Sei sulla pagina 1di 39

Changes to the 2016 Edition of ASCE 7

J. G. (Greg) Soules, P.E., S.E. Principal Engineer – CB&I Inc. Vice Chair, ASCE 7-16 Main Committee

of ASCE 7 J. G. (Greg) Soules, P.E., S.E. Principal Engineer – CB&I Inc. Vice Chair,

While using ASCE 7, please keep in mind the old adage “A camel is a horse designed by committee.”

old adage “A camel is a horse designed by committee.” 61 s t Annual Structural Engineering

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Changes to Chapter 1 (General)

We have changed the title of the document!

ASCE 7-16 will be known as:

Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Changes to Chapter 1 (General)

ASCE 7 has for quite some time contained more than just design loads.

Chapter 1 contains a Risk Category Table, Strength and Stiffness requirements, performance-based design requirements, serviceability requirements, and General Structural Integrity provisions.

The flood chapter makes an explicit declaration that the effects of scour and erosion be considered.

The rain chapter places requirements on the drainage and consideration of ponding instability.

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Changes to Chapter 1 (General)

ASCE 7 has for quite some time contained more than just design loads.

The Atmospheric Ice section contains a specific design procedure for the consideration of ice loads.

The Earthquake chapters contains requirements on analysis, structural configuration directives, and prohibits some structural systems and detailing methods.

Appendix C contains serviceability requirements.

The scope and commentary are also revised to reflect this change in title.

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Changes to Chapter 1 (General)

Reliability Basis for use in Performance-Based Design moved from Commentary to Provisions.

Design moved from Commentary to Provisions. 61 s t Annual Structural Engineering Conference

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Changes to Chapter 1 (General)

The current load combinations and companion resistances used in our prescriptive design procedures are intended to provide reliabilities similar to those shown in the target reliability table.

The ASCE 7 committee is looking at these reliabilities in the context of many of our existing environmental loads.

Later in the presentation, you will see how the reliability impacts wind loads for Risk Category IV structures.

Performance-based procedures must also demonstrate that they provide a reliability not less than these target reliabilities.

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Changes to Chapter 2 (Load Combinations)

A new non-mandatory appendix (Appendix E) has been added on:

Performance-Based Design Procedures for Fire Effects on Structures

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Changes to Chapter 2 (Load Combinations)

Appendix E is not a mandatory part of the standard.

Provides procedures for performance-based design and evaluation of structures for fire conditions that result in fire-induced effects on a structure’s members and connections.

Constitutes an alternative methodology to meet project design requirements, as is permitted by Section 1.3.6 and the alternate “means and methods” of construction provision in the building codes.

Does not provide for design using standard fire resistance design with prescriptive methods, nor does it address explosions.

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Changes to Chapter 4 (Live Load)

Table 4-1 (Minimum Uniformly Distributed Live Loads)had no fewer than 16 very detailed footnotes in ASCE 7-10.

In ASCE 7-16, Table 4-1 has NO footnotes.

Footnotes were not deleted. They simply were moved over to the provisions.

This change makes use of Table 4-1 easier and increases the clarity of the requirements.

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Changes to Chapter 4 (Live Load)

Old Table 4-1

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

4 (Live Load) • Old Table 4-1 61 s t Annual Structural Engineering Conference University of

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Changes to Chapter 4 (Live Load)

New Table 4-1

Changes to Chapter 4 (Live Load) • New Table 4-1 61 s t Annual Structural Engineering

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

New Chapter 6 (Tsunami)

Significant loss of life was experienced during the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami and the 2011 Tohoku (Japan) Tsunami.

Significant populations are at risk from Tsunamis in California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and Alaska.

ASCE 7-10 is silent on how to deal with Tsunami risk.

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

New Chapter 6 (Tsunami)

The Tsunami Loads and Effects Subcommittee of the ASCE/SEI 7 Standards Committee has developed a new Chapter 6 - Tsunami Loads and Effects for the ASCE 7-16 Standard, which has been approved.

ASCE 7-16 to be published in 2016

Tsunami Provisions would then be referenced in IBC

2018

State Building Codes of AK, WA, OR, CA, and HI ~ 2020

ASCE will be publishing two design guides in 2016 with design examples.

