ML20012G336
| ML20012G336 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200002 |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1992 |
| From: | Kennedy R, Short S EQE ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS (FORMERLY EQE ENGINEERING, RPK STRUCTURAL MECHANICS CONSULTING |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012G334 | List: |
| References | |
| UCRL-CR-111478, UCRL-CR-111478-DRF, NUDOCS 9302240278 | |
| Download: ML20012G336 (46) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:i UCRL-CR-111478 t i h BASIS FOR SEISMIC PROVISIONS 1 OF UCRL-15910 [ Prepared by: Robert P. Kennedy RPK Structural Mechanics Consulting
) and Stephen A. Short .,
EQE Engineering Consultants " l l Prepared for: ' U.S. Department of Energy ' i i I September 1992 DRAFT l
;ran=aunag2
'A ,
Talie of Contents i o o Peo? t
- 1. INTRODUCTlON . .. . .... .. . .... ............................................... 1-1 :
- 2. REQUIRED LEVEL OF SEISMIC DESIGN CONSERVATISM T0......... 2-1 .!
I j ACHIEVE A SPECIFIED RISK REDUCTION RATIO t t 2.1 Derivation . ... .. ............... ..... ............................. ...... 2-1 2.2 V a li d a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 l 2.3 C e r e c l u si o'n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5 ; i
- 3. DETERMINISTIC SEISMIC ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR....... ........ 3-1 l PERFORMANCE CATEGORIES #1 AND #2 !
- 4. DETERMINISTIC SEISMIC ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR....' ........... 4-1 PERFORMANCE CATEGORIES #3 AND HIGHER l 4.1 Overview of Deterministic Seismic Crite4ia ... ..................... 4-1 i i
4.2 Bench marking Studies for Deterministic Seismic i Ac c: e pt a n c e Cri t e ri a . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . .. . .. .. . . .. .. ... .. . . 4-2 l 4.2.1 S eismic Demand (Res ponse) ................................... 4-2 3 4.2. 2 N on-S eis mic De m a n d ...... . . .... ... ..:.... . .. .... . ..... ..... .... . - 4-4 4 . 2. 3 C a p a c i t y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 4.2.4 Inelastic Energy Absorption Factor........................... 4-5 j 4 4.2.5 Comparison of Seismic Criteria Factor of'.................. 4-7 l l Safety with Required Factor of Safety 4.3 Minimum Required Ratio of TRS to RRS for ........................ 4-9 Equipment Qualified by Test
- 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF Fll VALUE IN UCRL-15 910 .......................... 5-1
- 6. REFERENCES......................................................................... 6-1 1
1 I I i i j H1123nblusdcetoe iii W
.i Table of Contents (Continued);
Pace
; 1 r
. List of Tables j, j
5-1 Structure, System, or Component (SSC) Seismic Performance........ 5-7:
~
Goals for Various Performance Categories -l 5-2 Seismic Performance Goals and Recommended Seismic................. 5-8 [ t Hazard Probabilities ; i 5-3 Typical Ground Motion Ratios and Hazard Slope Parameters... ....... 5-9 5-4a Maximum and Minimum Required Safety Factors Fpr to Achieve..... , 5-10 a Risk Reduction Ratio of RR = 20 for Capacities Cp Defined at l Various Failure Probabilities and Various af Values i i 5-4 b Maximum and Minimum Requireo Safety Factor Fp r to Achieve a Risk 5-11 Reduction Ratio of RR = 10 for Capacities Cp Defined at Various * } Failure Probabilities and Various af Values i 5-4c Maximum and Minimum Required Safety Factor Fpr to Achieve a Risk 5-12 .; Reduction Ratio of RR = 5 for Capacities Cp Defined at Various ; Failure Probabilities and Various af Values 1 i 5-4d Maximum and Minimum Required Safety Factor Fpr to Achieve a... 5-13
~
Risk Reduction Ratio of Rg = 2 for Capacities Cp Defined at , r Various Failure Probabilities and Various af Values i 5-5
~
DSE Factors, Factors of Safety, and Seismic Load Factors Required 5 54 ; to Achieve Various Risk Reduction Ratios i 9 5-6 Required Safety Factors Fpr to Achieve Risk Reduction Ratios........ 5 15 ! RR of 20,10,5 and Corresponding to 10% and Fa Values from Table 5-5 for Various AR and .G Values a H1123nt/usdoetoc iv
Table of Contents (Continued) j Pace. f List of Tables !
'l 5-7 Probabilities .f or Hazard Curve A and B from Figure 1.................... 5-16 f 1
)
5-8a Minimum Acceptable Fragility Factor and Resulting~ Annual.... ........ '5-17 Probability of Unacceptable Performance Pg for Hazard Curve A - [ 5-Sb Minimum Acceptable Fragility Factor and Resulting Annual............. 5-18 { Probability of Unacceptable Perfo.mance Pf for Hazard Curve B -' 5-9 Example Solution of Equation (16) for Hazard C,urve B, Performance 5-19
~
Category 3, C50 = 0.376g, G = 0.40 ; 5-10 Estimated Factors of Conservatism and Variability...................... .. 5-20 5-11 Comparison of Achieved Safety Factor to Required Safety Factor... 5-21 l for Low-Ductility Failure Mode (Fp5 % = 1.0; Ls = 1.0) y: 5-12 Comparison'of Achieved Safety Factor to Required Safety Factor... 5 '22 . for Ductile Failure Mode (Fp5% ' l75;ls = 1.0) l l i 5-13 Code Reduction Ceefficients, Rw and inelastic Demand Capacity.... 5-23 l Ratios, Fp j 5-14 Inelastic Energy Absorption Factors from Equation 50.................... 5-24 j and Reference 15 i l e I 1 I I
'l H1123rsblusdoetoc v )
i
2 : . Table of Contents (Continued) I Pace i i*
] :
List of Figures 1 i 5-1 Typical Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Curves............... ......... ........ 5-6 ! P 5 1 l f t l
+
[ t
?
?
t t
+
A f ) , i H1123nblusdoetoc yj I
- 1. Introduction !
UCRL-15910 (Ref.1) provides for a graded approach for the seismic design and ) evaluation of DOE structures systems, and components (SSC). By this graded j approach, each SSC is assigned to a Performance Category (PC) with a { performance description and at, approximate annual probability of seismic-induced .l unacceptable performance, Pp. Table 1 presents the seismic annual probability 1 i performance goals for PC #1 through #4 for which sp'ecific seismic design and j evaluation criteria are presented in UCRL-15910. In addition, UCRL-15910 also f provides a seismic design and evaluation procedure applicable'to achieve any l seismic performance goal annual probability of unacceptable performance specified :fv by the user. ! The desired seismic performance goaf is achieved b'y defining the seisniic hazard in terms of a site-specified design / evaluation response spectrum (called herein, the l ;
- Design / Evaluation Basis Earthquake, DBE). Probabilistic seismic hazard estimates are used to establish the DBE. These seismic hazard curves define the amplitude of i
the grounc motion as a function of the annual probability of exceedance PH of the ' r specified seismic hazard. Once the DBE is defined, the SSC is designed or i evaluated for this DBE using an adequately conservative deterministic acceptance f criteria. To be adequately conservative, the ac:eptance criteria must introduce an additional reduction in the risk of unacceptable performance below the annual risk i of exceeding the DBE. The ratio of the seismic hazard exceedance probability PHo t the performance goal probability Pp is defined herein as the risk reduction ratio, RR , 1 i.e.:
.l t
1 Pa Ra = - (1) Pr . : i The required degree of conserr m in the deterministic acceptance criteria is a - ; function of the specified risk ton ratio. .i l l The seismic design or evaluation criteria for a specific SSC is es'ablished in three i steps: \ 1 4 Step 1: Establish an acceptable approximate seismic performance goal for the I components being designed or evaluated. : H1123nblusdoecht 11 I . . i
. . f
._ . _ . _ . . . . - . ._ . _ . . . _ . . ~
_, w+ l Step 2: Establish a set of conservative seismic acceptance criteria which . introduce a significant reduction in the risk of unacceptable seismi
. . . . performance below the annual frequency of exceedance of the DBE. ; ;) .
- Step 3: Establish the DBE at an annual frequency of exceedance, Pj.{, equal to . -
RR (from Step 2) times Pp (fror.n Step 1),i e.,: Pa = Ra(Pr) (2) 1 Table 2 provides a set of seismic hazard exceedance probabilities PH , and risk- . reduction ratios R R for Performance Categories,1 thru 4 required to achieve the . seismic performance goals specified in Table 1. Sufficient conservation must be r l embedded into the specified seismic acceptance. criteria for each' performance category to achieve the desired risk reduction. ratio / R R . The next section defines . the required degree of conservation to achieve risk reduction ratios of 2,5,10 and - k
- 20. Subsequent sections then define conservative deterministic seismic evaluation and design criteria which are aimed toward achieving this required degree of. '.-!
s Conservatism. ' I e 3
.i i
l i,
'I i
[ l H1123nblusdoechl 1-2 i.
. m.,
- 2. Required Level of Seismic Design Conservatism to- !
