SP-03 New Structures

YARON OFFIR ENGINEERS LTD ICL Center for Excellency
SP-03 New structure
ICL fertilizers
SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA

And Specification for
NEW FACILITIES
P0 08/08/13 For comments Y.O.
Ini. Sign. Ini. Sign. Ini. Sign.

Rev. Date Description
Prepared Checked Approved
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. GENERAL AND SCOPE ....................................................................................................... 3

2. INTRODUCTION TO PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING ............................................ 5
3. TARGET PERFORMANCE LEVELS ....................................................................................... 7
3.1 STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE LEVEL .............................................................. 7
3.2 NON-STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE LEVEL....................................................... 9
3.3 BUILDING PERFORMANCE LEVEL ................................................................... 11
4. SEISMIC HAZARD ............................................................................................................ 12
4.1 RESPONSE SPECTRUM ................................................................................... 12
4.2 GROUND MOTION .......................................................................................... 12
5. DESIGN PROCEDURE ...................................................................................................... 12
6. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA .................................................................................................. 14
6.1 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR MODAL RESPONSE ANALYSIS .......................... 14
6.2 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR LINEAR TIME HISTORY PROCEDURE ............... 14
6.3 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR STATIC NONLINEAR PUSH-OVER PROCEDURE. 14
6.4 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NONLINEAR TIME HISTORY PROCEDURE ........ 15
6.5 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NON-STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS .................... 15
7. DEFORMATION-CONTROLLED AND FORCE CONTROLLED ACTIONS .............................. 16
8. REFERENCES, CODES AND REGULATIONS ...................................................................... 18
9. ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS ......................................................................................... 20
ANNEX 1. DETAILED ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR LINEAR PROCEDURES ........................ 21
ANNEX 2. DETAILED ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NONLINEAR PROCEDURES ................ 29
ANNEX 3. DETAILED ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR NON-STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS ..... 34
C:\YO-data\YO-Projects\1213-icp design creteria\2_procedure\SP-03 New structures.doc 2 of 36 Page

1. General
1.1. ICL wants to ensure that its facilities, buildings and their contents will safely
withstand extreme events, including earthquakes, as the existence of these
facilities is crucial for the future business continuity of the company.
1.2. Seismic codes for new buildings in the United States or Europe, such as the
Uniform Building Code, ICBO (1997), the International Building Code, ICC
(2006), ASCE 7 (2010), or Eurocode 8, European Standards (2004) and other
national codes around the world based on these documents, may permit
performance-based design but provide little-to-no specific guidance on
execution. The direct application of standard design procedures in
those codes can lead to poor structural forms, relatively uneconomic
structural designs, and, in some cases, to buildings that will not
perform well in moderate and severe earthquakes. The methods of
Eurocode 8 or the Israeli code are not performance-based and not well suited
to industrial construction.
1.3. Significant changes in the field of Earthquake engineering have taken place
over the last 15 years. A special seismic design criteria is described herein, as
the current Israeli seismic design codes are not yet updated with these
advances. Furthermore, the current state of Israeli codes is not yet fully
accommodating to all aspects and requirements related to the seismic
performance of non-building and non-structural components, such as those
found in ICL facilities.
1.4. ICL calls for a safer and reliable seismic design, that will be achieved by using
an approach by the name of "performance-based Engineering" (as
opposed the traditional "strength design" approach). This document describes
the guidelines and specific acceptance criteria required for design, which may
reduce the risk of loss of productivity and contents due to seismic events.
1.5. Performance-based methods require the designer to assess how a building is
to likely perform under earthquake shaking, and their correct use will help
identify unsafe designs. At the same time, this approach enables arbitrary
restrictions to be lifted, and provides scope for the development of safer and
more cost-effective structural solutions. Since most damage from previous
earthquakes is concentrated in existing buildings, most of the development
resources in this area has been invested by insurance companies. Therefore,
the experiments carried out with government funding, served to improve the
design process firstly for them. Some general background to this
approach is given in chapter 2.
1.6. Since 2008, performance-based ideas had also seeped into guidelines written
for design of new buildings. These include many guidelines and reports
dealing with design of high-rise buildings in the U.S. (see e.g. CTBUH 2008,
ATC 72-1 2010, TBI 2010) which use the ASCE 41 for acceptance
criteria, and some guidelines in other design areas.

