Seismic Evaluation of Structures in North America based on different Codes and Standards A Case Study

Vineet Sehgal
Structural Engineer, Fluor Daniel India Pvt. Ltd., India

Nitin Goyal
Structural Engineer, Fluor Daniel India Pvt. Ltd., India

ABSTRACT: Earthquakes occur due to movements along faults that have evolved through geologic and tectonic forces. Earthquake loads are inertia forces resulting from these ground movements and impose certain demands on structures related to strength, ductility, and energy. However, methods to determine these inertia forces differ based on geology of the area and code applicable for that region. Various international codes such as UBC 97, ASCE 7-05, IBC-2006, and NBCC 1995(Canadian) are used for the determination of these inertia forces. The authors have carried out a case study of a project located in North America near the Canadian border. The project is located in a high seismic zone and since the geology of the area is the same over the US Canadian border, the Canadian code can also be used to determine the seismic forces. Hence, a comparison is ascertained by adopting Canadian and various US seismic codes for structures and foundations. The economical impact on the project is also evaluated. 1 INTRODUCTION An earthquake engineer has no control over the earthquake itself, mitigation of seismic risk means conceiving of structures which can safely resist actions of earthquake ground motion, preferably with minimum cost implications. Seismic risk is a function of seismic activity and the vulnerability of built geology in a given area. Refinery type facilities lie in a region of high seismic risk as an earthquake related disaster will lead to huge loss of life and property. Earthquake resistant design involves developing the structural configuration, determining the size and shapes of various elements, materials of construction, and method of fabrication. Now these techniques are greatly influenced by the type of building code used for analysis and design. Hence, a case study is carried out for a refinery project located in a high seismic zone based on various building codes. 2 NATURE OF CASE STUDY The basic criteria which any earthquake resistant structure must satisfy, is: Effect of seismic activity on structure less than or equal to capacity of structure to resist seismic activity Seismic activity is governed by the geology present in an area. However, geology of an area may span over different countries and political boundaries. Different countries have different codal requirements and practices, governing the seismic design of structures across these boundaries. We take a case study of a refinery type facility located near the US and Canadian border, where seismic design across the political boundary is governed by two separate National codes, both of which are well researched and practiced. We pick up a sample geographic region, the north western part of the US, between latitudes

Paper Number XXX

N45 and 50 and longitudes W120 and 125, a region of relatively high seismic activity. For the purpose of comparison with Canadian seismic code, we select a region in Canada, in close proximity to our adopted region in the US. We select the southern most part of British Columbia. We shall compare the seismic forces for some sample structures in these regions, computed using the US seismic provisions, with the computed forces in the same structures if present across the border, in Canada. In Canada the seismic forces shall be computed per the Canadian codes. At the same time, we shall explore the variation in the seismic forces in the same sample structures as above, per the various modifications and revisions to the US seismic codal requirements. We shall investigate if these modifications to the US codal provisions, based on performance and evaluation of structures to past earthquakes, have resulted in an increase or decrease in the design seismic forces for these structures. Starting from UBC-97, we explore the variation in the design seismic forces with the use of IBC 2003, ASCE 7-02 and 05, and IBC 2006. We will investigate if the structures designed as per UBC 97 are safe as per seismic provisions of the latest codes today. 3 SAMPLE PROBLEMS Two sample problems are selected, one is a foundation of a large horizontal vessel and the second one is a process structure of steel construction having equipments at two levels. The sample problems are as follows: 3.1 Sample Problem # 1 A Knock out drum horizontally resting on ground in a refinery type facility. Technical data is as follows: Outer diameter of drum excluding insulation equals 3,682 mm C/C distance between saddle supports equals 5,515 mm Total length of the drum equals 9,154 mm Empty weight of vessel equals 197 kN Operating weight of vessel equals 1,070 kN Height of support pedestal above finished grade equals 3,900 mm Height of centre line of drum above top of pedestal equals 2,000 mm

We consider a piled foundation system for knock out drum, with depth of foundation 2,000 mm below finished grade. 3.2 Sample Problem # 2 One bay steel process structure having two levels of equipments in a refinery type facility. Technical data is as follows: Column spacing in N-S direction i.e. moment frame equals 4.7 meters Column spacing in E-W direction i.e. braced frame equals 7.0 meters First floor elevation (supports one horizontal vessel) equals 4.0 meters above grade Second floor elevation (supports one heat exchanger) equals 6.7 meters above grade Dead load of structure including fireproofing equals 616 kN Total operating weight of equipment supported on structure equals 122 kN Assumed piping load on structure equals 61 kN Total vertical load under operating condition equals 799 kN

Galvanised US steel sections are considered for steel design of process structure.

SAMPLE#1

SAMPLE#1

Figure 3.1 3D SNAPSHOTS OF SAMPLE # 1 and 2

SAMPLE#2

SAMPLE#2

4 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN PER VARIOUS BUILDING CODES Earthquake resistant structural analysis is carried out for the two sample problems as per various

building codes applicable in the US and Canada i.e. UBC-97, IBC 2003, ASCE 7-02 and 05, IBC 2006, NBCC 95, and NBCC 2005. We will limit our discussion to the horizontal effect Eh of the seismic forces, as determined using the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure. 4.1 UBC 1997 As per UBC 97, for a location in the north western part of the US with a Seismic Zone 3. With Occupancy Category as hazardous facility and for soil type SD, we have the following factors: o o o o Z = 0.30 Ca = 0.36 Cv = 0.54 I = 1.25

4.1.1 Sample # 1 Based on the thickness and length requirement of pedestals for such horizontal drums and vessels, it is safely assumed that the support system is flexible. The time period of knockout drum is determined as 0.451 seconds in the longitudinal direction and 0.07 seconds in the transverse direction.

CS =

CV I RT 2.5C a I R

Equation 4.1 Equation 4.2

C S max =

R value for this type of equipment and support system (non building type structures) as given in UBC 97, R = 2.2. In both the long and the transverse directions, the upper limit of Cs governs. The seismic base shear on the drum as per UBC 97 is: Vlong = Vtrans = 0.511W 4.1.2 Sample # 2 Using standard analysis software, the time period (T) for the Transverse direction (Moment frame) equals 0.472 seconds and for the longitudinal direction (braced frame) equals 0.138 seconds. For the Building like structure as assumed in this sample, the same equations 4.1 and 4.2 specified above are valid as per UBC 97. The value of R for OMRF steel equals 4.5 and for ordinary braced bay, steel equals 5.6. For Transverse direction Cs = 1.43/R = 0.317 and Csmax = 0.250 For longitudinal direction Cs = 4.89/R = 0.873 and Csmax = 0.201 Thus the maximum seismic base shear as calculated by UBC 97: Along the NS moment frame equals 0.250 W Along the EW braced frame equals 0.201 W 4.2 IBC 2003/ASCE 7 - 02 From the Spectral Response Acceleration charts available for 5 percent of critical damping and Site Class B, we determine that for the region under investigation (latitudes N45 and 50 and longitudes W120 and 125): Ss varies from 60 percent to 150 percent g S1 varies from 20 percent to 60 percent g From this data and for soil class D, Value of Ss varies from 0.75 to 1.25. The corresponding values of Fa, Sms and Sds are calculated and are shown below:

Ss Fa Sms Sds Table 4.1

0.75 1.2 0.9 0.6

1 1.1 1.1 0.7

1.25 1 1.25 0.8

Similarly the value of S1 varies from 0.2 to 0.5 for soil class D. The corresponding values of Fv, Sm1 and Sd1 are calculated and are shown below: S1 Fv Sm1 Sd1 Table 4.2 For all cases, Sds is greater than 0.50g and Sd1 is greater than 0.20g. The entire region lies in seismic design category (SDC) D for all occupancies. For occupancy category III and seismic use group II, I equals 1.25. 4.2.1 Sample # 1 0.2 2 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.8 0.54 0.4 0.4 1.6 0.64 0.4 0.5 1.5 0.75 0.5

CS =

S d1 I RT S ds I R

Equation 4.3 Equation 4.4

C S max =

For horizontal saddle support welded steel vessel, from relevant tables, R equals 3. From Equation 4.4, Csmax varies from 0.25 to 0.34 for Sds varying from 0.60 to 0.80. Thus the base shear varies from V equals 0.25W to V equals 0.34W. 4.2.2 Sample # 2 For building frame systems, the value of R from relevant tables for ordinary steel concentric braced frame (longitudinal direction) equals 5 and for ordinary steel moment frame (transverse direction) equals 3.5. From Equation 4.4, Csmax varies from 0.15 to 0.20 in longitudinal direction for Sds varying from 0.60 to 0.80. From Equation 4.4, Csmax varies from 0.214 to 0.286 in transverse direction for Sds varying from 0.60 to 0.80. Thus the maximum seismic base shear as calculated by IBC 2000 and ASCE 7-02: Along the NS moment frame base shear varies from = 0.214 W to 0.286 W Along the EW braced frame base shear varies from = 0.150 W to 0.200 W 4.3 IBC 2006/ASCE 7-05 The basic seismic design parameters are the same as defined in ASCE 7-02. For Occupancy Category III, I =1.0 Seismic Design Category is D for all occupancies. 4.3.1 Sample # 1 For horizontal saddle support welded steel vessel, from relevant tables, R equals 3. From Equation 4.4, Csmax varies from 0.25 to 0.34 for Sds varying from 0.60 to 0.80. Thus the base shear varies from V equals 0.25W to V equals 0.34W which is similar to values

calculated from ASCE 7 -02. 4.3.2 Sample # 2 For ordinary steel concentric braced frame (longitudinal direction), R equals 3.25 as against 5 per ASCE 7-02. From Equation4.4, Csmax varies from 0.23 to 0.32 for Sds varying from 0.60 to 0.80. Thus the base shear in longitudinal direction varies from V=0.20W to V=0.32W. Ordinary steel moment frame (transverse direction), R= NP (Not Permitted) for SDC=D. As per Clause 12.2.5.6 of the code, single storey ordinary moment frame (OMF) and intermediate moment frame (IMF) in structures assigned to SDC D are permitted up to a height of 65'. And Clause 12.2.5.7 states, steel OMF in structures assigned to SDC D not meeting limitations set forth in 12.2.5.6 are permitted within light frame construction up to a height of 35'. Our sample structure does not fall within the limitations prescribed by Clause 12.2.5.6 and 12.2.5.7. OMF for our sample structure in seismic design category D are not permitted as per ASCE 7-05. 4.4 NBCC-95 The Southern most part of British Columbia is selected for comparison with US codes. The following provinces/locations have the same seismic data Abbotsford, Chilliwack, New Westminster, and the Vancouver region. Za= Zv= 4 Zonal velocity ratio v=0.20 As per the code, I=1.0 for the sample structures selected by us. Soil category 3 is selected, which represents very loose to loose coarse grained soils. For this soil, F equals 1.5 Since Za is not greater than Zv for the seismic site under investigation, as per the codal requirements, S F 3. This implies that for the a reasonably high seismic area that we have, the soil parameter, F, does not play a significant part in the analysis, since the product of S F is limited. The minimum value of F equals 1.0 for rock type soil base. For Za/Zv equals 1, the value of S is close to 3. The live load due to earthquake is given by:

V =

VeU R

Equation 4.5 Equation 4.6

Ve = VSIW
4.4.1 Sample # 1

All basic parameters of Sample # 1 are the same as defined in 4.1.1. In longitudinal direction, time period is 0.451 s. Value of S as per codal requirements, S=3.0-3.6(T-0.25) =2.93 In transverse direction, time period is 0.07 s. Value of S, S=3.0-3.6(T-0.25) =3 For both the case S F=3 governs. For elevated tanks with contents not supported by building, R=1 As per equation 4.6, Ve= 0.20 3 1 W = 0.6 W And V=0.36 W/R Thus seismic shear V = 0.36 W 4.4.2 Sample # 2 All basic parameters of Sample # 2 are the same as defined in 4.1.2. The value of S is determined using the time period of the moment frame and the braced frame as determined in sample #1 above. But again S F 3 governs.

As per the tables in the code, for a ductile moment resisting frame R=4. For the purpose of this investigation, conservatively we select a moment resisting frame with nominal ductility with R=3. For a ductile braced frame, R=3 Hence for both the directions in this sample we have V = 0.36 W/R = 0.12 W 4.5 NBCC-05 For Vancouver, the basic parameters are as follows: Sa (0.20) = 0.96 Sa (0.50) = 0.66 Sa (1.00) = 0.34 Sa (2.00) = 0.18 The load due to earthquake is given by:

V =

S (T ) M v ( IE ) W Rd Ro
2 S (0.2) IE W Rd Ro 3

Equation 4.7

Vmin =

Equation 4.8

4.5.1 Sample # 1 For a knock-out drum supported on pedestals in a refinery type facility as in this sample, the Rd and Ro values are not clearly defined. Considering the foundation to be moderately ductile shear wall, Rd = 2.0 and Ro = 1.4. Consider importance category as normal hence IE = 1.0. For Importance category as high, IE=1.3 Mv which depends on the ratio of S(0.20) and S(2.0) is 1.0 As already defined, T in the long direction = 0.451 s and in the transverse direction = 0.07 s For T 0.2s , S(T) = Fa Sa(0.20) For site class D, Fa = 1.1 therefore for transverse direction S(T) = 1.056 For T = 0.50s, S(T) = Fv Sa(0.50) or Fa Sa(0.20) whichever is smaller For site class D, Fv = 1.15 therefore for longitudinal direction, S(T) = Fv Sa(0.50) = 0.759 For both the directions from equation 4.8, Vmin = 0.328 (IE) W In longitudinal direction from equation 4.7, V = 0.27 (IE) W. Hence Vmin governs. Therefore seismic shear in longitudinal direction V = 0.328 (IE) W In transverse direction from equation 4.7, V = 0.378 (IE) W. This is greater than Vmin. Thus governs. 4.5.2 Sample # 2 From above we have T mom. Frame = 0.472 s and T braced frame = 0.138 s Using the same parameters and equations as defined in 4.5.1 above, For transverse direction (moment frame) S(T) = 0.759 For longitudinal direction (braced frame) S(T) = 1.056 For conventional construction of moment frame and braced frame, Rd = 1.5 and Ro = 1.3 For both the directions from equation 4.8, Vmin = 0.328 (IE) W In longitudinal direction from equation 4.7, V = 0.542 (IE) W. This is greater than Vmin. Thus governs. In transverse direction from equation 4.7, V = 0.389 (IE) W. This is greater than Vmin. Thus governs.

5 COMPARISON OF DESIGN SEISMIC BASE SHEAR VALUES Code Sample # 1 Longitudinal Direction UBC 97 IBC 03/ ASCE 7-02 IBC 06/ ASCE 7-05 NBCC-95 NBCC-05 Table 5.1 From the above table, we can easily conclude that for equipment foundations the seismic shear values are reduced as compared to UBC 97. However, reverse is true for moment frame and braced frames of steel construction. Not only the seismic shear values have increased, the ductility requirements for connections have also increased as compared to UBC 97. Comparisons between various codes are as follows: 5.1 From UBC 97 to ASCE 7-05 o o Moment connections designed per UBC, if validated as per the latest codes will fail. For braced frames there is an appreciable increase (can vary from 15 percent to 50 percent depending on the exact location of the structure) in the seismic base shear for process type technological steel structures. The seismic base shear on the foundation system of a vessel shows an appreciable decrease varying from 30 percent to 50 percent depending on its exact location. 0.511 W varies from 0.25 W to 0.34 W for both directions varies from 0.25 W to 0.34 W for both directions 0.36 W 0.328 W (IE=1.0) 0.36 W 0.378 W (IE=1.0) Trans. Dir. 0.511 W Sample # 2 Moment dir. 0.25 W varies from 0.214 W to 0.286 W Not permitted 0.12 W 0.389 W (IE=1.0) Braced dir. 0.201 W varies from 0.15 W to 0.20 W varies from 0.23 W to 0.32 W 0.12 W 0.542 W (IE=1.0)

5.2 From NBCC-95 to NBCC-05 o o The seismic base shear on the foundation system of a vessel shows no appreciable change. There is a large increase in the seismic base shear for both the moment frame (OMF) and braced frames (ordinary concentric braced frames) for process type technological steel structures. Thus these structures if validated per the latest codes will fail.

5.3 Between UBC-97 and NBCC-95 o o o It is clear that UBC is more conservative as compared to its Canadian counterpart. For a structural system like the foundation system of a vessel, the results from the NBCC are more comparable to the present day codes. For a structural system like a technological steel structure, the NBCC values are nowhere near the present day codal requirements.

5.4 Between ASCE 7-05 and NBCC-05 o For moment connections, the ASCE is very stringent as compared to NBCC.

o o

For braced frames, base shear obtained from NBCC is much higher than those obtained from ASCE. The seismic base shear on a structure like the foundation system of a vessel is almost the same per both the codes.

6 ECONOMIC IMPACT We will limit our discussion in terms of material quantities only. This study was limited to the so called seismically simple structures and foundations which mean that no soft stories, torsional irregularity, or any other type of irregularity was considered. As a result, the estimated material impact does not reflect the effects of these irregularities. 6.1 Material impact on Sample # 1 We assume that knock-out drum foundation was initially designed as per UBC 97. On using other US and Canadian codes, it is found that the actual concrete quantity of foundation system reduces from 20 to 25 percent depending on the code used. The pile quantity is also reduced to 4 piles as compared to 6 piles per UBC 97. 6.2 Material impact on Sample # 2 We assume that the structural system was designed per UBC 97. For moment frame per ASCE 7-02 and 05, the cost of the structural system will shoot up due to additional ductility requirements for moment frames in high seismic regions. In case NBCC-05 is used for analysis, the material quantity will increase up to 30 to 35 percent due to steep increase in seismic forces. 7 CONCLUSION Does this mean that a building type technological structure designed per Canadian codal provisions but constructed just across the border in the US will fail, or structures designed per the previous versions of the codes but still standing, can potentially fail in case of a seismic activity? Like always, good engineering judgement is the single most important factor to guarantee success and reliability of the design. But this should be enough food for thought for the competent codal agencies of the US and Canada to work towards a unified code. REFERENCES:
American Society of Civil Engineers. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures ASCE 7-05. 2005. American Society of Civil Engineers. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures ASCE 7-02. 2002. International Conference of Building Officials. 1997 Uniform Building Code Volume 2. 1997. International Code council. 2006 International Building Code . 2006. International Code council. 2003 International Building Code . 2003. National Research Council of Canada. National Building Code of Canada. 2005. National Research Council of Canada. National Building Code of Canada. 1995. Building Seismic Safety council, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 450), 2003. Building Seismic Safety council, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 368), 2000.