BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY COUNCIL

The Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) deals with the complex technical, regulatory, social and economic issues involved in developing and promulgating building earthquake risk mitigation provisions. Established in 1979, the council’s purpose is to enhance public safety by providing a national forum that fosters improved seismic planning, design, construction and regulation in the building community.

In 1977, Congress passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act to protect the lives of building occupants, during an earthquake and mitigate the impact of such disasters on the national economy. The law established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). BSSC, under contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), develops and maintains a key resource — the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures. The Provisions are used as the primary resource for the professional design standard ASCE/SEI 7 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.

EVALUATION

To evaluate research findings, practices, and fields investigations to aid in developing seismic safety provisions

EDUCATION

To provide ongoing education for structural design professionals through training materials, webinars, workshops and colloquia; and provide education outreach on seismic design and construction to the non-technical building community and the general public

OUTREACH

To promote the adoption of provisions by the national standards and model building codes, and advise government bodies on their programs of research, development and implementation.

MEMBERSHIP

BSSC’s success with the Provisions is due to the efforts of its members and volunteer experts, including engineers, seismologists, architects, academics, researchers, code officials, manufacturers and suppliers.

OFFICERS

Chair

Kent Yu, PhD, SE

Vice Chair

Joann Browning, PhD, PE

Secretary

Dr. Iris Tien

Member at Large

Roberto Leon, P.E., PhD

Member at Large

Bill Earl, SE, PE

National Structural Engineering Program Manager, GSA

 

Past Chairs

Charles J. Carter, SE, PE, PhD

President, American Institute of Steel Construction

James Cagley, PE, SE

Board of Directors Liaison

Daniel Nichols

State of New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Hyde Park, NY

Staff Lead

Jiqiu (JQ) Yuan, PhD, PE, PMP

Chief Resilience Officer, National Institute of Building Sciences

2026 NEHRP PROVISIONS UPDATE COMMITTEE (PUC)

The NEHRP Recommended Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures embodies the state–of–knowledge criteria for the design and construction of buildings subject to earthquake hazards. The techniques and technologies contained in this resource document are diffused into several national standards, including the American Society of Civil Engineers ASCE–7 Design Standard for Minimum Loads that are referenced by the model building codes developed by the International Code Council (ICC).

The Provisions are developed by the Provisions Update Committee (PUC), a technical committee of seismic experts that identify and apply the most advanced seismic technology available. The committee is supported by expert Issue Teams (ITs) that address specific aspects of seismic design methodology and construction. These committee and team members ensure that lessons learned from the building performance during the earthquakes, as well as new research to improve earthquake resistance, are reflected in state–of–the–art seismic requirements. The ITs develop proposals for requirements that are balloted by the PUC according to BSSC’s consensus process, and subsequently balloted by its Professional Organizations (POs).

PUC Committee Members

MemberAffiliationRole
John Hooper (Chair)Magnusson Klemencic AssociatesChair
Robert Pekelnicky (Vice Chair)Degenkolb EngineersVice Chair
Kelly CobeenWiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.Voting Member
Daniel DolanWashington State UniversityVoting Member
S.K. GhoshS. K. Ghosh Associates LLCVoting Member
Emily GuglielmoMartin/Martin Consulting EngineersVoting Member
James HarrisJ. R. Harris & CompanyVoting Member
Jon HeintzApplied Technology CouncilVoting Member
John HochwaltKPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERSVoting Member
Sandy HohenerDegenkolb EngineersVoting Member
Gyimah KasaliRUTHERFORD + CHEKENEVoting Member
Dominic KellySimpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.Voting Member
Ryan KerstingBUEHLERVoting Member
Charlie KircherKircher & AssociatesVoting Member
Abbie LielUniversity of Colorado BoulderVoting Member
Philp LineAmerican Wood CouncilVoting Member
Bret LizundiaRUTHERFORD + CHEKENEVoting Member
Jim MalleyDegenkolb EngineersVoting Member
Bonnie ManleyAmerican Institute of Steel ConstructionVoting Member
Debra MurphySlate Geotechnical ConsultantsVoting Member
Farzad NaeimFARZAD NAEIM, INC.Voting Member
Rafael SabelliWalter P MooreVoting Member
Greg SoulesCB&I Storage SolutionsVoting Member
Jonathan StewartUniversity of California, Los AngelesVoting Member
Paul SummersSimpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.Voting Member
Amit VarmaPurdue UniversityVoting Member
Reid ZimmermanKPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERSVoting Member
Robert HansonFederal Emergency Management AgencyFEMA Technical Advisor
Mai (Mike) TongFederal Emergency Management AgencyFEMA Project Officer and Liaison
Christina AronsonFederal Emergency Management AgencyFEMA Project Monitor and Liaison
Nico LucoU.S. Geological SurveyUSGS Liaison
Sanaz RezaeianU.S. Geological SurveyUSGS Liaison
Andrew MakdisiU.S. Geological SurveyUSGS Liaison
Steven McCabe NationalInstitute of Standards and TechnologyNIST Liaison
John (Jay) HarrisNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyNIST Liaison
Jiqiu (JQ) YuanNational Institute of Building SciencesBSSC Executive Director
Corresponding Members
NameAffiliationRole
Rahul SharmaHohbach-LewinCorresponding Member
Zia ZafirKleinfelderCorresponding Member
Adam PhillipsWSUCorresponding Member
Seth ThomasKPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERSCorresponding Member
Kevin AsweganMagnusson Klemencic AssociatesCorresponding Member
Daniel GasparDegenkolb EngineersCorresponding Member
Gabriel AceroAECOMCorresponding Member
Tali FeinsteinExponentCorresponding Member
Matt EathertonVirginia TechCorresponding Member
Ron LaPlanteCA Div. of State Arch.Corresponding Member
Erica FischerOregon State UniversityCorresponding Member
Masume DanaForell/Elsesser Engineers, Inc.Corresponding Member
Abby EnscoeTippingCorresponding Member
Juliette PeyrouxMagnusson Klemencic AssociatesCorresponding Member
Gary EhrlichNAHBCorresponding Member
Gloria FaraoneSan Diego State UniversityCorresponding Member
Bob BachmanConsultantCorresponding Member

2026 PUC ISSUE TEAMS

Topic #1: Soil-foundation design (SSI, yielding foundation, rocking foundation)

Issue team 1 will investigate several items related to soil-structure interaction and foundation design which have been broken into four primary categories. One, are there cases where it is unconservative to not model foundation flexibility and therefore should be required? Item 2, are the design forces being used to design foundations based on system ductility (i.e. R-factor) and reductions allowed in ASCE 7 12.13.4 producing the correct/conservative results. If not establish procedures for determining loads for foundation design. The third major item is to review design requirements for basement/hillside structures for design requirements such as seismic base, kinematic effects, soil pressures on walls and damping. The last item is to review the recommendations of the ATC 144 report and implement any of the recommendations not already incorporated.

NameAffiliationRole
Seth ThomasKPFF Consulting EngineersChair
Garrett HagenDegenkolb EngineersVice Chair
Jonathan StewartUCLAPUC Liaison
Jason BockGRIVoting Member
Jakub ValiguraARUPVoting Member
Ian McFarlaneMKAVoting Member
Robert PekelnickyDegenkolb EngineersVoting Member
Roy LoboHCAIVoting Member
Rahul SharmaHohbach-LewinVoting Member
Gyimah KasaliRutherford + ChekeneCorresponding Member
C.B. CrouseAECOMCorresponding Member
Mahmoud HachemEarthquake SolutionsCorresponding Member
Amit KanvindeUC DavisCorresponding Member
Silvia MazzoniUCLACorresponding Member
Trevor CareyUniversity of British ColumbiaCorresponding Member
Amit VarmaPurdue UniversityCorresponding Member
Ron LaPlanteCDSACorresponding Member
Lachezar HandzhiyskiSGHCorresponding Member
Zia ZafirKleinfelderCorresponding Member
Koray TureyenWJECorresponding Member
David TeagueENGEO IncCorresponding Member
Bryan FrankCDSACorresponding Member
Ben MasonUSGSCorresponding Member
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Bob HansonFEMAFEMA Liaison

This issue team will focus on the design of interfaces and connections between various structural elements. Seismic design provisions will be synthesized based on the latest research and findings with focus on:

NameAffiliationRole
Amit VarmaPurdue UniversityChair
John SilvaHiltiVice Chair
Jim MalleyDegenkolbVoting Member
Rafael SabelliWalter P. MooreVoting Member
Amit KanvindeU.C. DavisVoting Member
Akanshu SharmaPurdue UniversityCorresponding Member
Gloria FaraoneSan Diego State Univ.Corresponding Member
Soheil ShafaeiPurdueCorresponding Member
Rahul SharmaHobach-LewinCorresponding Member
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Christina AronsonFEMAFEMA Liaison
Roberto LeonVirginia TechBSSC Board Liaison



This issue team (IT #3) will work on proposals related to ground motion and geotechnical issues, mainly influencing Chapters 21 on “Site-specific ground motion procedures for seismic design” and Chapter 22 on “Seismic ground motion and long-period transition maps” of the 2026 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions. The team has identified eight sub-issues, all of which must be coordinated with each other.

