86
OSHPD Proposes a New Seismic Design Category: SPC-4D May 12, 2015 CHA Webinar
OSHPD Proposes a New Seismic Design Category: SPC-4D
May 12, 2015CHA Webinar
Welcome
Mary BarkerCalifornia Hospital Association
Continuing Education Offered for this Program
Health Care Executives:CHA is authorized to award 2 hours of preapprovedACHE Qualified Education Credit (non-ACHE) for this program toward advancement or recertification in the American College of Healthcare Executives.
Full attendance, completion of online survey, and attestation of attendance are required to receive CEs for this webinar. CEs are complimentary and available only for the registrant. Post-event survey will be sent to registrant via email.
3
Program Overview and Introductions
Cheri HummelCalifornia Hospital Association
5
Paul A. Coleman is the deputy director for the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), Facilities Development Division (FDD). As deputy director, Mr. Coleman is the chief building official for California’s hospitals —more than 4,000 buildings located at 1,709 healthcare facilities under FDD jurisdiction statewide. Prior to assuming the role of deputy director in 2009, Mr. Coleman served as OSHPD’s southern California deputy division chief in the FDD. There he was responsible for planning and directing work of the program staff, and assisted in the formulation and implementation of policies related to enforcement of the Seismic Safety Act. Mr. Coleman is a licensed architect and general contractor in the state of California.
Faculty
6
Faculty
Roy Lobo, PhD joined OSHPD as senior structural engineer over twelve years ago. He was promoted to supervisor of the Seismic Compliance Unit in 2011 and became principal structural engineer in November 2012. He worked for several reputed firms in the Los Angeles area before joining OSHPD. Mr. Lobo is an active member of the structural engineering community with membership in professional organizations such as the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC). He is former Chair of the SEAOC Existing Buildings Committee and currently serves as State Chair of the SEAOC Seismology Committee. Mr. Lobo is also a voting member of the ASCE 41 main committee. He holds a doctoral degree in Structural Engineering.
Paul A. Coleman, Architect, Deputy DirectorRoy Lobo, PhD, SE, Principal Structural Engineer
Facilities Development DivisionCalifornia’s Building Department for Hospitals
Seismic Performance Category 4D
7
Existing Hospital Inventory
8
Nature’s Full Scale Shake Table Test
9
Northridge Earthquake: • Impetus for SB 1953
• Brought existing buildings into the HFSSA
The state shall take steps to ensure that the expected earthquake performance of hospital buildings housing inpatients and providing primary basic services is disclosed to public agenciesthat have a need and a right to know
Intent of SB 1953
http://oshpd.ca.gov/FDD/seismic_compliance/SB1953/SPCNPCList.pdf
10
Because the medical industry cannot immediately bring all hospital buildings into compliance with the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act the state shall encourage structural retrofits or replacements of hospital buildings housing inpatients and providing primary basic services that place lives at risk because of their potential for collapse during an earthquake
Intent of SB 1953
11
The state shall also encourage retrofits and enhancements to critical hospital architecture, equipment, and utility and communications systems to improve the ability of hospitals to remain operational for those hospitals that do not pose risk to life
Intent of SB 1953
12
• H&SC § 130005(b). The office may define earthquake performance categories as it deems necessary to meet the intent of SB 1953 and the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act (HSSA 83)
Statutory Authority
13
SPC1 SPC2 SPC3 SPC4 SPC5
Reasonably Capable of Providing Services to the Public after a Major EQ
Significant Risk of Collapse in a Major EQ
2008/2013 2030 2030+ 2030+ 2030+
Imminent Threat
Minor Risk to Life
Low Risk of Collapse in a Major EQ
May be Capable of Providing Services to the Public after a Major EQ
Structural Performance Categories
14
• Buildings posing a significant risk of collapse and a danger to the public
• These are pre-1973 code buildings and buildings not originally built under an OSHPD or OSA permit (non-conforming buildings)
• These buildings must be brought up to the SPC 2 or higher level by January 1, 2020 or be removed from General Acute Care (GAC) Service
