Professional Documents
Culture Documents
r897 PDF
r897 PDF
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/
May 2009
ISSN 1833-2781
School of Civil Engineering
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/
ABSTRACT:
This report investigates the differences between the old AS1170.4:1993 code and the new
AS1170.4:2007 code and has examined the implications to building frame structural systems. The
principles of seismic design and the advances in the field that lead to development of the new
AS1170.4:2007 code [7] have been presented.
A detailed comparison of the differences between the Layout, Notation, Factors and Calculation of
the Design Base shear has been examined. The magnitude of the design base shear applied for all
structural system types and for all sub-soil classes has been carried out. Graphs showing the
percentage of seismic weight applied to structural systems for all the sub-soil classes have been
included in Appendix A. To highlight the revisions and implications of the new AS1170.4:2007
code, analysis of a typical concrete building frame structural system with reinforced concrete shear
walls has been carried out. A comparison of the calculation methods and the errors and
discrepancies of analysis procedures has been carried out and presented.
Keywords: Seismic Response Spectrum, Elastic, Dynamic, Natural Period, Earthquake Base Shear,
Structural Systems, Reinforced Concrete
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
ISSN 1833-2781
This publication April be redistributed freely in its entirety and in its original form without
the consent of the copyright owner.
Use of material contained in this publication in any other published works must be
appropriately referenced, and, if necessary, permission sought from the author.
Published by:
School of Civil Engineering
The University of Sydney
Sydney NSW 2006
AUSTRALIA
May 2009
This report and other Research Reports published by the School of Civil Engineering are
available on the Internet:
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First I would like to thank Kourosh Kayvani and Kim Rasmussen for introducing me to the
field of seismology. They gave me the freedom to choose the direction of this research while
providing valuable support and feedback. I would also like to thank Joseph Hegarty who
offered many helpful suggestions on how to improve the structure of this report. I would like
to thank everyone who works at the Connell Wagner, whose company and support make an
invaluable working environment.
Connell Wagner also provided me with an education grant without which it would not have
been feasible to further my professional development in such a beneficial course.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT: ............................................................................................................... I
COPYRIGHT NOTICE .......................................................................................... II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................III
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................... IV
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................VIII
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ XII
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
1.1 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................ 2
1.2 REPORT OUTLINE ........................................................................................ 3
2 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING BACKGROUND ................................. 5
2.1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS ............................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Bearing Wall Systems ............................................................................. 6
2.1.2 Building Frame Systems ......................................................................... 6
2.1.3 Moment Resisting Frame Systems ......................................................... 6
2.1.4 Dual Systems........................................................................................... 6
2.2 DUCTILITY – ELASTIC AND DYNAMIC RESPONSE ....................................... 8
2.2.1 Elastic Response ..................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Ductile Response .................................................................................. 10
2.2.3 Structural Ductility Factor (µ)............................................................. 10
2.2.4 The Structural Response Factor (Rf) & The Structural Performance
Factor (Sp) ......................................................................................................... 11
2.2.5 Ductility Detailing ................................................................................ 14
2.2.6 Capacity Design ................................................................................... 20
2.2.7 Hysteretic Loops ................................................................................... 22
2.3 SEISMIC RESPONSE AND STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATION.......................... 24
2.3.1 Response in Elevation .......................................................................... 26
2.3.2 Estimates of Deflection and Drift ........................................................ 27
2.3.3 P-Delta Effects in framed structures.................................................... 28
2.3.4 Response in Plan .................................................................................. 29
2.4 THE INFLUENCE OF SOIL STIFFNESS ON EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE AND
INTENSITY .............................................................................................................. 32
2.4.1 Site Classification using Shear Wave Velocity and Bedrock Properties
33
2.4.2 Site Classification using Site Natural Period ...................................... 36
2.5 SEISMIC RISK ............................................................................................. 37
2.5.1 Design Limit States ............................................................................... 38
2.5.2 Serviceability Limit State ..................................................................... 39
2.5.3 Economic Considerations .................................................................... 39
School of Civil Engineering iv
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia May 2009
AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Shows three of the structural systems used for supporting lateral loads. A dual
system uses a combination of these systems [13]. ................................................................................................................ 7
Figure 2-3 Shows the stress strain relationship of an element responding elastically. ........................................................ 9
Figure 2-4 Shows the relationship between strength and ductility [30]. ............................................................................ 10
Figure 2-5 Shows the typical load-displacement relationship for a reinforced concrete element
[30]. ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2-6 shows the relationship between ductility and force reduction factor [30]. ....................................................... 12
Figure 2-7 shows the influence of period on ductile force reduction [30]. ........................................................................ 13
Figure 2-8 Shows the preferred location of plastic hinges within the beams of a multistorey
structure compared to the formation of a soft-storey due to plastic hinges forming in the
columns [30]. ....................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2-9 shows the failure of a structure due to the development of a soft-storey ......................................................... 15
Figure 2-10 Shows plastic hinge rotations and deformations in beams [28] [29].............................................................. 16
Figure 2-12 shows the typical beam reinforcement for a beam in an intermediate moment
resisting frame for AS 1170.4:1993. ................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2-13 shows a standard detail for a typical beam with bottom layer continuity steel
provided at the support. ....................................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2-14 shows a standard detail for a typical column to prevent the forming of a plastic
hinge at the base of the column. .......................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 2-15 shows failure at the base of a structural column due to the formation of a plastic
hinge ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 2-16 shows the failure of a column in a soft storey due to lack of ties to constrain the
vertical reinforcement during large deflection demands..................................................................................................... 21
Figure 2-17 shows Wilson and Lams capacity response spectrum method [34][35][36] .................................................. 22
Figure 2-18 shows typical force-displacement hysteresis loop shapes for elastic and inelastic
systems during a loading and unloading cycle [34] ............................................................................................................ 23
Figure 2-19 shows the comparison of hysteretic loops for an ideal case and where plastic
hinges occur in a beam [30]. ................................................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 2-20 Shows plastic mechanisms in frame and wall systems; (a) soft-storey mechanism
in a weak column/strong beam frame; (b, c) beam-sway mechanisms in a strong column/weak
beam frame; (d, e) beam-sway mechanisms in a wall system [16]. ................................................................................... 25
Figure 2-22 shows diagrammatically the acceleration displacement response spectrum for a
range of natural period [32]. ................................................................................................................................................ 27
Figure 2-24 Amplification of column bending moments in ductile frames due to P-delta
hinges [28] [29] .................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 2-25 shows a force equal to the total resultant horizontal earthquake force and a
moment acting through the shear centre [30] ...................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 2-26 Shows various floor plans for symmetrical and unsymmetrical buildings. The
shear centre and centre of mass relationship is shown [30]. ............................................................................................... 31
Figure 2-28 Shows the first generation national site classification map of Australia based on
modified NEHRP site classes [25][26]. .............................................................................................................................. 33
Figure 2-29 shows the earthquake shear waves propagating from the focus of the event. ................................................ 34
Figure 2-30 shows a schematic diagram illustrating local geology and soil features [14] ................................................ 35
Figure 2-32 shows Wilson and Lams capacity spectrum approach [34] [35] [36] ............................................................ 43
Figure 2-33 shows the push-over analysis of a building with a soft-storey [34] ............................................................... 43
Figure 3-1 shows the Earthquake Hazard Map of Australia from the AS1170.4:2007 code. ........................................... 51
Figure 3-2 Comparison of proposed R-Factors for New Zealand with Hazard curves for 0.5s
Spectral Accelerations [29].................................................................................................................................................. 54
Figure 3-3 shows the RSA acceleration and RSV velocity response spectra [34] ............................................................. 56
Figure 3-4 shows the RSD, displacement response spectra [34] ........................................................................................ 57
Figure 3-5 shows the displacement, velocity and acceleration response spectrum format [22] ........................................ 58
Figure 3-6 Recommended response spectrum model in tripartite presentation [21] ......................................................... 59
Figure 3-7 shows the demand curve consistent with the AS1170.4 model [34] [35] ........................................................ 60
Figure 3-8 this figure shows the variation in the Periods with heights for the AS1170.4:1993
and 2007 Codes [4][7] ......................................................................................................................................................... 69
Figure 3-9 shows the comparison of the Rf and µ/Sp relationship [34] .............................................................................. 70
Figure 3-10 this figure shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for BWS, for
AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4][7], for Soil Class Ae.............................................................................................................. 74
Figure 3-11 this figure shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for BWS, for
AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4][7], for Soil Class De.............................................................................................................. 77
Figure 3-12 shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for BFS with RC walls, for
AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4][7], for Soil Class Ae.............................................................................................................. 79
Figure 3-13 shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for BFS with RC walls, for
AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4] [7], for Soil Class De............................................................................................................. 81
Figure 3-14 this figure shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for CBF, for
AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4][7] for Soil Class Ae............................................................................................................... 83
Figure 3-15 this figure shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for CBF, for
AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4][7] for Soil Class De............................................................................................................... 85
Figure 3-16 this figure shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for OMRF, for
AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4][7] for Soil Class Ae............................................................................................................... 87
Figure 3-17 this figure shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for OMRF, for
AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4][7] for Soil Class De............................................................................................................... 89
Figure 3-18 this figure shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for IMRF, for
AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4][7] for Soil Class Ae............................................................................................................... 91
Figure 3-19 this figure shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for IMRF, for
AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4][7] for Soil Class De............................................................................................................... 93
Figure 3-20 shows the geometric eccentricities from the AS1170.4:1993 code. ............................................................... 96
Figure 3-21 Shows the translation and torsion effects on a floor plate [30]..................................................................... 103
Figure 4-1 shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for BFS with RC walls, for
AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4][7], for Soil Class Ae............................................................................................................ 107
Figure 4-2 shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for BFS with RC walls, for
AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4] [7], for Soil Class De........................................................................................................... 108
Figure 4-3 shows a typical architectural section through Building Type 3. ..................................................................... 110
Figure 4-4 shows the typical architectural floor plate for all 4 buildings used in the
comparison. ........................................................................................................................................................................ 111
Figure 4-5 shows the typical structural plan for the buildings, highlighting the two lateral
resisting cores. .................................................................................................................................................................... 112
Figure 4-6 shows the core properties for core number 1 for building 3. .......................................................................... 113
Figure 4-7 shows the core properties for core number 2 for building 3. .......................................................................... 114
Figure 4-8 shows the calculation of the centre of mass and shear centre in the x-x direction. ........................................ 115
Figure 4-9 shows the calculation of the centre of mass and shear centre for the y-y direction ....................................... 116
Figure 4-10 shows the vertical distribution of the earthquake base shear for both
AS1170.4:1993 & 2007 [4] [7] and [34] ........................................................................................................................... 126
Figure 4-11 shows the model used for building 3 within the Etabs model ...................................................................... 148
Figure 4-12 shows the meshing of the supporting cores by the Etabs model the colour of the
segments represents the stress in the element. Etabs uses a colour range to express the stresses. .................................. 152
Figure 4-13 shows the deflective shape in the Y-direction for the most onerous 185mm
deflection from Etabs ......................................................................................................................................................... 154
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 lists six of the listed cities that have a revised value for the Hazard Factor. ..................................................... 52
Table 3-2 this table shows the differences between the Probability factor (kp) for
AS1170.0:2002 Appendix D [6] and the AS1170.4:2007 Values [7] ................................................................................ 53
Table 3-3 this table shows the differences between the current and previous annual probability
of exceedance values from the BCA [11]. .......................................................................................................................... 55
Table 3-4 shows the difference in the Sub-Soil Class values [21] [22].............................................................................. 61
Table 3-5 shows the design category selections for Sydney using the AS1170.4:1993 code. .......................................... 63
Table 3-6 show the change in terminology for earthquake design categories in Sydney using
the AS1170.4:2002 Appendix D ......................................................................................................................................... 64
Table 3-7 shows the earthquake design categories for Importance level 2 structures in Sydney
using AS1170.4:2007........................................................................................................................................................... 65
Table 3-8 shows the earthquake design categories for importance level 3 structures in Sydney
using AS1170.4:2007........................................................................................................................................................... 65
Table 3-9 shows the earthquake design categories for importance level 4 structures in Sydney
using AS1170.4:2007........................................................................................................................................................... 66
Table 3-10 shows the revised ductility and over-strength factors used in the code but not in
used notation [36]................................................................................................................................................................. 71
Table 3-11 show the comparison of the base shear multiplier for BWS, for AS1170.4:1993
and 2007, for soil class Ae ................................................................................................................................................... 75
Table 3-12 show the comparison of the base shear multiplier for BWS, for AS1170.4:1993
and 2007, for soil class De ................................................................................................................................................... 78
Table 3-13 show the comparison of the base shear multiplier for BFS with RC walls, for
AS1170.4:1993 and 2007, for soil class Ae. ....................................................................................................................... 80
Table 3-14 show the comparison of the base shear multiplier for BFS with RC walls, for
AS1170.4:1993 and 2007, for soil class De. ....................................................................................................................... 82
Table 3-15 show the comparison of the base shear multiplier for CBF, for AS1170.4:1993 and
2007, for soil class Ae. ......................................................................................................................................................... 84
Table 3-16 show the comparison of the base shear multiplier for CBF, for AS1170.4:1993 and
2007, for soil class De. ......................................................................................................................................................... 86
Table 3-17 show the comparison of the base shear multiplier for OMRF, for AS1170.4:1993
and 2007, for soil class Ae ................................................................................................................................................... 88
Table 3-18 show the comparison of the base shear multiplier for OMRF, for AS1170.4:1993
and 2007, for soil class De ................................................................................................................................................... 90
Table 3-19 show the comparison of the base shear multiplier for IMRF, for AS1170.4:1993
and 2007, for soil class Ae ................................................................................................................................................... 92
Table 3-20 show the comparison of the base shear multiplier for IMRF, for AS1170.4:1993
and 2007, for soil class De ................................................................................................................................................... 94
Table 3-21 Shows the percentage difference in the design deflections multiplier for storey drift
calculation for AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 ........................................................................................................................... 100
Table 3-22 Shows the percentage difference in the inter-storey stability coefficient for P-delta
effects multiplier for AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 ................................................................................................................. 101
Table 3-23 shows the comparison (percentage differences) of the seismic weight loading
multiplier for AS1170.4:1993 and 2007 code [4] [7]. ...................................................................................................... 104
Table 4-1 shows the typical loading to be taken for the basement areas.......................................................................... 121
Table 4-2 shows the typical loading to be taken for the floor areas ................................................................................. 121
Table 4-3 shows the typical loading to be taken for the plant floor ................................................................................. 122
Table 4-4 shows the typical loading to be taken for the steel roof ................................................................................... 122
Table 4-5 shows the typical loading to be taken for each core ......................................................................................... 122
Table 4-6 shows the minimum and maximum axial load acting on the cores. ................................................................ 123
Table 4-7 shows the first mode of natural period and base shear multiplier for the four
buildings ............................................................................................................................................................................. 124
Table 4-8 shows the differences in the base shear values for the AS110.4:1993 & 2007 codes
for minimum loading ......................................................................................................................................................... 125
Table 4-9 shows the differences in the base shear values for the AS110.4:1993 & 2007 codes
for maximum loading......................................................................................................................................................... 125
Table 4-10 shows the differences in the overturning moment values for the AS110.4:1993 &
2007 codes for minimum loading ...................................................................................................................................... 126
Table 4-11 shows the differences in the overturning moment values for the AS110.4:1993 &
2007 codes for maximum loading ..................................................................................................................................... 127
Table 4-12 shows the differences in the torsion values for the AS110.4:1993 & 2007 codes for
minimum loading ............................................................................................................................................................... 128
Table 4-13 shows the differences in the torsion values for the AS110.4:1993 & 2007 codes for
maximum loading .............................................................................................................................................................. 129
Table 4-14 shows the comparison of tension stress induced in core 1 for minimum loading ......................................... 129
Table 4-15 shows the comparison of tension stress induced in core 1 for maximum loading ........................................ 130
Table 4-16 shows the comparison of compression stress induced in core 1 for minimum
loading ................................................................................................................................................................................ 130
Table 4-17 shows the comparison of compression stress induced in core 1 for maximum
loading ................................................................................................................................................................................ 131
Table 4-18 shows the comparison of tension stress induced in core 2 for minimum loading ......................................... 131
Table 4-19 shows the comparison of tension stress induced in core 2 for maximum loading ........................................ 132
Table 4-20 shows the comparison of compression stress induced in core 2 for minimum
loading ................................................................................................................................................................................ 132
Table 4-21 shows the comparison of compression stress induced in core 2 for maximum
loading ................................................................................................................................................................................ 133
Table 4-22 shows the comparison of additional shear due to torsion for minimum loading ........................................... 133
Table 4-23 shows the comparison of additional shear due to torsion maximum loading ................................................ 134
Table 4-24 shows the comparison of equivalent horizontal base shear for minimum loading ....................................... 135
Table 4-25 shows the comparison of equivalent horizontal base shear for maximum loading ...................................... 135
Table 4-26 shows the comparison of total torsional and equivalent horizontal base shear for
minimum loading ............................................................................................................................................................... 136
Table 4-27 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the total torsional and equivalent
horizontal base shear for minimum loading ...................................................................................................................... 136
Table 4-28 shows the comparison of total torsional and equivalent horizontal base shear for
maximum loading .............................................................................................................................................................. 137
Table 4-29 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the total torsional and equivalent
horizontal base shear for minimum loading ...................................................................................................................... 137
Table 4-30 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the deflection at roof level of
Core 1 for minimum loading (X-direction) ....................................................................................................................... 139
Table 4-31 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the deflection at roof level of
Core 1 for maximum loading (X-direction) ...................................................................................................................... 139
Table 4-32 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the deflection at roof level of
Core 2 for minimum loading (X-direction) ....................................................................................................................... 140
Table 4-33 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the deflection at roof level of
Core 2 for maximum loading (X-direction) ...................................................................................................................... 140
Table 4-34 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the deflection at roof level of
Core 1 for minimum loading (Y-direction) ....................................................................................................................... 141
Table 4-35 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the deflection at roof level of
Core 1 for maximum loading (Y-direction) ...................................................................................................................... 141
Table 4-36 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the deflection at roof level of
Core 2 for minimum loading (Y-direction) ....................................................................................................................... 142
Table 4-37 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the deflection at roof level of
Core 2 for maximum loading (Y-direction) ...................................................................................................................... 142
Table 4-38 shows the comparison of storey drift and P-delta consideration of Core 1 for
minimum and maximum roof loading (X-direction) ........................................................................................................ 144
Table 4-39 shows the comparison of storey drift and P-delta consideration of Core 2 for
minimum and maximum roof loading (X-direction) ........................................................................................................ 145
Table 4-40 shows the comparison of storey drift and P-delta consideration of Core 1 for
minimum and maximum loading (Y-direction) ................................................................................................................ 146
Table 4-41 shows the comparison of storey drift and P-delta consideration of Core 2 for
minimum and maximum loading (Y-direction) ................................................................................................................ 147
Table 4-42 shows the first mode of natural period and base shear multiplier for building 3 .......................................... 149
Table 4-43 shows the first five modes of natural period for building 3 calculated using Etabs ...................................... 149
Table 4-44 shows the differences in the base shear values for the AS110.4:1993 & 2007 codes
by hand calculations........................................................................................................................................................... 150
Table 4-45 shows the differences in the base shear values for the AS110.4:1993 & 2007 codes
using Etabs ......................................................................................................................................................................... 150
Table 4-46 shows the differences in the overturning moment values for the AS110.4:1993 &
2007 codes for minimum loading ...................................................................................................................................... 150
Table 4-47 shows the differences in the over turning moment for the AS110.4:1993 & 2007
codes using Etabs ............................................................................................................................................................... 151
Table 4-48 shows the differences in the stresses (Core 2) for the AS110.4:1993 & 2007 codes .................................... 151
Table 4-49 shows the differences in the stresses in the cores for the AS110.4:1993 & 2007
codes ................................................................................................................................................................................... 151
Table 4-50 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the deflection at roof level in the
X-direction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 153
Table 4-51 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the deflection at roof level in the
X-direction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 153
Table 4-52 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the deflection at roof level in the
X-direction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 154
Table 4-53 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the deflection at roof level in the
X-direction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 155
School of Civil Engineering xv
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
1 INTRODUCTION
An increased global awareness of natural disasters due to environmental changes has influenced our
assessment of risk. Historically seismic risk in Australia was considered to have low seismicity and
that events have mainly effect unpopulated areas. Due to Australia’s low seismicity, buildings have
not been designed for the ductility required for higher return period events which increases
vulnerability to a catastrophic disaster. Risk is the combination of the event and the vulnerability of
structures.
