CA seismic design Na, Nv

[teda]

Does anybody know if there is a small software to calculate Na and Nv based on input zip code or address? Thanks.

 

[Bigwolf]

Does anybody know if there is a small software to calculate Na and Nv based on input zip code or address? Thanks.

If you can't find anything, you can always plug the address into something like Google Maps or Mapquest and then cross-reference the location with the book of "Maps of Known Active Fault Near Source Zones" to get your distance to fault and fault type.....and then from there, you can get your Na and Nv values.

It may seem like a pain, but it really doesn't take that long. In fact, it's quicker for me than typing out this response. :th_rockon:

 

[teda]

Thanks. But I think that is really not accurate and may cause problems with plan check.

For example, I estimate 5km to seismic fault source B, but plan check guy may say 2 km and ask me to redo lateral design.......Huge pain there.

I am thinking for conservative design, we may use 2km and seismic source A if no information. But that is too conservative and give me very high seismic load.

If you can't find anything, you can always plug the address into something like Google Maps or Mapquest and then cross-reference the location with the book of "Maps of Known Active Fault Near Source Zones" to get your distance to fault and fault type.....and then from there, you can get your Na and Nv values.
It may seem like a pain, but it really doesn't take that long. In fact, it's quicker for me than typing out this response.

 

[Bigwolf]

Thanks. But I think that is really not accurate and may cause problems with plan check.For example, I estimate 5km to seismic fault source B, but plan check guy may say 2 km and ask me to redo lateral design.......Huge pain there.

I am thinking for conservative design, we may use 2km and seismic source A if no information. But that is too conservative and give me very high seismic load.

You make a very good point. As a general rule of thumb, we'll try to be conservative by assuming we're 1 or 2 km closer than we think we are. On ocassion, we have run into the same problem where lateral needs to be redone due to a plan check correction where they say we are closer to the fault than expected.

 

[Bigwolf]

teda--If you ever come across software for that purpose, please let me know where you found it. Thanks. :beerchug:

 

[teda]

I have been looking for that for a while but not found yet.

If design based on IBC, we can use that free software from USGS website. That can give us all Sds and Sd1 data.

You make a very good point. As a general rule of thumb, we'll try to be conservative by assuming we're 1 or 2 km closer than we think we are. On ocassion, we have run into the same problem where lateral needs to be redone due to a plan check correction where they say we are closer to the fault than expected.