2013-10-17 Seaoc SSDM Series PPT Vol 1 Handout

Structural
Engineers Associa1on of California

Webinar: 2012 IBC SSDM Volume 1 Code Applica=on Examples
Structural Engineers Association of California

Ryan A. Kersting, S.E., Volume Manager & Presenter
Buehler & Buehler Structural Engineers, Inc.
The 2012 IBC SEAOC

Structural Seismic Design Manual
Introduction to the 2012 Edition:
Expanded scope
5 Volumes
Examples based on latest standards

Application of SEAOC Blue Book
recommendations illustrated
More elements and systems addressed
Collectors
Diaphragms
Base plates
Isolation
Supplemental damping
2
October 17, 2013
Page 1
Structural Engineers Associa1on of California

The 2012 IBC SEAOC

Structural Seismic Design Manual
Volume 1 Acknowledgements
Authors / Reviewers / Contributors
Ryan A. Kersting, S.E., Buehler & Buehler Structural
Engineers
April Buchberger, S.E., Clark Pacific
Timothy S. Lucido, S.E., Rutherford + Chekene
Kevin Morton, S.E., Hohbach-Lewin Structural Engineers
Nicolas Rodrigues, S.E., DeSimone Consulting Engineers
Ali Sumer, Ph.D., S.E., State of California Office of
Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD)
Additional contributions from members of SEAOC
Seismology Committee and Subcommittees
4
October 17, 2013
Page 2

Structural Engineers Association of California

Ryan A. Kersting, S.E., Volume Manager & Presenter
Buehler & Buehler Structural Engineers, Inc.
Learning Objectives
Become familiar with changes in seismic
provisions of:
2012 International Building Code (IBC) - Chapter 16
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) - Minimum
Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures ASCE/
SEI 7-10 (ASCE 7-10)
2013 California Building Code (CBC) - Chapter 16A
Learn to use Volume 1 of the 2012 IBC SEAOC

Structural Seismic Design Manual (SSDM)
October 17, 2013
Page 3

Learning Objectives
Learn overall approach to implementing specific
seismic provisions of 2012 IBC / ASCE 7-10,
including those pertaining to:
Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters
Site-specific Ground Motion Procedures
Combinations of Structural Systems
Configuration Irregularities / Discontinuous Systems
Scaling Results of Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
Wall and Anchorage Design for Out-of-Plane Forces
Volume 1 Presentation Overview

Introduction to SSDM Volume 1
Seismic code changes relevant to Vol. 1
2012 IBC Chapter 16
ASCE 7-10 Chapters 11 and 12
2013 CBC Chapter 16A
Selected Examples
Questions
October 17, 2013
Page 4

PART 1
INTRODUCTION
Volume 1 Scope, Purpose, Reference Standards,
Contents, Organization, and Format

Scope / Purpose of SSDM (all volumes):
Intent of examples is to illustrate a design
approach engineered to achieve good
performance under severe seismic loading,
including some SEAOC recommendations
for exceeding minimum code requirements in
order to achieve that performance
10
October 17, 2013
Page 5


Scope / Reference Standards for Vol. 1:
2012 IBC
Seismic provisions within Chapter 16
Refers to ASCE 7-10 for most provisions
ASCE 7-10
Chapters 11 (with ref. to 21 & 22), 12, 13, and 15
Primary focus on Chapter 12
SEAOC Blue Book
11

Contents:
Examples illustrate application of specific
section or provision within ASCE 7-10
Some re-written to reflect changes to code
provisions & SEAOC recommendations
Others cover new topics or new approaches not
previously addressed
Increased consistency with and reference to
SEAOC Blue Book
Application of material design standards is covered
in Volumes 2, 3, and 4
12
October 17, 2013
Page 6


Contents (cont.):
58 total examples distributed across ASCE
7-10 as follows:
Chapter 11 Seismic Design Criteria 4
Chapter 12 Seismic Design Requirements for
Building Structures 45
Nonstructural Components 5
Nonbuilding Structures 4
13

Contents (cont.):
Examples distributed across ASCE 7-10
Chapter 12 as follows:
12.1 Structural Design Basis - 1

12.2 Structural System Selection - 5
12.3 Irregularities & Redundancy - 16
12.4 Seismic Load Effects / Combos - 2
12.7 Modeling Criteria - 1
12.8 Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure - 7
14
October 17, 2013
Page 7


Contents (cont.):
Examples distributed across ASCE 7-10
Chapter 12 as follows (cont.):
12.9 Modal Response Spectrum Analysis - 1

