Evaluation of codified elastic design spectrum models for regions of low-to-moderate seismicity

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of codified elastic design spectrum models for regions of low-to-moderate seismicity

AU - Tsang, Hing Ho

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2015.

PY - 2015/3/1

Y1 - 2015/3/1

N2 - Design spectrum (DS) model is typically specified in a seismic code of practice for structural design. In a region of low-to-moderate seismicity where seismic code does not exist, a DS model in a well established code of practice is usually adopted, while the suitability of such model has seldom been evaluated. In this article, the elastic DS models for reference (rock) site stipulated in six major codes of practice (AS1170.4-2007, EN1998-1:2004, GB50011-2010, IBC-2012, NBCC-2010 and NZS1170.5:2004) have been compared and scrutinized. Three cities of low-to-moderate seismicity, namely, Melbourne (Australia), Hong Kong (China) and Karlsruhe (Germany), have been selected for illustrative purposes. Particular emphasis has been put on the parameterization scheme for DS model. It is found that huge discrepancies (over 100%) exist among the models, especially at the long period range, due to differences in spectral shapes and the recommended corner periods, which would lead to undesirable effects on the use of the displacement-based seismic design approach. It is urged that the values of corner periods should be determined specifically and cautiously based on the regional seismicity pattern and local geological conditions.

AB - Design spectrum (DS) model is typically specified in a seismic code of practice for structural design. In a region of low-to-moderate seismicity where seismic code does not exist, a DS model in a well established code of practice is usually adopted, while the suitability of such model has seldom been evaluated. In this article, the elastic DS models for reference (rock) site stipulated in six major codes of practice (AS1170.4-2007, EN1998-1:2004, GB50011-2010, IBC-2012, NBCC-2010 and NZS1170.5:2004) have been compared and scrutinized. Three cities of low-to-moderate seismicity, namely, Melbourne (Australia), Hong Kong (China) and Karlsruhe (Germany), have been selected for illustrative purposes. Particular emphasis has been put on the parameterization scheme for DS model. It is found that huge discrepancies (over 100%) exist among the models, especially at the long period range, due to differences in spectral shapes and the recommended corner periods, which would lead to undesirable effects on the use of the displacement-based seismic design approach. It is urged that the values of corner periods should be determined specifically and cautiously based on the regional seismicity pattern and local geological conditions.

KW - Code of practice

KW - Corner period

KW - Design spectrum

KW - Scaling parameter

KW - Spectral shape

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84921529305

U2 - 10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.12.016

DO - 10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.12.016

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84921529305

SN - 0267-7261

VL - 70

SP - 148

EP - 152

JO - Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

JF - Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

ER -