Earthquake Codes IBC

46
A review of seismic hazard description in US design codes and procedures

James E Beavers Mid-America Earthquake Center, Urbana, USA
Summary
A review of seismic hazard description in United States design codes and procedures is presented in this paper. This review includes: history of seismic hazard maps; development and use of seismic hazard maps; and use and adoption of seismic building codes in the US. The review includes discussion of two paradigm shifts. The first paradigm shift occurred in the 1970s when seismic hazard was described as contour maps of probabilities of peak ground accelerations being exceeded. The second paradigm shift occurred in the 1990s and led to the development of a new concept for describing the use of seismic hazard maps in US seismic design codes.
Key words: seismic history; seismic codes; seismic hazard; seismic design; seismic maps Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:4663 (DOI: 10.1002/pse.106)
Introduction SEISMICITY
The contiguous US is considered as having two seismicity regions, interplate and intraplate. In simple terms, the interplate region is considered as west of the Rocky Mountains and the intraplate region east of the Rocky Mountains. The area east of the Rocky Mountains is often referred to as the central and eastern United States (CEUS). Technically, the US Geological Survey (USGS) defines the separation between the interplate and intraplate regions as an overlapping area between 1008 and 1158 West[1]. A map of historical seismicity in the US is shown in Fig. 1. The interplate region of the US is well known for its seismicity, including such earthquakes as the 1906 San Francisco (M7.7), 1933 Long Beach (M6.4), 1952 Kern County (M6.7), 1971 San Fernando (M6.7), 1989 Loma Prieta (M7.2), and 1994 Northridge (M6.7). However, the largest earthquakes in the contiguous US occurred in the intraplate region of the CEUS in the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ). These earthquakes occurred in the 19th century, on 16 December 1811, 23 January 1812 and 7 February 1812, having moment magnitudes of M8.1, M7.8, and M8.0, respectively[2,3]. Two other historically large earthquakes have also occurred in the CEUS, 1755 Cape Ann (M6.8), off the coast of Boston, Massachusetts, and 1886 Charleston, South Carolina (M7.3). Prehistoric large earthquakes have also been
Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
identified in the intraplate region of the NMSZ around 1450, 900 and earlier[4,5] and of the Charleston, South Carolina area between 6000 BC and 500 AD[6]. During the 20th century no earthquakes have occurred in the CEUS with a moment magnitude larger than a mid-five.
RISK
As stated in the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act[7]: All 50 States are vulnerable to the hazards of earthquakes, and at least 39 of them are subject to major or moderate seismic risk. Like many parts of the world, as populations increase, risk increases. For example, when the New Madrid earthquakes of 18111812 occurred, the contiguous US population was 7 million with the geographic centre of population 1600 km from the NMSZ, just northeast of Washington, DC. Today, that population has grown to 280 million, with 219 million living in the CEUS[8]. Ironically, the geographic centre of population is now a few km northwest of the NMSZ. To support the populated area of the CEUS, there are over 75 million housing units, 3.5 million commercial buildings and 350 thousand manufacturing establishments[9,10]. Over 25% of the total US energy consumption is transported interstate by pipeline or river barge throughout the CEUS, and over 80% of the US electrical energy production is consumed in the CEUS[11,12]. The largest populated
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:4663
SEISMIC HAZARD DESCRIPTION IN US
CODES
47
Fig. 1 Historical seismicity of the contiguous USA
area near the NMSZ is Memphis and Shelby County, Tennessee, with a population of 897 472[8]. In 1820, eight years after the New Madrid earthquakes, Memphis and Shelby County had a total population of 354[13]. Based on the population growth from 1820 to 1830 (354 to 5652), the population in 1811 and 1812 would have been only a few, if any. The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake resulted in 63 deaths and $10 billion in damage, and the 1994 Northridge earthquake resulted in 57 deaths and in excess of $20 billion in damage. While these losses are significant, losses in the CEUS from a repeat of an 18111812 New Madrid earthquake have been projected as being several thousand deaths[14,15] and $200 billion in damage. The interplate region of the US can be considered a seismicity region of frequent earthquakes with moderate-to-high consequences, while the intraplate region of the CEUS can be considered a seismicity region of infrequent earthquakes with high consequences. Because future earthquakes can occur anywhere in the US the adoption of seismic building codes containing well-defined descriptions of seismic hazard is required to reduce seismic risk.
SEISMIC DESIGN CODES AND PROCEDURES

During the 20th century there were three prevalent regional building codes in the US. Developed in the early to mid-1900s, these codes were the Uniform Building Code (UBC) of the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), the National Building Code (known as the BOCA Code) of the Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA), and the Standard Building Code (SBC) of the Southern
Building Code Congress International (SBCCI). Typically, the UBC was used west of the Mississippi River, the BOCA Code was used in the upper midwest and northeast, and the SBC was used in the south. A fourth code existed during the 20th Century, known as The National Building Code, published by the American Insurance Association[16]. This code was first published in 1905 as the Building Code recommended by the National Board of Fire Underwriters[17]. Seismic design provision did not enter this code until the 1976 edition recommended by the successor to the National Board of Fire Underwriters, the American Insurance Association. The 1976 edition was the last publication of The National Building Code, as the American Insurance Association ceased to promote it after 1976[18,19]. Other seismic design procedures in the form of regulations, standards and guidelines were developed in the US in the mid to late 1900s. The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)[20], now split into US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and US Department of Energy (DOE), and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)[21,22] prepared regulations for seismic design of nuclear facilities and waste disposal landfills. The AEC[23], National Bureau of Standards (now National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST)[24], American National Standards Institute (ANSI)[25], American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)[26,27], Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers[28], US Army, Navy, and Air Force[29] and DOE[30,31] prepared various standards and guidelines. Each regulation, standard or guideline specified some form of seismic hazard
48
description; however, except for the American National Standard A58.1 developed by ANSI[25] and later replaced by ASCE 7[27], all other regulations, standards and guidelines were generally developed for special cases and have not been referenced by US building codes. Local city and state codes were also developed during the 20th century. Cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Charleston, South Carolina, and Chicago either adopted a version of regional codes or developed their own code. The first seismic codes in the US were developed and adopted at the local level in Santa Barbara and Palo Alto, California, following the 1925 Santa Barbara earthquake[32]. On a regional basis, the first written seismic design provisions occurred in the 1927 (first) edition of the UBC[33]; however, these provisions did not become mandatory until 1961. Adoption of seismic provisions into the BOCA and SBC Codes did not occur until the latter part of the 20th century. Seismic design provisions were included in the SBC in 1976[34] by referencing ANSI A58.1[35]; however, these provisions were not mandatory unless local authorities required seismic design, which was rarely the case. In 1988, the SBCCI adopted the 1982 ANSI A58.1[36] seismic provisions into the main body of the SBC making the provisions mandatory. The BOCA Code was first published in 1950[37] and included seismic design provisions. The BOCA provisions were similar to the 1927 edition of the UBC requiring a lateral load be considered ranging from 5 to 20% of the weight of the building, depending on height. In the next edition of BOCA[38] seismic design provisions were added that were similar to the 1955 edition of the UBC, including using seismic hazard description in the form of the 1949 US Coast and Geodetic Survey (USCGS) seismic hazard map; however, seismic design exemptions were placed in the 1955 edition of BOCA that continued for over 20 years. As late as the 1978 edition[39], one exemption stated: Earthquake loading shall not be required . . . when the building complies with . . . the following . . . is located where local experience or the records . . . do not show loss of life or damage to property, regardless of zone. Owing to a relative lack of seismic activity in the CEUS during the 20th Century, this statement allowed exemption from seismic design in buildings were this code had been adopted.
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

preceding pages plainly show that the art of constructing earthquake-resisting buildings is still in the formative stage, that there are differences of opinions among experts and that there is much deficiency in important data. He goes on to say: The movement did not become active in the United States until after the Santa Barbara disaster in 1925, and has not yet gone far in new researches, but has promoted much activity toward better building codes in California. When the first seismic design provisions were introduced into the 1927 edition of the UBC following the 1925 Santa Barbara, California earthquake (M6.8) no seismic hazard maps of the US were in existence. The seismic load F was simply determined to be a lateral load on a building equivalent to 7.5% (10% on poor soils) of the buildings weight W as shown in Eq. (1). F 0:075 W (1)
The seismic provisions in the 1927 UBC were specified under Section 2311, Earthquake Regulations; however, this section refers the user to the Appendix. In the Appendix under the section Refer to Sec. 2311 it is stated: The following provisions are suggested for inclusion in the Code by cities located within an area subject to earthquake shocks. As a result, the provisions were not mandatory. It was not until after the 1933 Long Beach, California earthquake, in which many schools collapsed, that the provisions become widely accepted. The Field Act of 1933 mandated seismic design of schools in California and the Riley Act of 1933 mandated seismic design for buildings in California[41,42]. The simplified approach to seismic design as developed for the 1927 edition of the UBC essentially remained in place until the 1961 edition of the UBC was published; however, in 1928 Heck[32] developed a seismic map that resulted in seismic zonation of eleven western US states into three zones having equal probability. This zonation map was adopted into the 1935 edition of the UBC (Fig. 2), resulting in the lateral force equation being changed to: F CW (2)
Early history of hazard description in US building codes SEISMIC DESIGN