12.10 Diaphragms - 3
12.11 Structural Walls and Anchorage - 3
12.12 Drift and Deformation - 3
12.13 Foundation Design - 2
12.14 Simplified Design Procedure - 1
15

Organization / Format:
Examples are organized in same order as
ASCE 7 provision(s) being addressed
Each problem statement provides detailed
given information followed by list of items to
determine in order to arrive at the solution
Most examples contain introductory overview
and/or additional commentary after solution
16
October 17, 2013
Page 8

PART 2
SEISMIC CODE CHANGES
2012 IBC Chapter 16
ASCE 7-10 Chapters 11 and 12
2013 CBC Chapter 16A
Seismic Code Changes

2012 IBC Chapter 16:
Section 1604.5 Risk Category
Risk Category replaces former Occupancy
Category terminology
Table 1604.5 maintains I, II, III, and IV
classifications with some minor revisions
within table
NOTE: ASCE 7 Table 1.5-1 also addresses Risk
Category, but IBC Table 1604.5 should be used as
IBC language is more specific and governs
CBC Table 1604A.5 is similar with subtle differences
October 17, 2013
18
Page 9


2012 IBC Chapter 16 (cont.):
Section 1605 Load Combinations
Load combinations with seismic load including
overstrength are included by reference to
applicable ASCE 7 provisions but not reprinted
Text added to clarify how the ASCE combinations
with overstrength replace IBC combinations
Subtle but significant improvement
19

Section 1613 Earthquake Loads
Refers to ASCE 7-10 for earthquake effects
(no change)
in accordance with ASCE 7, excluding Chapter 14
and Appendix 11A
IBC alternatives / revisions to ASCE 7 are

very limited (see 1613.4)
Most 2009 IBC alternatives / revisions to ASCE
7-05 were incorporated into ASCE 7-10
CBC amendments in 1616A discussed later
October 17, 2013
20
Page 10


Section 1613 Earthquake Loads
Re-prints much of ASCE 7 Chapter 11 for
determining:
Ground motion values (including new maps from
ASCE 7 Ch. 22)
More on this later
Seismic Design Category (SDC)
21

ASCE 7-10 Chapter 11:
Section 11.4 Seismic Ground Motion Values
Refers to maps in Chapter 22
Introduces new term Risk-Targeted Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCER) which is
incorporated in the new ground motion maps
22
October 17, 2013
Page 11


ASCE 7-10 Chapter 11 (cont.):
New (ASCE 7-10) ground motion maps reflect
four significant changes (USGS Project 07):
1.
2.
3.
4.
USGS updates (seismic sources and NGA)

Risk-targeted ground motion
Maximum-direction ground motion
Modified deterministic ground motion
23

1. USGS updates
Incorporates 2008 USGS data for seismic sources/
models and next-generation attenuation (NGA)
relationships
This factor by itself generally decreases ground
motion parameters in many parts of U.S.
24
October 17, 2013
Page 12


2. Risk-targeted ground motion
Fundamental shift in ground motion basis from
uniform hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50
years) to uniform risk (1% probability of collapse in
50 years) based upon generic structural fragility
Significant decrease in ground motion for New Madrid
zone and Charleston, S.C.; otherwise < 15% change
25

3. Maximum-direction ground motion
Change from geo-mean calculation to use of the
acceleration in the direction of maximum response
Increases short-period accelerations by factor of 1.1
and long-period accelerations by factor of 1.3
26
October 17, 2013
Page 13


4. Modified deterministic ground motion
Certain areas governed by deterministic cap (many
areas of California)
Deterministic MCE formulation changed to 84th
percentile, or from 1.5x to 1.8x median characteristic
earthquake ground motion
27

Additional resources regarding this change:
2007 SEAOC Convention paper by Luco, et. al.
(www.seaoc.org/bookstore, search Proceedings)
EERI Seminar Project 07-Reassessment of Seismic
Design Procedures and Development of New Ground
Motions for Building Codes
(www.eeri.org/products-page/technical-seminars)
28
October 17, 2013
Page 14


What is net effect of new ground motion maps?
Depends on location, but in general:
SS values in central and eastern U.S. have generally
decreased by 10% - 25% compared to ASCE 7-05 values
SS values in western U.S. generally within 15% of ASCE
7-05 values, although some areas have significantly higher
increase
S1 values across most of U.S. generally within 15% of
ASCE 7-05 values, although some western U.S. areas show
higher increase
29

