 1997 RMI Specification is seen to
be in concert with the needs, provisions, and design intent of the building codes and those who use and
promulgate them, as well as those who engineer, manufacture, install, operate, use, and maintain rack
structures. The RMI Specification, now including detailed seismic provisions, is essentially selfsufficient.
The changes proposed here are compatible and coordinated with those in the 2000 International Building
Code.
14.3.5.2 Importance factor. Until recently, storage racks were primarily installed in low-occupancy
warehouses. With the recent proliferation of warehouse-type retail stores, it has been judged necessary to
address the relatively greater seismic risk that storage racks may pose to the general public, compared to
more conventional retail environments. Under normal operating conditions, retail stores have a far higher
occupancy load than an ordinary warehouse of a reasonable size. Failure of a storage rack system in the
retail environment is much more likely to cause personal injury than a similar failure in a storage
warehouse. Therefore, to provide an appropriate level of additional safety in areas open to the public,
Sec 14.3.5.2 now requires that storage racks in occupancies open to the general public be designed with
an importance factor equal to 1.50. Storage rack contents, while beyond the scope of the Provisions, pose
a potentially serious threat to life should they fall from the shelves in an earthquake. Restraints should be
provided to prevent the contents of rack shelving open to the general public from falling in strong ground
shaking.
14.4.7.1 Design basis. Two important tasks of TS 13 were (a) to partially expand the coverage of
nonbuilding structures in the Provisions; and (b) to provide comprehensive cross-references to all the
applicable industry standards. It is hoped that this endeavor will bring about a standardization and
consistency of design practices for the benefit of both the practicing engineer and the public at large.
In the case of the seismic design of nonbuilding structures, standardization requires adjustments to
industry standards to minimize existing inconsistencies among them. However, the standardization
process should recognize that structures designed and built over the years in accordance with industry
standards have performed well in earthquakes of varying severity.
Of the inconsistencies among industry standards, the ones most important to seismic design relate to the
base shear equation. The traditional base shear takes the following form:
V=
ZIS
CW
Rw
An examination of those terms as used in the different references reveals the following:
-
ZS: The seismic zone coefficient, Z, has been rather consistent among all the standards by virtue of
the fact that it has traditionally been obtained from the seismic zone designations and maps in the
model building codes.
On the other hand, the soil profile coefficient, S, does vary from one standard to another. In some
standards these two terms are combined.
I: The importance factor, I, has also varied from one standard to another, but this variation is
unavoidable and understandable owing to the multitude of uses and degrees of importance of liquidcontaining structures.
C: The coefficient C represents the dynamic amplification factor that defines the shape of the design
response spectrum for any given maximum ground acceleration. Since coefficient C is primarily a
function of the frequency of vibration, inconsistencies in its derivation from one standard to another
stem from at least two sources: differences in the equations for the determination of the natural
frequency of vibration, and differences in the equation for the coefficient itself. (For example, for the
shell/impulsive liquid component of lateral force, the steel tank standards use a constant design
spectral acceleration (namely, a constant C) that is independent of the impulsive period T.) In
addition, the value of C will vary depending on the damping ratio assumed for the vibrating structure
(usually between 2 percent and 7 percent of critical).
Where a site-specific response spectrum is available, calculation of the coefficient C is not necessary
B except in the case of the convective component (coefficient Cc) which is assumed to oscillate with
0.5 percent of critical damping, and whose period of oscillation is usually high (greater than 2.5 sec).
Since site-specific spectra are usually constructed for high damping values (3 percent to 7 percent of
critical); and since the site-specific spectral profile may not be well-defined in the high-period range,
an equation for Cc applicable to a 0.5 percent damping ratio is necessary in order to calculate the
convective component of the seismic force.
Rw: The response modification factor, Rw, is perhaps the most difficult to quantify, for a number of
reasons. While Rw is a compound coefficient that is supposed to reflect the ductility, energydissipating capacity, and redundancy of the structure, it is also influenced by serviceability
considerations, particularly in the case of liquid-containing structures.
In the Provisions the base shear equation for most structures has been reduced to V = CsW, where the
ZSC
. Cs is determined from the design spectral
seismic response coefficient, Cs, replaces the product
Rw
response acceleration parameters SDS and SD1 (at short periods and at a period of 1 sec, respectively)
which, in turn, are obtained from the mapped MCE spectral accelerations Ss and S1 obtained from the
298
s = 0.5 DIS ac
1.5S D1
6S
for Tc < 4.0 sec., and S ac = 2D1 for
Tc
Tc
Tc > 4.0 sec. The first definition of Sa represents the constant-velocity region of the response spectrum
and the second the constant-displacement region of the response spectrum, both at 0.5 percent damping.
In practical terms, the latter is the more commonly used definition since most tanks have a fundamental
period of liquid oscillation (sloshing wave period) greater than 4.0 sec.
Small diameter tanks and vessels are more susceptible to overturning and vertical buckling. As a general
rule, the greater the ratio of H/D, the lower the resistance is to vertical buckling. When H/D > 2, the
overturning begins to approach rigid mass behavior (the sloshing mass is small). Large diameter tanks
may be governed by additional hydrodynamic hoop stresses in the middle regions of the shell.
The impulsive period (the natural period of the tank components and the impulsive component of the
liquid) is typically in the 0.25 to 0.6 second range. Many methods are available for calculating the
impulsive period. The Veletsos flexible-shell method is commonly used by many tank designers. (For
example, see Seismic Effects in Flexible Liquid Storage Tanks by A. S. Veletsos.)
14.4.7.5.2 Distribution of hydrodynamic and inertia forces. Most of the methods contained in the
industry standards for tanks define reaction loads at the base of the shell and foundation interface. Many
of the standards do not give specific guidance for determining the distribution of the loads on the shell as
a function of height. The design professional may find the additional information contained in ACI 350.3
helpful.
The overturning moment at the base of the shell as defined in the industry standards is only the portion of
the moment that is transferred to the shell. It is important for the design professional to realize that the
total overturning moment must also include the variation in bottom pressure. This is important when
designing pile caps, slabs, or other support elements that must resist the total overturning moment. See
Wozniak or TID 7024 for further information.
14.4.7.5.3 Freeboard. Performance of ground storage tanks in past earthquakes has indicated that
sloshing of the contents can cause leakage and damage to the roof and internal components. While the
effect of sloshing often involves only the cost and inconvenience of making repairs, rather than
catastrophic failure, even this limited damage can be prevented or significantly mitigated when the
following items are considered:
300
301
1. The high-frequency amplified response to seismic motion of the tank shell, roof, and impulsive mass
(that portion of liquid content of the tank that moves in unison with the shell), and
2. The low-frequency amplified response of the convective mass (that portion of the liquid contents in
the fundamental sloshing mode).
The two-part AWWA equation incorporates the above modes, appropriate damping, site amplification,
allowable stress response modification, and zone coefficients. In practice, the typical ground storage tank
and impulsive contents will have a natural period, T, of 0.1 to 0.3 sec. The sloshing period typically will
be greater than 1 sec (usually 3 to 5 seconds depending on tank geometry). Thus, the substitution in the
Provisions uses a short- and long-period response as it applies to the appropriate constituent term in the
AWWA equations.
14.4.7.6.2 Bolted steel. The AWWA Steel Tank Committee is responsible for the content of both the
AWWA D100 and D103 and have established equivalent load and design criteria for earthquake design of
welded and bolted steel tanks.
14.4.7.7 Petrochemical and industrial liquids
14.4.7.7.1 Welded steel. The American Petroleum Institute (API) also uses an allowable stress design
procedure and the API equation has incorporated an Rw factor into the equations directly.
The most common damage to tanks observed during past earthquakes include:
$
Buckling of the tank shell near the base due to excessive axial membrane forces. This buckling
damage is usually evident as elephant foot buckles a short distance above the base, or as diamond
shaped buckles in the lower ring. Buckling of the upper ring has also been observed.
Damage to the roof due to impingement on the underside of the roof of sloshing liquid with
insufficient freeboard.
Foundation failures.
The performance of floating roofs during earthquakes has been good, with damage usually confined to the
rim seals, gage poles, and ladders. Similarly the performance of open tops with top wind girder stiffeners
designed per API 650 has been good.
14.4.7.9 Elevated tanks for liquids and granular materials. There are three basic lateral-load resisting
systems for elevated water tanks that are defined by their support structure. Multi-leg braced steel tanks
(trussed towers), small diameter single-pedestal steel tanks (cantilever columns), and large diameter
single-pedestal tanks of steel or concrete construction (load-bearing shear walls). Unbraced multi-leg
tanks are not commonly built. Behavior, redundancy, and resistance to overload of these types of tanks
are not the same. Multi-leg and small diameter pedestal have higher fundamental periods (typically over
2-sec) than the shear wall type tanks (typically under 2-sec). Lateral load failure mechanism is usually by
302
The additional evaluation is based on a scaled maximum considered earthquake. This critical earthquake
acceleration is defined as the design spectral response acceleration, Sa, which includes site factors. The
I/R coefficient is taken as 1.0 for this critical check. The structural capacity of the shell is taken as the
critical buckling strength (that is, the factor of safety is 1.0). Vertical or orthogonal earthquake
combination need not be made for this critical evaluation since the probability of critical peak values
occurring simultaneously is very low.
14.4.7.9.6 Concrete pedestal (composite) tanks. A composite elevated water-storage tank is a structure
comprising a welded steel tank for watertight containment, a single pedestal concrete support structure,
foundation, and accessories. Lateral load-resisting system is that of a load-bearing concrete shear wall.
Seismic provisions in ATC 371R-98 are based on ASCE 7-95, which used NEHRP 1994 as the source
document. Seismic provisions in the proposed AWWA standard being prepared by committee D170 are
based on ASCE 7-98, which used NEHRP 1997 as the source document.
303
304
Appendix to Chapter 14
OTHER NONBUILDING STRUCTURES
PREFACE: The following sections were originally intended to be part of the Nonbuilding
Structures Chapter of this Commentary. The Provisions Update Committee felt that given the
complexity of the issues, the varied nature of the resource documents, and the lack of
supporting consensus resource documents, time did not allow a sufficient review of the
proposed sections required for inclusion into the main body of the chapter.
The Nonbuilding Structures Technical Subcommittee, however, expressed that what is
presented herein represents the current industry accepted design practice within the
engineering community that specializes in these types of nonbuilding structures.
The Commentary sections are included here so that the design community specializing in
these nonbuilding structures can have the opportunity to gain a familiarity with the concepts,
update their standards, and send comments on this appendix to the BSSC.
It is hoped that the various consensus design standards will be updated to include the design and
construction methodology presented in this Appendix. It is also hoped that industry standards
that are currently not consensus documents will endeavor to move their standards through the
consensus process facilitating building code inclusion.
A14.1 GENERAL
Agrawal P. K., and J. M. Kramer, Analysis of Transmission Structures and Substation Structures and
Equipment for Seismic Loading, Sargent & Lundy Transmission and Substation Conference, December
2, 1976. (Agrawal)
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE):
ANSI/ASCE 10, Design of Latticed Transmission Structures, 1997. (ASCE 10)
ASCE Manual 72, Tubular Pole Design Standard, 1991 (ASCE 72).
ASCE Manual 74, Guidelines for Electrical Transmission Line Structural Loading, 2000. (ASCE
74).
ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, 1995. (ASCE 7).
ASCE Manual 91, The Design of Guyed Electrical Transmission Structures, 1997. (ASCE 91)
Substation Structure Design Guide, 2000. (ASCE Substation)
Li, H.-N., S. Wang, M. Lu, and Q. Wang, Aseismic Calculations for Transmission Towers, ASCE
Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Monograph No. 4, August 1991. (ASCE
Li)
Steinhardt, O. W., Low Cost Seismic Strengthening of Power Systems, Journal of The Technical
Councils of ASCE, April 1981. (ASCE Steinhardt)
Amiri, G. G. and G. G. McClure, Seismic Response to Tall Guyed Telecommunication Towers, Paper
No. 1982, Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Elsevier Science Ltd., 1996.
(Amiri)
Australian Standards:
Australian Standard 3995, Standard Design of Steel Lattice Towers and Masts, 1994. (AS 3995)
Canadian Standards Association (CSA):
305
308
Chapter 15 Commentary
STRUCTURES WITH DAMPING SYSTEMS
Background. Chapter 15, Structures with Damping Systems, appears for the first time in the body of
to the 2003 Provisions, having first appeared as an appendix (to Chapter 13) in the 2000 Provisions.
The appendix was developed by Technical Subcommittee 12 (TS 12) of the Provision Update
Committee (PUC) during the 2000 update cycle to provide a basis for designing structures with
damping systems that is consistent with the NEHRP Provisions, in particular structures with seismic
(base) isolation systems. Voting members of TS 12 during the 2000 update were Dr. Charles Kircher
(TS 12 Chair and PUC representative), Dr. Michael Constantinou (PUC representative), Dr. Ian Aiken,
Dr. Robert Hanson, Mr. Martin Johnson, Dr. Andrew Taylor, and Dr. Andrew Whittaker
During the 2000 update cycle, the primary resource documents for the design of structures with dampers
were the NEHRP Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 273, 1997) and the NEHRP
Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 274, 1997). While
suitable for the performance-based design, terms, methods of analysis and response limits of the
NEHRP Guidelines for existing buildings do not match those of the NEHRP Provisions for new
structures. Accordingly, TS-12 developed new provisions, in particular new linear analysis methods,
for design of structures with dampers.
