Anda di halaman 1dari 8

3a

V =

Design Lateral Seismic Force by NBCC 2005 Quasi-Static

3a.1. Base shear equation The total lateral seismic force acting on the entire structure is given by S (Ta )M v I E W Rd Ro design spectral response acceleration factor for higher mode effect on base shear earthquake importance factor for building foundation factor total expected weight of building ductility related force modification factor overstrength related force modification factor V

where S(Ta) = Mv = IE = F= W= Rd = Ro =

There are two limits for the above equation Lower limit V S (2.0 )M v I E W Rd Ro Spectral acceleration values for periods greater than 2.0 seconds were derived by the Geological Survey of Canada using an indirect procedure, and have considerable uncertainty associated with them Thus, a floor value for base shear has been proposed In any case, NBCC 2005 prohibits use of Equivalent Static Force Procedure (quasistatic) for buildings with period greater than 2.0 seconds unless on site of low seismicity (where IE Fa Sa(0.2) < 0.35) 2 S (0.2 )I E W if (and only if) Rd 1.5 3 Rd Ro New spectral shapes generally have higher peaks at short periods and drop off more steeply as period lengthens than did S in the 1995 Code Since short-period structures have traditionally not suffered much damage during earthquakes, CANCEE (the Code committee) considered it unreasonable to require such dramatic increases in design forces for them V

Upper limit

The following notes within this section explain the various terms in the base shear equations above

CIVL 505

Seismic Response of Structures

Instructor: R.B. Schubak

Section 3a: Design Seismic Lateral Force by NBCC 2005

3a-2

3a.2. Design spectral response acceleration S This term, S(Ta), is meant to represent the response acceleration (divided by g) of the buildings first (or fundamental) mode It includes the effects of Basic seismicity of the location thru Sa(T ) Site soil conditions thru Fa and Fv Buildings response characteristics thru T = Ta, where Ta is the buildings fundamental period Design spectral acceleration values determined from Fa S a (0.2 ) F S (0.5) or F S (0.2 ), whichever is smaller a a v a S (T ) = Fv S a (1.0) F S (2.0) v a Fv S a (2.0) 2 with linear interpolation for intermediate values of T 3a.2.1. Spectral response acceleration Sa for T for T for T for T for T 0.2 s = 0.5 s = 1.0 s = 2.0 s 4.0 s

The spectral response acceleration, Sa(T ), represents the site-specific response acceleration of a SDOF structure having a period T and 5% damping situated on soft rock or dense soil Now based on 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years Return period of 2500 years Unlike S from the 1995 Code it is not merely an amplification factor to be applied to a base level of ground motion it is not modified to account for the base shear effect of higher modes

Sa(T ) is a uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) UHS provides the maximum spectral acceleration that an SDOF system located at the site and having 5% damping is likely to experience during the entire range of earthquakes that it may be exposed to Contrasted to a classical response spectrum, a UHS does not correspond to a single earthquake UHS represents a composite of maximum spectral responses at different periods Spectral values at different periods may arise from earthquakes having different distances to source and different magnitudes but the same annual probability of exceedance Short-period UHS values are dominated by earthquakes at close distances; long-period UHS values are dominated by more distant earthquakes

