Jump to content
  • Welcome to SEFP!

    Welcome!

    Welcome to our community forums, full of great discussions about Structural Engineering. Please register to become a part of our thriving group or login if you are already registered.

Sign in to follow this  
Fatima Khalid

Comparison of European and American Seismic Codes

Recommended Posts

Asalamualaikum,

Are seismic zones same for eurocode and UBC? 

In UBC, we have zone 4 as the high seismic zone. In Eurocode, do we have same seismic zones? 

I am doing risk assesment using ELER software, it have three seismic zones for European building, Zone 1,2 and 3... What is the PGA for Zone 1 2 and 3 for European building codes?

I am attaching a picture found from the following website http://www.protezionecivile.gov.it/jcms/en/classificazione.wp stating that Zone 1 is most dangerous zone

Thank you for the help

 

zones.PNG

Edited by UmarMakhzumi
Edited topic title to make it more relevant to the question asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wsalaam,

Quote

Abstract: This paper presents a comparative evaluation among some international, European and American, seismic design standards. The study considers the criteria for the analysis of conventional (residential and commercial) buildings. The study is focused on some critical topics: definition of the recurrence periods for establishing the seismic input; definition of the seismic zonation and shape of the design response spectra; consideration of local soil conditions; definition of the seismic force-resisting systems and respective response modification coefficients; definition of the allowable procedures for the seismic analysis. A model for a standard reinforced concrete building (“Model Building”) has been developed to permit the comparison among codes. This building has been modelled with two different computer programs, SAP2000 and SOFiSTiK and subjected to seismic input according to the several seismic codes. The obtained results compared are leading to some important conclusions. Keywords: seismic analysis, seismic standards, comparative analysis, modelling.

Source: https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/mmce.2013.9.issue-1/mmce-2013-0001/mmce-2013-0001.pdf

Hope that helps. I have also attached the document here so it is easy to download.

Thanks.

Comparative Study of Codes for Seismic Design of Structures.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Our picks

    • I am suppose to design a pile foundation for a machine weighing approximately 50 tons and with an operational loading of 100 tons. 
      I ll appreciate your help in terms of guidance & provision of notes...  
       
      Thank you..
      • 36 replies
    • Material behavior can be idealized as consisting of an 'elastic' domain and a 'plastic' domain. For almost 200 years, structural design has been
      based on an elastic theory which assumes that structures display a linear response throughout their loading history, ignoring the post-yielding
      stage of behavior. Current design practice for reinforced concrete structures is a curious blend of elastic analysis to compute forces and moments, plasticity theory to proportion cross-sections for the moment and axial, load, and empirical mumbo-jumbo to proportion members for shear.

       

      From the book "Design of Concrete Structures with Stress Fields" by A. Muttoni,  J. Schwartz and  B.Thurliman.

       
      • 0 replies
    • Dear Fellow Researchers, Academicians, and research students,

       

      NED University of Engineering & Technology in collaboration with Institution of Engineers Pakistan (IEP) is organizing 9th International Civil Engineering Conference (ICEC 2017) on December 22-23, 2017 at Karachi, Pakistan.

       The congress details are available at its website www.neduet.edu.pk/icec

       Also attached is congress flyer for information and dissemination among your peers.

       Abstracts submission deadline has been extended till October 31, 2017.

      Please click on the link to see the full description.
      • 0 replies
    • AoA all,

      Is it mandatory to do column concreting upto the soffit of the beam in a single pour ?

      What code says about the construction/cold joint location in column ?

      Majority of the contractors are pouring the column concrete upto the soffit of the beam (full height of the column), some contractors leave the column height about 9" to 12" below the beam level and then fill this 9" to 12" column height with the beams & slab concreting. On one site column concreting was stopped at the mid height and the remaining half was filled on the next day.