Achieve a Specified Seismic Risk Reduction Ratio j i
'l 2.1 Derivation 1
Figure 1 presents two representative probabilistic seismic hazard curves expressed -i in terms of mean annual probability of exceedance versus peak ground acceleration. j Curve A represents a hazard estimate for a western higher seismicity site. Curve B : represents a typical hazard estimate for an eastern lower seismicity site. I Over any ten-fold difference in exceedance probabilities, such hazard curves may be approximated by:
- -k H H(a) = K,a (3) t
\
where H(a) is the annual frequency of exceedance of ground motion level "a," K1si l an appropriate constant. and K H si a slope parameter defined by: i 1 Kg = log ( Ag ) (4) in which A R is the ratio of ground motions corresponding to a ten-fold reduction in exceedance probability. The use of Equation (3)is suggested in Ref. 3. From Figure 1 comes the ground motion ratios and hazard slope parameters shown in Tabid 3. These results are typical. For western higher seismicity sites, the A R ratios for mean hazard curves will range from about 2.0 to as low as about 1.5 within the probability range from 10-3 to 10-5. For eastern lower seismicity sites, the corresponding AR ratios will range from about 2.0 to as high as about 3.75. Furthermore, A R is not constant over probability ranges that differ by an order of magnitude, with AR always reducing as the exceedance probability is lowered. In order to compute the risk reduction ratio, RR, corresponding to any specified seismic design / evaluation criteria, one must also define a mean seismic fragility curve for a component resulting'from the usage of these seismic criteria. This mean seismic f agility curve describes the probability of an unacceptable a H1123nblusdoech2 - 2-1
+
t i performance versus the ground. motion level. This fragility' curve is defined ~as being- l
- / ..
lognormally distributed and is expressed in term!$ of two parameters: a median ',. capacity level and a composite logarithmic standard deviation (see Ref. 2 for
-i further amplification). To estimate this composite logarithmic standard deviation,it ~ .!
I is sufficient to estimate the 50% failure probability capacity C50 and the. capacity: I i associated with any one of the following failure probabilities: 1 %, 2%,5% or j 10%. Then, the composite logarithmic standard deviation can be computed from -!' the ratio of these two capacity estimates. The standard' deviation will gene' ally r lie - within the range of 0.3 to 0.5. i
- j The probability, Pp, of unacceptable performances is obtained by a convolution of'
~
1 the seismic hazard and fragility curves. This convolution can be expressed by -' either: I t
~
.+n rd H g,3 3 ,
1 Pp =- PF/a da 5a 1
-0 s da ) !
'I oi l
.+w e 3 Pp = H(a) la da
) 56 -. j
.o s da j t
where PF/a is the conditional probability of failure given the ground motion level "a" , which is defined by the SSC fragility curve. Assuming a legnormally distributed-fragility curve with median capacity, C50, and logarithmic standard deviation ,0, and .! defining the hazard exceedance probability H(a) by Equation (3), from Equation (5b) one obtains: { i 3 (In a - M)2, ,, j 4" 1 2g 2 ! Pp = 0 {K j a-KH} apEn e ' da Sc i i. M = in C50 . .
) .f J \
H1123nblusdoech2 2-2 [5 l
'b
. , ed Defining X = In a, Equation (Sc) becomes:
1 l
~
^
[ix-M)2 ' '~
'" ~ Kx" 2 Ki H 2E dx e e >
5d Pp = QEn --n l Then, solving this definite integral by the approach shown in Appendix A of. . Reference 4 or other probability textbook. one obtains: : i
-kH M 1/ 2(KHO P e 5e F =.K.3e ,
or from the previous definitions of M: ;
=KC3 50-K H e / 2(K HO 1
Pp 5f - Defining Ho as the annual frequency of exceedance of the DBE ground motion level, from Equation (3): 'i i K. ! Kg = Ho [DBE) H Sg ; i from which: - y 1/ 2(KHp)2 Pp = HDe 5 i H (C50 /DBE)K ! Equation (5) is exact so long as the fragility i's lognormally distributed and the '! hazard curve is defined by Equation (3), (i.e.', is linear on a log-log plot). Equation l
^
(5) will be used to derive the required level of seismic design conservatism to ! achieve any specified seismic risk reduction ratio RR- l i 1 H1123nblusdoech2 2-3 j i I i i
. . ~ . .
- . . - ~ . -- - . ._ -. -
mhM l 1
'In order to accommodate ground motion. A R. ratios ranging from 1,5 to 3.75'while I t achieving a given required risk 1 reduction ratio Ra by'a specified degree' of seismic . 1 design conservatism, it has been found that the DBE must be defined 'as the larger '
I
- of:
t DBE 2 aPH (6a) DBE 2:f aaPF (6b) where aPH and app are the mean ground motions at the seismic hazard probability, PH, and probability performance' goal,, Pp, respectively, and fa is an empirically - l derived f actor to enable the required risk reduction ratio, RR to be approximately-achieved over the wide range of AR values, When the DBE is defined by Equation I (68): ' Ho = PH 7a and thus the risk reduction ratio, RR, between the annual frequency of exceedance j of the DBE and the probability of an unacceptable performance is given by: I m
'i s
$ Rg = Pp0 = 50 (C /DBE)K H e- IKH ga .
+
i Alternatively, when the DBE is defined by Equation (6b): [,
._K H r DBE 't Ho=Pg = Pp (fa )-K H 7b ;
3PF ., ' Substituting Equation (7b) into Equation (5) leads to: i i (fa) KH = /DBE)KH e-1/ 2(KgD)2 8b (C 50 - i The required ratio (C50/DBE)is given by Equation (Ba) when Equation (7a) produces i a lower exceedance probability, Ho, than does Equation (7b). ' When (7b) produces 1 the lower, H D, then (C50/DBE) is controlled by Equation (8b). i I t H1123nblusdoech2 2-4
9dM Next, the rninimum require'd capacity, C;., at any failure probability *P" to achieve a risk reduction, RR, can be defined by: Cp _ = Fpa (DBE) (9) where FPR is the required safety f actor which is a function of both the probability P and the risk ratio, R R. Then, the required. median capacity is: C 50ok =Cep P (10) where Xpis the factor associated with the failure probability "P" for the standard normal distribution, i.e.: P Xp P Xp 1% 2.326 15'A 1 037 5% 1.645 20 % 0.842 10% 1.282 50 % 0 Combining either Equation (Sa) or (8b) whichever controls with Equations (9) and (10), the required safety factor, FPR is: NUM F IllI' PR
- DEN NUM = smaller of Ral *H or 1/ fa (12)
/ 2)ph ~ ~
DEN = e[x - (KH p (13) Tables 4a,4b,4c and 4d present the maximum and minimum values of FPR within , .- 3 the range of 1.5 5 Ag 5 3.75 and 0.3 s E s 0.5 required to achieve RR ratios of 20,10,5 and 2, respectively, for various failure probability "P" and af values. Also .- . presented in these tables are the ratios of maximum to minimum F PR for each - conditiorf. H1123nb/vsdoech2 2-5
.n As an example, for RR.= 20,fa = 0.45, and a 10% failure probability, the ;
maximum FPR occurs when AR = 1.8 47 (i.e.,~ KH = 3.752) and p = 0.5. ' Thus, ! NUM = 2.222 from Equation (12) and DEN = 1.188 from Equation (13) which - I leads to the maximuni FPR of 1.87 shown in Table 4a-for this case. Similarly, for i l this same case the minimum Fpg occurs when Ag = 3.75 (i.e., KH = 1.742) and j p = 0.5 for which NUM = 2.222, DEN = 1.527 and the minimum Fpg = 1.46-
.l also shown in Table 4a.
f 3 As another example, for RR = 20,fa = 0.5, and a 20% failure probability, the y minimum FPR occurs when AR = 3.75 (i.e., KH = 1.742) and p = 0.4833 for which NUM = 2.0, DEN = 1.226 and the minimum FPR = 1.63. However, when this case is slightly changed to RR = 20,fa = 0.45 and a 20% failure probability, '
. l the minimum FPR occurs when AR = 1.5 (i.e., KH = 5.679) and 9 = 0.3 for which 1
NUM = 1.695, DEN = 0.997 and the minimum FPR " .1.70. .l j
~
Thus, the maximum and minimum FPR values shown in Tables 4a through 4d come from differing combinations of AR and p for the cases considered. In general, the j entire sample space of 1.5 5 AR s 3.75 and 0.3 5 p 5 0.5 must be searched to find . I i the maximum and minimum FPR values for each case. ! From Tables 4a through 4d, note that for each RR ratio, the maximum to minimum
) range on FPR i s minimum when the 10% failure capacity is used. This range is not '
l I i significantly increased when 5% or 15% failure capacities are used. However, when either the median failure capacity C50% or the very low 1 % failure capacity. }; C 1 %i s used, the scatter range on Fpg becomes much larger which indicates that it i is much less desirable to define the required factor of conservatism F i ~
~
PR n terms of these failure probabilities instead of thr. 10% failure probability capacity. I in addition, the maximum to minimum 43 ratio is also miaimum for each RR ratio when the f avalues listed in Table 5 are used to define the DBE in Equation (6b). , Note for Ag ratios of 3.75 or less that for RR = 2 Equation (6b) with fa s 0.65 i t never controls the DBE. Therefore, for RR = 2, the DBE can always be defined by j Equation (6a) and fa is not applicable. !
.I in conclusion, it is recommended that the DBE level be defined by the larger of
{ Equations (Sa) or (6b) using af from Table 5, and the minimum required 10% I probability of failure capacity Cl og be given'by: i H1123nblusdoech2 2-6
?
j A
- l. '
l' : 1 i l C3cy,2 Fa (DBE) (14)- ; i Table 6 shows the required Fg,v,alues to achieve the desired RR ratio for various AR g._ . and p values. The required factors of safety FR provided in Table 5 are roughly the ' midpoint values shown in Table 6 with greatest weight being placed are the 1.65 s ! AR .5 3.25 ratios within which the vast majority of probabilistic seismic hazard l curves are expected to lie. The Fg alues in Table 6 range from 86% to 110% of the required FR values listed in Table 5 except for the RR = 2 case with an unlikely very steep hazard curve (AR = 1.5) combined with an unlikely high logarithmic standard deviation (p = 0.5) for which F c-- 4 exceeds n: the\value in Table 5 by 21 %. Equation (14) may be alternately written as: gA l C10% =1.5Ls (DBE) (15) L3 = Fg /1. 5 (15a) i where L 3 si the seismic load factor defined in Tabie 5 for the specified risk ' reduction ratio RR. This attemate format is used in subsequent sections and in UCRL-15910 (Ref.1). i 2.2 Validation l
-I However, actual hazard curves are not perfectly linear when plotted on a log-log --
scale (for example, see Figure 1). Therefore, Equation (3) which was used to derive Equation (5), and thus the results of the previous subsections,is only an i approximation of an actual hazard curve. Essentially all hazard curves have reduction in AR (i.e., increasing KH values) as the exceedance probability is lowered, which shows up as a slightly concave downward hazard curve in Figure 1. The combined effect of using Equation (3) to define the hazard curve, and the v/* o [//< 6
. required factor of safety FR values defined in Table 5 svhich approximate the values . given in Table 6 will be shown in this section using both hazard curves A and B from Figure 1.