New analysis methods were developed for structures with dampers based on nonlinear pushover
characterization of the structure and calculation of peak response using effective (secant) stiffness and
effective damping properties of the first (pushover) mode in the direction of interest. These are same
concepts used in Chapter 13 to characterize the force-deflection properties of isolation systems,
modified to explicitly incorporate the effects of ductility demand (post-yield response) and higher-mode
response of structures with dampers. In contrast to isolated structures, structures with dampers are in
general expected to yield during strong ground shaking (similar to conventional structures), and their
performance can be significantly influenced by response of higher modes.
During the 2000 cycle, analysis methods were evaluated using design examples. Response calculated
using linear analysis was found to compare well with the results of nonlinear time history analysis
(Ramirez, 2001). Additional design examples illustrating explicit pushover modeling of the structure
may be found in Chapter 9 commentary of FEMA 274. The reader is also referred to Ramirez et al.
(2002a, 2002b, 2003) and Whittaker et al. (2003) for a detailed exposition of the analysis procedures in
this chapter, background research studies, examples of application and an evaluation of accuracy of the
linear static and response spectrum analysis methods.
The balance of this section provides background on the underlying philosophy used by TS12 to develop
the chapter, the definition the damping system, the concept of effective damping, and the calculation of
earthquake response using either linear or nonlinear analysis methods.
Design Philosophy. The basic approach taken by TS12 in developing the chapter for structures with
damping systems is based on the following concepts:
1. The chapter is applicable to all types of damping systems, including both displacement-dependent
damping devices of hysteretic or friction systems and velocity-dependent damping devices of
viscous or visco elastic systems (Constantinou et al. 1998, Hanson and Soong, 2001)
2. The chapter provides minimum design criteria with performance objectives comparable to those for
a structure with a conventional seismic-force-resisting system (but also permits design criteria that
will achieve higher performance levels).
309
310
p
am
SFRS
er
DS
Da
e
mp
SFRS
DS
Da
e
mp
SFRS
DS
SFRS
m
Da
pe
DS
Spectral Acceleration
SD1
T1
SD1
T1D
SD1
T1D B1D
T1
Added Viscous
plus Inherent BV+I
Damping
T1D
Design Earthquake
Demand Spectrum
(V + I Damping)
Capacity
Curve
Design Earthquake
Demand Spectrum
(5% Damping)
B1D
Effective
Damping
(Added Viscous
plus Inherent and
Hysteretic)
2
g S T
g S T
SDD1 = 2 D1 1D 2 DS 1D
4 B1D
4 B1D
SD1D
SDE
Spectral Displacement
Figure C15-2. Effective damping reduction of design demand.
In general, effective damping is a combination of three components:
1. Inherent Damping IInherent damping of structure at or just below yield, excluding added viscous
damping (typically assumed to be 5 percent of critical for structural systems without dampers).
2. Hysteretic Damping HPost-yield hysteretic damping of the seismic-force-resisting system at the
amplitude of interest (taken as 0 percent of critical at or below yield).
3. Added Viscous Damping VViscous component of the damping system (taken as 0 percent for
hysteretic or friction-based damping systems).
Both hysteretic damping and the effects of added viscous damping are amplitude-dependent and the
relative contributions to total effective damping changes with the amount of post-yield response of the
structure. For example, adding dampers to a structure decreases post-yield displacement of the structure
and hence decreases the amount of hysteretic damping provided by the seismic-force-resisting system.
If the displacements were reduced to the point of yield, the hysteretic component of effective damping
would be zero and the effective damping would be equal to inherent damping plus added viscous
damping. If there were no damping system (as in a conventional structure), then effective damping
would simply be equal to inherent damping (typically assumed to be 5 percent of critical for most
conventional structures).
Linear Analysis Methods. The chapter specifies design earthquake displacements, velocities, and
forces in terms of design earthquake spectral acceleration and modal properties. For equivalent lateral
force (ELF) analysis, response is defined by two modes: (1) the fundamental mode, and (2) the residual
312
D1D = SDD11
1 =
W1
n
w
i
i =1
Acceleration (g)
g
SDD1 = 2 SAD1T12D
4
i1
T1
Capacity
Curve
TD1
(SD1D ,SA1D )
F1
W
= SAD1 1
W
W
n
wi i1
W1 = i =n1
2
wi ii1
i =1
D1D , 1
W
Pushover Curve
Normalized by Weight
Displacement (in.)
Figure C15-3. Pushover and capacity curves.
When using linear analysis methods, the shape of the fundamental-mode pushover curve is not known
and an idealized elasto-plastic shape is assumed, as shown in Figure C15-4. The idealized pushover
curve shares a common point with the actual pushover curve at the design earthquake displacement,
D1D. The idealized curve permits defining global ductility demand due to the design earthquake, D, as
the ratio of design displacement, D1D, to the yield displacement, DY. This ductility factor is used to
calculate various design factors and to set limits on the building ductility demand, max, which limits are
consistent with conventional building response limits. Design examples using linear analysis methods
have been developed and found to compare well with the results of nonlinear time history analysis
(Ramirez et al., 2001).
313
D =
Base Shear
D
VY
Idealized
Elasto-Plastic
Pushover
Curve
D1D T1D2
2 max
DY
T1
Pushover
Curve
0Cd
R
Overstrength
(nominal value, O,
by CD/R
0 reduced
ratio when used
with elasto-plastic
curve)
V1
2
g S T
g S T
D1D = 2 1 D1 1D 2 1 DS 1D
B1D
B1D
4
4
DY
D1D
Roof Displacement
Figure C15-4. Idealized elasto-plastic pushover curve used for linear analysis.
The chapter requires elements of the damping system to be designed for actual fundamental-mode
design earthquake forces corresponding to a base shear value of VY (except that damping devices are
designed and prototypes tested for maximum considered earthquake response). Elements of the
seismic-force-resisting system are designed for reduced fundamental-mode base shear, V1, where force
reduction is based on system overstrength, 0, conservatively decreased by the ratio, Cd/R, for elastic
analysis (when actual pushover strength is not known).
Nonlinear analysis methods. The chapter specifies procedures for the nonlinear response history
analyses and a nonlinear static procedure. For designs in which the seismic-force-resisting-system will
remain elastic, only the nonlinear damping device characteristics need to be modeled for these analyses.
REFERENCES
Constantinou, M.C., T.T. Soong and G.F. Dargush. 1998. Passive Energy Dissipation Systems for
Structural Design and Retrofit, Monograph No. 1, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research, University of Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.
Hanson, Robert D. and Tsu T. Soong. 2001. Seismic Design with Supplemental Energy Dissipation
Devices, MNO-8, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.
Ramirez, O.M., M.C. Constantinou, C.A. Kircher, A. Whittaker, M. Johnson, J.D. Gomez and C.Z.
Chrysostomou. 2001. Development and Evaluation of Simplified Procedures of Analysis and Design for
Structures with Passive Energy Dissipation Systems, Technical Report MCEER-00-0010, Revision 1,
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University of Buffalo, State University
of New York, Buffalo, NY.
314
315
316
Commentary Appendix A
DEVELOPMENT OF MAXIMUM CONSIDERED EARTHQUAKE
GROUND MOTION MAPS FIGURES 3.3-1 THROUGH 3.3-14
BACKGROUND
The maps used in the Provisions through 1994 provided the Aa (effective peak acceleration
coefficient) and Av (effective peak velocity-related acceleration coefficient) values to use for design.
The BSSC had always recognized that the maps and coefficients would change with time as the
profession gained more knowledge about earthquakes and their resulting ground motions and as
society gained greater insight into the process of establishing acceptable risk.
By 1997, significant additional earthquake data had been obtained that made the Aa and Av maps, then
about 20 years old, seriously out of date. For the 1997 Provisions, a joint effort involving the BSSC,
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was
conducted to develop both new maps for use in design and new design procedures reflecting the
significant advances made in the past 20 years. The BSSCs role in this joint effort was to develop
new ground motion maps for use in design and design procedures based on new USGS seismic hazard
maps.
The BSSC appointed a 15-member Seismic Design Procedure Group (SDPG) to develop the seismic
ground motion maps and design procedures. The SDPG membership was composed of representatives
of different segments of the design community as well as two earth science members designated by the
USGS, and the membership was representative of the different geographical regions of the country.
Also, the BSSC, with input from FEMA and USGS, appointed a five-member Management
Committee (MC) to guide the efforts of the SDPG. The MC was geographically balanced insofar as
practicable and was composed of two seismic hazard definition experts and three engineering design
experts, including the chairman of the 1997 Provisions Update Committee (PUC). The SDPG and the
MC worked closely with the USGS to define the BSSC mapping needs and to understand how the
USGS seismic hazard maps should be used to develop the BSSC seismic ground motion maps and
design procedures.
For a brief overview of how the USGS developed its hazard maps, see Appendix B to this
Commentary volume. A detailed description of the development of the maps is contained in the
USGS Open-File Report 96-532, National Seismic-Hazard Maps: Documentation, June 1996, by
Frankel, et al. (1996). The USGS hazard maps also can be viewed and printed from a USGS Internet
site at http://eqhazmaps.usgs.gov.
The goals of the SDPG were as follows:
1. To replace the existing effective peak acceleration and velocity-related acceleration design maps
with new ground motion spectral response maps based on new USGS seismic hazard maps.
2. To develop the new ground motion spectral response maps within the existing framework of the
Provisions with emphasis on uniform margin against the collapse of structures.
3. To develop design procedures for use with the new ground motion spectral response maps.
the expected performance of higher occupancy structures as compared to ordinary structures, and to
improve the capability of essential structures to function after an earthquake. To this end, the
Provisions provide the minimum criteria considered prudent for structures subjected to earthquakes at
any location in the United States and its territories. The Provisions generally considers property
damage as it relates to occupant safety for ordinary structures. For high occupancy and essential
structures, damage limitation criteria are more strict in order to better provide for the safety of
occupants and the continued functioning of the structure. Some structural and nonstructural damage
can be expected as a result of the design ground motions because the Provisions allow inelastic
energy dissipation by utilizing the deformability of the structural system. For ground motions in
excess of the design levels, the intent is that there be a low likelihood of collapse. These goals of the
Provisions were the guiding principles for developing the design maps.
Development of Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion Maps Figures 3.3-1 through 3.314
a given mean recurrence interval (500, 1000, or 2500 years). For the purpose of the new maps and
design procedure introduced in the 1997 Provisions, the single exposure time period of 50 years has
been commonly used as a reference period over which to consider loads on structures (after 50 years
of use, structures may require evaluation to determine future use and rehabilitation needs). With this
in mind, different levels of probability or return period are expressed as percent probability of
exceedance in 50 years. Specifically, 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years is a mean
recurrence interval of about 500 years, 5 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years is a mean
recurrence interval of about 1000 years, and 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years is a mean
recurrence interval of about 2500 years. The above notation is used throughout the Provisions.
Review of modern probabilistic seismic hazard results, including the maps prepared by the USGS to
support the effort resulting in the 1997 Provisions, indicates that the rate of change of ground motion
versus probability is not constant throughout the United States. For example, the ground motion
difference between the 10 percent probability of exceedance and 2 percent probability of exceedance
in 50 years in coastal California is typically smaller than the difference between the two probabilities
in less active seismic areas such as the eastern or central United States. Because of these differences,
questions were raised concerning whether definition of the ground motion based on a constant
probability for the entire United States would result in similar levels of seismic safety for all
structures. Figure A1 plots the 0.2 second spectral acceleration normalized at 2 percent probability of
exceedance in 50 years versus the annual frequency of exceedance. Figure A1 shows that in coastal
California, the ratio between the 0.2 second spectral acceleration for the 2 and the 10 percent
probabilities of exceedance in 50 years is about 1.5 whereas, in other parts of the United States, the
ratio varies from 2.0 to 5.0.
FIGURE A1 Relative hazard at selected sites for 0.2 sec spectral response acceleration. The hazard
curves are normalized at 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years.
319
In answering the questions, it was recognized that seismic safety is the result of a number of steps in
addition to defining the design earthquake ground motions, including the critical items generally
defined as proper site selection, structural design criteria, analysis and procedures, detailed design
requirements, and construction. The conservatism in the actual design of the structure is often referred
to as the seismic margin. It is the seismic margin that provides confidence that significant loss of
life will not be caused by actual ground motions equal to the design levels. Alternatively, the seismic
margin provides a level of protection against larger, less probable earthquakes although at a lower
level of confidence.
The collective opinion of the SDPG was that the seismic margin contained in the Provisions provides,
as a minimum, a margin of about 1.5 times the design earthquake ground motions. In other words, if a
structure experiences a level of ground motion 1.5 times the design level, the structure should have a
low likelihood of collapse. The SDPG recognizes that quantification of this margin is dependent on
the type of structure, detailing requirements, etc., but the 1.5 factor is a conservative judgment
appropriate for structures designed in accordance with the Provisions. This seismic margin estimate is
supported by Kennedy et al. (1994), Cornell (1994), and Ellingwood (1994) who evaluated structural
design margins and reached similar conclusions.
The USGS seismic hazard maps indicate that in most locations in the United States the 2 percent
probability of exceedance in 50 years ground motion values are more than 1.5 times the 10 percent
probability of exceedance in 50 years ground motion values. This means that if the 10 percent
probability of exceedance in 50 years map was used as the design map and the 2 percent probability of
exceedance in 50 years ground motions were to occur, there would be low confidence (particularly in
the central and eastern United States) that structures would not collapse due to these larger ground
motions. Such a conclusion for most of the United States was not acceptable to the SDPG. The only
location where the above results seemed to be acceptable was coastal California (2 percent probability
of exceedance in 50 years map is about 1.5 times the 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years
map) where structures have experienced levels of ground shaking equal to and above the design value.
The USGS probabilistic seismic hazard maps for coastal California also indicate the 10 percent
probability of exceedance in 50 years seismic hazard map is significantly different from (in most cases
larger) the design ground motion values contained in the 1994 Provisions. Given the generally
successful experience with structures that complied with the recent editions of the Uniform Building
Code whose design map contained many similarities to the 1994 Provisions design map, the SDPG
was reluctant to suggest large changes without first understanding the basis for the changes. This
stimulated a detailed review of the probabilistic maps for coastal California. This review identified a
unique issue for coastal California in that the recurrence interval of the estimated maximum magnitude
earthquake is less than the recurrence interval represented on the probabilistic map, in this case the 10
percent probability of exceedance in 50 years map (i.e., recurrence interval for maximum magnitude
earthquake is 100 to 200 years versus 500 years.)
Given the above, one choice was to accept the change and use the 10 percent probability of
exceedance in 50 years probabilistic map to define the design ground motion for coastal California
and, using this, determine the appropriate probability for design ground motion for the rest of the
United States that would result in the same level of seismic safety. This would have resulted in the
design earthquake being defined at 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years and the need for
development of a 0.5 to 1.0 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years map to show the potential
for larger ground motions outside of coastal California. Two major problems were identified. The
first is that requiring such a radical change in design ground motion in coastal California seems to
contradict the general conclusion that the seismic design codes and process are providing an adequate
level of life safety. The second is that completing probabilistic estimates of ground motion for lower
probabilities (approaching those used for critical facilities such as nuclear power plants) is associated
with large uncertainties and can be quite controversial.
320
Development of Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion Maps Figures 3.3-1 through 3.314
An alternative choice was to build on the observation that the maximum earthquake for many seismic
faults in coastal California is fairly well known and associated with probabilities larger than a 10
percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (500 year mean recurrence interval). Given this, a
decision was made to develop a procedure that would use the best estimate of ground motion from
maximum magnitude earthquakes on seismic faults with high probabilities of occurrence (short return
periods). For the purposes of the Provisions, these earthquakes are defined as deterministic
earthquakes. Following this approach and recognizing the inherent seismic margin contained in the
Provisions, it was determined that the level of seismic safety achieved in coastal California would be
approximately equivalent to that associated with a 2 to 5 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years
for areas outside of coastal California. In other words, the use of the deterministic earthquakes to
establish the maximum considered earthquake ground motions for use in design in coastal California
results in a level of protection close to that implied in the 1994 Provisions and consistent with
maximum magnitude earthquakes expected for those seismic sources. Additionally, this approach
results in less drastic changes to ground motion values for coastal California than the alternative
approach of using probabilistic based maps.
One could ask why any changes are necessary for coastal California given the positive experience
from recent earthquakes. While it is true that the current seismic design practices have produced
positive results, the current design ground motions in the 1994 Provisions are less than those expected
from maximum magnitude earthquakes on known seismic sources. The 1994 Provisions reportedly
considered maximum magnitude earthquakes but did not directly link them to the design ground
motions (Applied Technology Council, 1978). If there is high confidence in the definition of the fault
and magnitude of the earthquake and the maximum earthquake occurs frequently, then the design
should be linked to at least the best estimate ground motion for such an earthquake. Indeed, it is the
actual earthquake experience in coastal California that is providing increased confidence in the seismic
margins contained in the Provisions.
The above approach also is responsive to comments that the use of 10 percent probability of
exceedance in 50 years is not sufficiently conservative in the central and eastern United States where
the earthquakes are expected to occur infrequently. Based on the above discussion and the inherent
seismic margin contained in the Provisions, the SDPG selected 2 percent probability of exceedance in
50 years as the maximum considered earthquake ground motion for use in design where the use of the
deterministic earthquake approach discussed above is not used.
The maximum considered earthquake ground motion maps are based on two response spectral values
(a short-period and a long-period value) instead of the Aa and Av coefficients. The decision to use
response spectral values is based on earthquake data obtained during the past 20 years showing that
site-specific spectral values are more appropriate for design input than the Aa and Av coefficients used
with standardized spectral shapes. The spectral shapes vary in different areas of the country and for
different site conditions. This is particularly the case for the short-period portion of the response
spectra. Based on the differences in the ground motion attenuation characteristics between the central
and eastern and western United States, the USGS used different ground motion attenuation functions
for these areas in developing the seismic hazard maps. The ground motion attenuation functions in the
eastern United States result in higher short-period spectral accelerations at lower periods for a given
earthquake magnitude than the western United States attenuation functions, particularly compared to
the high seismicity region of coastal California. The short-period response spectral values were
reviewed in order to determine the most appropriate value to use for the maximum considered
earthquake ground motion maps. Based on this review, the short-period spectral response value of 0.2
second was selected to represent the short-period range of the response spectra for the eastern United
States. In the western United States the most appropriate short-period response spectral value was
determined to be 0.3 second, but a comparison of the 0.2 and 0.3 second values indicated that the
differences in the response spectral values were insignificant. Based on this and for convenience of
preparing the maximum considered earthquake ground motion maps, the short-period response
spectral value of 0.2 second was selected to represent the short-period range of the response spectra
321
for all of the United States. The long-period response spectral value selected for use is 1.0 second for
all of the United States. Based on the ground motion attenuation functions and the USGS seismic
hazard maps, a 1/T (T = natural period) relationship was selected to define the response spectra from
the short period value to the long-period value. Using the spectral values from the ground motion
maps will allow the different spectral shapes to be incorporated into design.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MAXIMUM CONSIDERED EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTION
MAPS FOR USE IN DESIGN
The concept for developing maximum considered earthquake ground motions for use in design
involved two distinct steps:
1. The various USGS probabilistic seismic hazard maps were combined with deterministic hazard
maps by a set of rules (logic) to create the maximum considered earthquake ground motion maps
that can be used to define response spectra for use in design and
2. Design procedures were developed that transform the response spectra into design values (e.g.,
design base shear).
The response spectra defined from the first step represent general site-dependent spectra similar to
those that would be obtained by a geotechnical study and used for dynamic analysis except their
shapes are less refined (i.e., shape defined for only a limited number of response periods). The
response spectra do not represent the same hazard level across the country but do represent actual
ground motion consistent with providing approximately uniform protection against the collapse of
structures. The response spectra represent the maximum considered earthquake ground motions for
use in design for Site Class B (rock with a shear wave velocity of 760 meters/second).
The maximum considered earthquake ground motion maps for use in design are based on a defined set
of rules for combining the USGS seismic hazard maps to reflect the differences in the ability to define
the fault sources and seismicity characteristics across the regions of the country as discussed in the
policy decisions. Accommodating regional differences allows the maximum considered earthquake
maps to represent ground motions for use in design that provide reasonably consistent margins of
preventing the collapse of structures. Based on this, three regions have been defined:
1. Regions of negligible seismicity with very low probability of collapse of the structure,
2. Regions of low and moderate to high seismicity, and
3. Regions of high seismicity near known fault sources with short return periods.
Regions of Negligible Seismicity With Very Low Probability of Collapse of the Structure
The regions of negligible seismicity with very low probability of collapse have been defined by:
1. Determining areas where the seismic hazard is controlled by earthquakes with Mb (body wave
magnitude) magnitudes less than or equal to 5.5 and
2. Examining the recorded ground motions associated with Modified Mercalli Intensity V.
The basis for the first premise is that in this region, there are a number of examples of earthquakes
with Mb 5.5 which caused only localized damage to structures not designed for earthquakes. The
basis for the second premise is that Modified Mecalli Intensity V ground motions typically do not
cause structural damage. By definition, Modified Mercalli Intensity V ground shaking is felt by most
people, displaces or upsets small objects, etc., but typically causes no, or only minor, structural
damage in buildings of any type. Modified Mercalli Intensity VI ground shaking is felt by everyone,
small objects fall off shelves, etc., and minor or moderate structural damage occurs to weak plaster and
masonry construction. Life-threatening damage or collapse of structures would not be expected for
either Modified Mercalli Intensities V or VI ground shaking. Based on an evaluation of 1994
Northridge earthquake data, regions of different Modified Mercalli Intensity (Dewey, 1995) were
correlated with maps of smooth response spectra developed from instrumental recordings
322
Development of Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion Maps Figures 3.3-1 through 3.314
(Sommerville, 1995). The Northridge earthquake provided a sufficient number of instrumental
recordings and associated spectra to permit correlating Modified Mercalli Intensity with response
spectra. The results of the correlation determined the average response spectrum for each Modified
Mercalli Intensity region. For Modified Mercalli Intensity V, the average response spectrum of that
region had a spectral response acceleration of slightly greater than 0.25g at 0.3 seconds and a spectral
response acceleration of slightly greater than 0.10g at 1.0 seconds. On the basis of these values and
the minor nature of damage associated with Modified Mercalli Intensity V, 0.25g (short-period
acceleration) and 0.10g (acceleration at a period of 1 second, taken proportional to 1/T) is deemed to
be a conservative estimate of the spectrum below which life-threatening damage would not be
expected to occur even to the most vulnerable of types of structures. Therefore, this region is defined
as areas having maximum considered earthquake ground motions with a 2 percent probability of
exceedance in 50 years equal to or less than 0.25g (short period) and 0.10g (long period). The seismic
hazard in these areas is generally the result of Mb 5.5 earthquakes. In these areas, a minimum lateral
force design of 1 percent of the dead load of the structure shall be used in addition to the detailing
requirements for the Seismic Design Category A structures.
In these areas it is not considered necessary to specify seismic-resistant design on the basis of a
maximum considered earthquake ground motion. The ground motion computed for such areas is
determined more by the rarity of the event with respect to the chosen level of probability than by the
level of motion that would occur if a small but close earthquake actually did occur. However, it is
desirable to provide some protection, both against earthquakes as well as many other types of
unanticipated loadings. The requirements for Seismic Design Category A provide a nominal amount
of structural integrity that will improve the performance of buildings in the event of a possible, but
rare earthquake. The result of design to Seismic Design Category A is that fewer buildings would
collapse in the vicinity of such an earthquake.
The integrity is provided by a combination of requirements. First, a complete load path for lateral
forces must be identified. Then it must be designed for a lateral force equal to a 1% acceleration on
the mass. Lastly, the minimum connection forces specified for Seismic Design Category A must be
satisfied.
The 1 percent value has been used in other countries as a minimum value for structural integrity. For
many structures, design for the wind loadings specified in the local building codes will normally
control the lateral force design when compared to the minimum structural integrity force on the
structure. However, many low-rise heavy structures or structures with significant dead loads resulting
from heavy equipment may be controlled by the nominal 1 percent acceleration. Also, minimum
connection forces may exceed structural forces due to wind in additional structures.
The regions of negligible seismicity will vary depending on the Site Class on which structures are
located. The Provisions seismic ground motion maps (Maps 1 through 19 ) are for Site Class B
conditions and the region of negligible seismicity for Site Class B is defined where the maximum
considered earthquake ground motion short-period values are #0.25g and the long-period values are #
0.10g. The regions of negligible seismicity for the other Site Classes are defined by using the
appropriate site coefficients to determine the maximum considered earthquake ground motion for the
Site Class and then determining if the short-period values are # 0.25g and the long-period values are #
0.10g. If so, then the site of the structure is located in the region of negligible seismicity for that Site
Class.
Regions of Low and Moderate to High Seismicity
In regions of low and moderate to high seismicity, the earthquake sources generally are not well
defined and the maximum magnitude estimates have relatively long return periods. Based on this,
probabilistic hazard maps are considered to be the best means to represent the uncertainties and to
define the response spectra for these regions. The maximum considered earthquake ground motion for
323
these regions is defined as the ground motion with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years.
The basis for this decision is explained in the policy discussion.
Consideration was given to establishing a separate region of low seismicity and defining a minimum
level of ground motion (i.e., deterministic minimum ground motions). This was considered because in
the transition between the regions of negligible seismicity to the regions of low seismicity, the ground
motions are relatively small and may not be very meaningful for use in seismic design. The minimum
level was also considered because the uncertainty in the ground motion levels in the regions of low
seismicity is larger than in the regions of moderate to high seismicity. This larger uncertainty may
warrant consideration of using higher ground motions (or some minimum level of ground motion) than
provided by the maximum considered earthquake ground motions shown on the maps.
The studies discussed above for the regions of negligible seismicity by Dewey (1995) and
Sommerville (1995), plus other unpublished studies (to date), were evaluated as a means of
determining minimum levels of ground motion for used in design. These studies correlated the
Modified Mercalli Intensity data with the recorded ground motions and associated damage. The
studies included damage information for a variety of structures which had no specific seismic design
and determined the levels of ground motion associated with each Modified Mercalli Intensity. These
studies indicate that ground motion levels of about 0.50g short-period spectral response and 0.20g
long-period spectral response are representative of Modified Mercalli Intensity VII damage.
Modified Mercalli Intensity VII ground shaking results in negligible damage in buildings of good
design and construction, slight to moderate damage in well-built ordinary buildings, considerable
damage in poorly-built or badly designed buildings, adobe houses, old walls (especially where laid up
without mortar), etc. In other words, Modified Mercalli VII ground shaking is about the level of
ground motion where significant structural damage may occur and result in life safety concerns for
occupants. This tends to suggest that designing structures for ground motion levels below 0.50g shortperiod spectral response and 0.20g long-period spectral response may not be meaningful.
One interpretation of this information suggests that the ground motion levels for defining the regions
of negligible seismicity could be increased. This interpretation would result in much larger regions
that require no specific seismic design compared to the 1994 Provisions.
Another interpretation of the information suggests establishing a minimum level of ground Motion (at
about the Modified Mercalli VII shaking) for regions of low seismicity, in order to transition from the
regions of negligible seismicity to the region of moderate to high seismicity. Implementation of a
minimum level of ground motion, such as 0.50g for the short-period spectral response and 0.20g for
the long-period spectral response, would result in increases (large percentages) in ground motions used
for design compared to the 1994 Provisions.
