CHAPTER 12

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

International Codes

12.1 INTRODUCTION

Designers and owners frequently face situations where multiple codes might be
used for the same application. This is especially prevalent on international
projects, where local codes may differ significantly from a company’s own
standards. This also occurs when international vendors request exceptions to
project-specific criteria to use design codes that are more familiar to that particular
vendor or design codes that are embedded into design software.
This chapter provides guidance for such situations, where the design engineer
may be required to understand and evaluate multiple seismic design criteria or
codes. This chapter does not aim to provide step-by-step guidance for the
application of various international seismic design codes.

12.2 CODE CONFORMANCE

Seismic design will generally always require conformance to the governing local
building code. Exceptions may exist for large projects, where project-specific
design criteria are approved by the regulating agency; however, even in those cases,
the company is generally required to demonstrate that its proposed criteria
provide an equivalent level of safety as those in the existing local codes.
Examples of typical issues that might arise include the following:
• The local seismic codes were developed for local commercial and residential
building construction and are not really relevant for a petrochemical or other
industrial project.
• The local code seismic design approach is completely different from the
company’s own project standards.
• The local seismic design code appears to be less conservative than the
company’s own standards.

323

Seismic Evaluation and Design of Petrochemical and Other Industrial Facilities

 324 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND DESIGN OF PETROCHEMICAL

• Conformance to a local code may require design modifications that conflict

with basic seismic design principles and may actually result in a less safe
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

design.
• Local vendors only know the local codes, while international vendors do not
know the local codes at all.
Each project situation is unique, and no uniform way exists to deal with all
these issues. However, the situations noted above are not uncommon, and this
chapter attempts to outline some of the mistakes that have been made in the past
and some of the cautions to observe when confronting these issues.

12.3 MULTIPLE CODE CONFORMANCE

Many projects may require conformance to both local codes and to project-
specific criteria. The design engineer and project management must select an
overall approach that is acceptable to both company management and local
regulating authorities. Several means are outlined below:
(a) Compare codes and demonstrate that one is more conservative than the
other. This is very difficult to do in a generic way that covers all possible
designs. Section 12.4 discusses several of the issues.
(b) Perform independent design calculations for each code and demonstrate
adequacy for both. While this is the most complete and thorough method,
it is also the most difficult to do within cost and schedule for a project.
(c) Perform design calculations for project codes and selected checks for local
codes. By conforming to company standards, the company is assured that
the design meets its own minimum safety requirements consistent with
other projects worldwide. The local check may be viewed more as a
regulatory requirement. The extent of checking for local code conformance
would need to be negotiated with the regulatory agency.
(d) Perform the initial design with the company’s design contractor and then
hire a locally registered company to perform the “final” seismic design. If this
approach is taken, the design engineer must be made aware of any changes
to the original design to conform to local codes. It should not be taken for
granted that strengthening the original design will always be a conservative
approach. For example, if the local code requires only stronger anchorage,
the design intent of controlling inelastic behavior may be negated, and an
undesirable, nonductile failure mode may result.
(e) Perform design calculations for the local code and selected checks for the
project codes. This will satisfy the regulatory agencies and may satisfy
company requirements, depending on the extent of the difference in codes
and the extent of designs that must be checked.

Seismic Evaluation and Design of Petrochemical and Other Industrial Facilities

 INTERNATIONAL CODES 325

12.4 CAUTIONS WHEN PERFORMING CODE COMPARISONS

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

When attempting to demonstrate that one design code is more conservative than
another, the design engineer must always use extreme caution in applying and
interpreting both codes, even when the comparison appears to be straightforward.

12.4.1 Don’t Be Fooled by the Return Period

One of the most common errors both engineers and nontechnical parties make is
to assume that the amount of conservatism directly relates to the specified return
period. This is overly simplistic and should never be used as the sole parameter in
comparing codes. However, because the return period is a term widely used to
describe low-probability events such as earthquakes, even by nontechnical parties,
the engineer must be prepared to thoroughly defend any finding that a code with a
shorter return period is more conservative than one with a longer return period.

12.4.2 Compare Both Capacity and Demand

Return periods and associated peak ground accelerations are often used as
benchmarks to discuss seismic loading or demand. These are familiar and relevant
values to many regulators, even if they are not intimately familiar with seismic
design. However, the treatment of spectral shape, adjustments for soil conditions,
and other factors are equally or more important.
In comparing the resultant seismic loads from two different codes, the
designer must consider the entire demand formulation, including ductility factors,
and any other factors that are used in the demand equations. When comparing the
overall demand, the basis of comparison should generally be the seismic load
coefficient. This is the factor that, when multiplied with the weight of the structure
or equipment, will result in the total lateral force or base shear.
Structural capacity calculations also have some variation depending on codes.
Additional factors of safety may be applicable, depending on the type of material,
the thickness of the section, and the stress mode.
Of primary importance is the need to understand whether the loads and
capacities are associated with working stress design or ultimate strength design.
In some countries, the loads and capacities are calculated using different code
documents.

