Comparison of the IBC 2006 Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure to FEMA356/ASCE41 Life Safety Acceptance Criteria for Timber Structures

Abstract eng:
In order to better understand the impact of the 2006 International Building Code (IBC 2006) relative to other performance-based design criteria - FEMA 356/ASCE 41 (ASCE 2000, ASCE 2007), a study was conducted to compare acceptance criterion between the two documents in the context of light frame wood sheathed shear wall buildings. The comparison is made between the life-safety requirements of FEMA 356/ASCE 41 and the IBC 2006 drift limit states using results from test data. Data taken from pseudo-static testing of light-frame structural panel shear walls was calibrated to a pinched-hysteretic force-displacement articulation model. Nonlinear time-history analyses were conducted for a range of modeled timber structures using the analytical wall models. Three probability of exceedence ground motion suites, obtained from the SAC Steel Study (SAC, 1997), were used as analytical input. Demands were collected in the form of either drifts (for use in IBC 2006 acceptance evaluation) or ductility demands (for use in FEMA356/ASCE 41 acceptance criterion). Results suggest that evaluation using the IBC 2006 produces (in the context of light frame wood sheathed walls) a generally a more conservative estimate to the overall performance of a structure when compared to the life-safety acceptance criterion of FEMA 356/ASCE 41.

• Export as: BibTeX | MARC | MARCXML | DC | EndNote | NLM | RefWorks
• Add to your basket