Comparison of Recent U.S. Seismic Codes
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 123, Issue 8
Abstract
This paper compares National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), ASCE 7, and Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic design provisions to address the differences in their philosophies and applicabilities. These documents are compared by focusing on issues such as (1) purpose of earthquake codes; (2) type of document and target audience; (3) lateral forces; and (4) analysis provisions. NEHRP and ASCE 7 documents are based on strength design while UBC and SEAOC are based on allowable or working stress design. There are other fundamental differences among these documents such as the required methods of analysis, building importance, detailing requirements, soil amplification factors, drift control and P-delta amplification, and the method of assigning an importance factor. Several tables and graphs are presented to illustrate the similarities and differences among these codes.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Algermissen, S. T., and Perkins, D. M. (1976). “A probabilistic estimate of maximum acceleration in rock in the contiguous United States.”USGS Open File Rep. 76-416. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Reston Va.
2.
“Building code requirements for masonry structures.”ASCE 5-92/ACI 530-92, (1992a). ASCE, New York, N.Y.
3.
“Building code requirements for reinforced concrete.” (1992b). Am. Concrete Inst. (ACI), Detroit, Mich.
4.
Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel buildings. (1993). Am. Inst. of Steel Constr. (AISC), Inc., Chicago, Ill.
5.
Luft, R. W. (1989). “Comparison among earthquake codes.”Earthquake Spectra, 5(4).
6.
“Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.” (1995). ASCE 7-95, ASCE, New York, N.Y.
7.
NEHRP recommended provisions for the development of seismic regulations for new buildings, 1991 Ed. (1992). Build. Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.
8.
NEHRP recommended provisions for the development of seismic regulations for new buildings, 1994 Ed. (1995). Build. Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.
9.
SEAOC recommended lateral force requirements and commentary. (1990). Seismology Committee, Struct. Engrs. Assn. of California (SEAOC), Sacramento, Calif.
10.
Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. (1992). Am. Inst. of Steel Constr. (AISC), Inc., Chicago, Ill.
11.
Specification for structural buildings, allowable stress design and plastic design. (1989). Am. Inst. of Steel Constr. (AISC), Inc., Chicago, Ill.
12.
“Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for buildings.” (1978). ATC-3-06 Rep., Appl. Technol. Council, Redwood City, Calif.
13.
Uniform building code, Volume 2, structural engineering design provisions. (1994). International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, Calif.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 123 • Issue 8 • August 1997
Pages: 993 - 1000
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: Aug 1, 1997
Published in print: Aug 1997
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.