The 2020 NEHRP Provisions developed major updates to nonstructural seismic design provisions which were then adapted for Chapter 13 of ASCE/SEI 7-22. The primary focus of the updates is the equation used to determine design forces for nonstructural components, but there are updates to other provisions as well.  The training will be given in two parts.  Part 1 will discuss nonstructural design fundamentals and cover two design examples.  The portion on fundamentals will summarize:

• The parameters influencing nonstructural response
• The new seismic design force equation
• How equipment support structures and platforms and distribution system supports are addressed
• Other nonstructural provision code changes 

The design examples in Part 1 include architectural precast cladding and egress stairs.  Part 2 will cover three design examples: HVAC fan unit support, piping systems, and elevated vessels.

Learning Objectives:

• Understand the parameters influencing nonstructural response
• Understand key changes for nonstructural component design coming in ASCE/SEI 7-22, including
  • The new seismic design force equation
  • How equipment support structures and platforms are handled
  • How distribution system supports are handled
• Understand how to use the 2020 NEHRP Provisions Design Examples as a resource for nonstructural component design

World of Modular is an open forum for anyone interested in the modular construction industry. For suppliers of building products, services, and financing, MBI’s signature trade show remains the best opportunity to reach and network with manufacturers and dealers of commercial modular buildings from all over the world.

The 2020 NEHRP Provisions developed major updates to nonstructural seismic design provisions which were then adapted for Chapter 13 of ASCE/SEI 7-22. The primary focus of the updates is the equation used to determine design forces for nonstructural components, but there are updates to other provisions as well. The training will be given in two parts. Part 1 will discuss nonstructural design fundamentals and cover two design examples. The portion on fundamentals will summarize:

• The parameters influencing nonstructural response
• The new seismic design force equation
• How equipment support structures and platforms and distribution system supports are addressed
• Other nonstructural provision code changes

The design examples in Part 1 include architectural precast cladding and egress stairs. Part 2 will cover three design examples: HVAC fan unit support, piping systems, and elevated vessels.

Learning Objectives:

• Understand the parameters influencing nonstructural response
• Understand key changes for nonstructural component design coming in ASCE/SEI 7-22, including
  • The new seismic design force equation
  • How equipment support structures and platforms are handled
  • How distribution system supports are handled
• Understand how to use the 2020 NEHRP Provisions Design Examples as a resource for nonstructural component design

This isn’t about the hype, it’s about the answers. Utility Conference is an experience for the utility professional in charge of distributed and renewable energy programs and services who need answers they can trust. Get the tools, experience and expertise to increase performance, innovation, and collaboration as the energy system moves to a carbon-free future.

Evolution of Seismic Design Values over the Years

The 2020 NEHRP Provisions, and ASCE 7-24 that is based on it, adopt a new USGS ground motion model that incorporates stie class and basin effects directly into the calculation of gridded seismic design values. For the first time, these values are available only through an on-line seismic hazard data base and are not printed in conventional maps. A review of the evolution of seismic design values over the years and the basis for adoption of the current approach is presented.

The 2018 Update of the USGS National Seismic Hazard Model

Updates to the design ground motions of the 2020 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions come from two main sources: 1) updates for the 2018 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), which improved the scientific modeling of earthquake sources and ground motions, and 2) recommendations from the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) Project ’17 committee, which updated the design ground motion procedures. Major updates for the 2018 NSHM included: 1) incorporation of new ground motion models and site amplification factors in the central and eastern U.S., including the new “NGA-East” models; 2) incorporation of deep sedimentary basin effects in the four regions of Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay, Salt Lake City, and Seattle; 3) relatively minor modifications to the western U.S. crustal and subduction zone ground motion models; and 4) updates to the seismicity catalogs outside of California. USGS computed the design ground motions of Chapter 22 by combining hazard results from the 2018 NSHM with the new BSSC design ground motion procedures. One of the major updates to the design procedures was the recommendation to use Multi Period Response Spectra, which also affected the 2018 NSHM update (in particular, decisions made in selection of ground motion models). This connection and the implications for design ground motion values will also be briefly discussed.

Learning Objectives:

• The collaborations between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) Project '17 will be explained, including how the recommendation to use Multi Period Response Spectra (ground motions at 22 periods and 8 site classes) affected the updates to the USGS hazard model.
• The science behind the 2018 update of the USGS national seismic hazard model, which was used for the development of MCER and MCEG in the 2020 Provisions, will be outlined.

What climate-related risks are present in the built environment, and how do we start to measure and manage them effectively?

Climate change is arguably the most important issue facing the built environment sector today, and one for which building owners and managers must dedicate significant attention.  In addition to typical risk management practices, asset managers must now integrate an ever-changing climate risk profile into long-term resilience planning, scoping the anticipated effects of climate change into the resilience planning of their real-property portfolios.

In addition, activities associated with constructing and operating the built environment consume vast amount of resources, energy, and land, and use approximately 50% of global steel production, produce 25-40% of carbon emissions, and constitute 30-40% of solid waste generation.  As a result, these activities emit the majority of greenhouse gas emissions globally, and therefore, present an enormous opportunity to impact the climate change mitigation goals being enacted throughout the world.

Join the National Institute of Building Sciences BIM Council, as we discuss the current state of digital delivery and lay the groundwork for future exploration. This webinar will highlight an increasing trend toward collaboration and the impacts of requirements related to information privacy and cyber security. We will hear from leaders and stakeholders from the design, construction, owner, and IT solution partner perspectives. This will also be an opportunity to share your feedback and inform the National BIM Program’s leadership as they review and formulate strategic direction.