The prevention of structural failure due to natural disaster events such as earthquakes in Australia
has been of utmost concern since the development of the first code in the 1970’s. Since then there
has been tremendous development in understanding the physical geological element, structural
behaviour and risk assessment. Further to the unexpected disaster in Newcastle, NSW, in 1989 there
was an updating of the AS2121 1979 code which was the AS1170.4:1993 code, which has been
developed further into the AS1170:2007 code of today.
Why, How and So What? Are all questions that must be answered to understand the reasons there
have been revisions and the implications of them for the safe design of structures to withstand a
seismic event.
The building code for Australia has increased the return periods for events, which are to be
considered for buildings of varying importance levels. The revisions of the probability factor in the
BCA, amplifies the horizontal lateral loadings that the buildings are required to resist.
It was originally considered to develop a new code to replace the AS1170.4: 1993 code in
combination with the earthquake codes of New Zealand and Australia but due to extreme difficulties
in the drafting stages due to differences in the seismicity of the two countries it was decided to draft
two individual documents. In the new AS1170.4:2007 the design methods have been simplified and
were possible similar notation has been used to the New Zealand code [28] [29].
There are two main factors that are required to be understood when considering seismic design and
preventing of failure:
Soil Behaviour – soils behaviour during a seismic event and its amplification potential are of utmost
concern for predicting structural behaviour. One particular development has been in the
understanding of the resonance of shear waves through bedrock and how it amplifies structural
response during an earthquake.
Along with the two behaviours of the global systems above there are three structural properties that
must be considered when designing a building for survival in an earthquake event:
Period of the Structure – Does the accurate calculation of the period of a structure effect the design
of the system?
Torsion – Do larger accidental torsions have large implications on core and lateral resisting element
design? Symmetry of the torsion resistance elements is crucial to stop deflections occurring within a
floor plate.
Deflection demand and P-delta Effects – Does the structural system allow for the large deflection
demands? Do we design the structure to be ductile or elastic?
This report demonstrates the differences and the implications of the new AS1170.4:2007 code [7].
The techniques used in this report towards achieving the objectives are based on ascertaining an
understanding within the following areas:
Building Selection for Comparison – By using a variety of structural heights it is possible to obtain
a wide spectrum of design implications for buildings.
Soil Factor – By identifying the implications of the soil factor used for the site being considered.
Period Calculation – By using new formulae to obtain a less conservative natural period for a
structure, a more accurate behaviour of the structural system being designed can be achieved.
Structural Response Performance and Ductility – By considering the structural performance and
choosing a ductility factor that is to be designed, the onus is on the detailing to be achieved to
achieve compliance.
Base shear Magnitude – By determining the magnitude differences in the base shear it allows
immediate implication recognition.
Torsion – By examining the increase to accidental torsion being applied to symmetrical and
unsymmetrical systems a table of buildings affected has been developed.
Hand and Computer Aided Design – By comparing the difference in design methods and the
errors and discrepancies the requirement for accurate building models is highlighted.
Chapter 2 investigates the principles of seismic design and the advances in the field that lead to
development of the new 1170.4:2007 code [7].
Chapter 3 describes the differences in the new and the old code and the implications of the new
code to current building design.
Chapter 4 describes the design philosophy behind the choice of structural system, geometry and
design methods to best illustrate design implications.
Describes the hand calculation procedure for equivalent static analysis and examines the
implications on building detailing.
Describes the computer aided design procedure using ETABS for the static and dynamic analysis
required.
Investigates the comparison on the calculation methods and examines the errors and discrepancies of
the procedures.
Chapter 5 presents conclusions and indicates future work to expand the scope of implications.
The following six topics are relevant to the revisions implemented in the new AS1170.4:2007 code
[7]:
Structural Systems
Seismic Risk
Design Methods
The background to and related research in these topics are examined in this chapter.
The challenge in seismic design of building structures is primarily to conceive and detail a structural
system that is capable of surviving a given level of lateral ground shaking with an acceptable level
of damage and a low probability of collapse. The choice of structural system and its ability to
perform under earthquake induced forces is of paramount importance in the early design stages of a
project. The geometry and occupation requirements, set-out by the architectural intensions can have
large influence on the selection of system and construction type.
Dual System
horizontal earthquake resistance is provided by the combination of the moment frame, shear walls or
braced frames in proportion to their relative rigidities.
Figure 2-1 Shows three of the structural systems used for supporting lateral loads. A dual system uses a combination of these
systems [13].
Figure 2-1 above shows diagrammatically the three structural systems and their deflection response
under lateral loading.
Apart from lateral response of structures, vertical response and ground dislocation are other aspects
to be considered. For buildings the response to vertical accelerations are almost always a lesser
problem than the response to horizontal accelerations due to the characteristically high reserve
strength provided as a result of design for gravity loads. Although ground dislocation by faulting
directly under a building could have potentially disastrous consequences, the probability of
occurrence is extremely low. Where fault locations are identified it is common to legislate against
the building over the fault. Strong foundations generally tend to deflect the path of faulting around
the building perimeter, however large civil and infrastructural construction could be effected by this
but are outside the scope of this report.
The importance of a building and to what extent damage is acceptable, are the two parameters that
define whether an elastic response is desirable.
Figure 2-3 Shows the stress strain relationship of an element responding elastically.
It might be considered necessary for existing building of importance, such as historic buildings or
buildings required after an emergency e.g. Hospitals, to have adequate strength to ensure elastic or
near elastic response. Existing old buildings may possess a level of inherent strength such that elastic
response is assured however due to the lack of ductility in materials they need to withstand much
larger loads.
Figure 2-4 shows the relationship between strength and ductility required to resist seismic forces,
where a ductility of µ=1.0 represents the ideal elastic response. It can be seen that for a similar
seismic event, the strength of an elastic element is required to be much larger than an element that
yields at a lesser strength but has the ability to achieve the deformations due to ductility.
Figure 2-4 Shows the relationship between strength and ductility [30].
Once the value of µ is selected the structure must be detailed to achieve that selected ductility. For
moderately ductile structures such as ordinary moment resistant frames (OMRF), braced frames, and
similar, there is no explicit design of plastic hinges. The ductility is achieved by applying the
detailing provided in the material design standards currently in use.
Figure 2-5, shows the typical load-displacement relationship of a reinforced concrete element. The
ductility demand for the element is required once the yield strength has been reached. It is seen that
if the element is not ductile brittle failure will occur, which is a failure without warning and can lead
to catastrophic events.
Figure 2-5 Shows the typical load-displacement relationship for a reinforced concrete element [30].
The level of ductility a structure requires may vary from low, requiring no special detailing, to high,
requiring careful consideration of detailing.
2.2.4 The Structural Response Factor (Rf) & The Structural Performance Factor (Sp)
The structural response factor is a reduction factor, Rf, used in the old code and is applied to account
for both damping and the ductility inherent in the structural system.
Where the structural performance factor, Sp, used in the new code is a numerical assessment of the
additional ability of the total building (structure and other components) to survive earthquake
motion. The performance factor represents a number of effects that are not explicitly represented in
an analysis. Those effects can be defined as follows [29]:
Calculated loads correspond to the peak acceleration which happens only once and
therefore is unlikely to lead to significant damage.
Individual structural elements are typically stronger than predicted by our analysis (higher
material strength, strain hardening, strain rate effects)
The total structural capacity is typically higher than predicted (redundancy, non-structural
elements)
The energy dissipation of structure is typically higher than assumed (damping from non
structural elements and foundations)
The performance factors intend to account for these effects by a simple scaling of the design loads. It
is therefore necessarily limited but represents a practical attempt to capture those effects which can
not easily be modelled. Overall, these factors allow the design loads to be set to a level which
intends to represent a balance between risk and economical considerations.
As can be seen in Figure 2-6 below, for a lightly damped building structure of brittle material that
would be unable to tolerate any appreciable deformation beyond the elastic range the response factor
would be close to unity.
Figure 2-6 shows the relationship between ductility and force reduction factor [30].
At the other extreme, a heavily damped building structure with a very ductile structural system
would be able to withstand deformations considerably in excess of initial yield and would, therefore,
justify the assignment of a larger response factor.
The response is dependant on the structural period of the building also and Figure 2-7 shows the
relationship of natural period and acceleration. For buildings with a natural period greater than that
corresponding to the peak elastic spectral response, the maximum displacements are very similar for
the elastic and inelastic shown in Figure 2-6 a), thus implying that the ductility achieved by the
inelastic system is approximately equal to the force reduction factor, R. This observation is
sometimes referred to as the equal-displacement principle.
Figure 2-7 shows the influence of period on ductile force reduction [30].
For shorter period structures, equal to or less than a natural period greater than that corresponding to
the peak elastic spectral response, this is not conservative. That is to say that the displacement
ductility demand is greater than the force reduction factor, shown in Figure 2-6 b). Using the equal-
energy principle, the peak displacement ductility factor can be found by equating the area under the
elastic force–displacement curve with the inelastic curve.
For very short period structures the force reduction factor is still not conservative. This is due to the
period lengthening, due to stiffness degradation towards the period range of high response. Where as
medium to long period structures lengthen away from this critical period range. When the period
approaches zero (infinitely rigid structures) the maximum peak response is equal to the peak ground
acceleration, and the structural deformations become insignificant compared with the ground motion
deformations. Consequently if the structure cannot sustain the peak ground acceleration, failure will
occur. Therefore very short-period structures should not be designed for force levels less than the
peak ground acceleration. This behaviour may be termed equal-acceleration principle.
In elastic design the “limited” ductility case is considered, which is that no special detailing is
required, and “intermediate” and “special” are used for increased deflection demands in earthquake
design.
The purpose of ductility detailing is to allow the formation of plastic hinges in precise locations to
achieve the preferred structural response. For example, the ideal location of plastic hinges is within
the beam elements of a frame as development of plastic hinges in columns can lead to a soft storey
and hence reduced overall ductility.
Figure 2-8 shows the preferred locations of plastic hinges in the beams of a multi-storey frame rather
than in the columns.
Figure 2-8 Shows the preferred location of plastic hinges within the beams of a multistorey structure compared to the
formation of a soft-storey due to plastic hinges forming in the columns [30].
Figure 2-9 shows the failure of a structure due to the development of a soft-storey
Figure 2-9 above shows the failure of a building due to the development of a soft storey. The
preliminary aim of capacity design is to prohibit the formation of a soft storey by forming plastic
hinges in the beams of a multi-storey frame instead.
Figure 2-10 Shows plastic hinge rotations and deformations in beams [28] [29]
Figure 2-10 shows the formation and rotations experienced within a beam during the development of
plastic hinges under lateral loads on a frame. Figure 2-11 and Figure 2-12 show the typical detailing
for a beam within an “ordinary” and “intermediate” moment resisting frame.
It can be seen that additional ductility in the “intermediate” moment resisting frame is provided by a
large increase in the level of shear reinforcement (stirrups, etc).
Figure 2-12 shows the typical beam reinforcement for a beam in an intermediate moment resisting frame for AS 1170.4:1993.
Gurley [18] discusses the consideration of robust design in earthquake engineering. He highlights
the removal of structural elements in a seismic event, such as corner columns, could lead to
“progressive” or “disproportional” collapse, as is considered in terrorist attacks.
The minimum standard of ductility detailing now relates to the importance level of the structure as
defined in the BCA [11].
Figure 2-13 shows a standard detail for a typical beam with bottom layer continuity steel provided at the support.
Earthquake performance and design for redundant elements are related and the most crucial
parameters for achieving robust requirements is continuity of bottom reinforcement bars through
columns and other intermediate supports and the provision of secondary reinforcement for shear
strength and confinement of compression bars for buckling. These additional requirements can be
seen in Figure 2-13 above and are defined in the material standards.
Figure 2-14 shows a standard detail for a typical column to prevent the forming of a plastic hinge at the base of the column.
Figure 2-14 above shows a typical reinforcement detail with additional tie restraints provided at the
base of the column to allow the formation of a ductile plastic hinge. This detail is for intermediate
moment resisting frames and it should be noted that there is no requirement for additional ties in
ordinary moment resisting frame columns. Figure 2-15 show failure of a column due to low ductility
in a plastic hinge at the base. Lack of sufficient tie reinforcement is evident in the photograph.
Figure 2-15 shows failure at the base of a structural column due to the formation of a plastic hinge
Plastic hinge location and detailing – They are clearly defined and carefully detailed to
ensure ductility demands are readily accommodated.
Brittle element protection – Potentially brittle areas are protected by designing them to
remain elastic irrespective of the intensity of the ground shaking or the magnitudes of
inelastic deformations that may occur. This approach enables the traditional detailing of
these elements, such as used for structures designed to resist only gravity loads or wind
loads.
The area of greatest uncertainty of response of capacity-designed structures is the level of inelastic
deformations that might occur under strong ground motion. These designed ductile structures rely on
being very tolerant with respect to imposed seismic deformations due to the high level of detailing
of the potential plastic regions.
Figure 2-16 shows the failure of a column in a soft storey due to lack of ties to constrain the vertical reinforcement during
large deflection demands.
In Figure 2-16 above it can be seen that the column failed under the large seismic deflection
demands required during the event.
There are new methods being proposed at present such as a displacement based method by Wilson
et al. [34]. It is proposed that using a capacity spectrum a structures displacement demand and
capacity can be conveniently demonstrated to assess if “survival” of the element can be ensured.
Figure 2-17 shows a typical acceleration-displacement response spectrum (ADRS) which is plotted
for the full natural period range (0<T<infinity) of structures.
Figure 2-17 shows Wilson and Lams capacity response spectrum method [34][35][36]
The performance of the structure in terms of force and displacement can be readily observed for
both new and existing structures by creating a capacity line, constructed from a non-linear static
push-over analysis.
Neither the old nor the new code specify Capacity Design but research is continuing to produce
fragility curves for various structures to facilitate this method of design [31].
considered. The method used to calculate the energy that can be dissipated by a plastic hinge is the
area inside a hysteretic loop.
Figure 2-18 shows typical force-displacement hysteresis loop shapes for elastic and inelastic systems during a loading and
unloading cycle [34]
Figure 2-18 shows a typical hysteresis loop. Perfect ductility is defined by the ideal elastic/plastic
(elastoplastic) models of hysteresis loops. They show the response of elements in terms of inertia
force (mass x acceleration) versus displacement at the centre of mass.
Figure 2-19 shows the comparison of hysteretic loops for an ideal case and where plastic hinges occur in a beam [30].
As can be seen in Figure 2-19 above when plastic hinges are located in beam elements the energy
dissipation is large and the behaviour is equivalent to elastoplastic behaviour. Kayvani and Barzegar
[19] discuss the benefits of finite element (FE) models to obtain hysteretic models for tubular
members. In their paper they show that hysteretic results for FE methods correlate satisfactorily with
experimental data. Hysteretic loops for elements give great understanding into the cyclic behaviour
of elements and are a very useful design tool.
Figure 2-20 above shows typical structural systems and configurations that are used within multi-
storey construction. Diagram a) shows the development of a soft-storey. It is easily imagined that
excessive deflections at the top of the building would cause tilting of the lower columns and collapse
would occur.