1.7. The executing of the ICL facilities and buildings will be allowed, after a written
approval by ICL to the contractor detailed design documentation, with
accordance to the acceptance criteria listed in this document (or criteria
defined by other well-known modern code which had previously approved in
written note by ICL).
1.8. The demands listed below are to be fulfilled along with all other requirements
listed in, other bid documentation delivered separately by ICL. In case of
contradictions between these demands and other documentation, the designer
should send a written notice to ICL, and react only according to the written
answer.
1.9. The design production should be in compliance with the general requirement
of the current Israeli codes: 413 part 1 for buildings, 413 part 2 for non-
building structures, 413 part 4 for steel strictures, and other relevant Israeli
codes. Specifically, the design must satisfy: 1) The inter-story drift demands
and 2) the seismic load level which is defined by the code maps (for
definitions, see ICL SP-01 specification); And 3) the pressure ratio P/(Ac*fc)
of a vertical component should be less than 0.4.
1.10. Building or facilities that are excluded from the Israeli codes, such as chemical
plants containing substantial amounts of hazardous materials (see clause.
105.3 in IS 413/1), can be designed according to this specification, as well as
the relevant references listed herein, or other state of the art procedures. The
design criteria and acceptance criteria for these building must be in
accordance to the 2010 Ministry of Environmental Protection Guidelines, which
can be downloaded from the following website:
http://www.sviva.gov.il/InfoServices/ReservoirInfo/ResearchAndPublications/Pages/P
ublications/P0601-P0700/P0662.aspx.
This document is based on the Guidance for California Accidental Release
Prevention (CalARP 2009).
1.11. In order to realistically estimate structural displacements and response during
earthquake events, the soil affects should be considered, especially in cases of
soft soil. Simplified soil structure interaction may be modeled as indicated in
chapter 4 of ASCE 41-06 (or 8 in 41-13).
1.12. In-plane and out-of-plane masonry effects on structural systems should be
considered whenever their width is over 15 cm, according to chapter 7 in
ASCE 41-06 (or 11 in 41-13).
1.13. ICL may hire a third party as peer reviewers, in order to examine structural
engineering concepts, review structural design criteria and analysis/design
methodologies, review available geotechnical and site seismicity reports, and
any other relevant technical issues of the design and details of the proposed
structural system. In such cases, the designer will be kindly requested to
provide the reviewers with all of the necessary design documentation and
available information, and to cooperate with the reviewers. The design will be
updated, as required, according to the reviewer’s remarks.

1.14. The general design process scheme for ICL facilities, buildings and
non-structural components which the designer should apply is shortly
described herein. For elaboration, refer to the mentioned chapter in this
document indicated (in parentheses):
1.14.1. Define target performance levels (section 3.3) consisting of both structural
performance levels (section 3.1) and non-structural performance levels
(section 3.2) for the maximum between:
a. "2-B" criteria (Section 3.3) for 10% probability of exceedance in 50
years (1:475 occurrence), as defined by the seismic risk (section 4.1).
b. "3-C" criteria (Section 3.3) for extreme events with 2% of exceedance
in 50 years (1:2475 occurrence), as defined by seismic risk (section 4.1)
1.14.2. Chose analytical design procedure to be performed (chapter 5) *
1.14.3. Satisfy the acceptance criteria (chapter 6 and annex 1-3), in accordance to
the relevant analytical design procedures been used.
Remark:
* Choosing advanced procedures, such as nonlinear analysis, is preferable, as it
might lead to reduction in construction cost.
** ICL May demand Higher Criteria than listed above. In such a case ICL will notify
the designer in advance or at preliminary stages of the design process. It is the
designer responsibility to begin detail stage of design just after the
design criteria is been approved by ICL.
*** It will be noted that the above target criteria are equivalent to
Importance factor (I) of about ~1.5 in the Israeli code perspective.
2. Introduction to Performance-Based Engineering- General

