S16-14 the Changes that will Affect You

Andy Metten, P.Eng., Struct.Eng.

Partner & Structural Engineer
Bush, Bohlman & Partners LLP
 S16 Committee

Volunteer Committee under CSA.

Meets twice a year during the Code Cycle.
Mostly meet in person in Mississauga
Members cover their own expenses.
 BC Members of S16

Mark Lasby, P.Eng. (Hatch)

Andy Metten, P.Eng. (Bush, Bohlman & Partners LLP)
Paul Zinn (Arpac Storage System Corporation) (Associate member)

3 Out of 40 members & Associate members

Structural consultants only small percentage of the
committee (7 out of 40 members and associates)

Racks S16-14 Make Up

Regulatory
10%
10%
University
28%
Structural
Consultant
17%
Fabricator /
Producer
15%

Other
5% CWB/CISC
15%
 Changes to the Steel Code

Based on current research.

Changes in National Building Code.
Input from members of the Committee
Input from users usually in written form
to CSA.
Two Formats

As published
by CSA

Already out and available from

CSA
More Useful Format Not Yet Out

On the shelves:
End of 2015?
Published by CISC
11th Edition
11th ? Edition
Includes Commentary
to S16-14
 Handbook Improvements

Changes to reflect changes in S16-14

Many new W-shapes and HSS
Replacing all data of metric bolts to Imperial
bolt data showing metric values soft-
converted from Imperial data
 Handbook Improvements
a section for anchor rods
single angle struts tables
bolted-bolted single angle shear connection table
column tables for new grade(s) of steel
revised composite beam tables
revised member and connection design examples
 Handbook Improvements
Most notable is that this will be the first true '50 ksi' Handbook
(including channel and angle members) and CISC will try to
identify readily available shapes and sections.

CSA G40.21-04(2013)

CSA Grades 44W; 50W

Mill Certificate showing angle rolled to meet several grades and multiple yield strengths
 Handbook Improvements
CISC will try to identify readily available shapes and sections.

Mill Certificate showing angle rolled to meet several grades and multiple yield strengths
 Advantage of getting Handbook
(When it comes out)
Handbook contains S16-14
Also contains commentary to S16-14
Pages from
current
handbook not
yet updated to
S16-14
S16-14 Code is
prepared by CSA

Commentary to S16-
14 is prepared by
CISC (and members
of the S16
committee)
 Topics For This Presentation

Non-Seismic Changes S16-14 (3-4 highlights)

Why seismic is still here.
Seismic Changes in S16-14 (Highlights)
NBCC Seismic Changes

(Sorry to disappoint those who thought we would read out the full text of the S16-14 steel
Code )
 S16-14 has Lots of
Housekeeping Changes
Many changes can be described more as
housekeeping but also some good stuff.

Ill try to concentrate on the important stuff.

Notes distributed also include a
Spread-sheet

Spreadsheet is Clause-by-Clause with a little

commentary.
Preface to S16-14

Contains list of
changes in S16-14
that have
occurred since
S16-09.

(Less complete than distributed

list especially for annexes and
seismic)
 S16 14 Erratum

Erratum will be issued this fall.

Not sure if changes will be incorporated in
CISC manual.
 When will this be in effect?

NBCC 2015 will be available some time

2015
Will become standard and reference S16-14
as follows:
Code Effective Remarks
NBCC 2015 Early 2016 Federal Jobs / YVR
Most of BC except
BCBC 2017? 2017 or early 2018
Vancouver or Federal
VBBL 2020? 2020 or early 2021 City of Vancouver

May want to consider effects in your designs earlier rather than redesigning
at permit time.
 Example of Housekeeping Change
S16-14:

S16-09:

Now permitted to use ASTM A500 but have to use wall

thickness of 90% of nominal wall thickness.
 ASTM A500 Steel now recognized

ASTM A500 is common in Canada.

