Codes and O

ver the past twenty years, the seis- concluded that some structures, by reason of
mic design value maps referenced by their occupancy and use, were more important
the building codes have undergone than others and should be designed stronger,

Standards
revolutionary changes, affecting the resulting in introduction of an occupancy
information they portray, the way they are devel- importance factor. Throughout the 1970s and
oped and the design procedures that reference 1980s, seismic design forces were determined
them. Many structural engineers, noting these by the formula:
constant changes and the effects on their designs,
updates and discussions V = ZIKCSW
question why this happens and if it is necessary.
related to codes and standards This article presents a historic review of major where Z is a zone factor, having a value ranging
developments in seismic design value mapping from 0 (in Zone 0) to 1 (in Zone 4); I, the occu-
and a look forward to potential future changes. pancy importance factor, still with us today; K,
Prior to 1993, U.S. building codes adopted a structural quality factor varying from 0.67 for
seismic maps that portrayed design values in the structures having complete vertical load carrying
form of seismic zones (Figure 1). The five seismic space frames to 1.33 for “box” type structures
zones, each of which covered broad regions of the wherein the shear walls
® carried most of the struc-

E
U.S., were based on the historic occurrence of ture’s weight W; and C, a period (or height)
damaging earthquakes, or the lack thereof; Zone dependent force coefficient, specified to result

R
0 representing places where earthquakes had never in a design forces equal to 10% of the structure’s
been experienced, and were therefore deemed weight for rigid structures of ordinary occupancy

U
unlikely to occur; Zonerig4ht where major dam- and ordinary framing located in Zone 4; and

T
y
Cop aging earthquakes had S a site factor, which increased design forces
historically occurred on soft soil sites. A nearly identical version of

Seismic Design Value Maps

C
one or more times; and this formula was in use, without the occupancy

e
U
the intermediate zones importance and site factors, since the 1940s.
covering places where
i n Following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake

R
ground shaking may and observation that some code conforming
Past, Present and Future z
T
occasionally have been felt, but where damage structures performed poorly, C was adjusted to

g a
due to this shaking seemed less likely. provide an “ordinary” design force of 13% of

S
By Ronald O. Hamburger, S.E., Originally, seismic zones and design forces were the structure’s weight, and then following similar
SECB a
not quantitatively tied to anticipated ground observations in the 1994 Northridge earthquake,
m
accelerations. In the early 1900s, engineers
in Italy, Japan and the U.S., without specific
18% of the structure’s weight. Seismic design
value maps continued to specify the Z coeffi-
knowledge of the accelerations produced by cient, and geographic boundary of seismic zones
earthquakes or the dynamic response of struc- based on the historic occurrence of earthquakes
tures subjected to ground shaking, concluded in broad regions. There was relatively little sci-
that structures should be seismically designed ence underlying these requirements. Engineers
to withstand 10% of their weight, applied as determined design forces in an imprecise, but
a lateral force should provide adequate protec- simple, way and the design forces in a given
Ronald O. Hamburger tion. At that time, only buildings in places zone remained constant from code cycle to cycle,
(rohamburger@sgh.com) is known to have severe earthquakes, including unless an extraordinary event, like a major dam-
a senior principal at Simpson Los Angeles, Tokyo, and San Francisco, were aging earthquake, suggested that force levels
Gumpertz & Heger in San designed for such forces. Later as building should be raised.
Francisco. He has been active codes evolved, code-writers specified general In the 1970s, the ATC 3-06 project initi-
in the development of seismic use of the 10% criteria for structures in zones ated scientific quantification of mapped design
requirements of building codes of severe seismic risk, and arbitrary fractions values, abandoning seismic zone maps and
and standards since the 1980s. of this requirement for zones of lesser seismic adopting spectral response acceleration maps
He presently chairs the ASCE 7 risk. Still later, as engineers began to understand in their place. The ATC 3-06 report declared
Committee and also the Project 17 structural dynamics and spectral response, that design earthquake ground motions rep-
Committee discussed in this article. the 10% rule was adjusted to account for the resented events with a 475-year mean return
reduced response of more flexible structures. period and that the Zone 4 design motions had
At the same time, engineers observed that some effective peak ground accelerations of 0.4g,
types of structures, for example, unreinforced a broad generalization given the huge varia-
masonry bearing wall buildings, performed tion in actual seismic risk across Zone 4. The
more poorly in earthquakes than others, e.g., ATC 3-06 report also recommended separate
frame structures. In response, codes specified maps for short period and 1-second response
structural quality factors to adjust the required accelerations, respectively denoted Aa and Av.
design forces based on the type of structural Despite these conceptual differences, the ATC
system and the perceived enhanced capability 3-06 maps resembled and retained much of
of some structural systems to provide better the coarseness of the original seismic zones
performance. Finally, in the 1970s, code writers (Figure 2). Building codes adopted the ATC

14 March 2016
 2A

3
2B
1 0
2A
4

3 0

4
1
2B 1 2A
1
2A
4 1 2A
2B
2A 1
Map Area Coeff Aa
2A 2B
0 7 0.40
6 0.30
5 0.20
4 0.15
3 0.10
2 0.05
1 0.05
Figure 1. 1988 UBC Seismic Zone Map. Figure 2. Aa map from ATC 3-06. ®

3-06 recommendations slowly, retaining

seismic zone maps into the 1990s. The
codes did, however, adopt the concept that
unique R values, were defined. Unlike the
1988 UBC, the NEHRP Recommended
Provisions included separate maps for
E
value maps for the new code. SEAOC and

R
SEAW representatives also participated in
these projects.

U
design ground motion represented 475-year Aa and Av. In 1993 ht both the BOCA and A key consideration in these joint projects
yrig

T
shaking, and that design ground motions in Cop
Standard Building Codes, used throughout was that 475-year return periods, while
Zone 4 had effective peak ground accelera- the eastern U.S., adopted seismic design sufficient to capture most events likely

C
tion of 0.4g. criteria and maps based on the NEHRP to occur in the Western U.S. were not

e
U
Paralleling the approach recommended Recommended Provisions while the Uniform sufficient to capture credible ground shak-
by ATC 3-06, the 1988 Uniform Building Building Code (UBC) retained the earlier
i n ing events in the eastern U.S. To avoid a

R
Code (UBC) abandoned the base shear force criteria developed and maintained by major earthquake catastrophe in the eastern
z
T
formula in use since the 1940s in favor of a the western states structural engineering U.S., from a repeat of the 1811-1812 New
form similar to that found in present build- a
associations, most notably SEAOC and
g
Madrid earthquakes or the 1898 Charleston

S
ing codes. The Z and S parameters were SEAW. However, by 1994 it was clear that earthquake, it was felt that return periods
dropped from the base shear equation but a
the three model code development orga- on the order of a few thousand years were
used to compute spectral response coeffi-
cients Ca and Cv, which replaced them. The m
nizations should collaborate to publish a
single nationally applicable code, and that
needed. A first attempt to develop nation-
ally applicable seismic design maps and
structural quality factor, K, was abandoned seismic requirements would be based on the procedures, termed the Seismic Design
in favor of the response modification coef- NEHRP Recommended Provisions. Preparing Values Panel, failed to reach consensus.
ficient Rw. Conceptually Rw represented the for this merger, the Federal Emergency Ultimately, the second joint USGS/BSSC
level of ductility, overstrength and damp- Management Agency hosted a series of joint project (Project 97) developed a compro-
ing inherent in different structural systems Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) mise solution resorting to 2,475 year return
and the judgmentally determined ability / United States Geologic Survey (USGS) periods throughout the U.S., but capping
of such structural systems to safely exhibit projects to develop updated seismic design the mapped values, deemed excessively
inelastic response. However, the Rw values high in regions near major active faults,
were calibrated so that required design forces with deterministic estimates of maximum
for different structural systems remained likely ground shaking. Project 97 also intro-
essentially unchanged from that required by duced the concept of separately mapping
earlier codes. Seismic zones were retained, short period and 1-second period response
with the Ca and Cv values derived over broad accelerations, now termed Ss and S1, in the
regions from the seismic zone factor and form of contours, and developed the design
also the site characteristics. The base shear procedure keyed to these values that still
formula became more scientific, as did the underlies ASCE 7 and the IBC today. The
commentary describing its basis, but design resulting maps appeared in ASCE 7-98,
force levels changed little. ASCE 7-02 and were referenced by the
Starting in 1985, the Building Seismic 2000 and 2003 editions of the International
Safety Council (BSSC) began to publish Building Code (IBC), then with slight
the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for revisions, were updated, republished and
Seismic Regulation of Buildings based on referenced by ASCE 7-05, and the 2006
the ATC 3-06 report. This included a base and 2009 IBC editions (Figure 3).
shear formula like that contained in the Significantly, the new maps showing con-
1988 UBC except that Rw was replaced tours for the Ss and S1 values were based on
with R to provide strength-level rather than probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for every
allowable stress design level forces, and a Figure 3. Ss map for the Western U.S. adopted in point on a 2 km by 2 km grid (approximately
larger number of structural systems, with ASCE 7-05. 1.2 miles by 1.2 miles) across the United
continued on page 17
STRUCTURE magazine 15 March 2016
 Build Your
States. These hazard analyses used the best upon which the maps are based and dis-
available scientific knowledge to assess the satisfaction with the ever-changing design

Career
values of these accelerations for a 2,475-year requirements for buildings. Further, as the
return period. Contours varied by 0.05g, definition of the maps has become more
and in regions close to major active faults complex, designers have lost an understand-
were closely spaced such that, over a distance
of a few kilometers, specified design values
ing of the intent of the map, and what they
represent. Importantly, the maps portray
with Us
varied significantly. Not stated, nor gener- precision in the design values that is inap-
ally understood by structural engineers, was propriate, given the substantial uncertainty
the fact that the mapped values were inher- in the values portrayed. As a result of these
ently uncertain. While the mapped contour concerns, the ASCE 7-16 committee was
values represented “best” or mean estimates reluctant to adopt the latest edition maps.
of the hazard at the 2,475-year return period, Recognizing these concerns, FEMA has
the statistical calculations underlying their sponsored a new joint USGS/BSSC project,
derivation produced coefficients of varia- termed Project 17, to once again evaluate
tion of 60% or more. This uncertainty was the basis for the seismic design value maps ®

E
a result of several factors, including a lack of referenced by the building codes. In addi-
knowledge as to the true locations of faults, tion to issues associated with updating the

R
the magnitudes of potential earthquakes on scientific basis for the maps, Project 17 will
those faults and their activity rates, as well as also address the issues of mapped value sta-

U
unpredictable randomness in the prediction bility and portrayal
righ
t of inappropriate levels

T
of ground acceleration values as a function of opy resulting maps produced
of precision.CThe
magnitude and distance. Scientific opinion by this effort will be referenceable by ASCE

C
as to the true value of these factors changed 7-22 and the 2024 edition of the IBC.

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

e
U
frequently and as these opinions changed, Project 17 initiated in 2015 with a plan-
so too did the mapped values of ground ning effort that included educational
i n
R
shaking adopted by the building codes, webinars and outreach to the structural
z
T
such that with each successive building code and geotechnical engineering professions.
edition, mapped values have alternatively a
The resulting work plan includes a two-
g
S
increased and decreased, often without any year effort that will focus on: 1) balancing
real improvement in the certainty with which a
the precision of mapped values against the
they have been calculated. As the mapped
values of ground shaking parameters have m
uncertainty in their determination, with an
intent to provide stability in future code-
changed, so have the required design forces adopted maps, 2) the appropriate risk (or
for buildings, sometimes significantly from hazard level) to use as the map basis, 3)
one code edition to another. more accurate determination of spectral
In 2007, FEMA partnered with BSSC and values for soft soil sites and long period
USGS once again to conduct a review of structures, and 4) if still required, how to
the basis for the seismic hazard maps and set deterministic caps on design values in
determine if updates to this basis were regions close to major active faults. Other
Take your career in a new direction.
appropriate. Project 07, as the effort was issues, including characterization of basin
Engineers at Simpson Strong‑Tie
called, resulted in conversion of the maps effects on spectra shape and values, consid-
from a uniform hazard (2,475-year return eration of strong shaking duration, and the affect building construction on
period) for ground shaking to a uniform risk use of simulated rather than recorded events a massive scale – helping our
(1% annual probability of collapse) basis. as a basis for the maps, were considered; customers design and build safer,
Further, Project 07 decided that rather than but they were deemed beyond the project’s stronger structures all over the globe.
using geomean motion as the basis for the scope given the available resources. If addi-
maps, maximum direction motions should tional resources or data become available, We have multiple openings for
be used. The resulting revised maps appeared the project may address these. structural engineers who enjoy
in ASCE 7-10, IBC-2012 and the pending The intent is for Project 17 to provide direc- working on innovative and
IBC-2015. In 2014, USGS made revisions tion to USGS on generation of the next issue challenging projects, giving
to the seismic hazard model underlying the of design value maps by late 2017. This will presentations and being on
maps, employing updated science, and pub- enable USGS to provide maps to BSSC for jobsites. Learn more and apply at
lished a new series of maps for reference adoption into the NEHRP Recommended strongtie.com/engineerjobs.
by ASCE 7-16 and IBC 2018. Again, the Provisions in time to support the develop-
specified design values in some locations ment of ASCE 7-22 and for inclusion in the
changed significantly. 2024 IBC. In the interim, ASCE 7-16 and
Noting the fluctuation in specified design the 2018 and 2021 editions of the IBC will
values that occurs from code edition to code incorporate seismic maps based on the USGS
edition, structural engineers have expressed 2014 seismic hazard database.▪
disbelief in the validity of the science ©2016 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. SSTENGIN16

STRUCTURE magazine 17 March 2016