Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study focuses on the differences and similarities between the seismic provisions of the International Building Code 2003 (IBC 2003) and Mexico's Manual of Civil Works for Seismic Design (MOC-93). A six-story special reinforced concrete moment frame building was chosen to explore how the static force procedures of both codes differed. The sample location of this building was the San Diego/Tijuana border region. A total of four random soil shear wave velocities were chosen to identify the necessary IBC 2003 soil site classes and MOC-93 soil types. Inelastic design response spectra were established based on the 4 soil shear wave velocities. When the results were compared, several conclusions were evident. The IBC 2003 design response spectra may be more accurate for the studied region of San Diego, California, USA and Tijuana, Baja California, based on the probabilistic data of the region. The MOC-93 design response spectra, which include longer periods and higher seismic coefficients in most cases, are based on deterministic and probabilistic data that is heavily influenced by subduction source earthquakes that occur along Mexico's central Pacific Coast.

Keywords

International Building Code 2003 equivalent lateral force procedure design response spectrum seismic use group seismic design category Mexico's manual of civil works 1993

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ASCE 7–02, Second Edition (2002). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Section 9.0, pp. 95–206.

California Building Code (2001). Volume 2, California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, California, Chapter 16.

Esteva

(1988). “The mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985 – consequences, lessons, and impact on research and practice”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 413–424.

Ghosh

S.K.

and Dowty

(2003). “The seismic design provisions of the 2003 edition of the international building code”, PCI Journal, pp. 92–95.

Iglesias

(1989). “The mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985 – seismic zoning of mexico city after the 1985 earthquake”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 257–271.

International Building Code (2003). International Code Council, Country Club Hills, IL, Sections 1613 to 1623.

Kircher

(2003). Development of Seismic Design Criteria for Building Codes, Structural Engineers Association of California.

Pong

W.S.

and Nesbet

(2002). “Design implications of structural irregularity”, Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Mechanical Engineers Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada, August 4–8, PVP-Vol. 445–1, Seismic Engineering-2002, Vol. 1, pp. 209–213.

Pong

W.S.

Lee

Z.H.

and Lee

(2006). “A comparative study of seismic provisions between international building code 2003 and uniform building code 1997”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 49–60.

10.

NEHRP 2000, Part II (2001). NEHRP Recommended Provisions For Seismic Regulations For New Buildings And Other Structures, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 369, Commentary.

11.

NTCS-2004 (2004). Propuesta de Normas Técnicas Complementarias Para Diseño Por Sismo (Spanish).

12.

Tena-Colunga

(1999). International Seismic Zone Tabulation Proposed by the 1997 UBC Code: Observations for Mexico, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 331–360.

13.

Uniform Building Code 1997 (1997). Volume 2, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California, Chapter 16.

A Comparative Study of Seismic Provisions between the International Building Code 2003 and Mexico's Manual of Civil Works 1993

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References