None<\/p>\n
| PDF Pages<\/th>\n | PDF Title<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13<\/td>\n | Figure 1. The Ten Editions of the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions, 1985 to 2020. All are available for download from https:\/\/www.nibs.org\/page\/bssc_pubs. Executive Summary <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 14<\/td>\n | Figure 2. U.S. Seismic Regulations and Seismic Codes Development and the Role of NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 15<\/td>\n | Figure 3. Roles of NEHRP Agencies and of the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 16<\/td>\n | Figure 4. The process of incorporating the latest information on seismicity from U.S. Geological Survey into Seismic Design. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 17<\/td>\n | Figure 5. Improvements to Seismic Mapping <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 23<\/td>\n | The NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions 1.1\tAbout the NEHRP Program <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 25<\/td>\n | Figure 1-1. The NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions serves as a convergence of the efforts among the four NEHRP agencies and private sectors and a mechanism to transfer research results for improving seismic design practice. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 27<\/td>\n | Figure 1-2. The Ten Editions of the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions. 1.2\tNEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions Development <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 31<\/td>\n | 1.3\tThe Process of Developing the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 36<\/td>\n | 1.4\tAn Example of the Updating of the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 38<\/td>\n | The 2015 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions developed comprehensive guidelines and requirements for nonlinear response history analysis, which can be considered a simulation of what would happen if the actual constructed building were subjected to earth <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 41<\/td>\n | Figure 2-1. U.S. Seismic Regulations and Seismic Codes Development and the Role of NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions. Brief Historical Background of the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 43<\/td>\n | Figure 2-2. Adoption of the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions into the IBC <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 47<\/td>\n | Figure 3-1. The process of incorporating the latest information on seismicity from U.S. Geological into Seismic Design. Major Technical Changes <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 48<\/td>\n | Figure 3-2. Evolution of the U.S. Seismic Value Maps 3.1\tSeismic Mapping <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 50<\/td>\n | Figure 3-3. Revolution through the NERHP Recommended Seismic Provisions Process in an effort to Provide a Uniform Level of Safety Across the Nation <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 51<\/td>\n | Figure 3-4. A Joint Effort Among USGS, FEMA, BSSC to Develop National Applicable Seismic Maps under NEHRP Program, a Model of Marrying Science and Engineering into Building Science <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 52<\/td>\n | 3.2\tDuctility and Response Modification Factors <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 53<\/td>\n | Figure 3-5. In this technique for allowing a steel frame to deform in a ductile manner, the beam is intentionally weakened with a \u201cdogbone\u201d cutout so that inelastic behavior will be concentrated in that segment of the frame, protecting the column from dam <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 54<\/td>\n | Figure 3-6. The Three New Seismic Force-Resisting Systems that Are Introduced and Approved in the 2020 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions: (1) reinforced concrete ductile coupled walls (source: MKA), (2) steel and concrete coupled composite plate shear <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 55<\/td>\n | Figure 3-7. NEHRP Seismic Provisions Generic Design Spectrum. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 58<\/td>\n | 3.3\tCombining Occupancy with Seismic Mapping <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 59<\/td>\n | Figure 3-8. Seismic Design Categories based on the seismic map of the 2018 International Residential Code (IRC) <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 61<\/td>\n | 3.4\tBuilding Deflections (Drift) <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 62<\/td>\n | Figure 3-9. The extreme drift experienced by Olive View Hospital in the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake also rendered nonstructural components damaged and non-functional. (Source: Robert Olson, NISEE-PEER) 3.5\tNonstructural Components <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 64<\/td>\n | 3.6\tBuilding Irregularities <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 65<\/td>\n | Figure 3-10. In the 1994 Northridge Earthquake in the Los Angeles region, this heavy soffit or exterior ceiling collapsed over the entrance. Nonstructural protection involves secure attachments of the nonstructural components to the structure. (Source: Ro <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 66<\/td>\n | Figure 3-11. The extreme drift or sideways distortion of the Olive View Hospital in the 1971 San Fernando was caused by a soft-story condition: strong and stiff walls were discontinued at the ground story level, and all of the deformation was imposed on t <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 67<\/td>\n | 3.7\tSimplification of Seismic Design Procedures and Provisions <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 69<\/td>\n | Continual Efforts to Reduce Earthquake Risks 4.1\tEconomic Impacts <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 71<\/td>\n | Figure 4-1. Total costs and benefits of new design to comply with 2018 I-Code requirements for earthquake, relative to 1988. (Source: Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council 2020) <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 72<\/td>\n | Figure 4-2. Benefit-cost ratios for seismic code compliance are highest in high-seismicity areas. (Source: Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council 2020) 4.2\tEssential Function Buildings <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 74<\/td>\n | Figure 4-3. The 1994 Northridge Earthquake seemingly only cosmetically damaged this hospital\u2019s sign, but the cause was lunging of inadequately restrained air conditioning equipment that disabled the functioning of the facility. (source: Robert Reitherman) <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 75<\/td>\n | 4.3\tProtecting Federal Buildings from Earthquakes <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 79<\/td>\n | NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions, Resilience-Based Design and \nthe Future 5.1 Staying Up to Date 5.2 Community-Based Design <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 80<\/td>\n | 5.3 Outreach, Education, and Dissemination <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 82<\/td>\n | Abbreviations <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 84<\/td>\n | Brief History of Seismic Regulations in American Building Codes <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 90<\/td>\n | References Cited <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 96<\/td>\n | Project Participants <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" FEMA P-2156: The Role of the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions in the Development of Nationwide Seismic Building Code Regulations: A Thirty-Five-Year Retrospective<\/b><\/p>\n |