In his chapter on Municipal Building Codes for Protection against Earthquake Damage, John R. Freeman[40] made the following statement: The
where the value C became a minimum value for seismic Zone 1. The minimum value of C for buildings was either 0.02 or 0.04, depending on soil capacity. For Zone 2, C was to be doubled and for Zone 3, C was to be multiplied by four. In 1952, ASCE published Lateral Forces of Earthquake and Wind[43] that gave Eq. (3) for seismic design, representing the first dynamic approach to the problem: V CW (3)
where C was defined as a function of the inverse of the structure period; however, this concept was not adopted into the UBC until 1961 when the lateral force

equation became: V ZKCW
CODES
49
(4)
where C is a numerical coefficient based on the inverse of the cube root of the structure period, K a numerical coefficient based on building type and Z a numerical coefficient based on seismic zone determined from the accompanying seismic hazard map. In 1945, ANSI published ANSI A58.1[25] that, for the first time, considers earthquake loads in a standard. The lateral force equation was the same as Eq. (2) while C was taken as 0.1 for each story of a building. Values of C for parts of buildings were either 0.2 or 1.0, depending on the part. A seismic hazard description was included in the Appendix in the form of a map showing earthquake locations of destructive intensity; however, seismic hazard description played no direct role in the standard. Seismic design requirements in the next edition of ANSI A58.1[44] remained basically the same, including the seismic hazard description, except the values of C were modified.
INTRODUCTION OF SEISMIC HAZARD MAPS

Fig. 2 1933 seismic hazard map of the western USA. Portions of this work are reproduced from the 1935 edition of the Uniform Building Code (TM), copyright 1935 edition, with the permission of the publisher, the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). ICBO assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or the completion of summaries provided.
Although Heck developed one of the first seismic hazard maps, the first seismic zone map of the contiguous US was developed in 1948 (Fig. 3) by the (USCGS)[45]. The hazard was defined into four zones with Zone 3 representing major damage and Zone 0 representing no damage. The map identified many
Fig. 3 1948 seismic probability map of the US

Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:4663
50
Fig. 4 1949 revised seismic probability map of the US
areas in the US as having significant seismic hazard, including the CEUS. The NMSZ and Charleston, South Carolina areas were assigned as having the same seismic hazard as the highest zone of California. According to Algermissen[46], Roberts & Ulrich[45] developed the map on the premise that similar earthquakes will occur in the future where they have occurred in the past. Although the 1948 map was not widely published until 1950, the ICBO adopted the map into the 1949 edition of the UBC[47] for use in the design of buildings. The 1948 map was revised in 1949[48]. The revisions resulted in a lowering of the seismic hazard in Charleston, South Carolina area from Zone 3 to Zone 2, and raising the seismic hazard in Puget Sound region of Washington from Zone 2 to Zone 3 (Fig. 4). Following the development of the revised 1949 map, the UBC adopted the 1949 map into the 1952 edition of the UBC[49]. Uncertainty about seismic hazard description continued to exist when the Charleston. South Carolina area was upgraded back to Zone 3 in the 1958 edition of the UBC and downgraded back to Zone 2 in the 1961 edition[32].
RESISTANCE TO SEISMIC DESIGN

Although the 1949 map was maintained in the UBC until the UBC was updated in 1970, in January 1952 the USCGS made the following official statement[50]: The Seismic Probability Map of the United States, SMC-76, issued by the US Coast and Geodetic Survey in 1951, has been withdrawn from circulation because it was found to be subject to misinterpretation and too general to satisfy the requirements of many users. In place of the Seismic Probability Map, the USCGS offered a map showing the distribution of important
earthquakes which was to be used as a guide in evaluating earthquake risk. Apparently this action was followed by protests of groups of businessmen interested in getting lower risk ratings in their localities[51]. It is not clear why the USCGS withdrew the 1949 Seismic Probability Map[52]; however, in 1995 the following statement was made[32]: . . . the United States Geodetic Survey retracted a map in the 1950s because business and scientific interests applied pressure on the grounds that the map (like all science) was subject to misinterpretation. There also appears to have been resistance by the public and other federal agencies to design buildings and facilities to earthquake loads where earthquakes were not generally known to occur. In 1950, the AEC, now the US Department of Energy, was building uranium-enrichment plants to support the Cold War effort in Paducah, Kentucky, Portsmouth, Ohio, and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Paducah, Kentucky, is 80 km northeast of the epicentre of the 7 February 1812 New Madrid earthquake and located in Zone 3 of the 1949 Seismic Probability Map, while Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Portsmouth, Ohio, were each located in Zone 1. The Paducah plant process buildings were two storey in height, each 13 ha in plan, and the associated process equipment was located on the second floor, 8.5 m above grade. On 13 August 1951, a memorandum was apparently sent to Mr Red Williams, Director of Production and Engineering titled: Design Criteria for the Paducah Project. One month later, on 12 September 1951, Mr Williams responded by issuing a memorandum titled: Design Criteria for the Kentucky Area, were it is stated[53]: Zone 1 criteria were used in checking for seismic shock on all buildings . . . On

21 December 1950, representatives of the AEC . . . US Corps of Engineers and participating architectengineers met . . . The US Corps of Engineers, who have done considerable construction in this area, stated that they did not consider seismic shock in their designs. It was generally agreed by all concerned that the Zone 1 criteria would be adequate. The design to Zone 1 criteria was further justified a month later in a memorandum on 12 October 1951, in which it was stated: I suspect that low, sprawling buildings such as those under construction at Paducah, because of their great width, will have a strength somewhat in excess of that specified for Zone 1. Eleven days later, 23 October 1951, a final memorandum was written on the subject: I concur . . . this matter is now closed as far as Washington is concerned and further action is not required by this office. None of the memoranda mention the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811 and 1812, and based on a study of the seismic hazard criteria of the AEC uraniumenrichment plants[53], it appears the process buildings were not designed for Zone 1 seismic loads. In the late 1990s the US Department of energy completed a $30 million upgrade of the process buildings to bring them into compliance with an earthquake peak ground acceleration that has a 10% chance of being exceeded in the next 25 years (250-year event). The above actions may, or may not, have led to the withdrawal of the USCGS Seismic Probability Map; however, they give the reader a sense of how the populace has considered and continues to consider the earthquake threat in the US. In any event, on
CODES
51
21 July 1954, the AEC published seismic design criteria for all construction in the US stating[54]: Earthquake loads should be in accordance with Section 2312 and Appendix, Section 2312 of the Pac. U.B.C. In borderline cases, i.e., wherever a lower intensity seismic zone may be justified, a study should be made of the earthquake history of the locality in question.
Seismic hazard description and design status 19601985 MILESTONES

Three milestones occurred in the 1960s that influenced the application of seismic design and the development of seismic hazard maps. The first milestone occurred in 1960 when the ICBO adopted seismic design provision into the main body of the 1961 edition of the UBC[55]. This action made seismic design provisions mandatory for those communities adopting the 1961 and later editions of the UBC. The second milestone occurred in 1969 when the USCGS presented a new seismic hazard map at the Fourth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering called the Seismic Risk Map of the United States[56]. Like the 1949 Seismic Probability Map 20 years earlier, the new map used the same four zones to describe seismic hazard (Fig. 5). This map had a significant impact in the CEUS in that many Zone 0 areas became Zone 1 and many Zone 1 areas became Zone 2. As a result, the description of seismic hazard throughout the CEUS had increased over what was previously believed. For example, while the DOE facilities at
Fig. 5 1969 Algermissen seismic hazard map