Background
2.1. Nearly all-engineering design is performance based. For loading other than
earthquake, most structures have traditionally been designed for two
performance levels - a serviceability level and a failure level. At service level
loading, structures are designed to perform without damage, and to maintain
deflections below a level that would be troubling to occupants or supported
systems. Structures are not specifically designed for failure level loads,
however, they are proportioned such that under expected loading, the
structure will provide an acceptable margin against the failure state. This basic
approach is inherent in the current strength design specifications and
approaches adopted over the last 30 years for all of the major material
systems and codes.
2.2. Although contemporary earthquake engineering procedures, patterned,
purport to be strength based, in the sense of being an LRFD (Load and
Resistance Factor Design) approach, in reality they are not. In current
earthquake engineering procedures, structures are provided with a minimum
strength that is based on a fraction I/R where R (or K in the Israeli code) and

I are importance and reduction factors, accordingly, times the theoretical

lateral strength demand, that will be experienced where the structure is to
remain elastic. Before the establishment performance-base engineering (PBE),
there has never been a serious attempt to define the margin against failure
provided by this approach, for the various structural systems for which R-
values are specified. Instead, these R factors have been set based on
judgment, and in part, based on observation of structural performance in
previous earthquakes, to provide the so- called life safety performance level
for design level ground motions. This life safety level of performance has been
defined only qualitatively in terms of poorly stated considerations of limiting
damage to structural elements, maintaining egress for occupants, and
preventing significant falling hazards.
2.3. The PBE approach recommends that buildings be constructed, based on their
intended occupancies and uses, to meet the performance objectives indicated
in Figure 1. In the figure, each combination of an earthquake return period
and performance level, indicated by a red diamond, represents a specific
design performance objective. The intent is that ordinary buildings provide a
low risk that life be endangered as a result of the performance of the building
in any earthquake likely to effect it; and that for frequent earthquakes, the
building user not be burdened with extensive repairs or loss of use; that
buildings required for emergency response and essential public function have
a low risk of being damaged beyond a level that would permit their use, and;
that facilities housing systems and materials that would pose a hazard to many
persons if released, have a low risk of damage resulting in such release. The
performance evaluation consists of a structural analysis with computed
demands on structural elements compared against specific acceptance criteria
provided for each of the various performance levels. This is in contrast to the
approach taken by current building code provisions, wherein a single
performance evaluation is required, for the Life Safety performance level at a
specified level of ground motion, termed the Design Basis Earthquake.
Code-1: 500
1:2500
Figure1. Rearranging Vision 2000 Design Objective Matrix as defined by SEAOC

Vision 2000 PBSE Guidelines (after Stefano Pampanin, 15WCEE, Lisbon 2012).

The damages accrued by the series of the strong earthquakes in Chili, New
Zealand and Japan (2010-2013) shows that our society is no longer willing to
accept a minimum criteria, even for ordinary building, but rather seek higher
levels of performance (See Blue line in Figure 1).
2.4. The single performance evaluation inherent in the current building codes is
appealing to those responsible for developing, adopting and enforcing them,
as it aligns well with the basic role of public safety protection intended for
those documents. However, because the Life Safety performance level is
poorly defined in terms of the margin against failure provided, this
performance evaluation has little technical meaning. As our future codes move
towards performance-based concepts it would be preferable to abandon the
so-called Life Safety basis for design, and adopt an approach that is in better
accordance with LRFD methods. Specifically, as with all LRFD design methods,
two performance states should be considered - a serviceability state or
operational, and a failure, or collapse state. Structures should be proportioned
such that they provide an appropriate margin against the collapse state under
maximum expected, or considered, levels of load and such that they not
exceed the serviceability state under frequent levels of load.
3. Target Performance Levels
A target building performance level shall consist of a combination of a structural

performance and a nonstructural performance level. Paragraph 3.3 specifies
default values to be used at ICL facilities, buildings and contents. ICL
authorized personnel can revise these values for specific projects, in
accordance to its needs.
3.1. Structural Performance Level
The Structural Performance Level of a building shall be selected from four discrete
Structural Performance Levels and two intermediate Structural Performance Ranges
defined in Table C1-3 bellow. The discrete Structural Performance Levels are
Immediate Occupancy (S-1), Life Safety (S-3), Collapse Prevention (S-5), and Not
Considered (S-6). Design procedures and acceptance criteria corresponding to
these Structural Performance Levels shall be as specified in Chapters 4 through 6.
The intermediate Structural Performance Ranges are the Damage Control Range
(S-2) and the Limited Safety Range (S-4). Acceptance criteria for performance
within the Damage Control Structural Performance Range shall be obtained by
interpolating the acceptance criteria provided for the Immediate Occupancy and
Life Safety Structural Performance Levels. Acceptance Criteria for performance
within the Limited Safety Structural Performance Range shall be obtained by
interpolating the acceptance criteria provided for the Life Safety and Collapse
Prevention Structural Performance Levels.

Table C1-3 (adapted from ASCE 41-06, FEMA 356)

3.2. Non-Structural Performance level:

The Nonstructural Performance Level of a building shall be selected from five
discrete Nonstructural Performance Levels, consisting of Operational (N-A),
Immediate Occupancy (N-B), Life Safety (N-C), Hazards Reduced (N-D), and Not
Considered (N-E) as defined in Tables C1-5, C1-6, and C1-7. Design procedures
and acceptance criteria for rehabilitation of nonstructural components shall comply
with the requirements of Chapter 6.
These criteria should be applied to the equipment, machinery, pipes,
electric facilities and all other non-structures at the specific project.


3.3. Building Performance Level

A target Building Performance Level shall be designed alphanumerically with a
numeral representing the Structural Performance Level and a letter representing
the Nonstructural Performance Level (e.g., 1-B, 3-C). If a Structural Performance
Level other than Immediate Occupancy (S-1), Life Safety (S-3), or Collapse
Prevention (S-5) is selected, the numerical designation shall represent the extent of
structural damage expected in the selected Structural Performance Range.
For the code earthquake event having a probability of exceedance of 10% in 50

years (return period of 475 years), the target performance level shall be 2-B
(Table C1-8)

For the extreme earthquake event having probability of exceedance of 2% in 50

years (return period of 2475 years), the target performance level shall be 3-C
(Table C1-8).
4. Seismic Hazard
4.1. Response Spectrum

The seismic demand level shall be according to a special site-specific, as defined in
ICL SP-01 specifications.
4.2. Ground Motions

In the case of using time history dynamic analysis procedures, an ensemble of not
less than three appropriate ground motions records shall be selected. Design
member forces and design story drifts shall be taken as the maximum values
determined from the dynamic analyses using these ground motions.
5. Design Procedure
5.1. An analysis of the facilities/building shall be conducted to determine the forces

and deformations induced in its components by ground motion corresponding to
the selected Earthquake Hazard Level.
The analysis procedure shall comply with one of the following*:
Linear procedures:
a. Linear Static procedure.
b. Modal Response Spectrum Analysis**.
c. Linear Time History Analysis
Nonlinear procedures:
d. Nonlinear Static Push-Over Analysis
e. Nonlinear Time History Analysis
Limitations on the Use of the Linear Procedure: (clause 2.4.1.1 ASCE 41)
The engineer should compute the Demand - Capacity Ratio (DCR) as
described in section 2.4.1.1. - ASCE 41.
If one or more component DCR exceeds 2.0, and if any irregularities,
as described in Sections 2.4.1.1.1 through 2.4.1.1.4, are present,
then linear procedures are not applicable and shall not be used.
Analysis procedures need to comply with demands of ASCE 41 or ASCE 7 section

12.9 for modal response, and Chapter 16 for seismic response history procedures.
Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis procedures need to comply with demands of
Eurocode 8 or ASCE 41.
Values of design forces will not be divided by (R/I) as instructed in ASCE 7. The
analysis resultant forces shall comply with the applicable acceptance criteria

selected in accordance with Chapter 6. Accordingly the inter-story drift should not
be multiplied by the reduction factor, as it set to unity (R=1.0, or K=1.0 according
to IS 413).
Remarks:
* For Non-structural components, Prescriptive Procedures of IS 413.2, or 11.7.2 of
ASCE 41, or ASCE 7, or any other ICL approved code shall be permitted.
The Designer is encouraged to request ICL Center for Excellency approval
for using state of the art, well known procedures, or other advanced
codes for specific needs.
** since most structural engineers are familiar with the Modal Response Spectrum
Analysis, some important points to be consider while performing it are listed below
(a1-a4).
it is the designer's responsibility to design in accordance with all of the

relevant code requirements (see reference list, or other well know
modern code approved by the owner).
a.1) The component gravity forces Qg shall be considered for combination with seismic
loads. When the effects of gravity and seismic loads are additive, the gravity loads shall be
obtained in accordance with:
QG= 1.1 (QD + QL))

