INVESTIGATION OF AN IDENTIFIED SHORT-COMING IN THE

SEISMIC DESIGN PROCEDURES OF ASCE 7-10 AND DEVELOPMENT

OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS FOR ASCE 7-16

Prepared for:

Building Seismic Safety Council

National Institute of Building Sciences
Washington, D.C.

Prepared by:

Kircher & Associates

Consulting Engineers
Palo Alto, California

March 15, 2015

Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report summarizes a study undertaken (1) to investigate an identified short-coming with
ELF and MSRA seismic design procedures of ASCE 7 related to the use of only two response
periods (0.2 s and 1.0 s) to define seismic design forces and (2) to develop a technical basis and
recommendations for improving the seismic design requirements of the 2015 NEHRP Provisions
and ASCE 7-16 to minimize this short-coming. The recommendations of this study were used
by the Provisions Update Committee (PUC) of the Building Seismic Safety Council to develop
and adopt code changes for the 2015 NEHRP Provisions, and subsequently by the Seismic
Subcommittee (SSC) of ASCE 7 Standards Committee to incorporate these changes into ASCE
7-16.
The impetus for this study came from an effort by the PUC late in the 2015 seismic-code-update
cycle to define seismic design forces at additional response periods beyond 1.0 s; a first step
toward ultimately basing seismic design forces on multi-period maximum considered earthquake
(MCER) response spectra. This effort identified a serious short-coming in the seismic forces
required for design of long-period buildings at softer soil sites using either the ELF or MRSA
design procedure. Multi-period MCER response spectra would eliminate the identified short-
coming associated with the use of seismic forces based on only two response periods by directly
providing reliable values of seismic demand at all design periods of interest. Unfortunately,
multi-period seismic hazard criteria and associated design methods are not yet mature enough for
incorporation in seismic codes. Hence, this study was undertaken to provide a short-term
solution to a problem that will ultimately be resolved by adoption of design procedures based on
multi-period MCER response spectra.
This study was performed by Kircher & Associates, Consulting Engineers, for the Building
Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) of the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) with
funding provided by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the United States
Department of Homeland Security. The study was performed primarily by Dr. Charles Kircher,
Principal of Kircher & Associates, in collaboration with the USGS (Golden CO) group
responsible for developing the design values maps of the NEHRP Provisions and ASCE 7,
including specifically, Dr. Nico Luco and Dr. Sanaz Resaeian, and with significant direction
provided by study advisors and interaction with the PUC of the BSSC, the SSC of ASCE 7-16
and the Seismology Committee of the Structural Engineers Association of California.

ii
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... ii
Section Page
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Study Purpose ….…………………………………………………………….. 1-1
1.2 Study Approach ……………………………………………………………… 1-1
1.3 Study Organization and Participants …..……………………………………. 1-4
2. Background ................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Overview of ASCE 7 Seismic Design Methods and Parameters ...................... 2-1
2.2 Site Coefficients of ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 7-16 .…………….......................... 2-2
2.3 The Problem with ELF and MRSA Seismic Design Parameters .…................. 2-3
3. Technical Approach of Study ........................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Options for Improving ELF and MRSA Seismic Design Parameters ............... 3-1
3.2 Tentative Re-Formulation of ASCE 7-10 Seismic Design Parameters ............. 3-1
3.3 “Target” Deterministic MCER Response Spectra ….………………………… 3-2
3.4 Values of Ground Motion Predictive Equation Parameters ………..…..…….. 3-2
3.5 Calculation of Spectrum Shape Adjustment Factors …………………………. 3-5
3.6 Derived Values of Site Factors .…………………………………..…………… 3-7
3.7 Magnitude Dependence of Spectrum Shape Adjustment Factors …………… 3-10
3.8 Site-Specific Values of Earthquake Magnitude …………………………….. 3-11
3.9 Applicability to Sites Governed by Probabilistic MCER Ground Motions ….. 3-12
4. Phase I Investigations with ASCE 7-10 Earthquake Ground Motion Criteria ............. 4-1
4.1 Example MCER Response Spectra .……………………………...................... 4-1
4.2 Derived Values of Spectrum Shape Adjustment and Related Factors ............. 4-9
4.3 Applicability to Sites Governed by Probabilistic MCER Ground Motions ...... 4-23
4.4 Summary of Phase I Findings ……………………………………………….. 4-31
5. Phase II Investigations with ASCE 7-16 Earthquake Ground Motion Criteria ............ 5-1
5.1 Example MCER Response Spectra …………………………..…..…................ 5-1
5.2 Derived Values of Spectrum Shape Adjustment and Related Factors ……….. 5-5
5.3 Applicability to Sites Governed by Probabilistic MCER Ground Motions ..... 5-14
5.4 Summary of Phase II Findings …………………………………………….. 5-24
6. Conclusion and Recommendations .............................................................................. 6-1
6.1 Summary of Investigations ………………………………………………….. 6-1
6.2 Proposed Changes to ASCE 7-16 Seismic Design Procedures …………..……. 6-2
6.2.1 Site-Specific Methods of Section 21.4 ……………………………….. 6-2
6.2.2 Seismic Design Parameters of Section 11.4.3 (Option 1) …………… 6-3
6.2.3 Site-Specific Requirements of Section 11.7 (Option 2) .…………….. 6-6
6.3 Design Examples Illustrating Proposed Changes to ASCE 7-16 (Option 2) ..... 6-9
6.4 Recommendations for Improving Future Editions of ASCE 7 ........................ 6-24
7. References ..................................................................................................................... 7-1

iii
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Study Purpose

This report summarizes a study undertaken (1) to investigate an identified short-coming with
ELF and MSRA seismic design procedures of ASCE 7 related to the use of only two response
periods (0.2 s and 1.0 s) to define seismic design forces and (2) to develop a technical basis and
recommendations for improving the seismic design requirements of the 2015 NEHRP Provisions
and ASCE 7-16 to minimize this short-coming. The recommendations of this study were used
by the Provisions Update Committee (PUC) of the Building Seismic Safety Council to develop
and adopt code changes for the 2015 NEHRP Provisions, and subsequently by the Seismic
Subcommittee (SSC) of ASCE 7 Standards Committee to incorporate these changes into ASCE
7-16.
The impetus for this study came from an effort by the PUC late in the 2015 seismic-code-update
cycle to define seismic design forces at additional response periods beyond 1.0 s; a first step
toward ultimately basing seismic design forces on multi-period maximum considered earthquake
(MCER) response spectra. This effort identified a serious short-coming in the seismic forces
required for design of long-period buildings at softer soil sites using either the ELF or MRSA
design procedure. Multi-period MCER response spectra would eliminate the identified short-
coming associated with the use of seismic forces based on only two response periods by directly
providing reliable values of seismic demand at all design periods of interest. Unfortunately,
multi-period seismic hazard criteria and associated design methods are not yet mature enough for
incorporation in seismic codes. Hence, this study was undertaken to provide a short-term
solution to a problem that will ultimately be resolved by adoption of design procedures based on
multi-period MCER response spectra.
1.2 Study Approach
This study investigated the identified short-coming with ELF and MSRA seismic design
procedures by deriving values of short-period (0.2 s) and long-period (1.0 s) seismic design
parameters from “target” multi-period MCER response spectra that the seismic design parameters
are intended to represent, and by comparing derived values of these parameters with current
values of these parameters to identify and evaluate differences (i.e., short-comings) as a function
of site conditions and source properties. For these investigations, multi-period deterministic
MCER response spectra were calculated in accordance with the site-specific procedures of
Chapter 21 of ASCE 7 incorporating the same methods and assumptions as those used by the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) to make the seismic design values maps of ASCE 7-10
and ASCE 7-16 for sites in the western United States (WUS) governed by shallow crustal
earthquakes (i.e., vast majority of all WUS sites).
The design values maps of ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 7-16 incorporate research sponsored by the
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, including development of the Next
Generation Attenuation (NGA) ground motion predictive equations (GMPEs) applicable to WUS
sites (Bozorgnia et at. 2014). The PEER NGA GMPEs are empirical functions based on very
large, comprehensive databases of earthquake records compiled by the PEER NGA research
program and directly incorporate site class effects and ground motion parameters not found in
other GMPEs at this time. The approach of this study calculated deterministic MCER response
spectra for different site classes and source properties based on the PEER NGA GMPEs. While

1-1
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

it would have been desirable to have a broader basis for MCER ground motions, GMPEs
applicable to other, non-WUS, regions of the United States do not have the requisite features to
properly investigate the identified short-coming. The inherent assumption of this approach is
that findings based on the PEER NGA GMPEs for WUS sites also apply to other regions of the
United States (i.e., consistent with the inherent assumption that site factors of ASCE 7 developed
for WUS sites also apply to other regions of the United States).
There are two sets of PEER NGA GMPEs of interest corresponding to two, large PEER NGA
databases of earthquake records, (1) a set of three NGA-West1 GMPEs (BA08, CB08 and CY08)
that predict ground motions based on the NGA-West1 database (Chiou 2008) of about 3,500
earthquake records, and (2) a set of five NGA-West2 GMPEs (ASK14, BSSA14, CB14, CY14
and I14) that predict ground motions based on the updated NGA-West2 database (Ancheta 2012)
of over 20,000 records. The NGA-West2 database incorporates a large number of additional
records from smaller magnitude earthquakes, as well as records from a few, post-2003, large-
magnitude earthquakes, in particular, 25 records within 50 km of fault rupture (and 6 within 5
km) of the magnitude M7.9 Wenchuan (China) earthquake. Figure 1-1 are plots of the
distributions by moment magnitude and closest distance to fault rupture for each event in the
NGA-West1 and NGA-West2 databases (from Figure 1 of Bozorgnia et al. 2014) indicating
records of engineering significance (i.e., records with moment magnitudes M ≥ 5.0 and closest
distances to fault rupture (i.e., R ≤ 100 km)..

Figure 1-1 Distributions of recordings of the NGA-West1 and NGA-West2 ground motion
databases with magnitude and distance (from Figure 1 of Bozorgnia et al. 2014).
Curves indicate records of engineering significance (i.e., records with moment
magnitudes M ≥ 5.0 and closest distances to fault rupture (i.e., R ≤ 100 km).
It may be noted that the records of engineering significance are similar for the two NGA
databases and likewise, the deterministic MCER response spectra based on NGA-West1 GMPEs
would be expected, in general, to be the same or similar to the deterministic MCER response
spectra based on NGA-West2 GMPEs for common values of site and source properties, although
this may not necessarily be the case for all site and source conditions, of interest.

1-2
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

The USGS used the NGA-West1 GMPEs for development of the MCER ground motions of
ASCE 7-10 and the NGA-West2 GMPEs for development of the MCER ground motions of
ASCE 7-16. The approach of this study separately investigated the identified short-coming using
seismic design parameters derived from deterministic MCER response spectra based on ASCE 7-
10 ground motion criteria (i.e., NGA-West1 GMPEs) and seismic design parameters derived
from deterministic MCER response spectra based on ASCE 7-16 ground motion criteria (i.e.,
NGA-West2 GMPEs). This approach allowed comparison of seismic design parameters derived
from these two sources of ground motions (presumably based on the same or similar methods
and data) and, thus, provided a “sanity check” on the accuracy and reliability of results.
The study investigated the identified short-coming primarily using seismic design parameters
derived from deterministic MCER response spectra and confirmed results of these investigations
for applicability to sites whose seismic hazard is governed by probabilistic MCER ground
motions. Confirmation was made by comparison of seismic design parameters derived from
deterministic MCER response spectra with those derived from representative probabilistic MCER
response spectra. This approach was taken since deterministic MCER response spectra could be
expeditiously calculated for a variety of site and sources conditions for both ASCE 7-10 and
ASCE 7-16 ground motion criteria. In contrast, probabilistic MCER response spectra are a
complicated combination of multiple seismic sources, source properties and associated
uncertainties that require a complex calculation of the underlying seismic hazard functions of
each site of interest.
The complex calculations of probabilistic MCER ground motions have been made by the USGS
and site-specific seismic hazard functions and related uniform hazard spectra (UHS) are
available for ASCE 7-10 ground motion criteria (i.e., from a USGS website), but are not yet
available for ASCE 7-16 ground motion criteria. A limited number of probabilistic MCER
response spectra based on ASCE 7-16 ground motion criteria were calculated for this project by
the Southern California Earthquake Consortium (SCEC) for 14 CyberShake sites in Southern
California. This study made a comprehensive comparison of seismic design parameters derived
from deterministic MCER response spectra of ASCE 7-10 with seismic design parameters
derived from probabilistic MCER response representing over 9,000 sites in California, Oregon
and Washington, and a more limited comparison of seismic design parameters derived from
deterministic MCER response spectra of ASCE 7-16 with seismic design parameters derived
from probabilistic MCER response spectra of the 14 SCEC CyberShake sites in Southern
California.
The subject study was performed in two phases. Phase I investigations utilized the deterministic
and probabilistic MCER response spectra and underlying seismic hazard functions and methods
of ASCE 7-10. Phase II investigations utilized the deterministic and probabilistic MCER
response spectra and underlying seismic hazard functions and methods of ASCE 7-16. The
results of the Phase II investigations with ASCE 7-16 earthquake ground motion criteria are the
more relevant set of results for developing recommended improvements to the seismic design
procedures of ASCE 7-16. Nonetheless, the results of Phase I investigation with ASCE 7-10
earthquake ground motion criteria provided a “sanity check” on Phase II findings (and the
accuracy and reliability of the underlying methods), and both Phase I and Phase II findings were
considered in the development of recommended improvements to the seismic design procedures
of ASCE 7-16.

1-3
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

1.3 Study Organization and Participants

This study was performed by Kircher & Associates, Consulting Engineers, for the Building
Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) of the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), Mr. Philip
Schneider, BSSC Executive Director, with funding provided by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) of the United States Department of Homeland Security, Dr. Mai
Tong, FEMA Physical Scientist and Professor Robert D. Hanson, FEMA Technical Advisor.
The study was performed primarily by Dr. Charles Kircher, Principal of Kircher & Associates, in
collaboration with the USGS (Golden CO) group responsible for developing the design values
maps of the NEHRP Provisions and ASCE 7, including specifically, Dr. Nico Luco and Dr.
Sanaz Resaeian, and with significant direction provided by study advisors and interaction with
the PUC of the BSSC, the SSC of ASCE 7-16 and the Seismology Committee of the Structural
Engineers Association of California.
Study advisors included, Dr. C.B. Crouse of URS Corporation (Seattle), Mr. David Bonneville of
Degenkolb Engineers (San Francisco) and Mr. John Hooper of Magnussen Klemencik
Associates (Seattle). Dr. Crouse is an engineering seismologist and the chair of the technical
subcommittees of the PUC and ASCE 7-16 responsible for proposing changes to the site factors
of ASCE 7-16. Mr. Bonneville is a practicing structural engineer and the chair of the BSSC
PUC and Mr. Hooper is also a practicing structural engineer and the chair of the SSC of ASCE
7-16. Additional study guidance was obtained from Professor Jonathan Stewart of the University
of California at Los Angeles and Dr. Roger Borcherdt of the USGS who provided valuable input
with respect to site factors and characterization of site amplification.
The study benefitted greatly from the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) research programs of
the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center which sponsored the compilation of
the NGA-West1 and NGA-West2 databases of ground motion records, the associated
development of NGA-West1 GMPEs and NGA-West2 GMPEs, and the implementation of these
ground motion relations in user-friendly spreadsheets (NGA-West1 GMPEs, Al Atik 2009 and
NGA-West2 GMPEs, Seyhan 2014) that were relied on for calculation of deterministic MCER
response spectra.

1-4
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Overview of ASCE 7-10 Seismic Design Methods and Parameters

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Standard, Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-10, includes Chapter 11 which describes seismic design
criteria, Chapter 12 which prescribes seismic design requirements for buildings, Chapter 21
which describes site-specific earthquake ground motion procedures and Chapter 22 which
provides maps of risk-adjusted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) earthquake ground
motion parameters (Ss and S1) and the long-period transition period parameter (TL). Section 12.6
defines the applicability of permitted analytical procedures which include the equivalent lateral
force (ELF) procedure of Section 12.8, the modal response spectrum analysis (MRSA) methods
of Section 12.9 and the seismic response history procedures of Chapter 16.
Section 11.4.3 provides equations for determining the values of the MCER spectral response
acceleration parameter at short periods (SMS) and at 1.0 s (SM1) adjusted for site class effects.
Section 11.4.4 defines the design earthquake spectral acceleration parameter at short periods
(SDS) and at 1.0 s (SD1) as 2/3 of the parameters SMS and SD1 and Section 11.4.5 defines the
domains of constant acceleration (SDS) and constant velocity (SD1/T) and constant displacement
(SD1TL/T2) of the design response spectrum (Figure 11.4-1, see copy below in Figure 2-1) in
terms of the parameters SDS and SD1. The parameters SDS and SD1 are used in Section 12.8 to
determine seismic base shear of the ELF design procedure and the design response spectrum of
Figure 11.4-1 is used in Section 12.9 for the MRSA method.

Figure 2-1 Design response spectrum (copy of Figure 11.4-1, ASCE 7-10)
The ELF procedure is permitted for seismic design of all SDC B and C structures SDC D, E, F
structures of regular configuration that are less than 160 feet in height, or which have a design
period T < 3.5 Ts, or which are less than 160 feet and do not have severe irregularity (Table 12.6-
1), where the transition period, Ts, is defined by the ratio of the design spectral acceleration
parameters, Ts = SD1/SDS. MSRA is permitted for all structures, regardless of configuration or
design period, using the design response spectrum shape of Figure 11.4-1, unless site-specific
ground motion procedures are required to define response spectral accelerations (Section 11.4.7).
The vast majority of all buildings are designed for seismic loads using either the ELF procedure
or MSRA methods (based on the design response spectrum of Figure 11.4-1).

2-1
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

2.2 Site Coefficients of ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 7-16

During the 2015/2016 Seismic Code development cycle, revised values of site coefficients (Fa
and Fv) were developed and adopted by the 2015 NEHRP Provisions and subsequently adopted
with some reformatting by ASCE 7-16. Below, Tables 2-1 and 2-2 show values of the site
coefficients of ASCE 7-10 and changes to these values adopted by ASCE 7-16 (i.e., copy of
Proposal TC-01-CH11-01_11.4.2-11.4.3_cc.docx, Crouse, 2013). Black font indicates values of
ASCE 7-10 site coefficients that remain the same. Red font indicates new (ASCE 7-16) values
of site factors with prior (ASCE 7-10) values shown in red font and strike-out format.
Table 2-1 Site coefficient, Fa (Table 11.4-1, ASCE 7-10 with ASCE 7-16 changes shown in
red font, strike-out and underline style)

Mapped Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Spectral Response

Acceleration Parameter at Short Period

Site
Class SS  0.25 SS = 0.5 SS = 0.75 SS = 1.0 SS = 1.25 SS ≥ 1.5

A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

B 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9
C 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.2
D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
E 2.5 2.4 1.7 1.2 1.3 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.8
F See Section 11.4.7
1) Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of SS. At the Site Class B-C boundary, Fa = 1.0 for all Ss
levels. If site classes A or B is established without the use of on-site geophysical measurements of shear wave velocity, use Fa =
1.0.

Table 2-2 Site coefficient, Fv (Table 11.4-2, ASCE 7-10 with ASCE 7-16 changes shown in
red font, strike-out and underline style)

Mapped Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER)

Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period
Site
Class S1  0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1  0.6

A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

B 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8
C 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.4
D 2.4 2.0 2.2 1.8 2.0 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.8 1.7
E 3.5 4.2 3.2 3.3 2.8 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.0
F See Section 11.4.7
2) Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S1. At the Site Class B-C boundary, Fv = 1.0 for all S1 levels.
If site classes A or B are established without the use of on-site geophysical measurements of shear wave velocity, use Fv = 1.0.

Historically, the site coefficients of ASCE 7-10 date to the 1994 NEHRP Provisions (and 1997
UBC) and are based on analysis of strong motion data and numerical simulations of nonlinear
site response, as described in Dobry et al. (2000). Motivation for the current revisions to these

2-2
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

site factors includes (Seyhan and Stewart, 2012): (1) updating the reference site condition used
for the factors to match the condition on the national maps, which is 760 mps (2,500 fps); (2)
incorporating into the factors the substantial knowledge gains (stemming in large part from an
enormous increase in available data) on site response over the past two decades.
The work undertaken to develop the revised factors is described in two Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center (PEER) reports (Boore et al., 2013; Stewart and Seyhan, 2013) and
summarized in an EERI Earthquake Spectra paper (Seyhan and Stewart, 2014). In brief, the
revised site factors are based on the PEER NGA-West2 ground motion predictive equations
(GMPEs) that relate site amplification at the period of interest to site shear wave velocity and
hence site class. This new approach is possible, since the PEER NGA GMPEs now include
shear wave velocity terms; whereas, older versions of ground-motion relations did not.
2.3 The Problem with ELF and MRSA Seismic Design Parameters
The value of parameter SMS is based on response at a period of 0.2 s and the value of the
parameter SM1 is based on response at a period of 1.0 s. The domain of constant acceleration
defined by the parameter (SMS) and the domain of constant velocity (SM1/T) are crude
approximations to the actual shape of response spectral accelerations of MCER ground motions,
such as those calculated using the site-specific ground motion procedures of Section 21.2 ASCE
7-10 for a number of different periods of response (so-called multi-period MCER response
spectra).
Although approximate, the two domains of constant acceleration and velocity provide reasonably
accurate and conservative representation of the frequency content of design ground motions
when peak response spectral acceleration occurs at or near T = 0.2 s, the period used to define
SMS, and peak response spectral velocity (i.e., peak response spectral acceleration divided by
response period) occurs at or near T = 1.0 s, the period used to define SM1. Such is the case for
response at stiffer sites governed by smaller magnitude earthquakes, but generally inaccurate and
potentially unconservative at softer sites (e.g., Site Classes D and E), in particular softer sites for
which seismic hazard is dominated by large magnitude earthquakes. In the latter case, values of
SMS and SM1 would be more accurately calculated if based on response at periods that better
represent peak response spectral acceleration and peak response spectral velocity and hence the
frequency content, of MCER ground motions of the site of interest.
It may be noted that the site-specific requirements of Section 21.4 of ASCE 7-10 recognize that
periods of peak response are not always at 0.2 s and 1.0 s and require that SD1 be taken as equal
to 2 x response spectral acceleration at 2 seconds when greater than 1-second response spectral
acceleration, and that SDS be taken as equal to 0.2-second response spectral acceleration, but not
less than 90 percent of response at any period to better represent the frequency content of site-
specific ground motions. For softer sites governed by large magnitude events, the peak value of
response spectral velocity can occur at a period beyond 2 seconds, and periods up to 5 seconds
would need to be investigated, in general, to determine the period of peak velocity response for
Site Class D and E sites i.e., (vs,30 ≤ 1,200 ft/s).
The short-coming in current seismic criteria is illustrated in Figures 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4 each of
which show plots of a multi-period MCER response spectrum for Site Class BC, multi-period
MCER and design response spectra for the site class of interest (Site Class C, D, or E), and the
two-domain ELF design spectrum (i.e., Cs x (R/Ie) based on the ASCE 7-16 values of site
coefficients Fa and Fv for the site class of interest. In these figures, the MCER ground motions

2-3
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

represent a magnitude M7.0, earthquake at Rx = 6.75 km which has values of the parameters SS =
1.5 g and S1 = 0.6 g for Site Class BC conditions (vs,30 = 2,500 ft/s). Median geomean multi-
period response spectra were calculated with a PEER NGA-West2 GMPE spreadsheet (Seyhan
2014) and converted to 84th percentile maximum direction MCER response spectra with the same
methods as those used by the USGS to develop deterministic MCER ground motions of ASCE 7-
16. The ELF design spectrum was calculated using the procedures of Section 11.4.3 and the site
coefficients of ASCE 7-16. For example, the domain of constant acceleration of the ELF design
spectrum shown in Figure 2-4 (Site Class E conditions) is defined by the value of the parameter
SDS = 2/3 x 0.8 x 1.5 g = 0.8 g and the domain of constant velocity is defined by the value of the
parameter SD1 = 2/3 x 2.0 x 0.6 g = 0.8 g.

2.6
MCEr Multi-Period Response Spectrum - Site Class BC
2.4
MCEr Multi-Period Response Spectrum - Site Class C
2.2 Design Multi-Period Response Spectrum - Site Class C
ELF Design Spectrum (Cs x R/Ie) - Current ASCE 7-16 Criteria
Response Spectral Accelertation (g)

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 2-2 Comparison of ELF and multi-period design spectra – Site Class C
ground motions (vs,30 = 1,600 ft/s) – current ASCE 7-16 criteria

2-4
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

2.6
MCEr Multi-Period Response Spectrum - Site Class BC
2.4
MCEr Multi-Period Response Spectrum - Site Class D
2.2 Design Multi-Period Response Spectrum - Site Class D
ELF Design Spectrum (Cs x R/Ie) - Current ASCE 7-16 Criteria
Response Spectral Accelertation (g)

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 2-3 Comparison of ELF and multi-period design spectra – Site Class D
ground motions (vs,30 = 870 ft/s) – current ASCE 7-16 criteria

2.6
MCEr Multi-Period Response Spectrum - Site Class BC
2.4
MCEr Multi-Period Response Spectrum - Site Class E
2.2 Design Multi-Period Response Spectrum - Site Class E
ELF Design Spectrum (Cs x R/Ie) - Current ASCE 7-16 Criteria
Response Spectral Accelertation (g)

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 2-4 Comparison of ELF and multi-period design spectra – Site Class E
ground motions (vs,30 = 510 ft/s) – current ASCE 7-16 criteria

2-5
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Comparisons of multi-period design and ELF spectra in Figures 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4 show varying
degrees of similarity. For Site Class C (Figure 2-2) the ELF design spectrum is similar to the
multi-period design spectrum. The ELF domain of constant acceleration matches the peak of the
multi-period design spectrum at a period of 0.25 s and the ELF domain of constant velocity (1/T)
matches the multi-period design spectrum at periods of 1.0 s and greater. For Site Class D
(Figure 2-3), the ELF design spectrum is moderately unconservative at most periods (e.g., by
about 20 percent at periods of 1.0 s to 2.0 s) and for Site Class E (Figure 2-4) the design
spectrum is significantly unconservative at all periods (e.g., by about a factor of 1.65 at periods
of 2 s to 3 s). These figures are based on multi-period response spectra whose shape corresponds
to a magnitude M7.0 earthquake. Spectral shape is a function of magnitude and smaller
magnitude events would show greater similarity between the multi-period design spectrum and
ELF spectrum of site class of interest, while larger magnitude events would show more
significant differences.
For Site Class E, Figure 2-5 illustrates a better fit of the ELF design spectrum to the multi-period
design spectrum. In this case, the domain of constant acceleration is defined by a value of the
parameter SDS = 2/3 x 1.25 x 0.8 x 1.5 g = 1.0 g and the domain of constant velocity is defined by
the value of the parameter SD1 = 2/3 x 1.7 x 2.0 x 0.6 g = 1.35 g, where example values of
“spectrum shape adjustment” factors (as described in the next section) have been included in the
calculation of the parameters SMS and SM1 (i.e., Ca = 1.25 and Cv = 1.7).
2.6
MCEr Multi-Period Response Spectrum - Site Class BC
2.4
MCEr Multi-Period Response Spectrum - Site Class E
2.2 Design Multi-Period Response Spectrum - Site Class E
ELF Design Spectrum (Cs x R/Ie) - ASCE 7-16 w/Shape Adjustment
Response Spectral Accelertation (g)

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 2-5 Comparison of ELF and multi-period design spectra – Site Class E
ground motions – current ASCE 7-16 criteria modified by example
values of spectrum shape adjustment factors

2-6
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

SECTION 3. TECHNICAL APPROACH

3.1 Options for Improving ELF and MRSA Seismic Design Parameters
This study pursued two options for improving the accuracy and reliability of ELF and MRSA
design procedures. The first option involved re-formulation of the seismic design parameters of
ASCE 7-10 to incorporate new “spectrum shape adjustment” factors, as described in Section 3.2.
This option would require development and incorporation of new tables of spectrum shape
adjustment factors in Section 11.4 (i.e., similar in format to site coefficient Tables 11.4-1 and
11.4-2). The second option would modify the criteria of Section 11.4.7 to require site-specific
procedures for design, in lieu of ELF and MRSA, for those site conditions for which the ELF and
MSRA procedures do not provide sufficiently accurate and reliable designs.
The first option would not change the permitted use of ELF and MRSA procedures, but would
require conceptual re-formulation of the seismic parameters of Section 11.4, a major undertaking
for the PUC late in the 2015 Seismic Code cycle. The second option would avoid conceptual re-
formulation of seismic parameters, but would require would require site-specific analysis for
sites that would not otherwise warrant detailed site hazard investigation.
This study fully investigated the first option including development of specific values of the
spectrum shape adjustment factors. The values of these factors also provided the basis for
establishing the site-specific criteria of the second option (i.e., identification of those site
conditions requiring site-specific ground motion analysis). Additionally, values of the spectrum
shape adjustment factors were used to identify conservative values of seismic parameters that
would permit design using the ELF or MRSA procedure, in lieu of performing a site-specific
ground motion analysis. The second option was ultimately adopted by the PUC for the 2015
NEHRP Provisions and incorporated into ASCE 7-16.
3.2 Tentative Re-Formulation of Seismic Parameters
Tentative re-formulation of seismic parameters would add two new “spectrum shape adjustment”
factors, Ca and Cv, to Eqs. 11.4-1 and 11.4-2 of Section 11.4.3 and define values of SMS and SM1,
as follows:
SMS = CaFaSS (3-1)
SM1 = CvFvS1 (3-2)
The proposed spectrum shape factors would modify the products of the site coefficient and
MCER spectral response acceleration parameter (FaSS and FvS1) when the domain of constant
acceleration and/or the domain of constant velocity are not well defined by MCER response
spectral acceleration at or near periods of 0.2 s and 1.0 s, as required to avoid underestimation of
ELF (and MSRA) seismic design forces. No changes would be made to the mapped values of
MCER spectral accelerations (SS and S1) or to values of the site coefficients (Fa and Fv) adopted
by ASCE 7-16.
Values of the spectrum shape adjustment factors Ca and Cv were developed by essentially
determining the best fit of the ELF design spectrum to two-thirds of the “target” MCER response
spectrum that represents the ground motion intensity of interest (as defined by the discrete values
of SS and S1 of the site coefficient tables) and the site class of interest, as illustrated in Figure 2-5
for Site Class E conditions and Ss = 1.5 g and S1 = 0.6 g. The criteria used to determine the best
fit are those based on requirements of Section 21.4 for determining values of SDS and SD1 from a

3-1
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

site-specific design spectrum incorporating revisions as recommended by this study (and adopted
by ASCE 7-16). In essence, the value of the parameter Ca is based on 90 percent of the target
MCER response spectrum at the period of peak response spectral acceleration (i.e., periods
ranging from 0.2 s to 0.5 s); and the value of the parameter Cv is based on 100 percent of the
target response spectrum at the period of peak response spectral velocity (e.g., periods ranging
from 1.0 s to 5.0 s). When peak velocity response occurs at or near 1.0 s, then the value of Cv is
1.0; and when peak acceleration response occurs at or near 0.2 s, then the value of Ca is 0.9.

3.3 “Target” Deterministic MCER Response Spectra

“Target” deterministic MCER response spectra are multi-period response spectra calculated using
the site-specific deterministic MCER ground motion procedures of Section 21.2.2 of ASCE 7-10
(or ASCE 7-16) and the same methods as those used by the USGS to develop the design values
maps for WUS sites of either ASCE 7-10 (Petersen et al., 2008) or ASCE 7-16 (Petersen et al.
2014). Consistent with USGS methods, deterministic MCER ground motions are based on a
weighted average of PEER NGA GMPEs; NGA-West1 GMPEs for ASCE 7-10 ground motions
and NGA-West2 GMPEs for ASCE 7-16 ground motions.
For development of the design values maps of ASCE 7-10, USGS calculated deterministic (and
probabilistic) MCER ground motions for reference site conditions (i.e., vs,30 = 2,500 ft/s) based
on the equally weighted average of the three NGA-West 1 GMPEs (BA08, CB08 and CY08).
For development of the design values maps of ASCE 7-16, USGS calculated deterministic (and
probabilistic) MCER ground motions for reference site conditions (i.e., vs,30 = 2,500 ft/s) based
on the weighted average of the five NGA-West 2 GMPEs (ASK14, BSSA14, CB14, CY14 and
I14). Note in this study, ASCE 7-16 ground motions are based on the equally weighted average
of the first four GMPE developers, since the I14 GMPE is not valid for low values of shear wave
velocities (i.e., vs,30 < 1,500 fps) and therefore not appropriate for developing target deterministic
MCER response spectra for Site Class D and Site Class E conditions.
The PEER NGA GMPEs predict median (and other percentile) geomean response. Consistent
with the methods of the USGS, this study calculated deterministic MCER ground motions by
factoring median geomean response by 1.8 (at all periods) to approximate 84th percentile
response and a factored that varied from 1.1 (T ≤ 0.2 s) to 1.3 (T = 1.0 s) to 1.5 (T ≥ 1.5) to
covert geomean to maximum direction response. The PEER NGA GMPEs are quite complex
and the NGA-West1 GMPEs were calculated with the aid of a PEER NGA-West1 GMPE
spreadsheet (Al Atik 2009) and NGA-West2 GMPEs were calculated with the aid of a PEER
NGA-West2 spreadsheet (Seyhan 2014). In both cases, the PEER NGA GMPE spreadsheets
were greatly enhanced for calculation of deterministic MCER response of different site classes
and derivation of site amplification factors and spectrum shape adjustment factors from these
spectra.
The advantage of using the PEER NGA GMPEs is that they are based on a very large database of
earthquake records, explicitly incorporate the vs,30 parameter in the calculation of response
spectral acceleration and may be used to calculate response for periods from 0.01 s to 10 s.

3.4 Values of Ground Motion Predictive Equation Parameters

The PEER NGA GMPEs are complex functions of a number of site and source parameters
including earthquake moment magnitude (MW), site-source distance parameters (RRUP, RJB and
RX), fault mechanism (e.g., strike-slip, reverse or normal faulting), site shear wave velocity

3-2
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

(vs,30), angle of rupture plane (Dip), hanging-wall factor (FHW), depth to top of rupture plane
(ZTOR), rupture plane width (W) and basin effects depth terms (Z1.0 and Z2.5) and other
parameters. Although generally similar in form, each GMPE has a different set of site and
source parameters (e.g., CB14 is a function of Z2.5, other GMPEs are a function of Z1.0).
Deterministic MCER response spectra were calculated for different combinations of assumed
values of moment magnitude (MW) and distance (RX) and the site shear wave velocity (vs,30) of
each site class of interest using average, typical or default values of other GMPE parameters. A
strike-slip mechanism was assumed to be typical, with a 90 degree dip angle, a 13 km width and
0.3 km depth to the top of the rupture plane based on the fault types and mean properties of
California faults of USGS fault database (Petersen 2014), as summarized in Table 2-2.
Table 3-1 Summary of the number and percentage of faults by state and
fault type and associated mean properties for the 277 California
faults and the 270 non-California faults (excluding New Madrid
Zone faults) in the USGS fault database (Petersen 2014).
Quantity Mean Properties
State Fault Type
Count Percent W (km) Dip (deg.) Ztor (km)
California Faults
CA strike slip 195 70% 13.0 86 0.3
CA normal 18 6% 15.4 53 0.0
CA reverse 27 10% 15.6 56 0.6
CA thrust 37 13% 19.9 26 3.7
CA All 277 100%
Non-California Strike Slip Faults
NM strike slip 2 7%
NV strike slip 15 52%
OK strike slip 1 3%
OR strike slip 8 28%
WA strike slip 3 10%
All strike slip 29 100% 15.0 90 0.0
Non-California Normal/Reverse/Thrust Faults
AZ normal 7 3%
CO normal 3 1%
ID normal 8 3%
MT normal 15 6%
NM normal 28 10%
NV normal 113 42%
OR normal 25 9%
TX normal 12 4%
UT normal 28 10%
WY normal 9 3%
OR reverse 11 4%
WA reverse 11 4%
WA thrust 3 100% 19.3 -60 0.0
All normal/reverse 270 100% 17.3 51 0.0

Preliminary calculations of spectrum shape adjustment factors (described in the next section)
found the values these factors to be relatively insensitive to fault mechanism, width and depth to

3-3
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

the top of the fault rupture plane. For dipping systems, some differences in values were observed
for hanging or footwall sites, but such differences were moot for calculations that assumed a 90
degree strike-slip fault rupture plane. In contrast, values of the spectrum shape adjustment factor
were found to be to quite sensitive to the assumed values of the basin depth terms z1.0 and z2.5.
Values of the basin depth terms z1.0 and z2.5 influence the shape and frequency content of MCER
response spectra at longer periods which can significantly affect site amplification as well as
spectrum shape adjustment. Deterministic MCER response spectra were calculated using either
values of basin depth terms typical of California sites or the default values of the NGA-West2
GMPEs (which infer default values of basin depth terms from site shear wave velocity). Values
typical of California sites were taken as the average of basin depth data obtained from the
OpenSHA website (Field et al. 2003) for 5,619 California (census tract) sites for which basin
depth data were available.
Table 3-2 summarizes values of shear wave velocity (vs,30) and basin depth terms used in this
study. “Default (West2)” values of basin depth terms were used with the NGA-West2 GMPEs
and the “Run (West1)” values were used with the NGA-West1 GMPEs. “Run (West1)” values
of basin depth terms were assigned judgmentally based on typical (average) values for California
sites and the default values of the NGA-West2 GMPEs. For reference, the “overall average”
values of the basin depth terms for all California sites are Z1.0 = 0.379 km and Z2.5 = 2.065 km
(i.e. average values for all site classes).
Table 3-2 Summary of the values of site shear wave velocity (vs,30) and basin depth terms (z1.0
and z2.5) used in this study
Shear Wave Velocity, Vs,30 (fps) Basin Depth Terms
Site
Table 20.3-1 Seyhan & Default (West2) Average (CA Sites) Run (West1)
Class
ASCE 7-10 Stewart (2014) Z1.0 (km) Z2.5 (km) Z1.0 (km) Z2.5 (km) Z1.0 (km) Z2.5 (km)
A 5,315 0.0 0.255 0.0 0.25
AB 5,000 0.0 0.274 0.0 0.25
B 3,000 0.014 0.491 0.02 0.50
BC 2,500 0.041 0.605 0.13 0.85 0.10 0.75
C 1,600 0.244 1.008 0.23 1.44 0.24 1.2
CD 1,200 0.396 1.401 0.32 1.81 0.36 1.6
D 870 0.482 2.024 0.50 2.52 0.50 2.3
DE 600 0.513 3.096 0.28 1.69 0.50 3.0
E 510 0.518 3.728 0.50 3.5

Consistent with the basis of the new site coefficients of ASCE 7-16 (Section 2.2), values of vs,30
for each site class were taken as equal to the median of measured values from the PEER NGA-
West2 site database (Table 2, Seyhan and Stewart 2014), expressed in terms of feet per second
(fps) and slightly rounded. The median of measured values from the PEER NGA-West2 site
database are not the same as the mid-range or geometric mean of ASCE 7-16 site class boundary
values. For example, the geometric mean of Site Class C is 1,732 fps (i.e., (1,200 fps x 2,500
fps)1/2) in contrast to the median of measured values of about 1,600 fps. However, as noted in
Seyhan and Stewart (2014), site coefficients based on the median of measure values are not
substantially different from those based on alternate site class velocities, such as the mid-range
values of the site class.

3-4
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

The importance of basin depth terms on site response at long periods is illustrated in Figure 3-1
which shows plots of basin effect amplification curves as a function of period for different site
classes. Each of these curves is the ratio of the MCER response spectrum calculated for the
default values of basin depth terms for the site class of interest and the MCER response spectrum
calculated using the same site class shear wave velocity, but the default values of basin depth
terms for Site Class BC (i.e., only the basin depth terms are different).

2.5
Inferred Basin Effects - Site Class B
Inferred Basin Effects - Site Class C
Ratio of Site Amplification w and w/o Basin Effects

Inferred Basin Effects - Site Class D

2.0
Inferred Basin Effects - Site Class E

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.1 1 10
Response Period (seconds)

Figure 3-1 Example of basin depth effects inferred from ratios of MCER
response spectra calculated using default values of basin depth
terms of the NGA-West2 GMPEs for different site classes

3.5 Calculation of Spectrum Shape Adjustment Factors

Values of the spectrum shape adjustment factors Ca and Cv are calculated by Eqs. 3-3 and 3-4,
respectively:
Ca = CFa /F0.2 (3-3)
Cv = CFv /F1.0 (3-4)
And values of the parameters CFa and CFv are calculated by Eqs. 3-5 and 3-6, respectively:
CFa = ϕa max{SaM[5.0s ≥ T ≥ 0.2s]}/Ss (3-5)
CFv = ϕv max{T x SaM[Tmax ≥ T ≥ 1.0s]}/S1 (3-6)
And derived values of site factors F0.2 and F1.0 are calculated by Eqs. 3-7 and 3-8, respectively:
F0.2 = SaM[T = 0.2s]/Ss (3-7)
F1.0 = SaM[T = 1.0s]/S1 (3-8)
Where: Ca = spectrum shape adjustment factor for the domain of constant acceleration
Cv = spectrum shape adjustment factor for the domain of constant velocity
F0.2 = site amplification factor at a period of 0.2 s for the intensity (SS) of interest

3-5
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

F1.0 = site amplification factor at a period of 1.0 s for the intensity (S1) of interest
CFa = MCER response spectral acceleration at the period of peak acceleration response
divided by intensity SS for the magnitude and site class of interest
CFv = MCER response spectral acceleration at the period of peak velocity response
divided by intensity S1 for the magnitude and site class of interest
a = acceleration-domain response spectral acceleration reduction factor (e.g., 0.9)
v = velocity-domain response spectral acceleration reduction factor (e.g., 1.0)
SaM = target MCER response spectral acceleration at period T for the magnitude, site
class and intensity (Ss or S1) of interest,
Ss = discrete value of short-period response spectral acceleration from Table 11.2-1
S1 = discrete value of 1-second response spectral acceleration from Table 11.2-2
T = the fundamental period of the buildings
Tmax = maximum value of the period range used of calculate the parameter CFv, Tmax =
2.0 s when vs,30 ≥ 1,200 fps and Tmax = 5.0 s when vs,30 < 1,200 ft/s

The parameters CFa and CFv (Eqs. 3-5 and 3-6) include both site amplification and spectrum
shape effects and represent the total amount of adjustment of short-period and 1-second MCER
response spectral accelerations (Ss and S1) to achieve the best fit of the domains of constant
acceleration and velocity with the target MCER response spectrum for the site class of interest.
Figure 3-2 illustrates the calculation of parameters CFa and CFv.

2.0
MCEr - BC (Vs,30 = 2,500 fps)
ELF “Design Spectrum”
1.8 MCEr - DE (Vs,30 = 600 fps)
Cs x (R/Ie) = min[SDS, SD1/T]
Design DE (Vs,30 = 600 fps)
1.6
ELF DE (Vs,30 = 600 fps)

1.4 “Derived”
Spectral Acceleration (g)

CFa = 0.78
1.2 CFv = 3.81
Ts = 2.25s
1.0
SD1 = max(T x Sa[1s ≤l T ≤ 5s])
0.8

0.6
SDS = Max(0.9 x Sa[T ≥ 0.2s])
0.4
Derivation of Parameters CFa and CFv
0.2 CFa = SDS/(2/3 x Ss) = 0.9 x 0.87g)/(2/3 x 1.56g)
CFv = SD1/(2/3 x S1) = 4s x 0.47g/s/(2/3 x 0.69g)
0.0
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 3-2 Example derivation of parameters CFa and CFv from the ELF design
spectrum defined to closely match the underlying site-specific design
response spectrum of magnitude M8.0 earthquake ground motions at RX =
8.5 km and Site Class DE site conditions (vs,30 = 600 fps) using response
spectra based on the NGA-West1 GMPEs.

3-6
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

3.6 Derived Values of Site Factors

The parameters CFa and CFv include both site class and spectrum shape effects and Eqs. 3-3 and
3-4 are used to remove site class effects (F0.2 and F1.0) based on site amplification calculated at
periods of 0.2 s and 1.0 s (Eqs. 3-7 and 3-8). Conceptually, the new site factors of ASCE 7-16
should be same or very similar to site amplification developed using the NGA-West 2 GMPEs at
periods of 0.1 – 0.5 s (Fa) and periods of 0.5 s to 2 s (Fv) the period ranges considered in the
development of the ASCE 7-16 site coefficients.

Figures 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6 are example plots of site amplification curves at different ground
motion intensities with the values of the new ASCE 7-16 site coefficients for Site Class B, C, D
and E, respectively (colors are used to relate values of common intensity). Site amplification
curves are the ratios at each period of the MCER response spectrum of the site class of interest to
the MCER response spectrum of Site Class BC (vs,30 = 2,500 ft/s). Derived values of the short-
period site factor F0.2 (Eq. 3-7) and the 1-second site factor F0.2 (Eq. 3-8) are the values of the
site amplification curve of interest at periods of 0.2 s and 1.0 s, respectively. MCER response
spectra are calculated as the average response of the four NGA-West2 GMPEs converted from
median geomean response to 84th percentile maximum direction response (as previously
described), and in this case, based on the “overall average” values of the basin depth terms for all
California sites, Z1.0 = 0.379 km and Z2.5 = 2.065 km for each site class.

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.9
Site Factor - Site Class B

0.8

0.7

0.6
Ss = 0.25g/S1 = 0.1g
0.5 Ss = 0.5g/S1 = 0.2g
0.4 Ss = 0.75g/S1 = 0.3g
Ss = 1.0g/S1 = 0.4g
0.3
Ss = 1.25g/S1 = 0.5g
0.2 Ss = 1.5g/S1 = 0.6g
Fa - ASCE 7-16
0.1
Fv - ASCE 7-16
0.0
0.1 1
Response Period (seconds)

Figure 3-3 Plots of site amplification curves derived from NGA-West2 GMPEs
assuming “overall average” basin depth terms with the values of the
new ASCE 7-16 site coefficients – Site Class B conditions

3-7
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4
Site Factor - Site Class C

1.2

1.0
Ss = 0.25g/S1 = 0.1g
0.8 Ss = 0.5g/S1 = 0.2g
Ss = 0.75g/S1 = 0.3g
0.6
Ss = 1.0g/S1 = 0.4g
Ss = 1.25g/S1 = 0.5g
0.4
Ss = 1.5g/S1 = 0.6g
0.2 Fa - ASCE 7-16
Fv - ASCE 7-16
0.0
0.1 1
Response Period (seconds)

Figure 3-4 Plots of site amplification curves derived from NGA-West2 GMPEs
assuming “overall average” basin depth terms with the values of the
new ASCE 7-16 site coefficients – Site Class C conditions

3.0

2.5
Site Factor - Site Class D

2.0

1.5
Ss = 0.25g/S1 = 0.1g
Ss = 0.5g/S1 = 0.2g
Ss = 0.75g/S1 = 0.3g
1.0
Ss = 1.0g/S1 = 0.4g
Ss = 1.25g/S1 = 0.5g

0.5 Ss = 1.5g/S1 = 0.6g

Fa - ASCE 7-16
Fv - ASCE 7-16
0.0
0.1 1
Response Period (seconds)

Figure 3-5 Plots of site amplification curves derived from NGA-West2 GMPEs
assuming “overall average” basin depth terms with the values of the
new ASCE 7-16 site coefficients – Site Class D conditions

3-8
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

5.0

4.5
Site Factor - Site Class E (vs,30 = 155 mps)

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5
Ss = 0.25g/S1 = 0.1g
Ss = 0.5g/S1 = 0.2g
2.0
Ss = 0.75g/S1 = 0.3g
1.5 Ss = 1.0g/S1 = 0.4g
Ss = 1.25g/S1 = 0.5g
1.0
Ss = 1.5g/S1 = 0.6g

0.5 Fa - ASCE 7-16

Fv - ASCE 7-16
0.0
0.1 1
Response Period (seconds)

Figure 3-6 Plots of site amplification curves derived from NGA-West2 GMPEs
assuming “overall average” basin depth terms with the values of the
new ASCE 7-16 site coefficients – Site Class E conditions

Ideally, the values of the new site coefficients of ASCE 7-16 should lie on or near the respective
site amplification curve at periods of 0.2 s and 1.0 s. This is generally true for short-period
response and long-period response at stiffer sites, but less so for 1-second site response at softer
sites. For Site Classes D and E, the larger ranges of values of Fv suggest a greater degree of
nonlinearity than that shown by the site amplification curves.

Differences in the degree of nonlinearity may be explained, in part, by the methods used to
associate the new values of the site coefficient Fv with values of the 1-second MCER response
spectral acceleration parameter S1 of Table 11.4-2. These methods effectively associated site
coefficients with median geomean response that is roughly one-half the intensity of the MCER
parameter S1 of Table 11.4-2 (since, for example, deterministic MCER ground motions are
defined in terms of 84th percentile maximum response). In essence, site coefficients shown in the
S1 = 0.3 column of Table 11.4-2 actually represent site amplification for an MCER intensity
closer to the S1 = 0.6 column of Table 11.4-2 (i.e., values in the S1 = 0.3 column could be shifted
by an approximate factor of 2 to the S1 = 0.6 column). Shifting values of the site coefficient of
ASCE 7-16 by an approximate factor of 2 of the MCER intensity would significantly reduce, but
not fully resolve, differences in the site coefficients of ASCE 7-16 (Section 2.2) and site
amplification curves derived from ratios of MCER response spectra based on the NGA-West2
GMPEs.

Deterministic MCER response spectra used in the calculations of site amplification curves were
calculated using values of earthquake magnitude (Mw) and fault distance (Rx) determined by trial
and error to simultaneously generate the desired intensities of Site Class BC response spectral
acceleration at periods of 0.2 s and 1.0 s (e.g., simultaneous intensities of SS = 1.5 g at 0.2 s and

3-9
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

S1 = 0.6 g at 1.0 s). Table 3-3 summarizes the magnitude-distance pairs of the deterministic
MCER response spectra used in the calculations of site amplification curves of Figures 3-3
through 3-6 (for deterministic MCER spectra based on the overall average values of the basin
depth terms for all California sites, Z1.0 = 0.379 km and Z2.5 = 2.065 km), and the magnitude-
distance pairs of deterministic MCER response spectra calculated using NGA-West1 GMPEs
(Section 4) and NGA-West2 GMPEs (Section 5) based on the values of basin depth parameters
given in Table 3-2..

Table 3-3 Summary of magnitude-distance pairs of the deterministic MCER response

spectra used in the calculations of site amplification curves
Parameter Short-Period and 1-Second MCER Response Spectral Acceleration – Site Class BC
Ss 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.5 2.0
S1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8
PEER NGA-West2 GMPEs w/”Overall Average” Basin Depth Terms - Z1.0 = 0.379 km, Z2.5 = 2.065 km
M 6.7 7.05 7.1 7.1 7.05 6.975 6.825
Rx (km) 45.8 28.7 18.9 13.3 9.5 6.75 2.8
PEER NGA-West1 GMPEs w/”Run (West1)” Values of Basin Depth Terms (Table 3-2)
M 6.95 7.3 7.5 7.6 7.55 7.5 7.25
Rx (km) 57.3 33.0 22.5 16.0 10.8 7.6 3.22
PEER NGA West2 GMPEs w/”Default (West2)” Values of Basin Depth Terms (Table 3-2)
M 7.2 7.65 7.8 7.85 7.8 7.75 7.55
Rx (km) 59.5 38.5 25.95 18.15 12.70 9.05 3.98

3.7 Magnitude Dependence of Spectrum Shape Adjustment Factors

Site coefficients Fa and Fv are a function of ground motion intensity (as described by values of SS
and S1), but are not (at least in concept) a function of earthquake magnitude. In contrast, the
values of the parameters CFa and CFv, are, in general, magnitude dependent since earthquake
magnitude influences the shape and frequency content of response spectra. Likewise, values of
spectrum shape adjustment factors Ca and Cv are also earthquake magnitude dependent.

Preliminary (Phase I) investigations found values of the parameter CFv to be strongly dependent
on earthquake magnitude, the larger the magnitude the greater the amount of spectrum shape
adjustment (i.e., for magnitudes greater than about M6.5). Accordingly, values of the parameters
CFv (and corresponding values of the factor Cv) are developed for three different ranges of
earthquake magnitude appropriate for sites governed by (1) magnitude M7.5 – M8.0 ground
motions, (2) magnitude M7.0 – M7.5 ground motions and (3) magnitude M6.5 – M7.0 ground
motions, respectively.

The largest magnitude of first range is M8.0 since the PEER NGA GMPEs are not applicable to
magnitudes greater than about M8.0 – M8.5 (i.e., due to dearth of records for very large
magnitude events). The smallest magnitude of the third range is M6.5 since the shape of
response spectra for smaller magnitudes (i.e., M ≤ 6.0) ground motions does not require
adjustment (i.e., peak acceleration response occurs at or near 0.2 s and peak velocity response
occurs at or near 1.0 s).

3-10
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Values of the parameter CFa indicate a weak dependence on earthquake magnitude and values of
the parameter CFa (and the corresponding values of the factor Ca) are developed for a single
range of earthquake magnitudes, M6.5 – M8.0. In all cases, values of the spectrum shape
adjustment factors are calculated as the average amount of adjustment for the magnitude range of
interest.

3.8 Site-Specific Values of Earthquake Magnitude

The maps of the long-period transition period TL may be used to identify the appropriate
magnitude range for the site of interest. Figure 3-7 is a copy of the TL map for the conterminous
U.S. (Figure 22-12 of ASCE 7-10) and the embedded table shows the relationship between the
mapped value of TL and the associated range of magnitudes it represents (Crouse et al. 2006).
For example, the TL = 12 s region corresponds to sites governed by M7.5 – M8.0 earthquakes.
While very crude, the TL maps are the only practical means of associating earthquake magnitude
with the site of interest in ASCE 7-16.
Values of the transition period TL and other seismic design parameters may be obtained from the
USGS Seismic Design Maps web-based tool (USGS 2013) for user specified values of latitude
and longitude of the site of interest. Alternatively, de-aggregation of the site hazard could be
performed to obtain a more accurate understanding of the magnitude range governing short-
period and long-period response, but requiring de-aggregation of seismic hazard would not be
practical for ELF design.

Figure 3-7 Map of TL for the conterminous U.S. (Figure 1 and Table 1, Crouse et al., 2006)

3-11
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

3.9 Applicability to Sites Governed by Probabilistic MCER Ground Motions

The spectrum shape factors were developed using deterministic MCER response spectra since
deterministic MCER response spectra could be efficiently calculated using modified versions of
either the PEER NGA-West1 GMPE spreadsheet (Al Atik 2009) or the PEER NGA-West2
GMPE spreadsheet (Seyhan 2014) for the requisite very large number of combinations of site
class and ground motion intensity being investigated. The results are directly applicable to high
seismic hazard sites governed by deterministic MCER ground motions. Most sites, however, are
governed by probabilistic MCER ground motions that are a complex combination of hazard from
different sources and associated earthquake magnitudes that can vary with response period (e.g.,
short-period response is governed by smaller-magnitude sources close to the site while long-
period response is governed by more distant, larger-magnitude sources).
In some manner, the spectral shape (frequency content) of ground motions at sites governed by
probabilistic MCER ground motions reflects the combined effects of the different earthquake
magnitudes that govern site seismic hazard. In general, it is likely that governing earthquake
magnitudes will be large since the effective mean return period of probabilistic MCER ground
motions (e.g., approximately 2,000 years) captures rare, large-magnitude, earthquakes, as well
as, characteristic earthquakes of the more active faults that tend to govern collapse risk in high
seismic regions. It is essential that the proposed spectrum shape factors be applicable to sites
governed by probabilistic MCER ground motions as well sites governed by deterministic MCER
ground motions.
The applicability of spectrum shape adjustment factors to sites governed by MCER ground
motions was investigated by comparing values the parameters CFa and CFv based on
deterministic MCER response spectra (deterministic CFs) with values of these parameters based
on probabilistic MCER response spectra (probabilistic CFs). Values of deterministic CFs and
probabilistic CFs are calculated using the same methods (previously described) for determining
the best fit of the domains of constant acceleration and velocity (1/T) to the deterministic MCER
response spectrum; the only difference is the difference in the basis (i.e., deterministic or
probabilistic) of the MCER response spectrum.
Probabilistic MCER response spectra based on ASCE 7-16 methods were generally not available
at the time of this study. Accordingly, comprehensive comparisons of deterministic CFs and
probabilistic CFs were made using MCER response spectra based on ASCE 7-10 earthquake
ground motion criteria with confirmatory comparisons of deterministic CFs and probabilistic
CFs for fourteen Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) study sites using MCER
response spectra for these sites based on ASCE 7-16 earthquake ground motion criteria.

3-12
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

4. PHASE I INVESTIGATIONS WITH ASCE 7-10 EARTHQUAKE

GROUND MOTION CRITERIA

This section describes Phase I investigations of the identified short-coming with ELF and MRSA
seismic design procedures utilizing multi-period deterministic and probabilistic MCER response
spectra calculated in accordance with the site-specific requirements of Chapter 21 of ASCE 7-10.
Phase I calculations of MCER response spectra employ the same seismic hazard data and
methods, including the NGA-West1 GMPEs, as those used by the USGS to develop the
earthquake ground motion maps of ASCE 7-10. Phase I investigations exploit existing sources
of ASCE 7-10 seismic hazard data not generally available for ASCE 7-16 ground motions.
4.1 Example MCER Response Spectra of ASCE 7-10
Examples of MCER response spectra of ASCE 7-10 are shown in this section qualitatively
illustrating differences in the frequency content of ground motions as a function of earthquake
magnitude and site class, and the similarity of deterministic and probabilistic MCER ground
motions that share a common site class and whose site hazard is governed by earthquake sources
of comparable magnitude.
Figures 4-1 through 4-6 show example (multi-period) deterministic MCER response spectra
based on the NGA-West1 GMPEs for three earthquake scenarios: (1) magnitude M6.0 at Rx = 2
km, (2) magnitude M7.0 at Rx = 6 km and (3) magnitude M8.0 at Rx = 8.5 km. In each figure,
ground motions are shown for four site conditions (1) vs,30 = 5,000 fps (Site Class AB boundary),
(2) vs,30 = 2,500 fps (Site Class BC boundary), (3) vs,30 = 1,200 fps (Site Class CD boundary),
and (4) vs,30 = 600 fps (Site Class DE boundary). Magnitude-distance pairs were selected such
that peak short-period response (T = 0.2 s) for Site Class BC conditions was slightly greater than
1.5 g (i.e., just above the deterministic plateau). For each scenario earthquake, separate figures
show plots of response spectral acceleration and response spectral velocity to permit
identification of the periods of peak response in both acceleration and velocity domains. The
deterministic MCER response spectra shown in Figure 4-1 through 4-6 were calculated with the
aid of the PEER NGA-West1 spreadsheet (Al Atik 2009).
Comparisons of the response spectra Figures 4-1 through 4-6 show the strong dependence of
spectral shape (frequency content) of the ground motions on earthquake magnitude as well as site
conditions. For soil site conditions, the frequency content of the ground motions shifts toward
longer periods with increase in the shear wave velocity with a more pronounced shift for larger
earthquake magnitudes. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 of magnitude M6.0 response support the implicit
assumptions of the design response spectrum shape (Figure 11.4-1 of ASCE 7-10) that peak
response spectral acceleration occurs at or near 0.2 s and that peak response spectral velocity
occurs at or near 1.0 s, except possibly for very soft soil sites. Figures 4-3 and 4-4 of magnitude
M7.0 response indicate that the implicit assumptions of design response spectrum shape are valid
only for rock or stiff soil sites, and significantly non-conservative for long-period response at
soft soil sites. Figures 4-5 and 4-6 of magnitude M8.0 ground motions show that the implicit
assumptions of the design response spectrum shape are generally non-conservative for soil sites,
and extremely non-conservative for soft soil sites at longer periods. For example, as shown in
Figure 4-6 for vs,30 = 600 fps (Site Class DE) site conditions, the peak value of response spectral
velocity (160 ips at 4.0 s), is about twice the level of response (80 ips at 1.0 s), implying that
long-period systems at soft-soil sites whose site hazard is governed by large-magnitude
earthquakes (e.g., San Francisco Bay Area sites near the San Andreas fault) could be under-

4-1
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

designed by as much as a factor of about 2 (if designed using ELF or MRSA methods and
current values of ground motion parameters based on 1.0 s response).