52
Paducah, Kentucky, remained in Zone 3, the facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, were now in Zone 2. The third milestone also occurred in 1969 when the ICBO adopted the 1969 USCGS seismic hazard map into the 1970 edition of the UBC[57]. On 21 May 1970, the Director of Construction of the AEC sent a letter to all field offices stating[58]: This risk map has been recently modified . . . in the 1970 edition of the UBC . . . The Southern Standard Building Code is optional for projects located east of the Mississippi River . . . but where this code is used, the seismic risk probability contained in the UBC should be applied to the design of buildings.At the time, the SBC, which was then called the Southern Standard Building Code, did not have provisions for seismic design[18].

designed and constructed to the 1970 edition of the UBC. Because of the hospitals extensive damage, caused by what is now referred to as soft storey response, the building had to be torn down. In addition, many other buildings and structures, especially bridges and overpasses, performed poorly. As a result, a movement by federal agencies, engineers and scientists developed to better describe the seismic hazard, conduct new research on structure performance and develop new seismic design procedures.
ANSI A58.1
In 1972 ANSI updated the 1955 edition of ANSI 58.1. The seismic design lateral force equation specified in the standard was the same as that in the 1961 edition of the UBC, i.e. Eq. (4); however, a slightly modified description of seismic hazard was developed by the American National Standards Committee. This description was similar to the original 1949 USCGS map; however, seismic Zones 0 and 1 were combined into seismic Zone 1 and seismic Zone 1 west of 1108 was upgraded to Zone 2 (Fig. 6). It is not known why the 1969 USCGS map was not used for the update; however, recollection by Professor W.J. Hall (personal communication, 22 January 2002) points to concerns about the USCGS description of seismic hazard in certain areas as being conservative. The 1972 edition was then updated in 1982[36]. The 1982 edition seismic hazard description was defined on the basis of the results of a paradigm shift that was occurring in earthquake engineering, as discussed below.
SIGNIFICANT EARTHQUAKES
In addition to these milestones, two major earthquakes occurred in the US between 1960 and 1971 that had an impact on seismology and engineering in the US. The first was the 1964 Alaska earthquake (M9.0) and second was the 1971 San Fernando earthquake (M6.6). Although the Alaskan earthquake stimulated the USCGS to revitalize it seismic hazard mapping programme that led to the 1969 map[32], it did not capture the attention of engineers and scientists as it should, perhaps because of the relatively remote location. Following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, a much greater response occurred among engineers and scientists. One reason for this response can be attributed to the fact that one damaged hospital, the Olive View Hospital, had been
Fig. 6 1972 ANSI seismic hazard map

SEISMIC HAZARD DESCRIPTION IN US PARADIGM SHIFT

In response to the poor performance of buildings during the San Fernando earthquake, it was evident that a paradigm shift needed to occur in US earthquake engineering. The USGS (which took over responsibility for seismic hazard mapping in the early 1970s), NBS and the National Science Foundation (NSF) became major players in promotion of this paradigm shift. NBS and NSF funded the formation of the Applied Technology Council (ATC) in 1973 to develop comprehensive national seismic design guidelines. At the same time, the USGS began a reassessment of seismic hazard description, which resulted in the 1976 seismic hazard map[59]. The map itself was a paradigm shift because, for the first time, seismic hazard was now described in the form of probabilistic estimates of maximum acceleration contours on rock (Fig. 7). In 1978, ATC published national seismic design guidelines known as ATC 3-06[60]. Incorporated into the guidelines were the first versions of engineering design maps defining seismic hazard in the form of effective peak acceleration and effective peak velocity contour maps. The maps represented modifications to the Algermissen and Perkins (1976) map to better represent earthquake engineering design parameters, and provided contours of estimated acceleration values in rock having a 10% probability of being exceeded during a 50-year period (return period of 500 years). The effective peak acceleration map is shown in Fig. 8. One unique aspect of the effective peak map is that in certain areas of California the peak acceleration values were about half the Algermissen and Perkins map values. As stated by Algermissen[46]: The ATC
CODES
53
Effective Peak Acceleration map is very similar to the AlgermissenPerkins acceleration map with the exception that the largest values of ground acceleration shown on the ATC map are 0.4 g in California, while the AlgermissenPerkins map has accelerations as high as 0.8 g in California. This implies that the probability of exceedance of 0.4 g is somewhat underestimated within the 0.4 g contours of the ATC map. The ATC Effective Peak Velocity map was derived from the AlgermissenPerkins acceleration map using principles and rules-of-thumb outlined in the report . . .. The ATC-3 report is an excellent example of the use of recent research results in an interdisciplinary effort to produce new seismic design provisions. Algermissen was quite positive about the interdisciplinary effort between engineers and seismologists to produce the new seismic design provisions; however, as engineers and seismologists became more knowledgeable about seismic hazard, it became apparent that judgemental truncation of peak acceleration values should not have been conducted. At the time, however, it was hoped that enhanced ductility provisions would cover any shortfall created by truncation[61]. In any event, the effective peak acceleration and velocity maps of 1978 became the baseline for the NEHRP Provisions until the creation of Project 97 in 1994, as discussed below. In the update of ANSI A58.1-82[36] the provisions on earthquake load drew considerably from the ATC3-06 guidelines, but retained many features from the 1979 edition of the UBC. For example, while ANSI A58.11982 included the effective peak acceleration map (Fig. 8), the effective peak acceleration contours were defined as boundaries to five seismic zones as in the
Fig. 7 1976 Algermissen and Perkins seismic hazard map

54
Fig. 8 1978 ATC effective peak acceleration map
UBC, Zones 05, for design purposes. Using the ANSI A58.1-1982, seismic design procedures became mandatory in the 1987 edition of the BOCA Code and the 1988 edition of SBC. In addition to the inclusion of new and innovative seismic hazard maps as a paradigm shift in earthquake engineering, the 1978 ATC 3-06 seismic design guidelines represented a truly national consensus set of seismic design procedures. For the first time the US had a set of seismic design guidelines that provided seismic design and analysis procedures that went beyond the simplified static analysis approach. The guidelines laid the foundation for the NEHRP Recommended Provisions[62] and led to the seismic provisions that are now included in the 2000 edition of the International Building Code(IBC)[63].
LLNL AND EPRI

Beginning in the 1960s and continuing through 1980s, the US had an extensive programme of nuclear power plant construction. A major safety issue was the seismic performance capability of a plant to withstand earthquakes. Some of the first landmark work on seismic hazard description was summarized by the AEC[23]. In the 1970s, the NRC began sponsoring the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) to develop a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) methodology for the CEUS. In conjunction with sponsoring LLNL, NRC recommended that the nuclear power industry perform an independent study to provide a coordinated utility position on PSHA estimates and provide NRC with comparative information. A consortium of nuclear power utilities funded the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to perform a seismic hazard study. In addition to focusing on where earthquakes had occurred in the
historical past, LLNL and EPRI studies focused on the geology and the likelihood an earthquake may occur in a specific tectonic province where no earthquakes were known to have occurred. By 1985 LLNL and EPRI had developed their independent methodologies[64,65]; however, there was considerable disparity between results when both methodologies were used for the same site. For most nuclear plant sites the LLNL methodology resulted in a significantly higher seismic hazard. Part of this disparity had to do with the way in which LLNL applied the use of expert opinion. LLNL developed a seismic hazard model that used seismicity information from expert input (11 seismicity and 5 ground motion experts) and a Monte Carlo simulation approach, while EPRI seismicity information was provided by six teams of geoscience experts. In 1993, LLNL published the results of a study focused on improving the elicitation of data and its associated uncertainty from the experts to better capture the true uncertainty of the state of knowledge[66]. The results of this study showed a reduction in seismic hazard more closely associated with EPRI results. Issues of uncertainty and use of expert opinion in the LLNL and EPRI methodologies continued to remain after publication of the 1993 LLNL document. Because comparative evaluations showed that the differences between PSHA studies were often not technical, but due to information gathering and assembly process, NRC, DOE and EPRI sponsored a study to focus on integration and evaluation issues that should be considered in a PSHA[67,68]. In 1990, Reiter also discussed many issues of PSHA in his book Earthquake Hazard Analysis}Issues and Insights[69]. The use of LLNL and EPRI PSHA methodologies continue to be used for specific nuclear power plant

sites or other high-hazard (nuclear or chemical) facility sites, e.g. the DOE Savannah River Site. The methodologies were never considered as a tool to be used in US building codes; however, as discussed below, the results of the LLNL and EPRI methodologies have been used to calibrate and verify the USGS Project 97 work.
CODES
55
Seismic hazard description and design status 19852001 NEHRP PROVISIONS

