See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232723628

A Comparative Study of Design Base Shear for RC Buildings in Selected

Seismic Design Codes

Article  in  Earthquake Spectra · August 2012

DOI: 10.1193/1.4000057

CITATIONS READS

18 2,310

3 authors:

Vijay Namdev Khose Yogendra Singh

Thornton Tomasetti Inc. Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
6 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS    111 PUBLICATIONS   376 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dominik Lang
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute
108 PUBLICATIONS   440 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Slope Building Interaction View project

SERAMAR project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dominik Lang on 11 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A Comparative Study of Design Base
Shear for RC Buildings in Selected
Seismic Design Codes
Vijay Namdev Khose,a) E.Aff.M.EERI, Yogendra Singh,b) E.Aff.M.EERI, and
Dominik H. Langc) M.EERI

Modern seismic building design codes tend to converge on issues of design

methodology and the state-of-the-art. However, significant differences exist in
basic provisions of various codes. This paper compares important provisions
related to the seismic design of RC buildings in some of the major national seis-
mic building codes viz. ASCE 7, Eurocode 8, NZS 1170.5, and IS 1893. Code
provisions regarding the specification of hazard, site classification, design
response spectrum, ductility classification, response reduction factors, and mini-
mum design base shear are compared and their cumulative effect on design base
shear is studied. The objective component of overstrength contributed by the
material and load factors is considered to normalize the design base shear.
It is observed that every code has merit over the other codes in some aspect.
The presented discussion highlights the major areas of differences which need
attention in the process of harmonization of different codes of the world.
[DOI: 10.1193/1.4000057]

INTRODUCTION
The seismic design of structures has undergone significant developments over the past
few decades, from the simple use of a fraction of seismic weight as the design lateral load to
performance-based seismic design. Conventionally, design codes are based on force-based
design (FBD) criteria and elastic analysis. Inelastic energy dissipation is accounted for by a
response reduction factor, which represents the ductility capacity and overstrength of the
structure and is generally a function of the construction material and the structural system.
Modern seismic design codes tend to converge on the issues of design methodology and the
state-of-the-art. Most current codes are based on some prescriptive controls of different
design parameters such as, design base shear, ductility capacity, ductility demand, and
drift, to ensure the desired performance. The role of individual control parameters in ensuring
the desired performance is not explicitly estimated and the codes differ in specifying the
limits of various control parameters. Nevertheless, design base shear is the most important
parameter controlling the seismic performance of the structures of a given ductility class.
Comparison and harmonization of different national codes is a crucial step in the process
of evolution of new generations of design codes, and it has received significant effort in the

a)
Research Scholar, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee-247667, India
b)
Associate Professor, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee-247667, India
c)
Research Engineer, NORSAR/International Centre of Geohazards (ICG), P.O. Box 53, 2027 Kjeller, Norway

1047
Earthquake Spectra, Volume 28, No. 3, pages 1047–1070, August 2012; © 2012, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
1048 V. N. KHOSE, Y. SINGH, AND D. H. LANG

past (Luft 1989, Popov 1994, De Stefano and Rutenberg 1997, McIntosh and Pezeshk 1997,
Dobry et al. 2000, Dogangun and Livaoglu 2006, Kaushik et al. 2006). Most of these studies,
however, are focused on a particular or a few aspects of seismic design. Weatherill et al.
(2010) have performed a comprehensive comparative study of seismic hazard input in
Eurocode 8 (EN 1998-1, 2004) with nine different building codes. Fenwick et al. (2002)
have presented a broad comparison of seismic design provisions of some major codes
for RC buildings, viz. NZS 4203 (1992), Draft AS 1170.4 (2002), Draft NZS 1170.5
(2001), UBC 1997, IBC 1998 and Draft Eurocode 8 (EN 1998), and have highlighted
some philosophical differences among the different codes. They have noted that the
“comparison of individual clauses can be misleading due to the many interactions that
occur between clauses”. They have also shown that the strength and stiffness requirements
of NZS 4203 (1992) and Draft AS 1170.4 (2002)/ Draft NZS 1170.5 (2001) are low com-
pared to other codes of practice in high seismic zones.
This article presents a comparative study of selected major national codes by studying the
independent and compounded effects of different code provisions governing the design base
shear. The issues examined in the study include seismic hazard, site classification, design
response spectrum, design period of vibration, ductility classes, and response reduction fac-
tors. Further, it is noted that different codes employ different load factors and different mate-
rial factors (or strength reduction factors) for the design of members, and hence the actually
provided strength in different codes may not follow the same pattern as the design base shear.
A realistic estimation of the overstrength (difference between actually provided strength to
the design base shear) is a complex task, as it is difficult to objectively account for the inter-
active effect of all design parameters, and the effect of designers’ subjective decisions and
local construction practices. In the present study, the design base shear has been normalized
for the effect of varying load and material factors in different codes. The normalized design
base shear provides a more objective basis for the comparison of design capacity. The scope
of the present study is limited to RC frame buildings. The codes considered in the present
study include the American code (ASCE 7-05 2006), Eurocode 8 (EN 1998-1 2004) and New
Zealand Standard (NZS 1170.5 2004) along with their complimentary RC design codes, as
these are currently the most advanced and widely applied codes. As most South Asian coun-
tries refer to the Indian codes, IS 1893 - Part 1 (2002) has also been included in the study.

SITE CLASSIFICATION
It is now widely known that local subsoil has drastic effect on ground motion character-
istics and thus governs the design response spectrum (Seed et al. 1976, Seed et al. 1988, Idriss
1990, Idriss 1991). In building codes, this effect is generally taken into account through the
categorization of the soil strata into simplified site classes and allocation of associated soil
amplification (or de-amplification) factors. ASCE 7 and NZS 1170.5 differentiate between
five site classes (A–E), Eurocode 8 defines four site classes (A–D), whereas IS 1893 solely
specifies three soil types (I–III). ASCE 7 and Eurocode 8 also define an additional class
susceptible to liquefaction and plastic flow. In every code, one or more characteristic para-
meter(s) are used for the classification of a site. Table 1 compares the soil classification
schemes of the four considered codes with respect to geotechnical parameters used for clas-
sification. Average shear wave velocity in the top 30 m (V S30 ) is the most commonly used
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DESIGN BASE SHEAR FOR RC BUILDINGS IN SELECTED SEISMIC DESIGN CODES 1049

Table 1. Soil classification parameters specified in various seismic design codes