As a result of participation in this session, attendees will be able to:

1. Identify current standards and requirements related to information privacy and cyber security as it relates to the built environment.
2. Recognize and state 1-2 key impacts of information privacy and cyber security requirements to the collaborative digital delivery process.
3. Explain how technology has evolved in support of collaborative digital delivery.
4. Identify 3 process areas impacted by requirements supporting information privacy and cyber security.

Rules of Engagement

To ensure we have a collaborative and constructive discussion, the following rules will apply to each part of the series without exception:

• Clear objectives. The objective of this hearing is constructive dialog between AECO, Government Agency, and Technology stakeholders that:
  • propose shared solutions that meet project collaboration and cyber security needs.
• No sales. In line with the objectives stated above, there will be a no tolerance policy regarding the active selling or promotion of specific products or services.
• Adopt tech-agnostic terminology. While we cannot totally avoid referring to our specific technology solutions by name, team facilitators will ensure that stakeholder technology is identified by the generic application is serves for the given scenario.
  • i.e. - “Procore'' should instead be known as the GC’s Project Management (PM) System)
• Protect client and project information. All participants are asked to refrain from using specific project or stakeholder names to protect anonymity and avoid liability.

Audience

All AECO industry

New Multi-Period Response Spectra and Ground Motion Requirements
This presentation summarizes a comprehensive set of new multi-period response spectra (MPRS) and related ground motion requirements of the 2020 edition of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions (and ASCE/SEI 7-22). These changes collectively improve the accuracy of the frequency content of earthquake design ground motions and enhance the reliability of the seismic design parameters derived from these ground motions by defining earthquake design ground motions in terms of MPRS. The new MPRS make better use of the available earth science which has, in general, sufficiently advanced to accurately define spectral response for different site conditions over a broad range of periods. Three new site classes are added to better describe site effects.

The new ground motion requirements eliminate the need for site-specific hazard analysis now required by ASCE/SEI 7-16 for certain (soft soil) sites. The new ground motion requirements directly incorporate site amplification and other site (and source) dependent effects in the design parameters S_DS and S_D1 (two-thirds of S_MS and S_M1) eliminating the need for site coefficients.  Site-specific values of design parameters (and corresponding MPRS) are (or will be) available online at a USGS web site and presumably at other related web sites (e.g., SEAOC, ASCE and ATC web sites) for user-specified values of site location and site class. Traditional design methods (e.g., ELF procedure) familiar to and commonly used by engineering practitioners for building design remain the same.

Revisions to MCE_G PGA, Vertical Component, and Site Class when V_s Data not Available
The introduction of MPRS in the provisions eliminated the need for the site coefficient, F_PGA , in Sect. 11.8.3. The USGS Seismic Design Geodatabase now provides the PGA_M for the applicable site class, and Table 21.2-1 was added to provide the deterministic lower limit PGA_M, which was formerly 0.5 F_PGA . Also, the earthquakes to be considered in computing the Deterministic MCE_G Peak Ground Acceleration (Sect. 21.5.2) are now obtained from the disaggregation of the Probabilistic MCE_G Peak Ground Acceleration. The new vertical (V) component provisions (Sect. 11.9) corrected the geometric mean definition of the horizontal (H) component in the V/H ratio by introducing a correction factor F_md to account for the direction of maximum shaking. Also, an equation was added to compute the vertical component for vertical periods, T_v > 2 sec, and the vertical coefficient, C_v, was revised to accommodate the additional site classes. Finally, new provisions in Chapter 20 were added to determine the site class when a shear-wave velocity (V_s) survey is not conducted at a site. The procedure involves (1) constructing a V_s profile using correlations between V_s and measured geotechnical parameters, such as SPT and CPT, (2) computing the average V_s in the upper 100 ft (30 m), (3) scaling the by 1.3 and (1/1.3), and (4) determining the most critical site class for values of s, 1.3 ?, and ? s/1.3 at each period, T, i.e., select the site class that results in largest MCE_R S_a.

Dissection of Example Changes to the MCE_R Ground Motions Values
This presentation provides examples of the changes to the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCE_R) ground motions from ASCE/SEI 7-16 to the 2020 NEHRP Provisions. As documented in the Commentary to Chapter 22 of the latter, the updates to the seismic ground-motion maps stem from recommendations of the BSSC Project ’17 committee and the 2018 USGS National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM). The Project ’17 recommendations include modifications to the (1) site-class effects, (2) spectral periods defining the S_MS and S_M1 ground-motion parameters, (3) deterministic caps on the otherwise probabilistic ground motions, and (4) maximum-direction scale factors. The 2018 NSHM updates include incorporation of (1) the NGA-East ground-motion models, (2) deep sedimentary basin effects in the Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, and Salt Lake City regions, (3) earthquakes that occurred in 2013 through 2017, and (4) updated weighting of the western U.S. ground-motion models. At locations in 34 high-risk (i.e., high-hazard and/or high-population) cities, the combined impacts of the Project ’17 and 2018 NSHM modifications on S_MS for the default site class are less than 15% at all but 3 of the locations; S_M1 changes by less than 15% at 23 of the locations. The corresponding seismic design categories (SDCs) change at 4 of the locations, from SDC D to E. Most of these changes are due to the Project ’17 modifications to site-class effects or deterministic caps, but some are caused by the other Project ’17 and 2018 NSHM updates, particularly the 2018 NSHM incorporation of basin effects. Changes at other locations can be probed using the USGS Seismic Design Web Services.

We’re ready to interact with all the professionals that make up the fire and life safety community. We’re looking forward to networking, creating needed solutions, and continuing to provide the most comprehensive education programs available. We must continue sharing our knowledge if we hope to meet new challenges and help protect this big world together.

Attend USGBC Live to learn how members of our community are tackling challenges and leveraging LEED and green building strategies to meet industry, organizational and community goals for sustainability, resilience, health and equity.

USGBC Live will convene two in-person regional forums leading up to the main hybrid event in June.