CIVL 505

Seismic Response of Structures

Instructor: R.B. Schubak

Section 3a: Design Seismic Lateral Force by NBCC 2005

3a-3

A table of UHS values for major Canadian cities follows Ref: Adams and Atkinson, Development of seismic hazard maps for the proposed 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Volume 30, No. 2, April 2003, pp. 255-271
City St. Johns Halifax Moncton Frederiction La Malbaie Qubec Trois-Rivires Montral Ottawa Niagara Falls Toronto Windsor Winnipeg Calgary Kelowna Kamloops Prince George Vancouver Victoria Tofino Prince Rupert Queen Charlotte Inuvik Sa(0.2) 0.18 0.23 0.30 0.39 2.3 0.59 0.64 0.69 0.67 0.41 0.28 0.18 0.12 0.15 0.28 0.28 0.13 0.96 1.2 1.2 0.38 0.66 0.12 Sa(0.5) 0.11 0.13 0.16 0.20 1.2 0.29 0.31 0.34 0.32 0.20 0.14 0.087 0.056 0.084 0.17 0.17 0.080 0.66 0.83 0.93 0.25 0.63 0.067 Sa(1.0) 0.060 0.070 0.068 0.086 0.60 0.14 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.073 0.055 0.040 0.023 0.041 0.089 0.10 0.041 0.34 0.38 0.47 0.17 0.50 0.039 Sa(2.0) 0.016 0.019 0.021 0.027 0.19 0.048 0.043 0.045 0.045 0.021 0.016 0.011 0.006 0.023 0.053 0.060 0.026 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.096 0.26 0.025

Comparison of Sa(T ) from 2005 Code with vS(T ) from 1995 Code for Vancouver Comparison for Site Class C in 2005 Code (Fa = Fv = 1) and Foundation Category 1 in 1995 Code (F = 1); soft rock or dense soil
1 0.9 Rsponse acceleration (g) 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Period T (seconds)
2005 Sa(T) 1995 v*S(T)

CIVL 505

Seismic Response of Structures

Instructor: R.B. Schubak

Section 3a: Design Seismic Lateral Force by NBCC 2005

3a-4

3a.2.2.

Site coefficients Fa and Fv

Amplify (or de-amplify) the spectral response acceleration to account for site soil conditions Six site classes, A thru F, determined quantitatively using soil shear wave velocity or, alternatively, standard penetration resistance or undrained shear strength Reduces ambiguity of qualitatively defined soils in 1995 Code
Site Class A B C D E E F Others Soil Profile Name Hard Rock Rock Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock Stiff Soil Soft Soil Average Properties in Top 30 m Standard Soil Shear Wave Soil Undrained Shear Penetration Average Velocity, VS Strength, su Resistance, N60 (m/s) Not applicable Not applicable VS > 1500 Not applicable Not applicable 760 < VS < 1500 360 < VS < 760 N60 > 50 su > 100 kPa 180 < VS < 360 15 < N60 < 50 50 < su < 100 kPa VS < 180 N60 < 15 su < 50 kPa Any profile with more than 3 m of soil with the following characteristics: plastic index PI > 20 moisture content w 40%, and undrained shear strength su < 25 kPa Site specific evaluation required

Others includes liquefiable soils, peat, highly organic clays, highly plastic clays New site amplification factors Fa and Fv are intensity dependent Effects of nonlinearity during strong shaking are reflected by a reduction in amplification
Site Class A B C D E F

Values of Fa
Sa(0.2) 0.25 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.3 2.1 Sa(0.2) = 0.50 Sa(0.2) = 0.75 Sa(0.2) = 1.00 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.1 0.9 Dynamic site response analysis required Sa(0.2) = 1.25 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9

2.5 E 2 1.5

D C B A

Fa
1 0.5

0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25

Sa(0.2)

CIVL 505

Seismic Response of Structures

Instructor: R.B. Schubak

Section 3a: Design Seismic Lateral Force by NBCC 2005

3a-5

Site Class A B C D E F

Values of Fv
Sa(1.0) 0.1 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.4 2.1 Sa(1.0) = 0.2 Sa(1.0) = 0.3 Sa(1.0) = 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.1 2.0 1.9 1.7 Dynamic site response analysis required Sa(1.0) 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.7

2.5 E 2 1.5

D C B

Fv
1 0.5

0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Sa(1.0)

3a.2.3.

