225 vues

Transféré par xpertsteel

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- 2004 Sept NBCC 2005 Seismic Changes Combined Presentation
- Earthquake resistant design of structures
- staadpro.pdf
- Arcelor Earthquake En
- Seismic Analysis of Structures - II
- Review on Seismic Analysis of Elevated Storage Reservoir
- Seismic Analysis of Retaining Walls, Buried Structures, Embankments, And Integral Abutments
- 00-ASCE_b-Bachman.pdf
- SEAOC Blue Book Seismic Design Recommendations
- E-153
- Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis
- Comparative Study of the Static and Dynamic Analysis of Multi-storey Irregular Building
- journalnx-seismic
- Seismic behavior of irregular reinforced concrete structures under multiple earthquake excitation's
- S2-1_Formatted DDBD paper
- Course Plan_ Win 2018-19_CLE6017_Earthquake Resistant Design.docx
- SEISMIC RESPONSE STUDY OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS UNDER THE EFFECT OF VARYING FREQUENCY CONTENT
- Seismic 5 BuildingIrregularities
- Seismic Retrofit of School Buildings in Britishcol 59ef6b0c1723dd25d245a1d9
- 4

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Introduction And Background

A model building code is a document containing standardized building requirements applicable throughout the United States. Model building codes set up minimum requirements for building design and construction with a primary goal of assuring public safety and a secondary goal of minimizing property damage and maintaining function during and following an earthquake. Since the risk of severe seismic ground motion varies from place to place, seismic code provisions vary depending on location. The three model building codes in the United States were: the Uniform Building Code (predominant in the west), the Standard Building Code (predominant in the southeast), and the BOCA National Building Code (predominant in the northeast), were initiated between 1927 and 1950. The US Uniform Building Code was the most widely used seismic code in the world, with its last edition published in 1997. Up to the year 2000, seismic design in the United States has been based on one these three model building codes. Representatives from the three model codes formed the International Code Council (ICC) in 1994, and in April 2000, the ICC published the first edition of the International Building Code, IBC-2000. In 2003, 2006 and 2009 the second, third and fourth editions of the IBC followed suit. The IBC was intended to, and has been replacing the three independent codes throughout the United States.

The work done after the 1908 Reggio-Messina Earthquake in Sicily by a committee of nine practicing engineers and five engineering professors appointed by the Italian government may be the origin of the equivalent static lateral force method, in which a seismic coefficient is applied to the mass of the structure, or various coefficients at different levels, to produce the lateral force that is approximately equivalent in effect to the dynamic loading of the expected earthquake. The Japanese engineer Toshikata Sano independently developed in 1915 the idea of a lateral design force V proportional to the buildings weight W. This relationship can be written as F = C W , where C is a lateral force coefficient, expressed as some percentage of gravity. The first official implementation of Sanos criterion was the specification C = 10 percent of gravity, issued as a part of the 1924 Japanese Urban Building Law Enforcement Regulations in response to the destruction caused by the great 1923 Kanto earthquake. In California, the Santa Barbara earthquake of 1925 motivated several communities to adopt codes with C as high as 20 percent of gravity.

Evolution Of The Equivalent Static Lateral Force Method The equivalent lateral seismic force on a structures V was firstly taken as a percentage of the building

weight, as stated above. Secondly it was based on the seismic zone factor, building period, building weight and system type. Thirdly, it was based on site specific ground motion maps, building period,

A2

importance factors, soil site factors and building response modification factors, as shown in Table (1). The first edition of the U.S. Uniform Building Code (UBC) was published in 1927 by the Pacific Coast building Officials (PCBO), contained an optional seismic appendix, also adopted Sanos criterion, allowing for variations in C depending on the region and foundation material. For

