How can you rate seismic design standards?

1 Scope and applicability

The first thing to check is the scope and applicability of the seismic design standard. This means identifying the target audience, the intended use, and the limitations of the standard. For example, some standards may be specific to certain types of buildings, such as residential, commercial, or industrial, while others may cover a broader range of structures, such as bridges, dams, or pipelines. Some standards may be mandatory, while others may be voluntary or recommended. Some standards may be based on national or international codes, while others may be developed by local authorities or professional associations.

2 Seismic hazard assessment

The second aspect to evaluate is the seismic hazard assessment that the standard uses to determine the design criteria and parameters. This involves estimating the probability and intensity of earthquake ground motions that may affect the site and the structure. Different standards may use different methods and sources of data to conduct the seismic hazard assessment, such as historical records, geological surveys, probabilistic models, or deterministic scenarios. The quality and accuracy of the seismic hazard assessment depends on the availability and reliability of the data, as well as the assumptions and uncertainties involved in the analysis.

3 Performance objectives and levels

The third factor to compare is the performance objectives and levels that the standard defines for the design and construction of the structure. This means specifying the expected behavior and damage of the structure under different levels of seismic demand, such as serviceability, damage control, life safety, or collapse prevention. Different standards may have different performance objectives and levels, depending on the importance and function of the structure, as well as the social and economic implications of its failure. The performance objectives and levels also influence the selection and design of the structural system, materials, components, and connections.

4 Analysis and design methods

The fourth aspect to review is the analysis and design methods that the standard provides or recommends for the structural engineering of the project. This involves choosing the appropriate type and level of analysis, such as linear or nonlinear, static or dynamic, elastic or inelastic, to capture the response and behavior of the structure under seismic loads. The analysis and design methods also involve applying the relevant design criteria and parameters, such as load combinations, strength reduction factors, ductility factors, drift limits, or detailing requirements, to ensure the adequacy and safety of the structure.

5 Quality control and assurance

The fifth element to consider is the quality control and assurance that the standard requires or suggests for the construction and maintenance of the structure. This means verifying and testing the quality and compliance of the materials, components, and connections used in the structure, as well as inspecting and monitoring the workmanship and execution of the construction process. The quality control and assurance also means ensuring the durability and resilience of the structure over time, as well as updating and retrofitting it if necessary, to cope with the potential changes and deterioration of the seismic hazard and performance.

6 Validation and feedback

The sixth and final aspect to examine is the validation and feedback that the standard incorporates or encourages for the improvement and development of the seismic design practice. This means collecting and analyzing the data and evidence from the actual performance and behavior of the structures designed and constructed according to the standard, especially after a major earthquake event. The validation and feedback also means comparing and learning from the best practices and lessons from other standards and regions, as well as identifying and addressing the gaps and challenges in the seismic design field.

7 Here’s what else to consider

This is a space to share examples, stories, or insights that don’t fit into any of the previous sections. What else would you like to add?