Soil-describing parameter ASCE 7 Eurocode 8 NZS 1170.5 IS 1893

Avg. shear wave velocity, V S30 • •1 •2 ○

Unconfined compressive strength, qu ○ ○ •2 ○

SPT value, N • •2 •2 •
Unconfined shear strength, cu • • •2 ○

Low-amplitude natural period, T n based on shear wave ○ ○ •1 ○

velocity
Low-amplitude natural period, T n based on Nakamura ○ ○ •2 ○

ratios or recorded earthquakes

○ - Parameter is not defined/used as soil classification parameter
• - Parameter is used as soil classification parameter
1,2
- Superscripts indicate the priority of the respective parameter for site classification

geotechnical parameter for soil classification, except in IS 1893, which specifies only SPT
values as the basis of classification.
The soil class assigned to a profile may vary depending on the parameter used for clas-
sification. Only NZS 1170.5 and Eurocode 8 specify the order of preference of different
geotechnical parameters, in deciding the site class. The priority of classification parameters
in Eurocode 8 and NZS 1170.5 is indicated by superscripts in Table 1. ASCE 7 does not
specify any preferred parameter for soil classification and all soil types can be classified using
any one of the geotechnical parameters. In case of NZS 1170.5, shear wave velocity, com-
pressive strength and properties of soil underlying rock strata, are jointly used for classifica-
tion of site classes A and B, whereas for other site classes, low-amplitude site period is the
most preferred parameter for classification. The recommended procedure to compute the low-
amplitude site period is the quarter-wavelength approximation (4h∕V s , where h is soil depth
in meters, and V S is shear wave velocity in m/s). The next preferred soil classification para-
meters in NZS 1170.5 are borehole log geotechnical properties, or low-amplitude site period
based on Nakamura ratios (Nakamura 1989) or recorded earthquake motions. Classification
based on surface geology and estimates to depth of the underlying rock is the least preferred
option. In Eurocode 8, shear wave velocity, V S30 is the most preferred parameter for site
classification and in absence of V S30 , SPT values may be used. It is widely recognized
now (Sun et al. 2005, Kamatchi et al. 2010) now that the depth of soil plays a very important
role in soil amplification and site classification should include this parameter, however, only
NZS 1170.5 recognizes this fact and classifies shallow and deep soil sites as site classes C and
D, respectively, based on soil depth and low-amplitude natural period of the site.
Figure 1 compares the different site classes according to the four codes. As V S30 is the
common parameter of site classification in ASCE 7, NZS 1170.5 and Eurocode 8, their clas-
sifications have been compared using V S30 (Figure 1a). The soil classification of IS 1893 is
solely based on SPT values, that is why the three site classes can only be compared with those
of ASCE 7 and Eurocode 8 (Figure 1b). Since NZS 1170.5 does not provide SPT values to
the different site classes (except for site class E), a direct comparison of IS 1893 with NZS
1050 V. N. KHOSE, Y. SINGH, AND D. H. LANG

Figure 1. Comparison of site classifications of the different seismic design codes: (a) Based on
average shear wave velocities V S30 and (b) based on SPT values, N, and soil material description.

1170.5 is not possible. Further, as SPT values can be obtained only for soil sites, the parity of
IS 1893 soil types with the rock sites of the other codes is not possible. IS 1893 soil type I
includes rock sites along with hard soil and it represents a much wider class encompassing
ASCE 7 site classes A–D.
Figure 1 shows that there is some parity in the limits of geotechnical parameters specified
by the different codes for softer soil classes, however, significant differences exist for stiffer
and rock-like sites. This is due to the availability of different types of rocks in the regions for
which the codes are applicable (Weatherill et al. 2010). Table 2 shows site classes of different
codes which can be considered as comparable based on the V S30 and SPT values. This broad
parity between different classifications has been used for further study in this paper. ASCE 7
site class F and Eurocode 8 site class E, which are susceptible to liquefaction and soft plastic
flow, have not been considered in the present comparison as distinct shear wave velocities or
SPT values are not allocated to these site classes.
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DESIGN BASE SHEAR FOR RC BUILDINGS IN SELECTED SEISMIC DESIGN CODES 1051

Table 2. Site classes of different codes equivalent to ASCE 7 site classes

Equivalent site class in other codes

ASCE 7
Site Class Eurocode 8 NZS 1170.5 IS 1893

A –
B A
C B
D C
E D
A I
B I
B I
C, D I, II
E III

SPECIFICATION OF HAZARD
Two important issues associated with the specification of hazard are the ground motion
intensity measure and the return period. Most of the seismic design codes specify seismic
hazard by a single parameter representing Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA). Eurocode 8
specifies a reference peak ground acceleration or design ground acceleration, whereas IS
1893 specifies a zone factor described as “Effective Peak Ground Acceleration (EPGA),”
which is obtained as 0.4 times the 5% damped average spectral acceleration between the
period 0.1 to 0.3 sec. NZS 1170.5 uses a hazard factor, which is derived as “0.5 times
the magnitude-weighted 5% damped response spectrum acceleration for 0.5 sec period
for site class C (shallow soil) that has a return period of 500 years. It corresponds to
value in g of the peak ground (corresponding to 0.0 sec period) acceleration for site classes
A and B” (NZS 1170.5 Supp1 2004). Only ASCE 7 uses multiple spectral ordinates, that is,
short-period spectral acceleration at 0.2 sec period (Ss ), and spectral acceleration at 1.0 sec
period (S1 ), to anchor the design spectrum.
The different codes use different methods for defining the design hazard levels. The
design hazard levels are associated with a desired performance and a probability of occur-
rence. ASCE 7 (2006) associates the design hazard to the Maximum Considered Earthquake
(MCE) which corresponds to 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years in most parts of the
US, except in coastal California (Leyendecker et al. 2000). ASCE 7 (2006) recommends a
factor of 2/3 to reduce the MCE to obtain the design hazard level. This factor approximately
represents the margin of safety available in common structures. However, reduction of MCE
by a constant factor results in different exceedance rates and collapse risk corresponding to
the design hazard level, in different parts of the U.S. (Leyendecker et al. 2000). Accordingly,
the recent revision of ASCE 7 (2010) has chosen the ‘risk targeted MCE’ as the reference
hazard that is based on uniform collapse risk in different regions. Since this approach is yet to
be adopted by other national codes, ASCE 7 (2006) has been considered in the present study
for comparison. IS 1893 specifies the design EPGA as 0.5 times the EPGA for MCE, but it
does not specify the return period for MCE. In the present study, a 2% probability of excee-
dance in 50 years has been assumed for MCE in the IS 1893 also, as per prevalent definition.
Contrary to ASCE 7, Eurocode 8 and NZS 1170.5 specify the seismic hazard at 10%
probability of exceedance in 50 years (return period ~500 years) as the reference seismic
1052 V. N. KHOSE, Y. SINGH, AND D. H. LANG

Table 3. Factors used for conversion of reference hazard (2% probability of exceedance in
50 years) to design hazard

Code Conversion factor

ASCE 7 0.667
Eurocode 8 0.584
NZS 1170.5 0.560
IS 1893 0.500

action. Eurocode 8 allows the scaling of hazard to any other return period by multiplying with
an importance factor, γ I , estimated as γ I ¼ ðPL ∕PLR Þ−1∕k , where PL and PLR are the target and
reference probabilities of exceedance, respectively, in given years, k depends on the seismi-
city, but is generally of the order of 3. NZS 1170.5 specifies return period factors correspond-
ing to various annual probabilities of exceedance.
In a comparative study of design base shear using different codes, it is important to have a
common basis for specifying the hazard. In the present study, PGA on ASCE 7 equivalent
site class B, for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years has been chosen as the reference
hazard. As mentioned earlier, ASCE 7 does not specify PGA, rather it specifies spectral
accelerations Ss and S1 to anchor the design spectrum. In the present study, Ss has been con-
sidered as 2.5 times the assumed PGA (spectral ordinate at zero period), but no such correla-
tion exists for S1 , which depends on magnitude of the earthquake (Bommer et al. 2010).
However, it is noticed that in all other codes, the spectral acceleration at 1 sec period,
on site classes equivalent to ASCE 7 site class B, is equal to PGA (0.95 times PGA in
case of NZS 1170.5). Therefore, in case of ASCE 7 also, S1 has been considered equal
to PGA for site class B. For the other site classes, design response spectra have been obtained
using the corresponding site coefficients. For converting the reference hazard level (2% prob-
ability of exceedance in 50 years) to the design hazard level of different codes, the conversion
factors as discussed in the previous paragraphs and summarized in Table 3 have been used.

DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA

Conventionally, seismic design codes use a 5% damped elastic acceleration response
spectrum as the reference design spectrum. The codes specify standard spectral shapes
for different site classes, which are scaled by PGA (or other spectral ordinates) and modified
for site conditions and return period to obtain the design spectra. To consider the effect of
local soil conditions on the design spectrum, soil amplification factors (site coefficients) are
provided for each site class. The codes recognize the varying effect of soil in the short-period
and the long-period ranges of the spectrum, except for IS 1893 that completely ignores the
soil amplification effect in the short-period range. It is now well recognized that amplification
of earthquake ground motion is a function of not only the local soil conditions, but also of the
level of ground motion as soil is a highly nonlinear material. In this regard, ASCE 7 alone
provides soil amplification factors depending on the spectral acceleration values, whereas
the site coefficients are independent of PGA in other codes.
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DESIGN BASE SHEAR FOR RC BUILDINGS IN SELECTED SEISMIC DESIGN CODES 1053

Figure 2 compares the response spectra for different site classes according to the four
codes. To reflect the effect of PGA on soil amplification, ASCE 7 spectra are separately
shown for PGA values of 0.2 g and 0.5 g. IS 1893 provides the design spectra up to
4 sec period, without any constant spectral displacement range. Therefore, in Figure 2,
the spectra have been compared for periods up to 4 sec only, as this period range is covered
by all the codes considered. In case of Eurocode 8, Type I spectra are shown which apply to
stronger earthquake shaking produced by magnitudes greater than 5.5 (EN 1998-1, 2004), as
this is generally the condition in other codes.
The comparison in Figure 2 shows that for ‘rock’ (equivalent to ASCE 7 site class B) the
design response spectra specified by the different codes are quite close, whereas significant
differences exist for all other site classes. NZS 1170.5 specifies the same spectrum for site
classes A and B (strong rock and rock, respectively), whereas ASCE 7 specifies lower spec-
tral values for site class A (hard rock, not shown in Figure 2) as compared to the reference site
class B (rock). For ASCE 7 site classes A and B, the normalized spectra for 0.2 g and 0.5 g
PGA overlap, showing linear behavior of rock at these levels of ground shaking. The effect of
soil nonlinearity is most remarkable for soft soil (site class E), where ASCE 7 design spectra

Figure 2. Comparison of normalized response spectra of various seismic design codes. Spectra
are ordered by ASCE 7 site classes B–E. In the case of ASCE 7 site class B, the spectra for 0.2 g
and 0.5 g PGAs coincide and have been shown by a single curve.
1054 V. N. KHOSE, Y. SINGH, AND D. H. LANG

for 0.2 g PGA shows highest amplification among all the codes considered, whereas that for
0.5 g has the lowest amplification in the short-period range. The maximum variation in the
spectral ordinates of different codes is 113% at the plateau and 99% at 2 sec period.
Differences in the design spectra of different codes are more clearly visible, particularly in
the long-period range, when presented as displacement spectra. The design displacement
spectra can be obtained from the corresponding acceleration spectra. Weatherill et al.
(2010) have emphasized that the generation of displacement spectra based on the conversion
from acceleration spectra, is inadequate for the long-period range. Recently, some researchers
(Campbell and Bozorgnia 2007, Priestley et al. 2007, Faccioli and Villani 2009) have stressed
on the direct construction of design displacement spectra for the use in displacement-based
design. However, among the current building codes, only Eurocode 8 provides additional infor-
mation (in Annexure) for the construction of displacement spectra, including control points in
the long-period range. Figure 3 shows the displacement spectra constructed according to dif-
ferent codes for ASCE 7 equivalent site classes C and E for 0.2 g PGA on rock outcrop. One of
the parameters governing the displacement spectrum is the ‘corner period’ between the
constant-velocity range and the constant-displacement range. This corner period depends

Figure 3. Comparison of displacement spectra of various seismic design codes for ASCE 7 site
classes C (top) and E (bottom) for a PGA value of 0.2 g.
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DESIGN BASE SHEAR FOR RC BUILDINGS IN SELECTED SEISMIC DESIGN CODES 1055

on the source mechanism, magnitude of the earthquake and the epicentral distance (Tolis and
Faccioli 1999, Bommer and Elnashai 1999, Faccioli et al. 2004, Akkar and Bommer 2007) and
hence on the local seismotectonic environment. ASCE 7 provides separate maps for the corner
period at different locations in the United States. The mapped values vary from 4 to 16 sec
depending on the magnitudes of the governing earthquakes. In the present case, the displace-
ment spectra for ASCE 7 have been shown for corner period assumed equal to 4 sec. The actual
corner periods may be higher than 4 sec and in that case the difference in displacement spectra
of Figure 3 will be even more drastic. Eurocode 8 recommends a constant value of 2 sec for the
corner period (for Type 1 spectra). NZS 1170.5 specifies this corner period as 3 sec for all site
classes. As mentioned earlier, IS 1893 specifies design spectra up to 4 sec period only, without
giving any indication about the corner period or the constant displacement range of design
spectrum. Figure 3 shows that there are drastic differences in displacement spectra of different
codes and the interstorey drifts computed using different codes will vary significantly even for
moderately tall buildings.

DESIGN PERIOD OF BUILDINGS

The fundamental period of a structure, T is another crucial parameter in seismic design, as
the design spectral acceleration is highly sensitive to the fundamental period. Further, spec-
tral displacement, Sd also increases rapidly with period T (up to the corner period). Almost
every seismic design code provides empirical equations to approximately estimate the fun-
damental period of buildings. A general form of these equations for framed buildings is
T ¼ Ct ⋅ hxn , where Ct and x are variables depending on the material of construction,
and hn denotes building height. Appendix A1 summarizes the relationships provided by dif-
ferent codes for the estimation of the fundamental period. Figure 4 shows the approximate
fundamental period for 4-, 8-, and 12-story RC frame buildings, respectively, following the
provisions of different codes. It is interesting to note that all of the considered codes provide
equations that lead to almost identical values of fundamental period T. NZS 1170.5 specifies
separate design periods for the serviceability and the ultimate limit state, respectively. The
serviceability limit state period, T sl matches with the design period specified in other codes,
while the ultimate limit state period, T ul is 25% longer.

Figure 4. Approximate fundamental periods for RC frame buildings according to different

codes.
1056 V. N. KHOSE, Y. SINGH, AND D. H. LANG

The main distinguishing feature between period-related provisions of different codes,

however, is the capping of design period. NZS 1170.5 and Eurocode 8 treat the above
provisions as rules of thumb to roughly estimate the building period for preliminary design
purposes, whereas the period obtained from modeling is recommended to supersede the
empirically obtained period. However, in many cases, computer models may be too flexible
compared to the actual structure as the stiffness contribution of many secondary compo-
nents is ignored. Such idealization leading to longer fundamental period of the structure
may be conservative for drift control, but results in an underestimation of design base shear.
To account for this uncertainty in modeling, ASCE 7 and IS 1893 provide a cap on the
period for calculation of design base shear. While IS 1893 requires that all member forces
obtained from the modeling should be scaled to the base shear corresponding to the empiri-
cally obtained period, ASCE 7 provides an upper limit on design period, equal to a coeffi-
cient, C u multiplied by the empirically obtained period. These limits have been observed to
introduce a significant amount of overstrength in the designed buildings (Haldar and
Singh 2009).

BUILDING DUCTILITY CLASSIFICATION

AND RESPONSE REDUCTION/BEHAVIOR FACTORS
Currently, all seismic design codes are based on the force-based design methodology
using elastic analysis. The effect of inelastic energy dissipation is considered by reducing
the design seismic force by a response reduction factor (also called behavior factor).
Values of response reduction factors are provided for different ductility classes of build-
ings. In addition to ductility, the response reduction factor also takes into account the
effect of overstrength. NZS 1170.5 considers a separate structural performance factor in
addition to the ductility factor, which represents the combined effect of a limited number
of cycles having peak amplitude, overstrength, redundancy, and over-capacity due to
damping in secondary components and in the foundation. Further, only NZS 1170.5 con-
siders the effect of period on the relationship between ductility and the response reduc-
tion factor. All other codes provide constant response reduction factors for a particular
construction type, irrespective of the period of vibration. ASCE 7 classifies RC frame
buildings into three ductility classes: Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF), Inter-
mediate Moment Resisting Frames (IMRF) and Special Moment Resisting Frames
(SMRF). Eurocode 8 classifies the building ductility as Low (DCL), Medium
(DCM), and High (DCH). NZS 1170.5 classifies structures into three ductility classes,
namely Ductile Structures (DS), for which structural ductility factor is greater than 1.25
but less than 6, Structures of Limited Ductility (SLD), which is a subset of DS with
structural ductility factor between 1.25 to 3, and Nominal Ductile Structures (NDS),
for which the ductility factor is between 1 to 1.25. IS 1893 classifies RC frame buildings
as Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames (OMRF), and Special Moment Resisting
Frames (SMRF).
Seismic design codes either provide guidelines for the design and detailing of RC build-
ings for different ductility classes or refer to complimentary design codes. These provisions,
in general, consist of four requirements: (i) capacity design provisions to achieve a hierarchy
of strength in order to avoid brittle failure modes, (ii) provision of special confining
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DESIGN BASE SHEAR FOR RC BUILDINGS IN SELECTED SEISMIC DESIGN CODES 1057

reinforcement (in the form of closely-spaced stirrups) at potential plastic hinge locations,
(iii) anchorage of beam longitudinal reinforcement into columns, and (iv) design of
beam-column joints to avoid shear failure. Table 4 summarizes the different provisions
in the codes for different ductility classes of RC frame buildings.
It is evident from Table 4 that it is not possible to perform a direct comparison between
different ductility classes of various codes. However, three broad categories of ductility can
be considered, as shown in Table 5, where each category includes building classes with simi-
lar ductility provisions. Figure 5 shows the response reduction/behavior factors for different
ductility classes of RC frames, according to different codes. There is a large difference in
reduction factors for long-period and short-period structures according to NZS 1170.5,
whereas, as mentioned above, other codes do not consider the effect of period on response
reduction factors. The reduction factors for medium and high ductility classes of ASCE 7,
NZS 1170.5 (for long-period structures) and IS 1893 (no high-ductility class is available) are
close, whereas the corresponding reduction factors in Eurocode 8 are quite low. For low-
ductility class, the response reduction factors of NZS 1170.5 and Eurocode 8 are close,
whereas the response reduction factors of ASCE 7 and IS 1893 are identical and double
of those of Eurocode 8.

Table 4. Overview of ductile detailing requirements for RC frame buildings in different

seismic design codes

NZS IS
ASCE 71 Eurocode 8 1170.52 18933
OMRF

OMRF
SMRF

SMRF
IMRF

DCM
DCH
DCL

NDS
SLD
DS

Ductile Detailing Criteria

Strong Column Weak Beam ○ ○ • ○ • • ○ • • ○ ○

Capacity Design Capacity Shear for Column ○ • • ○ • • ○ • • ○ •

Capacity Shear for Beam ○ • • ○ • • ○ • • ○ •

Special Confinement Column ○ • • ○ • • ○ • • ○ •

Reinforcement Beam ○ • • ○ • • ○ • • ○ •

Special Anchorage Interior Joint ○ ○ • ○ • • • • • ○ •

Requirement Exterior Joint ○ ○ • ○ • • • • • ○ •

Joint Shear Design ○ ○ • ○ ○ • • • • ○ ○

1
- Ductile detailing as per ACI 318-08 (2008)
2
- Ductile detailing as per NZS 3101(2006) and NZS 1170.5 (2004)
3
- Ductile detailing of OMRF and SMRF as per IS 456 (2000) and IS 13920 (1993), respectively
○ - Provision is not available
• - Provision is available
1058 V. N. KHOSE, Y. SINGH, AND D. H. LANG

Table 5. Different ductility categories of RC frame buildings

Ductility Classes

Category ASCE 7 Eurocode 8 NZS 1170.5 IS 1893

I – Low dissipative structures OMRF DCL NDS OMRF

II – Medium dissipative structures IMRF DCM SLD SMRF
III – High dissipative structures SMRF DCH DS –

Figure 5. Comparison of reduction/behavior factors recommended in different national codes.

DESIGN BASE SHEAR, OVERSTRENGTH

AND NORMALIZED DESIGN BASE SHEAR
The discussion in the previous sections shows that significant differences exist in various
provisions governing the design base shear in different codes. In addition to the above provi-
sions, ASCE 7 and NZS 1170.5 also specify the minimum base shear to be used in design. In
ASCE 7, the minimum design base shear coefficient depends on the ductility class and the
mapped spectral acceleration, S1 at 1 sec period, whereas in case of NZS 1170.5, it is inde-
pendent of ductility class and depends on PGA (Zone Factor). To compare the minimum design
base shear coefficients for the two codes in Figure 6, S1 has been assumed to be equal to the
PGA on site class B, as discussed earlier. For PGA lower than 0.6 g (which is normally the
condition in context of codes other than ASCE 7), the minimum design base shear coefficient
as per NZS 1170.5 is about three times of that specified by ASCE 7. For PGA values higher
than 0.6 g, ASCE 7 specifies a much higher minimum design base shear.
All the considered codes recognize that the buildings possess significant additional
strength (termed as overstrength in the literature) above the design strength. This overstrength
is contributed by a number of factors, some of which can be quantitatively assessed, whereas
the contribution of others can be estimated based on historical experience and engineering
judgment only. The major factors contributing to overstrength include load and material fac-
tors, strength reduction factors, the difference between the probable and specified (lower
bound) strength of materials, effect of redundancy, degree of optimization or conservatism
exercised by the designer and regional practices. Out of these, the effect of load and material
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DESIGN BASE SHEAR FOR RC BUILDINGS IN SELECTED SEISMIC DESIGN CODES 1059

Figure 6. Minimum design base shear requirements according to ASCE 7 and NZS 1170.5. In
case of ASCE 7, PGA has been assumed to be equal to S1 .

factors can be estimated objectively and the combined effect of these has been considered for
normalization of design base shear. Table 6 shows the load and material factors used by dif-
ferent codes and/or by their complementary codes. The list of the complimentary codes is
provided in the footnote of Table 6. The codes provide different factors for different materials
and different strength reduction factors in different actions. It is assumed here that for a prop-
erly designed building, the capacity of the building will be governed by capacity of beams in
flexure, as columns are to be designed stronger than beams and capacity in shear has to be
higher than that in flexure. Accordingly, the strength reduction factors for flexure in
beams have been used in case of American and New Zealand codes. Similarly, in case of
a beam subjected to flexure, the capacity is governed by the reinforcement, and therefore,
the material factors corresponding to steel have been considered in case of European and Indian
codes. Further, the Indian code applies factors of 1.2 and 1.5 to the calculated earthquake forces
for using in design load combinations, whereas in case of other codes, the calculated earth-
quake forces are directly used for strength design. The authors have experienced that the load
combinations with earthquake load factor equal to 1.5, generally govern the design, and
accordingly the factor 1.5 has been used in this comparison. The design base shears of different

Table 6. Load and material factors in various codes and factors used to normalize the
design base shear in the present study

Codes Load Factor Material Factor Strength Reduction Factor Normalization Factor
American1 1.0 – 0.9 1.11
European2 1.0 1.15 – 1.15
New Zealand3 1.0 – 0.85 1.18
Indian4 1.5 1.15 – 1.72
1
ASCE 7 (2006) and ACI 318-08 (2008)
2
EN 1990 (2002) and EN 1992 (2004)
3
AS/NZS 1170.0 (2002) and NZS 3101 (2006)
4
IS 456 (2000) and IS 1893 (2002)
1060 V. N. KHOSE, Y. SINGH, AND D. H. LANG

codes have been normalized by the corresponding normalization factors shown in Table 6,
obtained as products of load and material factors (or inverse of strength reduction factor).
Figures 7–10 show the normalized design base shear coefficients for RC frame buildings
according to different building codes, for site classes equivalent to ASCE 7 site classes B-E,
respectively. For the comparison of design base shear, two values (0.2 g and 0.5 g) of PGA
with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, have been considered. The design periods
equal to 0.25, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5 sec are chosen so that the acceleration-, velocity- and
displacement-controlled ranges of the design spectra of all codes are represented. The con-
version factors shown in Table 3 have been used to obtain the design PGA values from the

Figure 7. Normalized design base shear coefficients (%) for the different codes (for site classes
equivalent to ASCE 7 class B). Roman letters I, II, and III represent the three ductility categories
shown in Table 5. IS 1893 is not applicable for 4.5 sec period and ductility category III.
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DESIGN BASE SHEAR FOR RC BUILDINGS IN SELECTED SEISMIC DESIGN CODES 1061

Figure 8. Normalized design base shear coefficients (%) for the different codes (for site classes
equivalent to ASCE 7 class C). Roman letters I, II, and III represent the three ductility categories
shown in Table 5. IS 1893 is not applicable for 4.5 sec period and ductility category III.

considered PGAs for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years. The design base shear coef-
ficients have been calculated using the equations provided in different codes (summarized in
Appendix A2) and have been multiplied by the normalization factors given in Table 6.
It is observed from Figures 7–10 that significant differences exist in the normalized
design base shear coefficients of different codes, for the same level of hazard (in terms
of exceedance probability for a given time period) and equivalent ductility classes. In almost
all the considered cases, the design base shear coefficients of NZS 1170.5 are the highest.
This is due to the lowest response reduction factors in case of NZS 1170.5 for the short-period
1062 V. N. KHOSE, Y. SINGH, AND D. H. LANG

Figure 9. Normalized design base shear coefficients (%) for the different codes (for site classes
equivalent to ASCE 7 class D). Roman letters I, II, and III represent the three ductility categories
shown in Table 5. IS 1893 is not applicable for 4.5 sec period and ductility category III.

range, and the higher minimum base shear, which is governing in the long-period range. In
most of the cases, the design base shear coefficients according to IS 1893 are the lowest,
except in cases of short-period buildings subjected to higher (0.5 g) PGA, where the design
base shear coefficients of ASCE 7 are the lowest. This is due to the consideration of soil
nonlinearity in ASCE 7 and consequent reduction in the soil amplification at higher
PGA. The difference in design base shear coefficients is more predominant in case of
short-period buildings with low ductility and in case of taller (longer period) buildings
with high ductility category, where the minimum base shear governs. The lack of minimum
base shear provision in case of Eurocode 8 and IS 1893 results in too low (less than 1%)
design base shear coefficients in case of taller buildings.
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DESIGN BASE SHEAR FOR RC BUILDINGS IN SELECTED SEISMIC DESIGN CODES 1063

Figure 10. Normalized design base shear coefficients (%) for the different codes (for site classes
equivalent to ASCE 7 class E). Roman letters I, II, and III represent the three ductility categories
shown in Table 5. IS 1893 is not applicable for 4.5 sec period and ductility category III.

CONCLUSIONS
A comparative study of different provisions of ASCE 7, Eurocode 8, NZS 1170.5 and IS
1893 controlling the design base shear in RC buildings has been performed. All the codes
follow a common force-based design methodology using an elastic analysis and a response
reduction factor to account for inelastic energy dissipation. However, there are a number of
differences in the codes regarding: (i) the definition of reference hazard, (ii) the anchorage of
spectral shapes using single intensity measure (PGA) or multiple spectral ordinates, (iii) site
classification, (iv) site amplification coefficients, (v) response reduction factors, (vi) mini-
mum design base shear, and (vii) overstrength. It is possible to estimate the effect of former
1064 V. N. KHOSE, Y. SINGH, AND D. H. LANG

six parameters on the design base shear, directly, but it is difficult to estimate the contribution
of a designer’s subjective decisions in overstrength. The provisions of different codes regard-
ing control of drift may also affect overstrength and hence the provided strength capacity, in
some cases, but it is difficult to quantify its effect, particularly due to differences in guidelines
on modelling of stiffness. However, a significant part of the overstrength arises from the
objective parameters such as load and material factors and strength reduction factors speci-
fied in the RC design codes. This part of overstrength has been considered in the present
study and used to normalize the design base shear to have a more objective comparison
of the provided strength capacity according to different codes.
The four considered codes vary significantly in specifying site amplification factors for
comparable site classes, and hence in design response spectra. It is only NZS 1170.5 that con-
siders the natural site period and the soil depth of the site for assigning the site class, while
ASCE 7 is the only code that accounts for the effect of ground motion amplitude (and hence
the effect of soil nonlinearity) on the site amplification factor. The differences in the design
spectra of different codes become even more evident when plotted as displacement spectra.
The most important parameter in this regard is the corner period between the velocity- and the
displacement-controlled ranges of the spectrum. In this respect, the codes differ remarkably.
ASCE 7 provides maps for corner period with values varying from 4 to 16 sec, whereas
Eurocode 8 and NZS 1170.5 recommend constant values of 2 and 3 sec, respectively. The
comparison of response reduction factors for broadly equivalent ductility classes shows
some similarity between IS 1893 and ASCE 7, but fundamental differences in case of
NZS 1170.5 code. IS 1893, ASCE 7 and Eurocode 8 combine the effect of overstrength
and ductility in a single response reduction factor, whereas NZS 1170.5 considers the effect
of overstrength separately through a ‘structural performance factor’. Further, only NZS 1170.5
considers the effect of the natural period of the building on the response reduction factor.
The cumulative effect of the different code provisions on the provided strength capacity is
evident from the comparative study of the normalized design base shear for a given hazard. In
almost all the cases considered in this study, the design base shear coefficients of NZS 1170.5
are the highest. This results from the lowest response reduction factors in the short-period
range and the higher minimum design base shear which is governing the design in the long-
period range. The normalized design base shear coefficients estimated following the provi-
sions of IS 1893 are the lowest in most of the cases, except for short-period buildings sub-
jected to higher (0.5 g) PGA, where the design base shear coefficients of ASCE 7 are even
lower. The lower base shear coefficients in ASCE 7 are due to the consideration of the effect
of soil nonlinearity resulting in the reduction of soil amplification factors at higher PGA.
The differences in normalized design base shear according to different codes are more pre-
dominant for short-period buildings with low ductility and for taller buildings (of longer
periods) with high ductility. In case of ductile tall buildings, the minimum base shear governs
and due to lack of control over minimum design base shear, very low (less than 1%) design
base shear coefficients result especially for tall buildings in case of Eurocode 8 and IS 1893.
The discussion presented in this article shows that several fundamental differences exist
in different seismic design codes, despite similarity in the basic approach of design. Every
code has merit over the other codes in some aspect. The present study is an attempt to high-
light the major differences, which will need attention in the process of future harmonization
of different codes.
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DESIGN BASE SHEAR FOR RC BUILDINGS IN SELECTED SEISMIC DESIGN CODES 1065

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are thankful to the Responsible Editor and three reviewers for providing
valuable input and corrections to the present manuscript. We would like to further express
our gratitude to Andrew W. Charleson (University of Wellington) for proofreading the manu-
script and for providing valuable ideas. The work described in this manuscript was partly
funded by the Royal Norwegian Embassy to India (New Delhi) and the Ministry of Human
Resource Development, Government of India.

APPENDICES

A1. ESTIMATION OF THE APPROXIMATE PERIOD OF RC BUILDINGS

Code Description

EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;a1e1;122;442 T a ¼ Ct ⋅ hxn (A1.1)

where,

ASCE 7 T a = approximate fundamental period in sec,

C t = 0.0466 for moment-resisting concrete frames,
hn = height of building, in m, above the base to the highest level of the structure, and
x = 0.9 for moment-resisting concrete frames.

For buildings with heights up to 40 m,

T 1 ¼ Ct ⋅ H 3∕4
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;a1e2;122;338 (A1.2)

Eurocode 8 where,
T 1 = fundamental period of vibration, in sec,
C t = 0.075 for moment-resisting concrete space frames, and
H = height of the building, in m, from the foundation or from the top of a rigid basement.

For serviceability limit state,

T 1 ¼ 1.0 ⋅ k t ⋅ h0.75
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;a1e3;122;234

n (A1.3)

For ultimate limit state,

NZS 1170.5 T 1 ¼ 1.25 ⋅ k t ⋅ h0.75

EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;a1e4;122;184

n (A1.4)
where,
T 1 = largest translational period of vibration, in sec,
k t = 0.075 for moment-resisting concrete frames, and
hn = height of the building, in m, from the base of the structure to the uppermost seismic
weight or mass.

(continued )
1066 V. N. KHOSE, Y. SINGH, AND D. H. LANG

T a ¼ 0.075 ⋅ h0.75
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;a1e5;100;622 (A1.5)
where,
IS 1893 T a = approximate fundamental period of vibration, in sec, and
h = height of the building, in m, excluding the basement storeys, where basement walls
are connected with the ground floor deck or fitted between the building columns; but
including basement storeys in case that they are not connected.

A2. CALCULATION OF DESIGN BASE SHEAR

Code Description

V ¼ Cs W
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;a2e1;90;463 (A2.1)

where,

SDS I
Cs ¼
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;a2e2;90;420 (A2.2)
R
The value of Cs calculated in accordance with above equation
need not exceed the following:

D1 ⋅I
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;a2e3;90;360

C s ¼ SR⋅T for T ≤ T L (A2.3)

SD1 ⋅ I ⋅ T L (A2.4)
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;a2e4;90;330

Cs ¼ R⋅T 2
for T > T L

Cs shall not be less than 0.01.

In addition, for structures located where S1 is equal to or greater than 0.6g,
ASCE 7
Cs shall not be less than:
0.5S1 I
Cs ¼
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;a2e5;90;251 (A2.5)
R
where,
V = seismic base shear,
Cs = seismic response coefficient,
W = effective seismic weight,
SDS = design spectral response acceleration parameter in the short-period range,
R = response modification factor,
I = occupancy importance factor,
SD1 = design spectral response acceleration parameter at a period of 1.0 sec,
T = fundamental period of the structure,
T L = long-period transition period obtained from the available maps, and
S1 = mapped maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration
parameter at a period of 1.0 sec.

(continued )
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DESIGN BASE SHEAR FOR RC BUILDINGS IN SELECTED SEISMIC DESIGN CODES 1067

f d ¼ Sd ðT 1 Þ ⋅ m ⋅ λ
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;a2e6;112;624 (A2.6)
where,
f d = seismic base shear force,
Sd (T 1 ) = ordinate of the design spectrum at period T 1 ,
T 1 = fundamental period of vibration of the building for lateral motion in the direction
Eurocode 8 considered,
m = total mass of the building, above the foundation or above the top of a rigid basement,
λ = correction factor, the value of which is equal to λ ¼ 0.85 if T 1 ≤ 2T C and the building
has more
than two storeys, λ ¼ 1.0 otherwise, and
T C = upper limit of the period of the constant acceleration branch.

V ¼ C d ⋅ ðT 1 Þ ⋅ W t
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;a2e7;112;467 (A2.7)
where,
CðT 1 Þ ⋅ Sp
Cd ðT 1 Þ ¼ ðCd ðT 1 Þ ≥ ðZ∕20 þ 0.02Þ
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;a2e8;112;431
kμ (A2.8)
R; but not less than 0.03RÞ;

V = horizontal seismic shear,

NZS 1170.5 Cd ðT 1 Þ = horizontal design action coefficient at period T 1 ,
T 1 , = largest translational period of vibration,
W t = seismic weight of the structure,
CðT 1 Þ = ordinate of the elastic site hazard spectrum at period T 1 ,
SP = structural performance factor, Sp ¼ 1.3 − 0.3μ for ultimate limit state when
1.0 < μ < 2.0, and Sp ¼ 0.7 in all other cases,
μ = structural ductility factor,
k u = ductility reduction factor,
Z = hazard factor, Z shall not be less than 0.13, and ZR shall not be greater than 0.7, and
R = return period factor.

Z I Sa
VB ¼ ⋅ ⋅ ðTÞ ⋅ W (A2.9)
2 R g
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;a2e9;112;227

where,
V B = design base shear,
IS 1893
Z = Zone Factor for the MCE,
I = importance factor,
R = response reduction factor,
Sa∕gðTÞ = spectral acceleration coefficient at period T, and
W = seismic weight of the structure.
1068 V. N. KHOSE, Y. SINGH, AND D. H. LANG

REFERENCES
Akkar, S., and Bommer, J. J., 2007. Prediction of elastic displacement response spectra in Europe
and the Middle East, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 36, 1275–1301.
American Concrete Institute (ACI 318-08), 2008. Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, MI.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 7-05), 2006. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
and other structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 7-10), 2010. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, June 2010, 658 pp.
Bommer, J. J., and Elnashai, A. S., 1999. Displacement spectra for seismic design, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering 3, 1–32.
Bommer, J. J., Stafford, P., and Akkar, S., 2010. Current empirical ground-motion prediction
equations for Europe and their application to Eurocode 8. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering
8, 5–26.
Bureau of Indian Standards (IS 13920), 1993. Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Struc-
tures Subjected to Seismic Forces: Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi,
India.
Bureau of Indian Standards (IS 1893), 2002. Part I: Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures: General Provisions and Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
Bureau of Indian Standards (IS 456), 2000. Plain Reinforced Concrete-Code of Practice, Fourth
Revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
Campbell, K. W., and Bozorgnia, Y., 2007. NGA Ground Motion Relations for the Geometric
Mean Horizontal Component of Peak and Spectral Ground Motion Parameters, PEER Report
No. 2007/02, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, 238 pp.
De Stefano, M., and Rutenberg, A., 1997. A comparison of the present SEAOC/UBC torsional
provisions with the old ones, Engineering Structures 19, 655–664.
Dobry, R., Borcherdt, R. D., Crouse, C. B., Idriss, I. M., Joyner, W. B., Martin, G. R., Power,
M. S., Rinne, E. E., and Seed, R. B., 2000. New site coefficients and site classification sys-
tem used in recent building seismic code provisions, Earthquake Spectra 16, 41–67.
Dogangun, A., and Livaoglu, R., 2006. A comparative study of the design spectra defined
by EC8, UBC, IBC and Turkish Earthquake code on R/C sample buildings, Journal of
Seismology 10, 335–351.
EN 1990, 2002. Eurocode – Basis of Structural Design. European Committee for Standardization
(CEN), Brussels, Belgium, April 2002.
EN 1992 (Eurocode 2), 2004. Design of Concrete Structures. European Committee for Standar-
dization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium, December 2004.
EN 1998 (Draft Eurocode 8), 1998. Design for Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1:
General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. European Committee for Standar-
dization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium.
EN 1998-1 (Eurocode 8), 2004. Design for Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General
Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. European Committee for Standardization
(CEN), Brussels, Belgium, December 2004.
Faccioli, E., and Villani, M., 2009. Seismic Hazard Mapping for Italy in Terms of Broadband
Displacement Response Spectra. Earthquake Spectra, 25, 515–539.
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DESIGN BASE SHEAR FOR RC BUILDINGS IN SELECTED SEISMIC DESIGN CODES 1069

Faccioli, E., Paolucci, R., and Rey, J., 2004. Displacement spectra for long periods, Earthquake
Spectra 20, 347–376.
Fenwick, R., Lau, D., and Davidson, B., 2002. A comparison of the seismic design requirements
in the New Zealand Loadings standard with other major design codes, Bulletin of the New
Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 35, 190–203.
Haldar, P., and Singh, Y., 2009. Seismic performance and vulnerability of Indian code designed
RC frame buildings, ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology 46, 29–45.
Idriss, I. M., 1990. Response of soft soil sites during earthquakes, Proceedings of the Symposium
to Honor Professor H. B. Seed, Berkeley, CA, 273–289.
Idriss, I. M., 1991. Earthquake ground motions at soft soil sites, Proceedings of the Second Inter-
national Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Dynamics, St. Louis, MO, 2265–2273.
International Building Code (Draft IBC), 1998. International Building Code, International Code
Council, final draft, July 1998.
Kamatchi, P., Rajasankar, J., Iyer, Nagesh R., Lakshmanan, N., Ramana, G. V., and Nagpal,
A. K., 2010. Effect of depth of soil stratum on performance of buildings for site-specific
earthquakes, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30, 647–661.
Kaushik, H. B., Rai, D. C., and Jain, S. K., 2006. Code approaches to seismic design of masonry-
infilled reinforced concrete frames: A state-of-the-art review, Earthquake Spectra 22,
961–983.
Leyendecker, E. V., Hunt, R. J., Frankel, A. D., and Rukstales, K. S., 2000. Development of
maximum considered earthquake ground motion maps, Earthquake Spectra 16, 21–40.
Luft, R. W., 1989. Comparison among earthquake codes, Earthquake Spectra 5, 767–789.
McIntosh, R. D., and Pezeshk, S., 1997. Comparison of recent U.S. seismic codes, Journal of
Structural Engineering 123, 993–1000.
Nakamura, Y., 1989. A Method for dynamic characteristic estimation of subsurface using micro-
tremor on the ground surface, Quarterly Report of Railway Technical Report Institute of Japan
30, 25–33.
Popov, E. P., 1994. Development of U.S. seismic codes, J. Construct. Steel Research 29,
191–207.
Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalsky, M. J., 2007. Displacement-Based Seismic Design
of Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy, 721 pp.
Seed, H. B., Murarka, R., Lysmer, J., and Idriss, I. M., 1976. Relationships between maximum
acceleration, maximum velocity, distance from source and local site conditions for moderately
strong earthquakes, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 66, 1323–1342.
Seed, H. B., Romo, M. P., Sun, J. I., Jaime, A., and Lysmer, J., 1988. The Mexico earthquake of
September 19, 1985 - Relationships between soil conditions and earthquake ground motions,
Earthquake Spectra 4, 687–729.
Standards Australia (Draft NZS 1170.4), 2002. Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthquake
Actions in Australia, Standards Australia, Sydney, NSW 2001, February 2002.
Standards Australia/New Zealand (AS/NZS 1170.0), 2002. Structural Design Actions Part 0:
General principles, Standards New Zealand, Wellington 6020.
Standards New Zealand (Draft NZS 1170.5), 2001. Structural Design Actions Part 5: Earthquake
Actions-New Zealand, Standards New Zealand, Wellington 6020, February 2001.
1070 V. N. KHOSE, Y. SINGH, AND D. H. LANG

Standards New Zealand (NZS 1170.5), 2004. Structural design actions Part 5: Earthquake
actions-New Zealand, Standards New Zealand, Wellington 6020.
Standards New Zealand (NZS 1170.5 Supp 1), 2004. Structural Design Actions Part 5: Earth-
quake Actions-New Zealand-Commentary (Supplement to NZS 1170.5:2004), Standards New
Zealand, Wellington 6020.
Standards New Zealand (NZS 3101), 2006. Part 1: The Design of Concrete Structures, Standards
New Zealand, Wellington 6040.
Standards New Zealand (NZS 4203), 1992. General Structural Design and Design Loadings for
Buildings, Standards New Zealand, Wellington 6020.
Sun, C.-G., Kim, D.-S., and Chung, C.-K., 2005. Geologic site conditions and site coefficients for
estimating earthquake ground motions in the inland areas of Korea, Engineering Geology 81,
446–469.
Tolis, S. V., and Faccioli, E., 1999. Displacement design spectra, Journal of Earthquake Engi-
neering 3, 107–125.
Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997. Uniform Building Code, Vol.2, International Conference of
Building Officials, Whittier, CA.
Weatherill, G. A., Crowley, H., and Pinho, R., 2010. Specifications of Design Actions in Seismic
Codes: Definitions Needed for Structural Design Applications, SHARE Deliverable 2.2,
1–164.
(Received 17 October 2010; accepted 23 July 2011)

View publication stats