2.2
Site Class AB - vs,30 - 5,000 fps
2.0
Site Class BC - vs,30 = 2,500 fps
1.8 Site Class CD - vs,30 = 1,200 fps

1.6 Site Class DE - vs,30 = 600 fps

Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 4-1 Example deterministic MCER ground motions (ASCE 7-10) plotted in terms
of response spectra acceleration for a magnitude M6.0 earthquake at RX = 2
km and site conditions ranging from vs,30 = 5,000 fps to vs,30 = 600 fps
200
Site Class AB - vs,30 - 5,000 fps
180 Site Class BC - vs,30 = 2,500 fps
160 Site Class CD - vs,30 = 1,200 fps
Site Class DE - vs,30 = 600 fps
140
Spectral Velocity (in/sec.)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 4-2 Example deterministic MCER ground motions (ASCE 7-10) plotted in
terms of response spectra velocity for a magnitude M6.0 earthquake at RX
= 2 km and site conditions ranging from vs,30 = 5,000 fps to vs,30 = 600 fps

4-2
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

2.2
Site Class AB - vs,30 - 5,000 fps
2.0
Site Class BC - vs,30 = 2,500 fps
1.8 Site Class CD - vs,30 = 1,200 fps

1.6 Site Class DE - vs,30 = 600 fps

Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 4-3 Example deterministic MCER ground motions (ASCE 7-10) plotted in terms
of response spectra acceleration for a magnitude M7.0 earthquake at RX = 6
km and site conditions ranging from vs,30 = 5,000 fps to vs,30 = 600 fps
200
Site Class AB - vs,30 - 5,000 fps
180 Site Class BC - vs,30 = 2,500 fps
160 Site Class CD - vs,30 = 1,200 fps
Site Class DE - vs,30 = 600 fps
140
Spectral Velocity (in/sec.)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 4-4 Example deterministic MCER ground motions (ASCE 7-10) plotted in
terms of response spectra velocity for a magnitude M7.0 earthquake at RX
= 6 km and site conditions ranging from vs,30 = 5,000 fps to vs,30 = 600 fps

4-3
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

2.2
Site Class AB - vs,30 - 5,000 fps
2.0
Site Class BC - vs,30 = 2,500 fps
1.8 Site Class CD - vs,30 = 1,200 fps

1.6 Site Class DE - vs,30 = 600 fps

Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 4-5 Example deterministic MCER ground motions (ASCE 7-10) plotted in terms
of response spectra acceleration for a magnitude M8.0 earthquake at RX = 8.5
km and site conditions ranging from vs,30 = 5,000 fps to vs,30 = 600 fps
200
Site Class AB - vs,30 - 5,000 fps
180 Site Class BC - vs,30 = 2,500 fps
160 Site Class CD - vs,30 = 1,200 fps
Site Class DE - vs,30 = 600 fps
140
Spectral Velocity (in/sec.)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 4-6 Example deterministic MCER ground motions (ASCE 7-10) plotted in terms
of response spectra velocity for a magnitude M8.0 earthquake at RX = 8.5 km
and site conditions ranging from vs,30 = 5,000 fps to vs,30 = 600 fps

4-4
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

The examples shown in Figures 4-1 through 4-6 are directly applicable to sites governed by
deterministic MCER ground motions, since ground motions at these sites are based on the
“characteristic earthquake.” Most sites, however, are governed by probabilistic MCER ground
motions that are a complex combination of hazard from different sources and associated
earthquake magnitudes that varies with response period (e.g., short-period response is governed
by smaller-magnitude sources close to the site while long-period response is governed by more
distant, larger-magnitude sources). In some manner, the spectral shape (frequency content) of
ground motions at probabilistic MCER sites reflects the combined effects of the different
earthquake magnitudes that govern site seismic hazard. In general, it is likely that governing
earthquake magnitudes will be large since the effective mean return period of probabilistic
MCER ground motions (e.g., approximately 2,000 years) captures rare, large-magnitude,
earthquakes (e.g., repeat of magnitude M8 events in the New Madrid Zone), as well as,
characteristic earthquakes of the more active faults that tend to govern collapse risk in high
seismic regions.
Figures 4-7 through 4-12 are examples of probabilistic MCER ground motion response spectra
for three different sites of high seismicity. Probabilistic MCER response spectra are based on 2%
in 50-year uniform hazard spectra obtained from the web-based “Hazard Curve Application”
(USGS 2012) and converted to risk-based ground motions using risk coefficients obtained from
the web-based “U.S. Seismic Design Maps” application (USGS 2013). Median geomean
response was converted to 84th percentile maximum direction response, as described in Section
3.2. Like the deterministic MCER response spectra shown in Figure 4-1 through 4-6, the
underlying hazard functions of the probabilistic MCER response spectra are based on the NGA-
West1 GMPEs.
Figures 4-7 and 4-8 show probabilistic MCER spectra for a Seattle site (47.6, -122.30). Although
located in the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) which can generate magnitude M8 - M9+
earthquakes, the immediate Seattle area is governed by the Seattle Fault that has a much smaller
earthquake magnitude potential. Figures 4-9 and 4-10 show probabilistic MCER response
spectra for a site in downtown Los Angeles (34.05, -118.25) that is located between the Upper
Elysian Park Fault the Puente Hills Blind Thrust, reverse faults that also have limited earthquake
magnitude potential (e.g., the magnitude of the characteristic earthquake of the Upper Elysian
Park fault, the dominant contributor to seismic hazard at the site, is M6.7). Figures 4-11 and 4-
12 show probabilistic MCER spectra for a site in Foster City, California (37.55, -122.26) that is
approximately 8.5 km from the San Andreas Fault (i.e., same site location as that of deterministic
MCER spectra shown in Figures 4-5 and 4-6), a strike-slip fault that has the potential for
generating large magnitude, M8.0, earthquakes and which dominates seismic hazard at the site.
The frequency content of the probabilistic MCER response spectra of Figures 4-7 through 4-12 is
similar to the frequency content of the deterministic MCER response spectra of Figures 4-1
through 4-6 when the earthquake magnitudes that govern site seismic hazard are similar. For
example, the frequency content of the probabilistic spectra for the Foster City site shown in
Figure 4-11 is similar to the frequency content of the deterministic MCER spectra of same site
shown in Figure 4-5 (although the shift in the peak of acceleration domain is less pronounced for
probabilistic ground motions). Similarly, peak velocity-domain response of the probabilistic
MCER response spectra shown in Figure 4-12 for this site occur at a very long period (T ≥ 5.0 s)
similar to the very long period (T = 4 s) of the peak velocity-domain response of the
deterministic MCER response spectra shown in Figure 4-6 for the same site.

4-5
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

2.50
BC - Vs,30 = 2,500 fps
2.25
CD - Vs,30 = 1,200 fps
2.00 DE - Vs,30 = 600 fps

1.75
Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.50

1.25

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 4-7 Example probabilistic MCER ground motions (ASCE 7-10) plotted in terms of
response spectra acceleration for a Seattle site (47.6, -122.3) whose seismic
hazard is governed by the Seattle Fault (i.e., rather than the Cascadia Subduction
Zone); site conditions ranging from vs,30 = 2,500 fps to vs,30 = 600 fps
250
BC - Vs,30 = 2,500 fps
225
CD - Vs,30 = 1,200 fps
200 DE - Vs,30 = 600 fps

175
Spectral Velocity (inch/second)

150

125

100

75

50

25

0
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 4-8 Example probabilistic MCER ground motions (ASCE 7-10) plotted in terms of
response spectra velocity for a Seattle site (47.6, -122.3) whose seismic hazard is
governed by the Seattle Fault (i.e., rather than the Cascadia Subduction Zone);
site conditions ranging from vs,30 = 2,500 fps to vs,30 = 600 fps

4-6
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

2.50
BC - Vs,30 = 2,500 fps
2.25
CD - Vs,30 = 1,200 fps
2.00 DE - Vs,30 = 600 fps

1.75
Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.50

1.25

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 4-9 Example probabilistic MCER ground motions (ASCE 7-10) plotted in terms of
response spectra acceleration for a downtown Los Angeles site (34.05, -118.25)
at RX ≈ -2 km from Upper Elysian Park Fault and RX ≈ 3 km from Puente Hills
Blind Thrust; site conditions ranging from vs,30 = 2,500 fps to vs,30 = 600 fps
250
BC - Vs,30 = 2,500 fps
225
CD - Vs,30 = 1,200 fps
200 DE - Vs,30 = 600 fps

175
Spectral Velocity (inch/second)

150

125

100

75

50

25

0
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 4-10 Example probabilistic MCER ground motions (ASCE 7-10) plotted in terms of
response spectra velocity for a downtown Los Angeles site (34.05, -118.25) at
RX ≈ -2 km from Upper Elysian Park Fault and RX ≈ 3 km from Puente Hills
Blind Thrust; site conditions ranging from vs,30 = 2,500 fps to vs,30 = 600 fps

4-7
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

2.50
BC - Vs,30 = 2,500 fps
2.25
CD - Vs,30 = 1,200 fps
2.00 DE - Vs,30 = 600 fps

1.75
Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.50

1.25

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 4-11 Example probabilistic MCER ground motions (ASCE 7-10) plotted in terms
of response spectra acceleration for a site in Foster City, California (37.55, -
122.26) at RX ≈ 8.5 km from the San Andreas Fault; site conditions ranging
from vs,30 = 2,500 fps to vs,30 = 600 fps
250
BC - Vs,30 = 2,500 fps
225
CD - Vs,30 = 1,200 fps
200 DE - Vs,30 = 600 fps

175
Spectral Velocity (inch/second)

150

125

100

75

50

25

0
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 4-12 Example probabilistic MCER ground motions (ASCE 7-10) plotted in terms
of response spectra velocity for a site in Foster City, California (37.55, -
122.26) at RX ≈ 8.5 km from the San Andreas Fault; site conditions ranging
from vs,30 = 2,500 fps to vs,30 = 600 fps

4-8
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

4.2 Derived Values of Spectrum Shape Adjustment and Related Factors

This section calculates values of the spectrum shape adjustments factors Ca and Cv, and related
values of the parameters CFa and CFv and site factors F0.2 and F1.0 (or Fa and Fv) in accordance
with Eqs. 3-3 through 3-8. Values of these parameters are derived from “target” deterministic
MCER ground motion response spectra calculated in accordance with the underlying methods of
ASCE 7-10, including the NGA-West1 GMPEs, and provide a basis for comparison with values
of the same parameters derived from deterministic MCER spectra and underlying methods and
NGA-West2 GMPEs of ASCE 7-16 (Section 5.2).
Values of the parameters CFa and CFv are plotted in Figures 4-13 through 4-22 as a function of
either the short-period MCER response spectral acceleration parameter Ss or the 1-second MCER
response spectral acceleration parameter S1 for the nine site classes listed in Table 3-2 (i.e., shear
wave velocities ranging from 510 fps to 5,315 fps). Values shown in these figures were
calculated for different earthquake magnitudes, M6.0 (Figures 4-13 and 4-14), M6.5 (Figures 4-
15 and 4-16), M7.0 (Figures 4-17 and 4-18), M7.5 (Figures 4-19 and 4-20), and M8.0 Figures 4-
21 and 4-22). In all cases, deterministic MCER response spectra were calculated as described in
Section 3-5 using the NGA-West1 GMPEs.
Values of the parameter CFa were calculated as a function of the parameter Ss and values of the
parameter CFv were calculated as a function of the parameter S1 in a two-step process. First, for
each of the nine site classes of Table 3-2, deterministic MCER spectra were calculated for 960
combinations of discrete earthquake magnitudes ranging from M5.0 to M8.0 and discrete site-
source distances ranging from Rx = 1.0 km to Rx = 100 km, and the values of the parameters Ss,
CFa, S1 and CFv were determined for each of the resulting 8,640 deterministic MCER spectra. In
the second step, for each of the nine site classes, CFa results were sorted and ranked by value of
the parameter Ss and CFv results were sorted and ranked by value of the S1.
Tables 4-1 trough 4-4 summarize values of the parameter CFa derived from deterministic MCER
spectra at discrete values of the short-period parameter ranging from Ss = 0.25 to Ss = 2.0 for
earthquake magnitudes M6.5, M7.0, M7.5 and M8.0, respectively. Similarly, Tables 4-5 through
4-8 summarize values of the parameter CFv derived from deterministic MCER spectra at discrete
values of the short-period parameter ranging from S1 = 0.1 to S1 = 0.8 for earthquake magnitudes
M6.5, M7.0, M7.5 and M8.0, respectively. It may be noted that Tables 4-1 through 4-8 contain
discrete values of the parameters CFa and CFv shown in Figures 15 through 22 corresponding to
the values of the parameters Ss and S1 of the columns of the site coefficient tables of ASCE 7-10,
with the exception that at an additional column (i.e., either Ss = 2.0 or S1 = 0.8) is included in
these tables to show trends in the values of these parameters at a stronger ground motion
intensity (common to WUS sites of high seismicity).
The most significant observation of the trends in the values of CFa and CFv shown in Figures 4-
13 through 22 and in Tables 4-1 through 4-8 is the strong magnitude dependence of the value of
CFv (i.e., for magnitudes greater than or equal to about M6.5) and the near magnitude
independence of the value of parameter CFa. The magnitude dependence of the parameter CFv
suggests that multiple, magnitude-dependent, tables of the spectrum shape adjustment factor Cv
are required to properly quantify this parameter, since site factors (i.e., F1.0 or Fv) are magnitude
independent.

4-9
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

2.0
Site Class A (vs,30 = 5,315 fps)
1.9
Site Class AB (vs,30 = 5,000 fps)
1.8 Site Class B (vs,30 = 3,000 fps)
1.7 Site Class BC (vs,30 = 2,500 fps)
Site Class C (vs,30 = 1,600 fps)
1.6 Site Class CD (vs,30 = 1,200 fps)
1.5 Site Class D (vs,30 = 870 fps)
Site Class DE (vs,30 = 600 fps)
1.4 Site Class E (vs,30 = 510 fps)
Derived Factor, CFa

1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
Short-Period (0.2s) Spectral Acceleration Parameter, Ss (g)

Figure 4-13 Values of the parameter CFa derived from M6.0 deterministic MCER
ground motions (West1) of various sites classes; plotted as function of
the short-period MCER response spectral acceleration parameter Ss

6.0
Site Class A (vs,30 = 5,310 fps)
5.5 Site Class AB (vs,30 = 5,0000 fps)
Site Class B (vs,30 = 3,000 fps)
5.0 Site Class BC (vs,30 = 2,500 fps)
Site Class C (vs,30 = 1,600 fps)
4.5
Site Class CD (vs,30 = 1,200 fps)
Site Class D (vs,30 = 870 fps)
4.0
Site Class DE (vs,30 = 600 fps)
3.5 Site Class E (vs,30 = 155 fps)
Derived Factor, CFv

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

1-Second Spectral Acceleration Parameter, S1 (g)

Figure 4-14 Values of the parameter CFv derived from M6.0 deterministic MCER
(West1) ground motions of various sites classes; plotted as function of
the short-period MCER response spectral acceleration parameter S1

4-10
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

2.0
Site Class A (vs,30 = 5,315 fps)
1.9
Site Class AB (vs,30 = 5,000 fps)
1.8 Site Class B (vs,30 = 3,000 fps)
1.7 Site Class BC (vs,30 = 2,500 fps)
Site Class C (vs,30 = 1,600 fps)
1.6 Site Class CD (vs,30 = 1,200 fps)
1.5 Site Class D (vs,30 = 870 fps)
Site Class DE (vs,30 = 600 fps)
1.4 Site Class E (vs,30 = 510 fps)
Derived Factor, CFa

1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
Short-Period (0.2s) Spectral Acceleration Parameter, Ss (g)

Figure 4-15 Values of the parameter CFa derived from M6.5 deterministic MCER
ground motions (West1) of various sites classes; plotted as function of
the short-period MCER response spectral acceleration parameter Ss

6.0
Site Class A (vs,30 = 5,310 fps)
5.5 Site Class AB (vs,30 = 5,0000 fps)
Site Class B (vs,30 = 3,000 fps)
5.0 Site Class BC (vs,30 = 2,500 fps)
Site Class C (vs,30 = 1,600 fps)
4.5
Site Class CD (vs,30 = 1,200 fps)
Site Class D (vs,30 = 870 fps)
4.0
Site Class DE (vs,30 = 600 fps)
3.5 Site Class E (vs,30 = 155 fps)
Derived Factor, CFv

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

1-Second Spectral Acceleration Parameter, S1 (g)

Figure 4-16 Values of the parameter CFv derived from M6.5 deterministic MCER
ground motions (West1) of various sites classes; plotted as function of the
short-period MCER response spectral acceleration parameter S1

4-11
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

2.0
Site Class A (vs,30 = 5,315 fps)
1.9
Site Class AB (vs,30 = 5,000 fps)
1.8 Site Class B (vs,30 = 3,000 fps)
1.7 Site Class BC (vs,30 = 2,500 fps)
Site Class C (vs,30 = 1,600 fps)
1.6 Site Class CD (vs,30 = 1,200 fps)
1.5 Site Class D (vs,30 = 870 fps)
Site Class DE (vs,30 = 600 fps)
1.4 Site Class E (vs,30 = 510 fps)
Derived Factor, CFa

1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
Short-Period (0.2s) Spectral Acceleration Parameter, Ss (g)

Figure 4-17 Values of the parameter CFa derived from M7.0 deterministic MCER
ground motions (West1) of various sites classes; plotted as function of the
short-period MCER response spectral acceleration parameter Ss

6.0
Site Class A (vs,30 = 5,310 fps)
5.5 Site Class AB (vs,30 = 5,0000 fps)
Site Class B (vs,30 = 3,000 fps)
5.0 Site Class BC (vs,30 = 2,500 fps)
Site Class C (vs,30 = 1,600 fps)
4.5
Site Class CD (vs,30 = 1,200 fps)
Site Class D (vs,30 = 870 fps)
4.0
Site Class DE (vs,30 = 600 fps)
3.5 Site Class E (vs,30 = 155 fps)
Derived Factor, CFv

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

1-Second Spectral Acceleration Parameter, S1 (g)

Figure 4-18 Values of the parameter CFv derived from M7.0 deterministic MCER
ground motions (West1) of various sites classes; plotted as function of the
short-period MCER response spectral acceleration parameter S1

4-12
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

2.0
Site Class A (vs,30 = 5,315 fps)
1.9
Site Class AB (vs,30 = 5,000 fps)
1.8 Site Class B (vs,30 = 3,000 fps)
1.7 Site Class BC (vs,30 = 2,500 fps)
Site Class C (vs,30 = 1,600 fps)
1.6 Site Class CD (vs,30 = 1,200 fps)
1.5 Site Class D (vs,30 = 870 fps)
Site Class DE (vs,30 = 600 fps)
1.4 Site Class E (vs,30 = 510 fps)
Derived Factor, CFa

1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
Short-Period (0.2s) Spectral Acceleration Parameter, Ss (g)

Figure 4-19 Values of the parameter CFa derived from M7.5 deterministic MCER
ground motions (West1) of various sites classes; plotted as function of the
short-period MCER response spectral acceleration parameter Ss

6.0
Site Class A (vs,30 = 5,310 fps)
5.5 Site Class AB (vs,30 = 5,0000 fps)
Site Class B (vs,30 = 3,000 fps)
5.0 Site Class BC (vs,30 = 2,500 fps)
Site Class C (vs,30 = 1,600 fps)
4.5
Site Class CD (vs,30 = 1,200 fps)
Site Class D (vs,30 = 870 fps)
4.0
Site Class DE (vs,30 = 600 fps)
3.5 Site Class E (vs,30 = 155 fps)
Derived Factor, CFv

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

1-Second Spectral Acceleration Parameter, S1 (g)

Figure 4-20 Values of the parameter CFv derived from M7.5 deterministic MCER
ground motions (West1) of various sites classes; plotted as function of the
short-period MCER response spectral acceleration parameter S1

4-13
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

2.0
Site Class A (vs,30 = 5,315 fps)
1.9
Site Class AB (vs,30 = 5,000 fps)
1.8 Site Class B (vs,30 = 3,000 fps)
1.7 Site Class BC (vs,30 = 2,500 fps)
Site Class C (vs,30 = 1,600 fps)
1.6 Site Class CD (vs,30 = 1,200 fps)
1.5 Site Class D (vs,30 = 870 fps)
Site Class DE (vs,30 = 600 fps)
1.4 Site Class E (vs,30 = 510 fps)
Derived Factor, CFa

1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
Short-Period (0.2s) Spectral Acceleration Parameter, Ss (g)

Figure 4-21 Values of the parameter CFa derived from M8.0 deterministic MCER
ground motions (West1) of various sites classes; plotted as function of the
short-period MCER response spectral acceleration parameter Ss

6.0
Site Class A (vs,30 = 5,310 fps)
5.5 Site Class AB (vs,30 = 5,0000 fps)
Site Class B (vs,30 = 3,000 fps)
5.0 Site Class BC (vs,30 = 2,500 fps)
Site Class C (vs,30 = 1,600 fps)
4.5
Site Class CD (vs,30 = 1,200 fps)
Site Class D (vs,30 = 870 fps)
4.0
Site Class DE (vs,30 = 600 fps)
3.5 Site Class E (vs,30 = 155 fps)
Derived Factor, CFv

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

1-Second Spectral Acceleration Parameter, S1 (g)

Figure 4-22 Values of the parameter CFv derived from M8.0 deterministic MCER
ground motions (West1) of various sites classes; plotted as function of the
short-period MCER response spectral acceleration parameter S1

4-14
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Table 4-1 Values of the parameter CFa derived from magnitude M6.5
deterministic MCER ground motions (West1)
Site vs,30 Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (fps) Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss = 1.5 Ss ≥ 2.0
A 5,315 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
AB 5,000 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.75 0.75
B 3,000 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84
BC 2,500 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
C 1,600 1.08 1.04 1.01 0.99 0.97 0.94 0.91
CD 1,200 1.19 1.12 1.05 1.00 0.97 0.92 0.87
D 870 1.33 1.17 1.06 0.97 0.91 0.85 0.78
DE 600 1.52 1.21 1.02 0.88 0.80 0.72 0.63
E 510 1.64 1.25 1.03 0.87 0.79 0.70 0.61

Table 4-2 Values of the parameter CFa derived from magnitude M7.0
deterministic MCER ground Motions (West1)
Site vs,30 Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (fps) Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss = 1.5 Ss ≥ 2.0
A 5,315 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
AB 5,000 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.75 0.75
B 3,000 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84
BC 2,500 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
C 1,600 1.08 1.04 1.01 0.99 0.97 0.95 0.92
CD 1,200 1.19 1.11 1.05 1.00 0.97 0.93 0.88
D 870 1.34 1.16 1.05 0.97 0.92 0.86 0.81
DE 600 1.56 1.21 1.02 0.89 0.81 0.74 0.66
E 510 1.68 1.26 1.04 0.89 0.81 0.73 0.64

Table 4-3 Values of the parameter CFa derived from magnitude M7.5
deterministic MCER ground motions (West1)
Site vs,30 Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (fps) Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss = 1.5 Ss ≥ 2.0
A 5,315 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
AB 5,000 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.75
B 3,000 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84
BC 2,500 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
C 1,600 1.07 1.03 1.01 0.98 0.97 0.95 0.92
CD 1,200 1.20 1.10 1.04 1.00 0.97 0.93 0.89
D 870 1.36 1.16 1.05 0.97 0.92 0.86 0.81
DE 600 1.58 1.20 1.01 0.88 0.81 0.74 0.67
E 510 1.71 1.25 1.03 0.90 0.83 0.75 0.68

Table 4-4 Values of the parameter CFa derived from Magnitude M8.0
deterministic MCER ground motions (West1)
Site vs,30 Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (fps) Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss = 1.5 Ss ≥ 2.0
A 5,315 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
AB 5,000 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.75
B 3,000 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
BC 2,500 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
C 1,600 1.09 1.03 1.00 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.93
CD 1,200 1.22 1.10 1.04 1.00 0.97 0.94 0.90
D 870 1.39 1.17 1.05 0.97 0.92 0.87 0.82
DE 600 1.66 1.20 1.01 0.89 0.83 0.77 0.71
E 510 1.86 1.29 1.07 0.95 0.87 0.80 0.74

4-15
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Table 4-5 Values of the parameter CFv derived from magnitude M6.5
deterministic MCER ground motions (West1)
Site vs,30 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (mps) S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 = 0.6 S1 ≥ 0.8
A 5,315 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68
AB 5,000 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69
B 3,000 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
BC 2,500 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
C 1,600 1.41 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40
CD 1,200 1.73 1.72 1.71 1.70 1.69 1.69
D 870 2.21 2.12 2.07 2.04 2.01 1.98
DE 600 2.95 2.65 2.50 2.42 2.35 2.29
E 510 3.44 3.08 2.93 2.82 2.73 2.66

Table 4-6 Values of the parameter CFv derived from magnitude M7.0
deterministic MCER ground motions (West1)
Site vs,30 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (mps) S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 = 0.6 S1 ≥ 0.8
A 5,315 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68
AB 5,000 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69
B 3,000 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
BC 2,500 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
C 1,600 1.46 1.45 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.45 1.44
CD 1,200 1.83 1.80 1.79 1.79 1.78 1.78 1.77
D 870 2.35 2.24 2.20 2.18 2.16 2.15 2.12
DE 600 3.22 2.89 2.76 2.71 2.66 2.62 2.54
E 510 3.80 3.41 3.29 3.22 3.16 3.12 3.01

Table 4-7 Values of the parameter CFv derived from magnitude M7.5
deterministic MCER ground motions (West1)
Site vs,30 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (mps) S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 = 0.6 S1 ≥ 0.8
A 5,315 0.72 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.71
AB 5,000 0.73 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.72
B 3,000 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
BC 2,500 1.09 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.07
C 1,600 1.60 1.55 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54
CD 1,200 2.11 2.04 2.04 2.05 2.05 2.06 2.07
D 870 2.79 2.65 2.63 2.62 2.62 2.62 2.62
DE 600 3.92 3.54 3.42 3.36 3.33 3.30 3.25
E 510 4.69 4.22 4.08 4.01 3.96 3.93 3.86

Table 4-8 Values of the parameter CFv derived from magnitude M8.0
deterministic MCER ground motions (West1)
Site vs,30 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (mps) S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 = 0.6 S1 ≥ 0.8
A 5,315 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76
AB 5,000 0.80 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77
B 3,000 1.01 0.99 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.98
BC 2,500 1.19 1.17 1.16 1.15 1.15 1.16 1.16
C 1,600 1.75 1.71 1.69 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.69
CD 1,200 2.42 2.37 2.36 2.37 2.38 2.40 2.43
D 870 3.19 3.09 3.04 3.03 3.03 3.04 3.08
DE 600 4.47 4.18 3.96 3.88 3.84 3.83 3.83
E 510 5.33 4.98 4.71 4.61 4.56 4.56 4.55

4-16
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Figures 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, and 4-26 are plots of site amplification curves at different ground
motion intensities and the new ASCE 7-16 site coefficients for Site Class B, C, D and E,
respectively (colors are used to relate values of common intensity). The site amplification curves
are ratios at each period of deterministic MCER response spectra, as described in Section 3-6. In
this case, deterministic MCER response spectra were developed from the NGA West1 GMPEs
for the “Run (West1)” values of basin depth terms given in Table 3-2 and the corresponding
magnitude-distance pairs of Table 3-3.

Tables 4-9 summarizes values of the 0.2-second site factor F0.2 extracted from the site
amplification curves at a period of 0.2 seconds. Table 4-10 summarizes values of the short-
period spectrum shape adjustment factor calculated as the ratio of the average value of the
parameters CFa (Tables 4-1 through 4-5) and the value of the 0.2-second site factor (Table 4-9)
for each combination of site class short-period MCER ground motion intensity (Ss). For
comparison, Tables 4-12 summarizes values of the short-period factor calculated in the same
manner except the short-period site coefficients of ASCE 7-16 (summarized in Table 4-11) are
used in lieu of the 0.2-second site factors of Table 4-9.

The values of the parameter CFa in Tables 4-1 through 4-4 were calculated as 90 percent of the
peak acceleration response of deterministic MCER response spectra. Thus, values of the short-
period spectrum shape adjustment factor less than 0.9 (shown with blue shading in Tables 4-10
an 4-12) indicate those combinations of site class and Ss intensity for which deterministic MCER
response spectra are less than the 90 percent criterion and values greater than 0.9 (shown in
green in these tables) indicate combinations that are modestly greater than the 90 percent
criterion. In general, values are near 0.9 suggesting that adjustment of short-period design values
for spectrum shape could be ignored.

In a similar manner, Tables 4-13 through 4-16 summarize 1-second site factors (and long-period
site coefficients) and the corresponding values of the long-period spectrum shape adjustment
factor for magnitude M7.5 – M8.0 MCER ground motions (based on the average value of the CFv
parameter of Tables 4-7 and 4-8). Likewise, Tables 4-17 and 4-18 summarize values of the
spectrum shape adjustment factor for magnitude M7.0 – M7.5 MCER ground motions (based on
the average value of the CFv parameter of Tables 4-6 and 4-7) and Tables 4-19 and 4-20
summarize values of the spectrum shape adjustment factor for magnitude M6.5 – M7.0 MCER
ground motions (based on the average value of the CFv parameter of Tables 4-5 and 4-6).

The values of the parameter CFv in Tables 4-5 through 4-8 were calculated as 100 percent of the
response acceleration at the period of peak velocity response of deterministic MCER spectra.
Thus, values of the short-period spectrum shape adjustment factor less than 1.0 in Tables 4-14, 4-
16 and 4-17 – 4-20 (shown with blue shading) indicate those combinations of site class and Ss
intensity for which adjustment of long-period design values would not be necessary. Trends in
the values of the spectrum shape adjustment factor greater than the100 percent criterion are
illustrated in these tables by green shaking (100% - 120%), yellow shading (120% – 140%),
brown shading (140% - 160%) and pink shading (> 160%), indicating that the need for and
degree of adjustment of long-period design values for spectrum shape as a function of (1) site
class (site shear wave velocity), (2) earthquake magnitude(s) governing site hazard and (3) the
intensity of MCER ground motions (Ss) at the site of interest.

