ASCE/SEI 41-17: A Summary of

Major Changes

Robert G. Pekelnicky, S.E. (CA), P.E. (CA+TN)

[email protected]

Distribution of the webinar materials outside of your site is prohibited. Reproduction of the materials and pictures without a written permission of the 
copyright holder is a violation of the U.S. law.

Meet Your Instructor

Robert Pekelnicky, P.E., S.E.  Recognized expert in seismic evaluation

and retrofit of existing buildings.

 16 years of experience retrofitting buildings

in areas of high seismicity.

 Clients include Fortune 500 corporations,

major healthcare providers, universities,
and federal government agencies.

 Diverse retrofit experience from historic

single family home to high rise office
buildings.

 Leader of several committees that set the

standards of earthquake evaluation, retrofit
and design of new construction.
2

1
Webinar Outcomes
 Understand how the changes to the BPOE may effect seismic
evaluation and retrofit in different parts of the country.

 Become familiar with the changes to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 procedures.

 Learn how and why demands on force-controlled actions are being

changed for both linear and nonlinear procedures.

 Be provided with a summary of the updated nonlinear response history

analysis procedure and why it is different from the previous edition’s.

 Learn about changes to the material provisions, including significant

revisions to how steel and concrete columns are addressed.

ASCE 41-17

 3 year update cycle

 30 voting members & 70 associate

members

 Public comment period just opened

 Publication date set for December 2017

 Referenced in the 2018 IEBC

2
ASCE 41-17
 Chapter 1 General Requirements
 Chapter 2 Seismic Performance Objectives and Ground Motions
 Chapter 3 Evaluation and Retrofit Requirements
 Chapter 4 Tier 1 Screening .
 Chapter 5 Tier 2 Deficiency-Based Evaluation and Retrofit
 Chapter 6 Tier 3 Systematic Evaluation and Retrofit
 Chapter 7 Analysis Procedures and Acceptance Criteria
 Chapter 8 Foundations and Geologic Site Hazards
 Chapter 9 Steel
 Chapter 10 Concrete
 Chapter 11 Masonry
 Chapter 12 Wood and Cold-Formed Steel
 Chapter 13 Architectural, Mechanical, and Electrical Components
 Chapter 14 Seismic Isolation
 Chapter 15 Supplemental Energy Dissipation
 Chapter 16 System-Specific Performance Procedures
 Chapter 17 Tier 1 Checklists
 Chapter 18 References
 Appendix A Guidelines for Deficiency-Based Procedures
 Appendix B Use of ASCE 41-13 within Mitigation Programs 5

Tier 1 & 2 Changes

3
 ASCE 41-13 Structural Performance Levels

Immediate Occupancy

Damage Control Enhanced Safety

Life Safety

Limited Safety Reduced Safety

Collapse Prevention
Image © Degenkolb Engineers

ASCE 41-17 Structural Performance Levels

Immediate Occupancy

Damage Control Enhanced Safety

Life Safety

Limited Safety Reduced Safety

Collapse Prevention
Image © Degenkolb Engineers

4
ASCE 41-13 Nonstructural Performance Levels

Operational ASCE 7 Ip = 1.5

Position Retention ASCE 7 Ip = 1.0

Life Safety Actually can seriously

injure or kill someone

BPON
Risk Category BSE-1N (DE) BSE-2N ( MCER)
Basic Performance I & II Life Safety Collapse
Objective (Typical Structural Prevention
Performance Structural
Equivalent to New buildings)
Performance
Position
Building Standards Retention Nonstructural
(BPON) Nonstructural Performance
Performance Not Considered
III Damage Control Limited Safety
(Schools, Structural Structural
Assembly) Performance Performance
Position Nonstructural
Retention Performance
Nonstructural Not Considered
Performance
IV Immediate Life Safety
(Essential Occupancy Structural
facilities, i.e. Structural Performance
hospitals & Performance Nonstructural
EOCs) Operational Performance
Nonstructural Not Considered
Performance 10

5
 BPON Risk Category II

Why check both the Design Earthquake (BSE-1N) and the MCER (BSE-2N) when
ASCE 7 only requires one?

Building EQ
Displacement response if code
@ 2/3*MCER compliant
Strength =
W*Sa,2/3*MCER / R Displacement
@ MCER
Force

Building EQ
response if not code
Roof compliant
Displacement

11

BPOE
Basic Performance Risk Category BSE-1E (20%/50) BSE-2E (5%/50)
I & II Life Safety Collapse
Objective Structural Prevention
(Typical
for Existing Buildings buildings) Performance Structural
Performance
(BPOE) Life Safety
Nonstructural Nonstructural
Performance Performance
Not Considered
III Damage Control Limited Safety
(Schools, Structural Structural
Assembly) Performance Performance
Position Nonstructural
Retention Performance
Nonstructural Not Considered
Performance
IV Immediate Life Safety
(Essential Occupancy Structural
facilities, i.e. Structural Performance
hospitals & Performance Nonstructural
EOCs) Position Performance
Retention Not Considered
Nonstructural
Performance 12

6
 BPON
Basic Performance Risk Category BSE-1E (20%/50) BSE-2E (5%/50)
I & II Life Safety Deemed to
Objective Structural Comply
(Typical
for Existing Buildings buildings) Performance Structural
Performance
(BPOE) Life Safety
Nonstructural Nonstructural
Performance Performance
Not Considered
III Damage Control Deemed to
Only required to check (Schools, Structural Comply
BSE-1E Performance Assembly) Performance Structural
Objective in Tier 1 and Position Performance
Tier 2. Retention Nonstructural
Nonstructural Performance
Commensurate BSE-2E Performance Not Considered
Performance Objective IV Immediate Deemed to
(Essential Occupancy Comply
is deemed to be met.
facilities, i.e. Structural Structural
hospitals & Performance Performance
EOCs) Position Nonstructural
Retention Performance
Nonstructural Not Considered
Performance 13

Los Angeles Example

New Design Equivalent Hazards – No “Break”

BSE-2N is 2.40

BSE-1N is 1.60

Existing Building Hazards – the “Break”

BSE-2E is 1.76 (73% of MCER)

BSE-1E is 0.84 (53% of MCER)

BSE-2E/BSE-1E = 2.0

41-13 to 31-03 – ASCE 31 2/3MCE = 1.44 is 77% of ASCE 31 demand.

14

7
Memphis Example

New Design Equivalent Hazards – No “Break”

BSE-2N is 1.01

BSE-1N is 0.67

Existing Building Hazards – the “Break”

BSE-2E is 0.71 (67% of MCER)

BSE-1E is 0.13 (19% of MCER)

41-13 to 31-03: 2/3MCE = 0.93, 41-13 is 19% of ASCE 31 demand

15

Example Hazard Curves (USGS, 2003)

0.1
San Francisco
SA[10%/50-yr]:
Los Angeles 0.40 g Los Angeles
Memphis 0.06 g
Seattle
Annual Fre que ncy

0.01 Salt Lake City

Sacramento
10% in 50 Years
Memphis

0.001 Charleston
2% in 50 Years
St. Louis
2/3 x SA[2%/50-yr]:
Los Angeles 0.45 g New York City
Memphis 0.25 g
Chicago
0.0001
0.01 0.1 1 10
1-Second Spectral Acceleration (g)

16

8
 Reason for ASCE 41-13 Decision

 The hazard is the hazard, if it is low then that reflects the lack of
probability of a major earthquake

 Better to address the most egregious buildings (i.e. ones that fail at a
very low hazard level) than set to high a bar

17

ASCE 41-17 BPOE Issue

Engineers in Memphis and other regions outside of California were

concerned that the new hazard is too low and does not provide collapse
prevention at the BSE-2E hazard

Displacement @ BSE-1E

Strength of
building
Displacement @ BSE-2E
Force

Building EQ response

Roof
Displacement

18

9
Why Does BSE-2E Matter?

19

Basic Performance
Objective
for Existing Buildings
(BPOE)

Now required to check

BSE-2E Performance
Objective in Tier 1 and
Tier 2.

Commensurate BSE-1E
Performance Objective is
deemed to be met,
except for RC IV.