Figure 2-20 Shows plastic mechanisms in frame and wall systems; (a) soft-storey mechanism in a weak column/strong beam
frame; (b, c) beam-sway mechanisms in a strong column/weak beam frame; (d, e) beam-sway mechanisms in a wall system
[16].
Tall and slender buildings and those with concentration of masses at the top may require large
foundations to enable large over turning moments to be transmitted in a stable manner. Irregularities
such as set backs and staggered floors should be avoided. In the new code [7] all buildings are
considered irregular, which is simpler and not unrealistic. Also pounding (knocking into the adjacent
structures) is not considered an issue if the building is set back 1% of the structural height from the
boundary.
Variations with height of both stiffness and strength are likely to invite poor and often dangerous
structural response. Because of the abrupt changes of story stiffness’s the dynamic response may be
dominated by the flexible storey or soft-storey. Reduced stiffness is generally accompanied with
reduced strength and this may result in large inelastic deformations in such a storey. Collapse of the
building is imminent when the energy absorption capacity or displacement capacity of the soft-
storey columns is exceeded by the energy demand or displacement demand. This is the general
cause of the majority of collapses in recent earthquakes.
Figure 2-22 shows diagrammatically the acceleration displacement response spectrum for a range of natural period [32].
In Figure 2-22 the structural response of a building in relation to its height has been shown in the
acceleration displacement response spectrum format. The diagonal lines extending to the curved
portion of the diagram represent the acceleration-displacement behaviour of a linear elastic system.
∆total = µ ∆
The above equation can only be applied to the displacement at the centre of seismic force which is
typically located at about two-thirds of the building height. It should be noted that storey drifts,
particularly in the lower floors of framed buildings, may be substantially higher than estimated by
multiplying elastic drifts by the structural ductility factor.
It must also be noted that displacements are associated with a mode shape.
Figure 2-23 shows the three types of multi-storey building frame arrangements with the same typical
the global displacement demands. This global displacement ductility parameter is defined on the
basis of the horizontal displacement of the building either at the roof or preferably at the height of
application of the resultant lateral force. This should be spread as uniformly as possible over the
entire height of the building and preventing a soft-storey developing.
Figure 2-24 Amplification of column bending moments in ductile frames due to P-delta hinges [28] [29]
Figure 2-24 shows diagrammatically the P-delta effects on a structure. In Figure 2-24a) the
deflection of the building is shown due to lateral forces being applied. The gravity loads to be
supported by the column structures are highlighted and it can be seen that they are now not vertical
over the base of the column. Additional moment caused by the product of the deflection and the
gravity load is induced at the base of the column. In Figure 2-24c) it can be assumed that once a
plastic hinge forms in the beams that the additional moment from P-delta effects will not be
distributed into the beams increasing the resultant moment in the column. If moments increase to
levels where a plastic hinge forms in the column instability and failure will occur.
Note in AS1170.4:2007 [7] general requirements for all buildings have been provided
for both regular and irregular. It should also be noted that irregular mass distributions
over the height of the building may lead to variations in the centre of mass at
different floors.
Figure 2-25 shows a force equal to the total resultant horizontal earthquake force and a moment acting through the shear centre
[30]
2) Centre of Rigidity (Shear Centre) – The shear centre is observed to be the point
through which if a load is acting there will be bending without twisting.
As the shear force induced by earthquake acts through the centre of mass and not the
shear centre, there will be floor rotation as well as floor translation. For convenience
in design we replace the shear force though the centre of mass with an equal force
through the shear centre and a moment due to eccentricity. This is seen in Figure
2-25.
To reduce Torsion (storey twist) the distance between the centre of mass and the centre of rigidity
should be reduced.
Figure 2-26 Shows various floor plans for symmetrical and unsymmetrical buildings. The shear centre and centre of mass
relationship is shown [30].
Analysis may show that in some buildings torsional effects may be negligible. However, as a result
of normal variations in material properties and section geometry and effects of torsional components
of ground motion, torsion may arise also in theoretically perfectly symmetrical buildings. These
maybe due to the presence and participation in the structural response of elements such as stairs,
partitions and infill walls. Hence codes require that allowance be made in all buildings for so-called
“accidental” torsional effects. AS1170.4:2007 applies a much larger “accidental” torsion to
symmetrical buildings and will be discussed further in Section 3.9.
Amplification also occurs in the dynamic response of a structure. This amplification is dependent on
the relationship between the natural vibration frequencies of the structure, the magnitude of the static
eccentricities and the degree of inelastic response. The amplification effect is larger for structures
responding elastically, compared with those that are excited beyond the elastic limit.
As can be seen in Figure 2-27 the shear wave properties vary as they pass though different layers of
material. Venkatesan et al. [33] discuss the conservation of energy as the mechanism behind the soil
amplification phenomenon, observed where seismic waves pass from a material of high impedance
(rock or stiff soils) to that of a lower impedance (soft soils).
The impedance of a medium is represented by the product of density (r) and shear wave velocity
(V).
2.4.1 Site Classification using Shear Wave Velocity and Bedrock Properties
McPherson [25] [26] established the requirement for site classification in Australia on a national-
scale, as an essential requirement for determining the potential response of structures, after the 1989
Newcastle earthquake.
Figure 2-28 Shows the first generation national site classification map of Australia based on modified NEHRP site classes
[25][26].
The site classification map is based on the shear wave velocity of the top 30m below ground surface
(Vs30), but as data is often not available for sites, especially in Australia, the use of geology as a
surrogate for shear wave velocity has been used to group bedrock materials likely to exhibit a
similar response to earthquake ground shaking.
The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) published a map of Australia for
country wide coverage for site classification. Local variability, however, must be considered for site
specific assessments.
For example, Sydney’s Botany Bay contains some of the largest accumulations of Quaternary sands
and silts. Where this sediment exceeds 30m Vs30 values from 200-250 m/s are reported, equivalent to
a site class of D or De and the underlying Hawkesbury Sandstone has Vs30 values in the range of
1200-2500 m/s, class B. Where the basement is less than 30m Vs30 values increase and site classes
change accordingly. These findings are very important for establishing implications due to these soil
types within the Sydney area.
Venkatesan et al. [33] emphasise the high impedance contrast between bedrock and upper soils as
potential hazardous conditions for resonance, due to the containment of energy within the soil, i.e.
seismic waves reflected from the soil surface back down to the bedrock interface would be reflected
back up through the bedrock again. Wilson et al. [35] relates the periodicity of the soft soil surface
motion directly to the time taken for the incident, or reflected, wave front to propagate through the
soil medium. Consequently the site natural period Tg correlates very well with soil depth H.
Figure 2-29 shows the earthquake shear waves propagating from the focus of the event.
Also directional effects and geographical features have significant influence on local intensity of
ground motion, as does the peak ground attenuation relationship of the soil with distance from the
epicentre. Figure 2-29 shows waves propagating from the focus of a seismic event.
Figure 2-30 shows a schematic diagram illustrating local geology and soil features [14]
In Figure 2-30, soil conditions and local geological features are illustrated and are described below:
The greater the horizontal extent (L1 or L2) of the softer soils, the less the boundary effects
of the bedrock on the site response.
As discussed previously, the depth of the soil (H1 or H2) affects the dynamic response of
the site. With the natural period of the site increasing with depth.
The slope of the bedding planes (valley 2 and 3) affect the dynamic response but it is less
easy to deal with non-horizontal strata.
Changes of soil types horizontally across a site (F and G) affect the site locally especially if
a building straddles the two soil types.
The above conditions are site specific and are not considered individually in the old or new codes.
The new code considers soil depth only and special studies should be considered under any of the
above mentioned site conditions.
Soil resonance can lead to catastrophic failures, when buildings and soils have the same natural
period. The old code [4] code does not specifically parameterise the natural period of the site which
characterises potential resonance behaviour. In theory, resonance can be avoided by ensuring that
the natural period of the building is not close to the natural period of the site, however this can be
difficult to define. If a structure is designed with an initial natural period significantly lower than the
natural period of the site, the stiffness degradation to the building that occurs during an event will
increase the natural period and could subsequently shift it closer to the natural period of the site. In
the new AS1170.4:2007 [7] code the natural period for the site has been incorporated as a site
classification criterion.
S = Sξ.Sλ.Sψ.Sτ
Where,
Sψ and Sτ both represent the effects of the form of the shear wave velocity profile.
The ECAM model predicts the soil amplification factor (S) which is defined as the ordinate of the
soil response spectrum at the fundamental natural period of the site divided by the respective
response spectrum ordinate of the rock outcrop. Since the model is intended to fully account for the
effects of resonance, the predicted factor is expected to be generally higher than that stipulated in the
AS1170.4:1993 [4] code.
Wilson et al. [35] soil amplification factors have been adopted in the new code and are much larger
than previously used in the short-period range and for only the most onerous soil class in the longer-
period range.
In this report the implications to design, of site natural period accounting of resonance, applied in the
new code [7] will be discussed further in Section 3.3.
The term earthquake hazard refers to the occurrence probability of damaging ground motions,
exclusively related to natural phenomena and processes, while risk and loss results from the
combing the earthquake hazard with the vulnerability of the building stock. Bungum [12] points out
that it is the combination of earthquake magnitude, poor building quality, and high population
density of the area of highest shaking that causes the disasters.
To assess the seismic risk associated with a given site, it is necessary to know not only the
characteristics of strong ground shaking that are feasible for a given site, but also the frequency with
which such events are expected. It is common to express this by the return period of an earthquake
of given magnitude, which is the average recurrence interval for earthquakes of equal or larger
magnitude.
From past experiences, average recurrence intervals between occurrences of earthquakes of given
magnitude can be obtained and they can be used to estimate the probability that the design ground
motion will be exceeded during the life of the structure (Hazard maps in AS1170.4: 2007). Wilson
School of Civil Engineering 37
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia May 2009
AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
and Lam [36] present the history of the creation of these maps and the “bulls-eye” type contours
which coincide in location with recorded earthquake epicentres, and also current multidiscipline
research into the understanding of spatial distributions of seismic activity. By delineating the earth-
quake areas and to understand in detail the factors that turn an earthquake into a disaster is the
prevention method best employed to prevent the same.
Small earthquakes occur more frequently than large earthquakes and can generate peak ground
accelerations of similar magnitude to those of much larger earthquakes, but over a much smaller
area. The quantification of seismic risk at a site thus involves assessing the probability of occurrence
of ground shaking of a given intensity as a result of the combined effects of frequent moderate
earthquakes occurring close to the site, and infrequently larger earthquakes occurring at greater
distances. This also implies that the earthquake damage increases strongly with decreasing
occurrence probability (increasing return period), which in turn means that the largest ones are rare
but very destructive.
It should be noted that seismic and wind loadings are not the only lateral considerations that need to
be designed for. In AS1170.0 [1] a minimum lateral resistance equivalent to 2.5% of (G+ψcQ) is to
be applied for robustness considerations, however, this is currently under review and intends to be
reduced to 1% for buildings over 15m tall and 1.5% for all other structures. It will be shown in
Section 3.8 that the minimum seismic loadings to be applied to structures 15m in height or less, will
be a lot more onerous than this lower 1% limit. In AS1170.4:2007, the minimum 1% of seismic
weight limit has been eliminated, therefore this new 1.5% limit for robustness takes precedence for
School of Civil Engineering 38
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia May 2009
AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
taller structures. With the application of lateral design revisions to this new AS1170.4:2007 code, it
will have to be considered that all detailing requirements for both ductility and robustness need to be
reviewed in parallel.
Reduced cost of repair and replacement, both structural and non structural as a result of
damage or collapse
The extent to which the initial cost is balanced by the latter factors depends on circumstances, i.e.
specific client requirement, site location, economic state of the country the structure.
However the cost to provide increased seismic resistance is generally significantly less than
believed, as costs of doubling strength are only a fraction of a percent within the total building cost
and the costs associated with providing increased ductility are even less as it’s a detailing process.
The response to a given accelerogram in each significant mode of vibration is calculated as a time
history of forces and displacements and these responses are combined to provide a complete time
history of the structural response.
Combining the modes must be considered carefully as direct numerical addition is not consistent.
An example of this is if we consider the first two modes of a cantilever system and the modes are in
phase at the top of the system then they will be out of phase at mid height.
Careful consideration of combining modal contributions must be given to structures that have modal
frequencies very close together, which can occur in buildings with symmetrical floor plans,
subjected to torsional response as a result of eccentric mass.
Figure 2-31 shows an example of the combining of modal moments to get the total base seismic
moment i.e. the square root sum of squares scheme (SRSS).
The drawback to this approach is that it is based on elastic response. The applicability of modal
superposition decreases with the reliance of ductility. It also relies on structural and earthquake
characteristic inputs at an early stage therefore it must be remembered that there are large
uncertainties in the results due to assumptions made.
Figure 2-32 shows Wilson and Lams capacity spectrum approach [34] [35] [36]
This method has been used to establish fragility curves for use in risk modelling. Rodsin et al. [31],
uses the CSM (capacity spectrum method) to present fragility curves for soft-storey buildings.
Figure 2-33 shows the push-over analysis of a building with a soft-storey [34]
This is beneficial as although the aim of capacity design is to prevent the creation of a soft-storey as
they are notoriously vulnerable to collapse under strong earthquake motion, depending on the drift
demand on the soft-storey; a building subjected to a small or moderate magnitude earthquake has a
fair chance of survival.
Wilson and Lam [36] identify that research is currently being undertaken into retrofitting techniques
for improving the drift capacity of soft storey structures, and this highlights the question, what are
implications of revisions in the new code to existing structures and possible retrofitting
requirements?
2.7 Discussion
This chapter gave a brief synopsis of the theory for seismic design, as well as looking at the
advancements in six of the more significant topics that contribute to the revision of the Earthquake
code for Australia [4][7].
Section 2.1 – Structural Systems, highlighted the choice of structural systems. It is vital that the
performance of the structure mirrors the design assumptions made.
Section 2.2 – Ductility - Elastic and Inelastic Response, discusses the background in elastic and
inelastic theory required for the understanding of ductility design and detailing. Large background
knowledge is still required by the engineer prior to using the coefficients provided in the code for
ductility and structural performance coefficients.
Section 2.3 – Seismic Response and Structure Configuration, looked at approaches to building
response due to geometry and physical attributes. The problems that effect structures in elevation
such as deflection demand were discussed. Consideration of deflection, ductility and loads are all to
be defined within a design philosophy prior to analysis being carried out. Response of the structure
in plan is based on torsional effects. The building responds due to torsion under the laterally applied
loads having an eccentricity at each floor level and also an accidental torsion load is considered to
allow for the torsional effects of the ground motion. As a result of geometrical influences for the
comparison of the codes on structures the decision was made to consider three different heights of
structures, but maintain a symmetrically responding system in plan in one direction while
unsymmetrical in the other.
Section 2.4–The influence of soil stiffness on earthquake magnitude and intensity, discusses the
problem of adequate earthquake input characteristics into analysis that needs to be addressed when
considering site soil impact on design. The work of most interest from this section is that of
Valkatensan et al. [33], which demonstrated the requirement to consider the natural period of a site
in the structures response to a seismic event, due to resonance and Also McPherson and Hall’s [26]
suggested soil classifications of D or De for Sydney’s Quaternary sand. It was detracted from this,
that a soil class of Ae and De should be considered to demonstrate the influence on structures in this
report that would be of most benefit to local design.
Section 2.5 – Seismic Risk, describes how the prediction of the frequency and size of events is
crucial to assessing the Risk of structures to seismic events. The work involved in forecasting
seismic events is outside the scope of this report, however, the recognition of designing to a
structures importance level is of consequence.
Section 2.6– Design Methods, looks at the traditional design methods and how they can be applied,
as well as highlighting some of the strengths and weaknesses associated with the different
approaches. Although Dynamic inelastic time-history, modal superposition and equivalent lateral
force procedures are capable of modelling relatively complex building structures a new capacity
spectrum method is being developed and is currently being implemented into design analysis.
However, the established techniques are still intended for use within the new AS1170.4 code [7].
Therefore it was decided to compare the traditional methods for this report, and establish a basis for
consequences. For this reason the newly developed Capacity Spectrum Method was avoided.
The next chapter discusses the direct code differences, by comparing and contrasting factors and
calculation methods.
With the introduction of the new code AS1170.4 – 2007 Earthquake Actions in Australia (AS-
2007), it was vital to establish the consequences to the design of structures. This chapter describes
how the old and new Codes [4] [7] are layed out and how they differ in Notation, Factors and
Calculation of the Design Base shear. The chapter concludes by looking at the main differences
between the codes and determines if these differences would have a major effect on the design of
current and future design projects.
Foreword – Flow charts are provided to establish if a structure needs to be designed for earthquake
loads.
1 Scope and General – The scope of the code is set out in this section, stating phenomena and
structures not covered by the code. Reference documents, definitions, notation and load
determination and combinations are also described.
4 Structural detailing requirements for general structures – The detailing of the structural force-
resisting system, including minimum forces to be resisted are set out in this section.
5 Requirements for non-structural components – This section describes the requirements for
non-structural components, categorised as mechanical, electrical or architectural.
6 Static analysis – The structural properties, horizontal forces, distribution and effects are defined in
this section for the static analysis of structures.
7 Dynamic analysis – The earthquake actions and analysis procedures are established in this
section.
8 Structural Alterations – This section does not apply for domestic structures and states that
alterations are permitted provided that the resistance to horizontal earthquake forces is not less than
before alterations were made.
B Structural systems (informative) – Defines the classification of the structural systems and states
the appropriate material codes to be used for design and detailing.
D Types of dynamic analysis (informative) – Gives guidance and technical references for types of
dynamic analysis.
Preface – A comprehensive list is presented of all the revisions that have been made in the new
code. There have been 20 revisions noted.
1 Scope and General – The scope of the code is set out in this section, stating phenomena and
structures not covered by the code. The most significant revision is that structures with first mode
periods greater than 5 s have been excluded by this new code.
Normative reference documents, definitions and notation are described as in the old code. Loading
and combinations have been removed and are now given in the AS/NZS 1170.0 and the BCA
[1][11].