      Thanks

       

       
      • 5 replies
    • AOA 

      i am facing problems in shear wall design .what are the pier and spandral ?what will be the difference when we assign pier or spandral? without assigning these the shear wall design is incomplete .

      i am taking about etabsv16

      someone have document about shear wall design plz provide it 

      thank you

       
      • 9 replies
    • Salam Members,

      Congratulations to Engineers, PEC has become full signatory of Washington Accord, what are the benefits to Pakistani engineers for this agreement. 

       

      Regards   

       

       
      • 3 replies
    • Please clarify the following confusions one by one:-

       

      1. If we run P-delta analysis in ETABS, then should we ignore stiffness property modifiers for beams and columns? I have heard that if we perform P-delta analysis and apply stiffness modifiers at the same time then the moment magnification process is doubled...?

       

      2. ETABS considers selenderness of a column by applying moment magnification factors. If we run P-delta analysis also, does it mean that the selenderness of column is being over-estimated? I mean once the moments are magnified in P-delta analysis process and again through moment magnification process?

       

      Please help me understand the software myth and clarify above confusions.
      • 1 reply
    • Assalam o alaikum.
      According to ACI 12.5.2,
      development length for fc' = 3000, fy=60000, for normal weight concrete and epoxy less reinforcement, The required development length comes out to be
      for #3 = 8.2 inch
      for #4 = 10.95 inch
      for #6 = 16.42 inch
      for #8 = 21.9 inch
       
      And if in my case, ACI 12.5.3 is not fulfilled, it means now i have to provide ldh as mentioned above. ldh is STRAIGHT EMBEDMENT LENGTH + RADIUS OF BEND + ONE BAR DIAMETER as shown in figure attached. Now my question is, if in my case, main reinforcement of beam is of #6 and #4, minimum column size required will be 18 inch and 12 inch respectively. Lets say by any means, i can not select #4, #3 bars and size of column where bars are to be terminated is 12 inch, how to fullfil this development length???
      • 11 replies
    • Dear all,

      I am trying to design shearwalls through ETABS with temperature load applied over shell. At various location, spandral section fails in Shear due to temperature and piers (sometime in shear, mostly in flexure).  (See Attached Image)

      Certainly all the problem in Shearwalls are due to temperature. I don't want to increase cross section of spandral or pier at some location just due to temperature load case as it will appears non-uniform with rest of the wall. 

      I have seen stiffness modifier affect distribution of forces and also rigid/semi rigid daiphragm assumption. 

       

      Can anybody guide how to properly design the shear wall with temperature load applied in ETABS or share any similar experience. Thanks in Advance.    
      • 15 replies
    • ENGINEERS;
      I WILL LOOSE MY BRAIN FROM ETABS. 
      I DECIDED TO MAKE MANUAL MESHING FROM AREA ELEMENTS BESIDE EACH OTHER AND EVERY HING WAS FINE .
      BUT AFTER DEVISION SAY 7*7 ELEMNTS FOR EVERY BIG ELEMENT AND MAKING ETABS CHECH..................THEN 500 ERROR MESSAGE THAT ALL ELEMNTS ARE CLOSE TO EACH OTHER.  WHAT ARE GOING...... SOMEONE TELL ME PLEASE...... I WILL LOST MY WORK
      • 6 replies
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Zoya Hassan
      I am making manual load combination and I got struck in calculating Mapped spectral response acceleration Ss in order to calculate vertical component of earthquake Ev=0.2SdsD we have to calculate Sds which is equal to Sds=2/3Sms . and Sms=FaSs now according to section 11.4.1 of ASCE 7-05 it says in order to calculate Ss see figure 22-1 through 22-14 but these figures are maps and they are for US so how to calculte this parameter or whats the alternative for this problem to calculate vertical component of earthquake i am also attaching a picture of load comtination from ASCE 7-05

    • By UmarMakhzumi
      *SEFP Consistent Design*
      *UBC Seismic Drift Limits*
      *Doc No: 10-00-CD-0003*
      *Date: June 04, 2013*
       
      The goal of this tutorial is to demonstrate how to evaluate building drifts and story drifts using UBC 97 guidelines. The philosophy behind Story Drift Limits is “Deflection Control”; In UBC 97, deflection control is specified in terms of the story drift as a limit on the lateral displacement of one level relative to the level below. The story drift is determined from the maximum inelastic response, ΔM.
       
      Let’s start by defining the design-level response displacements. The elastic deflections due to strength-level design seismic forces are called design-level response displacements. These are denoted by ΔS, where the subscript ‘s’ stands for strength design. Design level response displacements are what you get out of your software, when you run analysis. Please note that structural analysis softwares may provide these values in different formats; say a percentage of height or a direct output.
       
      Well, to calculate your story drifts, first you need to find maximum inelastic response displacements from your design-level response displacements. The maximum inelastic response displacement is defined as:
      ΔM = 0.7RΔS
      Where, R is the structural system coefficient, the subscript ‘m’ in ΔM signifies that we are calculating a maximum value for the deflection due to seismic response that includes inelastic behavior.
       
      Seismic drift values are much larger than wind values. UBC uses maximum inelastic response displacements rather than the design level displacements to verify the performance of the building. Seismic drift limits are 2% & 2.5% of the story height for long and short -period buildings. For a floor to floor height of 12 feet the max., allowable inelastic drift value would be 2% of 12 feet= 0.02*12*12 in=2.88 in. For wind for a 12 story height, drift would be L/400=12*12/400 =0.36 inches, A comparison of both wind and seismic drift limits shows that earthquake inelastic displacements are quiet large compared to wind displacements. That is why proper detailing is emphasized in seismic design.
       
      When calculating ΔS for seismic, make sure:
      You have included accidental torsion in your analysis. Use strength design load combinations: 1.2D + 1.0E + 0.5L & 0.9D + 1.0E. You are using cracked section properties for reinforced concrete buildings. Typical values are Icr walls= 0.5EcIg, Beams = 0.5EcI g & for Columns 0.5 - 0.7 EcIg. Use a reliability/ redundancy factor= 1 to calculate seismic forces. Whenever the dynamic analysis procedure of §1631 is used, story drift should be determined as the modal combination of the story drift for each mode. Determination of story drift from the difference of the combined mode displacements may produce erroneous results because maximum displacement at a given level may not occur simultaneously with those of the level above or below. Differences in the combined mode displacements can be less than the combined mode story drift.  
      Example:
      A four-story special moment-resisting frame (SMRF) building has the following design level response displacements.(See attached Image)

      R= 7.0,
      I= 1
      Time period= 0.6 sec
      (See the attached image for Story Information)
       
       
      Calculate:
      Maximum Inelastic response displacements. Story drift in story 3 due to ΔM. Check story 3 for story drift limit. Maximum Inelastic response displacements ΔM = 0.7RΔS
      ΔM = (0.7) (7) ΔS = (4.9) ΔS
      (See the attached image for Maximum Inelastic response displacements)

       
      Story drift in story 3 due to ΔM Story 3 is located between Levels 2 and 3. Thus
      ΔM drift = 5.39 - 3.43 = 1.96 in.
       
      Check story 3 for story drift limit. For structures with a fundamental period less than 0.7 seconds, §1630.10.2 requires that the ΔM story drift not exceed 0.025 times the story height. For story 3:
      Story drift using ΔM = 1.96 in.
      Story drift limit = 0.025 *(12*12) in = 3.6 in. > 1.96 in. Therefore, Okay.
    • By Muhammad Hassan
      Under what conditions we should use load combinations mentioned under Subject heading in UBC -97?
      As per my research we should use them only for " Element supporting Discontinuous System"-UBC 97-1630.8.2 and for "Collector Elements"-UBC 97 1633.2.6.
      So, there is no need to use these combinations for all structures and its components (Exceptions are mentioned above).
      Is my understanding correct? Please reply with referrence
  • Recent Discussions

  • Latest Forum and Club Posts

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines.