Seismic Displacement Design Method Comparison between Chinese, American, European and Japanese Seismic Design Codes

Abstract:

Seismic displacement design method and allowable values of story drift are compared between Chinese, American, European and Japanese seismic design codes. An engineering example's seismic displacement is calculated in the methods given by the four codes, and story drift are compared. Researches show that allowable story drift of Chinese code under rare earthquake action is approximately close to that of American with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years, and allowable story drift of Japanese code is more rigorous than other three codes. For three-story three-span reinforced concrete frame structure, in the condition of same intensity, displacement of Chinese under the earthquake action with 2~3% exceeding probability of 50-year is greater than that of American and European with 10% exceeding probability of 50-year. However, intensity plays no role in Japan's displacement calculation, and the calculation result of displacement of Japanese code is less than other three codes.

• Periodical: Advanced Materials Research (Volume 859)
• Pages: 43-47
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.859.43
• Online since: December 2013
• Authors: Gui Ming Zhang, Wen Feng Liu*, Zhi Hong Chen
• Keywords: Allowable Values of Story Drift, Comparison, Seismic Displacement Design Method, Seismic Fortification Criterion, Top Displacement

References

[1] Luo Kaihai, Wang Yayong. In: Research on Conversion Relationship Among the Parameters of Ground Motions in Seismic Design Codes of China, American and Europe. Building Structure, Vol. 36(2006), p.103.

[2] Code for seismic design of buildings(GB 50011-2010).

[3] ASCE Standard. ASCE/SEI 7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. (2010).

DOI: 10.1061/9780784412916.err

[4] European Standard. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings[S]. prEN 1998-1: (2004).

DOI: 10.3403/03244372

[5] Japan Building Standards Law' Law No. 85' 2002. 7. 12(in Japanese).

[6] Wenfeng Liu, Duan Wang He. Displacement-objective-based seismic performance spectra. Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 29' No. 10(2012), pp: 75-81.

[7] Yanqiang Gao, Wenfeng Liu. Statistical Analysis of Fundamental Periods of Frame Structures. Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vols. 226-228(2012), pp: 1174-1180.

DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.226-228.1174

[8] Liu Wen-feng，Fu Xingpan，Yu Zhenxing, Chen Xuezhong，Zhang Xin. Empirical Statistical Analysis of Characteristic Period of Acceleration Response Spectrum. Journal of Qingdao Technological University, vol. 30' No. 5(2009), pp: 1-7.

[9] Edoardo M. Marino, Masayoshi Nakashima, Khalid M. Mosalam. Comparison of European and Japanese seismic design of steel building structures. Engineering Structures, Vol. 27(2005), pp: 827-840.

DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.01.004

[10] Hiroyuki Aoyama. Outline of earthquake provisions in the recently revised Japanses building code. Bulletin oh the New Zealand national society for earthquake engineering, Vol. 14' No. 2(1981), pp: 63-79.

DOI: 10.5459/bnzsee.14.2.63-80

[11] Tian Fusheng, Gao Lin. Changes of standard for earthquake resistant of buildings and the current earthquake resistant standard in Japan. Building Structure, Vol. 42' No. 3(2012), pp: 152-157.

[12] Shen Qi, Yang Shen. Comparision of Chinese and Japanses seismic design of seismic design code. Earthquake resistant engineering and retrofitting, Vol. 34' No. 4(2012), pp: 102-106.