Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

# Probability

• To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
• Subject: Probability
• From: "Haninger, Ed" <ed.haninger(--nospam--at)fluordaniel.com>
• Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 12:51:00 -0800

```     The easy answer is that the different probabilities for the
events (wind, earthquake) can be explained by looking at
something called the structural performance goal.  The
performance goal, whether you realize it or not, is a consistent
value about 1 in a 1000 chance of structural damage per year for
standard structures.  This applies to wind and earthquake in
addition to live loads.  The same concept was used to develop the
load factors in ASCE7-95 and the steel LRFD code. The difference
between the performance goal and the event probability is
accounted for by the different design procedures or
conservatism's that go into the final structural design.  In
earthquake design these conservatism's come from items such as
input motion, amplification, damping, analysis methods, load
factors and material strengths.

Ed Haninger
Fluor Daniel

_________________________________
Subject: Probability
Author:  seaoc::(SEAOCAA) at ~FABRIK
Date:    1/8/97 9:03 AM

Does anyone have an easy (key word) explanation as to why we have such
radically different probabilities for the design earthquake event as opposed
to the design wind or snow event.

To keep it simple just compare seismic to wind, and ignore importance
same as far as load factors.  Currently we design for a seismic event with a
10% chance of exceedance in 50 years and we will soon make the design
earthquake a 2% chance of exceedance in 50 years (inside sources).

On the other hand, the chance of exceedance with wind (Re: ASCE 7-95) is 64%
in 50 years.  I understand that the intended performance under the
respective design event is linear with wind and nonlinear with seismic.  But
how do you explain the design case probabilities to an owner if you are
evaluating an important facility that is both highly seismic and has high
winds.  Examples of such areas are Taiwan, Guam, and Puerto Rico.

In consulting with wind specialists, the generally recommended exceedance
probability drops depending on which wind engineer you talk to and what the
facility is.  The Federal Energy Regulator Commission lowers the probability
for wind velocities for liquefied natural gas facilities to 5% in 50 years.
(This value is implied by the 10,000 year recurrence interval.)

Wind engineers have advised me in the past to drop the exceedance to 40% for
school emergency shelters and critical water supply facilities.  This is
still a long way off from 2% in 50 years.

When evaluating high risk structures (nuclear, liquefied natural gas, etc.)
the probabilities for natural hazards are very similar.  For buildings and
building codes there is much greater divergence.  Why?

I would appreciate any insight.

Harold Sprague, spragueho(--nospam--at)bv.com
Black & Veatch

```