Structural Performance Category 1 (SPC-1)
15
• These buildings have low risk of collapse in a major earthquake and do not significantly jeopardize life
• These are non-conforming buildings
• These buildings must be brought up to the SPC-4D or SPC-5 by January 1, 2030 or be removed from GAC Service
Structural Performance Category 2 (SPC-2)
16
• Conforming buildings in Near Fault Sites (NFS) with Pre-Northridge Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF) connections
• These buildings may experience structural damage, which does not significantly jeopardize life, and may provide service after a major earthquake
• SPC-3 buildings can provide GAC service to 2030 & beyond
• Building is either SPC 3 or not (a finite set of buildings). No building can be upgraded to SPC 3
Seismic Performance Category 3 (SPC-3)
17
• Conforming buildings permitted by OSHPD or OSA prior to 1989 Code
• May experience some structural damage, but still may provide services to the public following major earthquake
• No deadline for these buildings. May be used up to January 1, 2030 and beyond
• Building is either SPC 4 or not (a finite set of buildings). No building can be upgraded to SPC 4
Structural Performance Category 4 (SPC-4)
18
• Conforming buildings permitted to the CBC 1989 or later versions of the Code (except those classified as SPC 3)
• Reasonably capable of providing services to the public following major earthquake
• No deadline for these buildings. May be used up to January 1, 2030 and beyond
Structural Performance Category 5 (SPC-5)
19
Total No. of Hospital Buildings Reported = 2627
Total No. of Hospital Buildings Reported in 2001
20
Initial SB 1953 Major Milestones
21
Major Extensions to SB 1953 Milestones
22
Historical Changes to SPC-1 Building Inventory
23
Compliance Options Today
• Remove acute care services and relocate to SPC-2 or higher building
• Remove acute care services (reduce services)
• Seismic retrofit
• HAZUS Reassessment Program for SPC-1 buildings
• Voluntary seismic improvements (combined with HAZUS)
• Rebuild/Replace
24
What is Next for My SPC-1 Building(s)?
• Rebuild/Replace – must have an OSHPD Certificate of Occupancy by the approved extension date
• Retrofit/VSI – must have an OSHPD Construction Final by the approved extension date
• Remove Acute Care Services – must have an OSHPD Certificate of Occupancy or Construction Final, as applicable, for Remove from Acute Care Services Project
– Buildings from which acute care services have been removed, but do not have an OSHPD Certificate of Occupancy or Construction Final by the approved extension date will not be issued a building permit for any project(s) not related to a remove from acute care services project
25
SPC-2 (PRE 1973) Retrofit to SPC-5
Seis
mic
Com
plia
nce
Dead
line
2030
Beyond 2030
What is Next for My SPC-2 Building(s)?
14yrs - 8mo
Remove
Replace
Rebuild
700+ Builds
(Current Code)
26
Vintage of SPC-2 Buildings in 2020
27
SPC-2 Buildings in 2020 by Building Type
28
Expected by Type and Stories in SPC-2 Buildings
29
• Rural and other hospitals in underserved areas have limited resources to upgrade to current code
• The SPC-2 buildings may be landlocked by higher SPC buildings such that removing the SPC-2 building from service could make the hospital inoperable
• The hospital may not have property on which to build a replacement building
• Hospitals could use this option to strategize their master plan and explore various cost effective options
• Upgrade to comparable SPC-4 buildings instead of current code?
• Model codes have changed making upgrading to current code very costly
• Minimizing upgrade reduces disruption to ongoing services
Concerns for 2030 Compliance
30
Example – SPC 2 Land Locked Building
• To make compliance with SB 1953 program cost effective
• To ensure availability of hospitals in rural and medically underserved areas
• Statute requires OSHPD to adopt model code and national standards. The International Existing Building Code, 2015 (IEBC 2015)/ASCE 41-13 adopted damage control structural performance level as a discrete performance category giving FDD the foundation upon which to move forward with a new seismic performance category
• With only 14+ years remaining until 2030, planning, financing, and building a replacement building would be difficult for many hospitals
• To provide hospitals with another option for seismic compliance so they may choose the approach that is most cost effective for them
Why Now?
