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

Re: UBC seismic importance factor

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
>X-POP3-Rcpt: seaoc@touchstone
>Return-Path: <SKH(--nospam--at)eqe.com>
>Received: from eqe.com by power.net with smtp
>	(Smail3.1.29.1 #2) id m0sZKh6-0005OzC; Fri, 21 Jul 95 09:12 PDT
>Received: from eqe-1.eqe.com by eqe.com via ESMTP
(950215.SGI.8.6.10/940406.SGI)
>	for <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org> id IAA20167; Wed, 19 Jul 1995 08:05:04 -0700
>Received: from EQE-1/SpoolDir by eqe-1.eqe.com (Mercury 1.21);
>    21 Jul 95 09:11:57 +1100
>Received: from SpoolDir by EQE-1 (Mercury 1.21); 21 Jul 95 09:11:43 +1100
>From: "Stephen K. Harris" <SKH(--nospam--at)eqe.com>
>Organization:  EQE International
>To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
>Date:          Fri, 21 Jul 1995 09:11:01 PST
>Subject:       Re: UBC seismic importance factor
>Priority: normal
>X-mailer: Pegasus Mail/Windows (v1.22)
>Message-ID: <6515E1220E(--nospam--at)eqe-1.eqe.com>
>
>>> Date:          Thu, 20 Jul 95 21:49 PDT
>>> From:          seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org (SEAOC)
>>>Subject:       UBC seismic importance factor
>>>From: "Bill Sherman" <SHERMANWC(--nospam--at)cdm.com>
>>>To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
>>>Subject: UBC seismic importance factor
>> >
>> >For discussion purposes, what is the purpose/basis of the importance factor
>> >in the UBC formula for seismic base shear?  While clearly it is intended to 
>> >enhance the seismic performance of critical facilities, is it intended to 
>> >increase the magnitude of seismic event a building can resist?  Or to
increase 
>> >the effective "return period" of seismic event to be resisted?  Or to
reduce 
>> >the effective "R-value" so as to reduce damage for a given magnitude
event?   
>
>The "I" factor is intended to decrease the amount of expected damage, 
>i.e., to increase the likelihood of post-earthquake functionality.  
>The return period remains the same, as does the ground motion, but 
>the expected performance is changed.  You could think of this as a 
>reduction in the "R" value, although this obfuscates the real meaning 
>of the factors.  
>
>> > 
>> >The answer has applicability when critical facilities are to be designed
for 
>> >site specific seismic data outside normal code requirements.  When
different 
>> >ground accelerations and return periods are reported in a geotechnical 
>> >investigation for a given site, I've heard various interpretations of
what to 
>> >do with the importance factor, when the facility to be designed is
defined by 
>> >the client to be a "critical facility".   
>> > 
>> >Should the site specific ground acceleration be increased by the importance 
>> >factor to increase the effective return period and/or magnitude of seismic 
>> >resistance, based on its definition as a critical facility?  
>
>Yes.
>
>>>Should the site 
>> >specific ground acceleration be compared with the code defined zone factor 
>> >multiplied by the importance factor, and the higher of the two values
used?  
>> >Or should the importance factor be ignored and ground acceleration and 
>> >R-values be selected by engineering judgement for the given facility? 
>
>No. 
>
>> > 
>> >Is a site specific ground acceleration, based on a 10 percent
probability of 
>> >being exceeded in 50 years, directly comparable to the UBC zone factor?
>
>Yes.  The Z factor, when applied to the UBC response spectrum, is 
>intended to represent a ground motion with a 10 percent exceedance 
>probability in 50 years.  If you have a site-specific spectrum based 
>on this same return period, you should substitute it for the UBC 
>spectrum and keep the "I" factor.
>
>
>

This message is brought to you via SEAOC Internet node