building foundations on soft soil in earthquake-prone regions, the UBCs optional provisions corresponded to a lateral force coefficient equal to the Japanese value. For buildings on hard ground, the lateral force coefficient is 7.5 percent. While not the most advanced analytical technique, the equivalent static lateral force analysis method has been and will remain for some considerable time the most often used lateral force analysis method. The 1937 UBC stipulated a lateral force coefficient, which is dependent on soil conditions , applied not only to dead loads but also to 50 % of the live load. The 1943 UBC introduced a lateral force coefficient in terms of number of stories and limited this number to 13. In subsequent code editions the equation was modified for number of stories in excess of 13. UBC 1949 edition contained the first USA seismic hazard map, which was published in 1948 by US Coast and Geodetic Survey and was adopted in 1949 by UBC, as well as subsequent editions until 1970. The seismic design provisions remained in an appendix to the UBC until the publication of the 1961 UBC. The 1961 UBC Code introduced the use of four factors to categorize building system types. The 1970 UBC used a zoning map which divided the United States into four zones numbered 0 through 3. The 1973 UBC contained many modern enhancements including the V = ZKCW equation for seismic design, which was revised in the aftermath of San Fernando earthquake. Also, UBC 1973 introduced the impact of irregular parameters in estimating the seismic force levels. The concept of soil factor was first acknowledged by recognizing the importance of local site effects in the 1976 edition of UBC. In addition to this, UBC 1976 Added zone 4 to California, and included new seismic provisions especially those related to the importance of local site effects. The lateral force structural factor, Rw was increased to take advantage of ductility of lateral force resisting systems. The 1985 UBC used a Z factor that was roughly indicative of the peak acceleration on rock corresponding to a 475-year return period earthquake. The 1988 UBC introduced the use of twenty- nine response modification factors plus three additional for inverted pendulum systems. Also, the base shear equation was changed from the 1985 UBC edition, and six seismic risk zones 0, 1, 2a, 2b, 3 and 4 are used.

A3

Until 1997 edition of UBC, seismic provisions have been based on allowable stress design. In UBC 1997 revised base shear and based it on ultimate strength design. Added to this, a new set of seismiczone dependent soil profile categories S A through S F , has been adopted and replaced the four site coefficients S1 to S 4 of the UBC 1994, which are independent of the level of ground shaking. Also, old Rw factor has been replaced by a new R factor, which is based on strength design, and two new structural system classifications were introduced: cantilevered column systems and shear wall-frame interaction systems. Moreover, the 1997 edition of UBC included a reliability factor for redundant lateral force systems, and the earthquake load (E) is a function of both the horizontal and vertical components of the ground motion. In response to an appeal for more unified design procedures across regional boundaries, the International Building Code was developed and the first edition introduced in 2000. Subsequent IBC code editions were introduced in 2003, 2006 and 2009. The 2000 IBC has established the concept of Seismic Design Category (SDC), which is based on the location, the building use and the soil type, as the determinant for seismic detailing requirement. One of the most significant improvements in the 2000 IBC over the 1997 UBC is the ground parameters used for seismic design. In 2000 IBC, the 1997 UBC seismic zones were replaced by contour maps giving MCE spectral response accelerations at short period and 1-second for class B soil. The IBC Code versions 2000, 2003, 2006 and 2009 reference to ASCE 7-05, contain up-to-date seismic provisions, including eighty-three building system response modification factors. The 2006 IBC and 2009 IBC reference ASCE 7- 05 for virtually all of its seismic design requirements.

A4

Table (1): Development of seismic base shear formulas based on UBC and IBC codes UBC/IBC Code Editions UBC 1927- UBC 1946 Lateral Force Specific Notes Seismic design provisions included in an appendix, for optional use. C , which is dependent on soil bearing capacity, is in % of weight. C is dependent on number of stories. First USA seismic hazard map included. Seismic design provisions moved to the main body of the code. Seismic zones introduced. Lateral force system structural factors included. Fundamental period of vibration included. Seismic zone 4 introduced. Soil profiles introduced. Building importance factors included. Soil profiles expanded. Soil profiles expanded. Seismic zones modified. Soil profiles expanded, and dependent on soil dynamics. System redundancy factor introduced. Additional structural systems introduced. Vertical component of ground shaking included. Seismic provisions are based on strength-level design. Spectral accelerations introduced. Safety concept redefined. Seismic design introduced. categories, SDC

F =CW

F =CW V=Z KC W

V = Z I K C SW V = Z I K C SW V = Z I C W / Rw V = Cv I W / RT

UBC 1982- UBC 1985 UBC 1988- UBC 1994 UBC 1997

V = Cs W

The equations used to determine Seismic Design Forces throughout the United States as well as the rest of the world are based on historical data that has been collected during past earthquakes. The 1925 Santa Barbara earthquake led to the first introduction of simple Newtonian concepts in the 1927 Uniform Building Code. As the level of knowledge and data collected increases, these equations are modified to better represent these forces.

A5

In response to the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, a fourth soil profile type, S 4 , for very deep soft soils was added to the 1988 UBC, with the factor S 4 equal to 2.0. The heavily instrumented San Francisco (1989-Loma Prieta) and Las Angeles (1994-Northridge) earthquakes increased this knowledge dramatically. The 1994 Northridge Earthquake resulted in addition of near-fault factor to base shear equation, and prohibition on highly irregular structures in near fault regions. Also, redundancy factor added to design forces. The 1997 UBC incorporated a number of important lessons learned from the 1994 Northridge and the 1995 Kobe earthquake, where four site coefficients use in the earlier 1994 UBC has been extended to six soil profiles, which are determined by shear wave velocity, standard penetration test, and undrained shear strength.

Safety Concepts

Structures designed in accordance with the UBC provisions should generally be able to: 1. Resist minor earthquakes without damage. 2. Resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage, but possibly some nonstructural damage. 3. Resist major earthquakes without collapse, but possibly some structural and nonstructural damage. The code is intended to safeguard against major failures and loss of life; the protection of property is not its purpose. While it is believed that the code provides reasonably for protection of life, even that cannot be completely assured. The UBC intended that structures be designed for life-safety in the event of an earthquake with a 10-percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years (475-year return period). The IBC intends design for collapse prevention in a much larger earthquake, with a 2-percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years (2,475-year return period). Detailing Requirements of ACI 318-08: Based on R1.1.1.9.1 of ACI 318-08, for UBC 1991 through 1997, Seismic Zones 0 and 1 are classified as classified as zones of low seismic risk. Thus, provisions of chapters 1 through 19 and chapter 22 are considered sufficient for structures located in these zones. Seismic Zone 2 is classified as a zone of moderate seismic risk, and zones 3 and 4 are classified as zones of high seismic risk. Structures located in these zones are to be detailed as per chapter 21 of ACI 318-08 Code. For Seismic Design Categories A and B of IBC 2000 through 2006, detailing is done according to provisions of chapters 1 through 19 and chapter 22 of ACI 318-08. Seismic Design Categories C, D, E and F are detailed as per the provisions of chapter 21.

- 2004 Sept NBCC 2005 Seismic Changes Combined PresentationTransféré pardicktracy11
- Earthquake resistant design of structuresTransféré paragrawalnitesh
- staadpro.pdfTransféré parmessstuff
- Arcelor Earthquake EnTransféré parborisbelev
- Seismic Analysis of Structures - IITransféré parTusharDatta
- Review on Seismic Analysis of Elevated Storage ReservoirTransféré parInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- Seismic Analysis of Retaining Walls, Buried Structures, Embankments, And Integral AbutmentsTransféré parDario Manrique Gamarra
- 00-ASCE_b-Bachman.pdfTransféré parcristhia alberto montiel amaya
- SEAOC Blue Book Seismic Design RecommendationsTransféré parGandhi Hammoud
- E-153Transféré parDači Kalender
- Nonlinear Dynamic AnalysisTransféré partrabajosic
- Comparative Study of the Static and Dynamic Analysis of Multi-storey Irregular BuildingTransféré parAhmad Naqi
- journalnx-seismicTransféré parJournalNX - a Multidisciplinary Peer Reviewed Journal
- Seismic behavior of irregular reinforced concrete structures under multiple earthquake excitation'sTransféré parAbdul Hafeez
- S2-1_Formatted DDBD paperTransféré parrzapatam
- Course Plan_ Win 2018-19_CLE6017_Earthquake Resistant Design.docxTransféré parNikky Nallaswamy
- SEISMIC RESPONSE STUDY OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS UNDER THE EFFECT OF VARYING FREQUENCY CONTENTTransféré pareditor ijerat
- Seismic 5 BuildingIrregularitiesTransféré parYanisfa Septiarsilia
- Seismic Retrofit of School Buildings in Britishcol 59ef6b0c1723dd25d245a1d9Transféré parbaseball604
- 4Transféré parGonzalo Oviedo
- A Comparative Study on Aseismic Performances of Base IsolationTransféré pargreynoise
- WJ_1974_05_s192Transféré parNguyen Thang
- 24_DETERMINATION.pdfTransféré parraihan
- Ghosh-Debbarma2017 Article PerformanceEvaluationOfSetbackTransféré parK.ANISH
- 1Transféré parFaith Insoy
- Procedure for Assessing the Displacement Ductility Based on Seismic Collapse Threshold and Dissipated Energy Balance.pdfTransféré parcontrerasc_sebastian988
- module7-140304142645-phpapp01Transféré parvntiba
- 9011S121-sampleTransféré parsysyphus01
- Deterministic and Probabilistic Evaluation of Retrofit Alternatives for a Five-Story Flat-Slab RC BuildingTransféré parfefahim
- messegeeproject4Transféré parapi-259928430