Fundamental period Ta

Two methods remain available to calculate the building's fundamental period Ta Empirical formulae Rational analysis

Empirical formulae slightly revised from 1995 edition Concrete moment frames 34 Ta = 0.075 (hn ) remains unchanged from the 1995 edition can no longer use 0.1N for a concrete moment frame Steel moment frames 34 Ta = 0.085 (hn ) remains unchanged from the 1995 edition can no longer use 0.1N for a steel moment frame Other moment frames Ta = 0.1N for other (timber, masonry) moment frames Other structures (braced frames, wall structures) 34 Ta = 0.05 (hn ) is a completely new formula the previous formula, T = 0.09 hn Ds was considered too precise Ds = length of wall or braced frame was confusing when several walls or frames of differing lengths were present

CIVL 505

Seismic Response of Structures

Instructor: R.B. Schubak

Section 3a: Design Seismic Lateral Force by NBCC 2005

3a-6

Rational analysis Alternatively, you may still determine the fundamental period of the building using rational (i.e., dynamic) analysis BUT the period shall not be taken greater than 1.5 times that determined by the appropriate empirical formula

3a.3. Higher mode effect factor Mv In the 1995 code, the effect of higher modes on the overall seismic loads (base shear) was accounted for by increasing S to a value above the response spectrum value for long periods A similar modification has NOT been incorporated into the 2005 codes S(T) Therefore a new, separate factor for this effect must be included in the base shear equation The factor Mv has been determined by the following formula S a (T1 ) W where Sa(Ti) is the spectral acceleration corresponding to the ith mode having a period Ti and Wi is the modal weight in the ith mode Account has been taken of Differing kinds of SFRS, acting as flexural cantilevers, shear cantilevers, or hybrids Differing shapes of the UHS [ S a (0.2 ) S a (2.0) ]
Sa(0.2)/Sa(2.0) Type of Lateral Resisting Systems
Moment resisting frames or coupled walls

Mv

[S (T )W ]
a i i

Mv for Ta 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Mv for Ta 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.5 2.5

< 8.0

Braced frames Walls, wall-frame systems, other systems Moment resisting frames or coupled walls

8.0

Braced frames Walls, wall-frame systems, other systems

Use linear interpolation for periods between 1.0 second and 2.0 seconds

CIVL 505

Seismic Response of Structures

Instructor: R.B. Schubak

Section 3a: Design Seismic Lateral Force by NBCC 2005

3a-7

3a.4. Earthquake importance factor IE IE is very much like the importance factor I from the 1995 NBCC IE = 1.5 for post disaster buildings Hospitals, fire halls, police stations Power stations, telephone exchanges, communications facilities Water and sewage treatment facilities IE = 1.3 for high importance buildings Elementary middle and secondary schools Community centres Facilities containing hazardous materials IE = 1.0 for normal importance buildings IE = 0.8 for low importance buildings Low human occupancy Minor storage This looks like a new category, but it was in the 1995 NBCC by way of IE > 1 reduces the ductility demand imposed on a structure by the design earthquake Reduces amount of inelastic deformation, yielding and cracking Reduces likelihood that damage will impair the functioning of the facility or release contained hazardous substances

3a.5. Building weight W W is calculated in the same manner as for the 1995 NBCC, i.e., dead load + 25% of design snow load + 60% of storage load + full contents of tanks

3a.6. Ductility force modification factor Rd Rd essentially corresponds to the R factor used in the 1995 Code New research has led to the revision of some of the Rd values

CIVL 505

Seismic Response of Structures

Instructor: R.B. Schubak

Section 3a: Design Seismic Lateral Force by NBCC 2005

3a-8

3a.7. Overstrength force modification factor Ro Ro is essentially 1/U from the 1995 Code, though far more refined The overstrength factor Ro is derived from consideration of several sources of overstrength Ro = Rsize R Ryield Rsh Rmech Rsize = R = Ryield = Rsh = Rmech = overstrength from restricted choices for member size difference between nominal and factored resistances ratio of actual yield strength to minimum specified yield strength overstrength due to strain hardening difference between load at first failure and at full collapse mechanism

where

The values of Ro have been derived for each individual type of SFRS typically range from 1.3 to 1.7 For some systems that are not appropriate for use as a SFRS, such as unreinforced masonry, Ro = 1.0

CIVL 505

Seismic Response of Structures

Instructor: R.B. Schubak

Anda mungkin juga menyukai