For any shape hazard curve, the probability Pp of unacceptable performance may be I obtained by numerically integratirtg either Equation (Sa) or (5b). From Equation (Sa): ! l H1123nb/usdoech2 2-7 ' l
. . . . . ... . .. .- - . w ~
mJ , h. ' . V 1 cj
= ;
. Pp '=[Hf a ;) - H(a ;.3)]PFlaco; (16) ,
.,, .i=1 whereceg,is the center-of-gravity groun'd motion !evel between a; and a;+ 1 defined !
i by: -l i 3 1 ai+ 1 H(ala da l a.' e aeg;= -(16a) : ai+ i
^
a H(a) da .
]
ai f n j and P a,g; is the conditional failure probability at ground motion level aggg. fl Assuming a piecewise linear hazard curve defined locally by Equation (3) between'a;- ! and aj + 1and defining the local slope parameter K H by: i < ; } - - . -i I g(H(ai) /H(am)) : K;= H log ((a 3) / (a;)) (16b)- l then Equation'(16a) gives: 4 - i i b (1 - KHi) ~a.(2-Kg;) - a(2- Kg;)~ - : 1 i+ 1 1 1 a CGi (16c) (2 - KHI) -a.(1-Kg;) -a(,1-Kg)! 'i a+1 . r i
-t
~.
t
/
A H1123nblusdocch2 2-8 I i h
. . - +
j l i The use of Equation (16c) to define aeg, improves the accuracy of Equation (16) l over that obtained using the midpoint acceleration and thus permits larger - i acceleration steps to be used. f The hazard exceedance values versus peak ground acceleration from Figure 1 are ( tabulated in Table 7 for seismic hazard curves A and B. Table 8a presents for { seismic hazard curve A (Figure 1) and performance categories 2,3 and 4 the ! required DBE level (from Equation (6a) and (6b)), the required 10% probability of. ; f ailure capacity C10% (from Equation (14) and Table 5)), the resultant 50% failure probability capacity C 50 orf severallogarithmic standard deviations (from Equation 10), and the resulting unacceptable performance probability Pp obtained from $ Equation (16) using these capacities. Table 8b presents similar results for seismic hazard curve B (Figure 1). Table 9 presents an example solution of Equation (16) l for the case of seismic hazard curve B, performance category 3, and loga.rithmic ! standard deviation, G, of 0 4 to illustrate how the resulting Pp results given in Tables 8a and Bb were obtained. , 1 For the 18 cases presented in Tables 8a and Sb, the basic criteria of th'e previous subsection leads to probabilities of unacceptable performance which range from l t 72% to 119% of the desired performance goal probabilities. This excellent ; t prediction of failure probabilities validates the basic criteria of the previctis'coction. j
~
2.3 Conclusion j The performance goals are accurately achieved over a wide range of hazard curves l and fragility curves when: i i
- 1. The DBE is defined from probabilistic hazard curves by Equations (6a) and (6b) where fa is defined as a function of R R in Table 5. l 2~.
The required 10% probability of failure seismic capacity C10 % is defined by Equation (14) where F i R s also defined as a function of RR' ! in Table 5. l [
. i I
H1123nb/usdoech2 2-9
. l 4
*GW I
.l These;two steps represent the basic seismic acceptance criteria. -
-j The most general approach to demonstrate compliance with the above basic j seismic criteria is as follows: ' i;
- 1. Establish the DBE ground motion. l d.
- 2. Define a Scaled Design Basis Earthquake (SDBE) ground motion by 1 increasing the DBE ground motion by the required safety factor FR ,
i.e.:
)
~
SDBE = Fa (DBE) . (17) ! q
- 3. Perform sufficient linear analyses, nonlinear analyses, testing, etc., to .
reasonably determine that for the combination of the SDBE with the i best-estimate of the concurrent non-seismic loads there is less than i e about a.10% probability of unacceptable performance. : Any seismic evaluation approach which is consistent with the above three steps is - an acceptable approach to approximate the desired performance goal and is thus ~
) ,. . permitted'in UCRL-15910 (Ref.1). However, most ceismic design and evaluaticn -i engineers prefer to work with a deterministic evaluation procedure based on elastic :
analysis and code capacities in lieu of the quasi-probabilistic approach defined -I above. Therefore, UCRL-15910 provides deterministic seismic evaluation procedures which are aimed toward achieving the basic seismic acceptance criteria , defined above. The basis for these deterministic seismic evaluation procedures' is , presented in Section 3 for Performance Categories #1 and #2, (RR = 2) and in f Section 4 for Performance Categories #3 (RR = 10) and #4 (RR = 20). i b 5 t I
).
H1123nblusdoech2 2-10 ' 4 _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______i
g_ e mM
- 3. Deterministic Seismic ' Acceptance Criteria for Performance Categories # 1 and #2 For Performance Categories (PC) #1 and #2, the risk reduction ratio, R R ,is 2 as specified in Table 2. For Rg = 2, ficm Table 5, FR = 1.0. Thus, to achieve a risk reduction ratio of 2, there needs to be about a 10% probability of unacceptable performance when a SSC is subjected to the DBE. Based on experience frorn past earthquakes, normal building codes such as the Uniform Building Code (Reference 5) result in less than a 10% probability of unacceptable performance when a SSC is subjected to the DBE which corresponds to Z for the Uniform Building Code.
Therefore UCRL-15910 specifies that the Uniform Building Code provisions be used for the seismic evaluation of PC #1 and #2 SSC, except that the DBE specified by Equation (Ga) be used for Z in the code equations. 3 4 a H1123nb/usdoech3 31
4
- 4. Deterministic Seismic Acceptance Criteria for Performance Category #3 and Higher !
1 I i 4.1 Overview of Deterministic Seismic Criteria : UCRL-15910 specifies for PC #3 and higher that the seismic evaluation must be performed by a dynamic analysis approach. By this approach, an elastic response analysis to determine the elastic-computed seismic demand D 3 from the DBE is first performed. The elastic seismic demand is computed in accordance with the seismic analysis requirements . of ASCE Standard 4-86 (Ref. 6) with one exception. ASCE Standard 4-86 requires that the design response spectrum be defined using mean-plus-one-standard-deviation-level ' amplification factors. Unfortunately, this requirement is not compatible .with the DBE being ! defined at a specified mean annual probability of exceedance, as is required in UCRL- ! 15910. Mixing these two requirements would lead to a DBE response spectrum which has ! a variable mean annual probability of exceedance over the natural frequency range of ; interest, ranging from the specified mean annual probability at high natura'irequencies I (above about 33 Hz) to substantially less than the specified mean annual probability at I natural frequencies of 9 Hz and lower. The resulting variable conservatism cannot be i easily accommodated in probabilistic performance goal-based criteria. Therefore,in UCRL-
-j J 15919 a mean (or median) site-specific response spectrum shape is used so as to maintain !
a consistent mean annual probability of exceedance over.the entire natural frequency range [ of interest. Even with'the above exception, elastic seismic demands are slightly I conservatively computed. I Next, this elastic computed seismic demand D3 is factored by dividing it by a permissible ! inelastic demand / capacity factor, Fp (also often called an inelastic energy absorption factor l or ductility f actor) and multiplying by an appropriate seismic load factor, Ls , to obtain an inelastic; factored estimate of.the seismic demand D31, i.e.: , Dj=L3 3 (18) Fp 6 where L3must correspond to the desired RR ratio, as given in Table 5. The Fp values given in UCRL-15910 are aimed at achieving a RR ratio of 10. The L3 actor f in Table 5 l l i
^
H1123nb/usdoech4 41
]
w are used to adjust the risk reduction ratios to other vaices as previously shown in , Section 2.1. The establishment of Fpvalues is further discussed in Section 5. The totalinelastic-factored demand DTI si then given by: DTl = Dgg+D; g (19) where DNS represents the best-estimate of all non-seismic demands expected to occur l concurrent with the DBE. This totalinelastic-factored demand DTI s i held less than the code-specified minimum ultimate or limit-state capacity Cc , i.e.: l Cc 2 DTI (20) Equations (19) and (20) represent the DBE load-combination.and seismic acceptance , criteria appropriate for the DBE, respectively. For use in Equation (20), Cc must include the code specified capacity reduction factor, $. , 1 The deterministic seismic acceptance criteria summarized above and defined in detail in 1 1 UCRL-15910 is aimed toward approximately satisfying Equation (14) and thus' achieving the desired risk reduction Rg ratio as is demonstrated in the next subsection'. However, considerable judgment and use of estimated factors of conservatism and variabilities from- { past seismic probabilistic risk Msessment studies (e.g., Ref 7)is necessary. Therefore, great rigor or quantitative accuracy in achieving these seismic risk reduction factors should_ j not be implied. The factors merely served as target goals in developing the criteria. It is j expected that the specified risk reduction RR ratio is achieved by the above deterministic : seismic acceptance criteria at least within a factor of two accuracy, which should be , adequate. 1 4.2 Bench Marking Studies for Deterministic Seismic Acceptance Criteria ' t 4.2.1 Basic Derivation , IF Fs is defined as the median seismic factor of safety, then I l Fs = C50 -Dusgo Fp50 (21) DS50 H1122nblusdoe h4 42 . a i
--y
1 where C50,DNS50, and Fp50 are median estimates of the capacity, non-seismic demand,. ~! seismic demand,' and inelastic energy absorption factor, respectively, in turn, _ ] ,
- i. 'I
~C50 = FCCC Duggo = FngDng D s 50 = D.S /Fa -l F 50 = FjF l I
where C c, DNS, and Fp are the capacity, non-seismic demand, seismic demand, and l inelastic energy absorption factor, respectively, computed in accordance with the guidance -{ of UCRL-19510 as summarized in Subsection 4.1 and Fc , FNS, and FR and Fj are the .!