Ground motion sub-issues of IT#3 include: 1) Adoption of the 2023 USGS seismic hazard models for the conterminous U.S., Hawaii, and Alaska, which among many other updates will include new ground motion models in subduction zones, implementation of a new Earthquake Rupture Forecast (ERF) model in the western U.S., and improved basin amplifications; 2) Revision of the deterministic ground motion caps, considering probabilistic alternatives that result in specified collapse risk across the U.S., and potential removal or modification of the current deterministic lower limit (DLL) to a more appropriate calculation from a geological, seismological, and engineering standpoint; 3) a Part 3 resource paper on improving upon or replacing spectral response acceleration with other ground motion intensity measures such as the inelastic spectral displacement; 4) Improving vertical ground motions by either directly providing USGS-developed values or improving the vertical to horizontal, V/H, relation in Section 11.9 which is based on western U.S. data for central and eastern U.S. and subduction zones; and 5) Improving ground motions for damping ratios other than 5% by direct implementation of newly-developed, period-dependent damping scaling factors in the USGS hazard models or by improving upon the current factors in the NEHRP provision which are based on very limited and outdated data.

Geotechnical sub-issues include: 1) New design PGA values for liquefaction analysis, using well-established probabilistic liquefaction hazard methods, resulting in consistent, liquefaction hazard-targeted design levels across the U.S.; 2) When required in potentially liquefiable soils, establish criteria in terms of thickness and depth of the liquefiable material for a site to be classified as Site Class F; and 3) Re-write of Section 21.1 on site-specific response to reflect current knowledge on ergodic versus non-ergodic site response procedures, the derivation of reference motions, the analysis of site-specific site response, the impact of uncertainties, and how site-specific site response can be implemented in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis.

In addition, this IT expects to coordinate with several other ITs and the Functional Recovery Task Committee regarding ground motion and geotechnical topics that come up there.

IT Voting Members:AffiliationRole
Sanaz RezaeianUSGSChair
Zia ZafirKleinfelderVice Chair
Gyimah KasaliR&CPUC Liaison
Nicolas LucoUSGSVoting Member
Andrew MakdisiUSGSVoting Member
Debra MurphySlate GeotechVoting Member
Jonathan StewartUCLAVoting Member
C.B. CrouseAECOMVoting Member
Robert PekelnickyDegenkolbVoting Member
James Gregory SoulesCB&IVoting Member
Beatriz ArosteguiMKAVoting Member
Steve KramerUniv. of WashingtonCorresponding Member
Robert BachmanConsultantCorresponding Member
Robert D HansonFEMA Technical AdvisorCorresponding Member
Charlie KircherKircher AssociationCorresponding Member
Hossein MostafaeiFM GlobalCorresponding Member
Jon HeintzATCCorresponding Member
Mahmoud Hachemmahmoud@eqsols.comCorresponding Member
Silvia Mazzonisilviamazzoni@yahoo.comVoting Member
David Teaguedteague@engeo.comCorresponding Member
Alireza Haji-SoltaniAlireza.Haji-Soltani@cna.comCorresponding Member
Kari KlaboeWJECorresponding Member
Dustin CookNISTCorresponding Member
Jason Bockjbock@gri.comCorresponding Member
Melanie Wallingmwalling@geoengineers.comCorresponding Member
Daniel GasperDegenkolbCorresponding Member
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Mike TongFEMAFEMA Liaison



Develop code change proposals, as appropriate, based on the findings and recommendations of the FEMA P-154 Project, which is currently investigating the seismic performance and increased collapse risk of buildings in very high-seismic hazard regions.

NameAffiliationRole
Charlie KircherKircher & AssociatesChair, Voting Member
Jim HarrisJ.R. Harris & Co.Vice Chair, Voting Member
John HooperMKAPUC Liaison
Emily GuglielmoMartin/MartinVoting Member
Phil LineAWCVoting Member
Bob HansonMichigan/FEMAVoting Member
Justin MorescoATCVoting Member
Jim MalleyDegenkolbVoting Member
Sandy HohenerDegenkolbVoting Member
Ron LaPlanteCA DSAVoting Member
Bhatia HussainCA HCAI (OSHPD)Voting Member
Seth ThomasKPFFCorresponding Member
Kari KlaboeWJECorresponding Member
Abbie LielUniversity of ColoradoCorresponding Member
Ngai-Chi ChungBerkshire Hathaway Specialty Ins.Corresponding Member
Alireza-Haji SultaniCNA Ins.Corresponding Member
Weichiang PangClemson UniversityCorresponding Member
Bibek BhardwajClemson UniversityCorresponding Member
Jeff BermanUniversity of WashingtonCorresponding Member
Addie LedermanUniversity of WashingtonCorresponding Member
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Mike TongFEMAFEMA Liaison



NameAffiliationRole
John SilvaHilti North AmericaVoting members
Rafael SabelliWalter P MooreVoting members
Larry FahnenstockUniversity of of IllinoisVoting members
Jon HeinzATCVoting members
John HochwaltKPFFVoting members
Dawn LehmanUniversity of WashingtonVoting members
Ian TuttleMKAVoting members
Kelly CobeenWJEVoting members
Emily GuglielmoMartin/MartinVoting members
Abbie LielUniversity of ColoradoVoting members
Jim MalleyDegenkolbVoting members
Gloria FaeroneSDSUCorresponding Member
Marios PanagiotouNabih Youssef & AssociatesCorresponding Member
Ngai-Chi ChungBerkshire HathawayCorresponding Member
Mahmoud HachemEarthquake SolutionsCorresponding Member
Curt HaseltonHaselton Baker Risk GroupCorresponding Member
Bob HansonFEMA Technical AdvisorCorresponding Member
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Mai TongFEMAFEMA Liaison
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director



This objective of this issue team is to revisit, verify, and refresh as needed the ASCE/SEI 7 Section 12.2.3.2 two-stage analysis provisions to support ongoing use with wood and steel light-frame buildings over concrete podiums, as well as other structural systems and combinations of systems for which designers would look to use these provisions. It is anticipated that some numerical studies will be needed to guide and support recommended changes in provisions.

NameAffiliationRole
Kelly CobeenWiss Janney ElstnerChair – Voting Member
Jim HarrisJ. R. Harris & Co.Vice Chair – Voting Member
Kelly Cobeen, Jim Harris PUC Liaison
Emily GuglielmoMartin MartinVoting Member
Rupa GaraiSOMVoting Member
Hussain BhatiaHCAI (OSHPD)Voting Member
Omar AminiAWCVoting Member
Cody FurrowMKAVoting Member
Nathalie BoeholtCity of SeattleCorresponding Member
Christina AaronsonFEMACorresponding Member
Silvia MazzoneUCLACorresponding Member
Alex HuGold Land Architects and EngineersCorresponding Member
Kari KlaboeWiss Janney ElstnerCorresponding Member
S. K. GhoshS.K. Ghosh AssociatesCorresponding Member
Nik BlanchetteZFACorresponding Member
Diogo ZignagoGEICorresponding Member
Jeremy AtkinsonKor EngineeringCorresponding Member
Insung KimDegenkolbCorresponding Member
Koray TureyenWiss Janney ElstnerCorresponding Member
Brent ChancellorWiss Janney ElstnerCorresponding Member
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Bob HansonFEMAFEMA Liaison
Mike TongFEMAFEMA Liaison
JoAnn BrowningUTSABSSC Board Liaison

 

The primary focus areas for Issue Team #7 will be to reduce the limitations and inefficiencies associated with the current nonlinear analysis code requirements. Our desire is to make the use of nonlinear procedures more widespread for the design of new structures. This will allow for more efficient structural designs and provide engineers with a better understanding of how buildings will respond to major seismic events. It is anticipated that this will include review of the current requirement that buildings first be designed using the Chapter 12 linear procedures to see if this requirement can be relaxed or removed to allow engineers more flexibility in the design process, while ensuring that the structure meets the reliability targets defined by the code. Other items such as the need for consideration of accidental torsion and the current conservative limits on damping will be studied to determine if they are warranted given that nonlinear models can explicitly capture the structural behavior related to the current restrictive requirements.

Additional topics for study include review of the current drift requirements to see if they are in alignment with the code reliability targets, clarifications and guidance on nonlinear modeling of elements, and consideration of the valid range of modeling. Issue Team #7 will work closely with many other Issue Teams, specifically Issue Team #3 Ground Motions and Geotechnical to consider changes to the current requirements for number of motions, scaling of motions, and modifications to the spectral matching requirements.

We will also develop long-term study ideas that will likely span into the next cycle, including consideration of material and component strength variability in the analysis process, and expanded probabilistic approaches to meet the code reliability targets.

NameAffiliationRole
Russ BerkowitzForell | Elsesser EngineersChair
Kevin AsweganMagnusson Klemencic AssociatesVice Chair
Bob PekelnickyDegenkolb EngineersPUC Liaison
Wassim GhannoumUniversity of Texas, San AntonioVoting Member
Silvia MazzoniUCLAVoting Member
Insung KimDegenkolb EngineersVoting Member
Andrew SenMarquette UniversityVoting Member
Jordan JarrettColorado State UniversityVoting Member
Kristijan KolozvariCalifornia State Fullerton UniversityVoting Member
Daniel GasparDegenkolb EngineersVoting Member
Mahmoud HachemEarthquake SolutionsVoting Member
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Mike TongFEMAFEMA Liaison
JoAnn BrowningUTSABSSC Board Liaison



This Issue Team will bring to culmination work that was started in the 2015 NEHRP Provisions cycle and continued through the 2020 NEHRP Provisions cycle.

NAMEAFFILIATIONRole
S. K. GhoshS. K. Ghosh Associates LLCChair
Kelly CobeenWiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, IncVice Chair
Nick BlanchetteZFA ConsultingVoting Member
Matthew EathertonVirginia TechVoting Member
Ron LaPlanteDivision of the State ArchitectVoting Member
John LawsonArchitectural Engineering Cal PolyVoting Member
David McCormickSimpson Gumpertz & HegerVoting Member
Thomas MeyerMagnusson Klemencic Associates, SeattleVoting Member
Ben SchaefferJohns Hopkins, Baltimore, MDVoting Member
Christina AronsonFederal Emergency Management AgencyCorresponding Member
Pat BodwellVerco DeckCorresponding Member
Scott BrenemanWoodWorks – Wood Products CouncilCorresponding Member
Jared E. BrewePrecast/Prestressed Concrete InstituteCorresponding Member
J. Daniel DolanWashington State UniversityCorresponding Member
Ngai-Chi ChungBerkshire Hathaway Specialty InsuranceCorresponding Member
Jeff DragovichDeSimone Consulting EngineersCorresponding Member
Erica C. FischerSchool of Civil and Construction Engineering
Oregon State University
Corresponding Member
John M. HochwaltKPFF Consulting EngineersCorresponding Member
Ihsan KeckinBogazici UniversityCorresponding Member
Brian Kehoe WissJanney, Elstner Associates, Inc.Corresponding Member
Dominic J. KellySimpson Gumpertz & HegerCorresponding Member
Dawn LehmanUniversity of WashingtonCorresponding Member
Philip LineAmerican Wood CouncilCorresponding Member
Mahsa MahdavianASC Steel DeckCorresponding Member
Bonnie ManleyAmerican Iron and Steel InstituteCorresponding Member
Dion MarriottHolmes StructuresCorresponding Member
Andrew W. TaylorKPFF Consulting EngineersCorresponding Member
Mai (Mike) TongFederal Emergency Management AgencyCorresponding Member
Shahab TorabianSimpson Gumpertz & HegerCorresponding Member
Robert Tremblay Corresponding Member
Alex W. Wilson, PEMagnusson Klemencic Associatesawilson@mka.com
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Roberto LeonVirginia TechBSSC Board Liaison



Develop general guidance for design that is non-material dependent to harmonize the design approach to building utilizing rocking structural systems (walls and frames) to reduce seismic demand or increase resiliency. Provide guidance for the design of material specific structural and non-structural systems for designers and standard writing organizations to consider.

NameAffiliationRole
J. Daniel DolanWashington State UniversityChair
Jim MalleyDegenkolb EngineersVice Chair
Dan DolanWashington State UniversityPUC Liaison
Mohammad ElGawadyMissouri S&TVoting Member
Brian BoghNucore (Vulcraft/Verco Group)Voting Member
Constantin ChristopoulosUniversity of TorontoVoting Member
Jeff BermanUniversity of WashingtonVoting Member
Jakub ValiguraARUPCorresponding Member
Mike MontgomeryKineticaCorresponding Member
Shiling PieColorado School of MinesCorresponding Member
John WallaceUniversity of California- Los AngelesCorresponding Member
Reid ZimmermanKPFF EngineersCorresponding Member
Matthew SpeicherNISTCorresponding Member
David MarMar Structural DesignCorresponding Member
Matthew EathertonVirginia TechCorresponding Member
Tal FeinsteinExponentCorresponding Member
Brent ChancellorWJECorresponding Member
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Greg DeierleinStanford UniversityVoting Member
Marcus FreemanMKACorresponding Member
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Bob HansonFEMAFEMA Liaison
Mike TongFEMAFEMA Liaison
Tobias SmithPTL Structural ConsultantsCorresponding Member



Develop provisions for engineers to use to design buried structures such as tunnels, buried tanks, or parking garages. This is currently missing in ASCE 7. (potential new sections in Ch 12 and Ch15). The IT chair is still working on the IT membership.

NameAffiliationRole
Bret LizundiaR&CChair
Sandy HohenerDegenkolb EngineersVice Chair
CB CrouseAECOMVoting Member
Mahmoud HachemEarthquake SolutionsVoting Member
Marty HudsonTurner Construction / UCLAVoting Member
Gyimah KasaliRUTHERFORD + CHEKENEVoting Member
Eric LidquistBrierley AssociatesVoting Member
Greg SoulesCB&I Storage SolutionsVoting Member
Paul SummersSimpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.Voting Member
Jon StewartUCLAVoting Member
John TehaneyStantecVoting Member
Benan Naji ZahawiStantecVoting Member
Amit VarmaPurdue UniversityVoting Member
Bob BachmanConsultantCorresponding Member
Josh GebeleinParsonsCorresponding Member
John HochwaltKPFFCorresponding Member
Ishan KeskinBogazici UniversityCorresponding Member
Neal Simon KwongUSGSCorresponding Member
Rahul SharmaHohbach-LewinCorresponding Member
Prakash SinghUniv. of British ColumbiaCorresponding Member
Seth ThomasKPFFIT1 Liaison
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Christina AronsonFEMAFEMA Liaison



The current ASCE 7-22 Chapter 17 provisions for seismically isolated structures have not been robustly benchmarked to the risk targets/probabilities of collapse contained in Chapter 1. Furthermore, as currently written, the ASCE 7-22 Chapter 17 provisions do not significantly distinguish between Risk Categories II, III and IV. Issue Team 11 will perform analytical studies and convene expert opinions to propose modifications, if appropriate, to the ASCE 7-22 Chapter 17 provisions to align the design of seismically isolated structures with the standard’s stated risk targets/probabilities of collapse. The results of this work will also inform recommendations for changes to ASCE 7-22 Chapter 18 provisions for structures with damping (potentially to be addressed in future cycles).

NameAffiliationRole
Andrew WhittakerSUNY BuffaloChair
Reid ZimmermanKPFF Consulting EngineersVice Chair, PUC Liaison
Ian AikenSIE Inc.Voting Member
Charlie KircherKircher and AssociatesVoting Member
Robert PekelnickyDegenkolbVoting Member
Robert BachmanRobert Bachman ConsultingCorresponding Member
Tracy BeckerUniversity of California BerkeleyCorresponding Member
Geoff BombaForell Elsesser EngineersCorresponding Member
Nico LucoUSGSCorresponding Member
Keri RyanUniversity of Nevada RenoCorresponding Member
Andrew TaylorKPFF Consulting EngineersCorresponding Member
Aaron YungSGHCorresponding Member
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Bob HansonFEMAFEMA Liaison

There are scenarios where it would be beneficial to have a seismic design pathway that employs only strength requirements and does not include ductile detailing and capacity design requirements. Such a design pathway would aim to provide reliable earthquake performance through elastic structural response. This issue team will examine structural design for strength vs. ductility and evaluate the potential for implementing an elastic design pathway. Considerations include: lateral systems and structure types where elastic design could be used, appropriate design strength level, uncertainty in seismic hazard, proportioning of diaphragms and collectors, and implications for nonstructural components. Prior research and current practice that are pertinent to this topic will be studied and used to develop a code change proposal or a background document describing additional research needed to support a future code change proposal.

