Dear Colleagues:

your valuable notes and comments were received

Dr. Sarkawt Asaad Hasan Dr. Abduljalil Sulaiman

Erbil Polytechnic University Duhok University

sarakot.hasan@epu.edu.iq abduljaleel.ahmed@uod.ac

Dr. Abdulhameed A. Yaseen Dr. Wrya Abdulla

Duhok University Sulaymaniyah University

a.yaseen@uod.ac wrya.faraj@univsul.edu.iq

Dr. Yaman Sami Sharif Kovan Azeez Qader

Duhok University Former lecturer at Hawler Institue

yaman.alkamaki@uod.ac kovan.aziz08@gmail.com
Dr. Sarkawt Asaad Hasan- Erbil Polytechnic University- Structures (sarakot.hasan@epu.edu.iq )

Chapter 2: Section 2-2: S1,Ss Maps: The use of zone system, for example, the use of Ss=0.2, S1=0.6
for the whole region of north of Iraq (Erbil, Dohok, Sulimania) seems to be not realistic and not
economical, as all buildings need to be special RC frames. The realistic approach would be following
the contour lines principal (meaning to consider the line of Ss=0.15 that already exist in the map).
The procedure is used by ASCE07 (See page 20-21 in the ASCE publication “Guide to the Seismic Load
Provisions of ASCE 7-10, by Finley A. Charney, Ph.D., P.E”). This is as a first step before proposing a
new map based on a more comprehensive risk study.

Chapter 3: Section 3.2.2.1 : The code is proposed R values less than the ASCE07, for example using
R=6.5 for special frame (instead of 8), R=4.5 for intermediate frames (instead of 5)…

Chapter 4: There is a confusion regarding the Masonry Structures (Section 4.4 and also 8.6), as the
reference standard ( (‫اﻟﻤﻮاﺻﻔﺎت اﻟﻤﺼﺪرﻳﺔ‬needs to be stated clearly that they are “American
Concrete Institute, Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures, ACI 530-99/ASCE 5-99/TMS
402-99, 1999 and Specifications for Masonry Structures, ACI 530.1-99/ ASCE 6-99/TMS 602-99, 1999”
not ASCE07-05 as the Iraq code states. This reference standards are defined clearly to be (TMS402,
TMS602) in the SBC301 (Saudi Standard, that the Iraqi code is based on)
Dr. Abdulhameed A. Yaseen – Duhok University- Earthquake
engineering

• Ss and S1 Maps need to be updated

• What is the use of PGA map given within Code?

• How can values be included in a code approximately without taking

into account their potential effects on the economic and safety
aspects of projects?

• Seismic joint here is given to be equal to the thermal expansion

joints? Where did you get from these values and is seismic joint the
same as thermal expansion joint?
• Why are both ASD and LRFD methods combined in load
combinations, implying that structures should be designed
using all load combinations from both methods?

• Do seismic loads for the Kurdistan region need to be

augmented by 25% due to its D category SDC (Seismic
Design Category)?
Dr. Wrya Abdulla- Sulaymaniyah University- Structural engineering (wrya.faraj@univsul.edu.iq )

• Just Translating ASCE standard codes or similar codes, posing challenges not only for engineers
but also for individuals outside the academic sphere. This difficulty arises from the lack of clear
explanations within Iraqi code.
For instance, in Chapter Three of the Iraqi code, it presents values for R, Cd, and Omega without
accompanying explanations. Similarly, the initial chapter discusses soil classifications without
specifying the selection methodology.
The handling of displacement calculations follows a similar pattern.
Essentially, this code primarily serve as translation and do not effectively provide guidance to
engineers regarding design principles
• In Chapter 7, the criteria for selecting the site class are outlined, primarily relying on the V30
procedure as the main indicator. However, it's important to note that many soil test reports
typically only include measurements up to a depth of 5 meters, without assessing V30 at the 30-
meter depth.
• The seismic ground motion values SS and S1 may not accurately reflect the conditions in the
Kurdistan region. These values are standardized across the entire region, failing to account for
variations between different cities and locations.
• The loads applied to both horizontal and vertical elements lack clear and precise mention and
translation
• The Iraqi code includes a chapter on "Non-structural Components," but in practice, no project
has implemented it. This raises the question of its practical benefits and relevance.
• Chapter 9 of the Iraqi code discusses existing buildings but does not provide clear information
about the essential requirements.
Dr. Abduljalil Sulaiman- Duhok University- Structures