-estimated median factors of conservatism associated with this guidance for each of these-terms. Combining Equations (21) and (22) and rearranging: ..
'I i
5 FR jF FC .- FNS ( C CJ FS= # - r v (23L j
-) 1. - NS j
. <CCt 1-l l
The variability of this factor of safety may be defined in terms of its logarithmic standard deviation pps given by: , a e 31/2 ! 0FS = 0 +@ +D CSj ' I
~
Q where pR, El and pCS are the logarithmic standard deviations for the response, inelastic { energy absorption, and seismic capacity, respectively. In turn, pCS may be approximated j by: ' l t r 3 1/ 2 i FCOC) + [Fug ng(Dng / C C u ) Ecs = . (25). t FC - FNs (Dus / CC) -j
^ -) .. . ;
1; l H1123nblusdocch4 4-3 !
- )
where pc and pNS are the logarithmic standard deviations for capacity and non-seismic'~ demand, respectively._ i i Based upon combining Equation (10) and (15). the required median factor of safety Esg,, ; needed to achieve the desired risk reduction ratio is: r 1 F Sage FS
= 1.5Lg e .282S (26) l The ratio of Fsfrom Equation (23) to F SRad from Equation (26):
i S Rps = F (27) - SRad i defines the adequacy of the deterministic seismic criteria. TN value of Rps should be
.t close to unity. If it is substantially less than unity, the criter a are nonconservative. If it
~
substantially exceeds unity, the criteria are more conservative than necessary. In order to evaluate Rps, factors of conservatism and variabilities must be estimated for' seismic demand (response), non seismic demand, capacity and inelastic energy absorption - (ductility). Such estimates are made in the following subsections. 4.2.2 Seismic Demand (Resoonse) , As summarized 'in Section 4.1,in UCRL-15910 the elastic computed seismic demand is to l be obtained in accordance with the requirements of ASCE 4-86, except that mean input ' spectral amplifications are to be used instead of mean-plus-one-standard-deviati,on amplifications factors. Based upon Reference 8, the ratio of mean-plus-one-standard- { deviation to meaa spectral acceleration amplification factor averages about 1.22 over the - 7% to 12% damping range appIlcable for most structures. In addition, as noted in its. foreword, ASCE 4-86 is aimed at achieving about a 10% probability of th'e actual seismic response exceeding the computed response, given the occurrence of the DBE. Thus, the median response factor of safety Fg can be estimated from: e.282pg 1
=
FR 1.22 (28) I i H1123nblusdocch4 4-4 i [ t
,_.-a , ~~. _,- _ - ,$-
gsr 4
- Past seismic probabilistic risk 'assessments indicate a response variability logarithmic .
standard deviation pR of about 0.30lfor structures and about 0.35 for equipment mounted on structures. Thus: i Structures Ecuinment FR = 1.2 1.28 (29) ER = 0.3 0.35 4.2.3 Non-Seismic Demand - The load combination criteria of UCRL-15910 states that the best-estimate non-seismic' demand, DNS, should be combined with the seismic demand.~ Sinc., D NS is a best ~l estimate, FNS = 1.0, i.e., t,here is no conservatism introduced.- The variability of non-seismic demand is expected to be reasonably low, i.e., NS is expected to be less than - about 0.20. Thus: .
= 't. 0 FNS Sus = 0.20 However, because of a high degree of uncertainty on pNS, results will also be presented )-- for pNS =
0.40 to show the lack of sensitivity of the conclusions to PNS-4.2.4 Caoacity a
~
Past seismic probabilistic risk assessment studies indicate that the' capacity variability - logarithmic standard deviation PCi s typically about 0.20. The conservatism in the
- capacity factors based on the minimum strengths specified in the design codes is substantial and incredses with increasing pC. In order to avoid low-ductility failure modes, i
the median factor of safety C F for such modes is much greater than for ductile failure modes.
- Based upon a review of median capacities from past seismic probabilistic risk assessment studies versus code specified ultimate capacities for a number of failure modes,it is judged that for ductile failure modes when the conservatism of material strengths, code capacity equations and seismic strain-rate effects are considered, the code capacities have at least; a 98% probability of exceedance. For low ductility failure modes, an additional factor of-
' conservatism of about 133 is typically introduced Thus: . .)
H1123 rib /usdoech4
#~
4-5
.4
_ _ _ ~. . . __ 3 f Ductile Low Ductility f FC = e2.0We Fc = 1. 33 ' FC = 1.5 FC= 2.0 (31) 1 pC = 0.2 pC = 0.2 l
'! t The following low-ductility example of a longitudinal shear f ailure.of a fillet weld j connection is illustrative of the evaluations which have led to the estimates given in ,
Equation (31). Note that the transverse shear capacity of a fillet weld exceeds the
~
longitudinal shear capacity, yet tr. code capacity is the same in both directions. Therefore, basing this example on a longitudinal shear f ailure mode produces a lower estimated capacity factor of safety FC than for a transverse shear failure mode. ! Based upon extensive testing of fillet welds under longitudinal shear reported in Reference-
^ ,
9 and 13, the median shear strength, TW, of the fillet weld can be defined in terms of the j
?
A $ median ultimate strength, cu, of the electrode by: 1
^ A ;
i = 0. 84 cu- (32) j with an equation logarithm.c standard deviation, PEON, cf O.11. The median ultimate- - f , strength is defined in terms of the minimum code nominal tensile strength, FEXX,by: i A i a = '.1F Exx . (33) ; i with a logarithmic standard deviation, PMAT, of 0.05. 'In addition, a logarithmic standard ) deviation, pFAB, of 0.15 due to fabrication tolerances should be considered for normal j
, welding practice. The code shear capacity t c pecified s in, AISC ' RFD (Ref. C.2) for the
]
limit state strength approach for design is: i T = e 0.75iO.6)FEXX (34) Thus the median capacity factor of safety FCs. i 4 e l H1123nblusdoech4 46 j j
_ _ . _ . - , . . _ . - - . .-_s___ . . -_. _, . . .
.a .
l t- i ' A FC=- = = 2. 05 (35) te 0.75(0.6) a I lwith the capacity logarithmic standard deviation, pe, estimated to be. ,; e i p 1/2 'I OC=(Of0N + 0 'IAT #O FAB 1/2 '
=
(0.11)2 + (0.05)2 -(0.15)2 = 0.19 Many other ductile and low-ductility failure mode capacity examples which also support ' the reasonableness of the estimates presented in Equation (31) are available in reported ~ seismic probabilistic risk assessment studies such as Reference 7 and in Reference 13.- 7 t
)
4.2.5 Inelastic Enerov Absorotion Factor Based upon the seismic demand conservation estimated in Equation (29) of Subsection-4.2.2 and the capacity conservation estimated in Equation (31) of Subsection 4.2.5, it has - ! been found that to obtain a ratio Ryg for obtained to required median factors' of safety.of; _) about one or more, the inelastic energy absorption factor, Fp should be defined by: 1 F =F 5% (37)- ; i
. where Fp5% si the estimated inelastic energy absorption factor associated with ar .
.i l
permissible level of inelastic distortions specified at about the 5% failure probability level. 1 The adequacy of Equation (37) will be illustrat'ed in the r;cxt subsection. ; a
. t'
.t With the inelastic factored seismic demand, Dsj, defined by Equation (18) and. ;
Fpdefined by Equation (37), the resulting median inelastic factor of safety, FIis: i' f % OY s Fj= ls Fp5% j
=
lse' l (3 8) _. f t
?
'[t i 5 H1122nb/uedoech4 47 i
-j
p ) l i The inelastic variability logarithmic standard deviation pg will increase with increasing i Fp5%. For' a low-ductility failure mode where FP5% is' conservatively specified to be 1.0, [ in order to be consistent pg must be set to zero since Fp cannot drop below 1.0. However, ! Lfor a ductile f ailure mode for which FF5% = 1-.75, pi si estimated to be about 0;20. ' This' ! estimate corresponds te a median Fp50% = 2.4 and a 1% failure probability estimate of F Hl % = 1.5 which are reasonable for FP5% = 1.75. For this demonstration; both ductile I and low-ductility f ailure modes will be investigated with the following F and i actors f being used: ; Low Ductility Case Ductile Case I F p5% = 1.0 1.75 f pi = 0 0.20 :i Fj = Ls 14l s ! 4.2.6 Comoerison of Seismic Criteria Factor of Safetv with Recuired Factor of Safetv-The individual median factors of conservatism FR, FNS,FC and Fj and corresponding , logarithmic standard deviations estimated in Sections 4.2.2 through 4.2.5 are summarized -! in Table 10. Using these estirnates, the seismic criteria f-actor of safety Fs (from Equation (23) and the required f actor of safety FSRqd (from Equation 26) are shown in Tables 11 e and 12 for the low-ductility and ductile failure cases, respectively, for (DNS /CC) from 0 to O.6. In order to satisfy non-seismic load combinations and acceptance criteria, the expected non-seismic demand DNS should not exceed 60% of the code strength capacity i CC. Therefore, Tables 11 and 12 cover the full expected range of (DNS/CC). Both the - 1, required safety factor, FSRad, and Fj used in Equation 22 to define the achieved safety factor F3 are proportional to the seismic load f acto'r Ls. Therefore,13 may be dropped 'out of the comparisons. Tables 11 and .12 are for Lg = 1.0, but the resulting ratio Ryg of Fs ! to F SRqd is also applicable at other seismic load factors.