NameAffiliationRole
Larry FahnestockUniversity of Illinois Urbana-ChampaignChair
Rupa GaraiSkidmore, Owings & MerrillVice-Chair
Robert BachmanBachman ConsultingVoting Member
Irfan BaigLeMessurier.Voting Member
Timothy CullenPrecast/Prestressed Concrete InstituteVoting Member
Jeff DragovichDeSimone Consulting EngineersVoting Member
Josh GebeleinParsonsVoting Member
Thomas HeauslerHeausler StructuralVoting Member
John HochwaltKPFF Consulting EngineersVoting Member, PUC Liaison
Brian KehoeWiss, Janney, Elstner AssociatesVoting Member
Roberto LeonVirginia TechVoting Member
Silvia MazzoniUniversity of California, Los AngelesVoting Member
Matthew SpeicherNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyVoting Member
Andrew StarkUzun + CaseVoting Member
Seth ThomasKPFF Consulting EngineersVoting Member
Gloria FaraoneSan Diego State UniversityCorresponding Member
Emily GuglielmoMartin/Martin Consulting EngineersCorresponding Member
Bob HansonFederal Emergency Management AgencyCorresponding Member, FEMA Liaison
Jim HarrisJ.R. Harris & CompanyCorresponding Member
Bonnie ManleyAmerican Iron and Steel InstituteCorresponding Member
Rafael SabelliWalter P MooreCorresponding Member
Robert TremblayPolytechnique MontrealCorresponding Member
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Mai TongFEMAFEMA Liaison
JoAnn BrowningUTSABSSC Board Liaison



There are some who argue that despite the large number of systems currently defined in the building code, there are still too many limitations on what a responsible structural engineer can do. From this point of view, one just has moment frames, braced frames, and shear walls, each of which comes with many prescriptive requirements. How can we encourage creativity and maintain safety, but not trigger a full alternative means of compliance and peer review when something a bit different is desired?

The IT membership is to be updated.

NameAffiliationRole
David MarMar Structure DesignChair
Rafael SabelliWalter P. MooreVice Chair, PUC Liaison
Greg DeierleinStanfordVoting Member
Rupa GaraiSOMVoting Member
Greg LuthGPLSEVoting Member
James MalleyDegenkolbVoting Member
Justin MarshallDurafuseVoting Member
Laura RendosMKAVoting Member
Geoff BombaForell ElsesserCorresponding Member
Larry FahnestockUoICorresponding Member
Daniel GasparDegenkolbCorresponding Member
Charlie KircherKircher AssociatesCorresponding Member
Dawn LehmanUWCorresponding Member
Bonnie ManleyAISICorresponding Member
Sean McGowanFEMACorresponding Member
Adam PhillipsWSACorresponding Member
Barbara SimpsonStanfordCorresponding Member
Jakub ValiguraArupCorresponding Member
Amit VarmaPurdueCorresponding Member
Jordan JarrettColorado State UniversityCorresponding Member
Jose RestrepoUC San DiegoCorresponding Member
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Christina AronsonFEMAFEMA Liaison



2026 BSSC PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS (TO BE FORMED AND UPDATED)

Functional Recovery Task Committee (FRTC)

The Functional Recovery Task Committee is charged with developing technical proposals and other resources regarding design of new buildings to meet post-earthquake functional recovery performance objectives within the context of the 2026 NEHRP Provisions. These technical proposals and other resources will also serve as source material for proposals for possible adoption and use in other codes and standards for new buildings such as ASCE/SEI 7 Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures and the International Building Code. The Functional Recovery Task Committee oversees Topic Subcommittees (TS) established to study particular topic areas, including at least the five topic subcommittees described below, which will each develop proposals and other resources relevant the given topic area and its relationship to functional recovery objectives.

The Functional Recovery Task Committee and its Topic Subcommittees consist of members selected to create a depth of expertise in the subject matter and a breadth of experience across the industry stakeholder groups, including practicing engineers, researchers, architects, owners, planners, business continuity experts, public policy advocates, those active in development of applicable codes and standards. Members also include liaisons to other related federal activities or agencies including BSSC, NIBS, PUC, FEMA, NIST, and USGS, and members involved in the efforts of other organizations including, but not limited to, ASCE/SEI, ATC, EERI, and SEAOC.

A Steering Committee provides support to subcommittee leadership, assists with coordinating activities of the subcommittees, and facilitates collaboration among the subcommittees. The Steering Committee consists of the chair and vice-chair of the FR TC, the chair and vice-chair of each TS, a liaison from the PUC, and a liaison from the ATC-138 project team.

NameAffiliationRole
Ryan KerstingBuehler EngineeringChair
Abbie LielUniv. of Colorado – BoulderVice Chair
Bob PekelnickyDegenkolb EngineersPUC Liaison
Lucy ArendtSt. Norbert’s College – School of BusinessVoting Member
David BonowitzPrivate ConsultingVoting Member
Jonathan BuckalewNabih Youssef Structural EngineersVoting Member
Phil CaldwellSchneider Electric (ret.)Voting Member
Dustin CookNISTVoting Member
Emily GuglielmoMartin/MartinVoting Member
Ron HamburgerSimpson Gumpertz & HegerVoting Member
Curt HaseltonCSU-Chico & Haselton Baker Risk GroupVoting Member
Jon HeintzApplied Technology CouncilVoting Member
Carlos Molina HuttUniv. of British Columbia – VancouverVoting Member
Anna LangZylientVoting Member
Bret LizundiaRutherford + ChekeneVoting Member
Kevin MooreSimpson Gumpertz & HegerVoting Member
Jon SiuPrivate Consulting (ret. building official)Voting Member
Jeff SoulagesIntelVoting Member
Greg SoulesCB&IVoting Member
Jakub ValiguraArupVoting Member
Steve WinkelThe Preview GroupVoting Member
Daniel ZepedaDegenkolb EngineersVoting Member
Reid ZimmermanKPFF Consulting EngineersVoting Member
Christina AronsonFEMAVoting Member (FEMA)
Siamak SattarNISTVoting Member (NIST)
Nico LucoUSGSVoting Member (USGS)
Tamika BassmanArupCorresponding Member
Karyn BeebeInternational Code CouncilCorresponding Member
Kristen BlowesUniv. of British Columbia-VancouverCorresponding Member
Alice Chang-RichardsUniversity of Auckland, New ZealandCorresponding Member
Jon-Paul CardinAmerican Iron and Steel InstituteCorresponding Member
Gary EhrlichNational Association of Home BuildersCorresponding Member
Erica FischerOregon State UniversityCorresponding Member
Julie FurrSmith Seckman ReidCorresponding Member
SK GhoshSK Ghosh & AssociatesCorresponding Member
Nathan GouldABS ConsultingCorresponding Member
Jennifer GoupilASCE/SEICorresponding Member
Laurie JohnsonPrivate ConsultingCorresponding Member
Maha KenawyOklahoma State UniversityCorresponding Member
Charlie KircherPrivate ConsultingCorresponding Member
Ron LarsenU.S. General Services AdministrationCorresponding Member
Jay LarsonAmerican Iron and Steel InstituteCorresponding Member
Mike MahoneyPrivate ConsultingCorresponding Member
Bonnie ManleyAmerican Institute of Steel ConstructionCorresponding Member
Therese “Terri” McAllisterNISTCorresponding Member
Keith PorterInstitute for Catastrophic Loss ReductionCorresponding Member
Don ScottPrivate ConsultingCorresponding Member
Tommy SidebottomZFA Structural EngineersCorresponding Member
John Van de LindtColorado State UniversityCorresponding Member
Kent YuSEFT ConsultingCorresponding Member
Bob HansonFEMAFEMA Technical Advisor
Mai TongFEMAFEMA Project Officer and Liaison
John HooperMagnusson Klemencic AssociatesPUC Ex Officio
JQ YuanNIBS / BSSCPUC Ex Officio
Topic Subcommittee #1: Key terms and concepts related to functional recovery

This Topic Subcommittee will begin with the definition of Functional Recovery provided in FEMA P-2090 / NIST SP-1254 and will continue to define key terms and concepts in order to develop and implement functional recovery provisions for the design of new buildings and other structures. This effort will also leverage work currently being conducted under the ATC-138 project to identify requirements and pre-requisites for achieving re-occupancy and for achieving functional recovery, including consideration of what is considered basic intended function for various building occupancy types; what amount of damage is acceptable to still occupy or be able to reoccupy a building and to maintain or restore basic intended function; and when and what types of temporary repairs and other alternatives may be appropriate in order to achieve functional recovery more quickly.

In completing these tasks, the subcommittee is expected to leverage work already completed by other groups that has been documented in available publications, including the FEMA-NIST report, FEMA P-2055, RP-1 from Part 3 of 2020 NEHRP Provisions, the ATC-138 project, a paper in the 2020 SEAOC Convention Proceedings by Buckalew and Lang, and other publications. Significant interaction, and some iteration, is expected to be necessary between all subcommittees as TS #1 develops defines the terms, describes these concepts, and establishes related criteria. Additional subject matter experts will be engaged for discussion of specific topics.