Comparison of Ground Motion Values
From EERI Project 07 Seminar by Kircher, Luco, & Whittaker
October 17, 2013
30
Page 15


31

October 17, 2013
32
Page 16


33

12.2.3.1 R, 0, & Cd for vertical combination
If lower system has lower R value:
Permitted to use R, 0, & Cd of upper system for
design of upper system (but not as separate upper
structure)
R, 0, & Cd of lower system shall be used for design
of lower system (but not as separate lower structure)
ASCE 7-05 required that 0 & Cd values could not decrease
for design of lower system
Different than two-stage analysis (see 12.2.3.2)

34
October 17, 2013
Page 17


If upper system has lower R value:
R, 0, & Cd of upper system shall be used for design
of both systems
ASCE 7-05 required similar treatment of R (cannot increase
as go down the structure)
SSDM Vol. 1 Design Examples 7 and 9
35

2013 CBC 1616A.1.5 replaces ASCE 7-10
language with language from ASCE 7-05:
Value of R used for design within a story shall not
exceed lowest value of R in any story above
Value of 0 & Cd used for design within a story shall
not be less than largest value of each in any story
above
36
October 17, 2013
Page 18


12.2.3.2 Two Stage Analysis Procedure
Allows analysis of upper and lower portions as
separate structures if certain conditions are met
Only change is new criteria item e that upper may be
analyzed with ELF or MRSA procedure, but lower
must be analyzed with ELF procedure
2013 CBC 1616A.1.6 adds item f such that:

Where design of upper elements is governed by
special seismic load combos, then those special loads
must be considered in design of lower portion
37

12.3.2 Irregular & Regular Classification
T12.3-1 Horizontal Structural Irregularities
Torsional Irregularity Types 1a and 1b
Definitions improved by specifying accidental torsion for this
check only needs to consider case with Ax = 1.0 (no iteration)
Nonparallel System Irregularity Type 5

Definition improved by deleting or not symmetric about such
that irregularity only occurs if systems are not parallel
SSDM Vol. 1 Design Examples 11 16 address

horizontal irregularities
38
October 17, 2013
Page 19


12.3.2 Irregular & Regular Classification
T12.3-2 Vertical Structural Irregularities
In-Plane Discontinuity Irregularity Type 4
Definition improved such that irregularity exists when in-plane
offset such that overturning demands are placed on
supporting beam, column, truss, or slab (rather than being
based on amount of offset versus length of system)
SSDM Vol. 1 Design Examples 17 23 address

vertical irregularities
39

12.8.1.1 Calculation of Cs
Minimum base shear equation 12.8-5:
Cs = 0.044SDSIe 0.01
Incorporated from ASCE 7-05 Supplement No. 2
Need not be considered for computing drift per
12.8.6.1
40
October 17, 2013
Page 20


12.9.4 Scaling Design Values from Modal
Response Spectrum Analysis (MRSA) results
12.9.4.1 Scaling of Forces:
If the combined response for the modal base shear
(Vt) is less than 85% of the calculated equivalent
lateral force (ELF) base shear (V), then forces shall be
multiplied by (0.85V)/(Vt)
41

12.9.4.2 Scaling of Drifts:
If the combined response for the modal base shear
(Vt) is less than 0.85CsW, where Cs is per Eq. 12.8-6,
then drifts shall be multiplied by (0.85CsW)/(Vt) in
addition to being multiplied by Cd / Ie per 12.9.2
Otherwise, drifts need not be scaled beyond per 12.9.2
SSDM Vol. 1 Design Example 37 (new)

42
October 17, 2013
Page 21


2013 CBC 1616A.1.13 replaces ASCE 12.9.4
with:
Modal base shears used to determine forces and drifts
shall not be less than those calculated per the
equivalent lateral force procedure of 12.8
43

12.10.2.1 Collectors Requiring Overstrength
Load Combinations for SDC C through F
Collectors shall be designed to resist load
combinations including the maximum of:
0QE, where QE is from V per 12.8 or 12.9
0QE, where QE is from Fpx per 12.10 Eq. 12.10-1
QE, where QE is from Fpxmin per 12.10 Eq. 12.10-2
Exceptions
(1) limitation of maximum relative to Fpmax (see next slide)
(2) no 0 required for light-frame shear wall structures 44
October 17, 2013
Page 22