Hard to get round HSS that are not ASTM A500
CISC handbook has separate tables for ASTM A500
CISC handbook tables for A500 use 90% nominal wall thickness.
 Annex K
(Fire)
S16-14: CISC Publication
Can only use Annex K when permitted by regulatory authority. See CISC Website

S16-09:
Can use Annex K whenever you wish.
 Non-Seismic Changes that will
Some Effect on your work

Show Dead load on drawings

Give Pass through forces
Anchor Rod capacity
Shear Lag in HSS braces
Specification references
Drawing Requirement Changes
Structural Dead Load Requirements

Previous Wording:
(d) the specified live load and superimposed dead loads;

Revised Wording:
(d) the specified live, dead loads and superimposed dead
loads;

What this means: Have to put on your drawings what you have
assumed the weight of 65mm concrete topping on 38mm x
0.91mm composite deck will weigh not just have the joist
designer figure this out.
Dead Load Must also be provided
to the Joist Designer

Previously this clause did not have the total.

(Big difference for a one word change!)
 Pass Through Forces

Previous Wording:
(i) the governing combinations of shears, moments, axial
forces and torsions to be resisted by connections;

Revised Wording:
(i) the governing combinations of shears, moments, axial
forces, torsions including pass through forces to be
resisted by connections;

What this means: Have to put on your drawings what the pass
through forces are.
 Pass Through Forces
Now defined in Clause 3:

(Will admit this takes several readings to follow) Beam line acts as a collector
for diaphragm forces

Get axial force in beam that must

pass through connection
 While we are on Definitions:

Snug Tight is now refined:

It is snug tight if you cant remove the nut without using a wrench.

Definition of snug tightness has been updated. Must tighten enough to prevent
removal without a wrench. Previously we were told how to put the nut on
using "a few impacts of an impact wrench" or "the full effort of an ironworker
using a spud wrench" now more about how difficult it is to get the nut off.
 Anchor Rod Capacity

S16-14:

S16-09:

Need to consider A23.3 Annex D cant rely on formulas that

were in effect before Annex D was written.
 Shear Lag in HSS Members
connected by Slotted connection

New formulas added for net area will need to

be checked when detailing seismic brace bays.
Revised HSS connection

Will influence
if cheek
plates are
required.
28.7.4.3 Cant weld through Paint

S16-14:

S16-09:

S16-09 left you with the impression there were

approved W47.1 procedures for welding through
paint but there are no procedures in W47.1 for
welding through paint.
Just say NO!
 Notes and Specifications
(Will need to be updated for correct references)

S16-09 S16-14

S16-14 has 4
pages of reference
documents many
of which are
updated for 2014.
 Seismic Provisions

Earthquakes haven't gone away.

Capacity Design is still here.
 Earthquake Myth #1:

We are designing for a 2475 year event and

it therefore it will never happen to my
structure (or my lifetime).

1930 years old

545 years short of
2475 years.
Lessons from Haiti Earthquake

Magnitude 7 Event January 2010

Why are lessons from Haiti event
important for BC?
More than 10 events of magnitude 6.0 to
7.3 have occurred within 260 kM of
Vancouver since 1800.

Potential is that the

smaller frequent
scattered events
could be up to
magnitude 7.3.
 To Quote from
Innovation Magazine:

The implicationis that a Magnitude 7 or

larger shallow earthquake could occur
within 50 kM of one of the cities of the
Pacific Northwest including Vancouver,
within the next several decades.
The Mega-Thrust
Event
9 PM Jan 26,1700
The Great Mega-Thrust Event

4 events past 1500 years

If the New Woodward's building lasts the same
100 years as the old one did there is a 1 in 5
chance that it will experience the subduction
event.

What matters is how long your building is going to be in existence not how
long you plan to keep working.
Real Probabilities of an event in
100 years
1 in 5 for
Vancouver
1 in 3 for Victoria
 Bottom Line For Seismic
The members of the S16 seismic sub-
committee believe there is a real possibility of
a damaging event during the life of the
structure.
Capacity design provisions are fundamental to
seismic design as they accommodate events of
large magnitude.
 Seismic Changes for S16-14

Total of 28 changes in Clause 27

Variety of housekeeping changes
Moment Frame connections & connection
manual
Period Calculation for large footprint buildings
New annex on industrial things
 Modifications to Moment
Connections