Based on the significant changes in past practices resulting from implementing either of the above
interpretations, the SDPG decided that additional studies are needed to support these changes. Results
of such studies should be considered for future editions of the Provisions.
Regions of High Seismicity Near Known Fault Sources With Short Return Periods
In regions of high seismicity near known fault sources with short return periods, deterministic hazard
maps are used to define the response spectra maps as discussed above. The maximum considered
earthquake ground motions for use in design are determined from the USGS deterministic hazard
maps developed using the ground motion attenuation functions based on the median estimate
increased by 50 percent. Increasing the median ground motion estimates by 50 percent is deemed to
provide an appropriate margin and is similar to some deterministic estimates for a large magnitude
characteristic earthquake using ground motion attenuation functions with one standard deviation.
Estimated standard deviations for some active fault sources have been determined to be higher than 50
percent, but this increase in the median ground motions was considered reasonable for defining the
maximum considered earthquake ground motions for use in design.
324
Development of Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion Maps Figures 3.3-1 through 3.314
Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion Maps for Use in Design
Considering the rules for the three regions discussed above, the maximum considered earthquake
ground motion maps for use in design were developed by combining the regions in the following
manner:
1. Where the maximum considered earthquake map ground motion values (based on the 2 percent
probability of exceedance in 50 years) for Site Class B adjusted for the specific site conditions are
# 0.25g for the short-period spectral response and # 0.10g for the long period spectral response,
then the site will be in the region of negligible seismicity and a minimum lateral force design of 1
percent of the dead load of the structure shall be used in addition to the detailing requirements for
the Seismic Design Category A structures.
2. Where the maximum considered earthquake ground motion values (based on the 2 percent
probability of exceedance in 50 years) for Site Class B adjusted for the specific site conditions are
greater than 0.25g for the short-period spectral response and 0.10g for the long-period spectral
response, the maximum considered earthquake ground motion values (based on the 2 percent
probability of exceedance in 50 years adjusted for the specific site conditions) will be used until
the values equal the present (1994 Provisions) ceiling design values increased by 50 percent (short
period = 1.50g, long period = 0.60g). The present ceiling design values are increased by 50
percent to represent the maximum considered earthquake ground motion values. This will define
the sites in regions of low and moderate to high seismicity.
3. To transition from regions of low and moderate to high seismicity to regions of high seismicity
with short return periods, the maximum considered earthquake ground motion values based on 2
percent probability of exceedance in 50 years will be used until the values equal the present (1994
Provisions) ceiling design values increased by 50 percent (short period = 1.50g, long period =
0.60g). The present ceiling design values are increased by 50 percent to represent maximum
considered earthquake ground motion values. When the 1.5 times the ceiling values are reached,
then they will be used until the deterministic maximum considered earthquake map values of 1.5g
(long period) and 0.60g (short period) are obtained. From there, the deterministic maximum
considered earthquake ground motion map values will be used.
In some cases there are regions of high seismicity near known faults with return periods such that the
probabilistic map values (2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years) will exceed the present
ceiling values of the 1994 Provisions increased by 50 percent and will be less than the deterministic
map values. In these regions, the probabilistic map values will be used for the maximum considered
earthquake ground motions.
The basis for using present ceiling design values as the transition between the two regions is because
earthquake experience has shown that regularly configured, properly designed structures performed
satisfactorily in past earthquakes. The most significant structural damage experienced in the
Northridge and Kobe earthquakes was related to configuration, structural systems, inadequate
connection detailing, incompatibility of deformations, and design or construction deficiencies -- not
due to deficiency in strength (Structural Engineers Association of California, 1995). The earthquake
designs of the structures in the United States (coastal California) which have performed satisfactorily
in past earthquakes were based on the criteria in the Uniform Building Code. Considering the site
conditions of the structures and the criteria in the Uniform Building Code, the ceiling design values for
these structures were determined to be appropriate for use with the Provisions maximum considered
earthquake ground motion maps for Site Class B. Based on this, the equivalent maximum considered
earthquake ground motion values for the ceiling were determined to be 1.50g for the short period and
0.60g for the long period.
As indicated above there also are some regions of high seismicity near known fault sources with return
periods such that the probabilistic map values (2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years) will
exceed the ceiling values of the 1994 Provisions increased by 50 percent and also be less than the
325
deterministic map values. In these regions, the probabilistic map values are used for the maximum
considered earthquake ground motions.
The near source area in the high seismicity regions is defined as the area where the maximum
considered earthquake ground motion values are $ 0.75g on the 1.0 second map. In the near source
area, Provisions Sec. 5.2.3 through 5.2.6 impose additional requirements for certain structures unless
the structures are fairly regular, do not exceed 5 stories in height, and do not have a period of vibration
over 0.5 seconds. For the fairly regular structures not exceeding 5 stories in height and not having a
period of vibration over 0.5 seconds, the maximum considered earthquake ground motion values will
not exceed the present ceiling design values increased by 50 percent. The basis for this is because of
the earthquake experience discussed above.
These development rules for the maximum considered earthquake ground motion maps for use in
design are illustrated in Figures A2 and A3. The application of these rules resulted in the maximum
considered earthquake ground motion maps (Maps 1 through 24) introduced in the 1997 and used
again in the 2000 Provisions.
326
Development of Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion Maps Figures 3.3-1 through 3.314
Regions for which 1.5g < SS and 0.60g < S1 from Step 2C.
Maximum considered earthquake map values: Use SS and SI map values from Step 2C.
327
Use of the Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion Maps in the Design Procedure:
The 1994 Provisions defined the seismic base shear as a function of the outdated effective peak
velocity-related acceleration Av, and effective peak acceleration, Aa. Beginning with the 1997
Provisions, the base shear of the structure is defined as a function of the maximum considered
earthquake ground motion maps where SS = maximum considered earthquake spectral acceleration in
the short-period range for Site Class B; S1 = maximum considered earthquake spectral acceleration at
the 1.0 second period for Site Class B; SMS = FaSS, maximum considered earthquake spectral
acceleration in the short-period range adjusted for Site Class effects where Fa is the site coefficient
defined in Provisions Sec. 4.1.2; SM1 = FvS1, maximum considered earthquake spectral acceleration at
1.0 second period adjusted for Site Class effects where Fv is the site coefficient defined in Provisions
Sec. 4.1.2; SDS = (2/3) SMS, spectral acceleration in the short-period range for the design ground
motions; and SD1 = (2/3) SM1, spectral acceleration at 1.0 second period for the design ground
motions.
As noted above, the design ground motions SDS and SD1 are defined as 2/3 times the maximum
considered earthquake ground motions. The 2/3 factor is based on the estimated seismic margins in
the design process of the Provisions as previously discussed (i.e., the design level of ground motion is
1/1.5 or 2/3 times the maximum considered earthquake ground motion).
Based on the above defined ground motions, the base shear is:
V = C sW
where C S =
S DS and S = the design spectral response acceleration in the short period range as
DS
R I
determined from Sec. 4.1.2, R = the response modification factor from Table 5.2.2, and I = the
occupancy importance factor determined in accordance with Sec. 1.4.
The value of Cs need not exceed C S =
S Dl
but shall not be taken less than C S = 0.1S Dl or, for
T (R I )
0.5S 1
R I
where I and R are as defined above and SD1 = the design spectral response acceleration at a period of
1.0 second as determined from Sec. 4.1.2, T = the fundamental period of the structure (sec)
determined in Sec. 5.4.2, and S1 = the mapped maximum considered earthquake spectral response
acceleration determined in accordance with Sec. 4.1.
Where a design response spectrum is required by these Provisions and site-specific procedures are not
used, the design response spectrum curve shall be developed as indicated in Figure A4 and as follows:
1.
For periods less than or equal to T0, the design spectral response acceleration, Sa, shall
be taken as given by Eq. 4.1.2.6-1:
S a = 0.6
S DS
T + 0.4S DS
T0
(4.1.2.6-1)
2.
For periods greater than or equal to T0 and less than or equal to TS, the design spectral response
3.
For periods greater than TS, the design spectral response acceleration, Sa, shall be taken as given
by Eq. 4.1.2.6-3.
328
Development of Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion Maps Figures 3.3-1 through 3.314
Sa =
S Dl
T
(4.1.2.6-3)
where:
SDS = the design spectral response acceleration at short periods;
SD1 = the design spectral response acceleration at 1 second period;
T
T0 = 0.2SD1/SDS; and
TS = SD1/SDS.
329
330
Commentary Appendix B
DEVELOPMENT OF THE USGS SEISMIC MAPS
INTRODUCTION
The 1997 Provisions used new design procedures based on the use of spectral response acceleration
rather than the traditional peak ground acceleration and/or peak ground velocity, and these procedures
are used again in the 2000 Provisions. The use of spectral ordinates and their relationship to building
codes has been described by Leyendecker et al. (1995). The spectral response accelerations used in
the new design approach are obtained from combining probabilistic maps (Frankel et al, 1996)
prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) with deterministic maps using procedures developed
by the Building Seismic Safety Councils Seismic Design Procedures Group (SDPG). The SDPG
recommendations are based on using the 1996 USGS probabilistic hazard maps with additional
modifications based on review by the SDPG and the application of engineering judgment. This
appendix summarizes the development of the USGS maps and describes how the 1997 and 2000
Provisions design maps were prepared from them using SDPG recommendations. The SDPG effort
has sometimes been referred to as Project >97.
DEVELOPMENT OF PROBABILISTIC MAPS FOR THE UNITED STATES
New seismic hazard maps for the conterminous United States were completed by the USGS in June
1996 and placed on the World Wide Web (http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/). The color maps can be
viewed on the Web and/or downloaded to the users computer for printing. Paper copies of the maps
are also available (Frankel et al, 1997a, 1997b).
New seismic hazard maps for Alaska were completed by the USGS in January 1998 and placed on the
USGS Web site (http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/). Both documentation and printing of the maps are
in progress (U. S. Geological Survey, 1998a, 1998b).
New probabilistic maps are in preparation for Hawaii using the methodology similar to that used for
the rest of the United States, and described below. These maps were to have been completed in early
1998. Probabilistic maps for Puerto Rico, Culebra, Vieques, St. Thomas, St. John, St. Croix, Guam,
and Tutuila needed for the 1997 Provisions are not expected during the current cycle of USGS map
revisions (development of design maps for these areas is described below).
This appendix provides a brief description of the USGS seismic hazard maps, the
geologic/seismologic inputs to these maps, and the ground-motion relations used for the maps. It is
based on the USGS map documentation for the central and eastern United States (CEUS) and the
western United States (WUS) prepared by Frankel et al. (1996). The complete reference document,
also available on the USGS Web site, should be reviewed for detailed technical information.
The hazard maps depict probabilistic ground acceleration and spectral response acceleration with 10
percent, 5 percent, and 2 percent probabilities of exceedance (PE) in 50 years. These maps correspond
to return times of approximately 500, 1000, and 2500 years, respectively.1 All spectral response
values shown in the maps correspond to 5 percent of critical damping. The maps are based on the
assumption that earthquake occurrence is Poissonian, so that the probability of occurrence is time1
Previous USGS maps (e.g. Algermissen et al., 1990 and Leyendecker et al., 1995) and earlier editions of the Provisions
expressed probability as a 10 percent probability of exceedance in a specified exposure time. Beginning with the 1996 maps,
probability is being expressed as a specified probability of exceedance in a 50 year time period. Thus, 5 percent in 50 years
and 2 percent in 50 years used now correspond closely to 10 percent in 100 years and 10 percent in 250 years, respectively,
that was used previously. This same information may be conveyed as annual frequency. In this approach 10 percent
probability of exceedance (PE) in 50 years corresponds to an annual frequency of exceedance of 0.0021; 5 percent PE in 100
years corresponds to 0.00103; and 2 percent PE in 50 years corresponds to 0.000404.
331
independent. The methodologies used for the maps were presented, discussed, and substantially
modified during 6 regional workshops for the conterminous United States convened by the USGS
from June 1994-June 1995. A seventh workshop for Alaska was held in September 1996.
The methodology for the maps (Frankel et al., 1996) includes three primary features:
1. The use of smoothed historical seismicity is one component of the hazard calculation. This is used
in lieu of source zones used in previous USGS maps. The analytical procedure is described in
Frankel (1995).
2. Another important feature is the use of alternative models of seismic hazard in a logic tree
formalism. For the CEUS, different models based on different reference magnitudes are combined
to form the hazard maps. In addition, large background zones based on broad geologic criteria are
used as alternative source models for the CEUS and the WUS. These background zones are meant
to quantify hazard in areas with little historic seismicity, but with the potential to produce major
earthquakes. The background zones were developed from extensive discussions at the regional
workshops.
3. For the WUS, a big advance in the new maps is the use of geologic slip rates to determine fault
recurrence times. Slip rates from about 500 faults or fault segments were used in preparing the
probabilistic maps.
The hazard maps do not consider the uncertainty in seismicity or fault parameters. Preferred values of
maximum magnitudes and slip rates were used instead. The next stage of this effort is the
quantification of uncertainties in hazard curves for selected sites. These data will be included on the
Internet as they become available.
The USGS hazard maps are not meant to be used for Mexico, areas north of 49 degrees north latitude,
and offshore the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts of the United States.
CEUS and WUS attenuation boundary. Attenuation of ground motion differs between the CEUS
and the WUS. The boundary between regions was located along the eastern edge of the Basin and
Range province (Figure B1). The previous USGS maps (e.g., Algermissen et al., 1990) used an
attenuation boundary further to the east along the Rocky Mountain front.
Separate hazard calculations were done for the two regions using different attenuation relations.
