IBC Structural Provisions: A Better Alternative

by Susan Dowty, S.E., and S. K. Ghosh, Ph.D.

t is no secret that some jurisdictions have opted to continue using the 1997 Uniform Building CodeTM 1 (UBC)
despite the fact that the structural provisions contained in
the 2000 International Building Code 2 (IBC) reflect the
latest data and most current technology. Fortunately,
building officials in these jurisdictions can ameliorate the
situation by invoking UBC Section 104.2.8, which gives
them the authority to approve alternate designs and can be
implemented on a case-by-case basis to accept structural
designs that are in accordance with the 2000 IBC.

1997 UBC
Section 104.2.8
Alternate materials, alternate design and methods of
construction. The provisions of this code are not intended
to prevent the use of any material, alternate design or
method of construction not specifically prescribed by this
code, provided any alternate has been approved and its use
authorized by the building official.
The building official may approve any such alternate,
provided the building official finds that the proposed
design is satisfactory and complies with the provisions of
this code and that the material, method or work offered is,
for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in suitability, strength, effectiveness,
fire resistance, durability, safety and sanitation.
The building official shall require that sufficient evidence or proof be submitted to substantiate any claims that
may be made regarding its use. The details of any action
granting approval of an alternate shall be recorded and
entered in the files of the code enforcement agency.

Exercising this option could prove extremely valuable

from an administrative perspective since evaluation
under the Insurance Services Offices (ISO) Building
Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule program may be
severely impacted for jurisdictions not using the most
current code. The program is used to assess the building
codes in effect in a jurisdiction and how that jurisdiction
enforces its building codes, with special emphasis on mitigation of losses from natural hazards. For further information, visit the ISO website at www.iso.com.
The following information is intended to assist build12 buildingstandards May-June 2002

ing officials in concluding that the structural provisions

contained in the 2000 IBC are at least equivalent to those
of the 1997 UBC.
Published Resources
A number of published resources provide comparisons
between the 1997 UBC and the 2000 IBC, including the
2000 IBC HandbookStructural Provisions3, Impact of
the Seismic Design Provisions of the International
Building Code4, UBC-IBC Structural Comparison and
Cross Reference5, and a side-by-side comparison of the
seismic design requirements of the 1997 UBC and the
1997 National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program
provisions (which form the basis of the seismic design
requirements of the 2000 IBC) available for download
from www.skghoshassociates.com.
Updated Standards
The structural provisions of the 2000 IBC are superior to
those of the 1997 UBC for many reasons, not the least of
which being that they adopt the latest design standards for
concrete, steel, masonry and wood construction. The
design standards currently referenced in the 1997 UBC
for these materials are as many as eight years out-of-date.
There is no tenable reason for older standards to be used
for design when more up-to-date ones are readily available and have been adopted by reference in the 2000 IBC.
Improved Seismic Design
One of the most significant improvements in the 2000
IBC over the 1997 UBC is the ground motion parameters
used for seismic design. To begin with, the maps in the
UBC have always been based on seismic zones. The 1997
UBC maps were upgraded through the implementation of
near-source factors to reflect increased ground motion for
areas in close proximity to major known faults, but their
fundamental shortcoming remains: not all areas within a
zone will have the same peak ground acceleration.
The maps provided in the IBC are more sophisticated
in that they are not zone maps at all, but rather contour
maps giving spectral response quantities. The mapped
quantities are the maximum considered earthquake
(MCE) spectral response acceleration, Ss (at short periods) and S1 (at 1-second period), for Site Class B soil (soft
rock).