12.4.3 Know What “Important” Means

Different codes treat importance factors are treated in very different ways. For
example, ASCE 7-16 uses a seismic importance factor directly, usually 1.25 for
petrochemical and other industrial facilities or for selected items within petro-
chemical and other industrial facilities.
For comparison, the Venezuelan code, JA-221 (1991), provides a variable
return period ranging from 500 to 10,000 years, depending on the degree of risk.
The risk classification is a function of the number of people exposed, the potential
economic losses, and the environmental impact.

Seismic Evaluation and Design of Petrochemical and Other Industrial Facilities

 326 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND DESIGN OF PETROCHEMICAL

The Russian code, SNiP II-7-81 (1981), uses a K1 factor that can vary by an
order of magnitude depending on the amount of damage that is allowed for the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

structure or item being designed. In addition, the Russian code defines three
categories of facility importance that determine the overall return period to use for
design, ranging from 500 to 5,000 years.

12.4.4 Be Aware of Why

Anyone who has been involved in writing or updating model code provisions
realizes that building codes do not have purely technical bases. Various provisions
result from a combination of technical and political reasons.
For example, code developers may attempt to discourage use of certain
structural systems by incorporating factors that penalize the use of these systems
with higher load requirements. This is especially prevalent for structural systems
generally considered to have low ductility when used in building applications in
high seismic zones. Use of the low-ductility systems may be allowed only with a
lower R factor, height limits, or other similar restrictions. The designer should be
aware of which codes contain these restrictions when comparing the structural
requirements.
Engineers are always encouraged to read the Commentary associated with
model code provisions to better understand the basis and background for specific
provisions. The most recent detailed commentaries are associated with ASCE 7
and the 2015 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Provisions
(FEMA 1050). Excellent historical commentary is also available through various
editions of the Structural Engineers Association of California’s “Blue Book”
(SEAOC 1999).

12.4.5 It’s Not Just the Capacity and Demand That Matter
Historically, U.S. model building codes were the first to introduce detailing
requirements, while other international codes are either silent on the subject or
incorporate detailing provisions in later cycles, with a time lag.
The detailing requirements are an integral part of ASCE 7, and extreme
caution should be used when attempting to “mix and match” partial code
provisions from multiple codes.

12.4.6 Understand the Overall Philosophy

The designer must always understand the context of the international code
requirements. For example, long return periods and conservative methods may
have historically been used because of low seismicity in previously developed areas
of the country. If seismic design has never governed in the past, conservative
methods and simple analysis and design methods may have been standard practice
but may not be appropriate for projects in new regions without prior seismic
design practices.

Seismic Evaluation and Design of Petrochemical and Other Industrial Facilities

 INTERNATIONAL CODES 327

12.5 VENDOR ISSUES

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

One of the most difficult issues facing engineers on international projects is

dealing with equipment vendors, especially with regards to compliance with
project seismic design specifications. Many vendors who do not understand
seismic requirements choose to simply ignore them. Others will have specific
codes already incorporated into their design software and will request exceptions
to the project provisions. Often, the design engineer will learn of these discre-
pancies when it is already too late to make design changes without affecting
project schedules. In those cases, the project engineer must determine acceptabil-
ity of equipment packages that were not designed to project specifications.
While the vendor is required to provide the equipment package design,
the project design engineer is often responsible for attachment or anchorage of
the supplied item. In reality, most well-anchored equipment performs well in
earthquakes. The walkdown guidance in Chapter 6 can be used to evaluate new
equipment packages also. The engineer should focus on those items that might
have questionable seismic design characteristics, such as rotating equipment on
vibration isolators. The engineer can then work with the project procurement staff
to ensure adequate seismic protection, regardless of the seismic design or lack of
design by the vendor.

12.6 LANGUAGE ISSUES

Although it may appear obvious, English-speaking design engineers using English

translations of international codes often forget that they are not working with the
official code and that the English translation is not a legal document.
Design engineers should always have the legal code requirements in their
native language at hand and should be encouraged to request clarification from
native-speaking engineers who understand the translational nuances that might
cause misinterpretation of the intent of some provisions.

References
ASCE. 2016. Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other
structures. ASCE/SEI 7-16. Reston, VA: ASCE.
FEMA. 2015. National earthquake hazards reduction program recommended provisions for
seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures—Part 1 provisions and Part 2
commentary. FEMA 1050. Washington, DC: Building Seismic Safety Council.
JA-221. 1991. Seismic design of industrial installations. Caracas, Venezuela: PDVSA.
SEAOC (Structural Engineers Association of California). 1999. Recommended lateral force
requirements and commentary. Sacramento, CA: Seismology Committee of the Structural
Engineers Association of California.
SNiP II-7-81. 1981. Construction in seismic areas. Moscow: Russian Industry Standards.

Seismic Evaluation and Design of Petrochemical and Other Industrial Facilities