NameAffiliationRole
Jon HeintzApplied Technology CouncilTS Chair
Jonathan BuckalewNabih Youssef Structural EngineersTS Vice Chair
David BonowitzPrivate ConsultingPrimary Member
Susan DowtyInternational Code CouncilPrimary Member
Ron HamburgerSimpson Gumpertz & HegerPrimary Member
Curt HaseltonCSU-Chico & Haselton Baker Risk GroupPrimary Member
Mike MahoneyPrivate ConsultingPrimary Member
Therese “Terri” McAllisterNISTPrimary Member
Kevin MooreSimpson Gumpertz & HegerPrimary Member
Don ScottPrivate ConsultingPrimary Member
Jon SiuPrivate Consulting (ret. building official)Primary Member
Jeff SoulagesIntelPrimary Member
Steve WinkelThe Preview GroupPrimary Member



Topic #1: Soil-foundation design (SSI, yielding foundation, rocking foundation)

Issue team 1 will investigate several items related to soil-structure interaction and foundation design which have been broken into four primary categories. One, are there cases where it is unconservative to not model foundation flexibility and therefore should be required? Item 2, are the design forces being used to design foundations based on system ductility (i.e. R-factor) and reductions allowed in ASCE 7 12.13.4 producing the correct/conservative results. If not establish procedures for determining loads for foundation design. The third major item is to review design requirements for basement/hillside structures for design requirements such as seismic base, kinematic effects, soil pressures on walls and damping. The last item is to review the recommendations of the ATC 144 report and implement any of the recommendations not already incorporated.

NameAffiliationRole
Seth ThomasKPFF Consulting EngineersChair
Garrett HagenDegenkolb EngineersVice Chair
Jonathan StewartUCLAPUC Liaison
Jason BockGRIVoting Member
Jakub ValiguraARUPVoting Member
Ian McFarlaneMKAVoting Member
Robert PekelnickyDegenkolb EngineersVoting Member
Roy LoboHCAIVoting Member
Rahul SharmaHohbach-LewinVoting Member
Gyimah KasaliRutherford + ChekeneCorresponding Member
C.B. CrouseAECOMCorresponding Member
Mahmoud HachemEarthquake SolutionsCorresponding Member
Amit KanvindeUC DavisCorresponding Member
Silvia MazzoniUCLACorresponding Member
Trevor CareyUniversity of British ColumbiaCorresponding Member
Amit VarmaPurdue UniversityCorresponding Member
Ron LaPlanteCDSACorresponding Member
Lachezar HandzhiyskiSGHCorresponding Member
Zia ZafirKleinfelderCorresponding Member
Koray TureyenWJECorresponding Member
David TeagueENGEO IncCorresponding Member
Bryan FrankCDSACorresponding Member
Ben MasonUSGSCorresponding Member
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Bob HansonFEMAFEMA Liaison

This issue team will focus on the design of interfaces and connections between various structural elements. Seismic design provisions will be synthesized based on the latest research and findings with focus on:

NameAffiliationRole
Amit VarmaPurdue UniversityChair
John SilvaHiltiVice Chair
Jim MalleyDegenkolbVoting Member
Rafael SabelliWalter P. MooreVoting Member
Amit KanvindeU.C. DavisVoting Member
Akanshu SharmaPurdue UniversityCorresponding Member
Gloria FaraoneSan Diego State Univ.Corresponding Member
Soheil ShafaeiPurdueCorresponding Member
Rahul SharmaHobach-LewinCorresponding Member
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Christina AronsonFEMAFEMA Liaison
Roberto LeonVirginia TechBSSC Board Liaison



This issue team (IT #3) will work on proposals related to ground motion and geotechnical issues, mainly influencing Chapters 21 on “Site-specific ground motion procedures for seismic design” and Chapter 22 on “Seismic ground motion and long-period transition maps” of the 2026 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions. The team has identified eight sub-issues, all of which must be coordinated with each other.

Ground motion sub-issues of IT#3 include: 1) Adoption of the 2023 USGS seismic hazard models for the conterminous U.S., Hawaii, and Alaska, which among many other updates will include new ground motion models in subduction zones, implementation of a new Earthquake Rupture Forecast (ERF) model in the western U.S., and improved basin amplifications; 2) Revision of the deterministic ground motion caps, considering probabilistic alternatives that result in specified collapse risk across the U.S., and potential removal or modification of the current deterministic lower limit (DLL) to a more appropriate calculation from a geological, seismological, and engineering standpoint; 3) a Part 3 resource paper on improving upon or replacing spectral response acceleration with other ground motion intensity measures such as the inelastic spectral displacement; 4) Improving vertical ground motions by either directly providing USGS-developed values or improving the vertical to horizontal, V/H, relation in Section 11.9 which is based on western U.S. data for central and eastern U.S. and subduction zones; and 5) Improving ground motions for damping ratios other than 5% by direct implementation of newly-developed, period-dependent damping scaling factors in the USGS hazard models or by improving upon the current factors in the NEHRP provision which are based on very limited and outdated data.

Geotechnical sub-issues include: 1) New design PGA values for liquefaction analysis, using well-established probabilistic liquefaction hazard methods, resulting in consistent, liquefaction hazard-targeted design levels across the U.S.; 2) When required in potentially liquefiable soils, establish criteria in terms of thickness and depth of the liquefiable material for a site to be classified as Site Class F; and 3) Re-write of Section 21.1 on site-specific response to reflect current knowledge on ergodic versus non-ergodic site response procedures, the derivation of reference motions, the analysis of site-specific site response, the impact of uncertainties, and how site-specific site response can be implemented in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis.

In addition, this IT expects to coordinate with several other ITs and the Functional Recovery Task Committee regarding ground motion and geotechnical topics that come up there.

IT Voting Members:AffiliationRole
Sanaz RezaeianUSGSChair
Zia ZafirKleinfelderVice Chair
Gyimah KasaliR&CPUC Liaison
Nicolas LucoUSGSVoting Member
Andrew MakdisiUSGSVoting Member
Debra MurphySlate GeotechVoting Member
Jonathan StewartUCLAVoting Member
C.B. CrouseAECOMVoting Member
Robert PekelnickyDegenkolbVoting Member
James Gregory SoulesCB&IVoting Member
Beatriz ArosteguiMKAVoting Member
Steve KramerUniv. of WashingtonCorresponding Member
Robert BachmanConsultantCorresponding Member
Robert D HansonFEMA Technical AdvisorCorresponding Member
Charlie KircherKircher AssociationCorresponding Member
Hossein MostafaeiFM GlobalCorresponding Member
Jon HeintzATCCorresponding Member
Mahmoud Hachemmahmoud@eqsols.comCorresponding Member
Silvia Mazzonisilviamazzoni@yahoo.comVoting Member
David Teaguedteague@engeo.comCorresponding Member
Alireza Haji-SoltaniAlireza.Haji-Soltani@cna.comCorresponding Member
Kari KlaboeWJECorresponding Member
Dustin CookNISTCorresponding Member
Jason Bockjbock@gri.comCorresponding Member
Melanie Wallingmwalling@geoengineers.comCorresponding Member
Daniel GasperDegenkolbCorresponding Member
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Mike TongFEMAFEMA Liaison



Develop code change proposals, as appropriate, based on the findings and recommendations of the FEMA P-154 Project, which is currently investigating the seismic performance and increased collapse risk of buildings in very high-seismic hazard regions.

