Seismic Updates to the 2003 IBC Code

The August 2004 issue of Structural Engineer magazine has a very well written, informative article on pages 38-43 entitled "Seismic Updates to the 2003 IBC Code". The article, the first in a three part series, details the changes in the 2003 IBC code from 2000 IBC Code, as well as how the newer code modifies certain seismic provisions of the ASCE 7-02 code.

I am lucky enough to practice in an area that has very limited seismic effects. However, in reading through the article, I can’t help but have sympathy for those of you who have to work with this code. I seems to me that building codes have really become a maze over the last twenty years and in particularly since the adoption of the 2000 IBC. Just finding your way through the code to be sure all the structural aspects have been addressed is a major undertaking, to say nothing of the other life-safety issues to be covered. Wind loading has become nearly as complicated as the seismic provisions too.

I’m wondering how you approach the code review/assessment process at the start of your building projects. Have you developed check lists for various building types? Do you use a proprietary check list? Do the code issuing authorities have (or should we demand) a check list or flow chart to guide us through the maze?

Just wondering what your thoughts are.

 

[bjb]

jheidt, I practice in upstate New York, around the Albany area, and prior to 2003, New York had it's own unique code that didn't require seismic design at all. Now that our code is based on the 2000 IBC, we have to consider seismic, and I am amazed at how sever the loads and detailing requirements are. Most of our buildings are seismic design category "C", but if we have a critical facility they ususally are SDC "D". Mostly our site classes are "D". I'd like to know the justification for determining the ground accelerations for upstate NY when to my knowledge, there isn't a history of major siesmic activity resulting in loss of life or significant property damage.

I share your opinion about how difficlut it is to use the IBC. Many times I have thought I had things covered, and then I will come across something in an unlikely place that mandates additional requirements. Most of the engineers I have spoken with agree that the IBC is difficult to use, and seems overly complex. With a code this complex, is the goal of life safety really being increased? There are checklists for the structural provisions available from ICC, but so far my company has not gotten them.

At the start of a project, I read through Chapter 16, and then the relevant material chapters, and then layout my plan of attack. I will make copies of some sections of the code and include it in my calcs, along with my notes regarding my interpretations. I am also going to get a copy of the checklists.

On another note, although the increased complexity of the code requires a lot more time, my budgets and schedules have not increased accordingly.