BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//National Institute of Building Sciences - ECPv6.15.20//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:National Institute of Building Sciences
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://nibs.org
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for National Institute of Building Sciences
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/New_York
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20210314T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20211107T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20220313T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20221106T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20230312T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20231105T060000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20220804T130000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20220804T143000
DTSTAMP:20260429T153403
CREATED:20250703T170344Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250703T170344Z
UID:10000106-1659618000-1659623400@nibs.org
SUMMARY:Seismic Design of Coupled Composite Plate Shear Walls / Concrete Filled (C-PSW/CF)
DESCRIPTION:Composite Plate Shear Wall / Concrete Filled (C-PSW/CF)\, also known as the SpeedCore system\, is an efficient seismic force-resisting system for buildings. Two types of C-PSW/CF systems are possible: coupled and uncoupled. Seismic design requirements for uncoupled C-PSW/CF systems were addressed in ASCE/SEI 7-16 and AISC 341-16\, Section H7. Coupled C-PSW/CF systems are more ductile and have more redundancy than uncoupled systems\, but ASCE/SEI 7-16 did not assign seismic design factors in Table 12.2-1. A FEMA P695 study was conducted to verify the design factors that should be used for such Coupled C-PSW/CF structures. Adding this as a separate category in Table 12.2-1 was important because they can be used as the elevator core wall systems in modern high-rise buildings. Two line items featuring this system are now added to ASCE/SEI 7-22 Table 12.2-1 under Building Frame Systems and Dual Systems with Special Moment Frames. R = 8\, Cd = 5.5\, and Ω0 = 2.5 are the design factors in both line items. The height limits are the same as for corresponding uncoupled isolated wall systems. \nA definition for the Coupled C-PSW/SF system and its design and detailing requirements were not included in AISC 360-16 or AISC 341-16. A new Section H8 in AISC 341-22 includes specific provisions for the definition and use of this Coupled C-PSW/CF system\, including details on the capacity design principle limits on applicability. This presentation outlines the above developments and presents a detailed design example illustrating the Coupled-C-PSW/CF seismic force-resisting system. \nLearning objectives: \n\nSeismic design requirements\, detailing\, and factors for coupled composite plate shear walls / concrete filled\nLateral load behavior of coupled composite plate shear walls / concrete filled\nSeismic design procedure for coupled composite plate shear walls / concrete filled\nSeismic design of coupling beam-to-wall connections
URL:https://nibs.org/event/seismic-design-of-coupled-composite-plate-shear-walls-concrete-filled-c-psw-cf/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:BSSC NEHRP Webinar Series,Webinar
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20220623T130000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20220623T143000
DTSTAMP:20260429T153403
CREATED:20250703T170545Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250703T170545Z
UID:10000107-1655989200-1655994600@nibs.org
SUMMARY:Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) Shear Walls and Resilience-Based Design
DESCRIPTION:Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) Shear Wall Design Example\nSeismic force resisting systems based on Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) shear walls have garnered considerable attention for use in building structures around the world for many years with standardization as a seismic force resisting system happening in the U.S. for the first time with inclusion of seismic design requirements in 2021 Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic (SDPWS) and in ASCE 7-22 Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. This presentation summarizes the CLT shear wall design example contained in the 2020 NEHRP Provisions: Design Examples\, provides background on the new system\, and illustrates application of the CLT shear wall system design requirements through a design example. \nLearning Objectives: Participant will: \n\nLearn about the CLT shear wall design example appearing in the 2020 NEHRP Provisions: Design Examples\nLearn about seismic design coefficients and the associated height limits for the CLT shear wall system appearing in ASCE/SEI Standard 7-22\nBe introduced to design requirements for CLT shear walls appearing in SDPWS-21 Appendix B\nGain awareness of application of CLT shear wall requirements for shear strength\, overturing\, and deflection\n\nResilience-Based Design and the NEHRP Provisions\nThis talk presents the new concepts of resilience and functional recovery as they relate to earthquake design. Referencing Resource Paper 1 of the 2020 NEHRP Provisions\, it looks ahead to how building codes and design standards might begin to incorporate functional recovery time as an explicit measure of performance and basis for design. The ideas are illustrated by hypothetical application to the CLT Shear Wall design example. \n\nUnderstand resilience and functional recovery as they relate to earthquake design and to each other.\nUnderstand the elements of a functional recovery objective.\nUnderstand the precedents for resilience-based design embedded in current building codes and standards.\nUnderstand how the elements of current earthquake design might be adjusted to achieve a functional recovery objective