32
Damage Control Structural Performance
What is it?It is a performance category at a midway point between Life Safety Structural Performance Category (SPC 2) and Immediate Occupancy Structural Performance Category (SPC 5)
Looking for a Solution
33
Looking for a Solution
34
Seismic Evaluation Requirements
• Traditionally seismic evaluation was at approx. 75% of new building code seismic design forces (ASCE 31-03)
• Seismic evaluation requirements in the CAC Chapter 6 are based on FEMA 178– SPC 2: Approx. 75% of Life Safety (I=1.0) based on CBC 1995
• CBC Chapter 34A SPC-2 upgrade requirements are consistent with this philosophy
• SPC 5 :Immediate Occupancy
• Damage Control for Risk Category IV Buildings (Midpoint LS and IO)
35
Looking for Another Approach
36
• Introduce Structural Performance Category SPC-4D (Damage control for existing Risk Category IV Buildings)
• Nonconforming Buildings (Building originally built to pre-1973 Code) can be upgraded to SPC-4D (Instead of SPC-5) to provide service beyond 2030
The SPC-4D Approach
37
SPC-4 Building Inventory by Year Built
38
SPC-4 Building Inventory by SDC
39
SPC-4 Building Inventory by Number of Stories
40
What Is Damage Control?
DAMAGE CONTROL STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY is a performance category approximately midway between Life Safety Structural Performance Category (SPC 2) and Immediate Occupancy Structural Performance Category (SPC 5), established by analysis or retrofit, in accordance with the 2016 California Building Code (2016 CBC) Section 3412A.2.3 or equivalent provisions in later editions of the CBC. Buildings satisfying this structural performance standard shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of the Structural Performance Category SPC-4D.
41
What Is SPC-4D?
STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE CATEGORY SPC-4D is a performance category assigned to existing nonconforming hospital buildings that have been demonstrated either by analysis or retrofit to be equivalent to the minimum prescriptive requirements of the 1979 Uniform Building Code (UBC 1979) including the California amendments, hereafter called the 1980 CBC, in accordance with the CBC 2016 Section 3412A.2.3.
42
First California Building Code
43
1. Uniform Building Code, 1979 (UBC 1979)
2. California Code of Regulations, Title 24- Building Standards, dated February 2, 1980
3. California Code of Regulations, Title 22 – Social Security, dated October 13, 1979
4. California Code of Regulations, Title 17 – Public Health, dated October 13, 1979
What Constitutes the 1980 CBC?
44
--SPC-1 /SPC-2
SPC2 SPC3 SPC4 SPC5
Collapse Risk or Life Safe
2020/2030
SPC-4D /SPC-5
2030+
Upgrade to SPC-4D or SPC-5
Significant Risk of Collapse
Low Risk of Collapse
SPC-1 and SPC-2 Building Upgrade Options
45
• May control damage to permit return to function similar to SPC-3 or 4 buildings, but not as quickly as SPC-5 buildings
• Performance should be equivalent to existing SPC-3 and SPC-4 buildings
Performance Expectation of SPC-4D Buildings
46
1. Hospital buildings with the potential for surface fault rupture and surface displacement at the building site
2. Unreinforced masonry shear wall buildings
3. Precast concrete buildings
Buildings Not Eligible for SPC-4D
47
• (E) Bldg. detailing may not meet the prescriptive standard
• Buildings have structural irregularities prohibited in current code known to cause collapse– Extreme torsional irregularity– Extreme stiffness of soft story irregularity– Extreme weak story irregularity
• Irregular buildings and tall buildings require a dynamic analysis for distribution of forces
• Archaic materials used in existing buildings do not have design values
Possible Compliance Issues Using CBC 1980
48
Alternate to CBC 1980
49
SPC 4D – ASCE 41 Methodology• ASCE 41 - Seismic Evaluation/Seismic Retrofit Methodology for (E)
Buildings• Permits different levels of targeted seismic performance objectives• SPC-4D requires:
• Two Level Seismic Hazard Analysis/Design (Tier III – dual-earthquake check) • Intended to be used universally regardless of the building configuration, size
or structural system, etc.– Level 1: Damage Control under the Design Level Earthquake
(BSE-1E, 20% in 50-year or 225-year event) – Level 2: Collapse Prevention under an infrequent Level Earthquake
(BSE-2E, 5% in 50-year or 975-year event)• The dual-earthquake check is necessary to ensure sufficient robustness and
margin of safety beyond the design-level earthquake
Analysis Options - ASCE 41-13
Four Analysis Options:
• Linear Static Procedures (LSP) (Simplest, but conservative)
• Linear Dynamic Procedures (LDP) (Simple, but conservative)
• Non Linear Static Procedures (NSP) (Higher order analysis tools and time, less conservative)
• Non Linear Dynamic Procedures (NDP) (Complex analytical tool, but least conservative)
50
CBC 1980• One or two story buildings• Inadequate wall anchorage • Seismicity depends on the
Seismic Zone Factor (not site specific)
• Building has adequate detailing
• Analysis is simpler• . . .
