0

Full Content is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >

Comparison of Seismic Design Provisions Using ASCE 43 With Conventional Design Based on ASCE 7 Seismic Loads

[+] Author Affiliations
Thomas W. Houston, Greg E. Mertz

Costantino and Associates, Los Alamos, NM

Andrew Maham

Carl J. Costantino & Associates, Mt. Pleasant, SC

Paper No. PVP2016-63681, pp. V008T08A008; 10 pages
doi:10.1115/PVP2016-63681
From:
  • ASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
  • Volume 8: Seismic Engineering
  • Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, July 17–21, 2016
  • Conference Sponsors: Pressure Vessels and Piping Division
  • ISBN: 978-0-7918-5046-6
  • Copyright © 2016 by ASME

abstract

One graded approach for the design of nuclear facilities would design high hazard facilities to meet the provisions of ASCE 43 while low hazard facilities would be designed as conventional structures based on the seismic loading and design criteria in ASCE 7. In structures with an intermediate hazard it is not immediately obvious which standard provides a more conservative design. This paper presents a case study that compares the performance of an intermediate hazard structure with ASCE 7 seismic loading and criteria to the target performance goals described in ASCE 43 and DOE-STD-1020.

The purposes of seismic design associated with ASCE 7 are; 1) to provide minimum design criteria for structures appropriate to their primary function and use considering the need to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public by minimizing the earthquake-related risk to life, and 2) to improve the capability of essential facilities and structures containing substantial quantities of hazardous materials to function during and after design earthquakes.

Designs developed using the provisions of ASCE 7 are targeted to a collapse prevention limit state probability of 1% in 50 years. The goal of the earthquake provisions in ASCE 43 is to ensure that high hazard nuclear facilities can withstand the effects of earthquakes with desired performance, expressed as probabilistic Target Performance Goals and various limit, or damage, states. These Target Performance Goals range from 1×10−4 to 1×10−5 with limit states ranging from essentially linear response to short of collapse.

There are requirements invoked by ASCE 7 that are different than the requirements of ASCE 43 which prevents a direct computation of performance based on comparing the seismic demand levels required by each standard. These differences include the use of building R values in ASCE 7 compared to component specific Fu values in ASCE 43, the use of different analyses methods, ASCE 7 upper bound limits on seismic forces for some components, the limitations on framing system types, among others. The effect of these differences on the performance achieved between the two standards is evaluated for the design of a reinforced concrete shear wall structure that is representative of the types of structures used in nuclear facilities.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Figures

Tables

Interactive Graphics

Video

Country-Specific Mortality and Growth Failure in Infancy and Yound Children and Association With Material Stature

Use interactive graphics and maps to view and sort country-specific infant and early dhildhood mortality and growth failure data and their association with maternal

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In