URL:https://nibs.org/event/cross-laminated-timber-clt-shear-walls-and-resilience-based-design/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:BSSC NEHRP Webinar Series,Webinar
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20220602T130000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20220602T143000
DTSTAMP:20260429T153403
CREATED:20250703T170728Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250703T170728Z
UID:10000108-1654174800-1654180200@nibs.org
SUMMARY:New Multi-Period Response Spectra and Ground Motion Requirements\, Additional Revisions to Ground-Motion Provisions\, and Dissection of Example Changes to the MCER Ground Motion Values
DESCRIPTION:New Multi-Period Response Spectra and Ground Motion Requirements\nThis 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. \nThe 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 SDS and SD1 (two-thirds of SMS and SM1) 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. \nRevisions to MCEG PGA\, Vertical Component\, and Site Class when Vs Data not Available\nThe introduction of MPRS in the provisions eliminated the need for the site coefficient\, FPGA \, in Sect. 11.8.3. The USGS Seismic Design Geodatabase now provides the PGAM for the applicable site class\, and Table 21.2-1 was added to provide the deterministic lower limit PGAM\, which was formerly 0.5 FPGA . Also\, the earthquakes to be considered in computing the Deterministic MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration (Sect. 21.5.2) are now obtained from the disaggregation of the Probabilistic MCEG 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 Fmd to account for the direction of maximum shaking. Also\, an equation was added to compute the vertical component for vertical periods\, Tv > 2 sec\, and the vertical coefficient\, Cv\, 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 (Vs) survey is not conducted at a site. The procedure involves (1) constructing a Vs profile using correlations between Vs and measured geotechnical parameters\, such as SPT and CPT\, (2) computing the average Vs 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 ν\, and ν s/1.3 at each period\, T\, i.e.\, select the site class that results in largest MCER Sa. \nDissection of Example Changes to the MCER Ground Motions Values\nThis presentation provides examples of the changes to the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) 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 SMS and SM1 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 SMS for the default site class are less than 15% at all but 3 of the locations; SM1 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.
URL:https://nibs.org/event/new-multi-period-response-spectra-and-ground-motion-requirements-additional-revisions-to-ground-motion-provisions-and-dissection-of-example-changes-to-the-mcer-ground-motion-values/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:BSSC NEHRP Webinar Series,Webinar
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20220519T130000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20220519T143000
DTSTAMP:20260429T153403
CREATED:20250703T170900Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250703T170900Z
UID:10000109-1652965200-1652970600@nibs.org
SUMMARY:Evolution of Seismic Design Values over the Years and the 2018 Update of the USGS National Seismic Hazard Model
DESCRIPTION:Evolution of Seismic Design Values over the Years \nThe 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. \nThe 2018 Update of the USGS National Seismic Hazard Model \nUpdates 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. \nLearning Objectives: \n\nThe 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.\nThe 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.
URL:https://nibs.org/event/evolution-of-seismic-design-values-over-the-years-and-the-2018-update-of-the-usgs-national-seismic-hazard-model/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:BSSC NEHRP Webinar Series,Webinar
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20220428T130000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20220428T150000
DTSTAMP:20260429T153403
CREATED:20250703T171025Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250703T171025Z
UID:10000110-1651150800-1651158000@nibs.org
SUMMARY:Nonstructural Components: Fundamentals and Design Examples – Part 2
DESCRIPTION: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: \n\nThe parameters influencing nonstructural response\nThe new seismic design force equation\nHow equipment support structures and platforms and distribution system supports are addressed\nOther nonstructural provision code changes\n\nThe 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. \nLearning Objectives: \n\nUnderstand the parameters influencing nonstructural response\nUnderstand key changes for nonstructural component design coming in ASCE/SEI 7-22\, including\n\nThe new seismic design force equation\nHow equipment support structures and platforms are handled\nHow distribution system supports are handled\n\n\nUnderstand how to use the 2020 NEHRP Provisions Design Examples as a resource for nonstructural component design
URL:https://nibs.org/event/nonstructural-components-fundamentals-and-design-examples-part-2/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:BSSC NEHRP Webinar Series,Webinar