. For the ductile failure mode (Table 12), the achieved factor of safety and required factor'of safety are in close agreement over the entire range of (DNS /C C ). Similar close agreement exists for the low-ductility failure mode (Table 11) up to a'(DNS/CC) value of 0.4 For (DNS /CC) values beyond 0.4 and low-ductility failure modes, the seismic criteria become more conservative than desired. However, the conservatism cannot be removed without !
becoming nonconservative in other cases if simple deterministic seismic criteria are to be i maintained. , 4-8
^
H1123 nb/uedoech4
'I f !
i
,m
~!
In order to study the sensitivity of these conclusions to the assumed value of NS = 0.20 - l shown in Table 10 the iow ductility and ductile failure mode cases shown in Tables 11 l and 12, respectively, were repeated for pNS = 0.40 with all other pararneters held at ' the
+
values shown in Table 10. ' The achieved safety factors F3 shown in tables 11 and 12 are .{ not influenced by pNS so that they remain unchanged. At (D NS /CC) = 0, the required l t safety factors FSRqd are also not influenced by pNS so that they also remain unchanged. The largest change occurs for FSRqd at (DNS /CC) = 0.6. At this value, for the ductility i failure mode, F i SRad s increased to 2.67 for NS = 0.4 versus 2.58 shown in Table 11 ! I for PNC = 0.2. Similarly, for the ductile failure mode, FSRqd is increased to 3.07 versus l 2.88 shown in Table 12. In both cases, FSRad remains below the achieved safety factor Fs and the conclusions of the previous paragraph remain unaltered. In fact, the agreement between F3 and F SRqd is improved over the entire range of (DNS /CC) ratios. .Therefore, '! even when the non-seismic demand is highly uncertain, only the best-estimate (no intentional conservatism) non-seismic demand should be combined with the seismic demand. Thus, the deterministic seismic acceptance criteria defined in UCRL-15910 for PC#3 and f higher categories either achieves or exceeds the required degree of conservatism defined , by Equation (14). i i
) 4.3 Minimum Required Ratio of TRS To RRS for Equipment Qualified by Test <
i For equipment qualified by test, the minimum ratio of the TRS to the RRS needed to ! achieve the seismic margin specified by Equation (15) is defined by: I 1; 1 * (TRS /RRS) = 1.5Ls e .282 pts (40) Fa FC [ i i where pps is defined by Equation 24 and Fg and FC are defined in Equation (22L i Estimates of the median response facter of safety FR and variability for equipment are i presented in Equation (29). ! t An estimate of the median capacity factor of safety F C is impossible to make for { equipment qualified by test. All that can be estimated from such a test is a lower bound ' j on FC, and even this estimate is difficult. Standard test procedures use broader frequency l 1 H1123nblusdoech4 4-9 ! i- . i
l content and longer duration input than is likely from an actual earthquake; and to pass the . I test, the equipment must function during and after such input. Therefore, Fc must substantially exceed unity. However, such tests do not typically address the possible . ; sample-to-sample variability in the seismic capacity of the tested equipment, because it is ' typical to test three or fewer samples of a component. Based upon Appendices J and O of l Reference 13,it is judged that such qualification testing provides somewhere between ' ! 90% and 98% confidence of acceptable equipment performance at the TRS level, or ! failure probabilities for equipment that passed such a test between 2% and 10%. Thus: l FC .>- eXp PC (41) ; i Where Xp is the standard normal distribution factor associated with an assumed failure ! probability. Based upon a review of fragility results presented in Bandyopadhyay et al. (Reference 14), pC i s estimated to be about 0.20 for equipment qualified by_ test. l I For equipment qualified by test: : I Ep3=(Eg+E = [(0.35)2 +(0.20)2 = 0.40 (42) f Thus, from Equation (40) with FR = 1.28 from Equation (29): I Assumed Failure Lower Bound ' Probability P Xp i FC - (TRS/RRS)/L3 (Eq. 41) ; 2% 2.054 1.5 1.3 4 f 5% 1.645 1.4 1.4 10 % 1.282 1.3 1.5 Using the midpoint valve within this range: ; i (TRS / RRS) = 1.4 L3 (43) ; i and: 1 H1123nblusdoech4 4 10 4 4 g = -
- - - . = - ,
r i su
.Rg Ls'- ' (TRS / RRS) _
20 1.15 1.6 10 1.0 1.4 5 0.87 1.2 4 H1123nb/usdoech4 ' 4.j 1
*Eh
- 5. Establishment of F p Values in UCRL - 15910 TheFpvalues given in Table 411 of UCRL-15910 6 ! *ced herein as Table 13) are based on:
- 1. An estimate of the inelastic energy absorption factor associated with a level of inelastic distortions corresponding to about a 5% failure probability level for typical structures of the type being considered.
- 2. The high risk p values given in the DOD essential facilities seismic provisions (Reference 15).
- 3. Values of F back-computed from the Rw values given in the Uniform Building Code (Reference 5).
In general, the Fpvalues back-computed from the Uniform Bul/ ding Code Rw values were given tne greatest weight. Tt erefore, the basis for this back computation will be describe s Derein. Both Perfor cance Category (PC) #2 and #3 SSC specify th'e seismic hazard annual exceedance probacility to be 1x10-3. However, these two performance categories differ in both their performance goal descriptions (See Table 1) and required risk reduction in RR ratio (See Table 2). These two differences must be considered '{ when converting the Rw value from the Uniform Buliding Code (UBC) to an F p value. . The UBC based seismic demand for PC#2 can be approximated by:
=
D2 (LF) (12 ) (DBE) (DAFgoj,) (W) / Rw (44) 1. Where !- LF. = UBC Seismic Load Factor 12
= importance Factor for PC #2 = 1.25 e
m mnbiu.do.chs 5-1 9
.Is .. ..' . . _ ..
1 f%M .'
~
~
D A F5 ej, = Dynamic amplification factor from the 5 percent ground [
~
response spectrum at the natural period of the facility W = Total tveight of the facility RW = Reduction coefficient accounting for available energy absorption. ( (Reference 5) Expressed in a similar manner, the PC#3 required seismic demand can be
?
approximated as: D3 = (DBE) (m) (DAF5%)(W)/Fp (45) . Where: , m = A f actor accounting for the difference in spectral emplification from 5 percent to the damping appropriate for the facility in accordance with UCRL-15910 e.g., - m = 0.9 for 7 percent damping m = 0.8 for 10 percent damping j m = 0.7 for 15 percent damping-
. j F = Inelastic energy absorption factor -l However, D3 must exceed D2 by the ratios of the required factor of safety in Table 5 for PC#3 (RR = 10) versus PC#2 (RR = 2) and by the ratio of PC#3 to PC#2 importancb factors (13 /I )2 required because of the more stringent performance -
goal description for PC#3. Thus: r 3 3 i F R3 r,3_- 3; (46) ! D2 (FR2 s (I2 ) { l
. From Table 5: i 1
- l
'l
, h H1123nb/vndoech5 5-2
m* i i 1
'FR- S -
= 1.5 (47) i (FR2s !
and from judgment: ! I i rj S
~
3
= 1. 33 (48
( I)2 t Combining Equation (44), (45), and (46): , l F p=7 m Rw (49) 3 7 3 F 3 R3
,_ (LF)(1) 2 :
( 3; 2 ( "R 2 s e s Substituting in the approp'riate values of 12 = 1.25, 1j = 1. 3 3, (13s , r 3 ! and R3 = 1. 5 i (FR2s -! a F i m F/Rw= p 2.5(LF) (50) l
-1 where: :
-5 m =- .0.9 for steel (7% damping) .
m = O.8 for concrete (10% damping) ! m = 0.75 for masonry (12% damping) ! m = 0.7 for wood (15% damping) LF = 1.3 for steel :
~i LF ~= 1.4 for concrete and masonry j l
i l
?
- H1123nblusdoechs 5-3. ~I 1
4 l
;'bde Values of inelastic demand-capacity ratio, Fp , from Equation (50) along with values from the DOD essential facilities seismic provisions (Ref.15), are presented in Table i i 14 for many structural systems, materials, and construction. Note that these ' ;
values are used differently in that the Fpvalue in UCRL-15910 is applied to- ' response due to seismic loads only; while, by Reference 15, the inelastic demand- : capacity ratio is applied to response due to totalload. Thus, the Ref.15 results i must be somewhat increased to be comparable. ! The inelastic demand-capacity ratios from Equation (50) are based on the structural l systems for which reduction coefficients, Rw, are given in the UBC provisions. ; These provisions give different reduction coefficients for bearing wall systems and ~ { for building frame systems in which gravity loads are carried by structural:nembers i that are different from the lateral force resisting system. In addition, the UBC provisions distinguish between different levels of detail.ing for moment resisting ! space frames, between eccentric and concentric braced frames, and between single j and dual lateral load resisting systems. Consequently, Equation (50) results in more ; inelastic demand-capacity ratics than Reference 15, which does not make the ! above distinctions. On the other hand, DOD provisions give different inelastic { demand-capacity ratios for individual members of the lateralload resisting ' system? . !