Following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake the United States Congress passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977[7]. The Act became known as the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), NIST, NSF, and USGS were assigned as partners in NEHRP. In 1979 the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) was formed within the National Institute of Building Sciences. BSSC was funded by FEMA, under NEHRP, to take the ATC 3-06 document and transform it into a set of seismic building design provisions. These provisions became known as the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures. The first set of NEHRP Recommended Provisions was published in 1985[62]. Since that time, the Provisions Update Committee (PUC) of the BSSC has been updating the NEHRP Recommended Provisions every 3 years. Holmes[70] provides a brief discussion of changes in the Provisions from 1985 through 1997. When the 1985 NEHRP Recommended Provisions were published, the seismic hazard maps contained in the Provisions were the same maps as published in the 1978 ATC 3-06 guideline document. After Algermissen, Perkins and colleagues published the 1976 seismic hazard map, the USGS continued to work on better descriptions of seismic hazard[71,72]. In 1988 the PUC began the updating process of the 1991 update of the Provisions. As part of the process discussion occurred about the need for updating the description of seismic hazard throughout the US, based on new knowledge gained in understanding seismic hazard during the past 10 years. New spectral maps were introduced into the 1991 NEHRP Provisions appendix, including, for the first time, a map representing a 10% probability of spectral values being exceeded in 250 years (2500-year event). These maps[73] were based on spectral accelerations for two periods, 0.3 and 1.0 s. Unfortunately, caveats were placed on the introduction of the maps, e.g. they should not be used for design. For design purposes then, the 1991 NEHRP Recommended Provisions[74] were
published, using the same 1978 maps from the 1985 NEHRP Provisions. In preparation for the 1994 NEHRP Recommended Provisions update, FEMA funded the BSSC to establish a Design Values Panel to update the maps. While the Panel made progress and resolved some issues, it was not able to reach consensus on a final product and the 1978 maps were again used as the seismic hazard description of the US[75]. From the beginning of the 1991 NEHRP Provisions update process in 1988 to the failure of the Design Values Panel to reach consensus in 1994, Mittler et al. call this the controversial Period[32].
SECOND PARADIGM SHIFT
As a result of the Design Values Panels failure to reach consensus, a second paradigm shift in US earthquake engineering occurred. The BSSC, FEMA and USGS began to take aggressive action in late 1993 to resolve the problem. In December 1993, the author (at the time Chairman of BSSC) and Dr Walter Hays of the USGS developed a concept for resolving the Design Values Panel issues called Project 97. The February 1994 BSSC Annual Meeting theme focused on Project 97[7679] and Project 97 was formally accepted by BSSC, USGS and FEMA[8083]. The primary goals of Project 97 were to: (1) develop national seismic hazard maps that represent a consensus baseline for seismic hazard description throughout the US, and (2) develop national seismic hazard design values for use as consensus input for published provisions and guidelines for seismic design and evaluation using the seismic hazard maps as the baseline. It was stated[81]: With regard to the 1997 update of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions, probably the most critical issue involves the seismic hazard maps and an appropriate design procedure based on those maps. While the two goals defined above were key to Project 97, the overall goal was to replace the more than 20-year-old seismic hazard maps that everyone acknowledged were out-of-date. To do so, it was necessary to improve both the maps and the profession and publics perception of them. To initiate Project 97 the BSSC and USGS developed a partnership through the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 1994. The USGS role in the partnership was to develop a new probabilistic process for US seismic hazard description and was required to address current ground motion issues using public forums and resolve these issues in a manner that would be considered fair and unbiased. BSSCs role in the partnership required the development of a seismic design procedure for use by engineers and architects based on, but separate from, the USGS seismic hazard maps. To do this, the BSSC formed a Seismic Design Procedures Group (SDPG).
56
BSSC was also charged with ensuring the SDPG process used to develop the procedures included a mechanism that provided public input and the BSSC consensus process. To oversee Project 97, BSSC, with input from FEMA and USGS, appointed a Project Management Committee (PMC) to guide the project. The PMC established a Resource Group consisting of membership from ATC, BOCA, Center for Earthquake Research and Information (CERI), FEMA, ICBO, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER), NIST, NSF, SBCCI, relevant Structural Engineers Associations (i.e. California, Illinois, Washington), and USGS. The organizational management structure of Project 97 is shown in Fig. 9. For more details on many of the issues leading up to the development of Project 97 see Mittler et al.[32].

been discussed in one fashion or another, without clear resolution, at the 1994 and 1995 BSSC Annual Meetings. The issues and corresponding recommendations were:
*
Issue 1: What ground motion parameters should be mapped? Recommendation: A 5%-damped elastic response spectral value for seismic structural design. For soil failure evaluations, peak ground motion parameters (peak acceleration, velocity, and displacement) should be mapped. It was also recommended that: magnitude and distance contributions to the seismic hazard be determined at selected locations; seismic source maps and documentation of seismic source parameters and ground motion attenuation relationships be presented; and results of the ground motion mapping be made available to users. Issue 2: What reference site conditions should be used as a basis for mapping? Recommendation: Rock preferred over soil. Issue 3: Should maps be based on a probabilistic approach, a deterministic approach, or both? Recommendation: Strong preference for probabilistic-based, rather than deterministicbased, ground motion maps. The desired probability of exceedance levels for the maps were 20, 10, 5, and 2% in 50 years (250-, 500-, 1000-, and 2500-year return periods). Issue 4: How should uncertainty in both seismic source characterization and ground motion attenuation be incorporated in the mapping process and in the interpretation of results?
USGS ACTIONS
By the time the BSSC formally presented the concept of Project 97 to the earthquake engineering community, the USGS had already begun developing a new process for description of seismic hazard. By the summer of 1994, when the MOU was signed by USGS and BSSC, USGSs new seismic hazard description programme was well underway. A total of seven USGS consensus building regional workshops were held beginning in June of 1994 and ending in September of 1996[1]. At these workshops USGS received input from seismologists, geophysicists, geologists, and structural and geotechnical engineers. As part of its development process the USGS also held a national workshop with ATC in September 1995[84]. At the workshop four key seismic hazard descriptive issues were addressed, all of which had
Fig. 9 Project 97 organization chart


Recommendation: USGS results should be compared with existing site-specific analysis results where detailed procedures for incorporating uncertainty had been employed. Also detailed documentation of the hazard mapping and independent formal peer review of the modelling and results must be done. In December 1995 interim maps were placed on the USGS website depicting probabilistic ground motions and spectral response with 10, 5 and 2% probabilities of exceedance in 50 years, or return periods of 500, 1000, and 2500 years. After considerable review and comment, including comparing results with LLNL and EPRI PSHA methodologies, the final seismic hazard maps[1,85] for Project 97 were placed on the USGS website in June 1996 and the maps became part of the 1997 NEHRP Provisions. The acceleration and spectral values were based on a BC boundary condition, defined as firm rock where average shear wave velocities were defined as 760 m/s in the top 30 m. Today the USGS seismic hazard maps can be found at http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/. An end user can insert a longitude and latitude and receive the seismic hazard in terms of probability of exceedance, peak acceleration and spectral accelerations. In addition, deaggeration of the seismic hazard can be conducted and six artificial time histories for a firm rock site can be obtained. The time histories envelope the spectral shapes derived for the specified location, using the seismic design procedures developed by the SDPG. The next generation of USGS maps is in the process of being developed as further discussed below.
CODES
57
2. The design maps were to provide an approximate uniform margin against collapse for ground motions in excess of the design levels. 3. The design maps were to be based on both probabilistic and deterministic seismic hazard description. 4. The design maps were to be response spectra ordinate maps and reflect the differences in the short-period range of response spectra for areas of the US and its territories with different ground motion attenuation and recurrence times. A wealth of new data existed for the SDPG to evaluate when attempting to accomplish its goals and objectives. One major technical advance made in PSHA was finding that the rate of change of ground motion versus probability is not constant throughout the US (Fig. 10). For example, in Los Angeles, California, the rate of change of the 0.2-s spectral acceleration between the 2 and 10% probabilities of exceedance in 50 years (2500-year earthquake versus a 500-year earthquake) is about 1.7, while in Memphis, Tennessee it is 5.1. With current building code seismic hazard design levels being defined as a 500-year return period event, a building in Memphis would need three times the conservatism in design compared with a building in Los Angeles to prevent collapse in a rare, but real, event. As stated in the 1997 NEHRP Provisions[86]: The collective opinion of the SDPG was that the seismic margin contained in the Provisions provides, as a minimum, a margin of about 1.5 times the design earthquake motions. In other words, if a structure experiences a level of ground motion 1.5 times the design level, the structure should have a low likelihood of collapse . . . The USGS seismic hazard maps indicate that in most locations in the United States the 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years ground motion values are more than 1.5 times the 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years ground motion values. Ground motion values for a 2500-year event being more that 1.5 times a 500-year event was not acceptable to the SDPG. In addition, the SDPG found the estimated maximum magnitude earthquakes for coastal California had recurrence intervals less than the 500-year events on probabilistic maps. Given this latter finding, the SDPG made the decision to develop a procedure that would use the best estimate of ground motion from the maximum magnitude earthquakes on seismic faults with high probabilities of occurrence (short return periods). The SDPG defined these earthquakes as deterministic earthquakes and found the level of seismic safety using the deterministic earthquake approach would be approximately equivalent to that associated with a 25% probability of exceedance in 50 years for areas outside coastal California. This led the SDPG to select the 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years as the MCE ground motion for use in design outside of
SDPG ACTIONS
To develop the seismic design procedures for using the USGS seismic hazard maps, the SDPG and PMC worked closely with the USGS to define the BSSC mapping needs and to understand how the USGS seismic hazard maps should be used to develop the BSSC seismic ground motion maps and design procedures. The goals of the SDPG were as follows: 1. To replace the existing effective peak acceleration and velocity-related acceleration design maps with new ground motion spectral response maps based on new USGS seismic hazard maps. 2. To develop new ground motion spectral response maps within the existing framework of the Provisions with emphasis on uniform margin against the collapse of structures. 3. To develop design procedures for use with the new ground motion spectral response maps. The SDPG also made four policy decisions that departed from past practice: 1. The USGS maps were to define maximum considered earthquake (MCE) ground motion for use in design procedures.
58
Fig. 10 Rate of change in seismic hazard
coastal California as acceptable to handle the disparity in seismic margin issues[86,87]. MCE ground motions are uniformly defined by the SDPG as the maximum level of earthquake ground shaking considered as reasonable to design structures to resist. To develop the MCE ground motions for use in design the SDPG required two distinct steps: 1. The various USGS probabilistic seismic hazard maps were combined with deterministic hazard maps by a set of rules (logic) to create the MCE ground motion maps that can be used to define response spectra for use in design. 2. Design procedures were developed that transform the response spectra into design values (e.g. design base shear). The response spectra represent actual ground motion consistent with providing approximately uniform protection against the collapse of structures. Because of differences across the US, three regions were defined, using a set of seismic design procedure rules: 1. Regions of negligible seismicity with very low probability of collapse of the structure. 2. Regions of low and moderate-to-high seismicity. 3. Regions of high seismicity near known fault sources with short return periods. The CEUS contains regions identified in Regions 1 and 2. For regions of negligible seismicity the concept of the MCE earthquake ground motions is not required. However, the SDPG required some minimum protection against earthquakes in the negligible seismicity region. For regions of low and moderate-to-high seismicty the MCE ground motions must be utilized in the seismic design, and for regions of high seismicity the deterministic earthquake
approach is used. The reader is referred to the NEHRP Provisions[86] for specific details of seismic design by regions. Following the work of the SDPG and the PUC, the 1997 edition of the NEHRP Provisions was published in February 1998[86] containing state-of-the-art seismic hazard description of the US. The 2000 edition of the NEHRP Provisions[88] was released without change to the 1997 maps. The reader is referred to a theme issue of Earthquake Spectra[89] for more in-depth information on the 1997 Provisions update.
ASCE-7
In 1988, ANSI combined with ASCE to update and redesignate ANSI A58.1-1982 to ASCE 7[27]. ASCE-7 seismic hazard description remained as in ANSI A58.1-1982 with five seismic zones. ASCE 7 has since been updated three times, in 1993, 1995 and 1998. As part of the 1995 update, the Earthquake Loads were based on the 1994 NEHRP Provisions. The basis for seismic hazard description was the effective peak acceleration map (see Fig. 8) with some minor modifications to contour shapes in the 1994 NEHRP Provisions update. In 1998, ASCE 7 was updated based on the 1997 NEHRP Provisions and the seismic hazard description represented the Project 97 design maps. The long-term goal of ASCE is for ASCE 7 to become the recognized standard by all earthquake regulations, codes, standards, procedures and guidelines for basic seismic design[90], and ASCE 7-02 is currently under development.
INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE

In 1994 ICBO, BOCA and SBCCI formed the International Code Council (ICC) to develop the IBC by the year 2000[63]. After much discussion among the

three code bodies and the BSSC, it was decided to base the seismic provision of the IBC on the 1997 NEHRP Provisions. To do this a Code Resource Development Committee (CRDC) was formed within the BSSC and funded by FEMA to convert the Provisions to code language. The seismic design provisions are contained in Chapter 16, Structural Design, of the IBC, and the seismic hazard maps contained therein are the same as those in the 1997 NEHRP Provisions.
CODES
59
than a rock surface. As a result, conversions of the maps values must occur to include site effects, i.e. building foundation characteristics.
SITE EFFECTS ON DESIGN GROUND MOTIONS

While consensus appears to have been achieved for the BC boundary condition, one of the largest uncertainties, or lack of consensus, exists in the conversion from the BC boundary to other foundation conditions, especially for soil effects. The uncertainty also increases depending on: (1) whether the site is a deep, or shallow, soil site; and (2) the nonlinear response of the soil as a function of ground motion levels. In the NEHRP Provisions the PUC, by consensus, account for this difference by classifying foundations into a particular Site Class: A for hard rock; B for rock; C for dense soil and soft rock; D for stiff soil, E for soil; and F for soft/unstable soils. Frankel et al. clearly define the BC boundary as being a site on firm rock having shear-wave velocities of 760 m/s. It is clear to the author that advances need to be made for conversions from the BC boundary to other building foundation sites. As an example, there is a site in the NMSZ at latitude 37.18 and longitude 88.88 having top-of-rock shear-wave velocities of 2770 m/s[93], basically a hard-rock site. The site is overburdened with about 100 m of soil deposits with the top 30 m defined as a Site Class D soil[94]. Using the Site Class process of the NEHRP Provisions, herein called the general procedure, the MCE 0.2-s spectral value is 2.4 g, Ss, followed by an amplification factor Fa of 1.0, resulting in a 0.2-s design earthquake spectral value, SDS, of 1.6 g. The MCE 1.0-s spectral value is 0.75 g, Sl, followed by an amplification factor Fv of 1.5, resulting in a 1.0-s design earthquake spectral value of 0.75 g. Obtaining the top-of-soil zero-period acceleration (ZPA) design value Sa results in a value of 0.64 g. A site-specific study[95] reveals a hard-rock ZPA of 0.75 g (2% in 50 years). The Frankel et al. ZPA MCE map for firm rock shows a value of 1.2 g at the same location. Converting the Frankel et al. 1.2 g to a hard-rock value results in a ZPA of 0.79 g (1.2 g divided by 1.52)[1,6], a value close to 0.75 g (A. Frankel, personal communication, 20 February 2001). At top-of-soil, the site-specific study resulted 0.2- and 1.0-s period spectral values of 0.9 g and 1.0 g, respectively, and a ZPA of 0.5 g, deamplification occurring because of soil nonlinear response to the high rock motions; however, for small ground motions at the site, less than 0.01 g, amplification ranging from 3.4 to 4.0 occurs[96]. When using the NEHRP Provisions process where a site-specific study has been conducted, it is stated: When site-specific procedures are utilized . . .the maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration, SaM, at any period T, shall be taken from that spectrum.
Issues: 2002 and beyond SEISMIC HAZARD DESCRIPTION