12.10.2.1 Collectors Requiring Overstrength
Load Combinations for SDC C through F
Collectors shall be designed to resist max of:
Exception 1 limits maximum based on Fpmax:
ASCE 7-10 limits maximum to QE, where QE is from Fpxmax
per 12.10 Eq. 12.10-3, but intent is being debated by
multiple committees (SEAOC, ASCE, BSSC PUC, etc.)
2013 CBC 1616A.1.14 limits maximum to 0QE, where QE
is from Fpxmax per 12.10 Eq. 12.10-3
Recommend using CBC basis for ALL projects until clarified
45

12.11.2.1 Wall Anchorage Forces
Revised such that only one equation is used,
with a new variable to account for diaphragm
rigidity / flexibility
Fp = 0.4SDSkaIeWp (Eq. 12.11-1) > 0.2kaIeWp
where:
ka = 1.0 + (Lf / 100) 2.0
Lf = span (in feet) of flexible diaphragm between vertical
elements of LFRS; use Lf = 0 for rigid diaphragm
ka = 1.0 for rigid, = 2.0 max for flexible

46
October 17, 2013
Page 23


12.11.2.1 Wall Anchorage Forces
Where anchorage is not at roof and where all
diaphragms are not flexible, Fp from Eq. 12.11-1
may be multiplied by (1 + 2z/h)/3 where:
z is height of anchor above the base of structure
h is height of the roof above the base
SSDM Vol. 1 Design Examples 41 43
47

12.12.3 Structural Separation
2012 IBC incorporates 2009 IBC revisions to
ASCE 7-05
Defines M = Cdmax/Ie
2013 CBC 1616A.1.15 defines M = Cdmax (provides
additional separation for higher risk category structures)
Adjacent structures on same property shall be

separated by MT based on SRSS of M1 and M2
Structures shall be setback from property line by
minimum of M
48
October 17, 2013
Page 24


12.12.4 Members Spanning Between
Structures (new section)
Connections shall be designed for maximum
anticipated relative displacements, including:
Multiplying calculated deflections (Cdxe/Ie) by 1.5R/Cd
Considering diaphragm rotations, including torsional
amplification if either structure is torsionally irregular
Considering diaphragm deformations
Assuming structures are moving in opposite directions
and using absolute sum of displacements
49
PART 3
SELECTED EXAMPLES
DE1 Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters
DE3 Site-Specific Ground Motion Values
DE9 Combination Framing Detailing
DE24 Elements Supporting Disc. Systems
DE37 Scaling Modal Resp. Spectrum Results
DE42 Out-of-plane Effects on 2-story Wall Panel
October 17, 2013
Page 25

Design Example 1 11.4

Given a site location and soil Site Class
Determine:
Mapped MCER parameters: SS and S1
Site Coefficients: Fa and Fv
MCER parameters adjusted for site class: SMS and SM1
Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters: SDS and SD1
51

U.S. Seismic Design Maps application available from
USGS website (if accessible):
http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php
Choose applicable code: 2012 IBC or ASCE 7-10

Input address or latitude and longitude
Input site class (will calculate site coefficients)
Input risk category (although it doesnt affect results)
Output will include:
SS and S1 , Fa and Fv , SMS and SM1 , and SDS and SD1
52
October 17, 2013
Page 26


OR, spreadsheet of data points based on latitude and
longitude or maximum values by county or zip code
from USGS or skghoshassociates.com (in upper right corner)
Obtain SS and S1
Determine Fa and Fv from Tables 11.4-1 and 11.4-2
Calculate SMS and SM1:
SMS = FaSS
SM1 = FvS1
Calculate SDS and SD1:

SDS = (2/3)SMS
SD1 = (2/3)SM1
53
Design Example 3 11.4.7

Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedures
Given:
Calculated SDS and SD1 from mapped MCER SS and S1
Site-specific MCER and Design Response Spectra
Determine:
Design response spectrum per 11.4.5 (map-based)
Scaled site-specific design response spectrum per 21.3
Design acceleration parameters per 21.4
54
October 17, 2013
Page 27


Design response spectrum per 11.4.5
Determined based on calculated SDS and SD1 from
mapped MCER SS and S1 in conjunction with 11.4.5 and
Fig. 11.4.1
55

Scaled site-specific design response spectrum per
21.3
Design spectral response acceleration at any period
shall not be taken less than 80% of Sa determined in
accordance with 11.4.5
Sa (scaled s-s) 80% Sa (mapped)
56
October 17, 2013
Page 28


Scaled site-specific design response spectrum per 21.3
57

Design acceleration parameters per 21.4
SDS = greatest of:
site-specific Sa at T = 0.2 sec
90% of largest site-specific Sa at any T > 0.2 sec
80% of SDS per Section 11.4.4
SD1 = greatest of:

site-specific Sa at T = 1.0 sec
two times (2x) site-specific Sa at T = 2.0 sec
80% of SD1 per Section 11.4.4
Refer to 21.4 for rules regarding use of these values

Note: mapped S1 still required to be used in Eq. 12.8-6
October 17, 2013
58
Page 29


Combination Framing Detailing Requirements
12.2.4 requires structural members common to
different framing systems to be designed using the
detailing requirements for the system with the
highest value of R
Given a two-story steel special moment-resisting
frame (SMRF, R = 8, 0 = 3) supported by a onestory special concrete shear wall (R = 5, 0 = 2.5)
Determine the design axial force and detailing
requirements for the concrete pilasters supporting
the steel SMRF columns
59

60
October 17, 2013
Page 30


Design axial force for concrete pilaster:
Since common to both the steel SMRF and the concrete
shear wall, pilaster must be designed using
requirements for SMRF (higher R factor)
Design axial force on steel SMRF columns must include
amplified seismic loads (combinations including 0)
when loads exceed a certain threshold
Assuming this is the case, concrete pilaster would need to be
designed using the same load combinations and with 0 = 3.0
SEAOC Seismology Blue Book article recommends

capacity-based approach as illustrated in SSDM
61

Detailing requirements for concrete pilaster:
Concrete pilaster shall be detailed in accordance with
special concrete shear wall provisions at a minimum
Special boundary zone requirements would effectively provide
equivalent performance to SMRF detailing
For more information, refer to SEAOC Seismology

Blue Book article "Structural Detailing for
Combined Structural Systems" available at: http://
www.seaoc.org/bluebook/index.html
62
October 17, 2013
Page 31

Design Example 24 12.3.3.3

Elements Supporting Discontinuous Systems
Example provides a specific worked-out solution
but also includes commentary with
considerations for other common configurations
New suggestion from SEAOC Seismology
regarding design of transfer diaphragm in outof-plane offset configuration
63

64
October 17, 2013
Page 32


12.3.3.3 requires elements supporting
discontinuous systems to be designed to resist
special load combinations including overstrength
12.10.1.1 and 12.10.2.1 require transfer
forces to be considered in design of diaphragms
and collectors, respectively
intent is being debated by multiple committees
(SEAOC, ASCE, BSSC PUC, etc.)
65

SEAOC Seismology Committee suggests the
engineer apply the special load combinations to
the transfer diaphragm when the performance of
the diaphragm is critical to the performance of
the primary LFRS
66
October 17, 2013
Page 33


Scaling Modal Response Spectrum Analysis Results
Given the following:
Fundamental geometry and weight data for the structure
Design response spectrum from either 11.4.5 or 21.3
Mapped value of S1
Seismic Importance Factor, Ie
Value of R, Cd, Ta, Cu, and Tcalc in each orthogonal
direction (x and y)
67

Determine the following:
Combined modal response design base shear Vt in each
orthogonal direction using MRSA per 2012 IBC
Scaling of seismic forces from MRSA results per 2012
IBC
Scaling of drifts from MRSA results per 2012 IBC
Scaling of seismic forces and drifts from MRSA results
per 2013 CBC
68
October 17, 2013
Page 34


Combined modal response design base shear Vt in
each direction per 2012 IBC (cont.):
12.9.1 - Build analysis model for modal analysis with
enough modes such that modal mass participation is at
least 90% of actual mass in each orthogonal direction
12.9.2 - Perform MRSA with design response spectrum
in each direction divided by (R/Ie). Further multiply drift
and displacement results by (Cd/Ie)
12.9.3 - Obtain combined response for each parameter
of interest, including base shear Vt in each direction,
using appropriate modal combination procedure
69

Scaling of seismic forces from MRSA results per
2012 IBC:
12.9.4 - Determine the base shear V in each orthogonal
direction using the procedures in 12.8 with the
calculated fundamental period (Tcalc from MRSA)
12.9.4.1 - For scaling of forces, if Tcalc > CuTa, use CuTa
in 12.8 base shear calcs.
12.9.4.1 - If Vt < 85%V, force results shall be multiplied
by: (0.85V)/(Vt)
70
October 17, 2013
Page 35


Scaling of seismic drifts from MRSA results per
2012 IBC:
12.9.4.2 If Vt < 0.85CsW, and
If Cs is determined (governed) by Eq. 12.8-6
Cs = 0.5S1/(R/Ie) (using mapped S10.6g),
Then, the drifts shall be multiplied by (0.85CsW)/(Vt)