• Iraqi code need to be updated since its last publish 6 years ago, and we see there are an interest to
construct high rise buildings over 50 stories and using new lite materials.

• Reupdate the spectral acceleration maps for Ss and S1 since we see that special in Turkey and
Morocco the earthquake happened were out of the anticipetaed size and intensity at that locations.

• Review and update the Importance factor given in Table 1.5-1

• Review and update the R, omega, and Cd.

• Review and update the soil site classification

Dr. Yaman Sami Sharif - Duhok University- Structures

• It appears that the Iraqi building code was adapted from American codes
(ASCE7-05 & ASCE7-02) and the Saudi code (SBC301) for seismic
considerations.

• The primary concern is how to apply these codes in the ETABS program to
calculate base shear forces for different cities. It's noted that the Ss and S1
values in the Iraqi code are not expressed as percentages, which raises
questions about their appropriateness.

• Regarding your question about whether the coefficients Ss and S1 are

exaggerated and large, it's crucial to assess the seismic maps of Iraq to
determine if any modifications are needed. An in-depth investigation and
analysis of the seismic data, along with a comparison to the code values,
should be conducted to ensure the safety and reliability of buildings in
different regions of Iraq.

• This process may involve collaboration with geologists, structural engineers,

and seismologists to make informed recommendations for code adjustments if
necessary.
Kovan Azeez Qader- Former lecturer at Hawler Institue- Structure Engineer (kovan.aziz08@gmail.com )

Seismic S1 and Ss parameters: The Iraqi code relies on reference "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Assessment for Iraq by Lawrence Livermore." However, it's worth noting that this reference lacks a
comprehensive seismic catalog for Iraq and uses attenuation equations not specifically developed for
Iraq. As a result, the Ss and S1 parameters may be considered approximate values. We strongly
recommend incorporating more recent research and data specifically developed for Iraq, especially for
the northern, seismically active regions.

Rho Factor Definition: In the majority of seismic design codes, the rho factor serves as an indicator of the
lateral system's ability to provide a load path for seismic load and dissipate seismic energy. However, the
Iraqi code appears to redefine this parameter, in section 3-3/3 assigning a value of 1 for SDC A, B, and C,
and 1.25 for SDC D, it kind of this parameter depend only on SDC.

Scaling of Modal Response Spectrum Method to ELF: The Iraqi code currently encourages scaling the
spectrum to 85% of the Elastic Response Spectrum (ELF). However, the industry trend has shifted towards
scaling the spectrum to 100% of the ELF method. Even though other older codes given a value of 0.85 for
scaling the spectrum to ELF to encourage people to use spectrum method but later the advice to use
100% of scaling.

Nonlinear Analysis Method : The Iraqi code is lack of recommendation for nonlinear analysis method,
even though we know this kind of code will not cover all aspect of this method, but at least the code
should reference other code which is purposed for the nonlinear method, and give us some data such as
seismic at the MCE, SLE level for each zone to use them in other dedicated codes for the purpose of
nonlinear analysis.
Partition Anchoring : For anchoring the partition, there are some general comments but never
exactly mentioned the method that should be applied for anchoring the partition specially for tall
building, I highly recommend that the code discuss about the anchor with highly detailed figures
that demonstrate the anchoring method.