As this review was being conducted, the USGS released drafts of updated versions of the 1996 seismic hazard maps at http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/. Again, the accelerations values represented by contours on the maps are for a BC boundary condition having shear-wave velocities of 760 m/s. The process of getting consensus throughout the US for these updates was similar to that used in Project 97. As stated by Frankel et al.[91]: The changes in the maps have been fostered by feedback at several regional workshops and a national workshop co-convened by the USGS and the Applied Technology Council. In general, the changes from the 1996 maps are incremental. Although the changes have been incremental, Frankel et al.[91,92] have included a significant amount of new knowledge to include, but not limited to: (1) adding four new attenuation equations for the western US; (2) incorporating new fault models for California; (3) including both aleatory and epistemico logical uncertainty for characteristic faults; (4) adding three new attenuation equations for the CEUS; (5) reducing recurrence intervals for the New Madrid and Charleston, South Carolina earthquakes; and (6) lowering moment magnitudes of characteristic earthquakes in the CEUS (A. Frankel, personal communication, 31 January 2002). In addition, by the summer of 2002 Frankel et al. plan to produce seismic hazard maps for the CEUS based on hard rock, i.e. rock with shear wave velocities of the order of 3000 m/s. Based on the above findings, from the authors perspective, it is refreshing that input of new knowledge resulted in only incremental changes from the 1996 maps. This seems to demonstrate that general consensus is being achieved in the US for seismic hazard description at the BC boundary condition; however, there remain issues about how uncertainties have been addressed around the NMSZ[92]. Unfortunately, the BC boundary condition exists primarily in the western US, while hard rock to firm rock conditions exists in the CEUS. In addition, most building foundations rest on a soil surface rather
60
According to Eq. (4.1.3.5) of the Provisions, the design spectral values are to be two-thirds SaM. Thus, top-of-soil ZPA Sa is 0.33 g (0.5 g 0.67), while 0.2- and 1.0-s spectral values become 0.60 g (0.9 g 0.67) and 0.67 g(1.0 g 0.67), respectively; however, the NEHRP Provisions require site-specific study design spectral values to be greater than, or equal to, 80% of the spectral values determined in the general procedure shown above. This means the ZPA reduction by this site-specific study is limited to 0.51 g (0.64 g 0.8), rather than 0.33 g and the 0.2-s spectral acceleration reduction is limited to 1.28 g (1.6 g 0.8), rather than 0.60 g. The 1.0-s site-specific spectral value, 0.67 g, is greater than 80% of the general procedure, i.e. 0.60 g (0.75g 0.8). The difference between 0.33 g and 0.51 g for ZPA, and 0.60 g and 1.28 g for 0.2-s spectral values, shows significant conservatism in the NEHRP Provisions over the site-specific study, while the difference between 0.67 g and 0.60 g for 1-s spectral values appear to show some non-conservatism. Progress has been made and new advances in understanding site effects has occurred[9799]; however, this example demonstrates disparities that can occur for a particular site.

believed that the return periods of such catastrophic events as the 18111812 New Madrid and 1886 Charleston, South Carolina earthquakes have return periods around 450500 years. Does the logic the SDPG used in the mid 1990s still hold true? Will new seismic hazard curves in the eastern US become similar to those in the western US coastal regions? Should the MCE be redefined as a more frequent event earthquake than the 2500-year return period earthquake?
ADOPTION OF SEISMIC CODES IN THE US

Engineers and scientists have made great progress in developing a consensus approach to seismic hazard description, to include the development of the IBC; however, adoption of seismic codes in the US occurs at state and local county and/or city levels. The fact that the earthquake engineering community has agreed to the development and production of the IBC does not mean that buildings and structures are being designed to seismic provisions. Owing to the seismic frequency of the interplate region of the US, most communities in the region have adopted building codes containing seismic provisions; however, because the seismicity of the CEUS was relatively quiet during the 20th century, the populace of the intraplate region appears to have adopted a mindset that earthquakes do not occur in the CEUS. As a result, building codes with seismic design provisions have not been demanded at the local level. In 1993, Stevens et al.[100] conducted a survey on seismic code adoption and enforcement in the CEUS in seven states centred around the NMSZ: Arkansas, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee. These seven states are members of the Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC) headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. In all, 595 counties and 18 cities were surveyed. Response to the survey was a surprising 70%. Of those responding, 86% had no local building code and 84% indicated no seismic code was being adopted. Of those communities having no seismic code in place, an overwhelming 85% had no plan to implement a seismic code. In 1995, the Insurance Services Office (ISO), developed a Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS)[101]. BCEGS provides a rating of communities across the US on how well they are doing in building code adoption and enforcement. Building-code enforcement departments are classified on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the highest classification. In addition, there is a Class 99 rating for those communities with building code enforcement departments that do not meet the minimum BCEGS requirements. Communities with building code enforcement departments getting ratings of 1 to 3 receive maximum credit, 4 to 7 receive intermediate
MAXIMUM CONSIDERED EARTHQUAKE

In the current IBC 2000 seismic design is based on the MCE defined as having a 2% chance in 50 years of being exceeded (2500-year return period event). Many engineers are questioning the use of, and logic for, such a long return period in design. The concept of the MCE began during the development of the ATC306 document. There was some concern that designing for a 10% in 50-year exceedance value (500-year return period event) did not capture the probable, but rare, earthquakes in the CEUS. In addition, there was concern about the lower attenuation rates in the CEUS compared with those in the western US. This issue was debated and discussed at meetings throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, and did not become known as the MCE until the SDPG of Project 97 coined the phase. The intent of the 2500-year event was briefly discussed above and is thoroughly discussed in the Commentary of the NEHRP Provisions; however, the difficulty in explaining this quantitative number is in its origin of being selected on a judgemental basis. In both the 1997 and 2000 editions of the NEHRP Commentary[86,88] it is stated: The approach adopted in the Provisions is intended to provide for a uniform margin against collapse at the design ground motion, however, this statement fails to express quantitatively what the performance of the building will be if the 2500-year event occurs. So what drove the SDPG to agree to a 2500-year earthquake as the MCE? At the time there was great uncertainty on the return periods of destructive earthquakes in the CEUS; however, on the basis of recent paleoliquefaction research[46] it is now