QG= Action due to design gravity loads
QD = Dead-load (action).
QL = Effective live load (action), equal to 25% of the unreduced design live load, but not
less than the actual live load when the effects of gravity and seismic loads are
counteracting.
When the effects of gravity and seismic loads are counteracting, the gravity loads shall be
obtained in accordance with the gravity loads shall be obtained in accordance with:
QG = 0.9QD
a.2) elements and components shall be designed for (a) forces and deformations
associated with 100% of the design forces in the X direction plus the forces and
deformations associated with 30% of the design forces in the perpendicular horizontal Y
and Z directions, and for (b) forces and deformations associated with 100% of the design
forces in the Y direction plus the forces and deformations associated with 30% of the
design forces in the X and Z directions. Other combination rules shall be permitted where
verified by experiment or analysis.
.
a.3) For components sensitive to vertical motion, it is required to consider vertical seismic
effects. The vertical response of a structure to earthquake ground motions need to be
combined with the effects of the horizontal response.
a.4) Effects of horizontal torsion shall be considered.

6. Acceptance Criteria for steel elements*

* for concrete element –refer to Chapter 6 of ASCE 41-06 along with the
2009 updated amendment, or to Chapter 10 of ASCE 41-13.
6.1. Acceptance Criteria for modal response analysis

For definition of components as force-controlled or displacement-controlled, see
section 7.
6.1.1. For components defined as force controlled:
Design actions shall be calculated in accordance with the following equation:
QUF= QG・QE / (J * C1 * C2)
Where
QE = Action due to design earthquake loads calculated using analysis according
to chapter 4.0.
QUD =Design action due to gravity loads and earthquake loads.
J = values of J equal to 2.0 in Zones of High Seismicity, 1.5 in Zones of Moderate
Seismicity, and 1.0 in Zones of Low Seismicity shall be permitted when not based
on calculated DCRs. J shall be taken as 1.0 for the Immediate Occupancy
Structural Performance Level. In any case, where the forces contributing to QUF
are delivered by components of the lateral force resisting system that remain
elastic, J shall be taken as 1.0.
C1, C2 – can be assumed as 1.0 (for more details please refer to (ASCE 41-06).
Actions in components and elements shall satisfy:
QCL ・・・QUF
QCL = Lower-bound strength of a component or element at the deformation level
under consideration for force-controlled actions
6.1.2. For components defined as deformation controlled:

Design actions shall be calculated in accordance with the following equation:
QUD = QG ・・QE
Where
QE= Action due to design earthquake loads calculated using analysis according to
chapter 4.0, QG=Action due to design gravity loads, QUD= Design action due to
gravity loads and earthquake loads.
Actions in components and elements shall satisfy:

mQCE・・・・・QUD
m = Component or element demand modifier (factor) to account for expected
ductility associated with this action at the selected Structural Performance Level.
M-factors are specified in Table 5-5 of Annex 1.
QCE= Design strength of the component or element.
6.2. Acceptance Criteria for Linear time History Procedure

Acceptance criteria for linear time History Procedure are the same as for modal
response analysis.

6.3. Acceptance Criteria for Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis Procedure

Acceptance plastic rotation angles/plastic deformation values for yielded structural
members are specified in Tables 5-6 and 5-7 of Annex 2.
6.4. Acceptance Criteria for Nonlinear Time History Procedure

Acceptance plastic rotation angles/plastic deformation values for yielded structural
members are specified in Tables 5-6 and 5-7 of Annex 2.
6.5. Acceptance Criteria for Non-structural components

Design actions shall be calculated in accordance with the procedures described in
Chapter 11 of the ASCE 41-06 2007 (or other specific procedure referred to by
chapter 11 of this standard).
Acceptance Criteria values are specified in Table 11-1 of Annex 3.