RC IV checks both BSEs

20

10
Nonstructural BSE-1E vs. BSE-2E

If BSE-1E is too low in

certain parts of the
country for structural
evaluation, would it not
also be too low for
nonstructural?

21

Nonstructural BSE-1E vs. BSE-2E

Since a building is
checked for collapse
prevention at BSE-2E, is
there a corollary
nonstructural
performance level?

What nonstructural
components would be
included?

22

11
Hazards Reduced Nonstructural Performance

Create a performance
level that addresses
falling hazard that could
serious injure or kill
many people.

Different than Life Safety

which is based on
injuring or killing a
person.

23

ASCE 41-17 Nonstructural Performance Levels

Operational ASCE 7 Ip = 1.5

Position Retention ASCE 7 Ip = 1.0

Life Safety Actually can seriously

injure or kill someone

Hazards Reduced Actually can seriously

injure or kill lots of people

24

12
Hazards Reduced Examples

 Cladding and parapets over busy sidewalks

 Heavy plaster ceilings over assembly spaces

 URM or hollow clay tile partitions in assembly spaces

 Hazardous materials

 Marquees and architectural appendages over egress and sidewalks

 Storage racks

If it can be demonstrated that the component does not pose a threat of

serious injury to many people due to falling or failing under the seismic
hazard level being considered, the component need not be considered in
the Hazards Reduced nonstructural performance level.

25

Basic Performance
Objective
for Existing Buildings
(BPOE)

26

13
 Tier 1 & 2 Changes

27

Relocation of Benchmark Buildings

 Originally part of ASCE 31-03 Tier 1

 Remained in Tier 1 in ASCE 41-13

 Moved to Chapter 3 in ASCE 41-17 to

apply to both T1/T2 and T3 buildings

 Also, split into 2 tables (CP & IO) for

clarity

28

14
Benchmark Building Updates

 Performance basis consistent with BPOE revisions

 LS codes deemed to comply with CP performance

 VLS (ASCE 7 SDC A) added to Benchmark criteria

 No substantive changes to benchmark codes and standards except for:

 URM – Special Procedure in ASCE 41 and IEBC removed as a benchmark
standard (good procedure used for thousands of buildings to reduce risk, but
design basis is not comparable to CP at BSE-2E)

29

Limitations for T1/T2 Procedures

 No changes to height limits (substantially increased in 41-13)

 IO or below performance for BSE-1E or less

 LS or below performance for BSE-2E or less

 Still can’t using T1/T2 procedures for BPON

30

15
Structural Checklist Updates

ASCE 41-13: Checklists completed for LS in BSE-1E, then deemed to

comply with CP in BSE-2E

ASCE 41-17: Checklists completed for CP in BSE-2E, then deemed to

comply with LS in BSE-1E

Therefore, no fundamental change to structural checklists, just rename LS

checklists to CP checklists

Hazards Reduced added to nonstructural checklists

31

Nonstructural Checklist Updates

 Added Hazards Reduced (HR) criteria

 No added statements, just classifying current statements as HR or not

32

16
Quick Check Acceptance Criteria

 Provide Ms factors for 3 performance levels: IO, LS, and CP

 IO & LS for RC IV
 CP for RC II
 Interpolate between CP and LS for RC III
 ASCE 41-13 LS & IO Ms factors reduced by ~25% to account for the elimination
of the “75% factor” from 31-03 to 41-13
 Add new Ms factors for CP, set at ~1.5xLS…..why?
 Life Safety performance has traditionally be considered as a 25 percent margin against
collapse (based on a detailed quantitative analysis)
 The failure rate for buildings undergoing Tier 1 screening generally has been perceived to be
too low
 The ratio to BSE-2E to BSE-1E ground motions in the western US is typically 1.5 to 2.5
 Consistency between Ms and m factors not a primary consideration (system vs element)

33

Improved Guidance on Tier 2 Process

 Clarified that scope of evaluation need not expand beyond the
evaluation of the potential deficiencies identified in the Tier 1 screening.

 Analysis Procedures shall be in accordance with Section 7.2.1, utilizing

either the linear static procedure (LSP) of Section 7.4.1 or the linear
dynamic procedure (LDP) of Section 7.4.2.

 The limitations on the use of linear procedures in Section 7.3.1.1 need

not apply to Tier 2 procedures. LDP shall be used when the LSP is
limited in accordance with Section 7.3.1.2 or when the LDP is required
by Tier 2 evaluation procedures.

 The building’s configuration and irregularities shall be included in

accordance with Section 7.2.4.

 Multidirectional Seismic Effects shall be included where required by

Section 7.2.5.

 P- ∆ Effects shall be included in accordance with Section 7.2.6.

34

17
Improved Guidance on Tier 2 Process
 When Tier 2 evaluation procedures require evaluation of overturning
effects, overturning shall be evaluated in accordance with Section 7.2.8.

 Diaphragms shall be included in the model in accordance with Section

7.2.9. Diaphragms, chords, collectors and ties shall be evaluated in
accordance with Section 7.2.9 when required by Tier 2 evaluation
procedures.

 When Tier 2 evaluation procedures require evaluation of the continuity

of structural elements to be tied together to form a complete load path,
continuity shall be evaluated in accordance with Section 7.2.10.

 When Tier 2 evaluation procedures require evaluation of vertical- or

seismic-force-resisting elements common to two structures, the
evaluation shall be in accordance with Section 7.2.12.

 When Tier 2 evaluation procedures require evaluation of building

separations, the evaluation shall be in accordance with Section 7.2.13.

35

Configuration Procedures

 Weak Story – Revised to better account for increased story drift

resulting from a story mechanism
 M-factor reduced based on number of stories above the weak story

36

18
Configuration Procedures

 Soft Story – added text for deformation compatibility at the soft story

37

Strong-Column / Weak Beam

 Two concerns:
 Can the column accept a hinge and still carry the gravity load
 Do enough hinges form in the columns in a given story to create a story
mechanism

 Solution
 If > 50% joints at a story are Strong-Column, then no mechanism and
evaluate individual columns using typical m-factors
 If < 50% joints at a story are Strong-Column, then check with reduced m-
factors to account for amplified drifts

38

19
Shear Walls
 Shear stress
 T2 evaluation only for walls at and below level of T1 noncompliance
 Clarified that evaluate both Shear & Flexure in Tier 2

 Overturning
 T2 evaluation only for individual walls that fail T1 criteria (based on aspect
ratio)

39

Analysis Changes

40

20
Linear Procedures – Force-Controlled Actions

No
differentiation
QE between force
QUF  QG 
C1C 2 J controlled
demand for
Performance
Level.

κ Force-controlled
QcQ action that
l uf meets CP limit,
also meets
Immediate
Occupancy

What happens if
you get a slightly
larger ground
motion?
41

Linear Procedures – Force-Controlled Actions

“Structural Performance Level S-3, Life QE

QUF  QG 
Safety, is defined as the postearthquake C1C 2 J
damage state in which a structure has
damaged components but retains a
margin against the onset of partial or 1.1Quf
total collapse. A structure in compliance κQcl
with the acceptance criteria specified in this Quf
standard for this Structural Performance
Level is expected to achieve this state.

Currently no margin of Safety against

collapse for force-controlled actions.

42

21
Linear Procedures – Force-Controlled Actions

QE χ
QUF  QG 
C1C2J

χ = 1.0 for Collapse Prevention κ

1.3 for Life Safety and higher Qc
l
Q
1.0 if J = minimum DCR in load uf

path

Quf may be determined by

mechanism assessment instead.

43

Site Specific Response Spectra

1.600
 Based on ASCE 7-16
Provisions. 1.400

 NGA-West 2 GMP 1.200

increases long period

1.000
region.
0.800
 Required for BSE-2N
in Site Class D and E 0.600
in regions of moderate
and high seismicity. 0.400

0.200
 No required for BSE-
2E and BSE-1E. 0.000
0 1 2 3 4

44

22
Ground Motion Selection & Scaling

 Based on ASCE 7-16 Provisions. 2.5

Loma
Prieta-STG
(RotD100)
 11 records instead of 3 to 10.
2 Loma
Prieta-
 Scale maximum of two spectral WVC
(RotD100)
ordinates to target spectrum. Cape
Mendocino
1.5 -FOR
Random orientation unless near

Sa (g)
 (RotD100)
Kocaeli,
field. Turkey-
DZC
1 (RotD100)
 Near-field increased to 15km. Chi-Chi,
Taiwan-
CHY036
(RotD100)
 Conditional Mean Spectra may be 0.5 Chi-Chi,
used Taiwan-
TCU122
(RotD100)

 Spectral matching permitted with a 0

Darfield,
New
10% penalty. 0 2 4 Zealand-
REHS
Periods (sec) (RotD100)

 Period range to scale different than

ASCE 7. Upper bound of 1.5T
instead of 2T.
45

Nonlinear Response History Analysis –

Unacceptable Response
In ASCE 41-13 all records must run
to completion
24
In ASCE 41-17, 1 of 11 may be 22
discarded for Life Safety and lower 20
18
performance levels if:
16
14
 Record doesn’t converge
12
10
 Collapse predicted 8
6
 Deformation controlled 4
components exceed valid range of 2
modeling (different than CP limit) 0
0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00%
 Critical force-controlled actions do
not exceed expected capacity

46

23
Nonlinear Response History Analysis –
Force-Controlled Action

Amplify the demand to account for

record-to-record variability and
potential deformation-controlled
24
element material overstrength. 22
20
γ = 1.3 for Critical 18
1.0 for Ordinary 16
14
1.0 for Noncritical 12
χ = 1.0 for Collapse Prevention 10
8
1.3 for Life Safety and 6
higher 4
2
γχ ≤ 1.5 0
0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00%
Quf may be determined by
mechanism assessment instead.

47

Soil Structure Interaction Changes

 ASCE 41-13 did not limit combining SSI effects.

 Some concern about overlapping reductions.

 Combinations of SSI not thoroughly studied.

 ASCE 41-17 limits cumulative effects of SSI to a 30% reduction in

pseudo-lateral force or target displacement from fixed-base, no SSI
condition.

 ASCE 41-17 does not limit cumulative effects of SSI on NDP because
NDP explicitly considers interaction of different SSI actions.

 Update limits on Kinematic SSI

 Update foundation damping provisions.

48

24
 Material Provision Changes

49

Steel Columns Updates

 Column linear criteria will be based on Puf/Pye instead of Puf/Pcl.

 Column nonlinear criteria will be based on Pg/Pye.

 Limit Pg/Pye for force-controlled behavior is 0.6 in nonlinear procedures.

 Additional parameters will affect nonlinear ductility, h/tw, b/2tf, and L/ry.

 Columns will have different nonlinear modeling parameters acceptance

criteria, typically less conservative for higher axial forces.

50

25
Steel Panel Zone Updates

 In ASCE 41-17, panel zone m-factors and

acceptance criteria can reduce due to axial
force in column.

 Nonlinear criteria also has plastic deformation

limit based on whether beam flange welds
used notch-tough weldmetal.

 Likely ASCE 41-23 issue: Are panel zone m-

factors are too generous for pre-Northridge
(From FEMA 355D)
connections? Should the m-factors be
reduced by 50% for pre-Northridge welds?

51

Added Cold Formed Steel Specific Provisions

 Common Building Types and Benchmark Criteria (Chapter 3)

 Tier 1 Checklists (Chapter 4 and 17)

 Tier 2 Deficiency-Based (Chapter 5)

 Tier 3 Systematic (Chapter 9)

52

26
CFS Common Building Types

 CFS1 – Shear Wall Systems

(Wood Structural Panel or Sheet Steel)

 CFS2 – Strap Braced Wall Systems

 Diaphragms are wood or metal deck, not precast

From Ayhan,
Madsen, Schafer,
2016

53

CFS – Tier 1 and Tier 2

 New Tier 1 checklists for CFS1 and CFS2

 Similar to wood shear walls
 Some criteria similar to steel braced frames
 Other statements specific to CFS systems

 New Tier 2 evaluation criteria

54

27
CFS – Tier 3

 Moved to Chapter 9 (Steel) from

Chapter 12 (wood

 Acceptance criteria updated

based on:
 AISI S400
 Recent component testing

 Includes T3 criteria for CFS

moment frames

55

Chapter 10 Concrete Background

 Chapter 10 maintained by ACI 369 committee

 ACI 369 report changed to mandatory language to be incorporated in

ASCE 41

 ACI 369 committee votes on changes before going to ASCE 41

committee ballot

56

28
Chapter 10 Concrete Revisions

 Structural Wall Stiffness Provisions

57

Chapter 10 Concrete Revisions

 Modeling Parameters and Acceptance Criteria for Concrete Columns

 No More Triple Interpolation!

 Column Tension Loads

58

29
Chapter 10 Concrete Revisions

 Existing Anchorage Testing Requirements

 Applies to roof to wall anchors

 Core Testing Requirements

 Lower bound may be based on Section 6.4.3 of ACI 562-13 with a minimum
of 4 tests

59

Concrete Anchor Testing (Usual Data Collection)

 Cast-in-place or post-installed anchors shall be classified in groups of

similar type, size, geometry and structural use.

 In groups of anchors used for out-of-plane wall anchorage and in groups

of anchors whose failure in tension or shear would cause the structure
not to meet the selected Performance Objective, 5% of the anchors
with a minimum of three anchors of each anchor group shall be tested
in-place in tension to establish an available strength, construction
quality or both.

 The test load shall be specified by the licensed design professional and
shall be based on the anticipated demand or strength in accordance
with available construction information.

 Testing of the anchors to failure is not required and a test load lower
than the expected failure load shall be permitted

60

30
Chapter 11 (Masonry) Revisions

 URM Behavior
 Bed Joint Sliding – No change
 Rocking – Changes to nonlinear criteria
 New Spandrel Beam Provisions
 Based on lintel type
 Deformation controlled
 Out-Of-Plane Action – Updates to add LS provisions

 URM Infill
 In Plane Actions
 Infill Out-Of-Plane Interaction
 Infill In-Plane Acceptance Criteria

 Materials Condition Assessment and Enhancement Updates

61

Chapter 12 Wood Revisions

 Diaphragm Strength Reduction for 2 inch Framing

 Shear Wall Strength Reduction for 2 inch Framing

62

31
Diaphragm Strength Reduction for 2x Framing

12.5.3.6.2 Strength of Wood Structural Panel Sheathing Diaphragms

 For existing wood structural panel diaphragms framed with 2-in. nominal
framing and 10d common nails at adjoining panel edges where 3-in.
nominal framing is required per AWC SDPWS, the expected strength
shall not be taken as greater than 0.80 times the expected strength
associated with use of 3-in. nominal framing at adjoining panel edges.

 The 0.80 factor is based on the combination of the 0.89 factor in APA
Report 138 for use of 2” framing in lieu of 3” framing and a 0.90 factor
associated with a 10% strength reduction recognized in the 1979 UBC
for 10d common nails (0.148” shank diameter) and is also applicable for
longer 12d common nails of the same diameter.

63

Shear Wall Strength Reduction for 2x Framing

12.4.4.6.2 Strength of Wood Structural Panel Sheathing or Siding

Shear Walls….

 For existing wood structural panel shear walls framed with 2-in. nominal
framing and 10d common or galvanized box nails at adjoining panel
edges where 3-in. nominal framing is required per AWC SDPWS, the
expected strength shall not be taken as greater than 0.90 times the
expected strength associated with use of 3-in. nominal framing at
adjoining panel edges.

 The 0.90 factor is based on the 10% strength reduction recognized in

the 1979 UBC for such shear walls having sheathing nailed with 10d
common (0.148” shank diameter) or galvanized box nails and is also
applicable for longer 12d common nails of the same diameter.

64

32
Chapter 13 Nonstructural Revisions

 Hazards Reduced Nonstructural Performance Level

 Force Equations and Response Factors from ASCE 7

 Updated Acceptance Criteria for Deformation-Sensitive Components

 Table 13-1 Footnote

 Nonstructural Anchor Testing

 Rooftop Photovoltaic Arrays

65

Questions

66

33