Understanding the difference between the earthquake design philosophies of the UBC versus
those of the IBC is key to appreciating the increase
in safety made possible across the U.S. by the
newer code. The UBC intended that structures be
designed for life-safety in the event of an earthquake with a 10-percent probability of being
exceeded in 50 years (commonly referred to as the
475-year earthquake). The problem with this
design earthquake, as was recognized during the
development of the new spectral response acceleration maps, was that it did not provide adequate
protection for the infrequent but very large seismic
events which occur in the Eastern U.S.
The IBC intends design for collapse prevention in a much larger earthquake, with a 2-percent
probability of being exceeded in 50 years (commonly referred to as the 2,500-year earthquake). In
the case of coastal California, the maximum considered earthquake is the largest (deterministic)
earthquake that can be generated by the known
seismic sources. For the purposes of this article,
collapse prevention and life-safety are defined
as follows:
Collapse preventionThe building remains
standing, but only barely; any other damage
or loss is acceptable.
Life-safetyThe structure remains stable and
has significant reserve capacity; hazardous
nonstructural damage is controlled.
It should be noted that the 2,500-year earthquake in the Eastern U.S. is on the order of 4 to 5
times as strong as the 475-year earthquake, whereas the 2,500-year earthquake in the Western U.S. is
only on the order of 1.5 as strong as the 475-year
earthquake. Thus, although the UBC provided uniform likelihood that the design ground motion
would not be exceeded, it did not provide for a uniform margin of safety against collapse, which the
IBC does.
Soil Effects
In order to take into account soil effects at the site,
the mapped MCE spectral response acceleration at
buildingstandards May-June 2002 13

IBC Structural Provisions: A Better Alternative (continued)

Table 1. Changes in Short-Period and Long-Period Seismicity from the 1997 UBC to the 2000 IBC.
Location

UBC

IBC

Zone

2.5Ca

Cv

SDS

SD1

West Los Angeles (Na = 1.3, Nv = 1.6)

1.3

0.64

1.37

0.54

Downtown San Francisco (4th and Market)

0.45

0.41

U.C. Berkeley Memorial Stadium (Na = 1.5, Nv = 2.0)

1.5

0.8

1.37

0.61

Denver

0.2

0.08

0.13

0.04

Sacramento

0.75

0.3

0.37

0.15

St Paul

0.04

0.02

Seattle

0.75

0.3

1.05

0.37

Portland

0.75

0.3

0.8

0.26

Houston

0.07

0.03

Site Class B soil is assumed.

Na = acceleration-dependent near-source factor of the 1997 UBC.
Nv = velocity-dependent near-source factor of the 1997 UBC.

short periods, Ss, is multiplied by the acceleration-related

site coefficient, Fa, and the mapped MCE spectral response acceleration at 1-second period, S1, is multiplied
by the velocity-related site coefficient, Fv. The Fa and Fv
coefficients decrease as the mapped spectral accelerations
increase and increase as soil conditions go from hard rock
to softer soils (i.e. from Site Class A to E), with maximum
values for Site Class E soils being 2.5 and 3.5, respectively. Values for Site Class F soils must be determined
from a site-specific geotechnical investigation utilizing a
dynamic site response analysis.
The design ground motion parameters of the 1997
UBC, Ca and Cv, are defined in terms of the Site Class
(as in the 2000 IBC) and the Seismic Zone factor, Z. The
UBCs Ca/Z and Cv/Z are analogous, respectively, to the
IBCs acceleration-dependent site coefficient, Fa, and the
velocity-dependent site coefficient, Fv.
Numerical Comparisons
If, for a particular site, the design spectral acceleration at
short periods, SDS, of the 2000 IBC is 2.5 times the Ca of
the 1997 UBC, short-period seismicity (expected ground
motion that would excite short, stiff structures) does not
change from the 1997 UBC to the 2000 IBC. In addition,
if the design spectral acceleration at 1-second period (SD1)
of the 2000 IBC is the same as the Cv of the 1997 UBC,
then long-period seismicity (expected ground motion that
would excite tall, flexible structures) has not changed
from the 1997 UBC to the 2000 IBC.
Table 1 should be viewed with the above in mind. For
example, it can be seen that in Sacramento, long- as well
as short-period seismicity has been reduced by one-half
from the 1997 UBC to the 2000 IBC. This should not be
14 buildingstandards May-June 2002

interpreted to mean that the 2000 IBC is less stringent than

the 1997 UBC. The contour maps for Ss and S1 in the 2000
IBC represent a new generation of seismic risk maps
developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) based
on updated knowledge of seismic sources as well as attenuation relationships (how earthquake shocks die out as
they travel away from the source). The 1997 UBC Seismic
Zone map is based on an older generation of USGS seismic risk maps. In addition, according to the USGS, the
UBC seismic zone boundaries were influenced periodically by political processes, causing changes such as the
Understanding the difference between the
earthquake design philosophies of the UBC
versus those of the IBC is key to appreciating
the increase in safety made possible across the
U.S. by the newer code.