4-17
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.9
Site Factor - Site Class B

0.8

0.7

0.6
Ss = 0.25g, S1 = 0.1g
0.5
Ss = 0.5g, S1 = 0.2g
0.4 Ss = 0.75g, S1 = 0.3g
Ss = 1.0g, S1 = 0.4g
0.3
Ss = 1.25g, S1 = 0.5g
0.2 Ss = 1.5g, S1 = 0.6g
Fa - ASCE 7-16
0.1
Fv - ASCE 7-16
0.0
0.1 1
Response Period (seconds)

Figure 4-23 Plots of site amplification curves derived from NGA-West1 GMPEs
assuming “Run (West1)” basin depth terms with the values of the
new ASCE 7-16 site coefficients - Site Class B conditions

2.0

1.8

1.6
Site Factor - Site Class C

1.4

1.2

1.0
Ss = 0.25g, S1 = 0.1g
0.8 Ss = 0.5g, S1 = 0.2g
Ss = 0.75g, S1 = 0.3g
0.6
Ss = 1.0g, S1 = 0.4g
Ss = 1.25g, S1 = 0.5g
0.4
Ss = 1.5g, S1 = 0.6g
0.2 Fa - ASCE 7-16
Fv - ASCE 7-16
0.0
0.1 1
Response Period (seconds)

Figure 4-24 Plots of site amplification curves derived from NGA-West1 GMPEs
assuming “Run (West1)” basin depth terms with the values of the
new ASCE 7-16 site coefficients – Site Class C conditions

4-18
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

3.0

2.5
Site Factor - Site Class D

2.0

1.5
Ss = 0.25g, S1 = 0.1g
Ss = 0.5g, S1 = 0.2g
1.0 Ss = 0.75g, S1 = 0.3g
Ss = 1.0g. S1 = 0.4g
Ss = 1.25g, S1 = 0.5g
0.5 Ss = 1.5g, S1 - 0.6g
Fa - ASCE 7-16
Fv - ASCE 7-16
0.0
0.1 1
Response Period (seconds)

Figure 4-25 Plots of site amplification curves derived from NGA-West1 GMPEs
assuming “Run (West1)” basin depth terms with the values of the
new ASCE 7-16 site coefficients – Site Class D conditions

5.0

4.5

4.0
Site Factor - Site Class E

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0 Ss = 0.25g, S1 = 0.1g

Ss = 0.5g, S1 = 0.2g
1.5 Ss = 0.75g, S1 = 0.3g
Ss = 1.0g, S1 = 0.4g
1.0 Ss = 1.25g, S1 = 0.5g
Ss = 1.5g, S1 = 0.6g
0.5 Fa - ASCE 7-16
Fv - ASCE 7-16
0.0
0.1 1
Response Period (seconds)

Figure 4-26 Plots of site amplification curves derived from NGA-West1 GMPEs
assuming “Run (West1)” basin depth terms with the values of the
new ASCE 7-16 site coefficients – Site Class E conditions

4-19
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Table 4-9 Values of the 0.2-Second site factor F0.2 derived from NGA-
West1 GMPEs
Site Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss ≥ 1.5
A 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
B 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
C 1.16 1.12 1.10 1.08 1.06 1.05
D 1.48 1.28 1.15 1.06 0.98 0.92
E 1.71 1.30 1.07 0.91 0.78 0.70

Table 4-10 Values of the short-period spectrum shape adjustment

factor Ca (West1) based on average values of the
parameter CFa (Tables 4-1 – 4-4) and values of the 0.2-
second site factor F0.2 (Table 4-9)
Site Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss ≥ 1.5
A 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
B 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
C 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.90
D 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.94
E 1.01 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.06 1.07

Table 4-11 Values of the short-period site coefficient Fa of Table

11.4-1 of ASCE 7-16 (Table 2-1)
Site Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss ≥ 1.5
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
C 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
E 2.4 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.8

Table 4-12 Values of the short-period spectrum shape adjustment

factor Ca (West1) based on average values of the
parameter CFa (Tables 4-1 – 4-4) and values of the short-
period site coefficient Fa of ASCE 7-16 (Table 4-11)
Site Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss ≥ 1.5
A 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.93
B 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
C 0.83 0.8 0.84 0.82 0.81 0.79
D 0.85 0.83 0.88 0.89 0.92 0.86
E 0.72 0.75 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.94

4-20
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Table 4-13 Values of the 1-second period site factor F1.0 derived from
NGA-West1 GMPEs
Site 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 ≥ 0.6
A 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65
B 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77
C 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.30
D 2.20 2.09 2.01 1.95 1.90 1.86
E 3.19 2.73 2.45 2.25 2.08 1.96

Table 4-14 Values of the long-period spectrum shape adjustment factor Cv

(West1) based on values of the parameter CFv representing
magnitude M7.5 – M8.0 earthquakes (Tables 4-7 and 4-8) and
values of the 1.0-second site factor F1.0 (Table 4-13)
Site 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 ≥ 0.6
A 1.17 1.14 1.14 1.13 1.13 1.14
B 1.25 1.22 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21
C 1.27 1.24 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23
D 1.36 1.38 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.53
E 1.57 1.69 1.8 1.92 2.05 2.17

Table 4-15 Long-period site coefficient Fv of Table 11.4-2 of ASCE

7-16 (Table 2-2)
Site 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 ≥ 0.6
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
C 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4
D 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7
E 4.2 3.3 2.8 2.4 2.2 2.0

Table 4-16 Values of the long-period spectrum shape adjustment factor Cv

(West1) based on values of the parameter CFv representing
magnitude M7.5 – M8.0 earthquakes (Tables 4-7 and 4-8) and values
of the long-period site coefficient Fv of ASCE 7-16 (Table 4-15)
Site 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 ≥ 0.6
A 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
B 1.21 1.18 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17
C 1.12 1.09 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.15
D 1.25 1.31 1.42 1.49 1.58 1.67
E 1.2 1.4 1.57 1.8 1.94 2.12

4-21
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Table 4-17 Values of the long-period spectrum shape adjustment factor Cv

(West1) based on values of the parameter CFv representing
magnitude M7.0 – M7.5 earthquakes (Tables 4-6 and 4-7) and
values of the 1.0-second site factor F1.0 (Table 4-13)
Site 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 ≥ 0.6
A 1.09 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08
B 1.16 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14
C 1.17 1.14 1.14 1.15 1.15 1.15
D 1.17 1.18 1.21 1.23 1.26 1.28
E 1.33 1.4 1.51 1.61 1.71 1.8

Table 4-18 Values of the long-period spectrum shape adjustment factor Cv

(West1) based on values of the parameter CFv representing
magnitude M7.0 – M7.5 earthquakes (Tables 4-6 and 4-7) and values
of the long-period site coefficient Fv of ASCE 7-16 (Table 4-15)
Site 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 ≥ 0.6
A 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
B 1.12 1.11 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.11
C 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.07
D 1.07 1.11 1.21 1.26 1.33 1.40
E 1.01 1.16 1.32 1.51 1.62 1.76

Table 4-19 Values of the long-period spectrum shape adjustment factor Cv

(West1) based on values of the parameter CFv representing
magnitude M6.5 – M7.0 earthquakes (Tables 4-5 and 4-6) and values
of the 1.0-second site factor F1.0 (Table 4-13)
Site 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 ≥ 0.6
A 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06
B 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12
C 1.1 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09
D 1.04 1.05 1.07 1.08 1.1 1.11
E 1.14 1.19 1.27 1.35 1.42 1.48

Table 4-20 Values of the long-period spectrum shape adjustment factor Cv

(West1) based on values of the parameter CFv representing
magnitude M6.5 – M7.0 earthquakes (Tables 4-5 and 4-6) and values
of the long-period site coefficient Fv of ASCE 7-16 (Table 4-15)
Site 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 ≥ 0.6
A 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
B 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08
C 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.02
D 0.95 0.99 1.07 1.11 1.16 1.21
E 0.86 0.98 1.11 1.26 1.34 1.45

4-22
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

4.3 Applicability to Sites Governed by Probabilistic MCER Ground Motions

The applicability of spectrum shape adjustment factors based on deterministic MCER ground
motions to sites governed by probabilistic MCER ground motions was investigated by comparing
values the parameters CFa and CFv based on deterministic MCER response spectra (deterministic
CFs) with values of these parameters based on probabilistic MCER response spectra
(probabilistic CFs). Values of deterministic CFs and probabilistic CFs were calculated using the
same methods for determining the best fit of the domains of constant acceleration and velocity to
MCER response spectra (as described in Section 3.5); the only difference is the underlying basis
(i.e., deterministic or probabilistic) of the MCER response spectra. Like the deterministic MCER
response spectra, the underlying hazard functions of the probabilistic MCER response spectra are
based on the NGA-West1 GMPEs.
Values of probabilistic CFs were calculated for 9,050 (census tract) sites in the more densely
populated regions of California, Oregon and Washington that include approximately 90 percent
of the population and built environment of these three states (but only about 6% of the land area).
Site Class and shear wave velocity (vs,30) data for each site were obtained from the OpenSHA
web site (Field et al. 2003). These data include estimates of shear wave velocity developed by
Wills and Clahan (2007) and by Wald and Allen (2007). Values of various ASCE 7-10 seismic
design parameters (e.g., Ss, S1, CRS, CR1 and TL) were obtained for each site from the USGS web-
based tool, “U.S. Seismic Design Maps” (USGS 2013).
For each site, probabilistic MCER response spectra were determined from uniform hazard
spectra (UHS) available from the USGS web-based tool, “Hazard Curve Application” (USGS
2012). These UHS are based on the 2008 hazard functions and NGA-West1 GMPEs (i.e., ASCE
7-10 earthquake ground motion criteria). The site-specific methods of Chapter 21 were used to
develop probabilistic MCER response spectra from the UHS (i.e., conversion from uniform
hazard to uniform risk and conversion from geomean to maximum direction response).
For comparison with values of deterministic CFs (Tables 4-1 through 4-8), values of
probabilistic CFs for the 9,050 (census tract) sites were sorted by TL region (i.e., TL = 6 s, TL = 8
s, TL = 12 s or TL = 16 s), by site class (including site class subdivision by site class boundaries)
and by MCER ground motion intensity (i.e., Ss or S1). Table 4-21 shows the distribution of the
number of census tract sites by TL region, site class and MCER ground motion intensity
parameter S1. For reference, census tracts include a population of about 4,000 to 5,000 people
(or about 1,000 to 2,000 buildings), on average. As shown in Figure 3-7, TL = 8 s and TL =12 s
regions are almost exclusively in the high seismic areas of California governed by shallow
crustal earthquakes for which the NGA-West1 (and the NGA-West2) GMPEs are most
applicable. Western portions of Washington, Oregon and parts of northern California (where TL
= 16 s) are influenced by the deep earthquakes of the Cascadia Subduction Zone for which the
NGA-West-1 (and the NGA West2) GMPEs are less applicable.
It may be seen from the distribution of the 9,050 (census tract) sites in Table 4-21 that:
(1) the vast majority of sites (96 percent) have either Site Class C or Site Class D conditions,
(2) most sites (78 percent) are in TL = 8 s and TL =12 s regions, and
(3) sites with values of the 1-second MCER response spectral acceleration parameter S1 < 0.4
are typically governed by large magnitude earthquakes (i.e., TL = 12 s or TL = 16 s regions)
capable of producing significant ground shaking at large distances from fault rupture.

4-23
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Table 4-21 Distribution of 9,050 WUS census tracts of California, Oregon and Washington by
site class and 1-second MCER ground motion parameter S1 for each TL region
Count of Census Tracts by S 1 and Site Class for Region TL = 6
Site vs,30 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (fps) S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 = 0.6 S1 ≥ 0.8
A 5,315
AB 5,000
B 3,000
BC 2,500 1 8 2
C 1,600 23 188 46
CD 1,200 1 19 270 55
D 870 13 132 12
DE 600 2 2 19 1
E 510
Count of Census Tracts by S 1 and Site Class for Region TL = 8
Site vs,30 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (fps) S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 = 0.6 S1 ≥ 0.8
A 5,315
AB 5,000
B 3,000
BC 2,500 7 17 8 58
C 1,600 45 125 43 182 263
CD 1,200 77 212 159 625 1,296
D 870 5 8 88 173 810 730
DE 600 1 2 30 3
E 510
Count of Census Tracts by S 1 and Site Class for Region TL = 12
Site vs,30 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (fps) S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 = 0.6 S1 ≥ 0.8
A 5,315
AB 5,000
B 3,000
BC 2,500 5 19 42
C 1,600 49 2 1 75 90
CD 1,200 31 101 26 23 298 232
D 870 80 593 69 9 281 40
DE 600 12 16
E 510
Count of Census Tracts by S 1 and Site Class for Region TL = 16
Site vs,30 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (fps) S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 = 0.6 S1 ≥ 0.8
A 5,315
AB 5,000
B 3,000
BC 2,500 6 7 8 13 1 1
C 1,600 24 24 19 116 14 20 8
CD 1,200 46 38 58 232 26 21 6
D 870 43 57 28 211 45 12 5
DE 600 8 2 1 76 17 2
E 510

4-24
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Average values of probabilistic CFs were calculated for each combination of site class
(including site class subdivision by site class boundaries), MCER ground motion intensity
(i.e., Ss or S1) of each of four TL regions (i.e., TL = 6 s, TL = 8 s, TL = 12 s or TL = 16 s) for
which there were (census tract) sites with probabilistic MCER ground motions (i.e., each
of cells in Table 4-21 with census tracts). Corresponding values of deterministic CFs
were calculated from the CFa values of Tables 4-1 through 4-4 and the CFv values of
Tables 4-5 through 4-8 by averaging CFs of M6.5 and M7.0 MCER response spectra
(e.g., Tables 4-1 and 4-2) to represent the TL = 6 s region, averaging CFs of M7.0 and
M7.5 MCER response spectra (e.g., Tables 4-2 and 4-3) to represent the TL = 8 s region
and averaging CFs of M7.5 and M8.0 MCER response spectra (e.g., Tables 4-3 and 4-4)
to represent the TL = 12 s region.
Tables 4-22 and 4-23 summarize probabilistic and deterministic values of CFa parameter
and Tables 4-24 and 4-25 summarize probabilistic and deterministic values of CFv site class
and MCER ground motion intensity for each TL region. Yellow shading is used on the tables
of deterministic CFs to identify those cells for which there is a corresponding (non-blank)
value of the probabilistic CF. In general, values of probabilistic CFs and deterministic CFs
compare well for TL = 8 s and TL = 12 s regions for which the NGA-West1 GMPEs are most
applicable. Trends in the values with site class and MCER ground motion intensity are
consistent and values of probabilistic CFs and deterministic CFs are similar (often
identical). This is illustrated in Figure 4-21 which includes plots of the probabilistic CF
parameter as a function of the deterministic CF parameter for the same site class and MCER
ground motion intensity. Three sets of probabilistic and deterministic CF parameters are
plotted for sites in the TL = 8 s region (CFa) and for sites in the TL = 12 s region (CFa and
CFv), in each case showing strong correlation in the values of probabilistic and deterministic
CFs that have a common site class, common MCER ground motion intensity and common
TL region (i.e., common earthquake magnitudes governing site hazard).
Figure 4-21 shows an apparent “outlier” to the above observation of strong correlation. In
this case, the average value of the probabilistic CFv parameter (3.04) is significantly larger
than the value of the deterministic CFv parameter (2.45) for sites in the TL = 8 s region with
Site Class D conditions and a 1-second MCER response spectral acceleration of S1 = 0.2 (see
Tables 4-24 and 4-25). As shown in Table 4-21, there are only five (census tract) sites in
the TL = 8 s region with Site Class D conditions and a 1-second MCER response spectral
acceleration of S1 = 0.2, and, in this case, all five sites are in the same geographical area,
Blythe California (a small town of about 20,000 people on the Colorado River, east side of
Riverside County). Long-period seismic hazard at the five sites in Blythe is governed by
large events on the southern Mojave segment(s) of the San Andreas fault with magnitudes in
the M7.5 to M8.0 range, as shown by the de-aggregation of 1-second site hazard in Figure
4-22. Thus, the TL region for these sites should be TL = 12 s, rather than TL = 8 s (a short-
coming of the TL map shown in Figure 3-7). If these five sites were re-classified as being in
the TL = 12 s region, then the average value of probabilistic CFv parameter (3.04) would
only be about 5 percent greater than the value of deterministic CFv parameter (2.87) for the
TL = 12 s region with Site Class D and a 1-second MCER response spectral acceleration of S1
= 0.2 (see Table 4-25). The investigation of the “Blythe” outlier illustrates both the
importance of earthquake magnitude to the accuracy of values of the CFv parameter, as well
as apparent short-comings with use of the current TL map (Figure 22-12 of ASCE 7-10) to
reliably determine the earthquake magnitude(s) governing site hazard.

4-25
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Table 4-22 Average values of the probabilistic CFa parameter (West1) binned by site the class
and the short-period MCER ground motion parameter Ss for each TL region
Probabilistic CF a Values by S s and Site Class for Region TL = 6
Site vs,30 Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (fps) Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss = 1.5 Ss ≥ 2.0
A 5,315
AB 5,000
B 3,000
BC 2,500 0.90 0.90 0.90
C 1,600 0.99 0.99 0.97
CD 1,200 1.13 1.13 1.14 1.07
D 870 1.20 1.22 1.08
DE 600 1.36 1.31 1.30 1.06
E 510
Probabilistic CF a Values by S s and Site Class for Region TL = 8
Site vs,30 Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (fps) Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss = 1.5 Ss ≥ 2.0
A 5,315
AB 5,000
B 3,000
BC 2,500 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
C 1,600 0.98 0.97 0.94 0.94 0.90
CD 1,200 1.02 0.96 0.91 0.90 0.84
D 870 1.40 1.05 0.99 0.90 0.85 0.77
DE 600 0.75 0.85 0.72 0.63
E 510
Probabilistic CF a Values by S s and Site Class for Region TL = 12
Site vs,30 Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (fps) Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss = 1.5 Ss ≥ 2.0
A 5,315
AB 5,000
B 3,000
BC 2,500 0.90 0.90 0.90
C 1,600 1.03 0.97 0.97 0.94 0.92
CD 1,200 1.16 1.14 1.00 0.96 0.91 0.87
D 870 1.18 1.16 1.00 0.93 0.86 0.79
DE 600 0.78 0.70
E 510
Probabilistic CF a Values by S s and Site Class for Region TL = 16
Site vs,30 Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (fps) Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss = 1.5 Ss ≥ 2.0
A 5,315
AB 5,000
B 3,000
BC 2,500 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
C 1,600 1.01 1.02 1.04 1.05 1.11 1.11 1.22
CD 1,200 1.12 1.12 1.16 1.20 1.25 1.25 1.24
D 870 1.19 1.20 1.32 1.29 1.37 1.41 1.50
DE 600 1.30 1.34 1.32 1.44 1.43 1.40
E 510

4-26
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Table 4-23 Values of the deterministic CFa parameter (West1) binned by the site class and the
short-period MCER ground motion parameter Ss for each TL region
Deterministic CF a Values by S s and Site Class for Region TL = 6
Site vs,30 Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (fps) Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss = 1.5 Ss ≥ 2.0
A 5,315 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
AB 5,000 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.75 0.75
B 3,000 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84
BC 2,500 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
C 1,600 1.08 1.04 1.01 0.99 0.97 0.95 0.91
CD 1,200 1.19 1.11 1.05 1.00 0.97 0.93 0.88
D 870 1.33 1.17 1.06 0.97 0.92 0.86 0.79
DE 600 1.54 1.21 1.02 0.89 0.81 0.73 0.65
E 510 1.66 1.26 1.03 0.88 0.80 0.72 0.63
Deterministic CF a Values by S s and Site Class for Region TL = 8
Site vs,30 Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (fps) Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss = 1.5 Ss ≥ 2.0
A 5,315 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
AB 5,000 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.75
B 3,000 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84
BC 2,500 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
C 1,600 1.07 1.04 1.01 0.98 0.97 0.95 0.92
CD 1,200 1.19 1.10 1.05 1.00 0.97 0.93 0.89
D 870 1.35 1.16 1.05 0.97 0.92 0.86 0.81
DE 600 1.57 1.21 1.02 0.89 0.81 0.74 0.67
E 510 1.70 1.26 1.03 0.89 0.82 0.74 0.66
Deterministic CF a Values by S s and Site Class for Region TL = 12
Site vs,30 Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (fps) Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss = 1.5 Ss ≥ 2.0
A 5,315 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
AB 5,000 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.75
B 3,000 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84
BC 2,500 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
C 1,600 1.08 1.03 1.00 0.98 0.97 0.94 0.92
CD 1,200 1.21 1.10 1.04 1.00 0.97 0.93 0.90
D 870 1.37 1.16 1.05 0.97 0.92 0.87 0.82
DE 600 1.62 1.20 1.01 0.89 0.82 0.76 0.69
E 510 1.79 1.27 1.05 0.92 0.85 0.77 0.71

4-27
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Table 4-24 Average values of the probabilistic CFv parameter (West1) binned by the site class
and the 1-second MCER ground motion parameter S1 for each TL region
Probabilistic CF v Values by S 1 and Site Class for Region TL = 6
Site vs,30 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (fps) S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 = 0.6 S1 ≥ 0.8
A 5,315
AB 5,000
B 3,000
BC 2,500 1.00 1.00 1.00
C 1,600 1.30 1.30 1.28
CD 1,200 2.06 1.50 1.48 1.48
D 870 1.90 1.86 1.83
DE 600 3.41 2.20 2.06 2.10
E 510
Probabilistic CF v Values by S 1 and Site Class for Region TL = 8
Site vs,30 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (fps) S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 = 0.6 S1 ≥ 0.8
A 5,315
AB 5,000
B 3,000
BC 2,500 1.13 1.13 1.12 1.03
C 1,600 1.49 1.49 1.37 1.37 1.30
CD 1,200 2.00 1.89 1.82 1.83 1.71
D 870 3.04 2.51 2.39 2.37 2.24 2.10
DE 600 2.89 2.94 2.90 3.02
E 510
Probabilistic CF v Values by S 1 and Site Class for Region TL = 12
Site vs,30 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (fps) S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 = 0.6 S1 ≥ 0.8
A 5,315
AB 5,000
B 3,000
BC 2,500 1.18 1.20 1.26
C 1,600 1.54 1.50 1.60 1.56 1.63
CD 1,200 2.11 2.07 2.10 2.12 2.12 2.25
D 870 2.97 2.67 2.75 2.70 2.63 2.77
DE 600 3.63 3.74
E 510
Probabilistic CF v Values by S 1 and Site Class for Region TL = 16
Site vs,30 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (fps) S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 = 0.6 S1 ≥ 0.8
A 5,315
AB 5,000
B 3,000
BC 2,500 1.23 1.10 1.10 1.08 1.23 1.19
C 1,600 1.51 1.41 1.43 1.39 1.49 1.53 1.73
CD 1,200 1.97 1.77 1.73 1.55 1.53 1.48 1.76
D 870 2.71 2.39 2.20 1.95 1.92 2.02 2.16
DE 600 3.13 2.75 2.24 2.05 2.00 2.19
E 510

4-28
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Table 4-25 Values of the deterministic CFv parameter (West1) binned by the site class and the
1-second MCER ground motion parameter S1 for each TL region
Deterministic CF v Values by S 1 and Site Class for Region TL = 6
Site vs,30 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (fps) S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 = 0.6 S1 ≥ 0.8
A 5,315 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68
AB 5,000 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69
B 3,000 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
BC 2,500 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
C 1,600 1.44 1.43 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42
CD 1,200 1.78 1.76 1.75 1.74 1.74 1.73 1.73
D 870 2.28 2.18 2.14 2.11 2.08 2.06 2.03
DE 600 3.09 2.77 2.63 2.56 2.51 2.45 2.38
E 510 3.62 3.24 3.11 3.02 2.95 2.89 2.79
Deterministic CF a Values by S s and Site Class for Region TL = 8
Site vs,30 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (fps) S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 = 0.6 S1 ≥ 0.8
A 5,315 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69
AB 5,000 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70
B 3,000 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
BC 2,500 1.05 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03
C 1,600 1.53 1.50 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.49
CD 1,200 1.97 1.92 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92
D 870 2.57 2.45 2.41 2.40 2.39 2.38 2.37
DE 600 3.57 3.22 3.09 3.03 3.00 2.96 2.89
E 510 4.24 3.82 3.68 3.61 3.56 3.52 3.44
Deterministic CF a Values by S s and Site Class for Region TL = 12
Site vs,30 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (fps) S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 = 0.6 S1 ≥ 0.8
A 5,315 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73
AB 5,000 0.76 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.75
B 3,000 0.97 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
BC 2,500 1.14 1.12 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11
C 1,600 1.67 1.63 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.61
CD 1,200 2.27 2.21 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.25
D 870 2.99 2.87 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.85
DE 600 4.19 3.86 3.69 3.62 3.58 3.56 3.54
E 510 5.01 4.60 4.39 4.31 4.26 4.24 4.21

4-29
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

4.0
CFa (TL = 12s, M7.5-M8.0) - COR = 96.6%
3.5 CFv (TL = 8s, M7.0-M7.5) - COR = 98.7%
CFv (TL = 12s, M7.5-M8.0) - COR = 99.0%

Deterministic Value of CFa or CFv

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

Shaded CFv outlier of the TL = 8s

1.0 region corresponds to five (census
tract) sites in Blythe, California
(Site Class D, S1 = 0.2), whose
0.5 long-period hazard is governed by
magnitude M7.5 – M8.0 events
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Probabilistic Value of CFa or CFv

Figure 4-21 Plots of the average value of the probabilistic CF parameter as a

function of the value of the deterministic CF parameter of the same
site class and MCER ground motion intensity for sites in the TL = 8
s region (CFa) and sites in the TL = 12 s region (CFa and CFv).

Figure 4-22 PSHA de-aggregation, Blythe, California (USGS 2015)

4-30
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

4.4 Summary of Phase I Findings

This section summarizes key findings of the Phase I investigations of the identified short-coming
of the ELF and MRSA seismic design procedures. Phase I investigations utilized deterministic
and probabilistic MCER response spectra calculated in accordance with the site-specific
requirements of Chapter 21 of ASCE 7-10 for the same methods, including the NGA-West1
GMPEs, as those used by the USGS to develop the earthquake ground motion maps of ASCE 7-
10. The findings of the Phase I investigations compliment those of the Phase II investigations
(Section 5.4) and together provide the basis for the recommendations for proposed changes to
ASCE 7-16 (Section 6.2).
Frequency Content of MCER Ground Motions. The frequency content of deterministic MCER
ground motions is significantly influenced by both site amplification (i.e., as characterized by
site shear wave velocity) and by the magnitude of the earthquake source. Basin effects can also
influence the frequency content of MCER ground motion at longer periods (see Figure 3-1).
Qualitatively, the frequency content of probabilistic MCER ground motions is similar to that of
the deterministic MCER ground motions for a common value of the site shear wave velocity (and
basin depth) and where the earthquake magnitude(s) that govern probabilistic seismic hazard are
similar to the deterministic MCER magnitude. For softer sites (e.g., Site Class D and Site Class
E conditions) and larger magnitude events typical of MCER ground motions, the frequency
content of MCER response shifts to longer periods and the peak value of response spectral
acceleration tends to decrease as the value of site shear wave velocity decreases (e.g., from Site
Class BC to Site Class DE conditions).
Derived Values of the Parameters CFa and CFv. The parameters CFa and CFv are derived
from the “best fit” of the two-domain “ELF design spectrum” to two-thirds of the MCER
response spectrum of interest (see Figure 3-2) and represent the combined effects of site
amplification and spectrum shape (i.e., frequency content of the ground motions).
Values of the parameter CFa is significantly nonlinear (i.e., intensity dependent) at lower
intensities of MCER ground motions and essentially magnitude independent, suggesting that
values of Ca are also magnitude independent (since site amplification is assumed to be magnitude
independent). In contrast, values of the parameter CFv are essentially intensity independent
(accept at very low MCER ground motion intensity), but significantly magnitude dependent
suggesting that values of Cv should also be magnitude dependent.
Derived Values of the Site Amplification Parameters F0.2 and F1.0. The site amplification
parameters F0.2 and F1.0 are derived from MCER response spectra as the ratio of the spectral
response for the value of site shear wave velocity (vs,30) of the site class of interest to the spectral
response for Site Class BC (i.e., vs,30 = 2,500 fps) at periods of 0.2 s and 1.0 s, respectively (see
Section 3.6). Derived values of site amplification are essentially magnitude independent.
In general, derived values of the site amplification parameter F0.2 are similar to values of the site
coefficient Fa, and derived values of site amplification parameter F1.0 are similar to values of the
site coefficient Fv of ASCE 7-16, although derived values tend to show significantly less non-
linearity (intensity dependence) than the site coefficients of ASCE 7-16.
Derived Values of the Spectrum Shape Adjustment Factors Ca and Cv. Derived values of the
spectrum shape adjustment factors Ca and Cv are calculated from the respective values of the
parameters CFa and CFv by removing site amplification (i.e., dividing by either derived site-

4-31
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

amplification parameters F0.2 and F1.0 or by the site coefficients Fa and Fv of ASCE 7-16). As
noted above, the parameter CFv is magnitude dependent, and magnitude-dependent values of Cv
are calculated for three ranges of earthquake magnitudes, (1) M.5 – M8.0, (2) M7.0 – M7.5) and
M6.5 – M7.0). In general, derived values of the spectrum shape adjustment factor are similar for
calculations based on either the derived values of site amplification or the site coefficients of
ASCE 7-16 (since derived values of site amplification are generally similar to the values of the
site coefficients of ASCE 7-16).
Derived values of the spectrum shape adjustment factor Ca less than or equal to 0.9 indicate no
adjustment for spectrum shape is required since the “best fit” criteria are based on 90 percent of
peak acceleration response (see Figure 3-1). In general, values of Ca are less than or equal to 0.9
and never exceed 1.1 (see Tables 4-10 and 4-12) suggesting that adjustment of short-period
design coefficients for the effects of spectrum shape could be ignored. This finding is directly
related to the short-period frequency content of the MCRE ground motions and the peak value of
response spectral acceleration which tends to decrease as the value of site shear wave velocity
decreases (e.g., from Site Class BC to Site Class DE conditions),
Derived values of the spectrum shape adjustment factor Cv less than or equal to 1.0 indicate no
adjustment for spectrum shape is required since the “best fit” criteria are based on 100 percent of
peak velocity response (See Figure 3-1). In general, values of Cv are less than or equal to 1.0 and
rarely exceed 1.2 for (1) Site Classes A, B and C and (2) values of S1 ≤ 1.0 for all site classes
(e.g., see Tables 4-16, 4-18 and 4-20) suggesting that adjustment of long-period design
coefficients for the effects of spectrum shape could be ignored for these sites classes and lower
intensities of ground motions. For other cases, the effects of spectrum shape increase with (1)
decrease in site shear wave velocity and (2) increase in ground motion intensity to values of Cv
as large as 2.12 for Site Class E and 1.67 for Site Class D at a ground motion intensity of S1 ≥ 0.6
(see Table 4-16).
Applicability to Sites Governed by Probabilistic MCER Ground Motions. The applicability
of spectrum shape adjustment factors based on deterministic MCER ground motions to sites
governed by probabilistic MCER ground motions was comprehensively investigated by
comparing values the parameters CFa and CFv based on deterministic MCER response spectra
(deterministic CFs) with values of these parameters based on probabilistic MCER response
spectra (probabilistic CFs) for a large number (9,050) sites in the WUS binned by site class (site
shear wave velocity), MCER ground motion intensity (i.e., Ss or S1) and earthquake magnitude
based on the value of TL (see Section 3-8).
In general, values of deterministic CFs are very similar to the average values of probabilistic CFs
for each site class, magnitude and TL bin of interest (e.g., See Figure 4-21), suggesting that
values of the spectrum shape adjustment factors derived from deterministic MCER response
spectra apply to sites governed by probabilistic MCER ground motions with seismic hazard
functions controlled by comparable earthquake magnitude(s). An inherent limitation of the
applicability of spectrum shape adjustment factors derived from deterministic MCER ground
motions to sites governed by probabilistic MCER ground motions is the reliability of the
governing magnitude(s) of the MCER ground motions at the site of interest when based on the
value of the parameter TL. Maps of TL (e.g., see Figure 3-7) are crude approximations of regions
governed by different ranges of earthquake magnitude and in some areas may inaccurately
represent the governing earthquake magnitude.