credit, 8 and 9 receive minimum credit and 10 receive no credit. Since the initial pilot programme in 1994, ISO has evaluated more than 3600 code enforcement departments in the US. The ISO evaluation resulted in 25% of the code enforcement departments in western states achieving a classification of 1 to 3, while only 1% of the code enforcement departments in the CUSEC states received the same classification. In addition, it was found that 70% of the CUSEC states code enforcement departments received a Class 99 rating, compared with only about 15% of those in western states.
CODES
61
[2] Johnston A. Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes instable continental regions-III, New Madrid 18111812, Charleston 1886 and Lisbon 1755. Geophysics Journal International 1996: 126: 314344. [3] Van Arsdale R & Johnston A. Geological and seismological setting for the New Madrid Seismic Zone and the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone, Appendix A, updated probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Kentucky. Final Report, Lockheed-Martin Utility Services, Risk Engineering, 1999. (Available through Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Documents Library, as session 99051040175, docket 07007001, 1999.) [4] Tuttle MP, Schweig ES, Sims JD & Lafferty RH. The Earthquake potential of the New Madrid Seismic Zone. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2001; submitted for publication. [5] Clark L. MAE Center Project SG-3, paleoseismology and paleoliquefaction. Newsletter, Mid-America Earthquake Center 2001: 4(1): 1. [6] Talwani P & Schaeffer WT. Recurrence rates of large earthquakes in the South Carolina Coastal Plain based on paleoliquefaction data. Journal of Geophysical Research 2001: 106(B4): 66216642. [7] NEHRP. Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, Public Law 95-124, 95th Congress, 7 October 1977. [8] Census. United States Census Data. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce. 2000. [9] Census. Economic Census: Manufacturing United States. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce. 1997. [10] Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce. 2000. [11] Beavers JE, Domer RJ, Hunt RJ & Rotty RM. Vulnerability of Energy Distribution Systems to an Earthquake in the Eastern United States}A Overview. American Association of Engineering Societies. December 1986. [12] DOE. Energy Consumption}1999 Summaries. US Department of Energy. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/state.data/pdf/summaries.pdf. 1999. [13] Davenport B. A New Gazetteer and geographical Dictionary of North America and the West Indies. Baltimore: George MDowell & Son. 1832. [14] FEMA. An Assessment of Damage and Casualties for Six Cities in the Central United States Resulting from Earthquakes in the New Madrid Seismic Zone. Prepared under Contract EMK-C-0057 (CUSEPP). Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1885. [15] Jones NP, Noji EK, Smith GS & Wagner RM. Casualty in Earthquakes, Monograph 5, 19-53, Earthquake Hazard Reduction in the Central and Eastern United States}A Time for Examination and Action. Memphis: Central United States Earthquake Consortium. 1993. [16] Berg GV. Seismic Design Codes and Procedures. Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 1983. [17] 1922. NBFU. Building Code. New York: National Board of Fire Underwriters.
Conclusions
Engineers and scientists made great achievements in seismic hazard description in the US during the 20th century. Excellent research has been conducted to better understand seismic hazard and how buildings perform when earthquakes occur. As we move into the 21st century we need to continue these advancements; however, the purpose of research is to reduce losses, including injury and loss of life, from future earthquakes in the US and all parts of the world. To do this, engineers and scientists must also work to have research implemented at the end user level. This requires engineers and scientists to broaden their approach. We must develop techniques that facilitate understanding, we must be able to communicate to a larger audience and we must not forget that when the next disastrous earthquake occurs, we will again be asked again and again: Why didnt we know it was going to happen? Why did our buildings collapse?
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank S.T. Algermissen, Director, GeoRisk Associates, Inc. and W.J. Hall, Professor Emeritus, University of Illinois for reviewing this paper. Their constructive comments and suggestions significantly improved the content of the paper. This research was supported by the MidAmerica Earthquake Center under National Science Foundation Grant EEC-9701785. This is the only known archival record of the AEC memos. It is also believed, although the type in the memo is too illegible to prove, that a third party to the 21 December 1950 meeting consisted of representatives of the USCGS.
[18] Beavers JE. Perspectives on seismic risk maps and the building code process in the eastern United States, a review of earthquake research applications in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program: 19771987. US Geological Survey, Open-File Report 88-13-A, Reston, 1987. [19] [20] Unnewehr D. American Insurance Association, 14 January 2002. AEC. Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, Title 10,
Part100, Appendix A. Atomic Energy Commission, now US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Part 100, Section 23. 1973, Revised January 2001. [21] EPA. Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills-Fault Areas, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 258, Section13. US Environmental Protection Agency. 1993, revised July 2001. [22] EPA. Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills-Seismic Impact Zones, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 258, Section 14. US Environmental Protection Agency. 1993, revised July 2001. [23] AEC. Nuclear reactors and earthquakes. Atomic Energy Commission, Report TID-7024. Washington, DC. August 1963. [24] NBS. Aseismic design of building service systems: the state-of-the-art. US Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, NBS Technical Note 970. Washington, DC. September 1978. [25] ANSI. American standard building code requirements for minimum
References and recommended reading

[1] Frankel AD, Mueller C, Barnhard T, Perkins D, Leyendecker EV, Dickman N, Hanson S & Hopper M. National seismic-hazard maps: documentation June 1996. US Geological Survey, Open-File Report 96-532, Denver, 1996.
design loads in buildings and other structures. American National Standards Institute, ANSI A58.1. New York. 1945. [26] ASCE. Seismic analysis of safety-related nuclear structures and commentary on standard for seismic analysis of safety related nuclear structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE Standard, ASCE 4-86. September 1986.
62
[27] ASCE. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE Standard, ANSI/ASCE 7-88, 1988, ANSI Approved November 1990. [28] IEEE. IEEE recommended practice for seismic qualification of class 1e equipment for nuclear power generating stations. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE Standard 344. 1987, revised 1993. [29] Tri-Services. Tri-Services Manual}Seismic Design of Buildings. Departments of the Army, Navy and Air Force, Army TM 5-809-10, Navy NAV FAC P-335, Air Force AFM 88-3. April 1973. [30] DOE. Guidelines for use of probabilistic seismic hazard curves at Department of Energy sites. US Department of Energy, DOE-STD-1024-92. Washington, DC. December 1992. [31] DOE. Natural phenomena hazards design and evaluation criteria for Department of Energy facilities. US Department of Energy, DOE-STD-1020-94. Washington, DC. April 1994. [32] Mittler E, Taylor C & Petak W. National earthquake probabilistic hazard mapping program: lessons for knowledge transfer. Working Paper 92. Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, University of Colorado, Boulder. April 1996. [33] UBC. Building Standards, Uniform Building Code, 1927 Edition. Pacific Coast Building Officials Conference, January 1928. [34] SBC. Standard Building Code, 1976 Edition. Southern Building Code Congress International, Birmingham, Alabama 1976. [35] ANSI. American standard building code requirements for minimum design loads in buildings and other structures. American National Standards Institute, ANSI A58.1. New York. 1972. [36] ANSI. American standard building code requirements for minimum design loads in buildings and other structures. American National Standards Institute, ANSI A58.1. New York. 1982. [37] BOCA. Basic Building Code, 1950 Edition. Building Officials Conference of America, New York, 1950. [38] BOCA. Basic Building Code, 1955 Edition. Building Officials Conference of America, New York, 1955. [39] BOCA. Basic Building Code, Seventh Edition. Building Officials Conference of America, Chicago, 1978. [40] Freeman JR. Earthquake Damage and Earthquake Insurance. 1st edn. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1932. [41] Holmes WT. The history of US seismic code development. In: EERI Golden Anniversary Volume, 19481998. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 1998. 1317. [42] Olson R. Fits and starts: 20th Century seismic safety policy in the US. In: EERI Golden Anniversary Volume, 19481998. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 1998. 2327. [43] Anderson AW, Blume JA, Degenkolb HJ, Hammill HB, Knapik EM, Marchand HL, Powers HC, Rinne JE, Sedgwick GA & Sjoberg HO. Lateral forces of earthquake and wind. American Society of Civil Engineers, Transactions 1952: 2514. [44] ANSI. American standard building code requirements for minimum design loads in buildings and other structures. American National Standards Institute, ANSI A58.1. New York. 1955. [45] Roberts EB & Urich FP. Seismological activities of the US Coast and Geodetic Survey in 1948. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1950: 40(3): 195216. [46] Algermissen ST. An introduction to the Seismicity of the United States.