NameAffiliationRole
Charlie KircherKircher & AssociatesChair, Voting Member
Jim HarrisJ.R. Harris & Co.Vice Chair, Voting Member
John HooperMKAPUC Liaison
Emily GuglielmoMartin/MartinVoting Member
Phil LineAWCVoting Member
Bob HansonMichigan/FEMAVoting Member
Justin MorescoATCVoting Member
Jim MalleyDegenkolbVoting Member
Sandy HohenerDegenkolbVoting Member
Ron LaPlanteCA DSAVoting Member
Bhatia HussainCA HCAI (OSHPD)Voting Member
Seth ThomasKPFFCorresponding Member
Kari KlaboeWJECorresponding Member
Abbie LielUniversity of ColoradoCorresponding Member
Ngai-Chi ChungBerkshire Hathaway Specialty Ins.Corresponding Member
Alireza-Haji SultaniCNA Ins.Corresponding Member
Weichiang PangClemson UniversityCorresponding Member
Bibek BhardwajClemson UniversityCorresponding Member
Jeff BermanUniversity of WashingtonCorresponding Member
Addie LedermanUniversity of WashingtonCorresponding Member
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Mike TongFEMAFEMA Liaison



NameAffiliationRole
John SilvaHilti North AmericaVoting members
Rafael SabelliWalter P MooreVoting members
Larry FahnenstockUniversity of of IllinoisVoting members
Jon HeinzATCVoting members
John HochwaltKPFFVoting members
Dawn LehmanUniversity of WashingtonVoting members
Ian TuttleMKAVoting members
Kelly CobeenWJEVoting members
Emily GuglielmoMartin/MartinVoting members
Abbie LielUniversity of ColoradoVoting members
Jim MalleyDegenkolbVoting members
Gloria FaeroneSDSUCorresponding Member
Marios PanagiotouNabih Youssef & AssociatesCorresponding Member
Ngai-Chi ChungBerkshire HathawayCorresponding Member
Mahmoud HachemEarthquake SolutionsCorresponding Member
Curt HaseltonHaselton Baker Risk GroupCorresponding Member
Bob HansonFEMA Technical AdvisorCorresponding Member
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Mai TongFEMAFEMA Liaison
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director



This objective of this issue team is to revisit, verify, and refresh as needed the ASCE/SEI 7 Section 12.2.3.2 two-stage analysis provisions to support ongoing use with wood and steel light-frame buildings over concrete podiums, as well as other structural systems and combinations of systems for which designers would look to use these provisions. It is anticipated that some numerical studies will be needed to guide and support recommended changes in provisions.

NameAffiliationRole
Kelly CobeenWiss Janney ElstnerChair – Voting Member
Jim HarrisJ. R. Harris & Co.Vice Chair – Voting Member
Kelly Cobeen, Jim Harris PUC Liaison
Emily GuglielmoMartin MartinVoting Member
Rupa GaraiSOMVoting Member
Hussain BhatiaHCAI (OSHPD)Voting Member
Omar AminiAWCVoting Member
Cody FurrowMKAVoting Member
Nathalie BoeholtCity of SeattleCorresponding Member
Christina AaronsonFEMACorresponding Member
Silvia MazzoneUCLACorresponding Member
Alex HuGold Land Architects and EngineersCorresponding Member
Kari KlaboeWiss Janney ElstnerCorresponding Member
S. K. GhoshS.K. Ghosh AssociatesCorresponding Member
Nik BlanchetteZFACorresponding Member
Diogo ZignagoGEICorresponding Member
Jeremy AtkinsonKor EngineeringCorresponding Member
Insung KimDegenkolbCorresponding Member
Koray TureyenWiss Janney ElstnerCorresponding Member
Brent ChancellorWiss Janney ElstnerCorresponding Member
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Bob HansonFEMAFEMA Liaison
Mike TongFEMAFEMA Liaison
JoAnn BrowningUTSABSSC Board Liaison

 

The primary focus areas for Issue Team #7 will be to reduce the limitations and inefficiencies associated with the current nonlinear analysis code requirements. Our desire is to make the use of nonlinear procedures more widespread for the design of new structures. This will allow for more efficient structural designs and provide engineers with a better understanding of how buildings will respond to major seismic events. It is anticipated that this will include review of the current requirement that buildings first be designed using the Chapter 12 linear procedures to see if this requirement can be relaxed or removed to allow engineers more flexibility in the design process, while ensuring that the structure meets the reliability targets defined by the code. Other items such as the need for consideration of accidental torsion and the current conservative limits on damping will be studied to determine if they are warranted given that nonlinear models can explicitly capture the structural behavior related to the current restrictive requirements.

Additional topics for study include review of the current drift requirements to see if they are in alignment with the code reliability targets, clarifications and guidance on nonlinear modeling of elements, and consideration of the valid range of modeling. Issue Team #7 will work closely with many other Issue Teams, specifically Issue Team #3 Ground Motions and Geotechnical to consider changes to the current requirements for number of motions, scaling of motions, and modifications to the spectral matching requirements.

We will also develop long-term study ideas that will likely span into the next cycle, including consideration of material and component strength variability in the analysis process, and expanded probabilistic approaches to meet the code reliability targets.

NameAffiliationRole
Russ BerkowitzForell | Elsesser EngineersChair
Kevin AsweganMagnusson Klemencic AssociatesVice Chair
Bob PekelnickyDegenkolb EngineersPUC Liaison
Wassim GhannoumUniversity of Texas, San AntonioVoting Member
Silvia MazzoniUCLAVoting Member
Insung KimDegenkolb EngineersVoting Member
Andrew SenMarquette UniversityVoting Member
Jordan JarrettColorado State UniversityVoting Member
Kristijan KolozvariCalifornia State Fullerton UniversityVoting Member
Daniel GasparDegenkolb EngineersVoting Member
Mahmoud HachemEarthquake SolutionsVoting Member
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Mike TongFEMAFEMA Liaison
JoAnn BrowningUTSABSSC Board Liaison



This Issue Team will bring to culmination work that was started in the 2015 NEHRP Provisions cycle and continued through the 2020 NEHRP Provisions cycle.

NAMEAFFILIATIONRole
S. K. GhoshS. K. Ghosh Associates LLCChair
Kelly CobeenWiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, IncVice Chair
Nick BlanchetteZFA ConsultingVoting Member
Matthew EathertonVirginia TechVoting Member
Ron LaPlanteDivision of the State ArchitectVoting Member
John LawsonArchitectural Engineering Cal PolyVoting Member
David McCormickSimpson Gumpertz & HegerVoting Member
Thomas MeyerMagnusson Klemencic Associates, SeattleVoting Member
Ben SchaefferJohns Hopkins, Baltimore, MDVoting Member
Christina AronsonFederal Emergency Management AgencyCorresponding Member
Pat BodwellVerco DeckCorresponding Member
Scott BrenemanWoodWorks – Wood Products CouncilCorresponding Member
Jared E. BrewePrecast/Prestressed Concrete InstituteCorresponding Member
J. Daniel DolanWashington State UniversityCorresponding Member
Ngai-Chi ChungBerkshire Hathaway Specialty InsuranceCorresponding Member
Jeff DragovichDeSimone Consulting EngineersCorresponding Member
Erica C. FischerSchool of Civil and Construction Engineering
Oregon State University
Corresponding Member
John M. HochwaltKPFF Consulting EngineersCorresponding Member
Ihsan KeckinBogazici UniversityCorresponding Member
Brian Kehoe WissJanney, Elstner Associates, Inc.Corresponding Member
Dominic J. KellySimpson Gumpertz & HegerCorresponding Member
Dawn LehmanUniversity of WashingtonCorresponding Member
Philip LineAmerican Wood CouncilCorresponding Member
Mahsa MahdavianASC Steel DeckCorresponding Member
Bonnie ManleyAmerican Iron and Steel InstituteCorresponding Member
Dion MarriottHolmes StructuresCorresponding Member
Andrew W. TaylorKPFF Consulting EngineersCorresponding Member
Mai (Mike) TongFederal Emergency Management AgencyCorresponding Member
Shahab TorabianSimpson Gumpertz & HegerCorresponding Member
Robert Tremblay Corresponding Member
Alex W. Wilson, PEMagnusson Klemencic Associatesawilson@mka.com
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Roberto LeonVirginia TechBSSC Board Liaison



Develop general guidance for design that is non-material dependent to harmonize the design approach to building utilizing rocking structural systems (walls and frames) to reduce seismic demand or increase resiliency. Provide guidance for the design of material specific structural and non-structural systems for designers and standard writing organizations to consider.

NameAffiliationRole
J. Daniel DolanWashington State UniversityChair
Jim MalleyDegenkolb EngineersVice Chair
Dan DolanWashington State UniversityPUC Liaison
Mohammad ElGawadyMissouri S&TVoting Member
Brian BoghNucore (Vulcraft/Verco Group)Voting Member
Constantin ChristopoulosUniversity of TorontoVoting Member
Jeff BermanUniversity of WashingtonVoting Member
Jakub ValiguraARUPCorresponding Member
Mike MontgomeryKineticaCorresponding Member
Shiling PieColorado School of MinesCorresponding Member
John WallaceUniversity of California- Los AngelesCorresponding Member
Reid ZimmermanKPFF EngineersCorresponding Member
Matthew SpeicherNISTCorresponding Member
David MarMar Structural DesignCorresponding Member
Matthew EathertonVirginia TechCorresponding Member
Tal FeinsteinExponentCorresponding Member
Brent ChancellorWJECorresponding Member
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Greg DeierleinStanford UniversityVoting Member
Marcus FreemanMKACorresponding Member
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Bob HansonFEMAFEMA Liaison
Mike TongFEMAFEMA Liaison
Tobias SmithPTL Structural ConsultantsCorresponding Member



Develop provisions for engineers to use to design buried structures such as tunnels, buried tanks, or parking garages. This is currently missing in ASCE 7. (potential new sections in Ch 12 and Ch15). The IT chair is still working on the IT membership.