7. Deformation-controlled and force-controlled actions
All actions shall be classified as either deformation controlled or force-controlled, using

the component force versus deformation curves shown in Figure 2-3.
7.1. Deformations-Controlled and Force-Controlled Behavior
The Type 1 curve depicted in Figure 2-3 is representative of ductile behavior where
there is an elastic range (point 0 to point 1 on the curve) followed by a plastic
range (points 1 to 3) with non-negligible residual strength and ability to support
gravity loads at point 3. The plastic range includes a strain hardening or softening
range (points 1 to 2) and a strength-degraded range (points 2 to 3). Primary
component actions exhibiting this behavior shall be classified as deformation-
controlled if the strain-hardening or strain softening range is such that e > 2g;
otherwise, they shall be classified as force-controlled. Secondary component
actions exhibiting Type 1 behavior shall be classified as deformation-controlled for
any e/g ratio.
The Type 2 curve depicted in Figure 2-3 is representative of ductile behavior where
there is an elastic range (point 0 to point 1 on the curve) and a plastic range
(points 1 to 2) followed by loss of strength and loss of ability to support gravity
loads beyond point 2. Primary and secondary component actions exhibiting this
type of behavior shall be classified as deformation-controlled if the plastic range is
such that e > 2g; otherwise, they shall be classified as force controlled.
The Type 3 curve depicted in Figure 2-3 is representative of a brittle or non-ductile

behavior where there is an elastic range (point 0 to point 1 on the curve) followed
by loss of strength and loss of ability to support gravity loads beyond point 1.
Primary and secondary component actions displaying Type 3 behavior shall be
classified as force-controlled.
7.2. Additional definitions:

For steel columns under combined axial compression and bending stress, where
the axial column load is less than 50% of the lower-bound axial column strength,
the column shall be considered deformation-controlled for flexural behavior and

force controlled for compressive behavior and the combined strength shall be
evaluated by:
For 0.2 <=Puf / Pcl <= 0.5:
Puf/Pcl +8/9 [Mx/(mx * Mcex) +My/(my*Mcey)]<=1.0
For Puf / Pcl < 0.2:
Puf/ 2Pcl +Mx/(mx * Mcex) +My/(my*Mcey) <=1.0
Puf = axial force in the member computed as force controlled.

Pcl= lower-bound compression of the column
Mx= bending moment in the member for the x – axis computed as
deformation controlled.
My= bending moment in the member for the y – axis computed as
deformation controlled.
Mcex= expected bending strength of the column for the x- axis.
Mcey= expected bending strength of the column for the y- axis.
mx= value of m for the column bending about the x-axis according to annex
1.
my= value of m for the column bending about the y-axis according to annex
1.
Steel columns with axial compressive forces exceeding 50% of the lower-bound
axial compressive strength, Pcl, shall be considered force-controlled for both axial
loads and flexural loads shall be evaluated using:
Puf/ Pcl +Mufx/ Mclx +Mufy/Mcly <=1.0
Muf,x= bending moment in the member about the x-axis calculated as force
Controlled.
Muf,y= bending moment in the member about the y-axis calculated as force
controlled.
Mcl,x= lower bound flexural strength of the member about the x-axis.
Mcl,y= lower bound flexural strength of the member about the y-axis.
Steel columns under combined axial tension and bending shall be considered
deformation-controlled and shall be evaluated using:
T / mtTce + Mx / mxMcex + My / my Mcey <=1.0
mt= value of m factor for the column in tension.
T= tensile load in column.
Tce= Ac*Fye
Ac= area of column.
Fye= expected yield strength of the material.

8. References, Codes and Regulations 2013 (the most updated

valid codes for the time of design shell be used)
1. AISC (2005), Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. The American
Institute of Steel Construction, INC.
2. ALA, American Lifelines Alliance (2004): Seismic Design and Retrofit of Piping
Systems , Written under contract to the ALA, a public-private partnership
between the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
http://www.americanlifelinesalliance.com/pdf/Seismic_Design_and_Retrofit_of_
Piping_Systems.pdf
3. ANSI ANSI / NFPA Z223.1 Fuel Gas Piping.
4. API 650 Welded Storage Tanks for Oil Storage.
5. API 653 Tank Inspection Repair, Alternation and Reconstruction.
6. ASME Section VIII Div. 1 & 2 Unfired Pressure Vessels.

B 31.3 – Process Piping.
B 31.4 – Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid
Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids.
B31.8 – Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems.
7. ASCE 7-10 (2010) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,
American Society of Civil Engineers -ASCE Standard USA.
8. ASCE-SEI 41-06, 41-13 (2007, 2013) Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing
Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers- ASCE Standard USA. (Follows the
FEMA 356-7 and 273-4).
9. ASCE Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation and Design of Petrochemical Facilities
(2010).
10. ASHRAE (2008). "Structural and Vibrations Guidelines for Data com Equipment
canters". The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers.
11. ATC 72-1 (2010): Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and
analysis of tall buildings Recommendations for the Seismic Design of High-rise
Buildings, prepared by task 7 core group, The Applied Technology Council
(ATC, 201 Redwood Shores Pkwy, Redwood City, California 94065) for Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER, University of California,
Berkeley).

12. Canadian standard S832-06 (2007), Seismic risk reduction of operational and
functional components (OFCs) of buildings.
13. CTBUH (2008): Recommendations for the Seismic Design of High-rise
Buildings Draft for Comment, Council on tall buildings and Urban Habitat,
S.R.Crown Hall Illinois Institute of Technology, 3360 South State Street,
Chicago, IL 60616, USA
14. EN 1993-1-1 Euro code 3 (1993), Design of Steel Structures: General Rules and
Rules for Buildings.
15. EN 1998-1 (CEN 2004) Euro code 8, Design provisions for earthquake
resistance of structures Part 1-1: General rules – Seismic actions and general
requirements for structures.
16. FEMA 389 (2004) Primer for Design Professionals: Communicating with Owners
and Managers of New Buildings on Earthquake Risk.
17. FEMA 450 (2003) RECOMMENDED PROVISIONS FOR SEISMIC REGULATIONS
FOR NEW BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES
18. FEMA P695 (2008) Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors ATC-
63 Project Report - 90% Draft.
19. Guidance for California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP 2009) Program
Seismic Assessment, CalARP PROGRAM SEISMIC GUIDANCE COMMITTEE.
20. IBC (2009) International Building Code - Part 1 & Part 2.
21. Israeli standard, IS 413, (1998, 2004, 2009, 2013). Design provision for
Earthquake resistance of structures, The Standard Institute of Israel, Tel Aviv.
22. Israeli standard, IS 413 part 2,1-4 (2008). Design provision for Earthquake
resistance: Non-building structures, The Standard Institute of Israel, Tel Aviv.
23. Israeli standard, IS 466 part 1, (2003). Concrete code: General Principles, The
Standard Institute of Israel, Tel Aviv.
24. Israeli standard, IS 1225, (1998). Steel structures code: General, The Standard
Institute of Israel, Tel Aviv.
25. Performance Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings (2010), Farzad Naeim,
Ph.D., S.E. Esq. 14 ECEE, Macedonia
26. TBI (2010): Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings.
PEER Report 2010/05, Prepared by the TBI Guidelines Working Group.
Berkeley, California: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
of California.

9. Additional General instructions
9.1. Steel detailing will ensure ductile behavior. Specifications can be found in AISC
(2005), Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings.
Steel
Beam
Steel
Column
Figure 9-1: Example of Ductile gusset plate connection detail. Adapted

from AISC (2005)
9.2. Storage racks shall be designed to prevent sliding and falling of stored items.
9.3. Anchorage of components to concrete foundations will be in accordance to
requirements of both steel and concrete relevant structural codes in current
use, and will comply with the Israeli standards IS 466 (2003) IS 1225 (1998).
9.4. All lifeline systems need to be designed in order to resist earthquake loads –
inertia forces and supports relative movements, according to ALA (2002) of
ASCE. See ICL SP-04 specifications.

Annex 1: detailed Acceptance Criteria for Linear Procedures

1. While working with ASCE 41-06 (steel components)





2. While working with ASCE 7



Annex 2: detailed Acceptance Criteria for Nonlinear Procedures

(Steel components)





Annex 3: detailed Acceptance Criteria for Nonstructural

components



SP-03 New Structures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SP-03 New Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

YARON OFFIR ENGINEERS LTD ICL Center for Excellency

SP-03 New structure

SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA

P0 08/08/13 For comments Y.O.

Ini. Sign. Ini. Sign. Ini. Sign.