elimination of Zone 2 in Central California, the removal of

Zone 1 in Eastern Washington and Oregon, the addition of
Zone 3 in Western Washington and Oregon, and the addition of Zone 2 in Southern Arizona.6 The IBC contour
maps have remained largely unaffected by such political
considerations.
Seismic Design Category
In the 1997 UBC, the seismic zone in which a structure is
located determines permissible structural systems, including the level of detailing required for structural members
and joints that are part of the lateral-force-resisting system
as well as structural components that are not. It also deter-

mines limitations on the height of a structural system

and structural irregularity, the type of lateral load analysis that must be performed as the basis of design, and
nonstructural component requirements.
The 2000 IBC uses the Seismic Design Category
(SDC)7 for these purposes, which is a function of occupancy (called Seismic Use Group or SUG: Group III
essential facilities, Group IIhigh-occupancy buildings, and Group Iother occupancies) and soilThe codes have always been based on the
concepts of hazard and probability. The IBC
has graduated to having a more realistic and
refined approach to structural design and
performance.
modified seismic risk at the site of the structure in the
form of the design spectral response acceleration at
short periods, SDS, and at 1-second period, SD1.
Making the level of detailing and other restrictions a
function of the soil characteristics at the site of a structure in addition to occupancy is a major departure from
prior practice and is reflective of real conditions. Soilmodified ground motion is what a structure experiences
during an earthquake, so it is only proper that it should
be a significant factor in determining relevant restrictions applied to a structure. The codes have always been
based on the concepts of hazard and probability. The
IBC has graduated to having a more realistic and
refined approach to structural design and performance.
Conclusion
The combination of new seismic contour maps and
SDC assignment results in a decidedly more sophisticated approach to earthquake design in the 2000 IBC
over that of the 1997 UBC. It is like going from onesize-fits-all to custom-made. In some cases, the base
shear calculated using the IBC will be less than that
calculated using the UBC, but this does not mean that
the two codes are not equivalent or that the IBC is less
safe. The 2000 IBC has simply refined the design
process to make it more accurate and reflective of the
latest scientific information.
Other aspects of the 1997 UBC are outdated, such as
wind design provisions dating back to the 1980s and the
lack of quality-assurance plan provisions. Simply put:
there is no valid technical justification for continuing to
use the outdated structural provisions of the 1997 UBC.
It is hoped that this article will at the very least encourage building officials in jurisdictions where the UBC is
buildingstandards May-June 2002 15

IBC Structural Provisions: A Better Alternative (continued)

still in effect to consider exercising their authority under Section
104.2.8 to implement the IBCs structural provisions on a caseby-case basis.
References
1. Uniform Building CodeTM, International Conference of
Building Officials, Whittier, CA, 1997.
2. International Building Code, International Code Council,
Falls Church, VA, 2000.
3. Ghosh, S. K., and Chittenden, R., 2000 IBC Handbook
Structural Provisions, ICBO, 2001.
4. Ghosh, S. K., Impact of the Seismic Design Provisions of the
International Building Code, Structures and Codes Institute,
Northbrook, IL, 2001.
5. UBC-IBC Structural (19972000) Comparisons & Cross
Reference, ICBO, 2000.
6. Henry, J. R., Seismic Design Category, Structural
Engineer, February 2002, pp. 2833.
7. CodeMasterSeismic Design Category, S.K. Ghosh
Associates, Inc., Northbrook, IL, 2002.
The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the opinion or agreement of the International
Conference of Building Officials.

16 buildingstandards May-June 2002

Susan Dowty, S.E., is a project manager for

S. K. Ghosh Associates, Inc., a structural,
seismic and code consulting firm. Prior to
joining S.K. Ghosh Associates, she was employed
by ICBO and served as the IBC Structural
Secretariat. Dowty holds a Masters
of Science degree in civil engineering and is a registered civil and structural engineer in the state of
California.
S. K. Ghosh, Ph.D, is president of S. K. Ghosh
Associates, Inc., which has offices in North-brook,
Illinois, and Laguna Niguel, California, and is
known internationally for his work in
earthquake engineering. Dr. Ghosh is also an
active participant in the development of national
design standards, serving as a member of
American Concrete Institute Committee 318,
Structural Concrete Building Code, and American
Society of Civil Engineers Standards Committee 7,
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, as well as on the Building Seismic
Safety Council Board of Directors.