The Iraqi code already gave a colored legend for Ss and S1 value for different zone, it will be great
either to remove the contour on map of Ss and S1 value, or develop a web based app for Iraqi
code that we can enter the location and the app gave us those parameter, otherwise there will
be always argues which approach we should follow and this has huge effect on selecting the
lateral system for seismic resistance later on.

It is highly recommended that the Iraqi seismic code aligns with a well-established international
code, such as ASCE 7-22, and incorporate its provisions. This standardization will make it easier
for designers to use widely recognized software like ETABS, which is often updated in accordance
with such codes.
Summarizing:
The seismic ground motion values SS and S1 may not accurately reflect
the conditions in the Kurdistan region. These values are standardized
across the entire region, failing to account for variations between
different cities and locations.
As result majority of buildings in the region need to be special RC frames.

Certainly, it's crucial to update the Iraqi building code, especially

given the current interest in constructing high-rise buildings
exceeding 50 stories and the utilization of innovative lightweight
materials.

Additionally, there's a need to revisit and revise the spectral

acceleration maps for Ss and S1. This is essential because recent
earthquake events in Turkey and Morocco have demonstrated
seismic activity beyond what was previously anticipated in those
regions. These updates will contribute to enhanced seismic
resilience and safety in construction practices.
What advantages does the PGA (Peak Ground Acceleration)
map offer within the building code?
R, Cd, and omega parameters
Less than values given by ASCE7-22
• Do seismic loads for the Kurdistan region need to be augmented by 25% due to its D category SDC
(Seismic Design Category)?

In the majority of seismic design codes, the rho factor serves as an indicator
of the lateral system's ability to provide a load path for seismic load and
dissipate seismic energy. However, the Iraqi code appears to redefine this
parameter, in section 3-3/3 assigning a value of 1 for SDC A, B, and C, and
1.25 for SDC D, means it depends only on SDC. Why?
Scaling of Modal Response Spectrum Method to ELF:
The Iraqi code currently encourages scaling the spectrum to 85% of the Elastic Response Spectrum (ELF). However,
the industry trend has shifted towards scaling the spectrum to 100% of the ELF method. Even though other older
codes given a value of 0.85 for scaling the spectrum to ELF to encourage people to use spectrum method but later
the advice to use 100% of scaling.

Nonlinear Analysis Method :

The Iraqi code is lack of recommendation for nonlinear analysis method, even though we know
this kind of code will not cover all aspect of this method, but at least the code should reference
other code which is purposed for the nonlinear method, and give us some data such as seismic
at the MCE, SLE level for each zone to use them in other dedicated codes for the purpose of
nonlinear analysis.
• Why are both ASD and LRFD methods combined in load
combinations, implying that structures should be designed
using all load combinations from both methods?
In Chapter 7, the criteria for selecting the site class are outlined, primarily relying on the V30 procedure as the
main indicator. However, it's important to note that many soil test reports typically only include measurements
up to a depth of 5 meters, without assessing V30 at the 30-meter depth.
• Chapter 4: There is a confusion regarding the Masonry Structures (Section 4.4 and
also 8.6), as the reference standard needs to be stated clearly that they are “American
Concrete Institute, Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures, ACI 530-
99/ASCE 5-99/TMS 402-99, 1999 and Specifications for Masonry Structures, ACI
530.1-99/ ASCE 6-99/TMS 602-99, 1999” not ASCE07-05 as the Iraq code states. This
reference standards are defined clearly to be (TMS402, TMS602) in the SBC301
(Saudi Standard, that the Iraqi code is based on)

• The Iraqi code includes a chapter on "Non-structural Components," but in

practice, no project has implemented it. This raises the question of its
practical benefits and relevance.

• Chapter 9 of the Iraqi code discusses existing buildings but does not provide
clear information about the essential requirements.

• Partition Anchoring : For anchoring the partition, there are some general comments
but never exactly mentioned the method that should be applied for anchoring the
partition specially for tall building, I highly recommend that the code discuss about
the anchor with highly detailed figures that demonstrate the anchoring method.