1. GENERAL AND SCOPE ....................................................................................................... 3

C:\YO-data\YO-Projects\1213-icp design creteria\2_procedure\SP-03 New structures.doc 2 of 36 Page

C:\YO-data\YO-Projects\1213-icp design creteria\2_procedure\SP-03 New structures.doc 3 of 36 Page

C:\YO-data\YO-Projects\1213-icp design creteria\2_procedure\SP-03 New structures.doc 4 of 36 Page

2. Introduction to Performance-Based Engineering- General

C:\YO-data\YO-Projects\1213-icp design creteria\2_procedure\SP-03 New structures.doc 5 of 36 Page

I are importance and reduction factors, accordingly, times the theoretical

Figure1. Rearranging Vision 2000 Design Objective Matrix as defined by SEAOC

C:\YO-data\YO-Projects\1213-icp design creteria\2_procedure\SP-03 New structures.doc 6 of 36 Page

3. Target Performance Levels

A target building performance level shall consist of a combination of a structural

C:\YO-data\YO-Projects\1213-icp design creteria\2_procedure\SP-03 New structures.doc 7 of 36 Page

Table C1-3 (adapted from ASCE 41-06, FEMA 356)

C:\YO-data\YO-Projects\1213-icp design creteria\2_procedure\SP-03 New structures.doc 8 of 36 Page

3.2. Non-Structural Performance level:

Table C1-5 (adapted from ASCE 41-06, FEMA 356)

C:\YO-data\YO-Projects\1213-icp design creteria\2_procedure\SP-03 New structures.doc 9 of 36 Page

Table C1-6 (adapted from ASCE 41-06, FEMA 356)

C:\YO-data\YO-Projects\1213-icp design creteria\2_procedure\SP-03 New structures.doc 10 of 36 Page

Table C1-7 (adapted from ASCE 41-06, FEMA 356)

3.3. Building Performance Level

Table C1-8 (adapted from ASCE 41-06, FEMA 356)

For the code earthquake event having a probability of exceedance of 10% in 50

C:\YO-data\YO-Projects\1213-icp design creteria\2_procedure\SP-03 New structures.doc 11 of 36 Page

For the extreme earthquake event having probability of exceedance of 2% in 50

4.1. Response Spectrum

4.2. Ground Motions

5.1. An analysis of the facilities/building shall be conducted to determine the forces

Analysis procedures need to comply with demands of ASCE 41 or ASCE 7 section

C:\YO-data\YO-Projects\1213-icp design creteria\2_procedure\SP-03 New structures.doc 12 of 36 Page

it is the designer's responsibility to design in accordance with all of the

QG= 1.1 (QD + QL))

a.4) Effects of horizontal torsion shall be considered.

C:\YO-data\YO-Projects\1213-icp design creteria\2_procedure\SP-03 New structures.doc 13 of 36 Page

6. Acceptance Criteria for steel elements*

6.1. Acceptance Criteria for modal response analysis

6.1.2. For components defined as deformation controlled:

Actions in components and elements shall satisfy:

6.2. Acceptance Criteria for Linear time History Procedure

C:\YO-data\YO-Projects\1213-icp design creteria\2_procedure\SP-03 New structures.doc 14 of 36 Page

6.3. Acceptance Criteria for Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis Procedure

6.4. Acceptance Criteria for Nonlinear Time History Procedure

6.5. Acceptance Criteria for Non-structural components

C:\YO-data\YO-Projects\1213-icp design creteria\2_procedure\SP-03 New structures.doc 15 of 36 Page

7. Deformation-controlled and force-controlled actions

All actions shall be classified as either deformation controlled or force-controlled, using

7.1. Deformations-Controlled and Force-Controlled Behavior

The Type 3 curve depicted in Figure 2-3 is representative of a brittle or non-ductile

7.2. Additional definitions:

C:\YO-data\YO-Projects\1213-icp design creteria\2_procedure\SP-03 New structures.doc 16 of 36 Page

Puf = axial force in the member computed as force controlled.

C:\YO-data\YO-Projects\1213-icp design creteria\2_procedure\SP-03 New structures.doc 17 of 36 Page

8. References, Codes and Regulations 2013 (the most updated

6. ASME Section VIII Div. 1 & 2 Unfired Pressure Vessels.

C:\YO-data\YO-Projects\1213-icp design creteria\2_procedure\SP-03 New structures.doc 18 of 36 Page

C:\YO-data\YO-Projects\1213-icp design creteria\2_procedure\SP-03 New structures.doc 19 of 36 Page

9. Additional General instructions

Figure 9-1: Example of Ductile gusset plate connection detail. Adapted

C:\YO-data\YO-Projects\1213-icp design creteria\2_procedure\SP-03 New structures.doc 20 of 36 Page