NameAffiliationRole
Bret LizundiaR&CChair
Sandy HohenerDegenkolb EngineersVice Chair
CB CrouseAECOMVoting Member
Mahmoud HachemEarthquake SolutionsVoting Member
Marty HudsonTurner Construction / UCLAVoting Member
Gyimah KasaliRUTHERFORD + CHEKENEVoting Member
Eric LidquistBrierley AssociatesVoting Member
Greg SoulesCB&I Storage SolutionsVoting Member
Paul SummersSimpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.Voting Member
Jon StewartUCLAVoting Member
John TehaneyStantecVoting Member
Benan Naji ZahawiStantecVoting Member
Amit VarmaPurdue UniversityVoting Member
Bob BachmanConsultantCorresponding Member
Josh GebeleinParsonsCorresponding Member
John HochwaltKPFFCorresponding Member
Ishan KeskinBogazici UniversityCorresponding Member
Neal Simon KwongUSGSCorresponding Member
Rahul SharmaHohbach-LewinCorresponding Member
Prakash SinghUniv. of British ColumbiaCorresponding Member
Seth ThomasKPFFIT1 Liaison
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Christina AronsonFEMAFEMA Liaison



The current ASCE 7-22 Chapter 17 provisions for seismically isolated structures have not been robustly benchmarked to the risk targets/probabilities of collapse contained in Chapter 1. Furthermore, as currently written, the ASCE 7-22 Chapter 17 provisions do not significantly distinguish between Risk Categories II, III and IV. Issue Team 11 will perform analytical studies and convene expert opinions to propose modifications, if appropriate, to the ASCE 7-22 Chapter 17 provisions to align the design of seismically isolated structures with the standard’s stated risk targets/probabilities of collapse. The results of this work will also inform recommendations for changes to ASCE 7-22 Chapter 18 provisions for structures with damping (potentially to be addressed in future cycles).

NameAffiliationRole
Andrew WhittakerSUNY BuffaloChair
Reid ZimmermanKPFF Consulting EngineersVice Chair, PUC Liaison
Ian AikenSIE Inc.Voting Member
Charlie KircherKircher and AssociatesVoting Member
Robert PekelnickyDegenkolbVoting Member
Robert BachmanRobert Bachman ConsultingCorresponding Member
Tracy BeckerUniversity of California BerkeleyCorresponding Member
Geoff BombaForell Elsesser EngineersCorresponding Member
Nico LucoUSGSCorresponding Member
Keri RyanUniversity of Nevada RenoCorresponding Member
Andrew TaylorKPFF Consulting EngineersCorresponding Member
Aaron YungSGHCorresponding Member
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Bob HansonFEMAFEMA Liaison



There are scenarios where it would be beneficial to have a seismic design pathway that employs only strength requirements and does not include ductile detailing and capacity design requirements. Such a design pathway would aim to provide reliable earthquake performance through elastic structural response. This issue team will examine structural design for strength vs. ductility and evaluate the potential for implementing an elastic design pathway. Considerations include: lateral systems and structure types where elastic design could be used, appropriate design strength level, uncertainty in seismic hazard, proportioning of diaphragms and collectors, and implications for nonstructural components. Prior research and current practice that are pertinent to this topic will be studied and used to develop a code change proposal or a background document describing additional research needed to support a future code change proposal.

NameAffiliationRole
Larry FahnestockUniversity of Illinois Urbana-ChampaignChair
Rupa GaraiSkidmore, Owings & MerrillVice-Chair
Robert BachmanBachman ConsultingVoting Member
Irfan BaigLeMessurier.Voting Member
Timothy CullenPrecast/Prestressed Concrete InstituteVoting Member
Jeff DragovichDeSimone Consulting EngineersVoting Member
Josh GebeleinParsonsVoting Member
Thomas HeauslerHeausler StructuralVoting Member
John HochwaltKPFF Consulting EngineersVoting Member, PUC Liaison
Brian KehoeWiss, Janney, Elstner AssociatesVoting Member
Roberto LeonVirginia TechVoting Member
Silvia MazzoniUniversity of California, Los AngelesVoting Member
Matthew SpeicherNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyVoting Member
Andrew StarkUzun + CaseVoting Member
Seth ThomasKPFF Consulting EngineersVoting Member
Gloria FaraoneSan Diego State UniversityCorresponding Member
Emily GuglielmoMartin/Martin Consulting EngineersCorresponding Member
Bob HansonFederal Emergency Management AgencyCorresponding Member, FEMA Liaison
Jim HarrisJ.R. Harris & CompanyCorresponding Member
Bonnie ManleyAmerican Iron and Steel InstituteCorresponding Member
Rafael SabelliWalter P MooreCorresponding Member
Robert TremblayPolytechnique MontrealCorresponding Member
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Mai TongFEMAFEMA Liaison
JoAnn BrowningUTSABSSC Board Liaison



There are some who argue that despite the large number of systems currently defined in the building code, there are still too many limitations on what a responsible structural engineer can do. From this point of view, one just has moment frames, braced frames, and shear walls, each of which comes with many prescriptive requirements. How can we encourage creativity and maintain safety, but not trigger a full alternative means of compliance and peer review when something a bit different is desired?

The IT membership is to be updated.

NameAffiliationRole
David MarMar Structure DesignChair
Rafael SabelliWalter P. MooreVice Chair, PUC Liaison
Greg DeierleinStanfordVoting Member
Rupa GaraiSOMVoting Member
Greg LuthGPLSEVoting Member
James MalleyDegenkolbVoting Member
Justin MarshallDurafuseVoting Member
Laura RendosMKAVoting Member
Geoff BombaForell ElsesserCorresponding Member
Larry FahnestockUoICorresponding Member
Daniel GasparDegenkolbCorresponding Member
Charlie KircherKircher AssociatesCorresponding Member
Dawn LehmanUWCorresponding Member
Bonnie ManleyAISICorresponding Member
Sean McGowanFEMACorresponding Member
Adam PhillipsWSACorresponding Member
Barbara SimpsonStanfordCorresponding Member
Jakub ValiguraArupCorresponding Member
Amit VarmaPurdueCorresponding Member
Jordan JarrettColorado State UniversityCorresponding Member
Jose RestrepoUC San DiegoCorresponding Member
John HooperMKAPUC Chair
Jiqiu YuanNIBSBSSC Executive Director
Christina AronsonFEMAFEMA Liaison



This Topic Subcommittee will further explore the concept and use of Functional Recovery Categories discussed in FEMA P-2090 / NIST SP-1254 as a tool for identifying groups of occupancies or services with similar functional recovery time objectives for the purpose of implementing appropriate design provisions. This effort will specifically focus on developing a proposal for an appropriate number of categories and an appropriate range of performance metrics for each category. The performance metrics could consider multiple parameters that define performance. For example, one metric might be the type and amount of damage that can be allowed relative to a certain targeted functional recovery time. While TS #2 will propose the number of categories and associated performance metrics, the assignment of certain occupancies/services to those categories will be the focus of TS #3 based on understanding the implication of the performance metric on a particular occupancy or service. The results from the ATC-138 project will inform this work in terms of providing an understanding of the level of accuracy and precision that is available in the current methodology for determining expected functional recovery time of a particular building (thus, also relating to the scope of TS #4 regarding development of design provisions to meet functional recovery objectives for each category).

In completing these tasks, the subcommittee is expected to leverage work already completed by other groups that has been documented in available publications, including the FEMA-NIST report, FEMA P-2055, RP-1 from Part 3 of 2020 NEHRP Provisions, the ATC-138 project, the NIST CRPG, efforts by SPUR, current NIST projects, and other publications. Collaboration, and some degree of iteration, is expected to be needed between TS #2, TS #3, and TS #4 regarding these concepts. Additional subject matter experts will be engaged for discussion of specific topics.

NameAffiliationRole
Jakub ValiguraArupTS Chair
Siamak SattarNISTTS Vice Chair
Tamika BassmanArupPrimary Member
David BonowitzPrivate ConsultingPrimary Member
Curt HaseltonCSU-Chico & Haselton Baker Risk GroupPrimary Member
Kevin MooreSimpson Gumpertz & HegerPrimary Member
Keith PorterInstitute for Catastrophic Loss ReductionPrimary Member
Tommy SidebottomZFAPrimary Member
Daniel ZepedaDegenkolb EngineersPrimary Member



This Topic Subcommittee will be focused on exploring and assigning the functional recovery time objectives based on types of occupancies and services. This effort will build from the public workshops held for the FEMA P-2090 / NIST SP-1254 report development, including the additional detailed results reported in NIST SP-1269, and will leverage additional work conducted by NIST and others on the topic of acceptable functional recovery times. Understanding that these topics are less about the engineering side of performance and more about the impacts of performance on the basic needs and services within a community, the members of TS #3 will need to have expertise in a breadth of topics like community planning, economics, business continuity, emergency management, and other social sciences. This subcommittee will assign occupancies and services to the functional recovery categories developed by TS #2 based on the target functional recovery time assigned to each category and when a community needs that occupancy or service to be available after an earthquake. TS #3 is also expected to collaborate with TS #1 and TS #2 on other metrics and terms being used to describe performance, particularly for the way those metrics and terms will be communicated to the general public so that they can understand the performance that should be expected from buildings designed for functional recovery performance. This subcommittee will also provide input to TS #2 as it develops definitions of key terms and concepts, particularly regarding basic intended functions of various occupancy types, and the related design provisions developed by TS #4 that considers the impact of component behavior on being able to provide basic intended function. Another important role for TS #3 is to discuss whether the target functional recovery time would be consistent or might vary depending on the different hazard levels being considered by TS #5.

