Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Latest Building Seismic Codes

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Jake:

I may have "overstated' it a little.  In theory, the changes in the 2000
NEHRP would make it to the 2003 IBC.  But that may not be the complete
case.

FYI, the last couple code cycles, seismic provisions originate/perculate
in the NEHRP and then get added to the model building code (IBC).  The
intent is to move much of the actual code like development away from the
NEHRP and into ASCE 7.  Then, the NEHRP provsions would have two "parts":
one that adopts ASCE 7 as minimal requirements for government work and the
second that develops new concepts (but not necessarily the code like
language) in seismic design.  This is a result of the two primary
functions of the NEHRP program: 1) develop/promote new seismic design
concepts and 2) by executive order, provide a minimum design
standard/level for seismic design on government projects.  The use of the
NEHRP Provisions as the basis for model code seismic provisions was not
really the prime objective as I understand it, but became a key function
since no one else was doing such code provisions on a NATIONAL level
(note that obviously California was very much into seismic code provisions
long before this and has always lead the effort by way of the SEAOC
Seismiology committee).

So, the true answer is that 'no', I am not sure that the 2000 NEHRP is the
full, complete basis for the '03 IBC...but then I am sure that the 1997
NEHRP is not the complete "basis" for the '00 IBC.  But, I am reasonably
sure that the methodolgy/intent of the '00 NEHRP is the basis/guide for
the methodology for the '03 IBC...especially since I don't think the there
was a major change in methodology from the '97 to '00 NEHRP.  Not to say
that there may or may not be major changes...but the methodology should be
the same.

HTH,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Mon, 10 May 2004, Jake Watson wrote:

> Are you sure FEMA 368 is the basis for the '03 IBC?  I have been trying to
> track down documentation which states the basis.  The maps in the '03 IBC
> seem to indicate they are based on the 97 FEMA provisions.  The main reason
> I ask is because we are using a program called "Seismic Design" which is
> based on the maps from the '00 IBC.  Where there any changes to the maps?
>
> Also, if the '03 code is based on the '00 FEMA provisions, the commentary
> would be very helpful.  Please let me know how you came to the conclusion
> that the '03 IBC is based on the '00 FEMA provisions.
>
> Jake Watson, P.E.
> Salt Lake City, UT
>
> P.S. In case you can't tell, I haven't done much digging on the issue and
> would appreciate a tip in the right direction.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 10:06 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Re: Latest Building Seismic Codes
>
>
> I would suggest obtaining FEMA 368/369 (2000 NEHRP Provisions).  These
> documents are the "basis" for the seismic provisions that are in the 2003
> IBC.  FEMA 368 are the actually provisions (psuedo code language) while
> FEMA 369 is the commentary (and explains much of the intent/background to
> varying degrees of success...sometimes the commentary is not updated as
> quickly as the code/provisions).
>
> You can also get your hands on the 2003 NEHRP Provisions either soon or
> maybe even now (don't know if they are published yet or not, so don't know
> the FEMA publication number).
>
> Of course, if you are going to practice in California, then the latest
> NEHRP Provisions won't help too much in understanding/applying code
> provisions as California still uses the 1997 UBC as the prime basis for
> the their code.  While much of the basis theory is common, the practical
> application can differ by quite a lot in some areas between the NEHRP/IBC
> code provisions and the UBC code provisions.
>
> For making use the UBC code provisions, the SEAOC Bluebook is a good
> publication.  It is in essence the basis of the seismic provisions in the
> UBC (although, I believe newer versions are more inline with the NEHRP/IBC
> seismic...but could be wrong).
>
> You might also take a look at the Seismic Design manuals sold through the
> ICC website.  There are versions that deal with the 1997 UBC as well as
> teh 2000 IBC.
>
> HTH,
>
> Scott
> Adrian, MI
>
>
> On Mon, 10 May 2004, refugio rochin wrote:
>
> > Good Day,
> > I'm an engineer in New Mexico, moving to California soon, and I'm trying
> to catch myself up to speed on seismic knowledge.  I've been investigating,
> looking for the latest research on concrete and steel buildings, and their
> performance in quakes.  What has seemed to be the consensus, is that the
> Seismic Design Handbook by Farzad Naeim has most of the latest information
> in a condensed form for most materials.  Some previous articles have
> included ATC-40 and FEMA 273, but I am wondering if those are somewhat
> outdated.  I can't seem to find anymore information regarding the most
> recent structures tests, besides ASCE 2002 issue on steel structures and
> FEMA 350-355.  I do have a copy of Paulay and Priestley Seismic Design of
> Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, but even that was written before
> Northridge.  Could someone suggest the best materials to update my
> knowledge?
> >
> > Refugio Rochin, MS, EIT
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********