Which option do I use? 1980 CBC or ASCE 41?
ASCE 41*• Buildings with prohibited
irregularities• Tall buildings with
irregularities• Building has inadequate
detailing• Seismicity on site has
changed• Take advantage of existing
material properties• Variety of analysis options
Owner’s choice considering factors such as feasibility, cost, etc.
*Exp
erie
nced
Des
ign
Pro
fess
iona
l in
Retr
ofit
of (E
) Bld
gs
51
• Building characterization required:– Existing construction documents review– Field testing and inspections– Field observation of exposed conditions
• Buildings with/without original construction documents will require comprehensive materials testing and conditions assessment
• Nonconforming buildings didn’t go through OSHPD’s plan review or field tests/inspections
SPC-4D Construction Document Review
52
CBC 2016 Seismic Map
CBC 1980 Seismic Map
SDC F is not comparable to Seismic Zone 4 because of Near Field Effects. SDC D encompass all of Seismic Zone 3 & large part of Seismic Zone 4.
CBC 2016 SDC F vs. CBC Seismic Zone 4
53
2014-2008 Ground Motion Differences
54
Seismic Design Category of Buildings
55
Projected SPC-2 Buildings in 2020
Long-Period Design Accelerations (SD1)Southern CA
56
Long-Period Design Accelerations (SD1)Northern CA
57
Design Demands for BSE-1E and BSE-2E
Period
Spe
ctra
l Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
CPLS
IO
58
Acceptance Criteria for Different Damage States
Lateral Displacement -
Late
ral F
orce
-V
CPLS
ImmediateOccupancy
LS CPSanta hjklh
Santa hjklh
IO
DamageControl
Santa hjklh
CollapsePrevention
Life Safety
Demand Spectrum at BSE-2E
Demand Spectrum at BSE-1E
59
Example: Five-Story Concrete Shear Wall Building
60
Building Description
• Location: Bay Area
• Building Type: Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Box system
• Number of Stories: 5• Building Height: 67.5 ft
• Foundation: Spread footing
• Diaphragm: Rigid
• Seismic Detailing: No special boundary detailing
61
Material Strengths
• Material Properties
Concrete Strength:
Specified Testedf’c = 4000 psi f’c = 5143 psi
Steel Strength:
Specified Testedfy = 60,000 psi fy = 67,752 psiPermitted to use only 60,000 psi (1980 CBC)
62
Design Criteria Using 1980 - CBC
• Design Base Shear• V = ZIKCSW• Z = 1 (Zone 4)• I = 1.5 (Essential Facility)
• C = √• T = . √ ; = 0.377 sec (Trans.) and 0.23 sec (Long.)