Earthquakes west of the boundary used the WUS attenuation relations and earthquakes east of the
boundary used CEUS attenuation relations. WUS attenuation relations were used for WUS
earthquakes, even for sites located east of the attenuation boundary. Similarly CEUS attenuations
were used for CEUS earthquakes, even for sites located west of the attenuation boundary. It would
have been computationally difficult to consider how much of the path was contained in the attenuation
province. Also, since the attenuation relation is dependent on the stress drop, basing the relation that
was used on the location of the earthquake rather than the receiver is reasonable.
Hazard curves. The probabilistic maps were constructed from mean hazard curves, that is the mean
probabilities of exceedance as a function of ground motion or spectral response. Hazard curves were
obtained for each site on a calculation grid.
A grid (or site) spacing of 0.1 degrees in latitude and longitude was used for the WUS and 0.2 degrees
for the CEUS. This resulted in hazard calculations at about 65,000 sites for the WUS runs and 35,000
sites for the CEUS runs. The CEUS hazard curves were interpolated to yield a set of hazard curves on
a 0.1 degree grid. A grid of hazard curves with 0.1 degree spacing was thereby obtained for the entire
conterminous United States. A special grid spacing of 0.05 degrees was also done for California,
Nevada, and western Utah because of the density of faults warranted increased density of data. These
data were used for maps of this region.
332
Figure B2 is a sample of mean hazard curves used in making the 1996 maps. The curves include cities
from various regions in the United States. It should be noted that in some areas the curves are very
sensitive to the latitude and longitude selected. A probabilistic map is a contour plot of the ground
motion or spectral values obtained by taking a slice through all 150,000 hazard curves at a particular
probability value. The gridded data obtained from the hazard curves that was used to make each
probabilistic map is located at the USGS Web site. Figure B2 also shows the general difference in
slope of the hazard curves of the CEUS versus the WUS. This difference has been noted in other
studies.
333
error in location of mb 3 events in the period of 1924-1975, before the advent of local seismic
networks. A larger correlation distance was used for models 2 and 3 since they include earthquakes
further back in time with poorer estimates of locations.
Model 4 consists of large background source zones. This alternative is meant to quantify hazard in
areas with little historical seismicity but with the potential to generate damaging earthquakes. These
background zones are detailed in a later section of this text. The sum of the weights of models 1-4 is
one. For a weighting scheme that is uniform in space, this ensures that the total seismicity rate in the
combined model equals the historic seismicity rate. A spatially-varying weighting scheme which
slightly exceeds the historic seismicity rate was used in the final map for reasons which are described
later.
A regional b-value of 0.95 was used for models 1-4 in all of the CEUS except Charlevoix, Quebec.
This b-value was determined from a catalog for events east of 105 degrees W. For the Charlevoix
region a b-value of 0.76 was used based on the work of John Adams, Stephen Halchuck and Dieter
Weichert of the Geologic Survey of Canada (see Adams et al., 1996).
Figure B4 shows a map of the CEUS Mmax values used for models 1-4 (bold M refers to moment
magnitude). These Mmax zones correspond to the background zones used in model 4. Most of the
CEUS is divided into a cratonic region and a region of extended crust. An Mmax of 6.5 was used for
the cratonic area. A Mmax of 7.5 was used for the Wabash Valley zone in keeping with magnitudes
derived from paleoliquefaction evidence (Obermeier et al., 1992). An Mmax of 7.5 was used in the
zone of extended crust outboard of the craton. An Mmax of 6.5 was used for the Rocky Mountain zone
and the Colorado Plateau, consistent with the magnitude of the largest historic events in these regions.
An Mmax of 7.2 was used for the gridded seismicity within the Charleston areal source zone. A
minimum mb of 5.0 was used in all the hazard calculations for the CEUS.
335
these special areas is described below. There are three other areas in the CEUS that are called special
zones: eastern Tennessee, Wabash Valley, and Charlevoix. These are described below.
Special zones A number of special case need to be described.
New Madrid: To calculate the hazard from large events in the New Madrid area, three parallel faults
in an S-shaped pattern encompassing the area of highest historic seismicity were considered. These
were not meant to be actual faults; they are simply a way of expressing the uncertainty in the source
locations of large earthquakes such as the 1811-12 sequence. A characteristic rupture model with a
characteristic moment magnitude M of 8.0, similar to the estimated magnitudes of the largest events in
1811-12 (Johnston, 1996a, 1996b) was assumed. A recurrence time of 1000 years for such an event
was used as an average value, considering the uncertainty in the magnitudes of pre-historic events.
An areal source zone was used for New Madrid for models 1-3, rather than spatially-smoothed historic
seismicity. This zone accounts for the hazard from New Madrid events with moment magnitudes less
than 7.5.
Charleston, South Carolina: An areal source zone was used to quantify the hazard from large
earthquakes. The extent of the areal source zone was constrained by the areal distribution of
paleoliquefaction locations, although the source zone does not encompass all the paleoliquefaction
sites. A characteristic rupture model of moment magnitude 7.3 earthquakes, based on the estimated
magnitude of the 1886 event (Johnston, 1996b) was assumed. For the M7.3 events a recurrence time
of 650 years was used, based on dates of paleoliquefaction events (Amick and Gelinas, 1991;
Obermeier et al., 1990; Johnston and Schweig, written comm., 1996).
Meers Fault: The Meers fault in southwestern Oklahoma was explicitly included. The segment of the
fault which has produced a Holocene scarp as described in Crone and Luza (1990) was used. A
characteristic moment magnitude of 7.0 and a recurrence time of 4000 years was used based on their
work.
Cheraw Fault: This eastern Colorado fault with Holocene faulting based on a study by Crone et al.
(1996) was included. The recurrence rate of this fault was obtained from a slip rate of 0.5 mm/yr. A
maximum magnitude of 7.1 was found from the fault length using the relations of Wells and
Coppersmith (1994).
Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone: The eastern Tennessee seismic zone is a linear trend of seismicity
that is most obvious for smaller events with magnitudes around 2 (see Powell et al., 1994). The
magnitude 3 and larger earthquakes tend to cluster in one part of this linear trend, so that hazard maps
are based just on smoothed mb3.
Wabash Valley: Recent work has identified several paleoearthquakes in the areas of southern Indiana
and Illinois based on widespread paleoliquefaction features (Obermeier et al., 1992). An areal zone
was used with a higher Mmax of 7.5 to account for such large events. The sum of the gridded a-values
in this zone calculated from model 1 produce a recurrence time of 2600 years for events with mb 6.5.
The recurrence rate of M6.5 and greater events is estimated to be about 4,000 years from the
paleoliquefaction dates (P. Munson and S. Obermeier, pers. comm., 1995), so it is not necessary to add
additional large events to augment models 1-3. The Wabash Valley Mmax zone in the maps is based on
the Wabash Valley fault zone.
Charlevoix, Quebec: As mentioned above, a 40 km by 70 km region surrounding this seismicity
cluster was assigned a b-value of 0.76, based on the work of Adams, Halchuck and Weichert. This bvalue was used in models 1-3.
Background source zones (Model 4). The background source zones (see Figure B5) are intended to
quantify seismic hazard in areas that have not had significant historic seismicity, but could very well
produce sizeable earthquakes in the future. They consist of a cratonic zone, an extended margin zone,
a Rocky Mountain zone, and a Colorado Plateau zone. The Rocky Mountain zone was not discussed
at any workshop, but is clearly defined by the Rocky Mountain front on the east and the areas of
336
extensional tectonics to the west, north and south. As stated above, the dividing line between the
cratonic and extended margin zone was drawn by Rus Wheeler based on the westward and northern
edge of rifting during the opening of the Iapetan ocean. One justification for having craton and
extended crust zones is the work done by Johnston (1994). They compiled a global survey of
earthquakes in cratonic and extended crust and found a higher seismicity rate (normalized by area) for
the extended areas.
For each background zone, a-values were determined by counting the number of mb3 and larger events
within the zone since 1924 and adjusting the rate to equal that since 1976. A b-value of 0.95 was used
for all the background zones, based on the b-value found for the entire CEUS.
Adaptive weighting for CEUS. The inclusion of background zones lowers the probabilistic ground
motions in areas of relatively high historic seismicity while raising the hazard to only low levels in
areas with no historic seismicity. The June 1996 versions of the maps include the background zones
using a weighting scheme that can vary locally depending on the level of historic seismicity in that cell
of the a-value grid. Spatially-varying weighting was suggested by Allin Cornell in the external review
of the interim maps. The adaptive weighting procedure avoids lowering the hazard in higher
seismicity areas to raise the hazard in low seismicity areas. This was implemented by looping through
the a-value grid and checking to see if the a-value for each cell from the historic seismicity was greater
than the a-value from the background zone. For the CEUS the a-value from the historic seismicity
was derived by weighting the rates from models 1, 2, and 3 by 0.5, 0.25, 0.25 respectively. If this
weighted sum was greater than the rate from the appropriate background zone, then the rate for that
cell was determined by weighting the rates from models 1-3 by 0.5, .25, .25 (i.e., historic seismicity
only, no background zone). If the weighted sum from the historic seismicity was less than the rate of
the background zone, then a weighting of 0.4, 0.2, 0.2, 0.2 for models 1-4, respectively (including the
background zone as model 4). This procedure does not make the rate for any cell lower than it would
be from the historic seismicity (models 1-3). It also incorporates the background zones in areas of low
historic seismicity. The total seismicity rate in the resulting a-value grid is only 10 percent larger than
the observed rate of mb3=s since 1976. This is not a major difference. Of course, this procedure
produces substantially higher ground motions (in terms of percentage increase) in the seismically quiet
areas as compared to no background zone. These values are still quite low in an absolute sense.
337
338
profile of a CEUS firm-rock site. A series of tables of ground motions and response spectral values as
a function of moment magnitude and distance was produced instead of an equation.
For CEUS hazard calculations for models 1-4, a source depth of 5.0 km was assumed when using the
USGS ground motion tables. Since a minimum hypocentral distance of 10 km is used in the USGS
tables, the probabilistic ground motions are insensitive to the choice of source depth. In the hazard
program, when hypocentral distances are less than 10 km the distance is set to 10 km when using the
tables. For the Toro et al. (1993) relations, the fictitious depths that they specify for each period are
used, so that the choice of source depth used in the USGS tables was not applied.
For both sets of ground motion relations, values of 0.75, 0.75, 0.75, and 0.80 were used for the natural
logarithms of the standard deviation of PGA, 0.2 sec, 0.3 sec, and 1.0 sec spectral responses,
respectively. These values are similar to the aleatory standard deviations reported to the Senior
Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (1996).
A cap in the median ground motions was placed on the ground motions within the hazard code. USGS
was concerned that the median ground motions of both the Toro et al. and the new USGS tables
became very large (> 2.5g PGA) for distances of about 10 km for the M 8.0 events for New Madrid.
Accordingly the median PGAs was capped at 1.5g. The median 0.3 and 0.2 sec values were capped
at 3.75g which was derived by multiplying the PGA cap by 2.5 (the WUS conversion factor). This
only affected the PGA values for the 2 percent PE in 50 year maps for the area directly above the three
fictitious faults for the New Madrid region. It does not change any of the values at Memphis. The
capping did not significantly alter the 0.3 and 0.2 sec values in this area. The PGA and spectral
response values did not change in the Charleston region from this capping. Note that the capping was
for the median values only. As the variability (sigma) of the ground motions was maintained in the
hazard code, values larger than the median were allowed. USGS felt that the capping recognizes that
values derived from point source simulations are not as reliable for M8.0 earthquakes at close-in
distances (< 20 km).
Additional notes for CEUS. One of the major outcomes of the new maps for the CEUS is that the
ground motions are about a factor of 2 to 3 times lower, on average, than the PGA values in
Algermissen et al. (1990) and the spectral values in Algermissen et al. (1991) and Leyendecker et al.
(1995). The primary cause of this difference is the magnitudes assigned to pre-instrumental
earthquakes in the catalog. Magnitudes of historic events used by Algermissen et al. were based on
Imax (maximum observed intensity), using magnitude-Imax relations derived from WUS earthquakes.
This overestimates the magnitudes of these events and, in turn, overestimates the rates of M4.9 and
larger events. The magnitudes of historic events used in the new maps were primarily derived by
Seeber and Armbruster (1991) from either felt area or Imax using relations derived from CEUS
earthquakes (Sibol et al., 1987). Thus, rates of M4.9 and larger events are much lower in the new
catalog, compared to those used for the previous USGS maps.
It is useful to compare the new maps to the source zones used in the EPRI (1986) study. For the areas
to the north and west of New Madrid, most of the six EPRI teams had three source zones in common:
1) the Nemaha Ridge in Kansas and Nebraska, 2) the Colorado-Great Lakes lineament extending from
Colorado to the western end of Lake Superior, and 3) a small fault zone in northern Illinois, west of
Chicago. Each of these source zones are apparent as higher hazard areas in the our maps. The
Nemaha Ridge is outlined in the maps because of magnitude 4 and 5 events occurring in the vicinity.
Portions of the Colorado-Great Lakes lineament show higher hazard in the map, particularly the
portion in South Dakota and western Minnesota. The portion of the lineament in eastern Minnesota
has been historically inactive, so is not apparent on the maps. The area in western Minnesota shows
some hazard because of the occurrence of a few magnitude 4 events since 1860. A recent paper by
Chandler (1995), argues that the locations and focal mechanisms of these earthquakes are not
compatible with them being on the lineament, which is expressed as the Morris Fault in this region.
The area in northern Illinois has relatively high hazard in the maps because of M4-5 events that have
occurred there.
339
Frankel (1995) also found good agreement in the mean PEs and hazard curves derived from models
1-3 and 4 and those produced by the EPRI (1986) study, when the same PGA attenuation relations
were used.