March 9, 2005 December 2014

New moment connection manual

 Moment Frames in two Contries
USA
Northridge Earthquake
January 1994.
(Moment frame issues
found)
$11million Research program
FEMA 350. Use pre-approved
moment connections. Only
physically tested connections
approved.
Continued research results in
ASTM prequalified connection
manual 2010 / 2011. Allows for
yield line designed connections.
Canada
S16-01 comes out that makes it very
difficult to do moment connections.
(No conventional moment frame in
high seismic).
First Edition of moment connection
manual (2005). Essentially physically
tested connections.
S16-01(R05) & S16-09 released. Bit
easier for moment connections
references moment manual
S16-14 released. With new
Moment connection manual
referenced.
 2nd Edition Relies Heavily on
AISC research and publications

Based on AISC work and publications but

Canadianized with our Phi factors etc.
 Uses Yield Line Analysis on End Plates
CISC Moment Connections 2nd Edition

AISC Tables
 Clause 27 Changes
Clause 27.5.6 now collects and updates
clauses for brace bays with braces
intersecting between diaphragms:

Can have Rd=3.0 braces meeting between floors Have

 Maximum Yield of columns with hinging
at base decreased to 450 MPa

Most seismic elements cant go

over 350 MPa.

Previously this was 480 MPa aim is to

eliminate 70 KSI steel which is also prohibited
by AISC for seismic use.
 Brace Bay Braces 27.5.3

X-Braces should have

same heat for both
halves of the braces that
are split. (Cut from
same piece)
 EBFs with replaceable Modular Links

Replaceable link

After earthquake can

just take out damaged
link and replace with
new one and good to
go for next event.
http://www.hera.org.nz/Story?Action=View&Story_id=1829
Conventional Construction

Not many changes mostly editorial.

 Diaphragms

No changes in diaphragm under S16-14

However important change in period calculation for

large footprint buildings.
 Period Calculation for Large
Diaphragm Buildings

Not an S16 improvement but this is a change

in NBCC 2015 that was orchestrated through
Robert Tremblay and has an effect on single
story buildings with steel roofs.
Large Diaphragm Single Story Buildings

Many buildings have diaphragms much larger

than the height of the building.
Basing period only on height of building is
fails to recognize this.

hn

L>>H
Building Period

Timber Diaphragms
Freeman et al. (2002): Numerical model of buildings
with masonry (rigid) walls designed for California

Possible
lower bounds:
T = 0.011 L0.9
T = 0.0068 L

SCED 2012-06 TG on Buildings with Flexible Roof Diaphragms 57

 Steel Deck Diaphragms
(with vertical steel concentrically bracing)

ROOF JOISTS
ROOF BEAMS (typ.)
(typ.)

VERTICAL
X BRACING COLUMN
(typ.) (typ.)

SCED 2012-06 TG on Buildings with Flexible Roof Diaphragms 58

Field Test data
on Building Period
(2002-05):
Ta = 0.05 hn
0.6 0.6

Tmeas. (s)
Tmeas. (s)

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
Ta = 0.025 hn
0.0 0.0
0 4 8 12 0 50 100 150

hn (m) . Eastern Canada L (m)

Western Canada

0.6
Tpred. (s)

0.4

0.2 Tpred. = 0.0035 (L x hn)0.7

(Lamarche et al. 2009)
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Tmeas. (s)
SCED 2012-06 TG on Buildings with Flexible Roof Diaphragms 59
 Numerical model
of 5000+ buildings:

Vertical Vertical
Bracing Only Bracing + Diaphragm
Long Direction Long Direction

Western Sites Western Sites

Eastern Sites Eastern Sites
2 2

1.6 1.6

1.2 1.2
T (s)

T (s)
0.8 0.8
0.05 hn
0.4

0.4 0.4
0.025 hn
0.1

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 20 40 60 80 100
hn (m) L (m)
SCED 2012-06 TG on Buildings with Flexible Roof Diaphragms 60
 Proposed NBCC Code Provisions