4-32
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

5. PHASE II INVESTIGATIONS WITH ASCE 7-16 EARTHQUAKE

GROUND MOTION CRITERIA

This section describes Phase II investigations of the identified short-coming with ELF and
MRSA seismic design procedures utilizing multi-period deterministic and probabilistic MCER
response spectra calculated in accordance with the site-specific requirements of Chapter 21 of
ASCE 7-16. Phase II calculations of MCER response spectra employ the same seismic hazard
data and methods, including the NGA-West2 GMPEs, as those used by the USGS to develop the
earthquake ground motion maps of ASCE 7-16. The findings of the Phase II investigations
compliment those of the Phase I investigations (Section 4) and together provide the basis for the
recommendations for proposed changes to ASCE 7-16 (Section 6).
5.1 Example MCER Response Spectra of ASCE 7-16
Figures 5-1 through 5-6 show example deterministic MCER response spectra of ASCE -7-16
based on the NGA-West2 GMPEs (West2), qualitatively illustrating differences in the frequency
content of ground motions as a function of earthquake magnitude and site class. For comparison,
these figures also show the deterministic MCER response spectra of ASCE 7-10 based on the
NGA-West1 GMPEs (West1) for the same values of earthquake magnitude and site class (i.e.,
spectra shown in Figures 4-1 through 4-6).
Figures 5-1 through 5-6 show example deterministic MCER response spectra for three earthquake
scenarios: (1) magnitude M6.0 at Rx = 2 km, (2) magnitude M7.0 at Rx = 6 km and (3) magnitude
M8.0 at Rx = 8.5 km. In each figure, MCER ground motions are shown for four site conditions
(1) vs,30 = 5,000 fps (Site Class AB boundary), (2) vs,30 = 2,500 fps (Site Class BC boundary), (3)
vs,30 = 1,200 fps (Site Class CD boundary), and (4) vs,30 = 600 fps (Site Class DE boundary).
Magnitude-distance pairs were selected such that peak short-period response (T = 0.2 s) for Site
Class BC conditions was slightly greater than 1.5g (i.e., just above the deterministic plateau).
For each scenario earthquake, separate figures show plots of response spectral acceleration and
response spectral velocity to permit identification of the periods of peak response in both
acceleration and velocity domains.
Similar to the ASCE 7-10 (West1) response spectra, the ASCE 7-16 (West2) response spectra
show a strong dependence of spectral shape (frequency content) of the ground motions on
earthquake magnitude as well as on site conditions and confirm the potential short-comings in
the use of only two periods (0.2 s and 1.0 s) to adequately describe response of soil sites, in
particular, response of softer soil sites at longer periods. For example, as shown in Figure 5-6 for
vs,30 = 600 fps (Site Class DE) site conditions, the peak value of ASCE 7-16 (West2) response
spectral velocity (200 ips at 4.0 s), is about twice the level of response (110 ips at 1.0 s),
implying that long-period systems at soft-soil sites whose site hazard is governed by large-
magnitude earthquakes could be under-designed by as much as a factor of about 2.
There are, however, significant differences in the shape and frequency content of ASCE 7-16
(West2) MCER response spectra as compared to those of ASCE 7-10 (West1) at short periods.
In Figure 5-5, for example, peak response accelerations are about the same (1.6 g) for reference
Site Class BC conditions (vs,30 = 2,500 fps), but very different for Site Class DE (vs,30 = 600 fps)
conditions, for which the peak response acceleration is over 1.9 g for ASCE 7-16 (West2)
ground motions, but less than 1.3 g for ASCE 7-10 (West1) ground motions.

5-1
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

2.2
West 1 - vs,30 = 5,000 fps
2.0 West 1 - vs,30 = 2,500 fps
West 1 - vs,30 = 1,200 fps
1.8 West 1 - vs,30 = 600 fps
West 2 - vs,30 = 5,000 fps
1.6
West 2 - vs,30 = 2,500 fps
West 2 - vs,30 = 1,200 fps
Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.4
West 2 - vs,30 = 600 fps
1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 5-1 Comparison of example ASCE 7-16 (West 2) and ASCE 7-10 (West 1)
deterministic MCER ground motions plotted in terms of response
spectra acceleration for a magnitude M6.0 earthquake at RX = 2 km and
site conditions ranging from vs,30 = 5,000 fps to vs,30 = 600 fps
200
West 1 - vs,30 = 5,000 fps
180 West 1 - vs,30 = 2,500 fps
West 1 - vs,30 = 1,200 fps
160 West 1 - vs,30 = 600 fps
West 2 - vs,30 = 5,000 fps
140 West 2 - vs,30 = 2,500 fps
Spectral Velocity (in/sec.)

West 2 - vs,30 = 1,200 fps

120
West 2 - vs,30 = 600 fps
100

80

60

40

20

0
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 5-2 Comparison of example ASCE 7-16 (West 2) and ASCE 7-10 (West 1)
deterministic MCER ground motions plotted in terms of response
spectra velocity for a magnitude M6.0 earthquake at RX = 2 km and site
conditions ranging from vs,30 = 5,000 fps to vs,30 = 600 fps

5-2
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

2.2
West 1 - vs,30 = 5,000 fps
2.0 West 1 - vs,30 = 2,500 fps
West 1 - vs,30 = 1,200 fps
1.8 West 1 - vs,30 = 600 fps
West 2 - vs,30 = 5,000 fps
1.6
West 2 - vs,30 = 2,500 fps
West 2 - vs,30 = 1,200 fps
Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.4
West 2 - vs,30 = 600 fps
1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 5-3 Comparison of example ASCE 7-16 (West 2) and ASCE 7-10 (West 1)
deterministic MCER ground motions plotted in terms of response
spectra acceleration for a magnitude M7.0 earthquake at RX = 6 km and
site conditions ranging from vs,30 = 5,000 fps to vs,30 = 600 fps
200
West 1 - vs,30 = 5,000 fps
180 West 1 - vs,30 = 2,500 fps
West 1 - vs,30 = 1,200 fps
160 West 1 - vs,30 = 600 fps
West 2 - vs,30 = 5,000 fps
140 West 2 - vs,30 = 2,500 fps
Spectral Velocity (in/sec.)

West 2 - vs,30 = 1,200 fps

120
West 2 - vs,30 = 600 fps
100

80

60

40

20

0
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 5-4 Comparison of example ASCE 7-16 (West 2) and ASCE 7-10 (West 1)
deterministic MCER ground motions plotted in terms of response
spectra velocity for a magnitude M7.0 earthquake at RX = 6 km and site
conditions ranging from vs,30 = 5,000 fps to vs,30 = 600 fps

5-3
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

2.2
West 1 - vs,30 = 5,000 fps
2.0 West 1 - vs,30 = 2,500 fps
West 1 - vs,30 = 1,200 fps
1.8 West 1 - vs,30 = 600 fps
West 2 - vs,30 = 5,000 fps
1.6
West 2 - vs,30 = 2,500 fps
West 2 - vs,30 = 1,200 fps
Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.4
West 2 - vs,30 = 600 fps
1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 5-5 Comparison of example ASCE 7-16 (West 2) and ASCE 7-10 (West 1)
deterministic MCER ground motions of plotted in terms of response
spectra acceleration for a magnitude M8.0 earthquake at RX = 8.5 km
and site conditions ranging from vs,30 = 5,000 fps to vs,30 = 600 fps
200
West 1 - vs,30 = 5,000 fps
180 West 1 - vs,30 = 2,500 fps
West 1 - vs,30 = 1,200 fps
160 West 1 - vs,30 = 600 fps
West 2 - vs,30 = 5,000 fps
140 West 2 - vs,30 = 2,500 fps
Spectral Velocity (in/sec.)

West 2 - vs,30 = 1,200 fps

120
West 2 - vs,30 = 600 fps
100

80

60

40

20

0
0.1 1.0 10.0
Period (seconds)

Figure 5-6 Comparison of example ASCE 7-16 (West 2) and ASCE 7-10 (West 1)
deterministic MCER ground motions plotted in terms of response
spectra velocity for a magnitude M8.0 earthquake at RX = 8.5 km and
conditions ranging from vs,30 = 5,000 fps to vs,30 = 600 fps

5-4
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

5.2 Derived Values of Spectrum Shape Adjustment and Related Factors

This section calculates values of spectrum shape adjustments factors Ca and Cv, values of the
parameters CFa and CFv and values of site factors F0.2 and F1.0 (or Fa and Fv) in accordance with
the Eqs. 3-3 through 3-8. Values of these factors are derived from “target” deterministic MCER
ground motion response spectra calculated in accordance with the underlying methods of ASCE
7-16, including the PEER NGA-West2 GMPEs, and may be compared with values of the same
parameters derived from deterministic MCER response spectra and underlying methods of ASCE
7-10, including the PEER NGA-West1 GMPEs (Section 4.2).
Values of the parameter CFa were calculated as a function of the parameter Ss and values of the
parameter CFv were calculated as a function of the parameter S1 in a two-step process. First, for
each of the nine site classes of Table 3-2, deterministic MCER spectra were calculated for 960
combinations of discrete earthquake magnitudes ranging from M5.0 to M8.0 and discrete site-
source distances ranging from Rx = 1.0 km to Rx = 100 km, and the values of the parameters Ss,
CFa, S1 and CFv were determined for each of the resulting 8,640 MCER response spectra. In the
second step, for each of the nine site classes, CFa results were sorted and ranked by value of the
parameter Ss and CFv results were sorted and ranked by value of the S1.
Tables 5-1 through 5-4 summarize values of the parameter CFa derived from deterministic
MCER response spectra at discrete values of the short-period parameter ranging from Ss = 0.25 to
Ss = 2.0 for earthquake magnitudes M6.5, M7.0, M7.5 and M8.0, respectively. Similarly, Tables
5-5 through 5-8 summarize values of the parameter CFv derived from deterministic MCER
response spectra at discrete values of the short-period parameter ranging from S1 = 0.1 to S1 = 0.8
for earthquake magnitudes M6.5, M7.0, M7.5 and M8.0, respectively. It may be noted that
Tables 5-1 through 5-8 are the values of the parameters CFa and CFv at the discrete values of the
parameters Ss and S1 used by Tables 11.4-1 and 11.4-2 of ASCE 7-16 (e.g., see Section 2.2) to
specify values of the site coefficients Fa and Fv, with the exception that at an additional column
(i.e., either Ss = 2.0 or S1 = 0.8) is included in these tables to show trends in the values of these
parameters at a stronger ground motion intensity (common to WUS sites of high seismicity).
The most significant observation of the trends in the values of CFa and CFv given in Tables 5-1
through 5-8 is the strong magnitude dependence of the value of CFv (i.e., for magnitudes greater
than or equal to about M6.5) and the near magnitude independence of the value of parameter
CFa. The magnitude dependence of the parameter CFv suggests that multiple, magnitude-
dependent, tables of the spectrum shape adjustment factor Cv are required to properly quantify
this parameter, since site factors (i.e., F1.0 or Fv) are magnitude independent.

5-5
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Table 5-1 Values of the parameter CFa (West2) derived from

magnitude M6.5 deterministic MCER ground motions
Site vs,30 Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (mps) Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss = 1.5 Ss ≥ 2.0
A 1,620 0.62 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
AB 1,524 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61
B 914 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
BC 762 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
C 488 1.18 1.15 1.12 1.09 1.08 1.06 1.04
CD 366 1.38 1.28 1.22 1.17 1.14 1.09 1.05
D 265 1.63 1.44 1.31 1.21 1.15 1.08 0.98
DE 183 1.97 1.60 1.36 1.21 1.12 1.00 0.87
E 155 2.15 1.68 1.40 1.22 1.11 0.98 0.83

Table 5-2 Values of the parameter CFa (West2) derived from magnitude
M7.0 deterministic MCER ground motions
Site vs,30 Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (mps) Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss = 1.5 Ss ≥ 2.0
A 1,620 0.64 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
AB 1,524 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61
B 914 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
BC 762 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
C 488 1.19 1.15 1.12 1.09 1.08 1.07 1.05
CD 366 1.41 1.30 1.23 1.18 1.14 1.11 1.07
D 265 1.68 1.47 1.33 1.23 1.17 1.10 1.02
DE 183 2.03 1.62 1.40 1.24 1.15 1.04 0.91
E 155 2.22 1.72 1.44 1.26 1.15 1.02 0.86

Table 5-3 Values of the parameter CFa (West2) derived from magnitude
M7.5 deterministic MCER ground motions
Site vs,30 Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (mps) Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss = 1.5 Ss ≥ 2.0
A 1,620 0.66 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
AB 1,524 0.60 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61
B 914 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
BC 762 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
C 488 1.21 1.15 1.12 1.10 1.09 1.08 1.06
CD 366 1.45 1.32 1.24 1.19 1.16 1.13 1.08
D 265 1.74 1.50 1.35 1.25 1.19 1.13 1.05
DE 183 2.11 1.67 1.43 1.28 1.19 1.08 0.95
E 155 2.33 1.77 1.49 1.30 1.19 1.05 0.91

Table 5-4 Values of the parameter CFa (West2) derived from magnitude
M8.0 deterministic MCER ground motions
Site vs,30 Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (mps) Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss = 1.5 Ss ≥ 2.0
A 1,620 0.69 0.62 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
AB 1,524 0.60 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61
B 914 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
BC 762 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
C 488 1.26 1.17 1.14 1.11 1.10 1.08 1.06
CD 366 1.52 1.35 1.27 1.21 1.18 1.14 1.10
D 265 1.84 1.53 1.37 1.28 1.23 1.16 1.09
DE 183 2.26 1.72 1.48 1.32 1.23 1.11 0.98
E 155 2.51 1.84 1.53 1.33 1.22 1.08 0.97

5-6
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Table 5-5 Values of the parameter CFv (West2) derived from magnitude
M6.5 deterministic MCER ground motions
Site vs,30 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (mps) S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 = 0.6 S1 ≥ 0.8
A 1,620 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61
AB 1,524 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62
B 914 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
BC 762 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
C 488 1.58 1.58 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.56
CD 366 2.07 2.04 2.02 2.00 1.99 1.97
D 265 2.74 2.62 2.53 2.46 2.40 2.35
DE 183 3.73 3.49 3.37 3.29 3.21 3.14
E 155 4.40 4.13 4.02 3.91 3.81 3.71

Table 5-6 Values of the parameter CFv (West2) derived from magnitude
M7.0 deterministic MCER ground motions
Site vs,30 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (mps) S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 = 0.6 S1 ≥ 0.8
A 1,620 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61
AB 1,524 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62
B 914 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
BC 762 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
C 488 1.59 1.58 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.56 1.56
CD 366 2.08 2.05 2.03 2.01 1.99 1.98 1.96
D 265 2.81 2.70 2.63 2.58 2.55 2.51 2.43
DE 183 3.95 3.79 3.71 3.64 3.60 3.55 3.45
E 155 4.70 4.53 4.42 4.37 4.32 4.26 4.14

Table 5-7 Values of the parameter CFv (West2) derived from magnitude
M7.5 deterministic MCER ground motions
Site vs,30 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (mps) S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 = 0.6 S1 ≥ 0.8
A 1,620 0.68 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.63
AB 1,524 0.69 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.64
B 914 0.85 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
BC 762 1.03 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
C 488 1.65 1.61 1.60 1.59 1.58 1.58 1.57
CD 366 2.25 2.17 2.16 2.14 2.12 2.10 2.06
D 265 3.06 2.96 2.93 2.92 2.90 2.87 2.80
DE 183 4.42 4.27 4.23 4.20 4.17 4.14 4.04
E 155 5.31 5.12 5.08 5.05 5.01 4.97 4.85

Table 5-8 Values of the parameter CFv (West2) derived from magnitude
M8.0 deterministic MCER ground motions
Site vs,30 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class (mps) S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 = 0.6 S1 ≥ 0.8
A 1,620 0.74 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.69
AB 1,524 0.75 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.70
B 914 0.93 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86
BC 762 1.12 1.08 1.07 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.04
C 488 1.79 1.73 1.70 1.70 1.69 1.68 1.66
CD 366 2.68 2.56 2.53 2.53 2.51 2.50 2.44
D 265 3.63 3.47 3.43 3.42 3.40 3.38 3.30
DE 183 5.18 4.95 4.89 4.87 4.85 4.82 4.70
E 155 6.19 5.92 5.85 5.83 5.80 5.76 5.62

5-7
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Figures 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, and 5-10 are plots of site amplification curves at different ground motion
intensities with the values of the new ASCE 7-16 site coefficients for Site Class B, C, D and E,
respectively (colors are used to relate values of common intensity). The site amplification curves
are ratios at each period of deterministic MCER response spectra, as described in Section 3-6. In
this case, deterministic MCER response spectra were developed from the PEER NGA West2
GMPEs using default values of basin depth terms given in Table 3-2 and the corresponding
magnitude-distance pairs of Table 3-3. Conceptually, the new site factors of ASCE 7-16 should
be same or very similar to site amplification developed using the PEER NGA-West 2 GMPEs at
periods of 0.1 – 0.5 s (Fa) and periods of 0.5 s to 2 s (Fv) the period ranges considered in the
development of the ASCE 7-16 site coefficients.

Table 5-9 summarizes values of the 0.2-second site factor F0.2 extracted from the site
amplification curves at a period of 0.2 seconds. Table 5-10 summarizes values of the short-
period spectrum shape adjustment factor calculated as the ratio of the average value of the
parameters CFa (Tables 5-1 through 5-5) and the value of the 0.2-second site factor (Table 5-9)
for each combination of site class short-period MCER ground motion intensity (Ss). For
comparison, Tables 5-12 summarizes values of the short-period factor calculated in the same
manner except the short-period site coefficients of ASCE 7-16 (summarized in Table 5-11) are
used in lieu of the 0.2-second site factors of Table 5-9. The values of the parameter CFa in
Tables 5-1 through 5-4 were calculated as 90 percent of the peak acceleration response of
deterministic MCER spectra. Thus, values of the short-period spectrum shape adjustment factor
less than 0.9 (shown with blue shading in Tables 5-10 and 5-12) indicate those combinations of
site class and Ss intensity for which MCER response spectra are less than the 90 percent criterion
and values greater than 0.9 (shown in green in these tables) indicate combinations that are
modestly greater than the 90 percent criterion. Except for Site Class E, values are near 0.9
suggesting that adjustment of short-period design values for spectrum shape could be ignored for
Site Classes A, B, C and D (see Figure 5-10).

In a similar manner, Tables 5-13 through 5-16 summarize 1-second site factors (and long-period
site coefficients) and the corresponding values of the long-period spectrum shape adjustment
factor for magnitude M7.5 – M8.0 MCER ground motions (based on the average value of the CFv
parameter of Tables 5-7 and 5-8). Likewise, Tables 5-17 and 5-18 summarize values of the
spectrum shape adjustment factor for magnitude M7.0 – M7.5 MCER ground motions (based on
the average value of the CFv parameter of Tables 5-6 and 5-7) and Tables 5-19 and 5-20
summarize values of the spectrum shape adjustment factor for magnitude M6.5 – M7.0 MCER
ground motions (based on the average value of the CFv parameter of Tables 5-5 and 5-6). The
values of the parameter CFv in Tables 5-5 through 5-8 were calculated as 100 percent of the
response acceleration at the period of peak velocity response of deterministic MCER spectra.
Thus, values of the short-period spectrum shape adjustment factor less than 1.0 in Tables 5-14, 5-
16 and 5-17 – 5-20 (shown with blue shading) indicate those combinations of site class and Ss
intensity for which adjustment of long-period design values would not be necessary. Trends in
the values of the spectrum shape adjustment factor greater than the100 percent criterion are
illustrated in these tables by green shaking (100% - 120%), yellow shading (120% – 140%),
brown shading (140% - 160%) and pink shading (> 160%), indicating that the need for and
degree of adjustment of long-period design values for spectrum shape as a function of (1) site
class (site shear wave velocity), (2) magnitude of the earthquakes (s) governing site hazard and
(3) the intensity of MCER ground motions (Ss) at the site of interest.

5-8
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.9
Site Factor - Site Class B

0.8

0.7

0.6
Ss = 0.25g/S1 = 0.1g
0.5 Ss = 0.5g/S1 = 0.2g
0.4 Ss = 0.75g/S1 = 0.3g
Ss = 1.0g/S1 = 0.4g
0.3
Ss = 1.25g/S1 = 0.5g
0.2 Ss = 1.5g/S1 = 0.6g
Fa - ASCE 7-16
0.1
Fv - ASCE 7-16
0.0
0.1 1
Response Period (seconds)

Figure 5-7 Plots of site amplification curves derived from NGA-West2

GMPEs assuming default values of basin depth terms and the
new ASCE 7-16 site coefficients – Site Class B

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4
Site Factor - Site Class C

1.2

1.0
Ss = 0.25g/S1 = 0.1g
0.8 Ss = 0.5g/S1 = 0.2g
Ss = 0.75g/S1 = 0.3g
0.6
Ss = 1.0g/S1 = 0.4g
Ss = 1.25g/S1 = 0.5g
0.4
Ss = 1.5g/S1 = 0.6g
0.2 Fa - ASCE 7-16
Fv - ASCE 7-16
0.0
0.1 1
Response Period (seconds)

Figure 5-8 Plots of site amplification curves derived from NGA-West2

GMPEs assuming default values of basin depth terms and the
new ASCE 7-16 site coefficients – Site Class C

5-9
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

3.0

2.5
Site Factor - Site Class D

2.0

1.5
Ss = 0.25g/S1 = 0.1g
Ss = 0.5g/S1 = 0.2g
Ss = 0.75g/S1 = 0.3g
1.0
Ss = 1.0g/S1 = 0.4g
Ss = 1.25g/S1 = 0.5g

0.5 Ss = 1.5g/S1 = 0.6g

Fa - ASCE 7-16
Fv - ASCE 7-16
0.0
0.1 1
Response Period (seconds)

Figure 5-9 Plots of site amplification curves derived from NGA-West2

GMPEs assuming default values of basin depth terms and the
new ASCE 7-16 site coefficients – Site Class D

6.0

5.5

5.0
Site Factor - Site Class E (vs,30 = 155 mps)

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0
Ss = 0.25g/S1 = 0.1g
2.5 Ss = 0.5g/S1 = 0.2g
Ss = 0.75g/S1 = 0.3g
2.0
Ss = 1.0g/S1 = 0.4g
1.5 Ss = 1.25g/S1 = 0.5g

1.0 Ss = 1.5g/S1 = 0.6g

Fa - ASCE 7-16
0.5
Fv - ASCE 7-16
0.0
0.1 1
Response Period (seconds)

Figure 5-10 Plots of site amplification curves derived from NGA-West2

GMPEs assuming default values of basin depth terms and the
new ASCE 7-16 site coefficients – Site Class E

5-10
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Table 5-9 Values of the 0.2-second site factor F0.2 derived from the
NGA-West2 GMPEs
Site Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss ≥ 1.5
A 0.72 0.68 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66
B 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
C 1.4 1.3 1.24 1.25 1.19 1.2
D 1.72 1.49 1.34 1.22 1.13 1.05
E 2.03 1.52 1.21 1.01 0.87 0.77

Table 5-10 Values of the short-period spectrum shape adjustment

factor Ca (West2) based on average values of the
parameter CFa (Tables 5-1 – 5-4) and values of the 0.2-
second site factor F0.2 (Table 5-9)
Site Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss ≥ 1.5
A 0.91 0.89 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
B 0.90 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
C 0.91 0.90 0.91 0.90 0.92 0.91
D 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.02 1.05 1.07
E 1.13 1.15 1.21 1.27 1.35 1.35

Table 5-11 Values of the short-period seismic coefficient Fa of Table

11.4-1 of ASCE 7-16 (Table 2-1)
Site Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss ≥ 1.5
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
C 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
E 2.4 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.8

Table 5-12 Values of the short-period spectrum shape adjustment

factor Ca (West2) based on average values of the
parameter CFa (Tables 5-1 – 5-4) and values of the short-
period site coefficient Fa of ASCE 7-16 (Table 5-11)
Site Short-Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class Ss ≤ 0.25 Ss = 0.5 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.0 Ss = 1.25 Ss ≥ 1.5
A 0.82 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
B 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
C 0.93 0.89 0.94 0.92 0.91 0.89
D 1.08 1.06 1.12 1.13 1.19 1.12
E 0.96 1.03 1.13 1.16 1.17 1.30

5-11
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Table 5-13 Values of the 1-second period site factor F1.0 derived for the
NGA West2 GMPEs
Site 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 ≥ 0.6
A 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59
B 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
C 1.59 1.58 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.56
D 2.76 2.64 2.56 2.49 2.43 2.38
E 4.33 3.83 3.48 3.21 3.00 2.82

Table 5-14 Values of the long-period spectrum shape adjustment factor Cv

(West2) based on values of the parameter CFv representing
magnitude M7.5 – M8.0 earthquakes (Tables 5-7 and 5-8) and values
of the 1.0-second site factor F1.0 (Table 5-13)
Site 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter - TL = 12s
Class S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 ≥ 0.6
A 1.20 1.16 1.15 1.15 1.14 1.14
B 1.07 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.03 1.02
C 1.04 1.06 1.04 1.02 1.02 1.02
D 1.22 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.30 1.32
E 1.33 1.44 1.57 1.69 1.80 1.90

Table 5-15 Values of the long-period seismic coefficient Fv of Table

11.4-2 of ASCE 7-16 (Table 2-2)
Site 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter
Class S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 ≥ 0.6
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
C 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4
D 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7
E 4.2 3.3 2.8 2.4 2.2 2.0

Table 5-16 Values of the long-period spectrum shape adjustment factor Cv

(West2) based on values of the parameter CFv representing
magnitude M7.5 – M8.0 earthquakes (Tables 5-7 and 5-8) and values
of the long-period site coefficient Fv of ASCE 7-16 (Table 5-15)
Site 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter - TL = 12s
Class S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 ≥ 0.6
A 0.89 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.84
B 1.11 1.08 1.08 1.07 1.07 1.07
C 1.15 1.11 1.11 1.10 1.10 1.17
D 1.40 1.46 1.60 1.67 1.75 1.84
E 1.37 1.67 1.95 2.27 2.46 2.68

5-12
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Table 5-17 Values of the long-period spectrum shape adjustment factor Cv

(West2) based on values of the parameter CFv representing
magnitude M7.0 – M7.5 earthquakes (Tables 5-6 and 5-7) and
values of the 1.0-second site factor F1.0 (Table 5-13)
Site 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter - TL = 8s
Class S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 ≥ 0.6
A 1.10 1.08 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.06
B 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
C 0.98 1.01 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
D 1.07 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.12 1.13
E 1.15 1.25 1.37 1.47 1.56 1.64

Table 5-18 Values of the long-period spectrum shape adjustment factor Cv

(West2) based on values of the parameter CFv representing
magnitude M7.0 – M7.5 earthquakes (Tables 5-6 and 5-7) and values
of the long-period site coefficient Fv of ASCE 7-16 (Table 5-15)
Site 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter - TL = 8s
Class S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 ≥ 0.6
A 0.81 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
B 1.05 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04
C 1.08 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.05 1.13
D 1.23 1.29 1.40 1.45 1.51 1.58
E 1.19 1.46 1.70 1.96 2.12 2.30

Table 5-19 Values of the long-period spectrum shape adjustment factor Cv

(West2) based on values of the parameter CFv representing
magnitude M6.5 – M7.0 earthquakes (Tables 5-5 and 5-6) and
values of the 1.0-second site factor F1.0 (Table 5-13)
Site 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter - TL = 6s
Class S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 ≥ 0.6
A 1.04 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03
B 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
C 0.96 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
D 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.01 1.02
E 1.05 1.13 1.21 1.29 1.36 1.42

Table 5-20 Values of the long-period spectrum shape adjustment factor Cv

(West2) based on values of the parameter CFv representing
magnitude M6.5 – M7.0 earthquakes (Tables 5-6 and 5-7) and values
of the long-period site coefficient Fv of ASCE 7-16 (Table 5-15)
Site 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Parameter - TL = 6s
Class S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1 ≥ 0.6
A 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76
B 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04
C 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.12
D 1.15 1.21 1.29 1.33 1.37 1.42
E 1.09 1.31 1.51 1.73 1.85 2.00

5-13
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

5.3 Applicability to Sites Governed by Probabilistic MCER Ground Motions

This section compares site factors and spectrum shape adjustment factors derived from
deterministic MCER response spectra based on the PEER NGA-West2 GMPEs (Section 5.2)
with those derived from probabilistic MCER response spectra of 14 CyberShake sites in Southern
California. Probabilistic MCER response spectra were calculated and provided by Milner (2015)
of the Southern California Earthquake Consortium (SCEC).