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20220421T130000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20220421T150000
DTSTAMP:20260429T153403
CREATED:20250703T171143Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250703T171143Z
UID:10000111-1650546000-1650553200@nibs.org
SUMMARY:Nonstructural Components: Fundamentals and Design Examples – Part 1
DESCRIPTION: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: \n\nThe parameters influencing nonstructural response\nThe new seismic design force equation\nHow equipment support structures and platforms and distribution system supports are addressed\nOther nonstructural provision code changes\n\nThe 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. \nLearning Objectives: \n\nUnderstand the parameters influencing nonstructural response\nUnderstand key changes for nonstructural component design coming in ASCE/SEI 7-22\, including\n\nThe new seismic design force equation\nHow equipment support structures and platforms are handled\nHow distribution system supports are handled\n\n\nUnderstand how to use the 2020 NEHRP Provisions Design Examples as a resource for nonstructural component design
URL:https://nibs.org/event/nonstructural-components-fundamentals-and-design-examples-part-1/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:BSSC NEHRP Webinar Series,Webinar
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20220331T130000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20220331T143000
DTSTAMP:20260429T153403
CREATED:20250703T171311Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250703T171311Z
UID:10000112-1648731600-1648737000@nibs.org
SUMMARY:Reinforced Concrete Ductile Coupled Shear Walls
DESCRIPTION:Coupled shear wall systems are recognized as distinct from isolated shear wall systems in Canadian and New Zealand codes; they are also accorded higher response modification factors in view of their superior seismic performance. ASCE 7 has so far made no such distinction. \nA ductile coupled wall system of reinforced concrete has now been defined in ACI 318-19. Issue Team (IT) 4 of the Provisions Update Committee (PUC) of the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) developed a successful proposal to add four line items to ASCE Table 12.2-1\, Design Coefficients and Factors for Seismic Force-Resisting Systems\, featuring the ductile coupled wall system of reinforced concrete. The line items are under: A. Bearing Wall Systems\, B. Building Frame Systems\, and D. Dual Systems with Special Moment Frames. Based on a FEMA P-695 study\, R = 8\, Cd = 8\, and Ωo = 2.5 have been proposed in all the line items. The height limits are the same as for corresponding uncoupled isolated wall systems. Seven different changes made in ACI 318-19 for the design and detailing of special structural walls were implemented in the design of prototypes for the FEMA P-695 study. \nThe above changes appear in the 2020 Edition of NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for Buildings and Other Structures. The changes have now also been approved for inclusion in the upcoming 2022 edition of ASCE 7\, which will be adopted by the 2024 International Building Code. \nThe proposed presentation will outline the above development\, will include relevant details of the specific changes to ASCE 7\, and importantly\, will feature a design example. \nLearning Objectives: \n\nUnderstand the basics of ductile coupled wall systems of concrete\nBe familiar with the ACI 318 definition of this system and understand its nuances\nUnderstand the ASCE 7-22 provisions concerning this system\nLearn how to apply this system through a design example
URL:https://nibs.org/event/reinforced-concrete-ductile-coupled-shear-walls/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:BSSC NEHRP Webinar Series,Webinar
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20220310T130000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20220310T143000
DTSTAMP:20260429T153403
CREATED:20250703T171459Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250703T171459Z
UID:10000113-1646917200-1646922600@nibs.org
SUMMARY:Diaphragm Seismic Design Part 2
DESCRIPTION:The 2020 NEHRP Provisions and ASCE/SEI 7-22 incorporate several notable changes to seismic design of diaphragms. This includes expanded applicability of the ASCE 7-16 Section 12.10.3 alternative design provisions for diaphragms\, originally developed in the 2015 NEHRP Provisions. This also includes new Section 12.10.4\, codifying the rigid wall-flexible diaphragm (RWFD) methodology published in FEMA P-1026\, Seismic Design of Rigid Wall-Flexible Diaphragm Buildings: An Alternative Method. These diaphragm design provisions have been largely driven by new research\, including testing and numerical studies. They have been developed to better reflect diaphragm dynamic response and deformation capacity\, and to provide improved performance\, in some cases with reduced construction cost. \nThis material will be presented in two webinars. The first webinar will provide a general introduction to seismic design of diaphragms and then focus on design examples implementing Section 12.10.3 provisions. The second webinar will repeat the general introduction and then focus on design examples implementing new Section 12.10.4 alternative RWFD provisions. \nLearning Objectives – Part 2 \n\nBecome familiar with new diaphragm design provisions in 2020 NEHRP Provisions and ASCE/SEI 7-22\nUnderstand available diaphragm design methods and when each can be used\nFollow detailed implementation of the Section 12.10.4 Alternative RWFD Provisions\nUnderstand how designs using the Section 12.10.4 provisions compare to the traditional design method