In completing these tasks, the subcommittee is expected to leverage work already completed by other groups that has been documented in available publications, including the FEMA-NIST report, FEMA P-2055, NIST SP-1269, the ATC-138 project, the NIST CRPG, efforts by SPUR, current NIST projects, and other publications. Significant interaction, and some iteration, is expected to be necessary between all subcommittees as TS #3 develops target functional recovery times for various occupancies and services. Additional subject matter experts will be engaged for discussion of specific topics.

NameAffiliationRole
Anna LangZylientTS Chair
Lucy ArendtSt. Norbert’s College – School of BusinessTS Vice Chair
Meg AckersonArupPrimary Member
David BonowitzPrivate ConsultingPrimary Member
Mary ComerioUniversity of California, BerkeleyPrimary Member
Julie FurrRimkus Consulting GroupPrimary Member
Laurie JohnsonPrivate ConsultingPrimary Member
Siamak SattarNISTPrimary Member
Jon SiuPrivate Consulting (ret. building official)Primary Member
Brian StrongCity of San FranciscoPrimary Member
Steve WinkelThe Preview GroupPrimary Member



This Topic Subcommittee will work to develop design provisions for new buildings to meet the functional recovery time objective assigned to each functional recovery category and will therefore be in close coordination with TS #2 and TS #3 in particular. This effort will use the functional recovery time methodology developed by the ATC-138 project to quantify functional recovery time expectations for various buildings designed to current code provisions and then explore ways to revise those provisions, when/if needed, to improve functional recovery time for certain buildings to meet the intended objectives. This group will also consider design approaches already implemented voluntarily by certain designers, owners, and jurisdictions, as well as strategies identified in other work including FEMA P-2090 / NIST SP-1254, current NIST projects, and the “Resilience-based Design” Resource Paper from the 2020 NEHRP Provisions. TS #4 will also work closely with TS #5 regarding setting performance objectives relative to hazard level, as discussed in more detail below.

In completing these tasks, the subcommittee is expected to leverage work already completed by other groups that has been documented in available publications, including the FEMA-NIST report, the ATC-138 project, RP-1 from Part 3 of 2020 NEHRP Provisions, current NIST projects, and other publications. Significant interaction, and some iteration, is expected to be necessary between all subcommittees as TS #4 develops design provisions for each Functional Recovery Category. Additional subject matter experts will be engaged for discussion of specific topics.

NameAffiliationRole
Reid ZimmermanKPFF Consulting EngineersTS Chair
Carlos Molina HuttUniv. of British Columbia – VancouverTS Vice Chair
Ibbi AlmuftiArupPrimary Member
Dustin CookNISTPrimary Member
Tim HartBerkeley LabPrimary Member
Curt HaseltonCSU-Chico & Haselton Baker Risk GroupPrimary Member
Tara HutchinsonUniversity of California, San DiegoPrimary Member
Bret LizundiaRutherford + ChekenePrimary Member
Roy LoboCA HCAI (formerly OSHPD)Primary Member
Kristen BlowesUniv. of British Columbia-VancouverVoting Member



This Topic Subcommittee will explore the hazard level(s) applicable for functional recovery performance objectives. The FEMA P-2090 / NIST SP-1254 report includes a discussion about hazard level for functional recovery and mentioned three options: a uniform-hazard approach, a risk-based approach similar to the approach used for safety-based objectives in current codes, or a scenario-based approach for regions with well-defined risk on a known fault. These options were explored further during FEMA’s Functional Recovery Workshop in August, 2022. The participants in the workshop were interested in exploring a risk-based approach for functional recovery with the understanding that a singular design hazard could be used and that additional discussion may be needed to understand what functional recovery times are provided at certain hazard levels by a risk-based approach. On these topics, TS #5 will need to work closely with TS #3 and TS #4. The collaboration with TS #3 will be focused on understanding whether a risk-based approach needs to explicitly address risk associated with meeting or exceeding specific functional recovery time targets at different hazard levels, or whether a risk-based approach could instead address risk of meeting or exceeding a functional recovery time target over the life of the building given the probabilities of being subjected to different earthquake ground motion intensities, whether or not that still, but implicitly, provides specific functional recovery times at different hazard levels. Once the risk-based performance targets are understood, TS #5 will likely be iterating with TS #4 regarding the selection of a singular design ground motion parameter that will result in an acceptable level of risk when used in combination with other design criteria being established by TS #4.

In completing these tasks, the subcommittee is expected to leverage work already completed by other groups that has been documented in available publications, including the FEMA-NIST report, the ATC-138 project, current NIST projects, USGS expertise, and other publications. Significant collaboration, and some degree of iteration, is expected to be needed between TS #5, TS #4, and TS #3 regarding these concepts. Additional subject matter experts will be engaged for discussion of specific topics.

NameAffiliationRole
Dustin CookNISTTS Chair
Nico LucoUSGSTS Vice Chair
Jack BakerStanford University & Haselton Baker Risk GroupPrimary Member
Phil CaldwellSchneider Electric (ret.)Primary Member
Emily GuglielmoMartin/MartinPrimary Member
Ron HamburgerSimpson Gumpertz & HegerPrimary Member
Omar IssaStanford University – Blume EERCPrimary Member
Charlie KircherPrivate ConsultingPrimary Member
Ron LarsenU.S. General Services AdministrationPrimary Member
Yolanda LinUniversity of New MexicoPrimary Member
Greg SoulesCB&IPrimary Member

 

Reports

This position paper, written and published by the NIBS Digital Twin Integration Subcommittee (DI-S), encourages the integration of…
Enclosed in this Annual Report to the President of the United States you will find an overview of everything the National Institute of…
During this hearing by the NIBS Consultative Council, attendees learned about the causes of and the solutions to the housing affordability crisis in America. The hearing was open to the public. NIBS has published a report of hearing events and key findings.
Fifty years ago, the National Institute of Building Sciences was established by the U.S. Congress in the Housing and Community…
As part of the 2024 Moving Forward Report, the Consultative Council examined the fundamental problem of housing affordability in the…
As part of the 2024 Moving Forward Report, the Consultative Council is exploring the topic of “Water and Sanitation Access and the…
This position paper, written and published by the NIBS Digital Twin Integration Subcommittee (DTI-S), encourages the integration of…
With the support of Fannie Mae, the National Institute of Building Sciences has developed a roadmap on mitigation investment to help…
Following the January 2021 FEMA P-2090 / NIST SP-1254 Recommended Options for Improving the Built Environment for Post-Earthquake…
In December 2020, the National Institute of Building Services (NIBS) held a social equity roundtable with more than two dozen…

Seismic design maps illustrate the varying earthquake demands considered in the design of buildings and other structures across the U.S. and territories. These maps also provide general earthquake hazard information and informing earthquake risk reduction projects. Learn more

The webinar series is organized by the eight chapters in the 2020 NEHRP Recommended Provisions: Design Examples, and serves as part the FEMA NEHRP/BSSC outreach and education effort. Registration for the webinar series is free (space is limited). CEUs (for AIA and ICC) and certificates of attendance for PDHs and will be provided to those who attend the live webinars. Learn more

Developed by the National Institute of Building Sciences Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) Provisions Update Committee (PUC) for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures (NEHRP Provisions) help translate new knowledge and recent research results for improving national standards and codes. The Provisions are a state-of-art resource and reference document for design professionals and standard and code-development organizations. Learn more

 

Should you have any additional questions about the Building Seismic Safety Council or would like to know more about the council’s activities, please contact:

Staff Lead

Jiqiu (JQ) Yuan, PhD, PE, PMP

Chief Resilience Officer
National Institute of Building Sciences

Companies & Organizations
0
National Subject Matter Experts
0
Publications
0

VIEW THE BSSC COUNCIL RETROSPECTIVE

CC Press

Latest CC Publication

What content are you interested in?
Topics of Interest