SCEC researchers are comparing CyberShake 3-D simulations with the empirical-based MCER
ground motions at selected Southern California sites to support possible future integration of
simulated ground motions in the seismic design values maps of the ASCE 7 standard. As part of
this research, probabilistic MCER response spectra are calculated in accordance with Chapter 21
of ASCE 7-16 using current USGS hazard functions and the NGA West2 GMPEs. These
probabilistic MCER response spectra afforded a unique opportunity to compare site factors and
spectrum shape adjustment factors for site-specific ground motions of ASCE 7-16. Figure 5-11
is a Google map showing the location of 14 SCEC CyberShake sites for which probabilistic
MCER response spectra were obtained from SCEC and Table 5-21 provides site name and
location information, site properties (i.e., shear wave velocity and basin depth), and values of
ASCE 7-16 seismic parameters, Ss and S1 (Luco 2014).

Figure 5-11 Google Earth map showing locations of the 14 SCEC CyberShake sites.

5-14
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Table 5-21 Summary listing of site name, site location and site properties, and ASCE 7-16
seismic parameters, Ss and S1 of each of the 14 SCEC CyberShake sites
Site Site Location Site Properties (SCEC) ASCE 7-16
Name City County Latitude Longitude vs,30 (mps) z 1.0 z 2.5 Ss S1
S758 San Clemente Orange 33.38 -117.54 390 0.00 1.19 1.04 0.38
COO Compton Los Angeles 33.90 -118.22 280 0.73 4.28 1.71 0.61
S684 Riverside Riverside 33.94 -117.40 387 0.15 0.31 1.57 0.57
S429 Long Beach Los Angeles 33.81 -118.23 280 0.71 2.83 1.69 0.61
STNI Lynwood Los Angeles 33.93 -118.18 280 0.88 5.57 1.70 0.61
S603 Ontario San Bernardino 34.10 -117.54 354 0.19 0.43 1.77 0.66
P22 Tarzana Los Angeles 34.18 -118.57 280 0.22 2.27 1.85 0.65
SMCA Santa Monica Los Angeles 34.01 -118.49 387 0.59 2.47 1.92 0.68
LADT Los Angeles Los Angeles 34.05 -118.26 390 0.31 2.08 1.97 0.70
CCP Century City Los Angeles 34.05 -118.41 387 0.39 2.96 2.09 0.75
WNGC Rosemead Los Angeles 34.04 -118.07 280 0.51 2.44 1.89 0.68
PAS Pasadena Los Angeles 34.15 -118.17 748 0.01 0.31 2.11 0.77
SBSM San Bernardino San Bernardino 34.06 -117.29 280 0.33 1.77 2.47 0.99
LAPD Palmdale Los Angeles 34.56 -118.13 515 0.00 0.00 2.96 1.28

Probabilistic MCER response spectra were provided by SCEC for the actual site conditions of
each site (i.e., site properties shown in Table 5-21) as well as for hypothetical site conditions that
assume nine different site shear wave velocities ranging from very stiff site conditions, vs,30 =
1,620 mps (Site Class A) to very soft site conditions, vs,30 = 155 mps (Site Class E). Figure 5-12
is a plot of the probabilistic MCER response spectra for 7 of the 14 sites and two of the nine
hypothetical site conditions, Site Class BC (vs,30 = 762 mps) and Site Class D (vs,30 = 265 mps).

4.0
LAPD-D
LAPD-BC
3.5
SBSM-D
SBSM-BC
3.0 LADT-D
LADT-BC
Spectral Acceleration (g)

2.5 P22-D
P22-BC
2.0 S684-D
S684-BC
S429-D
1.5
S429-BC
S758-D
1.0 S758-BC

0.5

0.0
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 5-12 Probabilistic MCER response spectra for 7 of 14 SCEC sites and hypothetical
Site Class BC (vs,30 = 762 mps) and Site Class D (vs,30 = 265 mps) conditions

5-15
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

The assumption of multiple, hypothetical site classes provides a basis to investigate trends in site
factors and spectrum shape adjustment factors derived from the probabilistic MCER response
spectra. Note. In all cases, probabilistic MCER response spectra were calculated in accordance
with the requirements of Chapter 21 of ASCE 7-16 (i.e., as if the geotechnical investigation of
the site had determined the assumed hypothetical value of site shear wave velocity). Of
particular interest to the comparison of site factors and spectrum shape factor are Site Classes C
and D which are quite common (i.e., 90 plus percent of all sites) and Site Class E which
(although uncommon) would pose the most significant threat to long-period buildings.

Figure 5-12 illustrates the range of probabilistic MCER response spectra of the 14 SCEC
CyberShake sites in terms of both intensity and frequency content of ground motions. Strongest
shaking is associated with the LAPD site in Palmdale (Mojave Desert) which is almost directly
on top of the San Andreas Fault and with the SBSM site in San Bernardino which is relatively
close to San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults. The seismic hazard at these sites is dominated by
larger magnitude (e.g., M7.5) events on the associated fault segments. Other sites with hazard
dominated by larger magnitude events, but which are not as close to the causative fault, include
the s603 site in Ontario and the s684 site in Riverside. As shown in Figure 5-11, these sites
(LAPD, SBSM, s603, s684) are on the periphery of the study region closer to sources with the
potential for large magnitude events. Other SCEC CyberShake sites in, or closer to, the Los
Angeles basin can have MCER ground motions of stronger intensity, but their seismic hazard is
dominated by (often multiple) sources with characteristic magnitudes of about M7.0, or less.

In Figure 5-12 it may be noted that peak probabilistic MCER acceleration of the SBSM (San
Bernardino) site for Site Class D conditions (i.e., approximately 3.5 g) occurs at a period of 0.5 s
illustrating the shift in the frequency content of the ground motions to longer periods for this
assumed Site Class D site which is relatively close to highly active faults with the potential for
large magnitude events. It may also noted that the 0.2 s response spectral acceleration value for
Site Class BC conditions (i.e., approximately 3.25 g) is much greater than the ASCE 7-16 value
of Ss given in Table 5-21 (i.e., 2.47 g) indicating that short-period response at this site is
governed by deterministic MCER ground motions. For consistency, site factors and spectrum
shape adjustment factors are compared using probabilistic MCER response spectra, recognizing
that design of buildings at certain SCEC CyberShake sites would be governed by seismic criteria
based on deterministic MCER ground motions.

Tables 5-22, 5-24 and 5-26 summarize values of Ss (taken as S0.2, the value of the MCER
response spectrum at 0.2 s) and S1 (taken as S1.0, the value of the MCER response spectrum at 1.0
s) and derive values of site factors F0.2 and F1.0 (i.e., site amplification at periods of 0.2 s and 1.0
s) and values of the parameters CFa and CFv from the MCER response spectra of each of the 14
SCEC CyberShake sites for Site Class C (vs,30 = 488 mps), Site Class D (vs,30 = 265 mps) and
Site Class E (vs,30 = 155 mps) site conditions, respectively. Tables 5-23, 5-25 and 5-27
summarize the calculation of values of the spectrum shape adjustment factors Ca and Cv of each
of the 14 SCEC CyberShake sites for Site Class C, Site Class D and Site Class E conditions,
respectively. In Tables 5-23, 5-25 and 5-27, values of the spectrum shape adjustment factors Ca
and Cv are calculated from values of the parameters CFa and CFv using the derived values of site
factors F0.2 and F1.0 and, for comparison, values of these parameters are also derived from ASCE
7-16 values of site factors Fa and Fv.

5-16
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Table 5-22 Summary of short-period and 1-second values of response spectral acceleration
Ss and S1 and values of site factors F0.2 and F1.0 and site-shape parameters CFa
and CFv derived from the probabilistic MCER response spectra of 14 SCEC
CyberShake sites with hypothetical Site Class C (vs,30 = 488 mps) site conditions
SCEC SCEC Probabilistic MCER Response Spectra Derived Site and Spectrum Shape Factors
Site SS (g) S1 (g) S0.2 (g) S1.0 (g) F0.2 F1.0 CFa CFv
Name vs,30 = 762 mps vs,30 = 488 mps S0.2/SS S1.0 /S1 Derived from SaM,488
S758 1.15 0.37 1.41 0.58 1.22 1.57 1.10 1.57
COO 1.65 0.52 1.96 0.82 1.19 1.57 1.07 1.57
S684 1.48 0.54 1.84 0.83 1.25 1.54 1.22 1.64
S429 1.67 0.54 1.96 0.85 1.17 1.57 1.07 1.57
STNI 1.76 0.55 2.08 0.86 1.18 1.57 1.07 1.57
S603 1.83 0.60 2.08 0.94 1.14 1.57 1.07 1.68
P22 1.94 0.61 2.30 0.95 1.18 1.57 1.07 1.57
SMCA 2.03 0.66 2.34 1.03 1.15 1.57 1.06 1.57
LADT 2.34 0.72 2.66 1.13 1.14 1.57 1.05 1.57
CCP 2.27 0.74 2.59 1.15 1.14 1.56 1.05 1.56
WNGC 2.47 0.74 2.78 1.16 1.12 1.56 1.04 1.56
PAS 2.90 0.88 3.20 1.38 1.10 1.56 1.03 1.56
SBSM 3.26 1.19 3.58 1.85 1.10 1.56 1.05 1.56
LAPD 3.45 1.43 3.70 2.21 1.07 1.55 1.08 1.55

Table 5-23 Summary of values of derived site factors F0.2 and F1.0 and ASCE 7-16 site factors
Fa and Fv and values of spectrum shape adjustment factors Ca and Cv based on these
values of site factors for the probabilistic MCER response spectra of 14 SCEC
CyberShake sites with hypothetical Site Class C (vs,30 = 488 mps) site conditions
SCEC Shape Factors based on Derived Site Factors Shape Factors based on ASCE 7-16 Site Factors
Site F0.2 F1.0 Ca Cv Fa Fv Ca Cv
Name S0.2 /SS S1.0 /S1 CFa/F0.2 CFv/F1.0 ASCE 7-16 CFa/Fa CFv/Fv
S758 1.22 1.57 0.90 1.00 1.20 1.50 0.92 1.05
COO 1.19 1.57 0.90 1.00 1.20 1.48 0.90 1.06
S684 1.25 1.64 0.98 1.07 1.20 1.46 1.02 1.12
S429 1.17 1.57 0.91 1.00 1.20 1.46 0.89 1.07
STNI 1.18 1.57 0.91 1.00 1.20 1.45 0.89 1.08
S603 1.14 1.68 0.94 1.07 1.20 1.40 0.89 1.20
P22 1.18 1.57 0.90 1.00 1.20 1.40 0.89 1.12
SMCA 1.15 1.57 0.92 1.00 1.20 1.40 0.88 1.12
LADT 1.14 1.57 0.92 1.00 1.20 1.40 0.87 1.12
CCP 1.14 1.56 0.92 1.00 1.20 1.40 0.88 1.12
WNGC 1.12 1.56 0.92 1.00 1.20 1.40 0.86 1.12
PAS 1.10 1.56 0.93 1.00 1.20 1.40 0.85 1.12
SBSM 1.10 1.56 0.95 1.00 1.20 1.40 0.87 1.11
LAPD 1.07 1.55 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.40 0.90 1.11

5-17
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Table 5-24 Summary of short-period and 1-second values of response spectral acceleration
Ss and S1 and values of site factors F0.2 and F1.0 and site-shape parameters CFa
and CFv derived from the probabilistic MCER response spectra of 14 SCEC
CyberShake sites with hypothetical Site Class D (vs,30 = 265 mps) site conditions
SCEC SCEC Probabilistic MCER Response Spectra Derived Site and Spectrum Shape Factors
Site SS (g) S1 (g) S0.2 (g) S1.0 (g) F0.2 F1.0 CFa CFv
Name vs,30 = 762 mps vs,30 = 265 mps S0.2/SS S1.0 /S1 Derived from SaM,265
S758 1.15 0.37 1.48 0.95 1.29 2.55 1.26 2.65
COO 1.65 0.52 1.90 1.28 1.15 2.46 1.15 2.55
S684 1.48 0.54 1.55 1.32 1.05 2.45 1.28 2.91
S429 1.67 0.54 1.84 1.31 1.10 2.40 1.10 2.53
STNI 1.76 0.55 1.98 1.34 1.12 2.45 1.12 2.52
S603 1.83 0.60 1.73 1.47 0.95 2.47 1.10 3.21
P22 1.94 0.61 2.16 1.49 1.11 2.44 1.13 2.50
SMCA 2.03 0.66 2.09 1.56 1.03 2.36 1.06 2.48
LADT 2.34 0.72 2.30 1.69 0.98 2.35 1.02 2.41
CCP 2.27 0.74 2.24 1.72 0.99 2.33 1.02 2.43
WNGC 2.47 0.74 2.35 1.73 0.95 2.33 0.99 2.39
PAS 2.90 0.88 2.57 2.00 0.89 2.27 0.95 2.33
SBSM 3.26 1.19 2.46 2.64 0.76 2.22 0.96 2.60
LAPD 3.45 1.43 2.50 3.03 0.73 2.13 0.97 2.76

Table 5-25 Summary of values of derived site factors F0.2 and F1.0 and ASCE 7-16 site factors
Fa and Fv and values of spectrum shape adjustment factors Ca and Cv based on these
values of site factors for the probabilistic MCER response spectra of 14 SCEC
CyberShake sites with hypothetical Site Class D (vs,30 = 265 mps) site conditions
SCEC Shape Factors based on Derived Site Factors Shape Factors based on ASCE 7-16 Site Factors
Site F0.2 F1.0 Ca Cv Fa Fv Ca Cv
Name S0.2 /SS S1.0 /S1 CFa/F0.2 CFv/F1.0 ASCE 7-16 CFa/Fa CFv/Fv
S758 1.29 2.55 0.98 1.04 1.06 1.93 1.19 1.37
COO 1.15 2.46 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.78 1.15 1.43
S684 1.05 2.45 1.22 1.19 1.00 1.76 1.28 1.65
S429 1.10 2.40 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.76 1.10 1.44
STNI 1.12 2.45 1.00 1.03 1.00 1.75 1.12 1.44
S603 0.95 2.47 1.16 1.30 1.00 1.70 1.10 1.89
P22 1.11 2.44 1.01 1.02 1.00 1.70 1.13 1.47
SMCA 1.03 2.36 1.02 1.05 1.00 1.70 1.06 1.46
LADT 0.98 2.35 1.04 1.03 1.00 1.70 1.02 1.42
CCP 0.99 2.33 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.70 1.02 1.43
WNGC 0.95 2.33 1.04 1.02 1.00 1.70 0.99 1.41
PAS 0.89 2.27 1.07 1.02 1.00 1.70 0.95 1.37
SBSM 0.76 2.22 1.28 1.17 1.00 1.70 0.96 1.53
LAPD 0.73 2.13 1.34 1.30 1.00 1.70 0.97 1.62

5-18
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Table 5-26 Summary of short-period and 1-second values of response spectral acceleration
Ss and S1 and values of site factors F0.2 and F1.0 and site-shape parameters CFa
and CFv derived from the probabilistic MCER response spectra of 14 SCEC
CyberShake sites with hypothetical Site Class E (vs,30 = 155 mps) site conditions
SCEC SCEC Probabilistic MCER Response Spectra Derived Site and Spectrum Shape Factors
Site SS (g) S1 (g) S0.2 (g) S1.0 (g) F0.2 F1.0 CFa CFv
Name vs,30 = 762 mps vs,30 = 155 mps S0.2/SS S1.0 /S1 Derived from SaM,155
S758 1.15 0.37 1.31 1.31 1.14 3.51 1.37 4.40
COO 1.65 0.52 1.54 1.67 0.93 3.19 1.16 4.21
S684 1.48 0.54 1.13 1.66 0.77 3.07 1.07 5.05
S429 1.67 0.54 1.57 1.64 0.94 3.02 1.10 4.24
STNI 1.76 0.55 1.58 1.73 0.90 3.16 1.12 4.14
S603 1.83 0.60 1.38 1.80 0.76 3.03 0.93 5.58
P22 1.94 0.61 1.55 1.90 0.80 3.13 1.00 4.08
SMCA 2.03 0.66 1.61 1.89 0.80 2.87 1.01 4.09
LADT 2.34 0.72 1.66 2.04 0.71 2.83 0.94 3.91
CCP 2.27 0.74 1.66 2.03 0.73 2.76 0.95 3.96
WNGC 2.47 0.74 1.67 2.07 0.68 2.78 0.88 3.86
PAS 2.90 0.88 1.67 2.28 0.58 2.58 0.79 3.73
SBSM 3.26 1.19 1.65 2.85 0.51 2.39 0.79 4.53
LAPD 3.45 1.43 1.65 2.98 0.48 2.09 0.79 4.81

Table 5-27 Summary of values of derived site factors F0.2 and F1.0 and ASCE 7-16 site factors
Fa and Fv and values of spectrum shape adjustment factors Ca and Cv based on these
values of site factors for the probabilistic MCER response spectra of 14 SCEC
CyberShake sites with hypothetical Site Class E (vs,30 = 155 mps) site conditions
SCEC Shape Factors based on Derived Site Factors Shape Factors based on ASCE 7-16 Site Factors
Site F0.2 F1.0 Ca Cv Fa Fv Ca Cv
Name S0.2 /SS S1.0 /S1 CFa/F0.2 CFv/F1.0 ASCE 7-16 CFa/Fa CFv/Fv
S758 1.14 3.51 1.21 1.25 1.04 2.52 1.32 1.75
COO 0.93 3.19 1.24 1.32 0.80 2.18 1.45 1.93
S684 0.77 3.07 1.39 1.65 0.81 2.16 1.32 2.34
S429 0.94 3.02 1.17 1.41 0.80 2.16 1.38 1.96
STNI 0.90 3.16 1.25 1.31 0.80 2.15 1.41 1.93
S603 0.76 3.03 1.22 1.84 0.80 2.00 1.16 2.79
P22 0.80 3.13 1.25 1.31 0.80 2.00 1.25 2.04
SMCA 0.80 2.87 1.27 1.43 0.80 2.00 1.26 2.04
LADT 0.71 2.83 1.32 1.38 0.80 2.00 1.17 1.96
CCP 0.73 2.76 1.30 1.44 0.80 2.00 1.18 1.98
WNGC 0.68 2.78 1.30 1.39 0.80 2.00 1.10 1.93
PAS 0.58 2.58 1.37 1.44 0.80 2.00 0.99 1.86
SBSM 0.51 2.39 1.56 1.89 0.80 2.00 0.99 2.27
LAPD 0.48 2.09 1.65 2.31 0.80 2.00 0.99 2.41

5-19
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

In Tables 5-23, 5-25 and 5-27, values of Ca equal to or less than 0.9 and values of Cv equal to or
less than 1.0 indicate no adjustment would be required for spectrum shape. Such is generally the
case for Site Class C (Table 5-23), except for values of Cv based on values of Fv of ASCE 7-16
(which are still only about 1.1, on average), indicating that the probabilistic MCER response
spectra of 14 SCEC CyberShake sites supports ignoring spectrum shape adjustment for Site
Class C. For Site Classes D and E, values of the spectrum shape adjustment factors Ca and Cv
are typically quite different when calculated using derived values of site amplification, F0.2 and
F1.0 and when calculated using values of the site coefficients, Fa and Fv, indicating the
importance of site amplification to the calculation of these factors.

Figure 5-13 compares 0.2-second site amplification and Figure 5-14 compares 1-second site
amplification for Site Class C, D and E site conditions from three sources (1) site amplification
derived from deterministic MCER response spectra (i.e., values of F0.2 from Table 5-9 and values
of F1.0 from Table 5-13), (2) site amplification derived from probabilistic MCER response spectra
of the 14 SCEC CyberShake sites (i.e., values of F0.2 and F1.0 from Tables 5-22, 5-24 and 5-26)
and (3) values of Fa and Fv of ASCE 7-16 (see Table 2-2). As shown in Figure 5-13, short-
period (0.2-second) site amplification for Class C (vs,30 = 488 mps) site conditions is essentially
the same for each of the three sources of site effects. For softer soil sites (Site Class D and E),
trends in site amplification with MCER response spectral acceleration (Ss) are similar for the
three sources, although site factors derived from probabilistic (SCEC) MCER response spectra
tend to be somewhat greater than the Fa values of ASCE 7-16 and the site amplification curves
derived from deterministic (West2) response spectra (e.g., by about 10 percent, on average, for
Site Class D).

2.50
Derived - SCEC - Site Class E
2.25 Derived - West2 - Site Class E
ASCE 7-16 Fa - Site Class E
2.00 Derived - SCEC - Site Class D
Derived - West2 - Site Class D
1.75 ASCE 7-16 Fa - Site Class D
Derived - SCEC - Site Class C
Site Amplification

1.50 Derived - West2 - Site Class C

ASCE 7-16 Fa - Site Class C
1.25

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
MCER Response Spectral Acceleration Parameter,Ss (g)

Figure 5-13 Comparison of 0.2-second site amplification (1) derived from deterministic
MCER response spectra (West2), (2) derived from probabilistic MCER response
spectra (14 SCEC CyberShake sites) and (3) values of Fa of ASCE 7-16.

5-20
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

5.0
Derived - SCEC - Site Class E
Derived - West2 - Site Class E
4.5
ASCE 7-16 Fv - Site Class E
Derived - SCEC - Site Class D
4.0 Derived - West2 - Site Class D
ASCE 7-16 Fv - Site Class D
Derived - SCEC - Site Class C
3.5
Site Amplification

Derived - West2 - Site Class C

ASCE 7-16 Fv - Site Class C
3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
MCER Response Spectral Acceleration Parameter,S1 (g)

Figure 5-14 Comparison of 1-second site amplification (1) derived from deterministic
MCER response spectra (West2), (2) derived from probabilistic MCER response
spectra (14 SCEC CyberShake sites) and (3) values of Fv of ASCE 7-16.

As shown in Figure 5-14, site amplification for Class C (vs,30 = 488 mps) site conditions is
essentially the same for each of the three sources of site effects. For softer soil sites (Site Class
D and E), site amplification derived from deterministic (West2) MCER response spectra
compares well with site factors derived from probabilistic (SCEC) MCER response spectra which
are based on seismic hazard functions that also incorporate the NGA-West2 GMPEs. In contrast,
values of the site coefficient Fv are very different and appear to significantly under-estimate the
inherent site amplification of the West2 GMPEs for stronger MCER ground motions.
The apparent underestimation of site amplification is due, in part, to ASCE 7-16 site coefficients
being effectively anchored to median geomean ground motions, rather than to 84th percentile
maximum response of MCER ground motions of ASCE 7-16. The difference between median
geomean and 84th percentile maximum ground motions is approximately a factor of 2.35, i.e., 1.8
(approximate ratio of 84th to median response) x 1.3approximatete ratio of maximum to geomean
response). If values of the site coefficient Fv are replotted in terms of 2.35 x the value of S1, to
adjust from median geomean to 84th percentile maximum response, then the Fv values are
approximately equal to values of site amplification derived from deterministic MCER and
Probabilistic MCER response spectra for Site Class E. Such adjustments, however, are not
sufficient to fully rectify values of Fv with derived values of site amplification for Site Class D.
For Site Class D, the values of the site coefficient Fv would need to be increased by about 20
percent as well replotted in terms of 2.35 x the value of S1, to approximately equal values of site
amplification derived from deterministic MCER and Probabilistic MCER response spectra.

5-21
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Figure 5-15 compares curves of the parameter CFa derived from (1) deterministic MCER
response spectra for magnitude M6.5, M7.0, M7.5 and M8.0 events, respectively, and (2) values
of probabilistic MCER response spectra for the 14 SCEC CyberShake sites. Comparisons are
made separately for Site Class C, Site Class D and Site Class E conditions. The parameter CFa
includes both site and spectrum shape effects. Comparison of CFa values, rather than Ca values,
avoids the influence of site amplification which is problematic due to differences in the values of
site coefficient Fa of ASCE 7-16 and the derived values of F0.2.

2.50
M6- Derived - SCEC - Site Class E
2.25 M8 Derived - West2 - Site Class E
Derived - SCEC -- Site Class D
2.00 Derived - West2 - Site Class D
Derived - SCEC - Site Class C
1.75 M6-
M8 Derived - West2 - Site Class C

1.50
CFa Parameter

1.25 M6-
M8
1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
MCER Response Spectral Acceleration Parameter,Ss (g)

Figure 5-15 Comparison of values of the parameter CFa derived from (1) deterministic
MCER (West2) response spectra and (2) probabilistic MCER (SCEC) response
spectra, i.e., 14 SCEC CyberShake sites in Southern California.

As shown in Figure 5-15, values of the parameter CFa are essentially magnitude independent for
each of the three site classes and are similar for deterministic (West2) and probabilistic (SCEC)
MCER ground motions. The strong nonlinearity of CFa parameter at lower ground motion
intensities is not relevant to the 14 SCEC CyberShake sites in Southern California all of which
have values of the probabilistic MCER response spectral acceleration parameter Ss of at least 1.0
g, and greater than 2.0 g for most sites. It may be noted that the value of the parameter CFa is
approximately the same for Site Classes C and D (for values of Ss greater than 1.0 g) suggesting
that earthquake design forces for short-period buildings should be the same for these site and
seismic hazard conditions (which represent the vast majority of all sites in regions of high
seismicity).
Figure 5-16 compares curves of the parameter CFV derived from (1) deterministic MCER
response spectra for magnitude M6.5, M7.0, M7.5 and M8.0 events, respectively, and (2) values
of probabilistic MCER response spectra for the 14 SCEC CyberShake sites. Comparisons are
made separately for Site Class C, Site Class D and Site Class E conditions. The parameter CFv
includes both site and spectrum shape effects. Comparison of CFv values, rather than Cv values,

5-22
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

avoids the influence of site amplification which is problematic due to the often large differences
in the values of site coefficient Fv of ASCE 7-16 and the derived values of F1.0.

7.0
Derived - SCEC - Site Class E
6.5 Derived - West2 - Site Class E
M8 Derived - SCEC -- Site Class D
6.0 S603
Derived - West2 - Site Class D
5.5 S684
Derived - SCEC - Site Class C
M7.5
Derived - West2 - Site Class C
5.0
M7 SBSM LAPD
CFv Parameter

4.5
M6.5
4.0
M8
3.5
M7.5
3.0
M7
2.5

2.0 M8

1.5 M7

1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
MCER Response Spectral Acceleration Parameter,S1 (g)

Figure 5-16 Comparison of values of the parameter CFv derived from (1) deterministic
MCER (West2) response spectra and (2) probabilistic MCER (SCEC) response
spectra, i.e., 14 SCEC CyberShake sites in Southern California, including
S684 (Riverside), S602 (Ontario), SBSM (San Bernardino) and LAPD
(Palmdale) whose seismic hazard is governed by large magnitude M7.5 –
M8.0 earthquakes.

As shown in Figure 5-16, values of the parameter CFv are essentially magnitude
independent for Site Class C (vs,30 = 488 mps) conditions and have approximately the same
value for deterministic (West2) and probabilistic (SCEC) MCER ground motions. For Site
Class D and E conditions, values of CFv are magnitude dependent. For most SCEC sites in
the Los Angeles basin, probabilistic (SCEC) values of the parameter CFv are similar to the
deterministic (West2) curve of the parameter CFv derived from M7.0 ground motions. A
magnitude of M7.0 is consistent with the magnitudes of earthquakes governing seismic
hazard at sites in the Los Angeles basin. Away from Los Angeles basin, SCEC sites s684
(Riverside), s602 (Ontario), SBSM (San Bernardino) and LAPD (Palmdale), probabilistic
(SCEC) values of the parameter CFv are similar to the deterministic (West2) curves of the
parameter CFv derived from either M7.5 or M8.0 ground motions. Magnitudes of 7.5 to
M8.0 are consistent with the earthquake magnitudes on the segments of the San Andreas
and San Jacinto faults which govern seismic hazard at these sites.

5-23
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

5.4 Summary of Phase II Findings

This section summarizes key findings of the Phase II investigations of the identified short-
coming of the ELF and MRSA seismic design procedures. Phase II investigations utilized
deterministic and probabilistic MCER response spectra calculated in accordance with the site-
specific requirements of Chapter 21 of ASCE 7-10 for the same methods, including the NGA-
West2 GMPEs, as those used by the USGS to develop the earthquake ground motion maps of
ASCE 7-16. The findings of the Phase II investigations compliment those of the Phase I
investigations (Section 4.4) and together provide the basis for the recommendations for proposed
changes to ASCE 7-16 (Section 6.2).
The following paragraphs address the same summary topics as those of Section 4.4 (Phase I
findings), emphasizing similarities and differences of Phase II findings based on the NGA West
2 GMPEs with those of Phase I based on the NGA West1 GMPEs. This section does not repeat
introductory material common to both phases, and Section 4.4 should be referred to for this
information.
Frequency Content of MCER Ground Motions. Consistent with Phase I (West1) findings, the
frequency content of deterministic (West2) MCER response spectra shifts to longer periods for
softer sites (e.g., Site Class D and Site Class E conditions) and larger magnitude events typical of
MCER ground motions. Contrary to Phase I (West 1) findings, the peak value of response
spectral acceleration tends to increase as the value of site shear wave velocity decreases (e.g.,
from Site Class BC to Site Class DE conditions). As illustrated in Figure 5-5, West 1 and West 2
deterministic MCER response are almost the same for Site Class BC (vs,30 = 2,500 fps) reference
site conditions but very different for Site Class CD (vs,30 = 1,200 fps) and Site Class DE (vs,30 =
600 fps) conditions. For example, short-period accelerations of West2 MCER response spectrum
is about one-third greater than those of the West1 MCER response spectrum for Site Class CD
conditions (i.e. very common site conditions).
Differences in the frequency content of West1 and West2 deterministic MCER response spectra
have significant implications on derived values of site amplification and spectrum shape
adjustment factors, including the need for spectrum shape adjustment of short-period design
coefficients. At a more fundamental level, a one-third difference in the values of deterministic
MCER response spectra predicted by the NGA West1 GMPEs and the NGA West2 GMPEs for
the same set of site and source parameters seems incongruous with the similarity of the NGA
West1 and NGA West2 databases for records of engineering significance (e.g., see Figure 1-1).
Derived Values of the Parameters CFa and CFv. Although the values of the parameters CFa
and CFv are derived from West2 response spectra are somewhat different from those of the
values of the parameters CFa and CFv derived from West1 response spectra, the trends are
essentially the same.
Values of the parameter CFa is significantly nonlinear (i.e., intensity dependent) at lower
intensities of MCER ground motions and essentially magnitude independent, suggesting that
values of Ca are also magnitude independent (since site amplification is assumed to be magnitude
independent). In contrast, values of the parameter CFv are essentially intensity independent
(accept at very low MCER ground motion intensity), but significantly magnitude dependent
suggesting that values of Cv should also be magnitude dependent.