It should be noted that the term “normative” means that it is integral part of the code.
The structural components to be included in the calculation of the seismic weight and the position of
application have been described in this section with provision of illustrations for easy reference.
2 Design procedures – Requirements for structural and system classification and sets out the design
procedure to be used and a flow chart is provided for design reference requirements.
All clauses for domestic structures have been simplified and moved to the Appendix A.
Structural type classification has been replaced with importance level reference, as per AS/NZS
1170.0:2002 Appendix D. Importance level 1 structures do not require any analysis or detailing to
this code.
3 Site hazard – Coefficients and factors relating to the site hazards are described in this section. In
AS/NZS 1170.0:2002 the importance factors were replaced with the annual probability of
exceedance, to enable design to be set by the use of a single performance parameter. Values of
hazard are determined using the return period factor determined from the annual probability of
exceedance and the hazard factor for the site.
4 Site sub-soil class – Soil profile descriptors have been replaced with 5 new site sub-soil classes.
Site factors and the effect of sub-soil conditions have been replaced with spectral shape factors in the
form of response spectra that vary depending on the fundamental natural period of the structure.
5 Earthquake design – This section describes all the requirements and limitations for the
earthquake design categories.
6 Equivalent static analysis – The structural properties, horizontal forces, distribution and effects
are defined in this section for the static analysis of structures.
The equation for base shear has been aligned with international standards and therefore notation and
factors have been revised.
Due to the new site sub-soil spectra, adjustments were needed to simple design rules throughout the
standard.
A new method has been introduced for the calculation of the fundamental natural period of the
structure.
The clause on torsion effects has been simplified, while the clause on stability effects has been
removed.
7 Dynamic analysis – The earthquake actions and analysis procedures are established in this
section.
The basic dynamic methods have not changed, however, scaling of results have been removed.
8 Design of parts and components – The section on structural alterations has been removed. In this
section all clauses on parts and components have been simplified.
A Domestic structures (normative) – All the “informative” Appendices have been removed. This
appendix gives guidance on improving horizontal earthquake resistance for domestic structures.
Figure 3-1 shows the Earthquake Hazard Map of Australia from the AS1170.4:2007 code.
Wilson and Lam [36] tell of the uncertainty in the rate of seismic activity of individual faults and
how earthquake sources have been modelled as “polygonal area source zones” on the Map of
Australia. The size and geometry of these source zones have been delineated in accordance with
information of localizing geological structures of “groups of faults” that have the potential of
generating future earthquakes. Figure 3-1 shows the hazard factor Z map of Australia from the new
code [7]. This map shows the “bulls-eye” effect of the contours that have been the locations of
historical events.
The maps used represent the 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years of the derived force,
corresponding to the average recurrence level of approximately 500 years. Therefore there is a 10%
chance that a 500-year earthquake will occur during a 50 year period, and a 90% chance that it
won’t.
1993 2007
City A Z
Brisbane 0.06 0.05 Decreased
Darwin 0.08 0.09 Increased
Gold Coast 0.06 0.05 Decreased
Hobart (Tasmania) 0.05 0.03 Decreased
Launceston (Tasmania) 0.06 0.04 Decreased
Wollongong 0.08 0.09 Increased
Table 3-1 lists six of the listed cities that have a revised value for the Hazard Factor.
Table 3-1 lists six of the cities around Australia that have revised site hazard factors however the
contour maps have remained the same. Darwin for example in both the old and new maps was
located on the 0.09 contour therefore this revision is more a correction of the old table than an
increase in the hazard factor.
The probability that it won’t be exceeded during the design life L-year period is: (1.0 – 1/R) L.
The probability/risk of exceedance (r) that it will be exceeded during the L-year period is 1.0 minus
the probability of non-exceedance.
r = 1 – (1 – (1/R)) L
To find the return period therefore for the 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years, we use the
equation above and use a design life of 50 years.
0.10 = 1 – (1 – (1/R)) 50
School of Civil Engineering 52
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
(-0.0022) = - (1/R)
R = 475 years
Therefore there is approximately a 10% chance that a 500-year earthquake will occur during a 50
year period, and a 90% chance that it won’t.
With the introduction of AS 1170.0 – 2002 [1] an Appendix D [6] had to be introduced in order to
be able to use the old code [4] with the new requirements in Part B1 of the BCA [11]. The policy
criteria are in the form of importance levels and the associated annual probabilities of exceedance.
In Appendix D, the importance factor (I) was replaced by the variation of annual probability of
exceedance. This is expressed by the probability factor kp, applied to the acceleration coefficient (a).
The new adjusted value for (a = kp x a) was then to be used wherever (a) occurs.
The probability factor allows for the use of annual probability of exceedance as a means of setting
the level of performance. The structure type reference was replaced by importance level.
The probability factor is required to scale spectra to return periods other than 500 years, as required
for the serviceability limit state and for various combinations of structural importance level and
reference periods. A portion of the probability factors are shown below and compared
Table 3-2 shows the difference in the values of the probability factor kp for the AS1170.0:2002 code
[6] and the new code [7]. The values shown in Table 3-2 are similar to the New Zealand Return
Period Factor Rs and Ru, Refer to Figure 3-2 (extract from NZS 1170.5 Supp1:2004 [29]). This is
contrary to beliefs that for a low seismic country such as Australia, a ratio of the hazard factor
between the 2500yr and the 500yr event would be greater than the same ratio for a high seismic
country such as New Zealand.
Figure 3-2 Comparison of proposed R-Factors for New Zealand with Hazard curves for 0.5s Spectral Accelerations [29]
In Figure 3-2 the values for kp have been derived by drawing a representative line through the hazard
curves (response spectrum acceleration as a function of return period) normalized by the 500 year
values for various structural periods for a range of locations. An equivalent representative line for
Australia would be expected to have been chosen. This response factor does not consider the
magnitude of the event and therefore is a scaling factor only.
There has also been significant revision to the BCA [11] decreasing the annual probability of
exceedance values for importance level 3 and 4 structures, see Table 3-3.
With the decrease of the 3 and 4 Importance level to an annual probability of exceedance of 1:1000
and 1:1500 respectively means a multiplication factor of 1.3 and 1.5 on the base shear value rather
than a 1.0 and 1.25 previously used. In the new code [7] a special study is required for importance
level 4 classification to ensure that they remain serviceable for immediate use following the design
event for importance level 2 structures. That is to say that the building deflections are to be
calculated using a kp factor of 1.0 for the seismic load.
Most structures will now have to be designed for some earthquake actions to ensure minimum levels
of robustness.
3.3 Site Factor / Sub Soil Class and Spectral Shape Factor
Both the new and old codes use response spectra to define the magnitude of peak response of a
single degree of freedom system to a given seismic event. In earthquake engineering, response
spectra for a defined level of strong ground shaking are commonly used to define peak structural
response in terms of peak acceleration, velocity and displacement. a site and structural response.
However the response spectrum used to define the site classification in the new code has been
revised.
Response spectra are derived by the dynamic analysis of a large number of single degree of freedom
oscillators to the specified earthquake motion. Variables are the natural period of the oscillator and
the equivalent viscous damping. Although duration effects are not taken into consideration in
response spectra they identify easily the key design parameter of peak response that is used in
equivalent static response design.
Figure 3-3 shows the RSA acceleration and RSV velocity response spectra [34]
Wilson et al. [34] discuss the recommended earthquake response spectrum, for rock sites, in
Australia and the revision requirements to the old code [4] due to significant developments in the
area of response spectrum analysis. The results of the findings are shown in Figure 3-3 and Figure
3-4.
It is shown that the old code [4] is conservative as velocity and displacement responses increase
indefinitely with increasing natural period, which does not reflect the physical reality. Equations for
the calculation and producing of response spectra are shown in Figure 3-5. These response spectra
have been adopted into the code and the implications to the base shear multiplier has been presented
in Section 3.8.
It is shown, in Figure 3-6, using a tripartite response spectra, that for the corner period controlling
maximum response spectral displacement a conservative recommendation of T2 =1.5secs is used for
Australia. The corner period T1 controlling the maximum response spectral acceleration, is in the
range of T1 =0.3-0.4secs. Note the period at which peak elastic response occurs depends on the
earthquake characteristics and the ground conditions.
Figure 3-5 shows the displacement, velocity and acceleration response spectrum format [22]
The first corner period (T1) separates the two parts of the response spectrum and varies with soil
type. The response spectrum of this form indicates that the structural systems with natural period
less than T1 are subjected to the most onerous seismic actions, and with systems with periods
exceeding T1 seismic actions would decrease rapidly with increasing natural period.
For elastic response, peak acceleration, velocity and displacement are approximately interrelated by
equations of sinusoidal steady state motion. The interrelations enable peak velocity and
displacement to be calculated from peak acceleration.
As seen in Figure 3-6, the tripartite response spectra include acceleration, displacement and velocity
information on the one logarithmic graph. The following equations show the interrelationships for
creating an acceleration displacement demand curve, shown in Figure 3-7:
T1 = 2π (RSVmax/RSAmax)
Where M is the magnitude of the seismic event, PGA is the peak ground acceleration/coefficient,
a/Z
Lam and Wilson [21] specify 3(kpZ)Fa where “3” (instead of 2.5) reflects the well known
phenomenon of high spectral amplification in the short period range with interplate earthquakes. In
calculating the acceleration response spectrum model the formulae have been revised to obtain a
more realistic response level to take account the resonance.
School of Civil Engineering 59
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
Where PGV is the peak ground velocity was 750 a and is now 750KpZ.
Figure 3-7 shows the demand curve consistent with the AS1170.4 model [34] [35]
In Figure 3-7, Fa is the site coefficient for the acceleration controlled region of the response spectrum
and Fv is the site coefficient for the velocity and displacement controlled region of the response
spectrum. In the new code the value of T2 is implicitly taken as 1.5secs based on an upper moment
magnitude limit of M7.
This maximum acceleration can be obtained in the new code [7] using the constant values of Ch(T)
for each sub-soil class, from Table 6.4, multiplied by the Z factor.
site’s dynamic response characteristics, along with the impedance contrast with underlying rock, the
damping of the soil, and its degree of nonlinearity.
The Sub-Soil Class Factors S values in the new code [7] have been increased significantly compared
to the old code [4] Site Factor, S. However the new values of S have not been defined in the new
code [7]. The Sub-Soil class factor has now been combined in the spectral shape factor.
Values for S, in the Table 3-4 are from Wilson and Lam’s paper [22] and are the recommended
values for a return period of 500yr.
1997 2007
Site Factor S Sub-Soil Class
0.67 Strong Rock Ae (0.8 Fa) (0.8 Fv)
1 Rock Be (1.0 Fa) (1.0 Fv)
1.25 Shallow Soil Ce (1.25 Fa) (1.4 Fv)
1.5 Deep or Soft Soil De (1.25 Fa) (2.3 Fv)
2 Very Soft Soil Ee (1.25 Fa) (3.50 Fv)
Table 3-4 shows the difference in the Sub-Soil Class values [21] [22]
For sites consisting of layers of several types of material, the low amplitude natural period of the site
may be estimated by summing the contributions to the natural period of each layer. Venkatesan et al.
[33] present a simple model to establish the soil amplification factor (S) for the soil resonance
phenomenon, and was described in Section 2.4. The model takes into account the generic
classification of soil with depth and also the lateral profile. The new code [7] states that the
contributions of each layer may be estimated by determining the soil type of each layer and
multiplying the ratio of each layer’s thickness to the maximum depth of soil for that soil type by
0.6s.
Both the old and new codes do not consider the effect on a structure of earthquake induced
settlement, slides, subsidence, liquefaction or faulting. However, in the new code for structures sited
on sub-soil Class Ee (except houses in accordance with appendix A) the design shall consider the
effects of subsidence or differential settlement of the foundation material under the earthquake
actions determined for the structure. This will require a special study to be carried out.
Particular caution is required where different foundation types or supporting soils occur under the
same building. In such cases the differing foundation stiffness’s may have a direct influence on the
distribution of seismic forces in the structure. Ignoring foundation flexibility will generally lead to a
conservative assessment of the seismic forces, but it is likely to result in a low estimate of the
seismic deformations.
Neither the old or new code covers the difficulties in assigning an appropriate site class for
structures founded on piles that extend through soil to a stronger, less flexible layer. However it
should be noted that in general, the classification of a site will be dependent on the surface soils even
where vertical piles or piers extend down to a harder underlying stratum, in that it is these that drive
the structural response. However, with raking piles or with stubby vertical piles or piers, the possible
adverse effects of the upper layers of soil can be reduced by considering the stiffer foundations
below. Also there may be situations with sleeve piles and specifically-designed separation of the
structure above the basement from the surrounding soil, as occurs in some type of seismic isolation
for example, where the structure is clearly likely to be subjected to the motions in the underlying
stratum rather than those of the surface soils.
3.4.1 AS1170.4:1993
In the old code [4], there were five earthquake categories, A through to E. The intensity of the event
predicted gets more sever as you move from A to E. Each design category relates the soil type,
ground acceleration and importance factor based on type of structure. Once a design category has
been defined for a structure certain limits are placed on construction material, detailing or geometry.
Table 3-5 shows the earthquake categories for all types of structure (I, II and III) using an
importance factor (I) value of 1.25 for type III structures. Note type III structures are now classified
as Importance level 4 structures required for post disaster facilities.
For Earthquake design category D, it was stated that regular structures only required a static analysis
while irregular structures required a dynamic analysis. This is therefore very open to interpretation,
and can lead to structures being classified as regular but having inherent irregular qualities that have
not been considered.
Earthquake design category E has the same analysis requirements for regular and irregular structures
but has large limitations on structural systems being used. However, this is only defined for
importance level 4 structures on the worst soil classification in the Sydney area.
Moment resisting frame and dual system with height over 30m requires a special moment
resisting frame to continue down to the footing.
However, the worst alluvial soil condition is not very common in the Sydney area. Therefore
earthquake design category D is the most prevalent.
However, as can be seen in Table 3-6 there were no revisions to the category definitions it was
purely a notational change.
3.4.3 AS1170.4:2007
In the new code [7], there are three earthquake categories, I through to III. The intensity of the event
predicted gets more severe as you move from I to III. The simple description is as follows:
II – static analysis
As in the 1993 code, each design category relates the soil type, ground acceleration and importance
factor based on type of structure but they have also considered the height of the structure.
As the new code gives general requirements for all structures (regular or irregular), the inclusion of
height in the definition of earthquake design category allows for the definition of analysis type to be
selected.
As can be seen in Table 3-7, for importance level 2 structures a minimum of static analysis is
required for all buildings between 12m and 50m irrespective of the soil classification. For buildings
over 50m in height a dynamic analysis must be carried out. This is a significant increase in the
number and types of structures requiring dynamic analysis.
As can be seen in Table 3-8, for importance level 3 structures static analysis is required for all
buildings less than 50m irrespective of the soil classification. For the most onerous soil classification
static analysis is required for buildings less than 25m. For buildings over 50m in height a dynamic
analysis must be carried out and for structures greater than 25m on soil class Ee. As for important
School of Civil Engineering 65
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
level 2 structures this is a significant increase in the number and types of structures requiring
dynamic analysis.
Although importance level 4 structures require a special study to ensure that they remain serviceable
for immediate use following a design earthquake event, it should be noted that all importance level 4
structures greater than 12m in height require dynamic analysis, shown in Table 3-9.
There are an increased number of structures requiring dynamic analysis with the new height
classifications used and this ensures that analysis is carried out for buildings, however regular they
were once considered. It will be seen in the comparison of building systems in Section 3.8 that the
loadings for buildings within the longer period ranges have been reduced. However, it is vital that
the dynamic behaviour is understood for sensitive deflection demands.
The height of a structure is therefore a justified method for design analysis classification and the
revision will guarantee all structural implications have been considered by the engineer.
The old and the new codes [4] [7] differ in the calculation of the natural period for structures. The
empirical methods used in both codes, as seen below, do not use material and sectional properties
appropriate to the limit state under consideration.
As it is the period associated with elastic response at just below flexural yield which is of relevance,
the period should not be based on properties of un-cracked concrete. However, the estimates in both
the old and new codes are likely to be conservative for multi-storey frames in so far as they are
likely to predict a shorter natural period and as a consequence increase response.
These methods also do not take into account the actual shape or properties of each structure. Hence
it should be noted that these approximate methods can be used for initial estimates in preliminary
design, or in structural checking. It is strongly recommended that a refined estimate be made based
on Rayleigh’s method once member sizes have been selected.
3.5.2 AS1170.4:2007
The method detailed below in the new code [7] is an empirical method set out in the NZS
1170.5:2004 [29] commentary. The New Zealand [29] code specifies the Rayleigh method this is
due to the fact that the formulae below are derived from a high-seismicity region and are considered
conservative. When used in a region of moderate - or low- seismicity they are even more
conservative, where structures have lower required earthquake resistance and hence are less stiff.
Hn is the height from the base of the structure to the utmost seismic weight or mass in meters.
Again it should be noted that structures with first mode periods greater than 5seconds are outside the
scope of the new code [7].
The “k” exponent factor for vertical load distribution, seen in the equation below, is dependent on
the buildings period. It takes into account the influence of higher modes in the increase of moment
and shear in upper level members for high period structures.
The values obtained from the empirical formulae of the two codes vary significantly as can be see in
the Figure 3-8.
Figure 3-8 this figure shows the variation in the Periods with heights for the AS1170.4:1993 and 2007 Codes [4][7]
It can be seen in Figure 3-8 that the value for the natural period of most structures calculated using
the new code [7], are less conservative. It is shown that the periods are longer for moment resisting
frame structures and eccentrically braced frames have increased period values until an approximate
height of 140m. A less conservative view is taken for “all other structures”, including building frame
systems with reinforced concrete walls which will be the structural system concentrated on in
comparisons of structures later in this report, having a lower value of fundamental period when
greater than approximately 65m.
It is clear that a less conservative method for calculating the natural period has been provided. The
new code [7] tries to bring the results of the lateral force method closer to those of modal response
spectrum analysis. From the figure above, due to the variation in period calculation for different
structural systems, a direct comparison of the base shear multiplier can not be carried out on a period
basis. The base shear multiplier will be compared in Section 3.8 on a structural height basis.
The Rayleigh method estimates the natural period from lateral displacements induced by a system of
lateral forces applied at floor levels. This method is based on structural dynamics and utilizes the
actual material and member properties to form a structural stiffness matrix.
The method also determines the modal shape and can be used to determine the second and third
natural periods and their modal shapes.
3.6 Response Factor (Rf), Structural Ductility Factor, µ, and the Structural
Performance Factor, Sp
The theory of the structural response was discussed in detail in Section 2.2. But a quick discussion
of the old and the new notation with relevance to code revisions will be looked at here.
Figure 3-9 shows the relationship of the reduction factor Rf with the ductility to structural
performance ratio.
Figure 3-9 shows the comparison of the Rf and µ/Sp relationship [34]
Wilson and Lam [36] demonstrate that the structural response factor (Rf) was previously proposed to
be defined in the new AS1170.4:2007 code [7] by using a ductility factor µ and an over-strength
factor Ω but notation similar to the New Zealand [28] code has been used.
In design using reduced or inelastic spectra it is vital that the design includes ductility capacity to at
least equal to that corresponding to the assumed force reduction factor.
As the Sp/µ value reduces (i.e. Rf and Sp/µ increase), the structure will absorb increasing energy and
therefore is designed for less direct load but for more plastic capacity.
“Limited ductility” classification in the new code [7], with µ=2, requires basic detailing as specified
in the material standard [8]. While “Moderate ductility”, with µ=3, requires special detailing set-out
in the appendices of the material code [8]. Fully ductile structures, with µ=4, are out of the scope of
the new Australian standards and reference to the NZ 1170.5 [28] standards is required, where
sophisticated methods are employed to establish the plastic capacity and ductility available at the
joints and designated hinges. Detailing rules to achieve these levels of ductility can be highly
complex. At the other extreme, for the value of µ = 1.0 the structure is designed to remain fully
elastic under the full loads.
Structures outside the scope of AS1170.4 2007 are listed below which have ductility factor µ greater
than 3 and should be designed in accordance with NZS 1170.5.:
Special Moment Resisting Frames in Steel and Concrete. (Frames designed and detailed to achieve
high structural ductility and where plastic deformation is planned under ultimate actions)
There is a lower limit of V >0.01Gg and an upper limit of V< I (2.5a/Rf) Gg.
C(T1) = Ch(T1)kpZ
There is no lower limit in the 2007 code, however, as stated above structures with a period greater
than 5 is not covered in the new 2007 code [7].
For comparison of the earthquake base shear, the percentage of seismic weight of the structure to be
used for calculating the base shear was obtained and graphed for structural system types in Section
3.8. This percentage will be referred to as the base shear multiplier within this report.
School of Civil Engineering 72
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
The base shear multiplier will be represented by a varying structural height rather than by structural
period.
It should be noted that the following comparisons use a probability factor kp of unity and therefore if
the annual probability of exceedance is greater than 1/500 years, refer to the BCA [11] then the base
shear multiplier will have to be increased to suit.
It should also be noted that the new proposed of 1.0% robustness limit for buildings less than 15m in
height and 1.5% robustness limit for buildings taller than 15m in height has not been considered in
this comparison and will now be the more onerous loading for longer period buildings.
As note previously, for simple analysis a load factor of 0.10Wt can be applied to structures less than
12m in height for Earthquake Category I, unless a more detailed analysis is carried out. This only
applies for sub-soil class Ae, Be and Ce for Importance Level 2 structures.
Figure 3-10 this figure shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for BWS, for AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4][7], for
Soil Class Ae.
The old code [4] limited the height of a bearing wall system to a structural height limit of 50m in a
category E earthquake. With the introduction of AS1170.0:2002 Appendix D, this limitation only
effects Importance level 4 structures on the most onerous of soil classes.
In Figure 3-10 above it can be seen that there is significant difference in the base shear multiplier. In
the old code [4] the reinforced shear walls were considered to be ductile if they are designed,
detailed and constructed to AS 3600 [8] and no additional detailing was required for consideration in
its Appendix A.. In the new code [7] concrete elements are not categorised into structural systems,
therefore allowing both “limited” and “ductile” detailing for any choice of system. “Limited”
ductility has been defined as design and detailing to the standard without Appendix A requirements
and the definition of “Ductile” is to include detailing to Appendix A of the material standard. This
begs the question; is the requirement of no additional detailing, as stated in A10 of Appendix A,
satisfactory for the assumed ductility level?
School of Civil Engineering 74
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
As “limited” elements in the new code are considered to have no specific detailing requirements and
act relatively elastically, this is reflected in the increased loading that is applied to these elements as
seen in the Figure 3-10. In Table 3-11 it can be seen that for limited ductility walls there is an
increase in the multiplier for buildings less than 87.3m in height. The total percentage of the seismic
weight of the building applied to “limited” ductile shear walls in base shear is 7.23%. That is an
increase of 2.88% of the seismic load being applied to these elements for buildings less than 8m in
height.
In Figure 3-10 it is shown that for ductile walls, there is a decrease in the base shear multiplier for
both short and long period structures. The total percentage of the seismic weight of the building
applied to “ductile” shear walls in base shear is 4.18%. The loading applied in the old code is 4.35%
therefore no significant decrease (0.18%).
The previous height limit for the application of 1% of the seismic weight to be applied has been
reduced from 78m and 98m, in the fundamental and orthogonal direction respectively, to 51m for
“ductile” structures; implying that taller buildings experience a reduced seismic loading applied.
For the “limited” ductility case there is a slight reduction in height where the previous limit was
applied, being at 88m rather than 98m, for the orthogonal direction and increasing in height from
78m to 88m for the fundamental direction.
The above Figure 3-10 and Table 3-11 only considered loading for soil class Ae, and it is seen that
there is reductions in the applied loading for “ductile” wall construction. The increase of 2.88% to
the applied loading for “limited” ductility wall construction within the short period range has large
implications for 1 and 2 storey buildings using this structural building system. And as the definition
for “limited” and “ductile” are ambiguous at present; should the increased loading be applied to all
bearing wall systems? Or just “limited” detailed walls such as unreinforced masonry elements used
within this system?
It is stated in the code that for earthquake category I, a simple application of 10% of the seismic
weight can be applied to buildings under 12m to eliminate the requirement for seismic design and as
can be seen in Figure 3-10, this loading seems even more onerous especially when assessing
performance levels for modifications to existing buildings.
In Figure 3-11 it can be seen that there is significant difference in the base shear multiplier.
In Figure 3-11 for “limited” ductility elements it is shown that there is large increased loading
applied for buildings less than 100m in height. At 100m in height there is a 2.3% seismic load
applied to the building. The total percentage of the seismic weight of the building applied to
“limited” ductile shear walls in base shear is 11.32%. That is an increase of 6.88% of the seismic
load being applied to these elements for buildings less than 16m in height.
Figure 3-11 this figure shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for BWS, for AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4][7], for
Soil Class De.
“Ductile” walls in the new code [7], as in the old code [4], have to be detailed to the material
standard AS3600 Appendix A[8]. However as no additional requirement is stated, concern as to
ability of the standard detailing to achieve this assumed ductility is of utmost concern.
In Figure 3-11 it is shown that for ductile walls, there is an increase in the base shear multiplier for
short period structures however this increase is experienced up to a natural period of 0.7 and 0.5secs,
for the fundamental and orthogonal directions respectively (corresponding to a height of 30m),
where after a decrease can be seen in the longer period range.
The total percentage of the seismic weight of the building applied to “ductile” shear walls in base
shear is 6.54%. That is an increase of 2.1% which is shown in Table 3-12 for structures of height
less than 16m.
The above Figure 3-11 and Table 3-12 considered loading increases for soil class De, which is
considered the “worst” founding material for Sydney’s Quaternary sands. The increases within the
short period range have large implications for 10 and 11 storey buildings using this structural
building system for both “limited” ductility and “ductile” designed elements. As can be seen the
maximum applied load is larger than the 10% used in the simplified method confirming that the soil
class De requires design for Earthquake Category II. Charts showing loading multipliers for all soil
classes are provided in the Appendix A.
Figure 3-12 shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for BFS with RC walls, for AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4][7], for
Soil Class Ae.
In Figure 3-12 above it can be seen that there is an increase in the applied base shear multiplier. In
the old code [4] the reinforced shear walls were considered to be ductile and were to be detailed to
AS 3600 Appendix A [8]. In the new code [7] concrete elements are not categorised into structural
systems, therefore allowing both “limited” and “ductile” detailing choice for any system choice.
As “limited” elements are considered to require no specific detailing and act relatively elastically,
this is reflected in the increased loading that is applied to these elements as seen in the Figure 3-12.
In Table 3-13 it can be seen that for limited ductility walls there is an increase in the multiplier for
buildings less than 87m in height. The total percentage of the seismic weight of the building applied
School of Civil Engineering 79
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
to “limited” ductile shear walls in base shear is 7.23%. That is an increase of 3.97% of the seismic
load being applied to these elements for buildings less than 8m in height.
“Ductile” shear walls in the new code [7], as in the old code [4], have to be detailed to the material
standard AS3600 Appendix A [8]. In Figure 3-12 above it is shown that for ductile walls, there is an
increase in the base shear multiplier for short period structures and a significant decrease in the
longer period range.
The total percentage of the seismic weight of the building applied to “ductile” shear walls in base
shear is 4.18%, an increase of 0.91%. It can be seen in Table 3-13 that for structures of height less
than 12m there is an increase in the base shear multiplier. The height at which the previous limit of
1% of the seismic weight was to be applied has reduced to 50m from 64m.
Figure 3-12 and Table 3-13 only considered loading increases for soil class Ae. Even on this soil
class, the increases within the short period range have implications for 3 and 4 storey buildings using
School of Civil Engineering 80
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
this structural building system for both “limited” ductility and “ductile” designed elements. The
simplified method, applying 10% of the seismic weight to buildings under 12m, is even more
onerous especially when assessing performance levels for modifications to existing buildings.
In Figure 3-13 it can be seen that there is significant difference in the base shear multiplier.
For “limited” ductility elements it is shown that there is large increased loading applied, as seen in
Table 3-14, for buildings less than 170m in height. The total percentage of the seismic weight of the
building applied to “limited” ductile shear walls in base shear is 11.32%. That is an increase of
7.99% of the seismic load being applied to these elements for buildings less than 16m in height.
Figure 3-13 shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for BFS with RC walls, for AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4] [7], for
Soil Class De.
“Ductile” shear walls in the new code [7], as in the old code [4], have to be detailed to the material
standard AS3600 Appendix A [8]. In Figure 3-13 above it is shown that for ductile walls, there is an
School of Civil Engineering 81
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
increase in the base shear multiplier for short period structures however this increase is experienced
up to a natural period of 1.6secs (corresponding to a height of 75m), where after a decrease can be
seen in the longer period range.
The total percentage of the seismic weight of the building applied to “ductile” shear walls in base
shear is 6.54%. That is an increase of 3.21% which is shown in Table 3-14.
The increases within the short period range have large implications for 5 and 6 storey buildings
using this structural building system for both “limited” ductility and “ductile” designed elements. As
can be seen the maximum applied load is larger than the 10% used in the simplified method
confirming that the soil class De requires design for Earthquake Category II.
In Figure 3-14 it can be seen that there is a difference in the base shear multiplier. In the old code [4]
the reinforced braced frames where considered to be ductile if detailed to AS 3600 Appendix A [8].
School of Civil Engineering 82
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
In the new code [7] concrete elements are similarly not categorised into structural systems, therefore
allowing both “limited” and “moderately ductile” detailing choice for any system choice depending
on the detailing.
Figure 3-14 this figure shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for CBF, for AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4][7] for Soil
Class Ae.
In Table 3-15 it can be seen that for limited ductility frames there is an increase in the multiplier for
buildings less than 87m in height. The total percentage of the seismic weight of the building applied
to “limited” ductile braced frames in base shear is 7%. That is an increase of 3% of the seismic load
being applied to these elements for buildings less than 8m.
“Moderately ductile” braced frames in the new code [7], as shown in Figure 3-14, there is a decrease
in the base shear multiplier for long period structures. For the short period structures the total
percentage of the seismic weight of the building applied in base shear is 4.18%. The loading applied
in the old code is 4.0% therefore no significant increase (0.18%). The previous height limit for the
application of 1% of the seismic weight to be applied has been reduced from 69m and 87m, in the
fundamental and orthogonal direction respectively, to 51m for “moderately ductile” structures;
School of Civil Engineering 83
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
implying that taller buildings experience a reduced seismic loading applied and is maintained at 87m
for the “limited” ductile concentrically braced frame.
Even on soil class Ae (Rock), the increases within the short period range for the “limited” ductility
case have large implications for 1 and 2 storey buildings using this structural building system. The
application of 10% of the seismic weight seems too conservative for design.
In Figure 3-15 it can be seen that there is sizeable difference in the base shear multiplier.
Figure 3-15 this figure shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for CBF, for AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4][7] for Soil
Class De.
For “limited” ductility elements it is shown that there is large increased loading applied, as seen in
Table 3-16, for buildings less than 145m in height. The total percentage of the seismic weight of the
building applied to “limited” ductile concentrically braced frames in base shear is 11.32%. That is an
increase of 7.35% of the seismic load being applied to these elements for buildings less than 16m in
height.
The total percentage of the seismic weight of the building applied to “moderately ductile” frames in
base shear is 6.54%. That is an increase of 2.57% which is shown in Table 3-16.
“Moderately ductile” braced frames in the new code [7], as in the old code [4], have to be detailed to
the material standard AS3600 Appendix A [8]. In Figure 3-15 above it is shown that for ductile
frames, there is an increase in the base shear multiplier for short period structures, however after a
height of 29m the difference is only 0.44% and after a height of 75m (corresponding to a natural
period of 1.6secs), decrease can be seen in the longer period range.
The above Figure 3-15 and Table 3-16 considered loading increases for soil class De. The increases
within the short period range have implications for 5 and 6 storey buildings. As can be seen the
maximum applied load is larger than the 10% used in the simplified method confirming that the soil
class De requires design for Earthquake Category II.
Figure 3-16 this figure shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for OMRF, for AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4][7] for
Soil Class Ae.
In Figure 3-16 it can be seen that there is a difference in the base shear multiplier for both steel and
concrete ordinary moment resisting frames.
In Table 3-17 it can be seen that for both RC and Steel OMRF there is a significant increase in the
multiplier for buildings less than 4.7m and 2.8m in height respectively. The total percentage of the
seismic weight of the building applied to both material ordinary moment resisting frames is 7.23%.
That is an increase of 2.23% of the seismic load being applied to this construction type for single to
two storey buildings.
In Figure 3-16, it is shown that this increased loading has a very steep decrease rate within the short
period range, and at the 12m height (corresponding to a period of 0.6 sec and 0.9 sec for RC and
Steel material type) it can be seen that there is a reduction in applied load.
Table 3-17 show the comparison of the base shear multiplier for OMRF, for AS1170.4:1993 and 2007, for soil class Ae
Figure 3-16 and Table 3-17 only considered loading increases for soil class Ae. The increases within
the short period range are significant and have large implications for 1 and 2 storey buildings for
both concrete and steel construction. There is a lot of usage of this construction type for warehouses
and storage facilities and increased loading will effect both connection design and deflection and
sway considerations. If the simplified method is used a far more conservative loading will be applied
to these structures.
In Figure 3-17 it can be seen that there is substantial difference in the base shear multiplier for both
steel and concrete ordinary moment resisting frames on soil class De.
Figure 3-17 this figure shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for OMRF, for AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4][7] for
Soil Class De.
The total percentage of the seismic weight of the building applied to ordinary moment resisting
frames is 11.32% and 6.54% for RC and Steel respectively. That is an increase of 6.32% for
reinforced concrete and 1.54% for steel, of the seismic load being applied to this construction type
for 2 to 3 storey buildings. This increased loading however is only applied to structures less than
9.3m and 5.6m in height for RC and Steel OMRF respectively.
In Figure 3-17 it is shown that this increased loading has a very steep decrease rate within the short
period range with reductions in loading occurring at 30m and 22m (corresponding to a period of 1.3
sec and 1.4 sec) for RC and Steel. In the old code the minimum loading of 5% and 4.44% for both
RC and Steel was applied for all structures under 35m in height (corresponding to a period of 0.8 sec
and 0.6 sec for the fundamental and orthogonal direction for both material types).
In Table 3-18 it can be seen that the reduction in the height at which the minimum loading of 1% of
the loading is applied to ordinary moment frames is significant. There is a reduction of loading for
building structures of 170m and taller for RC structures and 120m and taller for steel structures.
Table 3-18 show the comparison of the base shear multiplier for OMRF, for AS1170.4:1993 and 2007, for soil class De
Figure 3-17 and Table 3-18 considered loading increases for soil class De. As this construction type
is very common in low rise building in industrial areas on the outskirts of Sydney, such as Botany
Bay, this increased loading will have significant impact on the design of new buildings as well as the
assessment of existing buildings that either requires upgrading or modifications. As can be seen the
maximum applied load is larger than the 10% used in the simplified method confirming that the soil
class De requires design for Earthquake Category II. Charts showing loading multipliers for all soil
classes are provided in the Appendix A.
In Figure 3-18 it can be seen that there is considerable difference in the base shear multiplier for
both steel and concrete intermediate moment resisting frames.
Figure 3-18 this figure shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for IMRF, for AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4][7] for
Soil Class Ae.
In the old code and new code [4] [7] IMRF of reinforced concrete or steel are considered to require
additional detailing for ductility specified in the material standards AS 3600 Appendix A [8] and
AS4100 Section 13 [9].
In Table 3-19 it can be seen that for both RC and Steel IMRF there is only a slight increase in the
multiplier for buildings less than 4.7m and 2.8m in height respectively. The total percentage of the
seismic weight of the building applied to both materials is 4.18%. That is an increase of 0.91% of
the seismic load being applied to this construction type for single to two storey buildings.
In Figure 3-18 it is shown that this increased loading has a very steep decrease rate within the short
period range and by 12m in height (corresponding to a period of 0.6 sec and 0.9 sec for RC and Steel
material type) it can be seen that there is a 1% and 1.88% reduction in applied load for steel and RC
respectively. The percentage loads start to reduce at approximately 6.9m and 4.1m in height for RC
and Steel respectively.
Table 3-19 show the comparison of the base shear multiplier for IMRF, for AS1170.4:1993 and 2007, for soil class Ae
Figure 3-18 and Table 3-19 considered loading increases for soil class Ae. There are large
reductions to the loads being applied to this construction type. The assumption of this structural
system inherently requires ductility detailing therefore ensuring consideration of performance level
achievable.
The 10% minimum loading for simplified design would be extremely onerous for this building
system and full analysis would ensure a much more economical design.
The height at which the previous minimum loading of 1% of the loading is applied to intermediate
moment frames has been significantly revised. The load has been reduced until a structure reaches a
height of 128m for RC and 77m for Steel. It must be noted that the minimum loading for robustness
will in these cases then governs design.
In Figure 3-19 it can be seen that there is large difference in the base shear multiplier for both steel
and concrete intermediate moment resisting frames, for soil class De.
Figure 3-19 this figure shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for IMRF, for AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4][7] for
Soil Class De.
In Table 3-20 it can be seen that for both RC and Steel IMRF there is an increase in the multiplier
for buildings less than 9.3m and 5.6m in height respectively. The total percentage of the seismic
weight of the building applied to both material intermediate moment resisting frames is 11.32% and
6.54% for RC and Steel. That is an increase of 7.99% for reinforced concrete and 3.21% for steel of
the seismic load being applied to this construction type for 2 to 3 storey buildings.
In Figure 3-19 it is shown that this increased loading has a very steep decrease rate within the short
period range with reductions in loading occurring at 26m and 16m (corresponding to a period of 1.1
sec and 1.1 sec) for RC and Steel. In the old code the minimum loading of 3.33% and 3.08% for
both RC and Steel was applied for all structures under 28m and 35m in height (corresponding to a
period of 0.8 sec and 0.6 sec for the fundamental and orthogonal direction for RC and steel
respectively).
Table 3-20 show the comparison of the base shear multiplier for IMRF, for AS1170.4:1993 and 2007, for soil class De
Figure 3-19 and Table 3-20 considered loading increases for soil class De. As with ordinary moment
resisting frames this increased loading will have significant impact on the design of new buildings as
well as the assessment of existing buildings that either requires upgrading or modifications. As can
be seen the maximum applied load is larger than the 10% used in the simplified method confirming
that the soil class De requires design for Earthquake Category II. Charts showing loading multipliers
for all soil classes are provided in the Appendix A.
3.9 Torsion
As discussed in Section 2.3.4 a structures response in plan has large implications to the forces
induced in the lateral support system due to torsion effects.
The accidental eccentricities are added and subtracted from the appropriate factored case to ensure
that the more unfavourable case for the resisting elements on each side of the structure is included.
Figure 3-20 shows the geometric eccentricities from the AS1170.4:1993 code.
For buildings with full symmetry of stiffness and nominal masses in plan, the analysis for the
horizontal components of the seismic action gives no torsional response at all. However, variations
in stiffness and uncertainty of possible torsional components of ground motion may produce a
torsional response even in the most fully symmetrical building.
School of Civil Engineering 96
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
Therefore to ensure a minimum torsional resistance and stiffness and limit the consequence of
unforeseen torsional response, the new code [7] introduces accidental torsion effects by applying the
earthquake actions at a position ± 0.1b from the nominal centre of mass, where b is the plan
dimension of the structure at right angles to the direction of the action.
It is conservative to assume that all the masses of the structure are displaced along the same
horizontal direction and in the same sense (+/-) at a time, however orientated to produce the most
adverse torsion moment must be considered.
It is completely impractical to study the effects of displacing the masses through dynamic analysis:
the dynamic characteristics of the system will change with the location of the masses. Therefore
accidental eccentricity of the total horizontal seismic component is considered with respect to the
centre of all the masses.
In the new code [7], the earthquake force is to be applied at the 10% dimension factor around the
centre of mass. Therefore the distance between the lines of action of the earthquake force (at ±10%
dimension from the centre of mass) to the shear centre is the true eccentricity to be calculated for.
For theoretically complete symmetrical buildings (in plan), this is a significant doubling of the
accidental torsional moment. Conversely, for the most onerous unsymmetrical buildings the
torsional effects produced by the two codes correlate well.
It is clear that in the new code [7] a more conservative method for calculating the torsional effects
has been provided for symmetrical buildings while maintaining similar presentation of effects for
largely unsymmetrical buildings.
School of Civil Engineering 97
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
(δX) = KdδXe
Where
Note that the horizontal force specified is applied through the centre of mass for each floor but
accidental torsional effects may be neglected. The inter-storey drift at the ultimate limit state is
limited to 1.5% of the storey height for each level.
P-delta effects need not be considered when the stability coefficient (m), from the equation below is
less than 0.10.
m = Px∆/VxhsxKd
Where
When m is greater than 0.10, the deflection amplification factor (Kd) related to P-delta effects shall
be determined by rational analysis. However, if m is greater than 0.25 then the P-delta effects must
be examined very carefully and structures are considered unstable and shall be re-designed.
The design storey drift shall be multiplied by the factor (0.9/ (1-m)), which is greater than or equal to
unity, to obtain the storey drift including P-delta effects.
Alternatively, a second order analysis may be used to obtain the storey drift including P-delta
effects.
The increase in horizontal earthquake shear forces and moments resulting from the increase in storey
drift shall be added to the corresponding shear forces and moments determined without
consideration of the P-delta effects.
di = dieµ/Sp Where,
The inter-storey stability coefficient (θ) replaces the notation (m), and also limits the inter-storey
drift at the ultimate limit state to 1.5% of the storey height for each level.
As per the old code [4] P-delta effects need not be when the stability coefficient (θ), from the
equation below is less than 0.10, however, in the new code [7] structures are considered unstable
and shall be re-designed if θ is greater than 0.25.
θ = dst∑ Wj / [hsiµ∑Fj]
The calculation of P-delta effects is similar to the old code [4] however the ductility µ is used rather
than the deflection amplification factor to reduce the inter-storey stability coefficient.
School of Civil Engineering 99
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
The percentage difference for the design deflection multiplier (amplification factor) is significantly
reduced for all “limited” reinforced concrete wall systems but with a 30% increase for ordinary
moment resisting frames in concrete.
For “ductile” bearing wall systems there is an increase of 13% in the design deflection multiplier
and an increase of 29% for intermediate moment resisting frames of concrete.
% Difference in inter-storey
1993 2007 Stability Coefficient
1/Kd 1/ µ Multiplier
System Steel RC Limited Ductile Limited Ductile
Bearing Wall 0.25 0.5 0.33 100% 33%
Building Frame with RC Shear Walls 0.2 0.5 0.33 150% 67%
Building Frame with CB Frames 0.22 0.22 0.5 0.33 125% 50%
Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames
Steel 0.25 0.5 100%
Concrete 0.5 0.5 0%
Intermediate Moment Resisting
Frames
Steel 0.22 0.33 50%
Concrete 0.29 0.33 17%
Table 3-22 Shows the percentage difference in the inter-storey stability coefficient for P-delta effects multiplier for AS1170.4:
1993 & 2007
It can be seen that the multiplier for the inter-storey stability coefficient has been significantly
increased for all systems by using the ductility factor rather than the deflection amplification factor
in the denominator. This more conservative approach has been used by proposing the use of ductility
alone, but note that this isn’t as conservative as the New Zealand code which does not use the
ductility factor at all.
It is clear that a less conservative method for overall stability of the building has been provided with
reductions in both the design deflection multiplier for the calculation of inter-storey drift and the
increasing of the inter-storey stability coefficient.
Dynamic analysis however can give a much better insight into structures dynamic response
characteristics such as variances in the loading distribution, torsional effects and combined mode
contributions.
The procedure specified in the codes is an elastic dynamic analysis. This is considered to be
satisfactory because structures designed elastically for the appropriately reduced earthquake forces,
is deemed to have the inelastic capacity to withstand the earthquake forces and deformations. This
again highlights the role of the engineer in understanding the detailing and capacity requirements of
the structure to obtain the ductility required.
Earthquake Actions – As in the equivalent static method the horizontal design response spectrum
(Cd(T)), including the site hazard spectrum and the effects of the structural response is;
In static analysis only the 1st mode of natural period is considered, however, in dynamic analysis T is
the period of vibration appropriate for the mode of vibration of the structure being considered. Site
specific design response spectra are required as recommended in Section 2.4, relating to resonance
and soil classification and profile.
For vertical considerations the old code [4], recommend taking 50% of the horizontal accelerations
but in the new code [4], vertical earthquake actions shall be calculated using the following equation;
Where,
Cv(Tv) = the elastic site hazard spectrum for vertical loading for the vertical period of vibration.
Vertical earthquake actions however according to the new code [4] need not be considered for any
of the three design categories. It has been published recently, on the national geographic website
[27], that large vertical wave components may occur in seismic activity, although as the frequency
of such waves are of such high frequency they are relatively weak.
School of Civil Engineering 102
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
Modal Analysis – The modal response method has been recommended in the new code [7], which
uses the peak response of all modes having a significant contribution to the total structural response.
The peak modal response shall be calculated using the ordinates of the appropriate response
spectrum curve.
In two-dimensional analysis, sufficient modes shall be included in the analysis to ensure that at least
90% of the mass of the structure is participating for the direction under consideration.
In three-dimensional analysis, all modes not relating to the seismic-force-resisting system shall be
ignored. Further, all modes with periods less than 5% of the natural period T1 may be ignored.
All peak member forces, displacements, horizontal earthquake shear forces and base reactions are
then to be combined using recognised methods. The effects of closely spaced modal periods must be
careful considered.
When considering torsion it is vital that accidental torsion be considered. This can be done by
making appropriate adjustments in the model, such as mass location adjustments. When using a two-
dimensional model the action effects arising form torsion shall be combined with the translational
action effects by direct summation.
Figure 3-21 Shows the translation and torsion effects on a floor plate [30].
Mathematical Model – For both the new and the old code [4] [7] there is no revision to this clause
with a mathematical model of the physical structure representing the spatial distribution of the mass
School of Civil Engineering 103
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
and stiffness of the structure to an extent that is adequate for the calculation of the significant
features of its dynamic response being the requirement in both.
Drift Determination and P-delta Effects – For both the new and the old code [4] [7] the storey
drifts, member forces and moments due to P-delta effects shall be calculated as per the static
analysis methods as discussed in Section 3.10.3, using the deflections, forces and moments
calculated by the dynamic response method discussed above.
3.12 Discussion
There are significant implications to structures due to the revisions noted in this Chapter.
Infrastructure designed and built over the past 15 years in Australia, have been based on the design
parameters set out in the old AS1170.4:1993 code.
Structural System Comparison of the Base shear Multiplier (Percentage of Seismic Weight)
AS1170.4:1993 AS1170.4:2007 Difference
kp=1.0 & Z=0.08 Ae De Ae De Ae De
Bearing Wall System
Limited 4.35% 4.44% 7.23% 11.32% 2.88% 6.88%
Ductile 4.35% 4.44% 4.18% 6.54% -0.17% 2.10%
Building Frame System with Shear Walls
Limited 3.27% 3.33% 7.23% 11.32% 3.96% 7.99%
Ductile 3.27% 3.33% 4.18% 6.54% 0.91% 3.21%
Building Frame System with Concentrically Braced Frames
Limited 4.00% 3.97% 7.23% 11.32% 3.23% 7.35%
Moderately ductile 4.00% 3.97% 4.18% 6.54% 0.18% 2.57%
Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames
Concrete 5.00% 5.00% 7.23% 11.32% 2.23% 6.32%
Steel 4.35% 4.44% 7.23% 6.54% 2.88% 2.10%
Intermediate Moment Resisting Frames
Concrete 3.27% 3.33% 4.18% 11.32% 0.91% 7.99%
Steel 3.08% 3.08% 4.18% 6.54% 1.10% 3.46%
Table 3-23 shows the comparison (percentage differences) of the seismic weight loading multiplier for AS1170.4:1993 and
2007 code [4] [7].
Whilst seismic activity modelling has developed, and must continue to do so, research efforts are
now crucial for assessing and comparing, the potential seismic performance of existing structures
and their components.
School of Civil Engineering 104
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
As can be seen in Table 3-23 the increase in the loading applied to the different structural systems is
significant. Charts for all systems and Soil types have been provided in Appendix A.
The assumptions made for site soil class, structural system and performance have large implication
to the percentage of seismic loading that the lateral resisting system are subjected to. Where as
revision in the calculation of the natural period of the structures also has a bearing in relation to the
height of structures that are most effected.
Please note that the kp factor has been taken as equal to unity for this comparison and the Z factor
has been taken as 0.08, representing implications for Sydney structures.
In order to highlight the revisions and implications of the new AS1170.4:2007 code it was decided
to compare the analysis and design of a typical concrete structural system. As was shown in Chapter
3 there is large increases in the seismic weight percentages applied as lateral loads to structures in
calculating the earthquake base shear, as well as revisions in torsion and deflection criteria. To
ensure a comparison of value is obtained the selection of building and site is of utmost importance.
Since the aim of this report is to demonstrate the differences in the two codes and determine the
structural implications the decision to use one structural construction type was taken so that the
focus of the research would remain on the original aim and not be split across related but separate
problems with multiple construction systems. A reinforced concrete building frame system with
reinforced concrete shear walls was therefore chosen.
As was discussed 3.8.2 there are significant implications to building frame systems. The graphs
showing the differences in the base shear multiplication factor have been repeated in Figure 4-1 and
Figure 4-2 below for ease. In the old code all reinforced shear walls were to be considered “ductile”
and were to be detailed as such. Therefore, for the purpose of comparison the “ductile” design
response of the building frame system is only considered in this comparison.
Figure 4-1 shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for BFS with RC walls, for AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4][7], for
Soil Class Ae.
Figure 4-1 above shows the comparison on a soil class of Ae and it has been discussed previously
that the maximum loading that is applied to a “ductile” building frame system within the short
period range is 4.18%, which is an increase of 1%. There is a reduction of loading occurring after a
height of 12m for longer period structures.
Figure 4-2 above shows the comparison on a soil class of De and it has been discussed previously
that the maximum loading that is applied to a “ductile” building frame system within the short
period range is 6.54%, which is an increase of 3.21%. There is a reduction of loading occurring after
a height of 75m for longer period structures.
Figure 4-2 shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for BFS with RC walls, for AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4] [7], for
Soil Class De.
4.1.2 Elevation
Having established the percentage differences in the values of the base shear multiplier, a range of
structural heights were chosen to compare the structural implications. The revisions in the
earthquake design category were also considered when making these choices, as discussed in
Section 3.4.
Building 1 – A structural height of 14.4m was chosen (corresponding to actual physical floor height
requirements). This would allow the comparison for the loading applied in the short period range.
This height is within the earthquake design category 2. This requires a static analysis however there
is also a simplified design of structures method in clause 5.4.2.3 of the 2007 code that can be used
for structures not exceeding 15m. This simplified method is extremely conservative. This simplified
method applies a 6% seismic weight multiplier for rock sites and 13% for class De in Sydney for
building 1 (14.4m) which is extremely conservative. Therefore static analysis is considered here
using the calculation methods set-out in the code.
School of Civil Engineering 108
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
Building 2 – A structural height of 29.7m was chosen (corresponding to actual physical floor height
requirements). This would allow the comparison for the maximum loading applied in the old code
for the De soil class.
Building 3 – A structural height of 56.1m was chosen (corresponding to actual physical floor
height). This would allow the comparison for the loading applied in the middle period range.
Building 4 – A structural height of 97.9ms was chosen (corresponding to actual physical floor
height requirements). This would allow the comparison for the loading applied in the longer period
range.
It should be noted also, that structural walls with aspect ratios greater than 2 are generally classified
as tall walls and tend to be flexure controlled, whilst squat walls with aspect ratios less than 2 tend to
be shear controlled. Tall walls tend to be lightly loaded axially, posses reasonable lateral load
capacity and behave like flexible cantilevers with drifts in excess of 1.0% possible. In contrast, shear
controlled walls, typically are very stiff with considerable lateral strength but crack at around 0.1%
drift and rapidly lose strength at around 0.75% drift.
It was decided to choose a building that has been designed in the office and then modify the
elevation by adding or subtracting floors to obtain the height required. Figure 4-3 shows the typical
architectural cross section through building type 3 being compared. For practicality an underground
car park, of various depths, was also considered for the other buildings.
4.1.3 Plan
A standard floor plan for the above building chosen used a post tensioned reinforced slab with band
beams. The system allowed the office floors to have minimum requirement for columns and
interfaced well with a planning grid of 8250mm. The structural elements of the building are to be
designed to provide adequate performance for a minimum design life of 50 years.
Figure 4-4 shows the typical architectural floor plate for all 4 buildings used in the comparison.
The floor plate was to be used in all four buildings being compared. The typical floor plate size is
1750m2 (50m x 35m).
The building comprises of a central core with a side atrium. Two shared passenger/goods goods lift
& stair cores, fronting both the main lobby and a service corridor at the rear, will be provided and
will serve all levels including the basement and roof plant room.
The building floor plan is almost symmetrical. There is a slight difference in the properties of the
two cores and therefore there will be slight eccentricities in the x-x direction. The lateral resisting
element properties will be discussed next.
Figure 4-5 shows the typical structural plan for the buildings, highlighting the two lateral resisting cores.
Figure 4-6 shows the core properties for core number 1 for building 3.
The tributary area for vertical load carried by core number 1 is 115 m2. This is required when
calculating the stability and stresses acting on the core. It is generally considered beneficial to create
the largest possible tributary area for vertical load to be applied to the cores. However in this floor
plate design this is restricted by the columns between the cores. There small tributary area on the
cores will have a significant impact on the stresses in the cores.
School of Civil Engineering 113
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
Figure 4-7 shows the core properties for core number 2 for building 3.
The tributary area for vertical load carried by core number 1 is 115 m2. This is required when
calculating the stability and stresses acting on the core.
centre of the floor plate. Therefore both the location of the centre of mass and the shear centre
location are required to determine the behaviour of the structure in plan.
Figure 4-8 shows the calculation of the centre of mass and shear centre in the x-x direction.
Figure 4-9 shows the calculation of the centre of mass and shear centre for the y-y direction
Where,
b = 49.5
es = 0 (Figure 4-9)
b = 35
ed1 = es + 0.1b
ed2 = es - 0.1b
b = 49.5
es = 0 (Figure 4-9)
b = 35
Distribute the base shear as component forces acting at different levels of the structure.
Analyze the structure under the design lateral forces to obtain design actions, such as
moments and shears
For the new 2007 code this corresponding to Importance Level 3 (2002 & 2007) defined in Part B of
the Building Code of Australia [11].
Z = 0.08 (2007)
For Importance Level 3 Structure in the BCA 2007, for a 1:1000 year annual probability of
exceedance: kp = 1.3
V = I (CS/Rf) Gg
V/Gg = 1.25aIS/RfT2/3
V = Cd(T1)Wt
C(T1) = Ch(T1)kpZ
These values will be used to calculate the total horizontal equivalent static forces for the building
and the over turning moment on the lateral resisting system.
4.1.17 Loads
The following Table 4-1, Table 4-2, Table 4-3, Table 4-4, Table 4-5 and Table 4-6 show the typical
loading that has been used in the analysis and design of the buildings being compared.
It should be noted at this point also that the kp factor used for the building type for the two codes will
be used, which will produce higher values. However the lateral loading to be considered for
robustness will not apply to these comparisons, only due to the fact that currently it is 2.5% but they
are proposing to reduce this to 1.5% for buildings taller than 15m and 1% for less than 15m but this
has not been issued for public discussion yet.
It should also be noted that for the sake of safety dead loads are customarily overestimated. This fact
should be considered in seismic design, whenever gravity load effects enhance strength when
combined with effects of seismic forces, such as may occur when estimating stresses within the
cores.
The 2007 values in Table 4-7 have been calculated using a kp factor of 1.3. As can be seen in the
Table 4-7 above the building 1 (14.4m) has the most significant increase in loading with a 42%
increase for buildings founded on rock and 150% for the more onerous soil class De. Building 2
(29.70m) and Building 3 (56.10m) have less of an increase in the loading multiplier for rock, which
is 17% and 30%, but have far larger increase for the soil class De, being 154% and 124%
respectively. These values have been expressed in the comparison tables for the base shear for the
four buildings in Table 4-8 and Table 4-9.
As can be seen in Table 4-8 and Table 4-9 there is an approximate average increase of 18% in the
base shear for Class Ae soils within the short period range but there is a decrease of 35% for the
longer period building 4. There are significant increases of 150% in the base shear for all buildings
within the short and medium period range on soil class De, although it is not as large for the longer
period buildings, being shown as 60%.
Figure 4-10 shows the vertical distribution of the earthquake base shear for both AS1170.4:1993 & 2007 [4] [7] and [34]
As can be seen in Table 4-10 and Table 4-11 there is an approximate average increase of 18% in the
overturning moment for Class Ae soils within the short period range but there is a decrease of 35%
for the longer period building 4.
There are significant increases of 150% in the overturning moment for all buildings within the short
and medium period range on soil class De, although it is not as large for the longer period buildings,
being shown as 60% in Table 4-10 and Table 4-11.
4.2.4 Torsion
The torsion was calculated using the equations described in Section 4.1.5 and the percentage
differences are shown in Table 4-12 and Table 4-13 below. There are similar percentage differences
tabulated for the torsion in the x-direction as was seen for the overturning moment in Section 4.2.3.
However in the y-direction there are much larger percentage increases.
Torsion (G only)
Numerical Numerical
Difference % Difference Difference % Difference
Height X-Direction Y-Direction
Ref (m) Soil Class kN X-Direction kN Y-Direction
1 14.4 Ae 3167 29.1 4557 150.9
De 20522 159.9 14427 405.2
2 29.7 Ae 2151 20.5 3904 134.2
De 32031 159.9 22517 405.2
3 56.1 Ae 2196 15.1 4998 123.6
De 40391 123.8 30322 335.0
4 97.9 Ae -7777 -33.6 1865 29.0
De 27195 66.6 25351 223.8
Table 4-12 shows the differences in the torsion values for the AS110.4:1993 & 2007 codes for minimum loading
The increases in the y-direction account for the increase in the allowance for accidental torsion, even
when the building is considered ideally symmetrical.
Torsion (G + ψcG)
Numerical Numerical
Difference % Difference Difference % Difference
Height Soil
Ref (m) Class X-Direction X-Direction Y-Direction Y-Direction
1 14.4 Ae 3615 29.1 5201 150.9
De 23611 159.9 16598 405.2
2 29.7 Ae 2496 20.5 4531 134.2
De 37179 159.9 26136 405.2
3 56.1 Ae 2532 15.1 5762 123.6
De 46565 123.8 34956 335.0
4 97.9 Ae -8986 -33.6 2155 29.0
De 31424 66.6 29293 223.8
Table 4-13 shows the differences in the torsion values for the AS110.4:1993 & 2007 codes for maximum loading
In Table 4-14 and Table 4-15 the tension stresses induced in core 1 due to the over turning moment
have been presented. It can be see that for the minimum loading that the tension stresses developed
within the cores are just on the limits of the tensile capacity of 60MPa concrete. For Building 3 on
soil class De and Building 4 on both rock and soil, core 1 is over stressed. Further revision to the
School of Civil Engineering 129
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
configuration or thickness of the shear walls is required in order for building 4 to be stabilised. Also
the cores require a larger axial force to be applied in order to reduce the tensile induction.
In Table 4-15 the tensile capacity for the maximum loading is shown. Core 1 within the analysis of
Building 3 and 4 are shown as outside the tensile capacity range of 60MPa concrete.
Table 4-16 and Table 4-17 show the compressive stresses in core 1 for the four buildings. Although
there is a large increase in the compression stresses in core 1 for all four buildings they are all with
limits.
The stresses have been distributed to the two cores in proportion to their stiffness. Therefore core 2
has a larger portion of the load applied to it. This is reflected in the larger stress values shown in
Table 4-18 and Table 4-19.
As shown in Table 4-18 and Table 4-19 core 2 of buildings 3 and 4 are over stressed in tension if
60MPa concrete is specified. Additional axial load is required on the cores or modifications of the
properties of the cores or configuration.
Table 4-20 and Table 4-21 show the core 2 compression stresses in the cores. Although there are
large increases in the stresses especially on the more onerous soil case they are within limits of
60MPa concrete.
Building 4 has been compared although the cores are not satisfactory for building stability. Further
work would be required to obtain a lateral support system that would provide adequate resistance for
the loads applied.
As can be seen in Table 4-22 and Table 4-23 there is a large increase in the base shear in the
perpendicular direction due to the introduction of 10% building width eccentricity rather than the
previously defined 5%.
The torsion loading has been distributed to the two cores in proportion to the rotational stiffness of
the cores in each direction. This loading is then to be included in the total loading applied to the
walls. The base shear is also distributed to the cores in relation to the stiffness properties of the
cores.
When analysising for seismic events the effect of cracking must be considered but for the
distribution of stresses in the cores the proportion will be distributed similarly so it is not relevant for
this sections stress comparison.
Table 4-24 and Table 4-25 show the values of the total base shear applied to the two cores within the
building in proportion to the stiffness of the cores.
Table 4-26 and Table 4-27 show the total shear loading distributed to the two cores for minimum
applied loading while Table 4-28 and Table 4-29 show the total base shear for the maximum applied
base shear loading.
It is shown that core 2 attracts much larger loadings in the y-direction due to its larger stiffness’s. It
would be beneficial to have cores of relatively similar stiffness in order to distribute the loading
evenly between the two cores.
lateral forces is bilinear, i.e. close to linear elastic-perfectly-plastic. The elastic stiffness used in
analysis should correspond to the stiffness of the elastic part of bilinear global force-displacement
response. This is to say, that the use of the full elastic stiffness of uncracked concrete or masonry in
the analysis is completely inappropriate. For this reason in calculating the deflection, the analysis
should take into account the effect of cracking. Moreover the stiffness of concrete members
corresponding to the initiation of yielding of the reinforcement should be used.
Without modelling it is considered that a stiffness of 50% of the uncracked stiffness will give a
every conservative result. The lower the stiffness value used in the analysis the higher the second-
order effects observed, which is on the safe-side of design.
Paulay [30] recommends an equivalent moment of inertia Ie for a cantilever wall to be calculated
using the following formula:
Ie = [(100/fy) + (Pu/fc’Ag)] Ig
For the calculations in this section the equation above was used but it can be seen that the effective
stiffness are then approximately 25% which is extremely conservative.
It can be seen in Table 4-30 and Table 4-31, for minimum and maximum loads respectively, that the
deflection at roof level for Core 1 for building 1 (14.4m) and 2 (29.70m) are within the serviceability
limits of span/500 for both the soil class Ae and De. For building 3 (56.10m) the deflections are
satisfactorily within the limits for the soil class Ae, however they are just outside the limits at
span/450 for soil class De.
The core arrangement for Building 4 has been shown to be too highly stressed in tension in Section
4.2.5. It is however clear that the deflection for buildings on rock class Ae have been reduced by
approximately 30%. It is also shown that there is a large increase in deflection observed for
buildings on the more onerous soil class De. Both cores require their properties to be revised to
satisfy the stress and deflection demands.
It is observed that Core 2 has similar scale deflections as shown in Table 4-32 and Table 4-33, for
the minimum and maximum loading. Building 3 is shown to have satisfactory deflection for both
soil cases. Building 4 still remains unsatisfactory for deflection demands.
The deflection in the Y-direction is shown to be larger, which is due to a smaller stiffness value in
this direction. As can be seen in Table 4-34 and Table 4-35, the values are similarly scaled as shown
above for the x-direction however the values are more significant.
Building 1, 2 and 3 are all within the deflection limits. As discussed previously Building 4 fails the
deflection limits specified for soil class De however the deflection is shown to reduce for soil class
Ae, giving satisfactory deflections.
As core 2 is stiffer and attracts a larger applied loading, the deflection in the Y-direction is far
greater than in the x-direction. As can be seen in Table 4-36 and Table 4-37, Building 1, 2 and 3 for
soil class Ae are all within the deflection limits. In the soil class De analysis Building 3 is shown to
have 150% larger deflections than in the old code.
Even with the large reductions in the deflections shown in the tables below for Building 4 on soil
class Ae the core still fails the deflection limits specified. Further work on modifying the cores to
meet the deflection criteria should be carried out to get a fairer assessment of the values.
The percentage difference values will not change significantly with a modification of wall
thicknesses, however if the cores are modified without relation to each other loading distribution
between the cores could result in significant differences.
It should also be noted that the two cores analysed in the above tables are considered to be deflecting
independently of each other. If the cores were coupled using coupler beams the forces, over turning
School of Civil Engineering 142
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
moments, stresses and deflections would have completely different patterns. An investigation into
the differences in the codes on a coupled wall system would be very beneficial.
The two cores were individually analysed for p-delta effects were to be considered.
Table 4-38 to Table 4-41, show the inter-storey drift for the top floor of each building for both soil
classes for the two cores in both directions. They show the stability coefficient for the floors being
considered and then states whether P-delta effects should be considered. If the stability factor is less
than 0.1 then P-delta effects do not have to be considered. If the stability coefficient is greater than
0.2 then the structure is potentially unstable and shall be redesigned. The calculations for the
stability coefficient were made easier by using the same axial load for the roof level presented in
Table 4-3 for all four buildings. The earthquake horizontal shear values where taken form the tables
for each building and soil class provided in Appendix B for the roof level.
Table 4-38 shows the comparison of storey drift and P-delta consideration of Core 1 for minimum and maximum roof loading
(X-direction)
Table 4-39 shows the comparison of storey drift and P-delta consideration of Core 2 for minimum and maximum roof loading
(X-direction)
Table 4-40 shows the comparison of storey drift and P-delta consideration of Core 1 for minimum and maximum loading (Y-
direction)
Table 4-41 shows the comparison of storey drift and P-delta consideration of Core 2 for minimum and maximum loading (Y-
direction)
School of Civil Engineering 147
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
As can be seen in Table 4-38 to Table 4-41 Building 4 is unstable with the cores as specified and
needs to be reanalysed using modified core properties. It can be seen that there is a large increase in
the values of the inter-storey drift values for all buildings for both soil cases.
P-delta effects are required to be considered for Core 2 in Building 3, this is due to the large
deflections imposed on the structural core due to its relatively larger stiffness. It should be
considered that a less onerous effective moment of inertia is used in the deflection analysis therefore
both reducing the deflections and the instability of second-order effects.
Please note that due to the number of spreadsheets for the deflection and P-delta effects it was not
feasible to provide them all in the appendix, therefore they have been included with this report on
the attached CD-ROM.
Figure 4-11 shows the model used for building 3 within the Etabs model
The model was created for the structure and then the equivalent earthquake loads for the two codes
for the two soil classes being analysed were inputted.
Etabs Model
Mode Natural Period (sec) Frequency
1 3.48 0.28
2 3.44 0.29
3 2.16 0.46
4 0.99 1.01
5 0.78 1.28
Table 4-43 shows the first five modes of natural period for building 3 calculated using Etabs
The over turning moment has increased in projection with the percentages seen in the hand
calculations however the numerical value of the over turning moment is significantly less.
4.3.4 Stresses
The stresses obtained from the computer model are not similar in magnitude to the stresses
calculated by hand. Table 4-48 shows the stresses calculated by hand while Table 4-49 shows the
stresses calculated by Etabs.
As can be seen in the tables above the compression stresses in the cores are of much smaller
magnitude than in the hand calculations; however the tension stresses are of slightly smaller
magnitude.
Figure 4-12 shows the meshing of the supporting cores by the Etabs model the colour of the segments represents the stress in
the element. Etabs uses a colour range to express the stresses.
4.3.5 Deflections
The deflections were calculated for the minimum and maximum loads applied through the centre of
mass. Table 4-50 and Table 4-51 show the hand calculated values predicted for the deflection, while
Table 4-52 and Table 4-53 show the values obtained from the Etabs model. As can be seen the
values correlate very well for the rock Ae soil class however there is larger deflections predicted for
the more onerous soils class De. A maximum predicted deflection is 183 mm which is outside the
limit of 112mm.
Figure 4-13 shows the deflective shape in the Y-direction for the most onerous 185mm deflection from Etabs
The building analysed fails in deflection for the most onerous soil class and the cores and lateral
stability supports are to be reconsidered.
4.4 Conclusions
At this point the differences in the code have become apparent and it is evident that there are
significant implications to varying structural heights.
By comparing the values in the tables in this section it is clear that the loading applied to all
buildings has increased within the short and medium period range. The tension induced in lateral
supporting cores has increased dramatically on the soil class De. As can be seen in Table 4-18 (Core
2 tension stresses for minimum loading) for a building approximately 30m in height the tension load
has increased by 150%. This building height is very common for residential developments and
commercial developments. Therefore using the values for the 2007 code, an average 200mm thick
reinforced core wall (60MPa) will fail in tension. Careful consideration must be now considered in
the assessing of existing buildings constructed on this soil class.
The total base shear due to the equivalent earthquake horizontal force and torsion has been
calculated and presented. As an example of the implications to a 15m high building, consider the
base shear increase from 1350kN to 3475kN applied to Core 1 of Building 1, on soil class De,
shown in Table 4-26 and Table 4-27. The walls would not be designed for this increased value.
AS3826 – 1998 [9] was introduced to set out limits for the assessment and analysis of the earthquake
resistance of existing buildings for the old AS1170.4:1993 code. There has been no revision to this
code to-date to reflect the changes introduced by the 2007 code.
The deflections predicted have increased considerably. However the larger deflections obtained in
the Tables could relate to the excessively conservative cracked stiffness value used in the
calculations.
Errors and Discrepancies may have occurred due to the following two reasons:
These are highlighted by the failure of the structural cores by force, moment or deflection in the
above calculations for the building comparisons. The same structural core system is satisfactory for
the short to medium height buildings (period) however for taller buildings a reconfiguration of cores
is required. Additional stiffness and a more even distribution of load would provide a satisfactory
result.
Comparing the analysis of the structures using hand calculations and Etabs, it is quiet clear that the
calculation methods produced similar expectations however there have been large differences in the
magnitude relating to some of the values.
Sources of discrepancies may relate to values of material properties and additional stiffness within
the model. The results of the comparison show that if calculations are carried out by hand the results
would be generally conservative however careful consideration should be given to deflection
calculations and material and element properties assumed.
The next chapter presents the final conclusions and suggestions for further work to expand the scope
of this topic.
There are many differences in the two codes as shown in Section 3 and Section 4. Wilson and Lam’s
advancement in relation to the elastic response spectra for Australia has been a major influence in
revisions in the code in both soil and structural response behaviour which has been discussed in
Section 2.2 and Section 3.3. The soils resonance behaviour and the repercussions this has on a
structure with a coinciding natural frequency of vibration has been identified as a critical
consideration requirement. This has been included in the new code as a spectral shape factor which
combines the soil and structural period influences for calculating the earthquake lateral forces
applied to the structure. One of the main impacts of considering this phenomenon are increased
loadings being applied to the more onerous soil classes than have been previously considered.
The elastic and dynamic response of structures has been considered in greater detail in the new 2007
code. The performance of the structure and the detailing requirements to obtain the appropriate
response are highlighted by notational revisions. The influence of ductility and structural
performance has created large increases in the inter-storey drift and P-delta effects.
During the course of this research a number of questions were raised as to why this research was
necessary.
What are the differences between the AS1170.4:1993 and 2007 code?
This question has been answer in depth in Section 3 and was achieved by identifying the main
factors revised in the code and demonstrating how they influence the analysis of structural behaviour
during a seismic event.
Site factors
Sub-soil Classes
Torsion
This is a practical question for general application within a design office environment. This question
is raised as a result of the code comparison for inelastic/dynamic analysis, and the ability to calculate
accurately structural properties manually.
The comparison of the hand calculations and computer aided analysis was carried out to establish
the conservative nature of the code provisions. The calculations required for the analysis of the four
structures for this comparison was the most time consuming task in the analysis process. The
decision was made to limit the dynamic analysis to one structure (Building 3, 56.1m). The
comparison of the hand and etabs model showed that the two methods correlate, however, the
magnitude of both stresses and deflection vary in magnitude. The reasons for errors and
discrepancies has been discussed in Section 4.4
What are the implications for new and existing building design due to revisions in Site Factor/ Sub
Soil Class Classification?
This question needed to be answered to ascertain the practical repercussions of the code revisions
and is one of the most onerous. The old code did not take into account the resonance effect of the top
founding soil layers. The new AS1170.4:2007 code has been updated to cater for this large structural
response amplification.
What are the implications for new and existing building design due to revisions in Period
Calculation?
This is the first of three questions that needed to be answered to establish the impacts to new and
past design and detailing methods. This question was raised as a result of the previous application of
School of Civil Engineering 158
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
an empirical measurement of period for the structure not taking into account the construction system
used and the more accurate method provided in the new code AS1170.4: 2007 [7].
The consideration of structural system type and construction material within the calculation of the
natural period for the structure has allowed for a less conservative natural period to be obtained. The
steep increase of natural period observed for moment resisting frames shown in Figure 3-8
corresponds with reduction in loading applied to these structural systems shown in the graphs in
Section 3.8 and Appendix A. If differentiating between systems is not carried out an “all other
structures” category is provided which produces similar natural period’s values for structures as
produced in the old 1993 code.
What are the implications for new and existing building design due to revisions in Torsion?
This was the second of three questions. The increase in accidental torsion applied to ideally
symmetrical buildings has significant increased effects on the total base shear while it doesn’t
decrease the effects for unsymmetrical buildings. The comparisons are discussed in detail in Section
4.2.4.
What are the implications for new and existing building design due to revisions in Drift
determination and P-Delta Effects?
This was the third and last of three questions relating to the effects of vertical structural geometry
and elastic and inelastic response. The impact of the revision in the new code [7] for the calculation
of inter-storey drift and P-delta effects is due to revisions in the elastic and inelastic response
spectrum and the revisions to the ductility of a structure.
The influence of increased loading has large implications on the deflections observed in the analysis;
these subsequently have implications on the inter-storey drift and the instability effects of P-delta. It
is shown how the stiffness properties of the lateral load resisting elements are the most crucial when
assessing the deflections predicted for the cores. The influence of cracked concrete and
reinforcement at yield must be accurately assessed in order to achieve creditable predictions.
This question was raised as a result of code restrictions and system limitations. Limitations specified
in the new code have used the approach that favours site specific studies and the requirement for
consideration of special detailing requirements of structures and the economic benefit balance of
system selection or site location.
The new code considers all buildings as irregular and does not limit height of any of the structural
systems. It does however, restrict the used of the ductility factor µ to less than 3, for design within
the limits of AS1170.4:2007 and the Appendix A of AS3600. This means any special moment
resisting frames have to be designed and detailed to NZ 1170.5. There is also a restriction on the
hazard factor Z before the use of the New Zealand code is used. The hazard factor must be under 0.3
to be within the AS1170.4 code. Importance level 4 structures that are required for post disaster
service require a special study to be carried out to ensure serviceability for a design event for an
importance level 2 building is maintained.
5.1 Limitations
The main limitation of the analysis comparison is the input values for the core values inputted in the
hand calculations. For example as discussed in Section 4.2.7 the influence of cracked concrete and
reinforcement yield must be considered in the calculation of deflections and P-delta effects. This
value of equivalent moment of inertia has not been specified and therefore general rules should be
used. 50% is considered conservative although Paulay has suggested a value that has an approximate
value of 25% for the core and axial load distributions within the 4 buildings considered in this
comparison. The use o this approximate 25% values in the calculation of deflection have lead to
large predicted values for both deflections and inter-storey drift. By considering a larger percentage
of the equivalent moment of inertia (Ie) of the cores, the values for deflection predicted would be
less however resulting also in less ductility. This illustrates the difference in design for elastic and
ductile response. The difference in the deflections that are predicted if the building was to be
considered to be more elastic would be in the order of 50%, for a consideration of 50% of the
moment of inertia of the cores.
The other observation with the building plan chosen for comparison within this report is that the
cores are highly stressed due to lack of tributary area for the axial load to be supported. This induces
large tensions in the cores due to the over-turning moment. Possible improvements that could
alleviate this would be rearrangement of the columns around the core to induce larger axial loads in
the cores would reduce the tensile stresses in the cores.
5.2 Contributions
The goal of this report was to identify the reasons and revisions to the AS1170.4 earthquake design
code. Also implications were to be demonstrated by analysing four buildings on two soil types to
establish the range of influence. The techniques proposed in this report towards achieving this
overall goal were based on the following ideas:
Establish the Magnitude of Applied Load for the 4 Structures – By using a standard floor plate
and only altering the structural height of the building for determining the applied structural load, the
calculations for the equivalent horizontal shears were minimised and it is possible to establish tables
for easy comparison of loading implications.
Establish the Stresses and Deflection Implications – By identifying the loadings the stresses in the
cores and deflection predictions were then obtained and equated for comparison.
Etabs Model – To obtain a comparison of the values for the hand calculations and also carry out a
dynamic response comparison, Building 3 was chosen to be modelled in ETABS. By creating the
model and in putting the loads specified in Section 4.1.17 a comparison of Building 3 was presented.
This report has provided easy to use base shear multiplier comparison graphs for all building
structural systems within Appendix A. Add to this the comparison tables produced in Section
4showing the difference in the natural period, base shear, over-turning moment , torsion, core
stresses, deflection, inter-storey drift and P-delta effects and the result is a significant comparison of
the codes with a reduction in the length of time required to complete a building systems base shear
calculation and assess what implications it may have on the structure.
The following subsections will discuss possible areas that require further development to show the
differences between the codes and the introduction of the new capacity response spectrum analysis
methods introduced by Wilson et al.
Wilson and Lam [36] consider the development of fragility curves for different structural systems
the next challenge for Australian earthquake engineering to assist in risk modelling.
Therefore the development of fragility curves for cores and shear walls for the four buildings
analysed in Section 4 would be establish the structural behaviour of these elements in a seismic
events.
Using the comparison and loads presented in this report it would be beneficial to design the above
core shear walls and specify detailing requirements to ascertain satisfactory lateral capacity.
School of Civil Engineering 162
Research Report No R897
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
The basis of a buildings survival during a seismic event is in the ductility detailing of the lateral
supporting system and the behaviour of framing elements whether structural or non structural to
deformations and stresses induced by the event.
By using the comparison tables of the earthquake base shear multiplier in Appendix A for the
calculation of applied lateral loads to a structural system and using the comparison tables set out in
Section 4 implications of the new AS1170.4: 2007code have been demonstrated.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[24] Lumantarna, E.,Vaculik, J., Griffith, M., Lam, N. and Wilson, J. Seismic fragility curves for un-
reinforced masonry walls. In Proceedings of AEES Conference, November 2006.
[25] McPherson, A. and Allen, T. An improved understanding of earthquake ground shaking in Australia.
In Proceedings of AEES Conference, November 2006.
[26] McPherson, A. and Hall, L. Site Classification for earthquake hazard and risk assessment in
Australia. In Proceedings of AEES Conference, November 2006.
[27] National Geographic. Large earthquake “Bounces” are stronger than gravity.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/10/081030-earthquake-
bounce.html?source=rss Accessed November 2008.
[28] NZS 1170.5:2004 Structural Design Actions Part 5: Earthquake actions – New Zealand
[29] NZS 1170.5 Supp 1:2004 Structural Design Actions Part 5: Earthquake actions – New
Zealand - Commentary
[30] Paulay, T. and Priestley, M.J.N. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992.
[31] Rodsin, K., Lam, N., Wilson, J. and Goldsworthy, H. Seismic fragility curves for soft-storey
buildings. In Proceedings of AEES Conference, November 2006.
[32] SAI Global, AS1170.4 Earthquake Actions in Australia. In Proceedings of SAI Seminar, May
2007.
[33] Venkatesan, S., Lam, N. and Wilson, J. Simple model accounting for the soil resonance phenomenon.
In Proceedings of AEES Conference, November 2006.
[34] Wilson, J. and Lam, N. Earthquake design of buildings in Australia using Velocity and Displacement
Principles. In Proceedings of SAI Global Training, May 2007, Australian Journal of
Structural Engineers, Vol 6, No 2, 2006
[35] Wilson, J. and Lam, N. A recommended Earthquake Response Spectrum Model for Australian. In
Proceedings of SAI Global Training, May 2007, Australian Journal of Structural Engineers,
Vol 5, No 1, 2003
[36] Wilson, J. and Lam, N. Recent developments in the research and practice of earthquake
engineering in Australia. In Proceedings of AEES Conference, November 2006.
This appendix includes the graphs for the comparison of the Seismic Weight Multiplier for the
Calculation of the Earthquake Base shear, V.
1) Hazard Factor (Z)/ Acceleration Coefficient (a) Used – Sydney was chosen as the
main city for comparison, emphasizing implications to the immediate locality and
projects where my design office is based. 0.08 is the value used.
2) Probability Factor (kp) – This factor was chosen as unity, representing the 1 in 500
year probability of exceedance. All results from this comparison can then be factored
according to the serviceability requirements of the structure.
0.120
0.100
Ae 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 4.5 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
0.060
Bearing Wall System
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
167
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
May 2009
Bearing Wall System Comparison for Soil Class Be
0.120
0.100
0.080
0.060
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
168
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
May 2009
Bearing Wall System Comparison for Soil Class Ce
0.120
0.100
0.060
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
169
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
May 2009
Bearing Wall System Comparison for Soil Class De
0.120
0.100
0.060
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
170
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
May 2009
Bearing Wall System Comparison for Soil Class Ee
0.120
0.100
0.060
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
171
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
May 2009
Building Frame System Comparison for Soil Class Ae
0.120
0.100
0.080
0.060
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
172
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.020
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
Building Frame System with Reinforced Concrete Walls
May 2009
Building Frame System Comparison for Soil Class Be
0.120
0.100
Be 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 6.0 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
0.060
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
173
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
May 2009
Building Frame System Comparison for Soil Class Ce
0.120
0.100
Ce 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 6.0 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
0.060
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
174
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
May 2009
Building Frame System Comparison for Soil Class De
0.120
0.100
0.080
0.060
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
175
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.020
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
May 2009
Building Frame System Comparison for Soil Class Ee
0.120
0.100
Ee 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 6.0 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
0.060
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
176
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
May 2009
Building Frame System Comparison for Soil Class Ae
0.120
0.100
Ae 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 5.0 Concentrically-Braced Frames
0.060
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
177
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
Building Frame System with Concentrically Braced Frames
May 2009
Building Frame System Comparison for Soil Class Be
0.120
0.100
0.060
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
178
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
May 2009
Building Frame System Comparison for Soil Class Ce
0.120
0.100
0.060
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
179
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
May 2009
Building Frame System Comparison for Soil Class De
0.120
0.060
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
180
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
May 2009
Building Frame System Comparison for Soil Class Ee
0.120
0.100
0.060
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
181
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
May 2009
Ordinary Moment Resistant Frame Comparison for Soil Class Ae
0.120
0.100
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
182
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame System
0.120
0.100
0.080
Be 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 4.5 Steel
Be 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 4.5 Steel
Be 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 Steel
0.060
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
183
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
May 2009
Ordinary Moment Resistant Frame Comparison for Soil Class Ce
0.120
0.100
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
184
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
May 2009
Ordinary Moment Resistant Frame Comparison for Soil Class De
0.120
0.100
0.060
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
185
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
May 2009
Ordinary Moment Resistant Frame Comparison for Soil Class Ee
0.120
0.060
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
186
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
May 2009
Intermediate Moment Resistant Frame Comparison for Soil Class Ae
0.120
0.100
0.080
Ae 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 6.0 RC
Ae 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 6.0 RC
Ae 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 RC
0.060 Ae 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 6.5 Steel
Ae 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 6.5 Steel
Multiplier Cd(T1)
Ae 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Steel
0.040
187
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
Intermediate Moment Resisting Frame System
May 2009
Intermediate Moment Resistant Frame Comparison for Soil Class Be
0.120
0.100
0.080
Be 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 6.0 RC
Be 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 6.0 RC
Be 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 RC
0.060 Be 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 6.5 Steel
Be 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 6.5 Steel
Be 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Steel
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
188
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
May 2009
Intermediate Moment Resistant Frame Comparison for Soil Class Ce
0.120
0.100
0.080
Ce 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 6.0 RC
Ce 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 6.0 RC
Ce 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 RC
0.060 Ce 1993(Fund P) Rf = 6.5 Steel
Ce 1993(Orth P) Rf = 6.5 Steel
Ce 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Steel
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
189
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
May 2009
Intermediate Moment Resistant Frame Comparison for Soil Class De
0.120
0.100
Multiplier Cd(T1)
De 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Steel
0.040
190
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
May 2009
Intermediate Moment Resistant Frame Comparison for Soil Class Ee
0.120
0.100
Multiplier Cd(T1)
0.040
191
0.020
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in
0.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Height m
May 2009
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in May 2009
Australia AS1170.4 – 1993 & 2007
This appendix includes the spreadsheets used to calculate the horizontal earthquake base shear,
overturning moment and torsion for the four buildings being compared.
1) Hazard Factor (Z)/ Acceleration Coefficient (a) Used – Sydney was chosen
as the main city for comparison, emphasizing implications to the immediate
locality and projects where my design office is based. 0.08 is the value used.
2) Probability Factor (kp) – This factor value was chosen as 1.0, representing the
1 in 500 year probability of exceedance for the 1993 calculations but 1.3
representing the 1 in 1000 year probability of exceedance for the 2007
calculation.
APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY
Base shear The total horizontal earthquake shear force at the base of the structure.
Bearing wall system Structural system in which load bearing walls provide support for all or
most of the vertical loads while shear walls or braced frames provide the horizontal
earthquake resistance.
Concentric braced frame A braced frame in which the members are subjected primarily to
axial forces
Connection Mechanical means that provide a load path for actions between structural
elements, non-structural elements and structural and non-structural elements.
Dual System A structural system in which an essentially complete space frame provides
support for the vertical loads and at least a quarter of the prescribed horizontal earthquake
forces. The total horizontal earthquake resistance is provided by the combination of the
moment frame, shear walls or braced frames, in proportion to their relative rigidities.
Ductility (of a structure) The Ability of a structure to sustain its load-carrying capacity and
dissipate energy when responding to cyclic displacements in the inelastic range during an
earthquake.
Earthquake actions Inertia-induced actions arising from the response to earthquake of the
structure.
Global System Whole of system including soil and the structural system
Impedance The impedance of a medium is represented by the product of density (r) and
shear wave velocity (V).
Intermediate moment resisting frame (IMRF) A concrete or steel space frame designed in
accordance with AS 3600 or AS 4100 , respectively, in which members and joints are capable
of resisting forces by flexure as well as axial forces along the axis of the members, including
specific ductility requirements
Moment-resisting frame essentially complete space frame that supports the vertical and
horizontal actions by both flexural and axial resistance of its members and connections.
P -delta effect Additional induced structural forces that develop as a consequence of the
vertical loads acting on the horizontally-displaced building frame
Plastic Hinge Localized zone of yielding where the moment capacity is reached
Bedrock (Greek: "blanket rock") is a layer of loose, heterogeneous material covering solid
rock. It includes dust, soil, broken rock, and other related materials and is present on Earth,
the Moon, some asteroids, and other planets. The term was first defined by George P. Merrill
in 1897 who stated, "In places this covering is made up of material originating through rock-
weathering or plant growth in situ. In other instances it is of fragmental and more or less
decomposed matter drifted by wind, water or ice from other sources. This entire mantle of
unconsolidated material, whatever its nature or origin, it is proposed to call the Bedrock."
Resonance The destructive effect of resonance mainly stems form the natural period of the
waveform causing the amplitude of response of the structure to significantly exceed the
amplitude of response of the ground.
Seismic-force-resisting system Part of the structural system that provides resistance to the
earthquake forces and effects.
Shear wall A wall designed to resist horizontal earthquake forces acting in the plane of the
wall. A shear wall can be either load bearing or non-load bearing
Soft Storey One in which the horizontal stiffness of the storey is less than 70% of that in the
storey above or less than 80% of the average stiffness of the three storeys above.
Static eccentricity The distance from the shear centre to the centre of mass at the level
considered, measured perpendicular to the direction of loading
Storey Space between levels including the space between the structural base and the level
above.
Storey Drift The displacement of one level relative to the level above or below
Storey Shear The summation of all the design horizontal forces acting on the levels above
the storey under consideration
Structure An assemblage of members designed to support gravity loads and resist horizontal
forces and may be either a building structure or a non-building structure.
Structural base The level at which the earthquake ground motions are considered to be
imparted to the structure or the level at which the structure as a dynamic vibrator is supported.
236