Otherwise, drifts need only be scaled per 12.9.2
71

Scaling of seismic forces and drifts from MRSA
results per 2013 CBC:
2013 CBC 1616A.1.13 replaces ASCE 12.9.4 with:
Modal base shears used to determine forces and
drifts shall not be less than those calculated per the
equivalent lateral force procedure of 12.8
If Vt < 100%V, force results shall be multiplied by: (V)/
(Vt)
If Tcalc > CuTa, two separate comparisons can be made as it
is acceptable to calculate V for drift comparison based on
full calculated fundamental period per 12.8.6.2
72
October 17, 2013
Page 36


Out-of-plane Effects on Two-Story Wall Panel
Given the following:
Wall dimensions and weight
Seismic parameters SDS and Ie
Flexible roof diaphragm, Lf = 300 ft
Rigid floor diaphragm
Determine the following:

Out-of-plane forces for:
Wall panel design
Wall anchorage design
73

Out-of-plane forces for wall panel design
Fp = 0.40SDSIeww 0.1ww
(12.11.1)
Force does not vary with height of wall

Depending on SDS, Ie, and ww, wind forces may govern
Parapet forces shall be determined per 13.3.1 (see DE 41)
74
October 17, 2013
Page 37


Out-of-plane forces for wall anchorage design
Fp = 0.4SDSkaIeWp (Eq. 12.11-1) > 0.2kaIeWp
(12.11.2)
ka = 1.0 + (Lf / 100) 2.0
At flexible roof diaphragm with Lf = 300ft,

ka = 1.0 + (300 / 100) = 4.0 2.0
Fp = 0.8SDSIeWp > 0.4IeWp
At rigid floor diaphragm with Lf = 0 (by definition),

ka = 1.0
Fp = 0.4SDSIeWp > 0.2IeWp
If all diaphragms are not flexible, then Fp could be

modified by (1 + 2z/h)/3 per 12.11.2
75
QUESTIONS?
October 17, 2013
Page 38

77
The 2012 IBC SEAOC

SSDM Webinar Series
Oct 17th
Oct 30th
Nov 7th
Nov 14th
Jan 16th
Vol. 1: Code Application (ASCE 7)

Vol. 3: Concrete
Vol. 2: Wood and Masonry
Vol. 4: Steel
Vol. 5: Isolation and Damping
78
October 17, 2013
Page 39

2013-10-17 Seaoc SSDM Series PPT Vol 1 Handout

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2013-10-17 Seaoc SSDM Series PPT Vol 1 Handout

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural

Engineers Associa1on of California

Structural Engineers Association of California

The 2012 IBC SEAOC

Examples based on latest standards

October 17, 2013

Structural Engineers Associa1on of California

The 2012 IBC SEAOC

October 17, 2013

Structural Engineers Associa1on of California

Structural Engineers Association of California

Learn to use Volume 1 of the 2012 IBC SEAOC

October 17, 2013

Structural Engineers Associa1on of California

Volume 1 Presentation Overview

October 17, 2013

Structural Engineers Associa1on of California

Introduction to SSDM Volume 1

October 17, 2013

Structural Engineers Associa1on of California

Introduction to SSDM Volume 1

SEAOC Blue Book

Introduction to SSDM Volume 1

October 17, 2013

Structural Engineers Associa1on of California

Introduction to SSDM Volume 1

Introduction to SSDM Volume 1

12.1 Structural Design Basis - 1

October 17, 2013

Structural Engineers Associa1on of California

Introduction to SSDM Volume 1

12.9 Modal Response Spectrum Analysis - 1

Introduction to SSDM Volume 1

October 17, 2013

Structural Engineers Associa1on of California

Seismic Code Changes

October 17, 2013

Structural Engineers Associa1on of California

Seismic Code Changes

Seismic Code Changes

IBC alternatives / revisions to ASCE 7 are

October 17, 2013

Structural Engineers Associa1on of California

Seismic Code Changes

Seismic Design Category (SDC)

Seismic Code Changes

October 17, 2013

Structural Engineers Associa1on of California

Seismic Code Changes

USGS updates (seismic sources and NGA)

Seismic Code Changes

October 17, 2013

Structural Engineers Associa1on of California

Seismic Code Changes

Seismic Code Changes

October 17, 2013

Structural Engineers Associa1on of California

Seismic Code Changes

Seismic Code Changes

October 17, 2013

Structural Engineers Associa1on of California

Seismic Code Changes

Seismic Code Changes