Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Outline of Material
Derivation of "International" Building Code
(IBC) Design Maps from USGS Hazard Maps
Use of IBC Design Maps (i.e., procedure) Computer software for IBC Design Maps Potential updates of IBC Design Maps
2% in 50 years probability of exceedance 0.2- and 1.0-second spectral acceleration (SA) (Vs30=760m/s, i.e., boundary of Site Classes B/C)
The design maps in the IBC are based on, but not identical to, the USGS PSHA Maps
The design maps in the IBC are based on, but not identical to, the USGS PSHA Maps
Near-Fault Criteria
Sa Probabilistic - 2% in 50 years
Fault
Near-Fault MCE
Sa Deterministic
Probabilistic - 2% in 50 Years
X
Fault
Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Ground Motion for 0.2-sec Spectral Acceleration
Reno, NV
1.54g
Salt Lake City, UT
1.76g
Memphis, TN
1.43g
San Francisco, CA
1.50g
Charleston, SC
1.60g
Outline of Material
Derivation of "International" Building Code
(IBC) Design Maps from USGS Hazard Maps
Use of IBC Design Maps (i.e., procedure) Computer software for IBC Design Maps Potential updates of IBC Design Maps
Site Coefficients
3.5
3.5
2.5
2.5
F
2 1.5 1.5 1 1 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.5
v
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
[g]
[g]
Why 2/3rds?
Assumption:
Buildings designed for SA=DGM actually have the capacity to prevent collapse at 1.5*DGM.
Result:
1.5*DGM = 2%-in-50yrs SA
See "Development of Seismic Ground-Motion Criteria for the ASCE 7 Standard" by C.B. Crouse et al. for details
Outline of Material
Derivation of "International" Building Code
(IBC) Design Maps from USGS Hazard Maps
Use of IBC Design Maps (i.e., procedure) Computer software for IBC Design Maps Potential updates of IBC Design Maps
Outline of Material
Derivation of "International" Building Code
(IBC) Design Maps from USGS Hazard Maps
Use of IBC Design Maps (i.e., procedure) Computer software for IBC Design Maps Potential updates of IBC Design Maps
references
based on
Pf
where
Pf (a )
dH (a ) da
da
Pf = probability of failure (e.g., collapse) = Risk Pf (a) = conditional (on a) prob. of failure = Fragility H(a) = prob. of exceeding ground motion a = Hazard ( dH(a)/da = prob. (density) of equaling g.m. a )
1.5DGM = 1.4g
San Francisco Bay Area
1.5DGM = 1.5g
10
-2
2% in 50 yrs 10
-4
10
-6
10
-8
10
-10
10
10
10
ground motion 1.5 times the design level, the structure should have a low likelihood of collapse. The SDPG recognized that quantification of this
margin is dependent on the type of structure, detailing requirements, etc., but the 1.5 factor was considered a conservative judgment appropriate for structures designed in accordance with the 1997 NEHRP 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.
= variability/uncertainty of ground
motion value that induces failure
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 10% 0.1 0
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
Pf
-5 -10
=
-2
dH ( a ) da Pf (a ) da
1.5*DGM = 1.4g
10
0
Hazard
1.5g
10
10 1
10
-1
10
( = 0.8 )
10% 0
-4
10 x 10
-2
10
-1
10
10
Risk Integral
3 2 1 0
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
Pf
-5 -10
=
-2
da
10
-1
H ( a ) da
1.5g
10
1
1.5*DGM = 1.4g
10
0
10
10 1
Fragility
( = 0.01 )
10% 0
-4
10 x 10
-2
10
-1
10
10
Risk Integral
Pf = 2.0% in 50 yrs
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
Pf
Pf = 2.0% in 50 yrs
dH ( a ) Pf (a ) da da
Hazard
dP f ( a )
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Los Angeles Sacramento Salt Lake City San Francisco Seattle Boston Charleston Chicago Memphis St. Louis
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Los Angeles Sacramento Salt Lake City San Francisco Seattle Boston Charleston Chicago Memphis St. Louis
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Los LosAngeles Angeles Sacramento Sacramento Salt City SaltLake Lake City San SanFrancisco Francisco Seattle Seattle Boston Boston Charleston Charleston Chicago Chicago Memphis Memphis St. St.Louis Louis
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Question
What design ground motion (DGM) values
would lead to uniform probability of collapse (e.g., in 50 years) across locations and spectral acceleration vibration periods?
10
10
Pf
-5 -10
=
-2
dH ( a ) da Pf (a ) da
1.5*DGM = 1.4g
10
0
Hazard
1.5g
10
10 1
10
-1
10
( = 0.8 )
10% 0
-4
10 x 10
-2
10
-1
10
10
Risk Integral
3 2 1 0
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
-5
10
-10
1.5*DGM = 1.0g
10
-2
1.5g
0
10
-1
10
10
Fragility
( = 0.8 )
10% 0
-4
10 x 10
-2
10
-1
10
10
Risk Integral
3 2 1 0
Pf = 1.2% in 50 yrs
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
Pf
Pf = 1.2% in 50 yrs
dH ( a ) Pf (a ) da da
Hazard
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
Los Angeles Sacramento Salt Lake City San Francisco Seattle Boston Charleston Chicago Memphis St. Louis
0.7
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Los Angeles Sacramento Salt Lake City San Francisco Seattle Boston Charleston Chicago Memphis St. Louis
Geomean( SA) = SAX SAY ln SAX + ln SAY = exp( ) 2 = exp( Mean(ln SA) )
SAX
S1
A separate response spectrum for elastic modal response analysis and/or the selection and scaling of ground motion recordings is also being considered.
Outline of Material
Derivation of "International" Building Code
(IBC) Design Maps from USGS Hazard Maps
Use of IBC Design Maps (i.e., procedure) Computer software for IBC Design Maps Potential updates of IBC Design Maps