- ASCE 7-05 Section 121011 Diaphragm Design Forces Civil Structural ENGINEERTransféré parSherwin Sr Macaraeg Sarmiento
- Broadway StairsTransféré parxpertsteel
- Simpson - CrackingtheConcreteAnchorCodesTransféré parxpertsteel
- Hilti - Seismic Brochure en W4039Transféré parxpertsteel
- Structural Dynamics LectureTransféré parxpertsteel
- Canby Stairs DesignTransféré parxpertsteel
- Anchoring in Cracked ConcreteTransféré pargalexie
- Custom Component EditingTransféré parAugustin Lai
- Gage Chart EquivalentsTransféré parxpertsteel
- Icc Esr-3013 Hit-hy 150 Max-sd ConcreteTransféré parxpertsteel
- Icc Esr-2302 Kb3 ConcreteTransféré parxpertsteel
- Icc Esr-1967 Hit-hy 150 MasonryTransféré parxpertsteel
- Icc Esr-1385 Kb3 MasonryTransféré parxpertsteel
- Hilti Vol 2 Anchor Fastening PTG 2011Transféré parhayeska3527
- HILTI Technical Guide Volume 1Transféré parxpertsteel
- Broadway Hilti - Handrail BaseTransféré parxpertsteel
- Broadway Ledger AnglesTransféré parxpertsteel
- Gary Chaffee Alternate Rhythmic PlacementsTransféré parxpertsteel
- Getting the Most From Your Machines and FoundationsTransféré parxpertsteel
- Totten CatalogTransféré parxpertsteel
- Problem2 a 3Transféré parxpertsteel

- CoupletsTransféré parberdinson
- Shell CorenaS3 R 46Transféré parzain140
- fucking sisters hot friendTransféré pargoudtsri
- A 501c3 Church is NOT a Church - Pastor Sam Adams - 11110831580Transféré parChris Houk
- Performatism, Or the End of PostmodernismTransféré parCristian Luchian
- Bellofiore - What is New in Contemporary Capitalism (2007)Transféré parsgalst
- TTPTransféré parNguyễn Việt Phương
- Hem v. Maurer, 458 F.3d 1185, 10th Cir. (2006)Transféré parScribd Government Docs
- Final Ch 7 PracticeTransféré parRamez Ahmed
- TensesTransféré pardzayu
- Orientation, Training & DevelopmentTransféré parShahroz Khan
- BIA_SAP_MIGTransféré parsiyasoon
- 0625_s18_qp_21Transféré pariSean1337
- A Woman's Talent is to Listen, Says The Vatican - Advanced.pdfTransféré parhahahapsu
- Grade 8 Music and Arts Full ModuleTransféré parl3qwerty
- reflection paper 2Transféré parapi-317163849
- Rate Laws and StoichiometryTransféré parAzreen Anis
- AC500 PLC BrowserTransféré parSenura Kariyawasam
- Acehnese Grammar StokhofTransféré parchangingtour
- Advantages of Multidimensional Data ModelTransféré parKadir Sahan
- views on Imperialism and colonialismTransféré parGhulam Mustafa
- Application of BSC to VodafoneTransféré parGaurav Thapar
- student_learning_goals_objectives_handbook.pdfTransféré parMarcos Zuñiga
- Philosophical Position Milton EricksonTransféré parMax Marioneti
- A GIBB & SON (PTY) LTD v TAYLOR & MITCHELL TIMBER SUPPLY COTransféré parRodney Ulyate
- Gravimetria en IlopangoTransféré parElmer Mayen
- Fatigue Seminar Book-Dr Ahmed Sharif Part-I 2Transféré parSneha Kri
- Esophagus DiseasesTransféré parAnonymous QguKQDpN
- English Literature Teachers' Guide 1Transféré parGreatAkbar1
- Manual Tierras RarasTransféré parEdgar David Rosas Casillas