5-24
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Derived Values of the Site Amplification Parameters F0.2 and F1.0. In general, values of the
site amplification parameter F0.2 derived from the NGA-West2 GMPEs are similar to those
derived from the NGA-West1 GMPEs, and, consistent with Phase I findings, similar to values of
the site coefficient Fa of ASCE 7-16. Contrary to Phase I findings, values of the site
amplification parameter F1.0 derived from the NGA-West2 GMPEs are significantly different
from values of the site coefficient Fv of ASCE 7-16 (and significantly different from those
derived from the NGA-West1 GMPEs) for Site Class D and Site Class E conditions. As
illustrated in Figures 5-9 and 5-10, values of the site coefficient Fv significantly under-estimate
the inherent site amplification of the NGA-West2 GMPEs for stronger MCER ground motions
(e.g., by a factor of about 50 percent for Site Class D and S1 = 0.6g).
Differences in the values of the site amplification parameter F1.0 derived from NGA-West2
GMPEs and values of the site coefficient Fv of ASCE 7-16 have significant implications on
values of spectrum shape adjustment factor Cv which are calculated from values of the
parameter CFv using either F1.0 or Fv. Conceptually, values of the spectrum shape adjustment
factor Cv should be calculated using the derived values of site amplification F1.0. However, such
values of the spectrum shape adjustment factor Cv when used with the (smaller) values of site
coefficient Fv of ASCE 7-16 to calculate values of the parameter SM1 (Eq. 3-2) could effect
potentially unconservative values of seismic design coefficients for Site Class D and Site Class E
site conditions.
Derived Values of the Spectrum Shape Adjustment Factors Ca and Cv. In contrast to Phase I
(West1) findings, values of Ca based on the NGA West2 GMPEs (e.g., see Tables 5-11), suggest
that short-period seismic design coefficients for Site Class E conditions and stronger intensities
of MCER ground motions (i.e., S1 ≥ 1.0) require adjustment for the effects of spectrum shape.
Consistent with Phase I (West1) findings, values of Cv based on NGA-West2 GMPEs suggest
that spectrum shape adjustment can be ignored for Site Classes A, B and C and for values of S1 ≤
1.0 (for all site classes, except Site Class E), and that for other cases the effects of spectrum
shape increase with (1) decrease in site shear wave velocity and (2) increase in ground motion
intensity. Due to the significant differences in the values of site factors (discussed above), values
of Cv based on the NGA-West2 GMPEs are similar to, but generally less than those based on the
NGA-West1 GMPEs when calculated using derived values of site amplification, but significantly
larger than those based on the NGA-West1 GMPEs when calculated using the site coefficients of
ASCE 7-16.
Applicability to Sites Governed by Probabilistic MCER Ground Motions. The applicability
of spectrum shape adjustment factors based on deterministic MCER ground motions to sites
governed by probabilistic MCER ground motions was investigated by comparing values the
parameters CFa and CFv based on deterministic MCER response spectra (deterministic CFs) with
values of these parameters based on probabilistic MCER response spectra (probabilistic CFs) for
14 SCEC CyberShake sites in Southern California. Both deterministic and probabilistic MCER
response spectra were based on the NGA West2 GMPEs.
Consistent with Phase I (West1) findings, values of deterministic CFs are similar to the
corresponding values of probabilistic CFs for each of the 14 SCEC CyberShake sites when
values of deterministic and probabilistic CFs are compared for similar earthquake magnitudes
(i.e., magnitude of deterministic MCER ground motions is similar to the magnitude(s) of
governing seismic hazard of the probabilistic MCER ground motions of site of interest).

5-25
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Summary of Investigations

This report documents a study undertaken (1) to investigate an identified short-coming with ELF
and MSRA seismic design procedures of ASCE 7 related to the use of only two response periods
(0.2 s and 1.0 s) to define seismic design forces and (2) to develop a technical basis and
recommendations for improving the seismic design requirements of the 2015 NEHRP Provisions
and ASCE 7-16 to minimize this short-coming. The recommendations of this study were used
by the Provisions Update Committee (PUC) of the Building Seismic Safety Council to develop
and adopt code changes for the 2015 NEHRP Provisions, and subsequently by the Seismic
Subcommittee (SSC) of ASCE 7 Standards Committee to incorporate these changes into ASCE
7-16.
The subject study was performed in two phases. Phase I investigations utilized the deterministic
and probabilistic MCER response spectra and underlying seismic hazard functions and methods
of ASCE 7-10. Phase II investigations utilized the deterministic and probabilistic MCER
response spectra and underlying seismic hazard functions and methods of ASCE 7-16. The
results of the Phase II investigations with ASCE 7-16 earthquake ground motion criteria are the
more relevant set of results for developing recommended improvements to the seismic design
procedures of ASCE 7-16. Nonetheless, the results of Phase I investigation with ASCE 7-10
earthquake ground motion criteria provided a “sanity check” on Phase II findings (and the
accuracy and reliability of the underlying methods), and both Phase I and Phase II findings were
considered in the development of recommended improvements to the seismic design procedures
of ASCE 7-16.
The subject study pursued two options for improving the accuracy and reliability of ELF and
MRSA design procedures. The first option (Option 1) involved re-formulation of the seismic
design parameters of ASCE 7-10 to incorporate a new “spectrum shape adjustment” factor, as
described in Section 3.2 of this report. This option would require development and incorporation
of new tables of spectrum shape adjustment factors in Section 11.4 (i.e., similar in format to site
coefficient Tables 11.4-1 and 11.4-2). The second option (Option 2) would modify the criteria of
Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7-10 to require site-specific procedures for design, in lieu of ELF and
MRSA, for those site conditions for which the ELF and MSRA procedures do not provide
sufficiently accurate and reliable designs.
Option 1 would not change the permitted use of ELF and MRSA procedures, but would require
conceptual re-formulation of the seismic parameters of Section 11.4, a major undertaking for the
PUC late in the 2015 Seismic Code cycle. Option 2 would avoid conceptual re-formulation of
seismic parameters, but would require would require site-specific analysis for sites that would
not otherwise warrant detailed site hazard investigation. Both options assume modification of
the requirements of Section 21.4 for determining design acceleration parameters (SDS and SD1,
and SMS and SM1) from a site-specific MCER response spectrum in accordance with the rules
illustrated in Figure 3-2 of this report.
Proposed changes to ELF and MRSA design procedures that incorporate new “spectrum shape
adjustment” factors (Option 1) are contained in Proposal PUC IT11-006; proposed changes to
site-specific requirements of Section 21.4 are contained in Proposal PUC IT11-007; and

6-1
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

proposed changes to site-specific criteria of Section 11.4.7 are contained in Proposal PUC IT11-
008. Proposal PUC IT11-006 (Option 1) was withdrawn by the PUC in lieu of Proposal PUC
IT11-008 (Option 2), although the criteria of Proposal PUC IT11-008 were based, in part, on the
values of the spectrum shape adjustment factors of Proposal PUC IT11-006. Section 6.2
describes each of these proposals (i.e., in their final, as adopted, form for Proposals PUC IT11-
007 and PUC IT11-008). Proposals PUC IT11-007 and PUC IT11-008 were subsequently
adopted with minor editorial changes by the ASCE 7-16 Standards Committee for ASCE 7-16.

6.2 Proposed Changes to ASCE 7-16 Seismic Design Procedures

This section provides background and describes each of the three PUC proposals including
verbatim copies of proposed changes to the provisions of the 2015 NEHRP Provisions,
beginning with proposed changes to Section 21.4 (PUC IT11-007), pre-requisite requirements
for the two primary proposals, PUC IT11-006 (Option 1) and PUC IT11-008 (Option 2).
6.2.1 Site-Specific Methods of Section 21.4 (PUC IT11-007)
Section 21.4 provides criteria for determining values of parameters SDS and SD1 from a site-
specific design response spectrum (Section 21.3). The criteria of Section 21.4 of ASCE 7-10 are
potentially unconservative for determining the value of the parameter SD1 from a site-specific
spectrum with peak velocity response occurring at a period beyond 2 seconds (e.g., soil sites
whose hazard is governed by large magnitude earthquakes). The criteria of Section 21.4 of
ASCE 7-10 are also inconsistent in the degree of conservatism used to determine the value of the
parameter SDS from a site-specific spectrum depending on the period at which peak acceleration
response occurs. This proposal revises the criteria of Section 21.4 of ASCE 7-10 to avoid
potentially unconservative values of the parameter SD1 and to provide a consistent degree of
conservatism in the value of the parameter SDS, and to provide an appropriate basis for proposed
changes to the seismic parameters of Section 11.4.3 of Proposal IT11-006 (Section 6.2.2) and the
site-specific ground motion requirements of Section 11.4.7 of Proposal IT11-008 (Section 6.2.3).

Proposal PUC IT11-007-2014-11-25 - Kircher (as approved for the 2015 NEHRP Provisions):
Revise the first paragraph of Sect. 21.4 as follows:
Where the site-specific procedure is used to determine the design ground motion in accordance
with Section 21.3, the parameter SDS shall be taken as the spectral acceleration, Sa, obtained
from the site-specific spectra at a period of 0.2 s, except that it shall not be taken as less than 90
percent of the maximumpeak spectral acceleration, Sa, obtained from the site specific spectrum,
at any period within the range fromlarger than 0.2 s to 5 s, inclusive. The parameter SD1 shall be
taken as the greater of the spectral acceleration, Sa, at a periodmaximum value of the product,
TSa, for periods from 1 s to 2 s for sites with vs,30 > 1,200 ft/s and for periods from 1 s to 5 s for
sites with vs,30 ≤ 1,200 ft/s. of 1 s or two times the spectral acceleration, Sa, at a period of 2 s.
The parameters SMS and SM1 shall be taken as 1.5 times SDS and SD1, respectively. The values so
obtained shall not be less than 80 percent of the values determined in accordance with Section
11.4.3 for SMS and SM1 and Section 11.4.4 for SDS and SD1.
End of Proposal PUC IT11-007

The SDS criteria of Section 21.4 are based on the premise that the value of the parameter SDS
should be taken as 90 percent of peak value of site-specific response spectral acceleration

6-2
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

regardless of the period (greater than or equal to 0.2 s) at which the peak value of response
spectral acceleration occurs. Consideration of periods beyond 0.2 s recognizes that site-specific
studies (e.g., softer site conditions) can produce response spectra with ordinates at periods
greater than 0.2 s that are significantly greater than those at 0.2 s. Periods less than 0.2 s are
excluded for consistency with the 0.2-s period definition of the short-period ground motion
parameter, Ss, and recognizing that certain sites (e.g., CEUS sites) could have peak response at
very short periods that would be inappropriate for defining the value of the parameter SDS. The
upper-bound limit of 5 s precludes unnecessary checking of response at periods that cannot
govern the peak value of site-specific response spectral acceleration.
Ninety percent (rather than 100 percent) of the peak value of site-specific response spectral
acceleration is considered appropriate for defining the parameter SDS (and the domain of constant
acceleration) since most short-period structures will have a design period that is not at or near the
period of peak response spectral acceleration. Away from the period of peak response, response
spectral accelerations will be less and the domain of constant acceleration is adequately
described by 90 percent of the peak value. For those short-period structures with a design period
at or near the period of peak response spectral acceleration, anticipated yielding of structure
during MCER ground motions will effectively lengthen the period and shift dynamic response to
longer periods at which spectral demand will always be less than that at the peak of the spectrum.
The SD1 criteria of Section 21.4 are based on the premise that the value of the parameter SD1
should be taken as 100 percent of the peak value of site-specific response spectral acceleration
for a period range, 1 s ≤ T ≤ 2 s, for stiffer sites (vs,30 ft/s > 1,200 ft/s) similar to the previous
requirements of Section 21.4 of ASCE 7-10 and for a period range, 1 s ≤ T ≤ 5 s, for softer sites
(vs,30 ft/s ≤ 1,200 ft/s) which are expected have peak values of response spectral velocity at
periods greater than 2 s. The criteria use the maximum value of the product, TSa, over the period
range of interest to effectively identify the period at which the peak value of response spectral
velocity occurs. Consideration of periods beyond 1 s accounts for the possibility that the
assumed 1/T proportionality for the constant velocity portion of the design response spectrum
begins at periods greater than 1 second or is actually 1/T n (where n < 1). Periods less than 1 s
are excluded for consistency with the definition of the 1-second ground motion parameter, S1.
Peak velocity response is expected to occur at periods less than or equal to 5 s and periods
beyond 5 s are excluded by the criteria to avoid potential misuse of very long-period ground
motions that may not be reliable.
One hundred percent (rather than a reduced percentage) of the peak value of site-specific
response spectral acceleration at the period of peak velocity response is considered appropriate
for defining the value of the parameter SD1 since response spectral accelerations can be
approximately proportional to the assumed 1/T shape of the domain of constant velocity for
design periods of interest.
6.2.2 Seismic Design Parameters of Section 11.4.3 (Option 1 – Proposal PUC IT11-006)
Proposal PUC IT11-006 (Option 1) was withdrawn by the PUC in lieu of Proposal PUC IT11-
008 (Option 2) but proposed values of the spectrum shape adjustment factors Ca and Cv of
Proposal PUC IT11-006 provided the basis for the site-specific criteria and associated exceptions
of Proposal PUC IT11-008.
Proposed values of the spectrum shape adjustment factors of Proposal PUC IT11-006 were
developed considering both the values of the spectrum shape adjustment factors derived from

6-3
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

deterministic MCER response spectra of NGA-West1 GMPEs (as summarized in Section 4) and
values of the spectrum shape adjustment factors derived from the NGA-West2 GMPEs (as
summarized in Section 5), incorporating rounding and modification of values, as summarized
below:
(1) In all cases, Ca ≥ 0.9 and Cv ≥ 1.0 (i.e., round raw values up to Ca = 0.9 or Cv = 1.0).
Reason: Values should not be less than the limits of Section 21.4.
(2) In all cases for Site Class A and Site Class B, Ca = 0.9 and Cv = 1.0. Reason: Spectrum
shape adjustment is not required for very stiff site classes.
(3) For all site classes, Cv = 1.0 when S1 ≤ 0.1. Reason: Spectrum shape adjustment is not
necessary for very low hazard sites.
(4) For all site classes, except Site Class E, Ca ≤ 1.0 (i.e., round raw values down to Ca =
1.0). Reason: Ignore spectrum shape adjustment for design of short-period structures on
Site Class D sites.
(5) Round all values to nearest 0.05, round up or down, as required to match trends.

Proposal PUC IT11-006-2014-11-25 - Kircher (as proposed for the 2015 NEHRP Provisions):
Add two new symbols to Sect. 11.3 as follows:
Ca = short-period spectrum shape adjustment factor; see Section 11.4.3
Cv = long-period spectrum shape adjustment factor; see Section 11.4.3
Revise Section 11.4.3 and add new Tables 11.4-3, 11.4-4, 11.4-5 and 11.4-6 as follows:
11.4.3 Site Coefficients and Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER)
Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters
The MCER spectral response acceleration parameter for short periods (SMS) and at 1 s (SM1),
adjusted for Site Class and spectrum shape effects, shall be determined by Eqs. 11.4-1 and 11.4-
2, respectively.
SMS = CaFaSS (11.4-1)
SM1 = CvFvS1 (11.4-2)
where
SS = the mapped MCER spectral response acceleration parameter at short periods as determined
in accordance with Section 11.4.1, and
S1 = the mapped MCER spectral response acceleration parameter at a period of 1 s as determined
in accordance with Section 11.4.1
Fa = short-period site coefficient (at 0.2 s-period) as defined in Table 11.4-1
Fv = long-period site coefficient (at 1.0 s-period) as defined in Table 11.4-2
Ca = short-period spectrum shape adjustment factor as defined in Table 11.4-3
Cv = long-period spectrum shape adjustment factor as defined in Table 11.4-4 for sites with TL
greater than or equal to 12 s, Table 11.4.5 for sites with TL equal to 8 s, Table 11.4.6 for
sites with TL equal 6 s and taken as equal to 1.0 for sites with TL equal 4 s

6-4
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Where the simplified design procedure of Section 12.14 is used, the value of Fa shall be
determined in accordance with Section [Link], and the values for Fv, SMS, and SM1 need not
be determined.

Table 11.4-3 Short-Period Spectrum Shape Adjustment Factor, Ca

Mapped Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Spectral Response

Acceleration Parameter at Short Period

Site Class SS  0.25 SS = 0.5 SS = 0.75 SS = 1.0 SS = 1.25 SS  1.5

A 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

B 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
C 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
D 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
E 0.95 1.0 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25
F See Section 11.4.7

Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S1.

Table 11.4-4 Long-Period Spectrum Shape Adjustment Factor, Cv, for sites
with TL greater than or equal to 12 s

Mapped Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Spectral Response

Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period

Site Class S1  0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1  0.6

A 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.0 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.0 1.1
D 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.35 1.45 1.5
E 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.75 1.9 2.0
F See Section 11.4.7

Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S1.

6-5
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Table 11.4-5 Long-Period Spectrum Shape Adjustment Factor, Cv, for sites
with TL equal to 8 s

Mapped Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Spectral Response

Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period

Site Class S1  0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1  0.6

A 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.05
D 1.0 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.35
E 1.0 1.15 1.35 1.55 1.65 1.8
F See Section 11.4.7

Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S1.

Table 11.4-6 Long-Period Spectrum Shape Adjustment Factor, Cv, for sites
with TL equal to 6 s

Mapped Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Spectral Response

Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period

Site Class S1  0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1  0.6

A 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
D 1.0 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25
E 1.0 1.05 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.6
F See Section 11.4.7

Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S1.

End of Proposal PUC IT11-006

6.2.3 Site-Specific Requirements of Section 11.7 (Option 2 – Proposal PUC IT11-008)

As described in Section 6.2.2, Proposal PUC IT11–006 was withdrawn but provided the
technical basis for determining when site-specific procedures would be required, in lieu of the
incorporation of spectrum shape adjustment factors Ca and Cv in Eqs. (11.4-1) and ((11.4-2).
Spectrum shape adjustment factors would have modified the products of ASCE 7-16 site
coefficients and MCER spectral response acceleration parameter (FaSS and FvS1) when the
domain of constant acceleration and/or the domain of constant velocity are not well defined by
MCER response spectral acceleration at periods of 0.2 s and 1.0 s, respectively. Proposed values
of the parameter Ca significantly greater than 0.9 and values of the parameter Cv significantly
greater than 1.0 indicate those site classes and ground motion intensities not well represented by

6-6
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

the two domains of constant acceleration and velocity, and proposed modifications of Section
11.4.7 and Tables 11.4-1 and 11.4-2 require site-specific hazard analysis for these site classes
and ground motion intensities. Maximum values of proposed parameters Ca and Cv provide a
basis for determining reasonably conservative values of seismic design parameters for ELF and
MRSA design, in lieu of performing a site-specific analysis, and proposed modifications of
Section 11.4.7 include exceptions permitting ELF and MSRA design in these cases. Proposal
PUC IT11-008 is based on values of proposed parameters Ca and Cv given in Tables 11.4-3 and
11.4-4 of Proposal PUC IT11-006 for the site class of interest. It may be noted that values the
parameter Cv given in Table 11.4-4 are appropriate for sites with TL ≥ 12 s (e.g., sites with
seismic hazard governed by M7.5 – M8.0 earthquakes) and generally conservative for sites with
seismic hazard governed by smaller magnitude earthquakes.

Proposal PUC IT11-008-2014-11-25 - Kircher (as approved for the 2015 NEHRP Provisions):
Revise Section 11.4.7 and Tables 11.4-1 and 11.4-2 as follows:
11.4.7 Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedures
It shall be permitted to perform a site response analysis in accordance with Section 21.1
and/or a ground motion hazard analysis in accordance with Section 21.2 to determine ground
motions for any structure.
When the procedures of either Section 21.1 or Section 21.2 are used, the design response
spectrum shall be determined in accordance with Section 21.3, the design acceleration
parameters shall be determined in accordance with Section 21.4 and, if required, the MCEG peak
ground acceleration parameter shall be determined in accordance with Section [Link] site-
specific ground motion procedures set forth in Chapter 21 are permitted to be used to determine
ground motions for any structure.
A site response analysis shall be performed in accordance with Section 21.1 for structures on
Site Class F sites, unless exempted in accordance withthe exception to Section 20.3.1 is
applicable.
A ground motion hazard analysis shall be performed in accordance with Section 21.2 for the
following:For
1. seismically isolated structures and for structures with damping systems on sites with S1
greater than or equal to 0.6, a ground motion hazard analysis shall be performed in
accordance with Section 21.2.
2. structures on Site Class E sites with SS greater than or equal to 1.0.
3. structures on Site Class D and E sites with S1 greater than or equal to 0.2.
EXCEPTION:
A ground motion hazard analysis is not required for the following cases:
1. Structures on Site Class E sites with SS greater than or equal to 1.0, provided the site
coefficient Fa is taken as equal to that of Site Class C.
2. Structures on Site Class D sites with S1 greater than or equal to 0.2, provided that the
value of the seismic response coefficient Cs is determined by Eq. 12.8-2 for values of T ≤
1.5Ts and taken as equal to 1.5 times the value computed in accordance with either Eq.
12.8-3 for TL ≥ T > 1.5Ts or Eq. 12.8-4 for T > TL.
3. Structures on Site Class E sites with S1 greater than or equal to 0.2, provided that T is less
than or equal to Ts and the equivalent static force procedure is used for design.
The above exceptions do not apply to seismically isolated structures and structures with
damping systems.

6-7
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Table 11.4-1 Short-Period Site Coefficient, Fa

Mapped Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Spectral Response

Acceleration Parameter at Short Period

Site Class SS  0.25 SS = 0.5 SS = 0.75 SS = 1.0 SS = 1.25 SS  1.5

A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

B 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
C 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
E 2.4 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.8
See Sec. 11.4.7 See Sec. 11.4.7 See Section
11.4.7
F See Section 11.4.7

Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S1.

Table 11.4-2 Long-Period Site Coefficient, Fv

Mapped Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Spectral Response

Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period

Site Class S1  0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 = 0.5 S1  0.6

A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

B 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
C 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4
1 1 1 1 1
D 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7
1 1 1 1 1
E 4.2 3.3 2.8 2.4 2.2 2.0
F See Section 11.4.7

1. Also, see requirements for site-specific ground motions in Section 11.4.7.

Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S1.
End of proposed changes to Section 11.4.7 and Tables 11.4-1 and 11.4-2
In general, Section 11.4.7 requires site-specific hazard analysis for structures on Site Class E
with values of SS greater than or equal to 1.0 g, and for structures on Site Class D or Site Class E
for values of S1 greater than or equal to 0.2 g. These requirements significantly limit the use of
practical ELF and MSRA design methods, of particularly significance for Site Class D sites
which are quite common. To lessen the impact of these requirements on design practice, three
exceptions permit the use of reasonably conservative values of design parameters for certain
conditions for which reasonably conservative values of design were identified. These exceptions
do not apply to seismically isolated structures and structures with damping systems for which
site-specific analysis is required in all cases at sites with S1 greater than or equal to 0.6.

6-8
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

The first exception permits use of the value of the site coefficient Fa of Site Class C (Fa = 1.2)
for Site Class E sites (for values of SS greater than or equal to 1.0 g) in lieu of site-specific hazard
analysis. This study found that while values of the site coefficient Fa tend to decrease with
intensity for softer sites, values of spectrum shape adjustment factor Ca tend to increase such that
the net effect is approximately the same intensity of MCER ground motions for Site Classes C, D
and E when MCER ground motion intensity is strong (i.e., SMS ≥ 1.0). Site Class C was found to
not require spectrum shape adjustment and the value of site coefficient Fa for Site Class C (Fa =
1.2) is large enough to represent both site class and spectrum shape effects for Site Class E (and
Site Class D).
The second exception permits both ELF and MRSA design of structures at Site Class D sites for
values of S1 greater than or equal to 0.2 g, provided that the value of the seismic response
coefficient Cs is conservatively calculated using Eq. 12.8-2 for T ≤ Ts and by 1.5 times the value
computed in accordance with either Eq. 12.8-3 for TL ≥ T > 1.5Ts or Eq. 12.8-4 for T > TL. This
exception recognizes that structures are conservatively designed for the response spectral
acceleration defined by the domain of constant acceleration (SDS) or by a 50 percent increase in
the value of seismic response coefficient Cs for structures with longer periods (T ≥ 1.5Ts). The
underlying presumption of this exception for MRSA design of structures is that the shape of the
design response spectrum (Figure 11.4-1) is sufficiently representative of the frequency content
of Site Class D ground motions to permit use of MRSA and that the potential underestimation of
fundamental-mode response using the design response spectrum shape of Figure 11.4-1 is
accounted for by scaling MRSA design values (Section 12.9.4) with a conservative value of the
seismic response coefficient Cs. In general, this exception effectively limits the requirements for
site-specific hazard analysis to very tall and or flexible structures at Site Class D sites (S1 ≥
0.2g).
The third exception permits ELF design of short-period structures (T ≤ Ts) at Site Class E sites
for values of SS greater than or equal to 0.2 g. This exception recognizes that short-period
structures are conservatively designed using the ELF procedure for values of seismic response
coefficient Cs based on the domain of constant acceleration (SDS) which is, in all cases, greater
than or equal to response spectral accelerations of the domain of constant velocity, and therefore
need not consider the effects of spectrum shape at periods T > Ts. In general, the shape of the
design response spectrum (Figure 11.4-1) is not representative of the frequency content of Site
Class E ground motions and MRSA is not permitted for design unless the design spectrum is
calculated using the site-specific procedures if Section 21.2.

6.3 Design Examples Illustrating ASCE 7-16 Recommendations (Option 2)

This section provides design example figures illustrating the site-specific requirements and
exceptions of Proposal PUC IT11-008 (Option 2) and compares seismic design forces based on
these requirements with those of ASCE 7-10 and other ASCE 7-16 options.
Design example figures show plots of the seismic response coefficient Cs for each of 11 common
seismic force resisting systems (SFRSs) listed in Table 6-1. In these figure, the seismic response
coefficient Cs is plotted as a function of the design period T. Table 6-1 lists system properties
and height limits of each SFRS, and the Seismic Design Category (SDC) assumed for the design
example (e.g., SDC D or SDC C, if the SFRS is not permitted in SDC D). In all cases, the SDC
assumes the building is in Risk Category II. Attention should be paid to system and height limits
which typically limit the use of many SFRSs (without special detailing) to shorter buildings with

6-9
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

design periods in the domain of constant acceleration. Table 6-1 also lists the height of the SFRS
for which site-specific analysis would be mandatory for Site Class E conditions (or shows “Not
Mandatory” indicating that an exception would permit ELF design in lieu of site-specific
analysis for Site Class E conditions).

Table 6-1 Summary of design examples for eleven common seismic force resisting systems
Seismic Force Resisting System Seismic Design Criteria Site-Specific
No. (Table 12.2-1, ASCE 7-10) SDC hmax T [hmax] Mandatory for
R Factor Site Class E?
SFRS Material System Detailing (RC II) (ft) (sec)
1 A.15 Wood SW Light Frame D 6.5 65 0.46 Not Mandatory
2 B.2 Steel CBF Special D 6 160 0.90 h > 107 ft.
3 B.3 Steel CBF Oridinary D 3.25 35 0.29 Not Mandatory
4 B.4 Concrete SW Special D 6 160 0.90 h > 107 ft.
5 B.5 Concrete SW Ordinary C 5 NL NA Not Mandatory
6 B.25 Steel BF BRBF D 8 160 1.35 h > 62 ft.
7 C.1 Steel MF Special D 8 NL NA h > 52 ft.
8 C.3 Steel MF Intermediate D 4.5 35 0.48 Not Mandatory
9 C.4 Steel MF Ordinary C 3.5 NL NA Not Mandatory
10 C.5 Concrete MF Special D 8 NL NA h > 63 ft.
11 C.6 Concrete MF Intermediate C 5 NL NA Not Mandatory

In each design example figure, the seismic response coefficient Cs is plotted for four sets of
criteria of either ASCE 7-10 or ASCE 7-16 seismic design procedures:
(1) ASCE 7-10 – Values of Cs based on ASCE 7-10 procedures.
(2) ASCE 7-16 w/o 008 – Values of Cs based on ASCE 7-16 procedures, including the new site
coefficients of ASCE 7-16, but without the site-specific requirements and associated
exceptions of Section 11.4.7 (PUC IT11-008).
(3) ASCE 7-16 w/008 – Values of Cs based on ASCE 7-16 procedures, including the new site
coefficients of ASCE 7-16 and the new site-specific requirements and associated
exceptions of Section 11.4.7 (PUC IT11-008).
(4) ASCE 7-16 Best Fit – Values of Cs based on ASCE 7-16 procedures, hypothetically
modified to incorporate site amplification and spectrum shape adjustment factors that
represent the “best fit” of these factors to underlying deterministic MCER response spectra
(based on the NGA West2 GMPEs).
The ASCE 7-16 Best Fit values of the seismic response coefficient Cs are calculated as the “best
fit” of the two domains of constant acceleration and velocity of the ELF spectrum to
representative multi-period site spectra (i.e., values of SDS and SD1 are derived from
representative multi-period site spectra using the requirements of Section 21.4 including the
proposed changes of PUC IT11-007). As such, ASCE 7-16 Best Fit plots of the seismic response
coefficient Cs effectively represent the results of a site-specific analysis (i.e., using 2014 seismic
hazard functions and PEER NGA West 2 GMPEs) and may be used to judge the degree of
conservatism in the values of the seismic response coefficient as defined by ASCE 7-10, ASCE 7-
16 w/o 008 and ASCE 7-16 w/008.

6-10
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Figures 6-1a, 6-1b and 6-1c show plots of the coefficient Cs of the light frame wood shear wall
(SW) system for Site Class C, Site Class D and Site Class E conditions. For each of these
figures, the properties of the system (e.g., building height) and the MCER ground motion criteria
(i.e., SS = 1.5 and S1 = 0.6) are the same, only the site class is different. In a similar manner, the
design examples of other systems each include figures for Site Class C, Site Class D and Site
Class E conditions, respectively. In the light frame wood shear wall design example (as in other
design examples), building height (e.g., h = 65 ft.) is based on the maximum height permitted for
the SFRS. Each curve shows the value of the coefficient Cs at the design period Ta of the
example (e.g., Ta = 0.46 s for the light frame wood shear wall example). It may also be noted
that in this design example portions of the curves of the coefficient Cs at periods greater than Ta
represent building heights not permitted by ASCE 7-10 (ASCE 7-16) and should be ignored.
Comparison of values of the coefficient Cs for Site Class C conditions (Figure 6-1a) show that
there is no difference in the value of the seismic response coefficient for the ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
and ASCE 7-16 w/008 curves, since the new site-specific requirements of Section 11.4.7 (PUC
IT11-008) apply only to Site Class D and Site Class E conditions. At short-periods, the 20
percent increase in the values of the coefficient Cs of ASCE 7-16 as compared to that of ASCE
7-10 is due to the new value of the site coefficient Fa of ASCE 7-16 for Site Class C (see Table
2-1). Comparison with the ASCE 7-16 Best Fit curve suggests that the 20 percent increase may
not have been necessary, recognizing, however, that the ASCE 7-16 Best Fit curve incorporates
the new 90 percent rule of Section 21.4 (PUC IT11-007) not included in the site coefficients of
ASCE 7-16.
Comparison of short-period values of the coefficient Cs for Site Class D conditions (Figure 6-1b)
shows that there is no difference in the values of the seismic response coefficient for the ASCE 7-
10, ASCE 7-16 w/o 008 and ASCE 7-16 w/008 curves, since the value of the site coefficient is the
same for ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 7-16 and the new site-specific requirements of Section 11.4.7
(PUC IT11-008) apply only to Site Class E conditions at short periods. Comparison with the
ASCE 7-16 Best Fit curve suggests that the value of seismic response coefficient well represents
site-specific ground motions for Site Class D conditions. Comparison of short-period values of
Cs for Site Class E conditions (Figure 6-1c) show the that there are significant differences in the
values of the seismic response coefficient for the ASCE 7-10, ASCE 7-16 w/o 008 and ASCE 7-
16 w/008 curves. With respect to the ASCE 7-16 Best Fit curve, values of coefficient Cs of the
ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 7-16 w/o 008 curves are unconservative (which is the underlying reason
that site-specific analysis is required for Site Class E when SS ≥ 1.0) and that, in lieu of site-
specific analysis, the ASCE 7-16 w/008 curve provides a conservative value of the seismic
response coefficient for ELF design (based on Site Class C).
It may be noted that the value of the seismic response coefficient Cs is approximately the same
(i.e., Cs ≈ 0.16) for each ASCE 7-16 Best Fit curve in Figure 6-1a (Site Class C), Figure 6-1b
(Site Class D) and Figure 6-1c (Site Class E). That is, the product of site amplification and
spectrum shape adjustment factors is approximately equal to 1.0 (i.e., CsR = 0.16 x 6.5) for each
site class, although values of site amplification and spectrum shape adjustment factors are
different for each site class. The implication is that for sites governed by strong MCER ground
motions (regions of high seismicity) the same seismic forces could and should be used for design
of short-period buildings regardless of site class. This remarkable finding suggests that the
implicit assumption of site independence of short-period seismic design forces common to older
Seismic Codes is still valid for sites subject to strong earthquake ground motions.

6-11
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Design examples of other “low-rise” building systems (e.g., systems with very restrictive height
limits) include the ordinary steel concentrically-braced frame (CBF) system (i.e., 35-foot height
limit for SDC D design) shown in Figures 6-3a, 6-3b and 6-3c and the intermediate steel moment
frame (MF) system (i.e., 35-foot height limit for SDC D design) shown in Figures 6-8a, 6-8b and
6-8c. Trends in the values of the coefficient Cs for these systems are similar to those of the light
frame wood shear wall system.
Design examples of “mid-rise” building systems with height limits of 160 feet (SDC D) include
the special steel CBF system, shown in Figures 6-2a, 6-2b and 6-2c, the special reinforced-
concrete (RC) shear wall (SW) system, shown in Figures 6-4a, 6-4b and 6-4c, and the steel
buckling restrained braced frame (BRBF) system, shown in Figures 6-6a, 6-6b and 6-6c. Trends
in the values of seismic response coefficient Cs are similar for these systems. Consider, for
example, the special RC SW system. For Site Class D conditions (Figure 6-4b), the ASCE 7-16
w/008 curve shows that at periods greater than about 0.7 s (i.e., corresponding to an approximate
building height, h > 107 ft.) design forces are increased for spectrum shape effects by as much as
30% at the 160-foot height limit (corresponding to a period of Ta = 0.90 s). For Site Class E
conditions (Figure 6-4c), the ASCE 7-16 w/008 curve shows that at periods greater than about 0.7
s (i.e., corresponding to approximate building height, h > 107 ft.) site-specific analysis is
mandatory for design and that at periods less than about 0.7 s, exception to site-specific analysis
provides a conservative value of the seismic design coefficient for ELF design, whereas seismic
design coefficients based on the ASCE 7-10 or ASCE 7-16 w/o 008 curves would be
unconservative.
Design examples of “high-rise” building systems without height limits include SDC C systems
typically used in regions of low and moderate seismicity and SDC D systems typically used in
regions of high seismicity. Trends in the values of seismic design coefficients are different for
these two SDC categories and associated regions of seismicity. Design examples of “high-rise”
building systems of SDC C typically used in regions of low and moderate seismicity include the
ordinary RC SW system, shown in Figures 6-5a, 6-5b, 6-5c, the ordinary steel MF system,
shown in Figures 6-9a, 6-9b, and 6-9c, and the intermediate RC MF system, shown in Figures 6-
11a, 6-11b, and 6-11c. These figures show that the values of the coefficient Cs are not
influenced by the site-specific criteria of Section 11.4.7 (PUC IT11-008) since the value of the
parameter S1 corresponding to SDC C is too low (i.e., S1 < 0.2) to trigger site-specific analysis.
Design examples of “high-rise” building systems of SDC D typically used in regions of high
seismicity include the special steel MF system, shown in Figures 6-7a, 6-7b, 6-7c, and the
special RC MF system, shown in Figures 6-10a, 6-10b, and 6-10c. Trends are similar for these
two systems. Consider, for example, the special steel MF system. For Site Class D conditions
(Figure 6-7b), the ASCE 7-16 w/008 curve shows that at periods greater than about 0.8 s (i.e.,
corresponding to an approximate building height, h > 52 ft.) design forces are increased for
spectrum shape effects by as much as 50% at design periods of Ta ≥ 1.0 s. For Site Class E
conditions (Figure 6-7c), the ASCE 7-16 w/008 curve shows that at periods greater than about 0.8
s (i.e., corresponding to approximate building height, h > 52 ft.) site-specific analysis is
mandatory for design and that at periods less than about 0.8 s, the exception to site-specific
analysis provides a conservative value of the seismic design coefficient for ELF design, whereas
seismic design coefficients based on the ASCE 7-10 or ASCE 7-16 w/o 008 curves would be
unconservative (e.g., by more than a factor of 2.0 at long periods).

6-12
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

0.200
ASCE 7-10
0.180
Design Value at T
0.160 ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

0.140 Design Value at T

0.120 ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
0.100
Material Wood Site Class C ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
0.080 System SW Ss 1.50 Design Value at T
0.060 Detailing Light Frame S1 0.60
0.040 Floors 6 T L (s) 12
Height (ft) 65 SDC D
0.020
T a (s) 0.46 R 6.5
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-1a Design coefficient comparison – Light Frame Wood SW System - Site Class C
0.180
ASCE 7-10
0.160 Design Value at T
0.140 ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.120
ASCE 7-16 w/008
0.100 Design Value at T
0.080 Material Wood Site Class D ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
System SW Ss 1.50 Design Value at T
0.060 Detailing Light Frame S1 0.60
0.040 Floors 6 T L (s) 12
Height (ft) 65 SDC D
0.020
T a (s) 0.46 R 6.5
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-1b Design coefficient comparison – Light Frame Wood SW System - Site Class D
0.200
ASCE 7-10
0.180
Design Value at T
0.160 ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

0.140 Design Value at T

0.120 ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
0.100
Material Wood Site Class E ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
0.080 System SW Ss 1.50 Design Value at T
0.060 Detailing Light Frame S1 0.60
0.040 Floors 6 T L (s) 12
Height (ft) 65 SDC D
0.020
T a (s) 0.46 R 6.5
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-1c Design coefficient comparison – Light Frame Wood SW System - Site Class E

6-13
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

0.250
ASCE 7-10
Design Value at T
0.200 ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.150 ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
Material Steel Site Class C
ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
0.100 Design Value at T
System CBF Ss 1.50
Detailing Special S1 0.60
0.050 Floors 15 T L (s) 12
Height (ft) 160 SDC D
T a (s) 0.90 R 6
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-2a Design coefficient comparison – Special Steel CBF System - Site Class C
0.200
ASCE 7-10
0.180
Design Value at T
0.160 ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

0.140 Design Value at T

0.120 ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
0.100 Material Steel Site Class D ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
0.080 System CBF Ss 1.50 Design Value at T
0.060 Detailing Special S1 0.60
Floors 15 T L (s) 12
0.040
Height (ft) 160 SDC D
0.020
T a (s) 0.90 R 6
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-2b Design coefficient comparison – Special Steel CBF System - Site Class D
0.250
ASCE 7-10
Design Value at T
0.200 ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.150 ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
Material Steel Site Class E ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
0.100 System CBF Ss 1.50 Design Value at T
Detailing Special S1 0.60
0.050 Floors 15 T L (s) 12
Height (ft) 160 SDC D
T a (s) 0.90 R 6
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-2c Design coefficient comparison – Special Steel CBF System - Site Class E

6-14
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

0.400
ASCE 7-10
0.350 Design Value at T
0.300 ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.250 ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
0.200 Material Steel Site Class C ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
0.150 System CBF Ss 1.50 Design Value at T
Detailing Ordinary S1 0.60
0.100 Floors 3 T L (s) 12
0.050 Height (ft) 35 SDC D
T a (s) 0.29 R 3.25
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-3a Design coefficient comparison – Ordinary Steel CBF System - Site Class C
0.350
ASCE 7-10
0.300 Design Value at T
ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

0.250 Design Value at T

ASCE 7-16 w/008
0.200
Design Value at T
Material Steel Site Class D ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
0.150
System CBF Ss 1.50 Design Value at T
0.100 Detailing Ordinary S1 0.60
Floors 3 T L (s) 12
0.050 Height (ft) 35 SDC D
T a (s) 0.29 R 3.25
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-3b Design coefficient comparison – Ordinary Steel CBF System - Site Class D
0.400
ASCE 7-10
0.350 Design Value at T
0.300 ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.250 ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
0.200
Material Steel Site Class E ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
0.150 System CBF Ss 1.50 Design Value at T
Detailing Ordinary S1 0.60
0.100 Floors 3 T L (s) 12
0.050 Height (ft) 35 SDC D
T a (s) 0.29 R 3.25
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-3c Design coefficient comparison – Ordinary Steel CBF System - Site Class E

6-15
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

0.250
ASCE 7-10
Design Value at T
0.200 ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.150 ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
Material Concrete Site Class C ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
0.100 Design Value at T
System SW Ss 1.50
Detailing Special S1 0.60
0.050 Floors 15 T L (s) 12
Height (ft) 160 SDC D
T a (s) 0.90 R 6
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-4a Design coefficient comparison – Special Concrete SW System - Site Class C
0.200
ASCE 7-10
0.180
Design Value at T
0.160 ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

0.140 Design Value at T

0.120 ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
0.100
Material Concrete Site Class D ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
0.080 System SW Ss 1.50 Design Value at T
0.060 Detailing Special S1 0.60
0.040 Floors 15 T L (s) 12
Height (ft) 160 SDC D
0.020
T a (s) 0.90 R 6
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-4b Design coefficient comparison – Special Concrete SW System - Site Class D
0.250
ASCE 7-10
Design Value at T
0.200 ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.150 ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
Material Concrete Site Class E ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
0.100 System SW Ss 1.50 Design Value at T
Detailing Special S1 0.60
0.050 Floors 15 T L (s) 12
Height (ft) 160 SDC D
T a (s) 0.90 R 6
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-4c Design coefficient comparison – Special Concrete SW System - Site Class E

6-16
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

0.120
ASCE 7-10
0.100 Design Value at T
ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.080
ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
0.060
Material Concrete Site Class C ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
System SW Ss 0.59 Design Value at T
0.040 Detailing Ordinary S1 0.20
Floors 38 T L (s) 12
0.020 Height (ft) 399 SDC C
T a (s) 1.79 R 5
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-5a Design coefficient comparison – Ordinary Concrete SW Systems - Site Class C
0.120
ASCE 7-10
0.100 Design Value at T
ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.080
ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
0.060
Material Concrete Site Class D ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
System SW Ss 0.55 Design Value at T
0.040 Detailing Ordinary S1 0.13
Floors 38 T L (s) 12
0.020 Height (ft) 399 SDC C
T a (s) 1.79 R 5
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-5b Design coefficient comparison – Ordinary Concrete SW System - Site Class D
0.120
ASCE 7-10
0.100 Design Value at T
ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.080
ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
0.060
Material Concrete Site Class E ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
System SW Ss 0.35 Design Value at T
0.040 Detailing Ordinary S1 0.07
Floors 38 T L (s) 12
0.020 Height (ft) 399 SDC C
T a (s) 1.79 R 5
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-5c Design coefficient comparison – Ordinary Concrete SW System - Site Class E

6-17
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

0.160
ASCE 7-10
0.140 Design Value at T
0.120 ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.100 ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
0.080
Material Steel Site Class C ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
0.060 System BF Ss 1.50 Design Value at T
Detailing BRBF S1 0.60
0.040 Floors 15 T L (s) 12
0.020 Height (ft) 160 SDC D
T a (s) 1.35 R 8
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-6a Design coefficient comparison – BRB Steel BF System - Site Class C
0.140
ASCE 7-10
0.120 Design Value at T
ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

0.100 Design Value at T

ASCE 7-16 w/008
0.080
Design Value at T
0.060 Material Steel Site Class D ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
System BF Ss 1.50 Design Value at T
0.040 Detailing BRBF S1 0.60
Floors 15 T L (s) 12
0.020 Height (ft) 160 SDC D
T a (s) 1.35 R 8
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-6b Design coefficient comparison – BRB Steel BF System - Site Class D
0.160
ASCE 7-10
0.140 Design Value at T
0.120 ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.100 ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
0.080
Material Steel Site Class E ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
0.060 System BF Ss 1.50 Design Value at T
Detailing BRBF S1 0.60
0.040 Floors 15 T L (s) 12
0.020 Height (ft) 160 SDC D
T a (s) 1.35 R 8
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-6c Design coefficient comparison – BRB Steel BF System - Site Class E

6-18
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

0.160
ASCE 7-10
0.140 Design Value at T
0.120 ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.100 ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
0.080
Material Steel Site Class C ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
0.060 System MF Ss 1.50 Design Value at T
Detailing Special S1 0.60
0.040 Floors 12 T L (s) 12
0.020 Height (ft) 129 SDC D
T a (s) 1.36 R 8
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-7a Design coefficient comparison – Special Steel MF System - Site Class C
0.140
ASCE 7-10
0.120 Design Value at T
ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

0.100 Design Value at T

ASCE 7-16 w/008
0.080 Design Value at T
ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
Material Steel Site Class D Design Value at T
0.060
System MF Ss 1.50
0.040 Detailing Special S1 0.60
Floors 31 T L (s) 12
0.020 Height (ft) 326 SDC D
T a (s) 2.87 R 8
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-7b Design coefficient comparison – Special Steel MF System - Site Class D
0.160
ASCE 7-10
0.140 Design Value at T
ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
0.120
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.100 ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
0.080 Material Steel Site Class E ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
0.060 System MF Ss 1.50 Design Value at T
Detailing Special S1 0.60
0.040 Floors 70 T L (s) 12
Height (ft) 732 SDC D
0.020
T a (s) 5.48 R 8
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-7c Design coefficient comparison – Special Steel MF System - Site Class E

6-19
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

0.300
ASCE 7-10
0.250 Design Value at T
ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.200
ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
0.150
Material Steel Site Class C ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
System MF Ss 1.50 Design Value at T
0.100 Detailing Intermediate S1 0.60
Floors 3 T L (s) 12
0.050 Height (ft) 35 SDC D
T a (s) 0.48 R 4.5
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-8a Design coefficient comparison – Intermediate Steel MF System - Site Class C
0.250
ASCE 7-10
Design Value at T
0.200 ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.150 ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
Material Steel Site Class D ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
0.100 System MF Ss 1.50 Design Value at T
Detailing Intermediate S1 0.60
0.050 Floors 3 T L (s) 12
Height (ft) 35 SDC D
T a (s) 0.48 R 4.5
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-8b Design coefficient comparison – Intermediate Steel MF System - Site Class D
0.300
ASCE 7-10
0.250 Design Value at T
ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.200
ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
0.150
Material Steel Site Class E ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
System MF Ss 1.50 Design Value at T
0.100 Detailing Intermediate S1 0.60
Floors 3 T L (s) 12
0.050 Height (ft) 35 SDC D
T a (s) 0.48 R 4.5
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-8c Design coefficient comparison – Intermediate Steel MF System - Site Class E

6-20
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

0.160
ASCE 7-10
0.140 Design Value at T
0.120 ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.100 ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
0.080
Material Steel Site Class C ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
0.060 System MF Ss 0.59 Design Value at T
Detailing Ordinary S1 0.20
0.040
Floors 27 T L (s) 12
0.020 Height (ft) 285 SDC C
T a (s) 2.57 R 3.5
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-9a Design coefficient comparison – Ordinary Steel MF System - Site Class C
0.180
ASCE 7-10
0.160 Design Value at T
0.140 ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.120
ASCE 7-16 w/008
0.100 Design Value at T
0.080 Material Steel Site Class D ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
System MF Ss 0.55 Design Value at T
0.060
Detailing Ordinary S1 0.13
0.040 Floors 27 T L (s) 12
0.020 Height (ft) 285 SDC C
T a (s) 2.57 R 3.5
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-9b Design coefficient comparison – Ordinary Steel MF System - Site Class D
0.160
ASCE 7-10
0.140 Design Value at T
0.120 ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.100 ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
0.080
Material Steel Site Class E ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
0.060 System MF Ss 0.35 Design Value at T
Detailing Ordinary S1 0.07
0.040 Floors 27 T L (s) 12
0.020 Height (ft) 285 SDC C
T a (s) 2.57 R 3.5
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-9c Design coefficient comparison – Ordinary Steel MF System - Site Class E

6-21
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

0.160
ASCE 7-10
0.140 Design Value at T
ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
0.120
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.100 ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
0.080 Material Concrete Site Class C ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
0.060 System MF Ss 1.50 Design Value at T
Detailing Special S1 0.60
0.040 Floors 16 T L (s) 12
0.020 Height (ft) 170 SDC D
T a (s) 1.63 R 8
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-10a Design coefficient comparison – Special Concrete MF System - Site Class C
0.140
ASCE 7-10
0.120 Design Value at T
ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

0.100 Design Value at T

ASCE 7-16 w/008
0.080 Design Value at T
ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
Material Concrete Site Class D
0.060 Design Value at T
System MF Ss 1.50
0.040 Detailing Special S1 0.60
Floors 31 T L (s) 12
0.020 Height (ft) 326 SDC D
T a (s) 2.93 R 8
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-10b Design coefficient comparison – Special Concrete MF System - Site Class D
0.160
ASCE 7-10
0.140 Design Value at T
ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
0.120
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.100 ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
0.080 ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
Material Concrete Site Class E
0.060 System MF Ss 1.50 Design Value at T
Detailing Special S1 0.60
0.040 Floors 60 T L (s) 12
0.020 Height (ft) 628 SDC D
T a (s) 5.27 R 8
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-10c Design coefficient comparison – Special Concrete MF System - Site Class E

6-22
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

0.120
ASCE 7-10
Design Value at T
0.100
ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.080
ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
0.060
Material Concrete Site Class C ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
System MF Ss 0.59 Design Value at T
0.040
Detailing Intermediate S1 0.20
Floors 18 T L (s) 12
0.020 Height (ft) 191 SDC C
T a (s) 1.81 R 5
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-11a Design coefficient comparison – Intermediate Concrete MF System - Site Class C
0.120
ASCE 7-10
Design Value at T
0.100
ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.080
ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
0.060 Material Concrete Site Class D ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
System MF Ss 0.54 Design Value at T
0.040 Detailing Intermediate S1 0.13
Floors 18 T L (s) 12
0.020 Height (ft) 191 SDC D
T a (s) 1.81 R 5
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-11b Design coefficient comparison – Intermediate Concrete MF System - Site Class D
0.120
ASCE 7-10
Design Value at T
0.100
ASCE 7-16 w/o 008
Design Coefficient, Cs (g)

Design Value at T
0.080
ASCE 7-16 w/008
Design Value at T
0.060 Material Concrete Site Class E ASCE 7-16 Best Fit
System MF Ss 0.35 Design Value at T
0.040 Detailing Intermediate S1 0.07
Floors 18 T L (s) 12
0.020 Height (ft) 191 SDC C
T a (s) 1.81 R 5
0.000
0.1 1 10
Period (seconds)

Figure 6-11c Design coefficient comparison – Intermediate Concrete MF System - Site Class E

6-23
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

6.4 Recommendations for Improving Future Editions of ASCE 7

This section provides recommendations for improving the seismic design procedures of future
editions of ASCE 7 based on the findings of the subject study. Recommendations include
development and incorporation of multi-period MCER response spectra and associated multi-
period site-amplification curves, as described below.
Multi-Period MCER Response Spectra. Future editions of ASCE 7 should incorporate multi-
period MCER response spectra as the primary basis of the seismic design criteria of Chapter 11.
Ideally, multi-period MCER response spectra would be developed by the USGS and provided to
users via a web-based application similar to the U.S. Seismic Design Maps application (USGS
2013) that currently provides 0.2 s and 1.0 s values of MCER ground motions and other seismic
criteria. Presumably, the USGS would develop multi-period response spectra in accordance with
the methods and criteria required for site-specific analysis by Section 21.2 of ASCE 7.
Conceptually, multi-period MCER response spectra would directly incorporate site class and
other site-specific properties, eliminating the need for site coefficients, etc. It is recognized that
this recommendation is currently feasible for WUS sites with seismic ground motion hazard
based on the NGA-West2 GMPEs which directly incorporate site effects, and possibly feasible
for EUS sites in the near future, but not necessarily viable for all regions and territories of the
United States. In such cases, multi-period MCER spectra should be developed for reference site
conditions (only) and separately factored by multi-period site amplification curves.
Multi-Period Site Amplification Curves. Consistent with the recommendation for
incorporation of multi-period MCER response spectra in future editions of ASCE 7, multi-period
site amplification curves should be derived from appropriate GMPEs for modification of
reference site ground motions when site effects are not directly incorporated into multi-period
MCER response spectra. Presumably, multi-period site amplification curves would be developed
as a function of MCER ground motion intensity and site shear wave velocity (rather than Site
Class). Example multi-period site amplification curves are described in Section 3.6 of this report
for discrete values of MCER ground motion intensity and various site classes.
Two-Period Design Spectrum Improvements. If the above recommendations for
incorporation of multi-period MCER response spectra and associated multi-period site
amplification curves are not adopted and the current two-period (0.2 s and 1.0 s) approach for
defining seismic ground motion values is retained in future editions of ASCE 7, then the site
coefficients of ASCE 7-16 should be revised and spectrum shape adjustment factors should be
re-considered for incorporation into Section 11.4.3.
The site coefficients of ASCE 7-16, based on median geomean ground motions, are not
appropriate for factoring values of short-period (SS) and long-period (S1) MCER ground motions
which do not represent median geomean ground motions. Conceptually, site coefficients should
be based on or, at the very least, verified for consistency with site amplification inherent to the
ground motion relations used by the USGS to make maps of MCER ground motions.

6-24
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

7. REFERENCES

Al Atik, L. (2009). Calculation of Weighted Average 2008 NGA Models, Excel file:
NGA_Model_Revised_13, September 2009, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center,
[Link]
Ancheta, T., Darragh, R., Silva, W., Abrahamson, N., Atkinson, G., Boore, D., Bozorgnia, Y.,
Campbell, K., Chiou, B., Graves, R., Idriss, I.M., Stewart, J., Shantz, T. and Youngs, R.,
2012. PEER NGA-West2 Database, PEER Report No. 2013/03, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 134 pp.
ASK14 (Abrahamson, N. A., Silva, W. J., and Kamai, R.), 2013. Update of the AS08 Ground-
Motion Prediction Equations Based on the NGA-West2 Data Set, PEER Report No.
2013/04, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, CA, 143 pp.
BA08 (Boore, D. M., and G. M. Atkinson, 2008). Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for the
Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA at Spectral Periods
between 0.01 s and 10.0s: Earthquake Spectra, v. 24, no.1, pp. 99-138.
BSSA14 (Boore, D. M., Stewart, J. P., Seyhan, E., and Atkinson, G. A.), 2013. NGA-West2
Equations for Predicting Response Spectral Accelerations for Shallow Crustal
Earthquakes, PEER Report No. 2013/05, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 134 pp.
Bozorgnia, Y. et al., 2014. NGA-West2 Research Project, Earthquake Spectra, v. 30, no. 3, pp.
1057–1085.
CB08 (Campbell, K. W., and Y. Bozorgnia, 2008). Ground Motion Model for the Geometric
Mean Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% Damped Linear Elastic
Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10.0 s: Earthquake Spectra, v. 24, no.
1., pp. 139-171.
CB14 (Campbell, K. W., and Bozorgnia, Y.), 2013. NGA-West2 Campbell-Bozorgnia Ground
Motion Model for the Horizontal Components of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped Elastic
Pseudo-Acceleration Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10 s, PEER
Report No. 2013/06, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, CA, 238 pp.
Chiou, B., R. Darragh, N. Gregor and W. Silva 2008. NGA Project Strong-Motion Database,
Brian: Earthquake Spectra, v. 24, no. 1, pp. 23-44.
Crouse C.B, E.V. Leyendecker, P.G. Somerville, M. Power, and W.J. Silva (2006), Development
of Seismic Ground-Motion Criteria for the ASCE 7 Standard, Proceedings of the 8th U.S.
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, April 18-22, 2006, San Francisco,
California, USA. Paper No. 533.
CY08 (Chiou, B. S. J., and R. R. Youngs, 2008). An NGA Model for the Average Horizontal
Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra: Earthquake Spectra, v. 24,
no. 1, pp. 173-215.
CY14 (Chiou, B. S.-J., and Youngs, R. R.), 2013. Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA Ground
Motion Model for Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response
Spectra, PEER Report No. 2013/07, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley, CA, 76 pp.

7-1
Kircher & Associates Seismic Design Procedures Study
Consulting Engineers March 15, 2015

Field, E.H., T.H. Jordan, and C.A. Cornell (2003), OpenSHA: A Developing Community-
Modeling Environment for Seismic Hazard Analysis, Seismological Research Letters, 74,
no. 4, p. 406-419.
I14 (Idriss, I. M.), 2013. NGA-West2 Model for Estimating Average Horizontal Values of
Pseudo-Absolute Spectral Accelerations Generated by Crustal Earthquakes, PEER Report
No. 2013/08, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, CA, 31 pp.
Luco, N., 2014. Excel file, “2015_NEHRP_Ss_&_S1_Values_for_14_CyberShake_Locations,”
11/08/2014 (private communication).
Milner, K., 2015. Excel files, “gmpe_site_amp_all_classes_mean_redo.zip,” 01/27/2015
(private communication).
Petersen, M. D., et al., 2008. Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States National
Seismic Hazard Maps, United States Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2008-1128.
Petersen, M.D., Moschetti, M.P., Powers, P.M., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., Frankel, A.D.,
Zeng, Yuehua, Rezaeian, Sanaz, Harmsen, S.C., Boyd, O.S., Field, Ned, Chen, Rui,
Rukstales, K.S., Luco, Nico, Wheeler, R.L., Williams, R.A., and Olsen, A.H. (2014).
Documentation for the 2014 update of the United States national seismic hazard maps,
U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2014–1091, 243 p.
Seyhan, E. (2014). Weighted Average of 2014 NGA West-2 GMPEs, Excel file:
NGAW2_GMPE_Spreadsheets_v5.6_070514, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center,
[Link]
Seyhan, E. and Stewart, J.P. (2014). Semi-Empirical Nonlinear Site Amplification from NGA-
West2 Data and Simulations, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 30, No. 3, August 2014,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.
Stewart, J.P. and Seyhan, E. (2013). Semi-empirical nonlinear site amplification and its
application in NEHRP site factors, PEER Report 2013/13, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
USGS (2015). “Blythe_CA_2015.02.03_17.[Link],” 2008 NSHMP PSHA Interactive
Deaggregation web site tool, [Link]
USGS (2013). U.S. Seismic Design Maps, web-based tool, version 3.1.0, 11 July 2013,
[Link]
USGS (2012). Hazard Curve Application, web-based tool, version 1.0.1, 2012-07-16,
[Link]
Wald, D. J., and T. I. Allen (2007). Topographic slope as a proxy for seismic site conditions and
amplification, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97, 1379–1395.
Wills, C.J., and Clahan, K.B. (2006), Developing a map of geologically defined site-condition
categories for California, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., v. 96, no. 4A, p. 1483–1501.

7-2