For single-storey buildings with steel deck or wood roof diaphragms, the
fundamental lateral period, Ta, in the direction under consideration is permitted
to be taken as:

a) 0.05 (hn)3/4 + 0.004 L for shear walls,

b) 0.035 hn + 0.004 L for steel moment-frames and steel
braced-frames, or
c)
Where L is the shortest length of the diaphragm, in meters, between adjacent
vertical elements of the SFRS in the direction perpendicular to the direction
under consideration:
 Look At Brace Bay Diaphragm
With no diaphragm consideration:
T=0.025hn
With diaphragm consideration:
T=0.035 hn + 0.004 L hn

Where L is the shortest length of the diaphragm, in meters, between adjacent vertical
elements of the SFRS in the direction perpendicular to the direction under
consideration:
 Effect on Period

For 100m diaphragm get:

T=(0.35hn + 0.004L)
T=0.35*8m + 0.004*100m = 0.68 sec
 Effect on Base Shear

NBCC 2010 Period = 0.12 sec Shear = 0.269g

NBCC 2015 Period = 0.68sec Shear = 0.23g
 Effect on Base Shear

NBCC 2010 Period = 0.2 sec Shear = 0.077g

NBCC 2015 Period = 0.68sec Shear = 0.073g
 Effect on Base Shear 2 Codes

NBCC 2010 Period = 0.2 sec Shear = 0.16g

NBCC 2015 Period = 0.68sec Shear = 0.17g
 Annex Changes
An Appendix now called an Annex
Annex J Moment Connections Change Considerably.
Annex K Design under fire Referenced differently.
Annex M Industrial Steel Structures New annex.
Annex N? Racks New annex not yet in S16 but coming
soon.

Annex Classifications:
Informative There to help you provides guidance.
Normative Mandatory that you follow the requirements if the
annex is triggered. (e.g. if you are doing crane supporting
structures then it is mandatory that you follow Annex C on Crane
supporting structures).
 Annex J Moment Connections
Changed considerably
S16-14:

S16-09:
Seismic Design INDUSTRIAL steel
Structures

Much of this Annex developed by Vancouvers Mark Lasby, P.Eng.

Steel INDUSTRIAL Structures

R. Tremblay, Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal 70

Structural Configuration Does
Not Match Typical Building
Axe 11
N
Axe B
Axe 1
Axe I

17

16 N
15

14 13
12
11
Silo
10
9 1200t
8
7
6
5
4
3 Silo
750t
2

R. Tremblay, Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal 71

NBCC 2010

R. Tremblay, Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal 72


R. Tremblay, Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal 73
Annex M introduced in CSA S16-14

Annex M (Informative)
Seismic design of industrial building structures

M.1.1 Scope
This Appendix applies to industrial type buildings that are
classified as Group F occupancy, as defined in the NBCC, and are
expected not to respond to seismic ground motion in a fashion
similar to conventional buildings because of non-uniform
distribution of mass, strength and stiffness in the building,
absence of clearly defined floors, or reduced damping due to
limited architectural components. The intended use of these
buildings are essentially to support equipment and material for an
industrial process that may significantly affect the building seismic
response, and do not include the shelter of persons.

R. Tremblay, Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal 74

Annex M (Informative)
Seismic design of industrial building structures

Specific Requirements:

SFRS selected from Table M1 (with height limits).

Minimum system redundancy
Dynamic analysis
Number of modes for 95% participating mass
Amplified earthquake effects due to lower damping
Vertical earthquake effects
Capacity design for anchorage to foundation
Ductility detailing for anchorage to foundations
Columns parts of two orthogonal vertical SFRSs
Tanks on roof as equipment in NBCC
R. Tremblay, Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal 75
Proposed for NBCC 2015: Add a new footnote to Table 4.1.8.9

(4) For steel SFRSs in industrial type buildings classified as Group F

occupancy and intended to essentially support equipment, tanks or an
industrial process, the height limits, system restrictions and additional
analysis and design requirements contained in Annex M of CSA S16
shall also apply.