US Department of Energy Report ES/CNPE-96/1, Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, December 1995. [54] AEC. AEC Manual. Vol: 6000, Construction; Part: 6300, Design Criteria; Chapter: 6305, Structural Design. 21 July 1954. [55] Drake GM. International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA, February, 1988. [56] Algermissen ST. Seismic risk studies in the United States. Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, 1969: 1; 1427. [57] UBC. Building Standards, Uniform Building Code, 1970 Edition. International Conference of Building Officials, May 1970. [58] Derry JA. Revised seismic risk map of the United States. Letter to Managers of Field Offices, Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, DC. 21 May 1970. [59] Algermissen ST & Perkins DM. A probabilistic estimate of maximum acceleration in rock in the contiguous United States. US Geological Survey, Open-File Report 76-416. 1976. [60] ATC. Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for buildings. Applied Technology Council, Report ATC 3-06, Redwood City, CA 1978. [61] Nordenson GJP & Bell GR. Seismic design requirements for regions of moderate seismicity. Earthquake Spectra 2000: 16(1): 205225. [62] FEMA. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, Parts 1 and 2, 1985 Edition. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC February 1986. [63] IBC. International Building Code. Falls Church, VA: International Code Council. 2000. [64] LLNL. Seismic hazard characterization of the 69 nuclear plant sites east of the Rocky Mountains. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5250. Washington DC. January 1989. [65] EPRI. Seismic hazard methodology for the central, eastern United States. Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI NP-4726, Washington, DC. November, 1988. [66] LLNL. Revised Livermore seismic hazard estimates for 69 nuclear power plant sites east of the Rocky Mountains. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1488, Draft report for comment, Washington, DC. October, 1993. [67] SSHAC. Recommendations for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: guidance on uncertainty and use of experts. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/ CR-6372-V1, Livermore, CA April 1997. [68] NAP. Review of Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis: Guidance on Uncertainty and Use of Experts. National Academy Press. Washington, DC. 1997. [69] Reiter L. Earthquake Hazard Analysis}Issues and Insights. New York:
Columbia University Press. 1990. [70] Holmes W.T. The 1997 NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. Earthquake Spectra 2000: 16(1): 101125. [71] Algermissen ST, Perkins DM, Thenhaus PC, Hanson SL & Bender BL. Probabilistic estimates of maximum acceleration and velocity in rock in the contiguous United States. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 82-1033, 1982. [72] Thenhaus PC, Perkins DM, Algermissen ST & Hanson SL. Earthquake hazard in the eastern United States: Consequences of alternative seismic sources. Earthquake Spectra 1987: 3(2): 227261. [73] Algermissen ST, Leyendecker EV, Bollinger GA, Donovan NC, Ebel JE, Joyner WB, Luft RW & Singh JP. Probabilistic ground-motion hazard maps of response spectral ordinates for the United States. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Stanford University, 1991: II: 687694. [74] FEMA. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, Parts 1 and 2, 1991 Edition. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC February 1992. [75] FEMA. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, Parts 1 and 2, 1994 Edition. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC February 1995. [76] Beavers JE. Memo to Panelists of the 1994 BSSC Annual Meeting. Building Seismic Safety Council, February 1994. [77] Beavers JE. Memo to Moderators of the 1994 BSSC Annual Meeting. Building Seismic Safety Council, February 1994. [78] Beavers JE. Seismic mapping: Project 97 and beyond. Keynote presentation, 1994 BSSC Annual Meeting, Building Seismic Safety Council, Denver, 2325 February 1994. [79] Beavers JE. Preliminary concept paper}Project 97:NEHRP seismic hazard mapping and seismic risk design values. 1994 BSSC Annual Meeting, Board of Directors Meeting, Building Seismic Safety Council, Denver, 2325 February 1994.
Oakland: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. 1983. [47] UBC. Building Standards, Uniform Building Code, 1949 Edition. Pacific Coast Building Officials Conference, January 1949. [48] Roberts EB & Urich FP. Seismological activities of the US Coast and Geodetic Survey in 1949. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1951: 41(3): 205220. [49] UBC. Building Standards, Uniform Building Code, 1952 Edition. Pacific Coast Building Officials Conference, January 1952. [50] USCGS. Earthquake risk in the United States}official statement by the US Department of Commerce, Coast and Geodetic Survey. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 1952: 42: 110. [51] Richter CF. Elementary Seismology. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. 1958. [52] Algermissen ST. GeoRisk Associates, 18 December 2001.
[53] Beavers JE. Seismic hazard criteria for the Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio US Department of Energy reservations.

[80] Beavers JE. Project 97-A status report. Keynote presentation, 1995 BSSC Annual Meeting, Building Seismic Safety Council, Atlanta, January 1995. [81] Hunt RJ. Building Seismic Safety Council, Project 97. Proceedings of the National Earthquake Ground Motion Mapping Workshop, Applied Technology Council, ATC 35-2, Los Angeles, 22-23 September 1995: 113120. [82] Sharpe RL & Beavers JE. Restructuring America and Beyond. Proceedings of Structures Conference XIII (ASCE), Boston, 25 April 1995: 220232. [83] Beavers JE & Hunt RJ. Development of the 1997 update of the recommended provisions for the seismic regulations of new buildings. Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, 1996. [84] ATC. National earthquake ground motion mapping workshop. Proceedings, Applied Technology Council, Report No. ATC-35-2, 2223 September 1995. [85] Frankel AD, Mueller SS, Barnhard TP, Leyendecker EV, Wesson RL, Harmsen SC, Klein FW, Perkins DM, Dickman NC, Hanson SL & Hopper MG. USGS national seismic hazard maps. Earthquake Spectra 2000: 16(1): 119. [86] FEMA. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, Parts 1 and 2, 1997 edition. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC. February 1998. [87] Leyendecker EV, Hunt RJ, Frankel AD & Rukstales KS. Development of maximum considered earthquake ground motion maps. Earthquake Spectra 2000: 16(1): 2040. [88] FEMA. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Parts 1 and 2, 2000 Edition. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC. February 2001. [89] EERI. Theme issue: Seismic design provisions and guidelines. Earthquake Spectra 2000: 16(1). [90] 2002. Harris JR. ASEC 7-95 Task Committee on Earthquake Loads, 25 January
CODES
63
[92] Harris JB, Street R, Kiefer JD, Allen DL & Wang ZM. Microzonation and site amplification of seismic ground motion in the Paducah Kentucky area. Earthquake Spectra 10(3): 519538. [93] Newman A, Schneider J, Stein S & Mendez A. Uncertainties in seismic hazard maps for the New Madrid Seismic Zone and implications for seismic hazard communication. Seismological Research Letters 2001: 72(6): 647663. November/December 2001. [94] Street R, Woolery E, Wang ZM & Harik IE. Soil classifications for estimating site-dependent response spectra and seismic coefficients for building code provisions in western Kentucky. Engineering Geology 1997: 46(34) 331347. [95] Risk Engineering. Updated probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Kentucky. Final Report, Lockheed-Martin Utility Services, Risk Engineering, 1999. Available through Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Documents Library, as session 99051040175, docket 07007001, 1999.) [96] Street R, Wang Z, Woolery E, Hunt J & Harris J. Site effects at a vertical accelerometer array near Paducah, Kentucky. Engineering Geology 1997: 46(34): 349367. [97] 90(6b). BSSA. Special edition. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2000:
[98] EPRI. Guidelines for determining design basis ground motions. Electric Power Research Institute, vol. 15, EPRI TR-102293, Palo Alto. 1993. [99] Silva WJ, Abrahamson N, Toro G & Costantino C. Description and validation of the stochastic ground motion model. Report submitted to Brookhaven National Laboratory, Associated Universities, Upton, New York 11973, Contract 770573, 1997. [100] Stevens JD, Chang T-S & Kung H-T. Seismic code adoption and enforcement in the central United States: a survey of local jurisdictions. Proceedings of the National Earthquake Conference, Central United States Earthquake Consortium, Memphis, May, 1993. 659667. [101] Dorio R. Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule. Proceedings of the Mid-America Earthquake Insurance Workshop}New Research Needs. Mid-America Earthquake Center, CD Release 00-06, September 2000.
[91] Frankel A, Petersen M, Mueller C, Haller K, Wheeler R, Leyendecker EV, Wesson R, Harmsen S, Cramer C, Perkins D, Rukstales K, Cao T & Bryant W. Update of the national seismic hazard maps for 2002. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, February 2002.
James E Beavers Mid-America Earthquake Center, 205 North Mathews, NCEL, Room 1241, Urbana, IL 61801, USA E-mail: beavers@uiuc.edu

Earthquake Codes IBC

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Earthquake Codes IBC

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

46

A review of seismic hazard description in US design codes and procedures

SEISMIC HAZARD DESCRIPTION IN US

Fig. 1 Historical seismicity of the contiguous USA

SEISMIC DESIGN CODES AND PROCEDURES

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Early history of hazard description in US building codes SEISMIC DESIGN

SEISMIC HAZARD DESCRIPTION IN US

INTRODUCTION OF SEISMIC HAZARD MAPS

Fig. 3 1948 seismic probability map of the US

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Fig. 4 1949 revised seismic probability map of the US

RESISTANCE TO SEISMIC DESIGN

SEISMIC HAZARD DESCRIPTION IN US

Seismic hazard description and design status 19601985 MILESTONES

Fig. 5 1969 Algermissen seismic hazard map

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Fig. 6 1972 ANSI seismic hazard map

SEISMIC HAZARD DESCRIPTION IN US PARADIGM SHIFT

Fig. 7 1976 Algermissen and Perkins seismic hazard map

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Fig. 8 1978 ATC effective peak acceleration map

LLNL AND EPRI

SEISMIC HAZARD DESCRIPTION IN US

Seismic hazard description and design status 19852001 NEHRP PROVISIONS

SECOND PARADIGM SHIFT

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Fig. 9 Project 97 organization chart

SEISMIC HAZARD DESCRIPTION IN US

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Fig. 10 Rate of change in seismic hazard

INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE

SEISMIC HAZARD DESCRIPTION IN US

SITE EFFECTS ON DESIGN GROUND MOTIONS

Issues: 2002 and beyond SEISMIC HAZARD DESCRIPTION

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

ADOPTION OF SEISMIC CODES IN THE US

MAXIMUM CONSIDERED EARTHQUAKE

SEISMIC HAZARD DESCRIPTION IN US

References and recommended reading

Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:4663

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:4663

SEISMIC HAZARD DESCRIPTION IN US

Copyright & 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2002; 4:4663

S-ar putea să vă placă și