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

New Chapter 6 (Tsunami)

The following buildings and other structures located within the Tsunami Design Zone shall be designed for the effects of Maximum Considered Tsunami including hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces, waterborne debris accumulation and impact loads, subsidence, and scour effects in accordance with this Chapter:

a. Tsunami Risk Category IV buildings and structures;

b. Tsunami Risk Category III buildings and structures with inundation depth at

any point greater than 3 feet, and

c. Where required by a state or locally adopted building code statute to include design for tsunami effects, Tsunami Risk Category II buildings with mean height above grade plane greater than the height designated in the statute, and having inundation depth at any point greater than 3 feet. Exception: Tsunami Risk Category II single-story buildings of any height without

mezzanines or any occupiable roof level, and not having any critical equipment or systems need not be designed for the tsunami loads and effects specified in this

Chapter.

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

New Chapter 6 (Tsunami)

For the purposes of this chapter, Tsunami Risk Categories for buildings and other structures shall be the Risk Categories given in Section 1.5 with the following modifications:

1. State, local, or tribal governments shall be permitted to include Critical Facilities in Tsunami Risk Category III, such as power-generating stations, water treatment facilities for potable water, waste water treatment facilities and other public utility facilities not included in Risk Category IV.

2. The following structures need not be included in Tsunami Risk Category IV and state, local, or tribal governments shall be permitted to designate them as Tsunami Risk Category II or III:

a. Fire stations and ambulance facilities, emergency vehicle garages

b. Earthquake or hurricane shelters

c. Emergency aircraft hangars

d. Police stations that do not have holding cells and that are not uniquely required for post- disaster emergency response as a Critical Facility.

3. Tsunami Vertical Evacuation Refuge Structures shall be included in Tsunami Risk Category IV.

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Changes to Chapter 7 (Snow)

Updated Map

SEA state snow maps for Oregon, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, and Washington incorporated.

Tables created with values for major cities within state with reference to the original SEA document.

Eliminates conflicts between previous ASCE 7 map and SEA maps.

Eliminates case study (CS) areas in these states.

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Changes to Chapter 7 (Snow)

Changes to Chapter 7 (Snow) 61 s t Annual Structural Engineering Conference University of Kansas March

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Changes to Seismic

Too many changes to the seismic provisions to go through all of them.

We will look at the changes to the horizontal ground motions and the new site factors.

We will briefly look at the changes to Chapter 16.

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

New Seismic Ground Motions

Based on USGS’s 2014 National Seismic Hazard Maps.

New/updated fault characterizations.

New Ground Motion Prediction Equations.

Changes resulting from updated soil amplification factors.

The “Problem” at softer soil sites whose seismic hazard is dominated by large magnitude events.

The Light at the End of the Tunnel – Project 17.

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

New Seismic Ground Motions

The ground motions are changing! AGAIN!

Ground Motions The ground motions are changing! AGAIN! 61 s t Annual Structural Engineering Conference

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

New Site Factors F a & F v

New Site Factors F a & F v 61 s t Annual Structural Engineering Conference University
New Site Factors F a & F v 61 s t Annual Structural Engineering Conference University

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

New Site Factors F a & F v

Site factors adjusted to a reference site condition of v s = 760 m/s (instead of Site Class B) and to reflect more recent knowledge and data pertaining to site response.

Some values have gone up and some have gone down.

As before, if site class is unknown, use Site Class D EXCEPT minimum value of F a is 1.2.

Section 11.4.7 will be discussed in a moment.

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

DERIVED SITE FACTOR STUDY

PROPOSED APPROACH TO MINIMIZE POTENTIALLY UN-CONSERVATIVE SEISMIC LOADS OF THE ELF AND MRSA DESIGN METHODS

Provisions Update Committee Meeting - September 15-16, 2014

Charlie Kircher Kircher & Associates, Palo Alto, CA

Nicolas Luco USGS, Golden CO

Meeting - September 15-16, 2014 Charlie Kircher Kircher & Associates, Palo Alto, CA Nicolas Luco USGS,
Meeting - September 15-16, 2014 Charlie Kircher Kircher & Associates, Palo Alto, CA Nicolas Luco USGS,
Meeting - September 15-16, 2014 Charlie Kircher Kircher & Associates, Palo Alto, CA Nicolas Luco USGS,

Background—Root Cause of the “Problem”

Section 11.4 of ASCE 7-10 (ASCE 7-16) - Use of only two response periods (0.2s and 1.0s) to define ELF (and MRSA) design forces is not sufficient, in general, to accurately represent response spectral acceleration for all design periods

Reasonably Accurate (or Conservative) – When peak MCE R response spectral acceleration occurs at or near 0.2s and peak MCE R response spectral velocity occurs at or near 1.0s for the site of interest.

Potentially Non-conservative – When peak MCE R response spectral velocity occurs at periods greater than 1.0s for the site of interest (e.g., softer soil sites whose seismic hazard is dominated by large magnitude events).

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Example ELF “Design Spectrum” based on ASCE 7-16 (Revised) Site Factors M8.0 earthquake ground motions at R X = 8.5 km, Site Class DE

2.0 MCEr - BC (Vs,30 = 2,500 fps) ELF “Design Spectrum” 1.8 C s x
2.0
MCEr - BC (Vs,30 = 2,500 fps)
ELF “Design Spectrum”
1.8
C s x (R/I e ) = min[S DS ,
S
D1 /T]
MCEr - DE (Vs,30 = 600 fps)
Design DE (Vs,30 =
600 fps)
1.6
ELF DE
(Vs,30 = 600 fps)
1.4
ASCE 7-16 (Revised)
F a =
0.9 =
(1.0
+ 0.8)/2
1.85 = (1.7 + 2.0)/2
1.2
F v =
0.85s
T s =
1.0
Conservative
0.8
0.6
Non-Conservative
0.4
Ground Motion
Values
0.2
S DS = 2/3F a S s = 2/3 x 0.9
x 1.56g
= 0.94g
S D1 = 2/3F v S 1 = 2/3
x 1.85 x 0.70g = 0.86g
0.0
0.1
1.0
10.0
Spectral Acceleration (g)

Period (seconds)

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

How to fix the “Problem”

Multipoint spectrum is the ultimate solution but is not ready for the 2016 Edition (Future Project 17).

“Factors” could be applied to the current ground motions to make the correction (fix rejected by ASCE 7).

Require site-specific response analysis in the following situations (fix accepted by ASCE 7 – in Section 11.4.7):

structures on Site Class E sites with S S greater than or equal to 1.0.

structures on Site Class D and E sites with S 1 greater than or equal to 0.2.

Site-specific studies will become more common place in large portions of the country.

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Background - Map of T L Regions (and Relationship to Earthquake Magnitude)

(Chapter 22, ASCE 7-05, ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 7-16)

Magnitude) (Chapter 22, ASCE 7-05, ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 7-16) 61 s t Annual Structural Engineering

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Project 17

Joint BSSC – USGS project to develop consensus between earth science and geotechnical communities as to basis for maps in ASCE 7-22

Initiated in February 2013

Will complete mid-year 2018 with publication of preliminary maps for ASCE 7-22

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Project 17

Multi-period spectra

Precision vs. Uncertainty

Small changes in earth science mean radical change in contours

Maps change significantly every cycle

Changes are not statistically significant

Acceptable Collapse Risk

Use and definition of deterministic caps

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Chapter 16 Changes Big Picture

ASCE 7-10

Chapter 16 covered linear and nonlinear response history analysis

Conducted at Design Earthquake shaking

Acceptance values = 2/3 of failure level demands

Alternate procedure to ELF, RSA

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

ASCE 7-16

Chapter 16 limited to nonlinear response history analysis

Linear moved to Chapter 12

Conducted at MCE R shaking

Acceptance values taken at statistical probability of failure

Supplementary procedure to ELF, RSA, or linear response history

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Motivation

Performance-based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings

Motivation Performance-based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings 61 s t Annual Structural Engineering Conference

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

Seismic Design of Tall Buildings 61 s t Annual Structural Engineering Conference University of Kansas March

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Important New Concepts

Important New Concepts 61 s t Annual Structural Engineering Conference • Acceptance based on local and

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

Acceptance based on local and global behavior

Failure probability tied to overall performance goal (10% probability collapse given MCE R )

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Changes to Wind

New/Revised Wind Maps

New MRI/Map for Risk Category IV Structures based on reliabilities consistent with new Table

1.3.1.3a.

Revised all maps to incorporate more stations, additional years of data, and updated analysis/modeling methods.

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Changes to Wind

Changes to Wind 61 s t Annual Structural Engineering Conference University of Kansas March 3, 2016

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Changes to Wind

Changes to Wind 61 s t Annual Structural Engineering Conference University of Kansas March 3, 2016

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Changes to Wind

Changes to Wind 61 s t Annual Structural Engineering Conference University of Kansas March 3, 2016

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Changes to Wind

Changes to Wind 61 s t Annual Structural Engineering Conference University of Kansas March 3, 2016

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016

Questions?

Questions? 61 s t Annual Structural Engineering Conference University of Kansas March 3, 2016

61 st Annual Structural Engineering Conference

University of Kansas

March 3, 2016