• S = 1.5• Use CS = 0.14• K = 1.33 (Table 23-I, buildings with a box system)• V = (1)(1.5)(1.33)(0.14) W = 0.279 W (Working Stress)
63
Design Criteria Using 1980 - CBC
• Load Combination for Concrete DesignU = 1.4(D + L) + 1.4EAnd U = 0.9D + 1.4E
• For shear and diagonal tensionU = 1.4(D + L) + 2.0EAnd U = 0.9D + 2.0E
64
ASCE 41-13 - Ground Motions
65
Analysis Using ASCE 41-13
• Pseudo Seismic Force for LSP:
V = (1.1)(0.8)(0.975)W = 0.86 W
66
WSCCCV am21
Limitations
• Limitations on Use of LSP:
Largest computed DCR is critical component for the element at that story
If a component DCR exceeds the lesser of 3.0 and the m-factor for the component and a weak story or torsion irregularity exists per 7.3.1.1.3 or 7.3.1.1.4 linear procedures are not permitted
67
CE
UD
QQDCR
Piers Exceeding Acceptance Criteria 1980 CBC
68
Wall Piers demands exceeding capacityMax DCR = 1.3
Elevation Line U
Piers Exceeding Acceptance Criteria ASCE 41
69
Wall Piers demands exceeding capacity,BSE 1E, and BSE 2ENone; Max DCR .86
Elevation Line U
Spandrels Exceeding Acceptance Criteria 1980 CBC
70
Spandrel demands exceeding capacityMax. DCR = 1.54
Elevation Line U
Spandrels Exceeding Acceptance Criteria ASCE 41
71
Spandrel demands exceeding capacityMax. DCR = 1.03
Elevation Line U
Design of Foundations
• Load Combination for Foundations Design 1980 CBCU = 1.4(D + L) + EAnd U = 0.9D + E
• Load Combination for Foundations Design ASCE 41, Linear Procedures
MST > MOT / (C1C2 J); J max = 2Alternatively 0.9MST = MOT / (C1C2OT), OT = 6 (BSE-1E); 10 (BSE-2E)
72
Summary of Findings
The current study is limited to only the shear check acceptance criteria in the shear walls
Other checks such as Shear wall flexural checks, Foundations, and Diaphragms need to be performed to give overall impact
The location of the building and the ground motion at the site is a key factor in deciding which analysis/design option to use
73
• Nonconforming buildings can be upgraded to SPC-4D to provide services beyond 2030
• The CBC 1980 may be used to upgrade some SPC-2 buildings to SPC-4D
• ASCE 41-13 Damage Control Structural Performance level as defined in OSHPD regulations for existing Category IV buildings may be used for SPC-4D analysis and/or retrofit
• No Seismic Evaluation Checklist
Summary of SPC-4D Provisions
74
As with any other structural upgrade or VSI project, the hospital must consider the following:
• Accessibility requirements in area(s) of work and path of travel
• Nonstructural work to comply with NPC 3 through 5 based on any approved extensions or exemptions
• Move management to allow work in specific areas of the hospital building
What Other Costs May Apply?
75
No seismic evaluation (check list) will be required to change SPC-1/SPC-2 buildings to SPC-4D
– Submit analysis to Seismic Compliance Unit– Submit retrofit projects to OSHPD regions– SPC rating will be changed by a process equivalent to those
for SPC-5– Reconciliation on construction work consistent with SPC-4D
requirements is necessary
Streamline and Simplify Compliance
76
What is the Submittal/Review Process?
77
What is the Submittal/Review Process?
78
Who can assist hospitals in determining if SPC-4D is right for them?
• Designers should have a proven track record of working with OSHPD on major retrofit projects
• Must have experience with existing buildings and material and familiarity with the national standard ASCE 41
• Must be a California licensed Structural Engineer
Who Should Hospitals Hire?
79
2015 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle
• Triennial update of CBSC to match 2015 IBC and revised standards
• The CBSC 2016 effective date 1/1/2017
80
2015 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle
81
PIN 54 may be used for early adoption if SPC-4D is approved by the Building Standards Commission
Use of SPC-4D Prior to January 1, 2017
82
Questions
Online questions:Type your question in the Q & A box, hit enter
Phone questions:To enter the queue hit *1 To remove yourself from the queue hit *2
85
Upcoming Programs
Disaster Planning for California HospitalsSeptember 28 – 30, 2015Sacramento
Join your colleagues, community partners, suppliers, and state officials at the only disaster conference developed by and for California hospitals. Find out how you can take your plans, ideas and teams to the next level.
Thank You and Evaluation
Thank you for participating in today’s program. An online evaluation will be sent to you shortly.
For education questions, contact Mary Barker at (916) 552-7514 or [email protected].
