An assessment of seismic design practice of steel structures in the United States since the Northridge earthquake

2004 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 409-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas A. Sabol
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
Steel Structures ◽  
The United States ◽  
Northridge Earthquake ◽  
Design Practice

scholarly journals Recent developments in earthquake hazard mitigation in the United States

1996 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-118
Author(s):  
W. T. Holmes
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Earthquake Hazard ◽  
The United States ◽  
Northridge Earthquake ◽  
Seismic Rehabilitation ◽  
Seismic Loss ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Performance Based Seismic Design

Recent research and development projects in the United States that could significantly affect the future mitigation of seismic risk are summarized. Specific activities described include a report to the governor of California on the Northridge earthquake, the ongoing effort to develop a new national seismic zoning map, development of a comprehensive regional seismic loss estimation methodology, and development of guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Interest in performance based seismic design is discussed and several new large-scale mitigation programs are described.

Seismic Design of Highway Bridges in the United States

1980 ◽  
Vol 106 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-27
Author(s):  
Roland L. Sharpe ◽  
Ronald L. Mayes ◽  
James D. Cooper
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
Highway Bridges ◽  
The United States

Seismic Design Requirements for Regions of Moderate Seismicity

2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 205-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guy J. P. Nordenson ◽  
Glenn R. Bell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
Soft Soil ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mitigation Measures ◽  
Quarter Century ◽  
Seismic Codes ◽  
The Past ◽  
Moderate Seismicity ◽  
High Seismicity

The need for earthquake-resistant construction in areas of low-to-moderate seismicity has been recognized through the adoption of code requirements in the United States and other countries only in the past quarter century. This is largely a result of improved assessment of seismic hazard and examples of recent moderate earthquakes in regions of both moderate and high seismicity, including the San Fernando (1971), Mexico City (1985), Loma Prieta (1989), and Northridge (1994) earthquakes. In addition, improved understanding and estimates of older earthquakes in the eastern United States such as Cape Ann (1755), La Malbaie, Quebec (1925), and Ossippe, New Hampshire (1940), as well as monitoring of micro-activity in source areas such as La Malbaie, have increased awareness of the earthquake potential in areas of low-to-moderate seismicity. Both the hazard and the risk in moderate seismic zones (MSZs) differ in scale and kind from those of the zones of high seismicity. Earthquake hazards mitigation measures for new and existing construction need to be adapted from those prevailing in regions of high seismicity in recognition of these differences. Site effects are likely to dominate the damage patterns from earthquakes, with some sites suffering no damage not far from others, on soft soil, suffering near collapse. A number of new seismic codes have been developed in the past quarter century in response to these differences, including the New York City (1995) and the Massachusetts State (1975) seismic codes. Over the same period, the national model building codes that apply to most areas of low-to-moderate seismicity in the United States, the Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) Code and the Southern Standard Building Code (SSBC), have incorporated up-to-date seismic provisions. The seismic provisions of these codes have been largely inspired by the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) recommendations. Through adoption of these national codes, many state and local authorities in areas of low-to-moderate seismicity now have reasonably comprehensive seismic design provisions. This paper will review the background and history leading up to the MSZ codes, discuss their content, and propose directions for future development.

Performance Goal-Based Seismic Design Standards for Critical Facilities in the United States

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quazi A. Hossain
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
Functional Performance ◽  
Design Method ◽  
The United States ◽  
Department Of Energy ◽  
Performance Goals ◽  
United States Department ◽  
Active Member ◽  
Performance Goal

For more than the last fifteen years, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) has been using a probabilistic performance goal-based seismic design method for structures, systems, and components (SSCs) in its nuclear and hazardous facilities. Using a graded approach, the method permits the selection of probabilistic performance goals or acceptable failure rates for SSCs based on the severity level of SSC failure consequences. The method uses a site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard curve as the basic seismic input motion definition, but utilizes the existing national industry consensus design codes for specifying load combination and design acceptance criteria in such a way that the target probabilistic performance goals are met. Recently, the American Nuclear Society (ANS) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) have undertaken the development of a number of national consensus standards that will utilize the performance goal-based seismic design experience base in the DOE complex. These standards are presently in various stages of development, some nearing completion. Once completed, these standards are likely to be adopted by various agencies and organizations in the United States. In addition to the graded approach of DOE’s method, these standards incorporate design provisions that permit seismic design of SSCs to several levels of functional performance. This flexibility of choosing a functional performance level in the design process results in an optimum, but risk-consistent design. The paper will provide an outline of two of these standards-in-progress and will present the author’s understanding of their basic philosophies and technical bases. Even though the author is an active member of the development committees for these two standards, the technical opinions expressed in this paper are author’s own, and does not reflect the views of any of the committees or the views of the organizations with which any member of the committees are affiliated.

Predicted Ductility Demands for Steel Moment Resisting Frames

1989 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 409-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles W. Roeder ◽  
James E. Carpenter ◽  
Hidetake Taniguchi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
The United States ◽  
Structural Systems ◽  
Ductility Demand ◽  
Steel Moment Resisting Frames ◽  
The Past ◽  
Moment Resisting Frames ◽  
Column System ◽  
Moment Resisting

Recent changes to the United States seismic design provisions permit the use of weak column-strong beam steel moment resisting frames. This design concept has not been used in the past, because it results in plastic hinges in the columns during moderate or extreme earthquakes. This paper shows the results of inelastic dynamic response calculations on a weak column frame and a comparable strong column system. The results show that the ductility demand is much greater for the weak column strong beam framing system with some acceleration records. The required ductility is then compared for the different structural systems and both are compared to the results of experiments. The comparison suggests that the weak column system may not be able to develop the required ductility. The results of this paper should help define the viability and limits in applicability of the weak column system.

International Seismic Zone Tabulation Proposed by the 1997 UBC Code: Observations for Mexico

1999 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 331-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arturo Tena-Colunga
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
The United States ◽  
Building Code ◽  
Seismic Zone ◽  
Seismic Zoning ◽  
Structural Elements ◽  
Division Iii ◽  
Civil Structures ◽  
Entire World

The Uniform Building Code (UBC) is perhaps one of the most advanced seismic codes worldwide. The 1997 version of the Uniform Building Code (UBC-97) has important modifications with respect to previous versions, among other changes, the introduction of structural overstrength, redundancy and reliability factors for the design of structural elements. In addition, the UBC-97 code revises seismic zoning for areas outside the United States under Division III, Section 1653. In fact, practically the entire world is zoned by the UBC-97 under this section, and many practicing engineers worldwide may feel confident to use the UBC code for the design of civil structures in countries other than the United States, particularly because it is written in this section that “Note: This division has been revised in its entirety”. This paper discusses whether or not Section 1653 of the UBC-97 code has any justification for Mexico, by comparing the UBC design criteria with the criteria established by ruling Mexican codes. According to Mexican authorities, only the referenced Mexican building codes should be used for the design of civil structures in Mexico, so the UBC-97 cannot be used for the seismic design of civil structures in Mexico legally.

NEHRP Guidelines and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings

2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 227-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Shapiro ◽  
Christopher Rojahn ◽  
Lawrence D. Reaveley ◽  
James R. Smith ◽  
Ugo Morelli
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Emergency Management ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
Building Material ◽  
The United States ◽  
Seismic Resistance ◽  
Existing Buildings ◽  
Seismic Rehabilitation ◽  
Professional Practitioners ◽  
New Buildings

Based on the conclusion that the primary barrier to widespread seismic rehabilitation of buildings in the United States was the lack of a consensus-backed, nationally applicable, professionally accepted rehabilitation standard, the Federal Emergency Management Agency supported the development of the NEHRP Guidelines and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 273 and 274). A six-year effort by a team of experienced professional practitioners and university researchers who were motivated to produce a standard that specifically addressed the differences in designing for seismic resistance in new buildings, as opposed to existing buildings, resulted in the NEHRP Guidelines and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. These NEHRP Guidelines will provide the tools for design professionals of varying expertise in seismic design to design economical and appropriate seismic rehabilitation for buildings of essentially any size, commonly used building material and configuration.

scholarly journals Performance Evaluation of Rigid Braced Indirect Suspended Ceiling with Steel Panels

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 1986
Author(s):  
Jae-Sub Lee ◽  
Dam-I Jung ◽  
Doo-Yong Lee ◽  
Bong-Ho Cho
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
Shaking Table Test ◽  
The United States ◽  
Shaking Table ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Safety Standard ◽  
Design Standards ◽  
Design Life ◽  
Steel Panels

In Korea, the earthquakes in Gyeongju (2016) and Pohang (2017) have led to increased interest in the seismic design of nonstructural elements. Among these, the suspended ceiling can cause personal injury and property damage. In addition, most suspended ceilings that are used in Korea neither have seismic design details nor meet the current seismic design standards. There are two seismic design methods for suspended ceilings using a perimeter clip and a brace. In the United States and Japan, seismic design of ceilings is typically used, but the concepts of applying and installing braces are different. This is because the typical ceiling systems are different in the United States and Japan. In this study, a brace-applied ceiling system that is suitable for a suspended ceiling with a steel panel was applied in the indirect suspended ceiling mainly used in Korea. In addition, the seismic performance was verified through a shaking table test. All the specimens were applied with anti-falling clips that are designed to prevent the panels from falling, and they satisfy KDS 41 17 00, which is a Korean seismic design life safety standard. Without considering these factors, the performance level is lower than a nonseismic designed ceiling, which is not properly designed or constructed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document