WESTERN UNITED STATES
The maps for the WUS include a cooperative effort with the California Division of Mines and
Geology. This was made possible, in part, because CDMG was doing a probabilistic map at the same
time the USGS maps were prepared. There was considerable cooperation in this effort. For example,
the fault data base used in the USGS maps was obtained from CDMG. Similarly USGS software was
made available to CDMG. The result
is that maps produced by both
agencies are the same.
The procedure for mapping hazard in
the WUS is shown in Figure B6. On
the left side, hazards are considered
from earthquakes with magnitudes less
than or equal to moment magnitude
7.0. For most of the WUS, two
alternative models are used: 1)
smoothed historical seismicity (weight
of 0.67) and 2) large background
zones (weight 0.33) based on broad
geologic criteria and workshop input.
Model 1 used a 0.1 degree source grid
to count number of events. The
determination of a-value was changed
somewhat from the CEUS, to
incorporate different completeness
times for different magnitude ranges.
The a-value for each grid cell was
calculated from the maximum
Figure B6 Seismic hazard models for California and the
likelihood method of Weichert (1980), western United States. Smoothed seismicity models are
based on events with magnitudes of
shown on the left and fault models are shown on the right.
4.0 and larger. The ranges used were M4.0 to 5.0 since 1963, M5.0 to 6.0 since 1930, and M6.0 and
larger since 1850. For the first two categories, completeness time was derived from plots of
cumulative number of events versus time. M3 events were not used in the WUS hazard calculations
since they are only complete since about 1976 for most areas and may not even be complete after 1976
for some areas. For California M4.0 to M5.0 since 1933, M5.0 to 6.0 since 1900, and M6.0 and larger
since 1850 were used. The catalog for California is complete to earlier dates compared to the catalogs
for the rest of the WUS (see below).
Another difference with the CEUS is that multiple models with different minimum magnitudes for the
a-value estimates (such as models 1-3 for the CEUS) were not used. The use of such multiple models
in the CEUS was partially motivated by the observation that some mb4 and mb5 events in the CEUS
occurred in areas with few mb3 events since 1924 (e.g., Nemaha Ridge events and western Minnesota
events). It was considered desirable to be able to give such mb4 and mb5 events extra weight in the
hazard calculation over what they would have in one run with a minimum magnitude of 3. In contrast
it appears that virtually all M5 and M6 events in the WUS have occurred in areas with numerous M4
events since 1965. There was also reluctance to use a WUS model with a-values based on a minimum
magnitude of 6.0, since this would tend to double count events that have occurred on mapped faults
included in Figure B6 right.
340
For model 1, the gridded a-values were smoothed with a Gaussian with a correlation distance of 50
km, as in model 1 for the CEUS. The hazard calculation from the gridded a-values differed from that
in the CEUS, because we considered fault finiteness in the WUS calculations. For each source grid
cell, a fictitious fault for magnitudes of 6.0 and larger was used. The fault was centered on the center
of the grid cell. The strike of the fault was random and was varied for each magnitude increment. The
length of the fault was determined from the relations of Wells and Coppersmith (1994). The fictitious
faults were taken to be vertical.
A maximum moment magnitude of 7.0 was used for models 1 and 2, except for four shear zones in
northeastern California and western Nevada described below. Of course, larger moment magnitudes
are included in the specific faults. A minimum moment magnitude of 5.0 were used for models 1 and
2. For each WUS site, the hazard calculation was done for source-site distances of 200 km and less,
except for the Cascadia subduction zone, where the maximum distance was 1000 km.
Separate hazard calculations for deep events (> 35 km) were done. These events were culled from the
catalogs. Their a-values were calculated separately from the shallow events. Different attenuation
relations were used.
Regional b-values were calculated based on the method of Weichert (1980), using events with
magnitudes of 4 and larger and using varying completeness times for different magnitudes.
Accordingly, a regional b-value of 0.8 was used in models 1 and 2 for the WUS runs based on shallow
events. For the deep events (> 35 km), an average b-value of 0.65 was found. This low b-value was
used in the hazard calculations for the deep events.
We used a b-value of 0.9 for most of California, except for the easternmost portion of California in our
basin and range background zone (see below). This b-value was derived by CDMG.
Faults. The hazard from about 500 Quaternary faults or fault segments was used for the maps. Faults
were considered where geologic slip rates have been determined or estimates of recurrence times have
been made from trenching studies. A table of the fault parameters used in the hazard calculations has
been compiled and is shown on the USGS Internet Web site. Figure B7 shows the faults used in the
maps. The numerous individuals who worked on compilations of fault data are too numerous to cite
here. They are cited, along with their contribution, in the map documentation (Frankel et al, 1996).
Recurrence models for faults. The hazard from specific faults is added to the hazard from the
seismicity as shown in Figure B6. Faults are divided into types A and B, roughly following the
nomenclature of WGCEP (1995). A fault is classified as A-type if there have been sufficient studies
of it to produce models of fault segmentation. In California the A-type faults are: San Andreas, San
Jacinto, Elsinore, Hayward, Rodgers Creek, and Imperial (M. Petersen, C. Cramer, and W. Bryant,
written comm., 1996). The only fault outside of California classified as an A-type is the Wasatch
Fault. Single-segment ruptures were assumed on the Wasatch Fault.
341
For the B-type faults, it was felt there were insufficient studies to warrant specific segmentation
boundaries. For these faults, the scheme of Petersen et al. (1996) was followed, using both
characteristic and Gutenberg-Richter (G-R; exponential) models of earthquake occurrence. These
recurrence models were weighted equally. The G-R model basically accounts for the possibility that a
fault is segmented and may rupture only part of its length. It was assumed that the G-R distribution
applies from a minimum moment magnitude of 6.5 up to a moment magnitude corresponding to
rupture of the entire fault length.
The procedure for calculating hazard using the G-R model involves looping through magnitude
increments. For each magnitude a rupture length is calculated using Wells and Coppersmith (1994).
Then a rupture zone of this length is floated along the fault trace. For each site, the appropriate
distance to the floating ruptures is found and the frequency of exceedance (FE) is calculated. The
FEs are then added for all the floating rupture zones.
As used by USGS, the characteristic earthquake model (Schwartz and Coppersmith, 1984) is actually
the maximum magnitude model of Wesnousky (1986). Here it is assumed that the fault only generates
earthquakes that rupture the entire fault. Smaller events along the fault would be incorporated by
models 1 and 2 with the distributed seismicity or by the G-R model described above.
It should be noted that using the G-R model generally produces higher probabilistic ground motions
than the characteristic earthquake model, because of the more frequent occurrence of earthquakes with
magnitudes of about 6.5.
Fault widths (except for California) were determined by assuming a seismogenic depth of 15 km and
then using the dip, so that the width equaled 15 km divided by the sine of the dip. For most normal
faults a dip of 60 degrees is assumed. Dip directions were taken from the literature. For the Wasatch,
Lost River, Beaverhead, Lemhi, and Hebgen Lake faults, the dip angles were taken from the literature
(see fault parameter table on Web site). Strike-slip faults were assigned a dip of 90 degrees. For
California faults, widths were often defined using the depth of seismicity (J. Lienkaemper, written
comm., 1996; M. Petersen, C. Cramer, and W. Bryant, written comm., 1996). Fault length was
calculated from the total length of the digitized fault trace.
Special cases. There are a number of special cases which need to be described.
Blind thrusts in the Los Angeles area: Following Petersen et al. (1996) and as discussed at the
Pasadena workshop, 0.5 weight was assigned to blind thrusts in the L.A. region, because of the
uncertainty in their slip rates and in whether they were indeed seismically active. These faults are the
Elysian Park thrust and the Compton thrust. The Santa Barbara Channel thrust (Shaw and Suppe,
1994) also has partial weight, based on the weighting scheme developed by CDMG.
Offshore faults in Oregon: A weight of 0.05 was assigned to three offshore faults in Oregon identified
by Goldfinger et al. (in press) and tabulated by Geomatrix (1995): the Wecoma, Daisy Bank and Alvin
Canyon faults. It was felt the uncertainty in the seismic activity of these faults warranted a low
weight, and the 0.05 probability of activity decided in Geomatrix (1995) was used. A 0.5 weight was
assigned to the Cape Blanco blind thrust.
Lost River, Lemhi and Beaverhead faults in Idaho: It was assumed that the magnitude of the Borah
Peak event (M7.0) represented a maximum magnitude for these faults. As with (3), the characteristic
model floated a M7.0 along each fault. The G-R model considered magnitudes between 6.5 and 7.0.
Note that using a larger maximum magnitude would lower the probabilistic ground motions, because it
would increase the recurrence time.
Hurricane and Sevier-Torroweap Faults in Utah and Arizona: The long lengths of these faults (about
250 km) implied a maximum magnitude too large compared to historical events in the region.
Therefore a maximum magnitude of M7.5 was chosen. The characteristic and G-R models were
implemented as in case (3). Other faults (outside of California) where the Mmax was determined to be
greater than 7.5 based on the fault length were assigned a maximum magnitude of 7.5.
343
Wasatch Fault in Utah: Recurrence times derived from dates of paleoearthquakes by Black et al.
(1995) and the compilation of McCalpin and Nishenko (1996) were used
Hebgen Lake Fault in Montana: A characteristic moment magnitude of 7.3 based on the 1959 event
(Doser, 1985) was used.
Short faults: All short faults with characteristic magnitudes of less than 6.5 were treated with the
characteristic recurrence model only (weight = 1). No G-R relation was used. If a fault had a
characteristic magnitude less than 6.0, it was not used.
Seattle Fault: The characteristic recurrence time was fixed at 5000 years, which is the minimum
recurrence time apparent from paleoseismology (R. Bucknam, pers. comm., 1996). Using the
characteristic magnitude of 7.1 derived from the length and a 0.5 mm/yr slip rate yielded a
characteristic recurrence time of about 3000 years.
Eglington fault near Las Vegas: The recurrence time for this fault was fixed at 14,000 years, similar
to the recurrence noted in Wyman et al. (1993).
Shear Zones in Eastern California and Western Nevada: Areal shear zones were added along the
western border of Nevada extending from the northern end of the Death Valley fault through the
Tahoe-Reno area through northeast California ending at the latitude of Klamath Falls, Oregon. A
shear rate of 4 mm/yr to zone 1, and 2 mm/yr to zones 2 and 3 was assigned. The shear rate in zone 1
is comparable to the shear rate observed on the Death Valley fault, but which is not observed in
mapped faults north of the Death Valley fault (C. dePolo and J. Anderson, pers. comm., 1996). For
the Foothills Fault system (zone 4) a shear rate of 0.05 mm/yr was used. a-values were determined for
these zones in the manner described in Ward(1994). For zones 1 through 3, a magnitude range of 6.5
to 7.3 was used. For zone 4, a magnitude range of 6.0 to 7.0 was used. The maximum magnitude for
the calculation of hazard from the smoothed historic seismicity was lowered in these zones so that it
did not overlap with these magnitude ranges. Fictitious faults with a fixed strike were used in the
hazard calculation for these zones. Again, use of these areal zones in California was agreed upon after
consultation with CDMG personnel.
Cascadia subduction zone. Two alternative scenarios for great earthquakes on the Cascadia
subduction zone were considered. For both scenarios it was assumed that the recurrence time of
rupture at any point along the subduction zone was 500 years. This time is in or near most of the
average intervals estimated from coastal and offshore evidence (see Atwater and Hemphill-Haley,
1996; Geomatrix, 1995; B. Atwater, written comm., 1996). Individual intervals, however, range from
a few hundred years to about 1000 years (Atwater et al., 1995).
The first scenario is for moment magnitude 8.3 earthquakes to fill the subduction zone every 500
years. Based on a rupture length of 250 km (see Geomatrix, 1995) for an M8.3 event and the 1100 km
length of the entire subduction zone, this requires a repeat time of about 110 years for an M8.3 event.
However, no such event has been observed in the historic record of about 150 years. This M8.3
scenario is similar to what was used in the 1994 edition of the USGS maps (see Leyendecker et al.,
1995) and it is comparable to the highest weighted scenario in Geomatrix (1995). A M8.3 rupture
zone was floated along the strike of the subduction zone to calculate the hazard. A weight of 0.67 was
assigned for this scenario in the maps.
The second scenario used is for a moment magnitude 9.0 earthquake to rupture the entire Cascadia
subduction zone every 500 years on average. No compelling reason was seen to rule out such a
scenario. This scenario would explain the lack of M8 earthquakes in the historic record. It is also
consistent with a recent interpretation of Japanese tsunami records by Satake et al. (1996). By ruling
out alternative source regions, Satake et al. (1996) reported that a tsunami in 1700 could have been
produced by a M9.0 earthquake along the Cascadia subduction zone. A weight of 0.33 was assigned
to the M9.0 scenario in the maps.
The subduction zone was specified as a dipping plane striking north-south from about Cape
Mendocino to 50 degrees north. It was assumed that the plane reached 20 km depth at a longitude of
344
123.8 degrees west, just east of the coastline. This corresponds roughly to the 20 km depth contour
drawn by Hyndman and Wang (1995) and is consistent with the depth and location of the Petrolia
earthquake in northern California. A dip of 10 degrees was assigned to the plane and a width of 90
km. The seismogenic portion of the plane was assumed to extend to a depth of 20 km.
Background source zones. The background source zones for the WUS (model 2) were based on
broad geologic criteria and were developed by discussion at the Salt Lake City (SLC) workshop
(except for the Cascades source zone). These zones are shown in Figure B8. Note that there are no
background source zones west of the Cascades and west of the Basin and Range province. For those
areas, model 1 was used with a weight of 1.
west Texas. One can see the effect of this large background zone by noting the contours on the hazard
maps in these areas. The prominence of the background zones in the maps is determined by the
weighting of models 1 and 2.
Adaptive weighting for the WUS. The adaptive weighting procedure was used to include the
background zones in the WUS without lowering the hazard values in the high seismicity areas. As
with the CEUS, the a-value was checked for each source cell to see whether the rate from the historic
seismicity exceeded that from the appropriate background zone. If it did, the a-value was used from
the historic seismicity. If the historic seismicity a-value was below the background value, then a rate
derived from using 0.67 times the historic rate plus 0.33 times the background rate was used. This
does not lower the a-value in any cell lower than the value from the historic seismicity. The total
seismicity rate in this portion of the WUS in the new a-value grid is 16 percent above the historic rate
(derived from M4 and greater events since 1963).
WUS catalogs. For the WUS, except for California, the Stover and Coffman (1993), Stover, Reagor,
and Algermissen (1984), PDE, and DNAG catalogs (with the addition of Alan Sanfords catalog for
New Mexico) were used. For California, a catalog compiled by Mark Petersen of California Division
of Mines and Geology (CDMG) was used. Mueller et al. (1996) describes the processing of the
catalogs, the removal of aftershocks, and the assignment of magnitudes. Utah coal-mining events
were removed from the catalog (see Mueller et al., 1996). Explosions at NTS and their aftershocks
were also removed from the catalog.
Attenuation relations for WUS. These relations are discussed below.
Crustal Events: For spectral response acceleration, three equally-weighted attenuation relations were
used: (1) Boore, Joyner, and Fumal (BJF; 1993, 1994a) with later modifications to differentiate thrust
and strike-slip faulting (Boore et al., 1994b) and (2) Sadigh et al. (1993). For (1) ground motions were
calculated for a site with average shear-wave velocity of 760 m/sec in the top 30m, using the relations
between shear-wave velocity and site amplification in Boore et al. (1994a). For (2) their rock values
were used. Joyner (1995) reported velocity profiles compiled by W. Silva and by D. Boore showing
that WUS rock sites basically spanned the NEHRP B/C boundary. When calculating ground motions
for each fault, the relations appropriate for that fault type (e.g, thrust) were used. All of the relations
found higher ground motions for thrust faults compared with strike slip faults.
All calculations included the variability of ground motions. For 1) the sigma values reported in BJF
(1994b) were used. For 2) the magnitude-dependent sigmas found in those studies were used.
The distance measure from fault to site varies with the attenuation relation and this was accounted for
in the hazard codes (see B.5 for additional detail on distance measures).
Deep events (> 35 km): Most of these events occurred beneath the Puget Sound region, although
some were in northwestern California. For these deep events, only one attenuation relation was used B
that is, that developed by Geomatrix (1993; with recent modification for depth dependence provided
by R. Youngs, written comm., 1996), which is based on empirical data of deep events recorded on
rock sites. The relations of Crouse (1991) were used because they were for soil sites. It was found
that the ground motions from Geomatrix (1993) are somewhat smaller than those from Crouse (1991),
by an amount consistent with soil amplification. These events were placed at a depth of 40 km for
calculation of ground motions.
Cascadia subduction zone: For M8.3 events on the subduction zone, two attenuation relations (with
equal weights) were used following the lead of Geomatrix (1993): 1) Sadigh et al. (1993) for crustal
thrust earthquakes and 2) Geomatrix (1993) for interface earthquakes. For the M9.0 scenario, Sadigh
et al. (1993) formulas could not be used since they are invalid over M8.5. Therefore, only Geomatrix
(1993) was used. Again the values from Geomatrix (1993) were somewhat smaller than the soil
values in Crouse (1991).
346
ALASKA
The basic procedure, shown in Figure B9, for constructing the Alaska hazard maps is similar to that
previously described for the WUS. The maps have been completed and both the maps and
documentation (USGS, 1998a, 1998b) have been placed on the USGS internet site
(http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/); printing of the maps is in progress.
Faults. The hazard from nine faults
was used for the maps (Figure B10).
Faults were included in the map when
an estimated slip rate was available.
The seismic hazard associated with
faults not explicitly included in the
map is captured to a large degree by
the smoothed seismicity model.
Specific details on the fault
parameters are given in USGS.,
1997a. All of the faults except one
were strike-slip faults.
Recurrence models for faults. As
was done for the western U.S., faults
were divided into types A and B. The
fault treatment was the same as the
WUS. Type A faults were the Queen
Charlotte, Fairweather offshore,
Fairweather onshore, and Transition
fault. Type B faults included western
Denali, eastern Denali, Totshunda,
and Castle Mountain.
347
Figure B10 Faults included in the maps. Faults are shown with different line types for
clarity. Dipping faults are shown as closed polygons.
348
349
Figure B12 Probabilistic map of 0.2 sec spectral response acceleration with a 2%
probability of exceedance in 50 years. The reference site material has a shear wave
velocity of 750 m/sec.
Figure B13 Probabilistic map of 1.0 sec spectral response acceleration with a 2%
probability of exceedance in 50 years. The reference site material has a shear wave
velocity of 750 m/sec.
350
earthquake magnitude
bSS, bRS
GSS
GRS
bV
VA
VS
(d2 +h2)2
closest horizontal distance from the site of interest to the surface projection of the
rupture surface, see Figure B14
Coefficients determined by regression are tabulated in the reports describing the attenuation equation.
351
earthquake magnitude
Factor for fault type, 1.0 for strike-slip faults, 1.2 for reverse/thrust faulting, 1.09
for oblique faults
The distance measures are shown in Figure B14 and are discussed in more detail below.
The computation of spectral response (or any ground motion parameter) is a relatively simple matter
for a specific site (or specific distance from a fault) but can become complex when preparing contours
since it is difficult to calculate the specific distance at which a particular ground motion occurs. This
is due to the complexity of the two attenuation functions and the need to combine their results. Since
the attenuation functions were weighted equally, each contributes equally to the ground motion at a
site. Deterministic contours were determined by preparing attenuation tables, that is the spectral
response was computed at various distances from the fault or the fault ends for each earthquake
magnitude. Contours for specific values were then drawn by selecting the table for the appropriate
magnitude and determining, using interpolation, the distance from the fault for a given spectral
acceleration. This procedure required, as a minimum, one attenuation table for each fault. Depending
on the fault geometry, more than one table was needed. In order to illustrate this the strike-slip fault
is discussed first, followed by a discussion of dipping faults.
352
Figure B14 Measures of distance for strike-slip and dipping faults. A cross
section of strike-slip fault is shown in figure (a) and the shape of a typical
deterministic contour is shown in figure (b). A dipping fault is shown in figure
(c) and the shape of a typical deterministic contour is shown in figure (d).
Strike-slip faults: The strike-slip fault, shown in Figure B14a, b is the simplest introduction to
application of the SDPG rules. The distance measures are shown for each attenuation function in
Figure B14a. The Boore-Joyner-Fumal equation uses the distance, d4. The term r in equation includes
d4 and the fictitious depth h. Since h is not zero, r > d4, even if the term y in Figure B14a is zero. The
Sadigh et al. equation measures the distance, D, as the closest distance to the rupture surface. In this
case to the top of the rupture. If the depth y is zero, then d4 = D4.
It makes little difference in the computations if the fault rupture plane begins at the surface or at some
distance below the surface. For the strike-slip fault the contour for a particular spectral acceleration is
a constant distant from the fault and the contour is as shown in Figure B14b. One attenuation table
(including the effects of both attenuation equations) can be used for either side of the fault and at the
fault ends.
Dipping faults: The dipping fault, shown in Figures B14c and d, is the most complex case for
preparing deterministic contours. The distance measures are shown for each attenuation function in
Figure B14c. As before, it is a simple matter to compute the spectral values at a specific site, but not
353
as simple to compute the distance at which a specific spectral acceleration occurs. This is particularly
true at the end of the fault.
On the left side of the fault shown in Figure B14c, an attenuation table is prepared, much as in the case
of the strike-slip fault. This table may also be used to determine the contour around a portion of the
fault end as shown in Figure B14d. In this case it is simply one-quarter of a circle.
A separate attenuation table must be prepared for the right side of the fault as shown in Figure B14d.
Since d or D is measured differently, depending on location x, calculations must keep track of whether
or not the location is inside or outside of the surface fault projection. Note that the term d is zero when
the location x falls within the surface projection, but the fictitious depth h is not. Outside the fault
projection, the distance d is measured from the edge of the projection. The distance D is calculated
differently, as illustrated in Figure B14c, depending on location but it is always the closest distance to
the fault rupture surface.
At the ends of the fault, an attenuation grid was prepared to determine the contour shape shown dotted
in Figure B14d. The contour in this area was digitized using the gridded values and combined with
the remainder of the contour determined from the left and right attenuation tables. This need for
digitizing a portion of the contour greatly increased the time required to prepare each of the contours
for dipping faults. In short, each dipping fault required
two attenuation tables and an attenuation grid to
prepare each deterministic contour. Thus preparation
of each contour is far more time-consuming than
preparing a contour for a strike-slip fault. Each
contour is unsymmetrical around the fault, the amount
of asymmetry depends on the angle of dip.
It can be argued that the knowledge of fault locations
and geometry does not warrant this level of effort.
However, it was considered necessary in order to
follow the concept of repeatability in preparing the
maps.
Combining deterministic contours: Where two or
more faults are nearby, as in Figure B15a, the
deterministic contours were merged (depending on
amplitudes) as shown in Figure B15b. The merging
resulted in the sharp corners shown in the figure.
Although it can be argued that these intersections
should be smoothed, it was believed that maintaining
the shape reflected the decision to use deterministic
contours.
Combining deterministic and probabilistic
contours. The SDPG decision to use a combination of
deterministic and probabilistic contours, although
simple in principle, led to number of problems in
preparing the contour maps.
354
355
California are discussed below. Each example is illustrated with a three-part figure. Part (a) shows
both probabilistic contours (dashed) and deterministic contours (solid) for each fault which is also
shown. Part (b) shows the maximum considered earthquake results produced by following the SDPG
rules. Part (c) shows how part (b) was edited for the final map.
Example 1: The first example in Figure B17 illustrates the occurrence of gaps in the deterministic
contours around a fault and the halt of a deterministic contour before the end of a fault. When the
probabilistic contours and deterministic contours shown in Figure B17a are combined, a gap in the
deterministic contours occurs in the vicinity of 34.6E and 118.8E. Similarly the deterministic contours
stop prior to the end of the fault around 34.65E and 119.4E. Both of these are shown in Figure B17b.
356
357
Example 2: The second example in Figure B18 illustrates the occurrence of many faults at different
orientations to each other and with different return times. Merging of the complex set of contours is
shown in Figure B18b. The contours are greatly simplified. Some small plateaus are shown along the
150 percent contour, as is a gap along one of the faults around 34.0E and 116.35E. The gap was edited
as in example 1. The small plateaus were edited out using the judgment that their presence was
inconsequential (less than a few percent effect on the maps) and unnecessarily complicated an already
complicated map.
Another problem created was that some of the faults have portions of the fault, with a specific
acceleration value, in areas where the contours are less than the fault value. An example occurs with
the fault labeled 248 in the vicinity of 34.4E and 117.2E. A footnote was added to the maximum
considered earthquake maps to the effect that the fault value was only to be used in areas where it
exceeded the surrounding contours. Although other approaches are possible, such as showing the
unused portion of the fault dashed, the full length of the faults are shown solid in the maps.
As shown in Figure B18b, a sawtooth contour around 34.15o and 116.3o results from application of
committee rules. Although this appears to be a candidate for smoothing, it was not done as shown in
Figure B18c. Once again there are several possible ways to smooth but it was not done in the interest
of repeatability.
358
359
Figure B19 Hazard curves for selected cities. The curves are normalized to 2% in 50 years.
360
Figure B20 Effect on the probability level of multiplying the spectral acceleration by 2/3
Interpolation. Linear interpolation between contours is permitted using the maximum considered
earthquake maps. To facilitate interpolation, spot values have been provided inside closed contours of
increasing or decreasing values of the design parameter. Additional spot values have been provided
where linear interpolation would be difficult. Values have also been provided along faults in the
deterministic areas to aid in interpolation.
Hawaii. The Hawaii State Earthquake Advisory Board (HSEAB), in its ballot on the 1997 Provisions,
proposed different maps from those included in the original BSSC ballot. The HSEABs comments
were based in part on recent work done to propose changes in seismic zonation for the 1994 and 1997
Uniform Building Code. The HSEAB also was concerned that in early 1998 the USGS would be
completing maps that would be more up to date then those included in the original BSSC ballot.
Essentially, the HSEABs recommendation was that the maps it submitted or the new USGS maps
should be used for Hawaii. The USGS maps were completed in March 1998 and were reviewed by
the HSEAB, including proposals for incorporation of deterministic contours where the ground motions
exceed the plateau levels described previously. The maps were revised in response to review
comments and the modified design maps are included as part of the Provisions.
Briefly, the probabilistic maps were prepared using a USGS methodology similar to that used for the
western United States (Klein et. al.). Two attenuation functions were used: Sadigh as described
earlier and Munson and Thurber, which incorporates Hawaii data. The Hawaii contour maps
(Provisions Map 10) are probabilistic except for two areas on the island of Hawaii. The two areas
(outlined by the heavy border on Map 10) are located on the western and southeastern portion of the
island. The two areas are defined by horizontal rupture planes at a 9 km depth. Within these zones,
the spectral accelerations are constant. The western zone uses a magnitude 7.0 event while the
southwestern zones uses a magnitude 8.2 event. The deterministic values inside the zone and for the
contours were calculated as described in earlier sections.
361
Additional maximum considered earthquake ground motion maps. Maps for Puerto Rico and the
U.S. Virgin islands were prepared using the USGS methodology described previously with
modifications and attenuations appropriate for the region as described by Mueller, et. al. The two
maximum considered earthquake spectral acceleration maps for the region are entirely probabilistic
since values did not exceed the thresholds requiring incorporation of deterministic values. Although
new probabilistic maps were not available for Guam and Tutuila, maximum considered earthquake
maps were required for use by the Provisions. Maximum considered earthquake spectral response
maps for these areas were prepared as follows.
Maps for Guam and Tutuila were prepared using the 1994 NEHRP maps. These were for
approximately 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. The ratio of PGA for 2 percent in 50
years to 10 percent in 50 years for the new USGS maps is about two. Accordingly maps for these
areas were converted to 2 percent in 50 year maps by multiplying by two. These maps were then
converted to spectral maps by using the factors described below.
A study of the ratios of the 0.2 sec and 1.0 sec spectral responses to PGA was done. Although
approximate, the ratios were about 2.25 to 2.5 for the 0.2 sec spectral acceleration and about 1.0 for
the 1.0 sec response. Thus PGA for the above regions was converted to spectral acceleration by
multiplying PGA by 2.5 for the 0.2 sec response and by 1.0 for the 1.0 sec response. It should be
noted that the multiplier for the 1.0 sec response varied over a wider range than the 0.2 sec response
multiplier. It should be used cautiously.
REFERENCES
Adams, J., D. H. Weichert, S. Halchuk, and P. W. Basham. 1996. Trial seismic hazard maps of
Canada-1995: final values for selected Canadian cities, Geological Survey of Canada, Open File
3283.
Algermissen, S. T., D. M. Perkins, P. C. Thenhaus, S. L. Hanson, and B. L. Bender. 1990.
Probabilistic Earthquake Acceleration and Velocity Maps for the United States and Puerto Rico, U.S.
Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2120.
Algermissen, S. T., E. V. Leyendecker, G. A. Bollinger, N. C. Donovan, J. E. Ebel, W. B. Joyner,
R. W. Luft, and J. P. Singh. 1991. Probabilistic Ground-motion Hazard Maps of Response Spectral
Ordinates for the United States, in Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Seismic
Ordinates for the United States, Stanford Univ., v. II, pp. 687-694.
Amick , D., and R. Gelinas. 1991. The Search for Evidence of Large Prehistoric Earthquakes along
the Atlantic Seaboard, Science, v. 251, pp. 655-658.
Atwater, B .F., and E. Hemphill-Haley. 1996. Preliminary estimates of recurrence intervals for great
earthquakes of the past 3500 years at northeastern Willapa Bay, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey,
Open-file report 96-001, 88pp.
Atwater, B., A. Nelson, J. Clague, G. Carver, D. Yamaguchi, P. Bobrowsky, J. Bourgeois, M.
Darienzo, W. Grant, S. Palmer, C. Peterson, and M. Reinhart. 1995. Summary of coastal geologic
evidence for past great earthquakes at the Cascadia subduction zone, Earthquake Spectra, v. 11, pp.118.
Black, B. D., W. R. Lund, and B. H. Mayes. 1995. Large earthquakes on the Salt Lake City segment
of the Wasatch Fault Zone--summary of new information from the South Fork Dry Creek site, Salt
Lake County, Utah, in Environmental and Engineering Geology of the Wasatch Front Region, W. R.
Lund, ed., Utah Geological Association Publication 24, 1995.
362
Boore, D. M., W. B. Joyner, and T. E. Fumal. 1993. Estimation of response spectra and peak
accelerations from western North American earthquakes: an interim report, U.S. Geological Survey
open-file report 93-509.
Boore, D. M., W. B. Joyner, and T. E. Fumal. 1994a. Estimation of response spectra and peak
accelerations from western North American earthquakes: an interim report Part 2, U.S. Geological
Survey open-file report 94-127.
Boore, D. M., W. B. Joyner, and T. E. Fumal. 1994b. Ground motion estimates for strike- and
reverse-slip faults pre-print.
Boore, D. M., W. B. Joyner, and T. E. Fumal. 1997. Equations for estimating horizontal response
spectra and peak acceleration from western North American earthquakes: a summary of recent work,
Seismological Research Letters, v. 68, no. 1, pp. 128-153.
Chandler, V. W. 1995. The west-central Minnesota earthquake of June 5, 1993: an opportunity to reexamine seismicity near the Morris Fault, Seism. Res. Lets, v. 66, no. 6, pp. 113-121.
Crone, A. J., and K. V. Luza. 1990. Style and Timing of Holocene Surface Faulting on the Meers
Fault, Southwestern Oklahoma, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 102, pp. 1-17.
Crone, A., M. Machete, L. Bradley and S. Mahal. 1996. Holocene Surface Faulting on the Cheraw
Fault, Southeastern Colorado, U.S. Geological Survey, MF map, in press.
Crouse, C. B. 1991. Ground-motion attenuation equations for earthquakes on the Cascadia
subduction zone, Earthquake Spectra, v. 7, p. 201.
Doser, D. I. 1985. Source parameters and faulting processes of the 1959 Hebgen Lake, Montana,
earthquake sequence, J. Gaffes. Res., v. 90, pp. 4537-4556.
Electric Power Research Institute. 1986. Seismic hazard methodology for the central and eastern
United States, 10 volumes, EPRI report NP-4726, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto.
Edge, K. M., B. A. Scheol, and I. Po Lam. 1992. Development of seismic maps for Arizona, Arizona
Dept. of Transportation, report no. FHA-AZ92-344.
Frankel, A. 1995. Mapping seismic hazard in the Central and Eastern United States, Seismological
Research Letters, v. 66, no. 4, pp. 8-21.
Frankel A., C. Mueller, T. Barnhard, D. Perkins, E. Leyendecker, N. Dickman, S. Hanson, and M.
Hopper. 1996. National Seismic Hazard Maps, June 1996: Documentation, U.S. Geological Survey,
Open-file Report 96-532.
Frankel A., C. Mueller, T. Barnhard, D. Perkins, E. Leyendecker, N. Dickman, S. Hanson, and M.
Hopper. 1997a. Seismic - Hazard Maps for the Conterminous United States: U.S. Geological
Survey, Open-file Report 97-130, 12 sheets, scale 1:7,000,000.
Frankel A., C. Mueller, T. Barnhard, D. Perkins, E. Leyendecker, N. Dickman, S. Hanson, and M.
Hopper. 1997b. Seismic - Hazard Maps for the California, Nevada and Western Arizona/Utah: U.S.
Geological Survey, Open-file Report 97-130, 12 sheets, scale 1:2,000,000.
Geomatrix Consultants. 1993. Seismic margin earthquake for the Trojan site: final unpublished
report prepared for Portland General Electric Trojan Nuclear Plant, Rainier, Oregon. Note: tables of
these attenuation relationships are included in Geomatrix , 1995.
Geomatrix Consultants. 1995. Seismic design mapping state of Oregon, Final Report prepared for
Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, Oregon.
Goldfinger, C., L. D. Kulm, R. S. Yeats, B. Applegate, M. MacKay, and G. R.Cochrane in press.
Active strike-slip faulting and folding of the Cascadia plate boundary and forearc in central and
northern Oregon, in Rogers, A. M., W. J. Kockelman, G. Priest, and T. J. Walsh, eds., Assessing and
363
reducing earthquake hazards in the Pacific northwest, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1560.
Hyndman, R. D., and K. Wang. 1995. The rupture zone of Cascadia great earthquakes from current
deformation and the thermal regime, J. Gaffes. Res., v. 100, pp. 22,133-22,154.
Johnston, A. 1994. Moment magnitude assessment of stable continental earthquakes, Part I:
instrumental seismicity, pre-print, published with revised relations in Gaffes. J. Int., [1996], v. 124, pp.
381-414.
Johnston, A. 1996a. Moment Magnitude Assessment of Stable Continental Earthquakes, Part 2:
Historical Seismicity, Gaffes. J. Int., v. 125, pp. 639-678.
Johnston, A. 1996b. Seismic Moment Assessment of Stable Continental Earthquakes, Part 3: 18111812 New Madrid, 1886 Charleston, and 1755 Lisbon, submitted to Gaffes. J. Int.
Johnston, A. C., K. J. Coppersmith, L. R. Kanter, and C. A. Cornell. 1994. The earthquakes of stable
continental regions: assessment of large earthquake potential, EPRI TR-102261, J. F. Schneider, ed.,
Electric Power Research Institute, 309 pp.
Johnston, A. C., and E. S. Schweig. 1996. The enigma of the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811-1812,
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, v. 24, pp. 339-384.
Joyner, W. B. 1995. Advocacy Paper #4, Soil is the most appropriate reference site condition, in
ATC 35-2, Preprints: National Earthquake Ground Motion Mapping Workshop, Applied Technology
Council.
Leyendecker, E. V., D. M. Perkins, S. T. Algermissen, P. C. Thenhaus, and S. L. Hanson. 1995.
USGS Spectral Response Maps and Their Relationship with Seismic Design Forces in Building Codes,
U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 95-596.
Lienkaemper, J. J. 1996. Fault parameter compilation for northern California, in preparation.
Martin, G. R., and R. Dobry. 1994. Earthquake site response and seismic code provisions, NCEER
Bulletin, v. 8, pp. 1-6.
Mueller, C., M. Hopper, and A. Frankel. 1996. Preparation of earthquake catalogs for the 1996
national seismic hazard maps: documentation, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, in review.
Mueller, C., M. A. Frankel, J. Lahr, and M. Wyss. 1997. Preparation of earthquake catalogs for the
National Seismic Hazard Maps: Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, in review.
Mueller, C., et. al., 2003, Seismic Hazard maps for Puerto Rico: U.S. Geological Survey Map I-abcd.
Mueller, C., et. al., 2003 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard maps of Puerto Rico: U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 03-xx,yy p.
Obermeier, S. F., R. B. Jacobson, J. P. Smoote, R. E. Weems, G. S. Gohn, J. E. Monroe, and D. S.
Powers. 1990. Earthquake-induced Liquefaction Features in the Coastal Setting of South Carolina
and in the Fluvial Setting of the New Madrid Seismic Zone, U.S. Geological Survey, Prof. Paper
1504, 44 pp.
Obermeier, S. F., P. J. Munson, C. A. Munson, J. R. Martin, A .D. Frankel, T. L. Youd, and E. C.
Pond. 1992. Liquefaction Evidence for Strong Holocene Earthquakes in the Wabash Valley of
Indiana-Illinois, Seismological Research Letters, v. 63, pp. 321-336.
Petersen, M. D., and S. G. Wesnousky. 1994. Fault slip rates and earthquake histories for active
faults in southern California, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., v. 84, pp. 1608-1649.
Petersen, M. D., C. H. Cramer, W. A. Bryant, M. S. Reichle, and T. R. Toppozada. 1996. Preliminary
hazard assessment for Los Angeles, Ventura, and Orange counties, California, affected by the 17
January 1994 Northridge earthquake, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., v. 86, pp. S247-S261.
364
365
Wheeler, R. L. 1995. Earthquakes and the Cratonward Limit of Iapetan Faulting in Eastern North
America, Geology, v. 23, pp. 105-108.
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities. 1995. Seismic hazards in southern
California: probable earthquakes, 1994 to 2024, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., v. 85, pp. 379-439.
Wyman, R.V., M. Karakouzian, V. Bax-Valentine, D. B. Slemmons, L. Peterson, and S. Palmer.
1993. Geology of Las Vegas, Nevada, Bull. Assoc. of Engineer. Geologists, v. XXX, pp. 33-78.
Youngs, R., Chiou, W. Silva, and J. Humphrey. 1997. Strong ground motion attenuation relationships
for subduction zone earthquakes, Seismological Research Letters, v. 68, no. 1, pp. 180-18.
366
THE COUNCIL:
PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES
367
374
INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
The BSSC continues in its efforts to stimulate
widespread use of the Provisions. In addition
to the issuance of a variety of publications that
complement the Provisions, over the past
decade the BSSC has developed materials for
use in and promoted the conduct of a series of
seminars on application of the Provisions
among relevant professional associations.
In September 1997, NIBS entered into a 60month indefinite quantity contract with FEMA
for conduct of the BSSCs information
dissemination. The first task orders issued
under the contract charge the BSSC to increase
its capability to respond to requests for
technical assistance relating to the Provisions,
380
382
EXISTING BUILDINGS
NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, 1997, FEMA 273
NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings: Commentary, 1997, FEMA 274
Case Studies: An Assessment of the NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,
1999, FEMA 343
Planning for Seismic Rehabilitation: Societal Issues, 1998, FEMA 275
Example Applications of the NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, 1999,
FEMA 276
NEHRP Handbook of Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, 1992, FEMA
172
384
NEHRP Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, 1992, FEMA 178
An Action Plan for Reducing Earthquake Hazards of Existing Buildings, 1985, FEMA 90
MULTIHAZARD
An Integrated Approach to Natural Hazard Risk Mitigation, 1995, FEMA 261/2-95
LIFELINES
Abatement of Seismic Hazards to Lifelines: An Action Plan, 1987, FEMA 142
Abatement of Seismic Hazards to Lifelines: Proceedings of a Workshop on Development of An Action
Plan, 6 volumes:
Papers on Water and Sewer Lifelines, 1987, FEMA 135
Papers on Transportation Lifelines, 1987, FEMA 136
Papers on Communication Lifelines, 1987, FEMA 137
Papers on Power Lifelines, 1987, FEMA 138
Papers on Gas and Liquid Fuel Lifelines, 1987, FEMA 139
Papers on Political, Economic, Social, Legal, and Regulatory Issues and General Workshop
Presentations, 1987, FEMA 143
(February 2004)
385