R. Tremblay, Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal 76

 S16 Annex N? (Racking)

Proposed to have racking included as Annex N

to S16.
 Why Racking in S16?
Millions of dollars of racks constructed in
Canada each year.
No longer standard in effect for their design
in Canada.
Authority Having Jurisdiction requires letter
of assurance.
CSA felt most expedient way to get a
standard was to put as annex in S16
 Storage Racks
Storage occupancy often in areas where the
public goes.
Many buildings in Canada would not exist if
storage racks did not exist.
This is a
rack

This is a
shelf
 Should Racks be Covered in the
Code?
Are they really just furniture?
We dont cover furniture in the Code

Hazard to public if they

fail in a seismic event.
 Existing References
(Neither is fully compatible with NBCC)
FEMA 460 (2005)
RMI (Rack Manufacturers Institute) Specification for
the Design, Testing, and Utilization of Industrial Steel Storage Racks
2011 edition (2008 version available now)

American Codes use higher R values

than are proposed under S16.
Racks are not a Perfect Fit for S16
Racks are steel but many of the
sections are class 4 and cold
formed.
Rack ductility lies in connections
not in the member.
Existing design procedures for
racks different from most S16
structures.
Not a type of structure that most
members of S16 familiar with.
 Racks Usually mounted at Grade

Most common rack system is at grade but may

also be above grade in the building.
 Typical Design
Moment frame in Down-Aisle direction
Braced frame in Cross-Aisle direction
 Seismic Behavior in Past Events

Northridge Christchurch
Earthquake 1994 (both events)
These racks have differences between racks that are
currently designed for seismic loads.
 Rack failures Italy 2012

Roof support was designed to be provided by

rack.
 Computation of Seismic Loads
For racks mounted on grade and not
otherwise connected to the building:
Consider as free standing structure and evaluate
by dynamic or static procedures.
 Flexible Structures and Long Periods

Results in low seismic forces

Down Aisle

Cross Aisle
 Seismic Resistance under S16
Desire is to have system compatible with
existing S16 seismic systems.
S16 seismic committee nervous about
approving seismic systems that are a radical
departure from present S16 seismic systems.
Proposed Solution Cross Aisle Direction

Consider racks as presently designed as

Conventional Construction (Rd=1.5 Ro=1.3)
Cross Aisle Vancouver
Proposed Solution Down Aisle Direction

Allow for ductility in joint if this is tested in

accordance with criteria (Rd=2,0 Ro=1.3)

This is the direction that

seems to give the rack
designers the most concern.
Down Aisle Direction
 Shears lots lower In Toronto

Down Aisle Most less than 2%g Cross Aisle taller racks mostly less
than 4%g
 You Wont find Rack Annex in S16-14

Agreement on Rd values could not be achieved

prior to S16-14 release.
Agreement now achieved.
Variety of issues being work on.
Expected issue in 2016.
NBCC 2015 Proposed Static Procedure

S (Ta ) * M v * I E *W
V=
Rd Ro

S (2.0) * M v * I E *W
V=
Rd Ro

2 S (0.2) * I E *W
V = *
3 Rd Ro

S (0.5) * I E *W
V=
Rd Ro
 Foundation Factor Now Period
Dependant
Previously (NBCC 2005 and NBCC 2010) Fa was a
function of: Site Class and Sa(0.2)
What this said was your spectrum got amplified
the same amount at all periods and the only
thing that mattered was how much shaking was
happening and how soft your site was:

Fa table from NBCC

2005 and 2010:
 First Important Change: F(t)
Tables for Fa and Fv have been replaced
with a series of tables for F(t). Now have
separate foundation factor for each of the
six reference periods:
F(0.5) F(0.2) F(0.5) F(1.0) F(2.0) F(5.0)
Eg:

F(10.0)
Will talk about
PGAref in a minute.
 Probably Better to See this
Graphically:

F(t) is dependant on:

Site Class
Period
PGAref (Which Ill talk about shortly)
Second Important Change: PGAref

Divides east and west because seismic

events in Eastern Canada felt more
intensely over wider area than in Western
Canada.

PGAref = reference PGA, for purposes of determining F(T), as defined in Sentence

4.1.8.4.(4)-NBC 2015
 PGAref
Start
4.1.8.4.(4): To determine F (T), used to
evaluate design spectral acceleration
Compute: values S (T) in 4.1.8.4.(9), the value of
Sa(0.2) / PGA PGAref for use with Tables 4.1.8.4.B to
4.1.8.4.I shall be 0.8*PGA when the ratio
(Western Canada) Sa (0.2)/PGA < 2.0 and shall be taken as
PGA otherwise.
No (Sa(0.2) / PGA 2.0)
Sa(0.2) / PGARef=PGA
PGA < 2.0?
Location Sa(0.20) PGA Sa(0.2)/PGA PGAref
Yes (Sa(0.2) / PGA < 2.0)
(Eastern Canada) Vancouver 0.848 0.369 2.30 PGAref=PGA=0.369
PGARef=0.8PGA
Victoria 1.300 0.580 2.24 PGAref=PGA=0.580
Kelowna 0.143 0.066 2.16 PGAref=PGA=0.066
Toronto 0.249 0.160 1.56 PGAref=0.8*PGA=0.128

Montreal 0.595 0.379 1.56 PGAref=0.8*PGA=0.303

Calgary 0.192 0.098 1.96 PGAref=0.8*PGA=0.078

 Third Important Change:
Spectrum Changes

Spectrum Calculation
NBCC 2015

Have to look at both F(0.2)Sa(0.2) and

F(0.5)Sa(0.5) and take the largest of the
two.
Solve for S(0.2) (Clause 4.1.8.4.6)

S(T)=F(0.2)Sa(0.2) or F(0.5)Sa(0.5)
whichever is larger (for T <= 0.2 sec)
Why we need to take account of
S(0.5):
Limiting Cut-off Formula
to T<0.5 Seconds
Work - Sheet

See paper distributed

USE REPLACEMENT HANDOUT

Site factors for site class A & B
were changed recently.
 Seismic Base Shear Calculations Short Period Buildings

Can use a spreadsheet approach

Bit different than NBCC 2010
Changes in formulation more important
than changes in Sa(0.2)

With thanks to Carlos Ventura and John Sherstobitoff for

pointing out several mistakes in earlier versions of this.
 Bottom Line - Kelowna

Kelowna Rd=3.0 Ro=1.3 Ductile Concentric Brace Bay

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E
2010 2015
 Bottom Line - Vancouver

Vancouver Rd=3.0 Ro=1.3 Ductile Concentric Brace Bay

0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E
2010 2015
 Bottom Line - Victoria

Victoria Rd=3.0 Ro=1.3 Ductile Concentric Brace Bay

0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E
2010 2015
 NBCC Change Affecting Seismic Analysis
Irregularity Type 9
Gravity induced lateral demand
the columns are not vertical
and have an effect on the
seismic performance of the
building.

Examples stolen from internet so as not to accidently include work from anyone who is
here.
Gravity Induced Lateral Demand
You get shear in your lateral systems from
gravity loading.

Shear Diagram Shear in

Free Body Diagram
shear wall
 Braced Frames
8 storey, R=0 = 4

= 0.0 = 0.2
 Irregularity Type 9 can also be
from Cantilevers

Again images stolen from internet so nobody

thinks that Im picking on them!
 Real buildings
Hotel Grand Chancellor, Christchurch

Without GILD

Residual
drift

With GILD

Residual
drift

BIG.dk
 Proposed Structural Irregularity
2015 National Building Code of Canada

Type Irregularity Type and Definition Notes

Vertical Stiffness Irregularity
Vertical stiffness irregularity shall be considered to exist when the lateral (1) (3)
1 stiffness of the SFRS in a storey is less than 70% of the stiffness of any adjacent (7)
storey, or less than 80% of the average stiffness of the three storeys above or
below.

Torsional Sensitivity
(1) (3)
7 Torsional sensitivity shall be considered to exist when the ratio B calculated (4) (7)
according to Sentence 4.1.8.11(9) exceeds 1.7.
Non-orthogonal Systems
8 A Non-orthogonal System irregularity shall be considered to exist when the (5) (7)
SFRS is not oriented along a set of orthogonal axes.
Gravity-Induced Lateral Demand Irregularity
A gravity-induced lateral demand irregularity on the SFRS shall be considered to
(3) (7)
9 exist where the ratio calculated according to Sentence 4.1.8.10.(4) (4)
exceeds 0.1 for SFRS with self-centering characteristics and 0.03 for other
systems.
 Proposed Structural Irregularity
2015 National Building Code of Canada
where IEFaSa(0.2) 0.5g

Systems with self- Other systems Code Requirement

centering
characteristics
No requirements
0.0 < 0.1 0.0 < 0.03
-Multiply displacements by 1.2
0.1 < 0.2 0.03 < 0.06 -Not allowed in post-disaster buildings

-Nonlinear response history analysis

-Not allowed in post-disaster buildings
0.2 0.06
 Determining
The ratio for Type 9 irregularity as defined in
Table 4.1.8.6. shall be determined according
to the following equation for each orthogonal
direction, determined independently:

=
1) Figure out seismic load on the wall at the critical section.
2) Increase computed shear for over-strength of system.
where 3) Figure out what shear you get from dead load at the same
section. lateral demand on the SFRS at the critical level
Q G
= gravity-induced
4) Take ratio
of the yielding system

Q = the resistance of the yielding mechanism required to resist the minimum

V
earthquake loads, but need not be taken less than R multiplied by the minimum
o
 Example
Do a simple example to show the computed
value of Alpha

Frame Model Deflection under Dead load

 Run under self weight

Free Body Diagram

Shear under Dead load
(V base of wall = 746 kN)
Compute Base Shear using NBCC
2015 get 0.207g (Victoria)
 Compute Shear on wall at base

Vf=0.207g * 12m * 24m * 0.25m*24 kN/m3 * 5

floors =
Vf=0.207g * 8640 kN
Vf = 1789 kN
746 746
= = = =0.28
1789 1.6 2682
Have type 9 irregularity (>0.03)

QG = gravity-induced lateral demand on the SFRS at the critical level of the yielding system
QV = the resistance of the yielding mechanism required to resist the minimum earthquake loads, but need not be taken less than
R multiplied by the minimum lateral earthquake force as determined in Article 4.1.8.11. or 4.1.8.12, as appropriate.
o
 What happens if we have
Irregularity type 9?
(Normal System not considered self-centering)
Normal and High Importance:
Need to account for in design
-If 0.03 0.06 Multiply deflections by 1.2
-If > 0.06 Do Non-Linear Dynamic Analysis

Post Disaster:
Not permitted to have irregularity type 9
Need to get rid of the irregularity.
 Non-Linear Dynamic Analysis
What we mean by Non-Linear Dynamic Analysis is given in NBCC
Commentary:

1. Time Step Analysis using 11 records, records to be representative of site.

2. Model to include: The inelastic properties of the structural elements in the
model (e.g. strength, stiffness, ductility capacity and hysteretic behaviour)
3. Independent peer review.

What does not count as Non-Linear Dynamic Analysis

1. Static Analysis (if you thought this was OK we have more serious issues).
2. Modal Analysis.
3. Time step analysis where inelastic properties have not been considered.
 Why not just Dynamic Analysis?
(Like the good old days)

Dynamic Analysis usually means:

Linear modal analysis
A spectrum as load input.
(Can get neat dancing structures very quickly).

What you dont pick up using modal analysis:

1. The Non Symmetric nature of the problem
2. The effect of yielding capacity in different directions.
3. The effect of localized stiffness loss.
4. The increased damping due to non-linear behavior.
Could always straighten out column

Gravity
Shear Diagram with induced Shear Diagram without
inclined column Shear inclined column
 Low Seismic
Existing clause in Building Code eliminates
need for seismic design in low seismic areas.

NBCC 2010: No seismic

required if S(0.2) 0.12
Stable Craton Region

Source: Earthquakes Canada

Website
 S(0.2) 0.12
S(0.2)=FaSa(0.2)

Site Fa Max Sa(0.2) for FaSa(0.2)

Class 0.12
A 0.7 0.171
B 0.8 0.150
C 1.0 0.120
D 1.3 0.092
E 2.1 0.057
 S(0.2) 0.12
S(0.2)=FaSa(0.2)
Site Fa Max Sa(0.2) for FaSa(0.2)
Class 0.12
A 0.7 0.171
Location Sa(0.2) Site Class for B 0.8 0.150
FaSa(0.2) 0.12
C 1.0 0.120
Dease Lake 0.095 A, B, C
D 1.3 0.092
Dawson 0.11 A, B, C
Creek E 2.1 0.057
Fort Nelson 0.095 A, B, C Most of Prairies is 0.095
Fort St. John 0.096 A, B, C
Prince 0.13 A, B
George Red = Fracking nearby
Smithers 0.11 A, B, C
 Where are we?
Location Sa(0.2) Site Class for
FaSa(0.2) 0.12
Dease Lake 0.095 A, B, C
Dawson 0.11 A, B, C
Creek
Fort Nelson 0.095 A, B, C
Fort St. John 0.096 A, B, C
Prince 0.13 A, B
George
Smithers 0.11 A, B, C

Under NBCC 2010 do not have to do seismic design even if

post disaster as long as your site class is firm enough.

7:00
No Seismic Design be careful
what you wish for:

Fort Nelson and Fort St.

John both no seismic
on A,B,C

30 days to Oct 04, 2015

 Damaging Earthquakes Can Occur
in Stable Craton Regions

Newcastle Australia Dec 28, 1989 Mag 5.6

A$4 Billion Damage
Proposed Revision for NBCC 2015
Easy way to get base shear.
Distribute to the levels as we usually do.
Provide a load-path for the forces but dont
have to follow any requirements in S16 or A23
seismic provisions.
(no capacity design)
 Example: Determine the base shear (%g)
for normal importance building located on
a Firm in Fort St. John. The building is a
three story building with a period of 0.3
seconds.

Location Sa(0.2) Sa(0.5) Sa(1.0) Sa(2.0) Sa(5.0) Sa(10.0)

Fort St. John 0.145 0.094 0.053 0.026 0.0077 0.0007
 Determine if low seismic
procedures can be used:
IEFsSa(0.2) = 1.0 * 1.0 * 0.145 = 0.145 (OK< 0.16)
IEFsSa(2.0) = 1.0 * 1.0 * 0.026 = 0.026 (OK<0.03)

Location Sa(0.2) Sa(0.5) Sa(1.0) Sa(2.0) Sa(5.0) Sa(10.0)

Fort St. John 0.145 0.094 0.053 0.026 0.0077 0.0007

Low seismic can be used

Location Sa(0.2) Sa(0.5) Sa(1.0) Sa(2.0) Sa(5.0) Sa(10.0)
Fort St. John 0.145 0.094 0.053 0.026 0.0077 0.0007

Sa(T) is the Sa value for the period of the

structure for our period of 0.3 seconds we do
linear interpolation between Sa(0.2)=0.145
and Sa(0.5) = 0.094 and get Sa(0.3) = 0.128
Vs=FsSa(Ta)IEWt / Rs =
(Fs=1.5) * (Sa(0.3sec)=0.128) * (IE=1.0)*Wt / (Rs=1.5)
= 0.128Wt
Future S16 developments

Cycle that will develop S16-19 will soon be starting

if you have issues that need to be realised now is
the time to do so.
(Preferably by writing to the S16 committee)

R. Tremblay, cole Polytechnique de Montral 138

 What Id like to see in next cycle:
Better guidance on cantilever beam stability.
Better guidance to the design engineer on
testing requirements.
A different Ro value for HSS brace bays.
Any other suggestions?
 Acknowledgments and Thanks
Dr. Robert Temblay, P.Eng. for some of the large diaphragm and industrial
structure slides.
Dr. Michel Bruneau for the New Zealand steel damage photos.
Alfred Wong of CISC for insight into the next edition of the Blue book.

APEGBC for organizing this event.

 Thank you for being here
If you wish to learn more about S16-14 SEABC
has a steel class starting in January 2016.
(Hopefully by that time the new handbook
with S16-14 will be out)

Also: Or consider the

book coming out January
2016 that will cover this: