Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Old Seismic Values

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Jason,
I don't know why you are even trying to use the old data. The old site specific reports that were used to develop the seismicity at a specific site are as wrong as the UBC zones were. There are no good analogies from UBC Zones to seismic spectral ordinates. The old seismic zones vs. the new spectral ordinates can be off as much as a factor of 12. I think that you might have an old DOE Facilities Natural Hazards Assessment seismicity study. The methodologies that were used to develop that document and other 1990's seismicity are long since out of favor by the seismology community.

Read the commentary in the NEHRP to help get a better understanding of what was done, and what is the current practice. The 2003 NEHRP is the best that there is.

The old codes were more swayed by political concerns than science. The Nemaha Anticline at first had no effect on Kansas City (1982 UBC). Then it did effect Kansas City (1985 UBC). Now it does not effect Kansas City (2000 IBC). What really happened was an effort by seismologists and engineers to develop standard methods (logic tree, probabilistics, deterministics, etc.) to characterize and quantify ground motion more accurately.

Regards,
Harold Sprague



From: "Jason W. Kilgore" <jkilgore(--nospam--at)leok.com>
Reply-To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Subject: RE: Old Seismic Values
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:52:29 -0500

I've basically decided that the "maximum effective peak acceleration of 5%
of gravity" is the local "exact" value for the UBC Z variable, which is peak
ground acceleration on moderate rock.

Actually, I have 5 values for "Peak Ground Acceleration" for this site:
1997 UBC:   7.5%, 10% exceed in 50 years (475 yr. return)
Old Report: 5.0%, 10% exceed in 50 years
2002 USGS:  2.13%, 10% exceed in 50 years
2002 USGS:  6.25%, 2% exceed in 50 years (2475 yr. return)

I also have "Spectral Acceleration" values from 2002 USGS.

But I'm still stuck on the "peak velocities of 1.5 inches per second" part.
Where does this come in?

I realize that you high-seismic folks are picking yourselves off of the
floor from laughing so hard at such low values.  The only reason I'm even
remotely concerned about this is that it's a federal MILCON, and the fed
people in charge have SPECIFICALLY stated that seismic upgrades are a high
priority.

What I need to do is summarize the different force levels and have the Owner
pick the preferred level of upgrade required, or realize that no upgrades
are necessary.  To do this, I need an "apples to apples" comparison,
preferably independent of soil and "R" values.  To do that, I need to
convert the "peak ground acceleration" values to numbers I can put a single
equation such as:

Acceleration * Soil Factor * Weight / "R" value

The soil, weight, and "R" should all be the same, which means I can't use
the 1997 UBC for two values and TI-809-05 for the other 2.

Any ideas?

---
Jason Kilgore
Leigh & O'Kane, LLC
Kansas City, Missouri

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dmitri Wright [mailto:dmitri(--nospam--at)pciengineers.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 11:09 AM
> To: Seaint
> Subject: Re: Old Seismic Values
>
> Jason,
>
> I think the key word that is missing from your description is "spectral".
> Peak GROUND acceleration or velocity is different than the peak SPECTRAL
> acceleration or velocity.  It sounds like the information in the report
> you
> were given was for peak ground values.  Aa, Av, Ss, & S1 are spectral
> values.  The theory is that an ideal oscillator (think of a bowling ball
> on
> a thin steel rod stuck in the ground) with a particular fundamental
> frequency will experience a certain peak acceleration and velocity in a
> given seismic event.  These accelerations and velocities, which are the
> spectral values,  will be different for oscillators of different
> frequencies, and will be different from the values at the ground surface. > Aa & Ss are the values for an oscillator with a 0.2 sec. period (period =
> 1/frequency).  Av & S1 are for an oscillator with a 1 sec. period.
>
> In the older UBC, Z is the approximate peak ground acceleration.  0.2
> spectral acceleration is approximately Z*C with C=2.75. The 1.0 spectral
> acceleration is approximately Z*C with C calculated for T=1.0 => C=1.25.
>
> Of course, all these values vary depending on the confidence level.  The
> current codes use a 2% probability of exceedence (98% confidence) in 50
> yrs.
> I'm not sure what the older UBC values were based on.  Up to date values
> for
> any location in the US are available free at http://eqhazmaps.usgs.gov/.
>
> The FEMA 273 or 368 commentaries, or the ASCE7 98 or 02 commentaries have
> very good information on this subject.
>
> I hope you send a summary of your (general) findings to the list, once you > have finished your investigation. This is a very relevant topic that most > structurals, at least in the west, will be dealing with for years to come.
>
> Dmitri Wright, PE
> Progressive Consultants Inc.
> Portland, OR
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: "Jason W. Kilgore" <jkilgore(--nospam--at)leok.com>
> To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> Subject: Old Seismic Values
>
> I have a project in a low/moderate seismic zone (moderate to high wind), =
> and
> the client specifically wants seismic calculations and details.  I was =
> then
> given this information as part of a larger report:
>
>
> "The site is in seismic zone one (1).  However, the area is free of =
> major
> active fault structures and the region is relatively free of seismic
> activity.  According to recent investigations, the area will experience
> seismic forces with a maximum effective peak acceleration of 5% of =
> gravity
> and effective peak velocities of 1=BD inches per second during any =
> 50-year
> period, at the 90% confidence level."
>
>
> The 50-year/90% confidence is the design level in the UBC codes and the =
> 1991
> NEHRP / ASCE 7-95.  I'm pretty sure I know what "maximum effective peak
> acceleration of 5% of gravity" and "effective peak velocities of 1.5 =
> inches
> per second" mean.  However, is there a relationship between these =
> numbers
> and UBC design values?  What about Aa and Av (older NEHRP)?  Ss and S1
> (current NEHRP)? =20
>
> Any guidance as to where to look?
>
> Specifically, I would like to give the client a comparison between the
> values they gave me and values from FEMA 450/2003 NEHRP (Ss =3D 14%, =
> S1=3D6%).
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> ---
> Jason Kilgore
> Leigh & O'Kane, LLC
> Kansas City, Missouri
>
>
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********



******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar ? get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********