) while UBC reduction coefficients refer to all members of the lateralload resisting system. .. ,
In general, there is reasonable agreement between the inelastic demand-capacity : i ratios from Reference 15 and those computed from Equation (50). For example, the DOD inelastic demand-capacity ratio for concrete shear-walls is between the values for bearing and non-bearing wa!!s from the equations. The DOD values are ! much lower than the values computed when shear walls act as a duci system with .t ductile moment-resisting space frames to resist seismic loads. The inelastic ; demand-capacity ratios for braced frames agree fairly well when the bracing carries' l t no gravity loads. When bracing carries gravity loads, values for steel braced frames .l j t are in good agreement, but based on Equation (50), no inelastic behavior would be permitted for concrete braced frames or wood trusses. The DOD inelastic demand-
]
capacity ratio for beams in a ductile moment-resisting frame fall between values ) from the equations for special and intermediate moment-resisting space frames (SMRF and IMRF as defined in Reference 5). However, the DOD values for columns are low compared to values derived from the code reduction coefficients. j
) 4 H1123 nb/uedoech5 - 5-4
.*A
- i Based u'pon the data presented in Table 14, the inelastic demand-capacity ratios for seismic design and analysis of PC#3 on higher SSC presented in Table 13 have i been selected. Because of the reasonable agreement with the DOD values from i,
Reference 15 combined with the capability to distinguish between a greater number - ! of structural systems, the values derived from Equation (50) have been given somewhat more weight for Table 13 than Reference 15 values. The only major -! exception is that Reference 15 values for columns have been utilized. Incrcased i conservatism for columns as recommended in the DOD manualis retained. In j additioq, Reference 15 provides slightly different values for different members { making up braced frames, and these differences are retained. i
}
i I P 4 i i 1 1 I
. I l
H1123nbluedoech5 5-5 l _. 2 _ ___ _ = ____-_ ____ - ___-___ _
<>r Y '
I t 1- , 4 3 i 3 i i 2 ' 10 ' ' ' ' ' '- E i
- : j
~ ~
Curve A(Western) i 8 -3 - / . - C 10 m E E
.o - -
8 : Curve B (Eastern)
'~
,j u - -
>< j ul -4 ,
o 10 5 E . x : : 1
.= - -
3 - . - n - -
.O o
-5 - - ..
-I c_ 10 5 E t
- : i
~ ~
.i 6 ;
10 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 1 2 ;
'l Peak Acceleration {g) ;
k I t i
?
i Figure 5-1: Typical Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Curves 1 ! H1123nblusdoech5 56 ' '
i Table 5-1 ! Structure, System, or Component (SSC) Seismic ! Performance Goals for Various Performance Categories _ 1
)
I Seismic Performance , Goal Annual Probability of ' Performance Performance Goal Unacceptable ! Category Description Performance
}i 1
Maintain Occupant ~ 10-3 of the Onset of, ! Safety SSCill Damage to the - ' Extent that Occupants . Are Endangered i 2 Occupant Safety, ~ 5x10-4 of SSC Damage Continued Operation with to the Extent that the , Minimal Interuuption . Component Cannat ' Perform its Function . : 3 Occupant Safety, -10'4_ of SSC Damage to Continued Function, the Extent that the Hazard Confinement - Component Cannot ' Perform its Function i I 4 Occupant Safety, ~ 10-S of SSC Damage to I Continued Function, the Extent that the ' ) Hazard Confinement Component Cannot i Perforrn its Function. 1 (1) SSC Refers to Structure, Distribution System or Components (Equipment) H1123nblusdoech5 5-7
l I t Table 5-2 Seismic Performance Goals & Recommended Seismic Hazard Probabilities i Seismic Hazard Ratio of Hazard ! Performance Seismic Performance Goal, P Exceedance to Performance Category F Probability, P robamy, R H R 1 1 x10-3 2x10-3 2 ; l 2 5x10-3 1 x10-3 . 2 ; t t 3 1x10 3 1 x10-3 10 ~ .! 4 1 x10-5 2x10-4 20 l l I f l I l I i l l I i
)
'H1123nblusdoech5 5-8 4
1
. . . . . . - .. _~ . .-. - - .
l 1 Table 5-3 1 1 Typical Ground Motion Ratios and Hazard Slope Parameters j i i l Hazard curve Probability Range A K
- g. H )
i A (Western) 10-3 to _10-4 2.0 3.32. j A (Western) 10-4 to 10-5 1,67 4,49 l
-t B (Eastern) 10-3 to 10-4 2.31 2.75' I I
B (Eastern) 10-4 to 10-5 2.13. 3.05 I I i l I i
'f l
.i l
-! 4 i
- 1 i
1 1 I l t 9 H1123nb/uodo ch5 5-9
]
l
Table 5-4a - , ,. Maximum and Minimum Required Safety Factors F To Achieve a pr l Risk Reduction Ratio of RR = 20 For Capacities Cp Defined at Various Failure Probabilities and Various f, Values - l Parameter Ranae: 1.5 s AR 5 3.25 0.3 s p s 0.5 l
)
h Capacity Cp FPR Range. Probability ' 4 fa = 0.5 fa = 0.45 fa = 0.4 fa = 0.35 1% 1.21- 1.31 1.44 1.62 :
= 1.55 ' = 1.52 = 1. 4 8 - = 1,54. a 0.78 O.86 l 0.97 1.05 !
5% -; m 1.51 _ 1.61 39 = l 33 = 1.32 = 1.48 1.09 1.21 1.34 1.34 10 % l.82 - 1.87 1.98 2.21 : . = 1.3 9 = 1.28 = 1.33 = 1.4 R '
) 1.31 1.46 1.49 1.49 15 %
2.05 2.11 2.24 2.43
=1.39 = 1.32 . = 1.40 = 1.52 1.48 1.60 1.60 1.60 a!
20 % I 2.26 2.33 2.47 2.68
= 1.39 =f.37 = 1.45 = 1.58 ,
1.63 1.70 1.70 1.70 ) 50% . . 3.45 3.5$ 3.76 '4.08
= 1.60 = 1.62 = 1.72 = 1.86 2.16 2,19 2.19 2.19 .i.
Key to read table: Made" Ratio
=
MinFra i
^!
= Lowest . ratio case 1!
, i i
-) l i
H1123nbluedoech5 5 10 i
.1
T -47tir Table 5-4b i Maximum and Minimum Required Safety Factors F to Achieve a Risk l pr Reduction Ratio Of R R = 10 for Capacities C Defined at - p [ Various Failure Probabilities And Various f, Values ; t i Parameter Ranoe: 1.5 5 AR 5 3.25 0.3 s E s 0.5 f Capacity Cp FPR Range
- Probability ;
fa = 0.55 fa = 0.5 fa = 0.45 fa = 0.4 1% < l.08 1.16 1.26 1.39 -
= 1.52 = 1.49 =1,47 = 1.51 0.71 0.78 0.86 0.92 :
i 5% :
)
1.34 1.42 1.54 1.71
= 1.35 = 1.30 = 1.31 = 1.45 t 0.99 1.09 1.18 1.18 .
i 10%
- 1.61 1.61 1.72 1.91 ;
=1.35 = 1.23 = 1.30 = 1.45 :i 1.19 1.31 1.32 1.32 15%
l.82 2.05 1.82 1.90 '
= 1.35 = 1.28 = 1.34 = 1.44
- 1.35 1.42 1.42 1.42 ;
20 % ! 2.00 2.00 2 09 2.25 i
= 1.35 = 1.33 = 1.39 - = 1.50 :
1.48 1.50 1.50 1.50 -! 50 % ! 3.05 3.05 3.19 3.42 i
= 1.57 = 1.57 = 1.64 = 1.76 ;
1.94 1.94 1.94 1.94 l i Key to read table: Madra = Ratio l MinFra -i
= Lowest ratio case l l
i t H1123nb/usdcoch5 5-11 .j I i 2
m, Table 5 4c ! Maximum and Minimum Required Safety Factors F to Achieve A Risk . .l pr Reduction Ratio of RR = 5 for Capacities Cp Defined at Variaus ; Failure Probabilities and Various af Values j f Parameter Ranae: 1.5 5 AR s 3.25 0.3 s p s 0.5 ; i Capacity Cp [ FPR Range. r Probability ; fa = 0.65 f a = 0. 6 fa = 0.55 fa = 0.5 l 1% 0.91 0.96 1.02 1.10 ;
= 1.52 = 1.48 = 1.44 = 1.43 i 0.60 0.65 . 0.71 ~ 0.77 ;
5% ; 1.19 1.19 1.25 1.36 :
= 1.42 = 1.31 = 1.26 = 1.30 '
0.84 0.91 0.99 ~ 1.05 t 10 % . 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.51
= 1.41 = 1.30 = 1.21 = 1.29 e 1.01 1.09 1.17 1.17 l
} -t 15% i ! 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.63 i
= 1.41 = 1.31 = 1.28 = 1.29 -!
1.14 1.23 1.26 1.26 . 20 % 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77
= 1.4 0 = 1.33 = 1. 3 3 - = 1.33 !
1.26 1.33 1.33 1.33 ; 50 % , 2.70 2.70 .2.70 2.70 :
= 1.63 = 1. 5 S = 1.58 = 1.58 :
1.66 1.71 L71 1.71 1
'?
Key to read table: Madra = Ratio - MinFra
= Lowest ratio case i
.l .
H1123nbluedoech5 5-12 I
- _ _ _ _= ' ___m - --. ._ .._4 --y .g., ,
t' t b Table 5-46 Maximum and Minimum Required Safety Factors F to Achieve a Risk ! pr : Reduction Ratio of R = or Capacities C Defined at Various R Failure Probabilities and Varicus f Values a Parameter Ranae: 1.5 s AR 5 3.25 0.3 s p 5 0.5 l i Capacity Cp - FPR Range. Probability fa = 0.8 fa = 0.75 fa = 0.7 fa = 0.65 - , 1% O.73 0.74' O.78 0.80
=1.49 = 1.42 = 1.3 9 = 1.43 ;
0.49 0.52 0.56 0.56 , 5% ; 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01
= 1.49 = 1.38 = 1.29 - = 1.28 l 0.68 0.73 0.,8 7 0.79 s 10 %
l.21 - 1.21 1.21 1.21
= 1.48 = 1. 3 9 = 1.29 = 1.27 0.82 0.87 0.94 0.95 15 % '
1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37
= 1.47- = 1.38 = 1.32 = 1.32 :
0.93 0.99 1.04 1.04 . 20 % ! 1.51 ~
= 1.48 = 1.39 = 1.3 6 = 1.36 1.02 1.09 1.11 1.11
- 50% .
2.30 '
= 1.70 = 1.62- = 1.62 = 1.62 :
1.35 1.42 1.42 1.42
- MaxFra .
Vsey to read table: = Ratio. MinFra
= Lowest ratio case 1
i i I 1 H1123nbluedoech5 5-13 , 4
l i Table 5-5 ! DBE Factors, Factors of Safety, and Seismic Load Factors j Required to Achieve Various Risk Reduction Ratios j t i Risk Reduction Required Factor of Seismic Load Ratio, R g DBE Factor, f, Safety, Fg Factor, Lg1 k 20 0.45 1.7 1.15 i i 10 0.5 15 1.0 1 5 0.55 1.3 0.87 [ l 2 N. A.2 1.0 0.67 t
.t I
h I } ~ I l
?
i 1 i
- .j i
'i
?
A i
' t Ls*FR/1.5 .i s
2 N.A. =: Not Applicable 4
, t I
H1123nbluedoech5 5 14 lt f
Table 5-6 Required Safety Factors F to Achieve Risk Reduction Ratios R of 20,10,5 pr .. R
,5 and 2 Corresponding to 10% Failure Probability Capacities C10% and[
Values from Table S-5 for Various AR nd G Values { t R 2 v Fpg Ag KH R = 20 R-10 R-5 R -2 6 .30 a .40 G .50 a .30 6 .40 a .50 a .30 a .40 a .50 a .30 a - 40
. 6 .50 3.75 1.74 1.64 1.53 1.46 1.47 1.38 1.31 1.34 1.25 1.19 1.10 1.03 0.98 3.25 1.95 1.65 1.56 1.49 1.49 1.40 1.34 1.35 1.27 1.22 1.06 1.00 0.96
- 2.75 2.28 1.68 1.60 1.56 1.51 1.44 1.40 1.37 1.31 1.27 1.02 0.97 0.95 2.25 2.84 1.72 1.G7 1.67 1.55 1.50 1.50 1.36 1.32 1.32 0.99 0.96 0.96 9
2.05 3.21 1.75 1.72 1.75 1.57 1.55 1,57 1.30 1.28 1.30 0.98 0.96 0.98 1.85 3.74 1.79 1.79 1.87 1.49 1.49 1.56 1.24 1.24 1.29 0.97 0.97 1.01 l 1.65 4.60 1.G1 1.66 1.80 1.38 1.13 1.54 1.19 1.23 1.33 0.97 1.01 1.09 I 1.50 5.68 1.49 1.60 1.82 1.32 1.41 1.'G 1 1.17 1.25 1.42 0.99 1.07 1.21 I
. _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ . . - _ _ . . _ , . _ . . _ _ . _ .~. . _ _ . . . . _ . . . . _ _ . _ . ._ . . . . . ... _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _
Table 5-7 . Probabilities for Hazsrd Curve A and B from Figure 1 [ i Curve A Curve B Acceleration Exceedance Probability Acceleration Exceedance Probability a (g) H(a)((10-5) a(g) H(a) 4(10-5 } 14 500 0.07 500
.225 200 0.10 200
.30 100 0.13 100 ,
.38 50 0.17 50
.50 20 0.24 20
.60 10 0.30 10
.71 5 0.38 5
.87 2 0.51 2 l 1.00 1 0.64 1 1.14 0.5 0.775 0.5 1.33 0.2 0.97 0.2
) 1.49 0.1 1.12 0.1 i
( i [ t H1123no/usdoech5 5-16 . w , -
Table S-Ba
. Minimum Acceptable Fragility Factor & Resulting Annual Probability of Unacceptable Performance P f r H z rd Curve A F
C g _ Performance { DBd (g) Eqn's C10% (g) Eqn Logarithmic C50% (g) Pp
$ Category Goals (6a) & (6b)- Std. Dev. Eqn (10)
(14) & Table 5 5 PH = 2x10-4 0.50 0.85 0.3 1.249 0.88 x 10 5
#4 RR = 20 (Ga) 0.4 1.42 0.94 10-5
, Pp = 1 x10-5 0.5 1.614- 1.13 x 10 5 PH = 1 x10-3 0.30 0.45 0.3 0.661 1.19 x 10-4 6
#3 Rg = 10 (Ga) .0.4 0.752 1.10 x 10-4 Pp = '1 x 10-4 0.5 0.854 1.09 x 10-4 PH = ' 1x10-3 0.30 0.30 0.3 0.441 ,4.4 x 10-4
#2 Rn = 2 (Ga} 0.4 0.501 3.9 x 10 Pp = 6x10-4 ' O.5 0.570 3.6 x 10-4 4
.. -- -:--.- .-. ,-.z...... .- . - - , . .. .. . - . . . . . - . . - . - - .. . . _ _ .- - . . - . - _ _ _ - - .
~;
'~
! Table 5-8b ~ Minimum Acceptable Fragility Factor & Resulting Annual Probability of Unacceptablo Performance Pp for Hazard Curve B
-i,* -
i y { Performance DBE (g) Eqn's C 10% (g) Eqn Logarithmic C50% (g) Pp j, Category Goals (Gal & (Gb) Std. Dev. (14) & Table 5 Eqn (10) 5 PH = 2x10'4 0.288 0.49 0.3 .0.72 1.02 x 10-5
#4 Rn = 20 (Ob) 0.4 0.818 0.94 10-5 Pp = 1x10-5 0.5 0.93 0.96 x 10 5.
m PH = .1x10-3 0.15- 0.225 0.3 -0.330 1.10 x 10-4 I " m
#3 Rn = 10 (Gb) 0.4 0.376 1.00 x 10'4 Pp = 1x10-4 0.5 0.427 ' 0.98 x 10 4 Pg = 1 x10-3 0.13 0.13 0.3 -0.191 5.0 x 10'4 l #2 Rn = 2' (Gb) 0.4 0.217 4.5 x 10-4 Pp = 5x10-4 0.5 0.247 4.3 x 10-4 4
t _ - . . _ . _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . . . _ . , - _ _ _.__._.a.-.-.._...._.._.,u__.__ ...,._._._._u.._-..., . . . _ _ , . _ . _ - - , .
.- . . , . . . ~ - - ~ , . . - - . ..___c.,_--._
. ~
I 1 Table 5-9 i Example Solution of Equation (16) for Hazard Curve B, l Performance Category 3, C = 0.376g, G = 0.40 50 Acceleration Exceedance C.G. (1) (2) a Probability Acceleration Conditional Probability (1) x (2) ; (g) H(a) a cg Failure Hazard Within (10-5) - Probability Rangs { 10-5) (g) - Pp/acg [Hiw - Hi. .o '
. k 10'5)
.07 500 '!
.0828 .0000775 300 .02
.1 0 -- 200
.113 .00133 100 .13
.13 100 i
.148 .00988 50 .49 -
.17 50 !
. t
.200 .0573 30 1.72 '
.24 20
-l
.266 .193 10 1.93 l i
.30 10 ,
.335 .386 5' -
1.93- l
.38 5 j
\
.435 .642 3 1.93 j
.51 2 .
.568 .849 1 .85 !
.64- 1 i
.700 .940 .5 .47 d
.775 .5 j
.858 .980 .3 . ': 1
.97 .2 '
1.036 .994 .1 .10 :! 1.12 .1 :
= 10 .10 !
.l Pp = Z (1.) x ( 2) = 9. 96 x 10 n*
l
-1 l
H1123nbluedoech5 5 i9 l
. .,, l i
Table 5-10 Estimated Factors of Conservatism and Variability l' r Low Ductility Mode Ductile Mode Factor Fp5 % = 1.0 Fp5% = 1.75 t Seismic Demand (Response) FR 1.2 1.2 83 0.3 0.3 Non-Seismic Demand FNS 1.0 1.0 GgN 0.2 0.2 Capacity Fc 2.0 1.5 - Bc 0.2 0.2 ' Inelastic Energy Absorption F Ls 14L s
)
BI O_ 0.2 L
?
i i t
's t
?
t H1123nbluedoec,hs ' 5-20 i T
k "M 7 Table 5-11 Comparison of Achieved Safety Factor to Required Safety Factor for Low-Ductility Failure Mode (Fp5% = .;L = 1.0) 3 Required Achieved Safety Factor Safety Factor Rpg 8 C g S SRqd es GFS Fs F SRod 0 0.20 0.36 2.38 2.40 1.01 0.1 0.21 0.37 2.40 2.53 1.05 0.2 0.22 0.37 2.42 2.70 1.12 0.3 0.24 0.38 2.45 2.91 1 19 0.4 0.25 0.39 2.48 3.20 1.29 0.5 0.27 0.41 2.53 3.60 1.42 0.6 0.30 0.42 2.58 4.20 1.63 1
, H1123nb/vedoech5 5-21
-________a___.
h i Table 512 Comparison of Achieved Safety Factor to Required ; i Safety Factor for Ductile Failure Mode
; = 1.0)
(F 5 % "' s i F Required Achieved Ryg Safety Factor Safety Factor ' DNS /C C S c5 Byg Fg
=F3 /FSRqd y '
Sand , O 0.20 0.41 2.54 2.52 0.99 0.1 0. _.' 1 0.42 2.57 2.61 1.02 : i 0.2 0.23 0.43 2.60 2.73 1.05' ! 0.3 0.25 0.44 2.64 2.88 1.09 : 0.4 0.28 0.46 2.70 3.08 1.14 l [ 0.5 0.32 0.48 2.77 3.36 1.21
}
0.e 0.3e 0.5, 2.88 4.78 , .2, l
~
r l f , r i 3 H1123riblusdosch5 5-22 i
+ i
{
Table 5-13 1 Code Reduction Coefficients, R and inelastic Demand Capacity Ratios, F i l Structural System (terminology is identical to Ref.1) R, Fp MOMEf6 RESISTING FRAME SYSTEMS -Desms Steef Special Moment Resisting Space Frame (SMRF) 12 3.0 Concrete SMRF 12 2.75 i Concrete Intermediate Moment Frame lif .RF) 7 1.5 . Steel Ordinary Moment Resisting Space Frame 6 1.5 Concrete Ordinerv Moment Resisting Space Freme 5 1.25 SHEAR walls Concrete or Masonry Wells 8 (6) In-plane Flexure 1.75 ; in-plane Shear 1.5 Out-of-plane Flexure 1.75 Out-of-plane Shear 1.0 Plywood Wells 9 (B) 1,75 , Dual System. Concrete with SMRF 12 2.5 Dual System, Concrete with Concrete IMRF 9 2.0 Dual System, Masonry with SMRF 8 1.5 ' Duel System. Masonry with Concrete IMRF 7 1.4 f STEEL ECCENTRIC BRACED FRAMES (EBF) Beams and Diagonal Braces 10 2.75 Beams and Diagonal Braces. Dual System with Steel SMRF 12 3.0 CONCENTRIC BRACED FRAMES . Steel Beams 8 (C) 2.0 Steel Diegonal Braces 8 (6) 1.75 - Concrete Beams 8 (4) 1.75 Concrete Diegonal Braces 8 (4) 1.5 Wood Trusses - 8(4) 1.75 Beams and Diegonal Braces, Duel Systerns Steel with Steet SMRF 10 2.75 Concrete with Concrete SMRF 9 2.0 Concrete with Concrete IMRF S 1.4 METAt. LIQUID STORAGE TANKS Moment and Sheer Capacity 1.25 , Hooo Capacity 1.5 Not e: Values herein assume good seismic detalling practico along with reasonably uniform inelastic behavior. Otherwise, lower values should be used. Values in parentheses apply to bearing well systems or systems in which bracing carries gravity loads. i i F, for columns of all structural systems is 1.0 for axial compression and 1.S for flexure. Connections for steel concentric braced frames should be designed for the lesser of: the tensite strength of the bracing the force in the brace corresponding to F p of unity. . . the maximum force that can be tranferred to the brace by the structural system Connections for steel moment frames and eccentric breced frames and connections br concrete, masonry, and wood structural systems should follow Reference 1 provisions util!2ing the prescribed seismic loads from these guidelines and the strength of the connecting members. In general, connections should develop the strength of the connecting members or be designed for member forces corresponding to F of unity, whichever is less. F for chevron, vee. and K bracing is 1.5. K brecing requires special consideration for any building if 2 is 0.250 or n0>re. l I i ( H1123nblusdoech5 5-23 ; i
- 4Rds Table 5-14 Inelastic Energy Absorption Factors frorn Equation 50 and Reference 15 i
Structural System R, . R15 Een(50) MOMENT RES! STING FRAME SYSTEMS Columns
- 1.5 *
- Beams Steel Special Moment Resisting frame (SMRF) 12 2.5 3.32 Concrete SMRF _
12 2.5 2.74 . Concrete intermediate Moment Frame (IMRF) 7 . 1.60 Steel Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame 6 - 1.66 Concrete Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame 6 - 1.14 SHEAR WALLS .- Concrete Bearing Wells 6 1.5 1.37 Concrete Non-Bearing Waus 8 1.5' 1.83 Masonry Bearing Wells 6 1.25 1.29 Masonry Non-Bearing Walls 8 1.25 1.71' Plywood Bearing Wells 8 2.5 1.49 Plywood Non-Bearing Walls 9 2.5 1.68 Duel System. Concrete with SMRF 12 1.5 2.74 Duel System. Concrete with Concrete IMRF 9 1.5 2.06 Dual System, Masonry with SMRF B 1.25 1.71 Dual System, Masonry with Concrete IMRF 7 1.25 1.50 CONCENTRIC BRACED FRAMES (Bracing Carries Gravity Loads). Steel Besms 6 1.75 1,66 ; Steel Diagonal Braces 6 1.5 1.66 Steel Disconal Columns 6 1.5 1.00 Connntions of Steel Members 6 1.25 1.66 Concrete Beams 4 1.75 <1-Concrete Disconel Braces 4 1.5 <1
) Concrete Columns 4 1.5 <1 Connections of Concrete Members 4 1.25 <1 Wood Trusses 4 1.75 <1 Wood Columne 4 1.5 <1 Connections in Wood (other than nails) 1.5 <1 CONCENTRIC BRACED FRAMES (No Gravity Loads)
Steel Beame 8 1.75 2:22 Steel Diagonal Braces 8 1.5 2.22 : Ste61 Dieconal Columns 8 1.5 2.22 Connections of Steel Members 8 1.25 2.22 , Concrete Beams 8 1.75 1.83 i Concrete Diagonal Braces 8 -L5 1.83 Concrets Columns 8 1.5 1.83 Connections of Concrete Membere , 8 1.25 1.83 i Wood Trus ses 8 1.75 1.49 -! Wood Columns 8 1.5 1.49 Connections in Wood (other than oeils) 8 1.5 1.49 ' Beams and Disconel Braces. Dual Systems i Steel with Steel SMRF - 10 - 2.77 Concrets with Concrete SMRF 9 - 2.C6 ; Concrete with Concrete IMRF 6 - 1.37 STEEL ECCENTRIC SRACED FRAMES (EBF) Columns
- 1.5
- Beams and Dieconal Braces to - 2.77 Beams and Diegonal Braces. Dual System with Steet SMRF 12 . 3.32 Note: R15 values are inelastic energy obsorption f actors from Ref.15..Eqn (50) values are inelastic energy absorption l
f actors calculated from Eq. 50. ) .
- Values are the esmo as for besms and braces in this structural system <
H1123nb/usdoech5 5-24 __________________.-____.____.__________._____m_-
l 1 l
- 6. References
- 1. Psennedy, R.P., S.A. Short, J.R. Mcdonald, M.W. McCann, R.C. Murray, J.R.
Hill, and V. Gopinath, " Natural Phenomenon Hazards Design and Evaluation Criteria for Department of Energy Facilities," Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and U.S. Department of Energy, UCRL-15910, September 1992 ' Draft.
- 2. "PRA Procedures Guide," NUREG/CR-23001, Chapter 10, Vol. 2, .
January 1983, Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission by ANS andIPEEE.
- 3. Sewell, R.T., G.R. Toro, and R. K. McGuire, " Impact of Ground Motion Characterization on Conservatism and Variability in Seismic Risk Estimates,"
Prepared for the U.S. , Nuclear Regulatory Commission by Risk Engineering, May 1991 (to be published by NRC as a NUREG). l l 4 Elishakoff, I., "Probabilistic Methods in the Theory of Structures," John
~
Wiley & Sons,1983.
- 5. Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officiels, Whittier, California,1991.
- 6. ASCE Standard 4-86, (1986). " Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary." American Society of Civil Engineers.
- 7. Seismic Fragilities of Civil Structurcs and Equipment Components at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, OA Report Number 34001.01-RO14, Pacific Gas
& Electric Co., San Francisco, September 1988.
- 8. Newmark, N.M. and W.J. Hall, Development of Criteria for Review of .
Selected Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR-00.98, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,1978.
- 9. J.W. Fisher, et al. " Load and Resistance Factor Design Criteria for Connections," Vol.104, ST9, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, pp.
1427-1441, September 1978. H1123nb/wedoech3 6-1
c: i
- 10. Load and Resistance Factor Design, American institute of Steel j Construction,1st Edition,1986.
1
- 11. Specification for Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for i Buildings, Allowable Stress Design'and Plastic Design, American Institute of 4 Steel Construction,9th Edition,1989. I i
- 12. Static Tensile Strength of Fillet Welded Lap Joints in Steel. International ;
institute of Weld. IlW Document XV-242-68 of International Test Series,- I 1968. I 1
- 13. "A Methodology for Assessment of Nuclear Power Plant Seismic Margin," j EPRI NP-6041-SL, Revision 1, Electric Power Research Institute, August l 1991.
- 14. Bandyopadhyay, K.K., et al. (198 6-1991). Seismic Fragility of Nuclear j Power Plant Components, Vols.1-4, NUREG/CR-4659. Nuclear Regulatory. l Commission. '
i
- 15. Seismic Design Guidelines for Essential Buildings, a supplement to Seismic '!
Design for Buildings, Army TM5-809-10.1, Navy NAVFAC P-355.1, Air
)
Force AFM 88-3, Chapter 13.1, Departments of the Army, Navy and Air l
, Force, Washington, D.C., February 198 6.
t
- i i
- j i
4 l
)
H1123nbluedoech3 -j 6-2 1 l 1 j}}