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.
61st 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.

61st 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.

61st 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

61st 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.

61st 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.
61st Annual Structural Engineering Conference University of Kansas March 3, 2016
 Changes to Chapter 4 (Live Load)

• Old Table 4-1

61st Annual Structural Engineering Conference University of Kansas March 3, 2016

 Changes to Chapter 4 (Live Load)

• New Table 4-1

61st 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.

61st 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.

61st 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.

61st 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.
61st 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.

61st Annual Structural Engineering Conference University of Kansas March 3, 2016

 Changes to Chapter 7 (Snow)

61st 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.

61st 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.

61st Annual Structural Engineering Conference University of Kansas March 3, 2016

 New Seismic Ground Motions
The ground motions are changing!
AGAIN!

61st Annual Structural Engineering Conference University of Kansas March 3, 2016

 New Site Factors Fa & Fv

61st Annual Structural Engineering Conference University of Kansas March 3, 2016

 New Site Factors Fa & Fv
• Site factors adjusted to a reference site condition
of vs = 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 Fa is 1.2.
• Section 11.4.7 will be discussed in a moment.

61st 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
 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 MCER
response spectral acceleration occurs at or near 0.2s and peak
MCER response spectral velocity occurs at or near 1.0s for the
site of interest.
– Potentially Non-conservative – When peak MCER 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).

61st 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 RX = 8.5 km, Site Class DE
2.0

ELF “Design Spectrum” MCEr - BC (Vs,30 = 2,500 fps)

1.8 Cs x (R/Ie) = min[SDS, SD1/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)

Fa = 0.9 = (1.0 + 0.8)/2
Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.2 Fv = 1.85 = (1.7 + 2.0)/2

Ts = 0.85s
1.0

0.8
Conservative

0.6
Non-Conservative
0.4
Ground Motion Values
0.2 SDS = 2/3FaSs = 2/3 x 0.9 x 1.56g = 0.94g
SD1 = 2/3FvS1 = 2/3 x 1.85 x 0.70g = 0.86g
0.0
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

61st 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 SS greater than or equal to 1.0.
– structures on Site Class D and E sites with S1 greater than or equal
to 0.2.
• Site-specific studies will become more common place in
large portions of the country.

61st Annual Structural Engineering Conference University of Kansas March 3, 2016

 Background - Map of TL Regions (and Relationship to Earthquake Magnitude)
(Chapter 22, ASCE 7-05, ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 7-16)

61st 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

61st 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

61st 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
61st Annual Structural Engineering Conference
• ASCE 7-16
– Chapter 16 limited to
nonlinear response history
analysis
• Linear moved to Chapter 12
– Conducted at MCER 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

61st Annual Structural Engineering Conference University of Kansas March 3, 2016

 Important New Concepts
• Acceptance based on
local and global
behavior
• Failure probability tied
to overall
performance goal
(10% probability
collapse given MCER)

61st Annual Structural Engineering Conference 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.

61st Annual Structural Engineering Conference University of Kansas March 3, 2016

 Changes to Wind

61st Annual Structural Engineering Conference University of Kansas March 3, 2016

 Changes to Wind

61st Annual Structural Engineering Conference University of Kansas March 3, 2016

 Changes to Wind

61st Annual Structural Engineering Conference University of Kansas March 3, 2016

 Changes to Wind

61st Annual Structural Engineering Conference University of Kansas March 3, 2016

 Questions?

61st Annual Structural Engineering Conference University of Kansas March 3, 2016