URL:https://nibs.org/event/diaphragm-seismic-design-part-2/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:BSSC NEHRP Webinar Series,Webinar
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20220303T130000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20220303T143000
DTSTAMP:20260429T153403
CREATED:20250703T171711Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250703T171711Z
UID:10000114-1646312400-1646317800@nibs.org
SUMMARY:Diaphragm Seismic Design Part 1
DESCRIPTION:The 2020 NEHRP Provisions and ASCE/SEI 7-22 incorporate several notable changes to seismic design of diaphragms. This includes expanded applicability of the ASCE 7-16 Section 12.10.3 alternative design provisions for diaphragms\, originally developed in the 2015 NEHRP Provisions. This also includes new Section 12.10.4\, codifying the rigid wall-flexible diaphragm (RWFD) methodology published in FEMA P-1026\, Seismic Design of Rigid Wall-Flexible Diaphragm Buildings: An Alternative Method. These diaphragm design provisions have been largely driven by new research\, including testing and numerical studies. They have been developed to better reflect diaphragm dynamic response and deformation capacity\, and to provide improved performance\, in some cases with reduced construction cost. \nThis material will be presented in two webinars. The first webinar will provide a general introduction to seismic design of diaphragms and then focus on design examples implementing Section 12.10.3 provisions. The second webinar will repeat the general introduction and then focus on design examples implementing new Section 12.10.4 alternative RWFD provisions. \nLearning Objectives – Part 1 \n\nBecome familiar with new diaphragm design provisions in 2020 NEHRP Provisions and ASCE/SEI 7-22\nUnderstand available diaphragm design methods and when each can be used\nFollow detailed implementation of the Section 12.10.3 Alternative Design Method\nUnderstand how designs using the Section 12.10.3 provisions compare to the traditional design method
URL:https://nibs.org/event/diaphragm-seismic-design-part-1/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:BSSC NEHRP Webinar Series,Webinar
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20220210T130000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20220210T143000
DTSTAMP:20260429T153403
CREATED:20250703T171848Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250703T171848Z
UID:10000115-1644498000-1644503400@nibs.org
SUMMARY:Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering
DESCRIPTION:Designing a structure to resist earthquakes requires several considerations that can be ignored in design to resist most other loads. The loading is more severe\, the permissible response will usually include damage to the structure\, as well as the systems and components supported by the structure\, and the levels of uncertainty in loading and response are greater than for ordinary loads. This webinar includes an overview of earthquake ground shaking\, dynamic response to ground shaking\, and the influence of yielding within the structure on the response. These issues underlie the NEHRP Recommended Provisions\, and a good understanding of the concepts is an important first step in successful implementation of a design complying with the Provisions. \nLearning objectives: \n\nKey parameters in dynamic behavior of simple structures\nBasis and use of the response spectrum as a tool for design\nRationale for permitting nonlinear response and its significance in design\nThe difference between yield and peak resistance
URL:https://nibs.org/event/fundamentals-of-earthquake-engineering/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:BSSC NEHRP Webinar Series,Webinar
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20220120T130000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20220120T150000
DTSTAMP:20260429T153403
CREATED:20250703T172013Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250703T172013Z
UID:10000116-1642683600-1642690800@nibs.org
SUMMARY:Introduction to the 2020 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions: Design Examples
DESCRIPTION:The 2020 NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples illustrate and explain the applications of the 2020 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions and the associated changes in the seismic provisions of ASCE/SEI 7-22\, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. This virtual training session provides a discussion of the following items: \n\nAn overview of the NEHRP Provisions intent and purpose\, and the relationship of the Provisions to the seismic provisions of ASCE/SEI 7-22\nA summary of notable earthquakes in history and how they impacted seismic design\nThe history and role of the NEHRP Provisions in advancing seismic design\nHighlights of major updates in the NEHRP Provisions and seismic provisions of ASCE/SEI 7-22\nAn introduction to the organization and content in the new Design Examples\n\nLearning Objectives \n\nUnderstand the role of the NEHRP Provisions in seismic code development\nGain an awareness of seminal past seismic code changes\nUnderstand key updates to the 2020 NEHRP Provisions and to ASCE/SEI 7-22\nUnderstand what is contained in the 2020 Design Examples and how they can be used
URL:https://nibs.org/event/introduction-to-the-2020-nehrp-recommended-seismic-provisions-design-examples/
LOCATION:Virtual Event
CATEGORIES:BSSC NEHRP Webinar Series,Webinar
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR