Comparison AS11704 1993&2007

School of Civil Engineering
Sydney NSW 2006

AUSTRALIA
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4:

Earthquake Actions in Australia
AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Research Report No R897
Deborah G Hegarty B.Sc. (Eng), Dip. Eng, MIEAust CPEng

May 2009
ISSN 1833-2781

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4:

Earthquake Actions in Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Deborah G Hegarty B.Sc. (Eng), Dip. Eng, MIEAust CPEng
May 2009
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

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
School of Civil Engineering, Research Report R897
COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN ACTIONS PART 4: EARTHQUAKE
ACTIONS IN AUSTRALIA AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
2009 Deborah G Hegarty
HegartyD@ap.aurecongroup.com, Deborah.Hegarty@gmail.com
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:
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

ii
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends.

iii
Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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
1.2
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................ 2

REPORT OUTLINE ........................................................................................ 3
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 ()............................................................. 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
iv

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
2.6
DESIGN METHODS ..................................................................................... 40
2.6.1 Dynamic inelastic time-history analysis .............................................. 40
2.6.2 Modal superposition techniques .......................................................... 40
2.6.3 Equivalent lateral force procedures .................................................... 42
2.6.4 Capacity Spectrum Method .................................................................. 42
2.7
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 44
3
AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 CODE COMPARISON ........................................ 47

3.1
CODE LAYOUT COMPARISON .................................................................... 47
3.1.1 AS1170.4:1993 Layout ......................................................................... 47
3.1.2 AS1170.4:2007 Layout and Revisions ................................................. 48
3.2
SITE HAZARD............................................................................................. 51
3.2.1 Return Period Calculation ................................................................... 52
3.3
SITE FACTOR / SUB SOIL CLASS AND SPECTRAL SHAPE FACTOR ............. 55
3.3.1 Response Spectra and Spectral Shape Factor (Ch(T)) ........................ 56
3.3.2 Site Classification ................................................................................. 60
3.4
SELECTION OF EARTHQUAKE DESIGN CATEGORY .................................... 62
3.4.1 AS1170.4:1993 ..................................................................................... 62
3.4.2 AS1170.4:1993 (with AS1170.4:2002 Appendix D considerations) ... 64
3.4.3 AS1170.4:2007 ..................................................................................... 64
3.4.4 Earthquake Design Category Comparison ......................................... 66
3.5
PERIOD CALCULATION .............................................................................. 67
3.5.1 AS1170.4:1993 Approximated Formulae ............................................ 67
3.5.2 AS1170.4:2007 ..................................................................................... 67
3.5.3 Period Calculation Comparison .......................................................... 68
3.5.4 The Rayleigh Method ........................................................................... 70
3.6
RESPONSE FACTOR (RF), STRUCTURAL DUCTILITY FACTOR, , AND THE
STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE FACTOR, SP ............................................................. 70
3.7
EARTHQUAKE BASE SHEAR ....................................................................... 72
3.7.1 AS1170.4: 1993 Earthquake Base shear ............................................. 72
3.7.2 AS1170.4: 2007 Earthquake Base shear ............................................. 72
3.8
STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS AND RESTRICTIONS ............................................. 73
3.8.1 Bearing wall systems ............................................................................ 74
3.8.2 Building Frame systems ....................................................................... 79
3.8.3 Moment Resisting Frame System ......................................................... 87
3.8.4 Dual System .......................................................................................... 94
3.9
TORSION .................................................................................................... 94
3.9.3 Torsion Comparison ............................................................................. 97
3.10 DRIFT AND P-DELTA EFFECTS................................................................... 98
3.10.1 AS1170.4: 1993 Storey Drift Determination and P-delta Effects... 98
3.10.2 AS1170.4: 2007 Storey Drift Determination and P-delta Effects... 99
3.10.3 Storey Drift Determination and P-delta Effects Comparison ....... 100


AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
3.11
3.12
May 2009
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 101

DISCUSSION ............................................................................................. 104
4 ANALYSIS COMPARISON OF A TYPICAL CONCRETE

STRUCTURAL SYSTEM ................................................................................... 106
4.1
BUILDING, SITE AND DESIGN METHOD SELECTION ................................ 106
4.1.1 Structural System ................................................................................ 106
4.1.2 Elevation ............................................................................................. 108
4.1.3 Plan ..................................................................................................... 110
4.1.4 Core Properties .................................................................................. 113
4.1.5 Shear Centre and Centre of Mass ...................................................... 114
4.1.6 AS1170.4:1993 Design Eccentricity Calculation .............................. 116
4.1.7 AS1170.4:2007 Design Eccentricity Calculation .............................. 117
4.1.8 Analysis Method ................................................................................. 118
4.1.9 Site & Structural Factors ................................................................... 119
4.1.10 Structural Classification / Importance level for the structure ...... 119
4.1.11 Acceleration Coefficient/Hazard Factor ....................................... 119
4.1.12 Probability Factor kp...................................................................... 119
4.1.13 Site Factor / Sub Soil Class............................................................ 119
4.1.14 Period Calculation for the buildings ............................................. 119
4.1.15 Response Factor and Ductility Ratio............................................. 120
4.1.16 Earthquake Base shear Multiplier ................................................. 120
4.1.17 Loads .............................................................................................. 121
4.2
HAND CALCULATION ANALYSIS ............................................................. 124
4.2.1 First-Mode of Natural Period ............................................................ 124
4.2.2 Seismic Design Base Shear ................................................................ 124
4.2.3 Overturning Moment .......................................................................... 125
4.2.4 Torsion ................................................................................................ 127
4.2.5 Tension & Compression Core Stresses due to Overturning Moment129
4.2.6 Shear Force on Core due to Base Shear & Torsion ......................... 133
4.2.7 Structural Displacements ................................................................... 137
4.2.8 Deflection at Roof Level ..................................................................... 138
4.2.9 Storey Drift and P-Delta Effects ........................................................ 143
4.3
ETABS ANALYSIS..................................................................................... 148
4.3.1 First-Mode of Natural Period ............................................................ 149
4.3.2 Seismic Design Base Shear ................................................................ 149
4.3.3 Overturning Moment .......................................................................... 150
4.3.4 Stresses................................................................................................ 151
4.3.5 Deflections .......................................................................................... 152
4.4
CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................... 155
5
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK................................................. 157

5.1
5.2
5.3
LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 160

CONTRIBUTIONS ...................................................................................... 161
SUCCESS CRITERIA .................................................................................. 161
vi

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
5.4
FUTURE WORK ........................................................................................ 162
5.4.1 Fragility Curves.................................................................................. 162
5.4.2 Design and Detailing of the Lateral Supporting System ................... 162
5.5
FINAL NOTE ............................................................................................. 163
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................. 164
APPENDIX A: CODE COMPARISON GRAPHS FOR STRUCTURAL
SYSTEMS AND SITE SUB SOIL CLASSES ................................................... 166
BEARING WALL SYSTEM ..................................................................................... 167
BUILDING FRAME SYSTEM WITH REINFORCED CONCRETE WALLS .................... 172
BUILDING FRAME SYSTEM WITH CONCENTRICALLY BRACED FRAMES .............. 177
ORDINARY MOMENT RESISTING FRAME SYSTEM ............................................... 182
INTERMEDIATE MOMENT RESISTING FRAME SYSTEM ........................................ 187
APPENDIX B: STATIC ANALYSIS BUILDING COMPARISON
CALCULATIONS ................................................................................................ 192
BLD 1 (14.4M) SOIL CLASS AE BASE SHEAR & MOMENT ................................... 193
BLD 1 (14.4M) SOIL CLASS AE TENSION & COMP CORE STRESS........................ 196
BLD 1 (14.4M) SOIL CLASS DE BASE SHEAR & MOMENT ................................... 198
BLD 1 (14.4M) SOIL CLASS DE TENSION & COMP CORE STRESS........................ 201
BLD 3 (56.1MM) SOIL CLASS AE TENSION & COMP CORE STRESS ..................... 216
BLD 3 (56.1MM) SOIL CLASS DE TENSION & COMP CORE STRESS ..................... 221
APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY .............................................................................. 233

vii

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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 2-2 shows a cantilever subjected to a horizontal load [12]. ...................................................................................... 8
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 2-11 shows a standard detail for a typical beam. ..................................................................................................... 17
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
viii

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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 2-21 shows the response of a structure to lateral loads. .......................................................................................... 26
Figure 2-22 shows diagrammatically the acceleration displacement response spectrum for a
range of natural period [32]. ................................................................................................................................................ 27
Figure 2-23 Shows typical sway of multistorey frames [28][29] ....................................................................................... 28
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 2-27 Sketch of some engineering topics [12]. ......................................................................................................... 32
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 2-31 Shows an example of modal superpositioning [12]. ....................................................................................... 41
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 2-34 Bi-linear approximation of the push-over curve [34] ..................................................................................... 44
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
ix

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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 /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
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
Figure 3-17 this figure shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for OMRF, for
Figure 3-18 this figure shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for IMRF, for
Figure 3-19 this figure shows the comparison of the base shear multiplier for IMRF, for
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
AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 [4][7], for Soil Class Ae............................................................................................................ 107
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

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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

xi

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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

xii

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Table 3-18 show the comparison of the base shear multiplier for OMRF, for AS1170.4:1993
Table 3-19 show the comparison of the base shear multiplier for IMRF, for AS1170.4:1993
Table 3-20 show the comparison of the base shear multiplier for IMRF, for AS1170.4:1993
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
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
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
xiii

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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
Core 1 for maximum loading (X-direction) ...................................................................................................................... 139
Core 2 for minimum loading (X-direction) ....................................................................................................................... 140
Core 2 for maximum loading (X-direction) ...................................................................................................................... 140
Core 1 for minimum loading (Y-direction) ....................................................................................................................... 141
xiv

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Core 1 for maximum loading (Y-direction) ...................................................................................................................... 141
Core 2 for minimum loading (Y-direction) ....................................................................................................................... 142
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
minimum and maximum roof loading (X-direction) ........................................................................................................ 145
minimum and maximum loading (Y-direction) ................................................................................................................ 146
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
by hand calculations........................................................................................................................................................... 150
using Etabs ......................................................................................................................................................................... 150
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
X-direction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 153
X-direction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 154
X-direction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 155
xv

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

xvi
May 2009

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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 Australias 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 1970s. 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].


AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
Structural Systems Behaviour A structures predicted behaviour during event is critical.
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?
1.1
Aims and Objectives
The objectives of this report are as follows:

To investigate the reasons behind revising the code.
Establish what has been revised.
Study the implications of the changes on a typical concrete structural system.


AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
Drift Variations to drift have been examined.
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.
1.2
Report Outline
The remainder of this report is divided into the following sections:

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].

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.


AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING BACKGROUND
The following six topics are relevant to the revisions implemented in the new AS1170.4:2007 code
[7]:
Structural Systems
Ductility - Elastic and Dynamic Response
Seismic Response and Structure Configuration
The influence of Soil Stiffness on Earthquake Magnitude and Intensity
Seismic Risk
Design Methods
The background to and related research in these topics are examined in this chapter.
2.1
Structural Systems
All buildings are not created equal when response to earthquake-induced forces is of concern [30]
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.
A structure can be classified into one of four earthquake resisting systems:
Bearing Wall System,
Building Frame System,
Moment Resisting Frame System

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Dual System
Brief descriptions of these are as follows:
2.1.1
Bearing Wall Systems
These are a structural system with load bearing walls providing support for all or most of the vertical
loads, where shear walls or braced frames provide the horizontal earthquake resistance. The
presence of minor load bearing walls in a structure that would normally be classified as a building
frame system does not necessarily mean that the structure should be categorized as a bearing wall
system, as their contribution to lateral force resistance, if any, is often negligible.
2.1.2
Building Frame Systems
Are structural systems in which an essentially complete space frame supports the vertical loads and
the shear walls or braced frames provided the horizontal earthquake resistance. While there is no
requirement to provide horizontal resistance in the vertical-load framing, it is strongly recommended
that nominal moment resistance be incorporated in the vertical-load frame design. The vertical-load
frame provides a nominal secondary line of defence, although all required horizontal forces are
resisted by other earthquake resisting structural systems. However, consideration should be given to
the deformation compatibility between individual members. The presence of a frame can provide
vertical stability to the structure and prevent collapse after damage to shear walls or braced frames.
The frame also acts to tie the structure together and redistribute the horizontal force to undamaged
elements of the horizontal force resisting system.
2.1.3
Moment Resisting Frame Systems
A structural system in which an essentially complete space frame supports the vertical loads and the
total prescribed horizontal earthquake forces by the flexural action of the members. The beams,
supporting floors, and columns are continuous and meet at nodes, often called rigid joints. The
entire horizontal force stipulated should be capable of being resisted by moment resisting frames.
2.1.4
Dual Systems
A dual system is a structural system in which an essentially complete space frame supports the
vertical loads and at least a quarter of the prescribed horizontal earthquake forces. The total

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.


AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
2.2
May 2009
Ductility Elastic and Dynamic Response
Another way of classifying the structural system is in terms of its design ductility level. The
structural systems above can all be classified to have varying ductility depending on construction
material used and detailing of elements and connections. There are four principles that must be
considered when assuming structural ductility: elastic response, ductile response, ductility detailing
and capacity design.
2.2.1
Elastic Response
A building can be described as having the response of a cantilever system (shown in Figure 2-2
below). The response to lateral ground accelerations can be idealised by a single degree of freedom
system using the DAlemberts principle, where the total inertial response of the system is dependant
on the displacement of the structure relative to the ground and the displacement of the ground itself.
Figure 2-2 shows a cantilever subjected to a horizontal load [12].
An elastic responding system has an idealized response. It has a linear strength-displacement

relationship. The structure is designed so that the maximum displacement (strain) is very close to the
displacement of the ideal elastic structure and when the lateral loading is removed the structure
recovers elastically (full recovery). Figure 2-3 shows the idealized elastic response of an element.
The importance of a building and to what extent damage is acceptable, are the two parameters that
define whether an elastic response is desirable.


AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
It is generally uneconomic, often unnecessary, and arguably undesirable to design structures to
respond to the design-level earthquakes in the elastic range.
Figure 2-4 shows the relationship between strength and ductility required to resist seismic forces,
where a ductility of =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.


AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Figure 2-4 Shows the relationship between strength and ductility [30].
2.2.2
Ductile Response
Most ordinary buildings are designed to resist lateral seismic forces which are much smaller than
those that would be developed in an elastically responding structure, implying that inelastic
deformations and hence ductility will be required of the structure to absorb seismic energy,
involving yielding of reinforcement and possibly crushing of concrete. Provided that the strength
does not degrade as a result of inelastic action, acceptable response can be obtained. Displacement
and damage, however, must be controlled at acceptable levels.
2.2.3
Structural Ductility Factor ()
() [29], is a numerical assessment of the ability of a structure to sustain cyclic displacements in the
inelastic range. Its value depends upon the structural form, the ductility of the materials and the
structural damping characteristics.
Once the value of 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.
10

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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]:

11

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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].

12

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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 equalenergy principle, the peak displacement ductility factor can be found by equating the area under the
elastic forcedisplacement curve with the inelastic curve.
13

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
2.2.5
Ductility Detailing
The quality of ductile detailing is more important to performance in actual earthquakes than the
value of earthquake design load [18]
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.

14

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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

15

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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).

16

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Figure 2-11 shows a standard detail for a typical beam.
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.
17

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.

18

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.

19

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Figure 2-15 shows failure at the base of a structural column due to the formation of a plastic hinge
2.2.6
Capacity Design
In the traditional capacity (force based) design of structures for earthquake resistance, the main
elements of the primary lateral force resisting system are chosen and suitably designed and detailed
for energy dissipation under severe imposed deformations. The critical regions of these members,
often termed plastic hinges, are detailed for inelastic flexural action, with shear failure inhibited by a
suitable strength differential. By this method all other structural elements are then protected against
actions that could cause failure, by providing them with strength greater than that corresponding to
the development of maximum feasible strength in the potential plastic hinge regions.
The capacity design procedure is characterised by the following features:
Plastic hinge location and detailing They are clearly defined and carefully detailed to
ensure ductility demands are readily accommodated.
Inelastic deformation Undesirable deformation due to shear, anchorage failures or
instability, within members containing plastic hinges are inhibited by ensuring that the
strength of these modes exceeds the capacity of the plastic hinges.
20

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.

21

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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].
2.2.7
Hysteretic Loops
A further observation to be aware of is that for short period structures (say T=0.5s) reduction in the
energy dissipation in columns and walls compared with plastic hinge mechanisms in beams, will
imply larger ductility demand. Therefore, the plastic mechanisms chosen should be carefully

22

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.

23

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
2.3
Seismic Response and Structural Configuration
A buildings response, from an engineers view point, focuses on sway collapse mechanisms in which
the building as a whole moves sideways and may collapse under its own weight.
Figure 2-20 above shows typical structural systems and configurations that are used within multistorey 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.

24

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
2.3.1
May 2009
Response in Elevation
When subjected to lateral forces only, a building will act as a vertical cantilever. The total resulting
horizontal force and the overturning moment will be transmitted at the level of the foundations as
can be seen in Figure 2-21 . Once the lateral forces, such as may act at each level of the building, are
known, the storey shear forces, as well as the magnitude of overturning moments at any level can
readily be derived from usual equilibrium relationships.
Figure 2-21 shows the response of a structure to lateral loads.
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 stiffnesss 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
26

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
building is imminent when the energy absorption capacity or displacement capacity of the softstorey 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.
2.3.2
Estimates of Deflection and Drift
The analysis carried out under the design-level forces will produce estimates of lateral deflections,
. However if these forces were calculated assuming a structural ductility of say it must be
realised that the actual deflections achieved will be greater than the elastic values predicted by
analysis. A reasonable approximation is;
total =

27

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
2.3.3
P-Delta Effects in framed structures
When flexible structures, such as reinforced concrete frames are subjected to lateral forces, the
resulting horizontal displacement leads to additional overturning moments because the gravity load
is also displaced. Therefore in addition to the overturning moment produced by lateral forces, the
secondary moment (the product of gravity x ) must also be resisted. This additional moment will in
turn increase the lateral displacement. In very flexible structures, instability, resulting in collapse,
may occur.
Figure 2-23 Shows typical sway of multistorey frames [28][29]
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.

28

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
2.3.4
Response in Plan
A structures response in plan depends on two important concepts;

1)
Centre of Mass During an earthquake, acceleration-induced inertia forces will be

generated at each floor level, where the mass of an entire story may be assumed to be
concentrated. Hence the location of a force at a particular level will be determined by
the centre of the accelerated mass at that level.
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

29

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.

30

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
31

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
2.4
May 2009
The influence of soil stiffness on earthquake magnitude and intensity
It is generally accepted that soft soils modify the characteristics of strong ground motion transmitted
to the surface from the underlying bedrock [35]. Physical properties of soil influence the degree of
amplification or attenuation experienced by the travelling waves, of which the most important
characteristics being impedance, absorption and basin geometry.
Figure 2-27 Sketch of some engineering topics [12].
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).

32

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
2.4.1
May 2009
Site Classification using Shear Wave Velocity and Bedrock Properties
McPherson [25] [26] established the requirement for site classification in Australia on a nationalscale, 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.

33

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
For example, Sydneys 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.

34

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
Ridges and valleys can amplify resonance behaviour of a site.
Slopes of sedimentary may, of course, completely fail (H)
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.

35

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
2.4.2
May 2009
Site Classification using Site Natural Period
Venkatesan et al. [33] proposes the use of the sites natural period as a parameter for site
classification as it has the attribute of providing an objective, and direct, representation of the risk of
a soil site developing resonance behaviour.
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.
Venkatesan et al [33] presents an Extended Component Attenuation Model (ECAM) that
incorporates site period, shear wave velocity, soil damping properties, impedance contrasts with the
bed rock and frequency content of the earthquake excitation.
S = S.S.S.S
Where,
S represents the effects of hysteretic and viscous damping.
S represents the effects of impedance contrasts between soil and bedrock.
S and S 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
36

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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 longerperiod 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.
2.5
Seismic Risk
Severe natural hazard events are an inherent risk within the Australian environment and Seismic
disasters in Australia have resulted in significant loss of life and property. Therefore it is vital that
our understanding be improved. Gibson [17] acknowledges that the understanding of earth structure
and processes is necessary for earthquake risk mitigation. Risk mitigation actions can be associated
with past, present and future earthquakes.
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
37

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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 earthquake 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.
2.5.1
Design Limit States
The acceptable risk for a level of structural response will depend on the social and economic
importance of the building. These risk values are set out in the BCA [11]. The three levels or limit
states are serviceability, damage control and survival limit state. A hospital, for example, should be
designed for the survival limit state due to its requirement in post disaster service. Earthquake
disasters are of course caused by the combination of strong ground shaking and buildings having
low structural capacity, thus showing a poor performance during earthquake action and being unable
to withstand the shaking without damages.
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+cQ) 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
38

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
2.5.2
Serviceability Limit State
Guidelines on limits for the design of members for serviceability are given in Appendix C of
AS1170.0:2002. It identifies deflection limits related to actions with an annual probability of
exceedance of 1:20 beyond which serviceability problems have been observed. Such boundaries for
acceptance are imprecise and should be treated as a guide only. They set out possible control
phenomena, such as acceptable response which is observer dependant. For the earthquake load
actions applied to walls and facades noticeable cracking and faade and glass damage is acceptable,
however the environment of the observer influences the tolerance of people to sensory deflection
and acceptable damage limits.
2.5.3
Economic Considerations
The main factor that can be economically quantified is the cost of providing a given level of seismic
protection, since this is objective. The key unquantifiable factor is the value of human life, which is
subjective and controversial. Some cost considerations are listed below:
Initial cost of providing increased seismic resistance
Reduced cost of repair and replacement, both structural and non structural as a result of
damage or collapse
Reduce loss of revenue resulting from loss of serviceability
Reduced costs caused by third-party consequences of collapse
Possible reduced insurance costs
Reduced costs arising from injury or loss of life
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.

39

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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 its a detailing process.
2.6
Design Methods
There are three traditional analysis methods available to the designer to estimate the seismic forces
applied to a multi-storey building; Dynamic inelastic time-history analysis, Modal superposition
techniques and Equivalent lateral force procedures. Wilson and Lam [34][35][36] have also
developed a Capacity spectrum method.
2.6.1
Dynamic inelastic time-history analysis
This method is a very complex analysis and involves the solving the equations of motion of the
system using a time interval approach. It is generally not used in the preliminary stages as strengths
and stiffnesss of individual members are required. It requires the input of earthquake characteristics
and therefore interpretation of the results is dependant on assumptions made and can imply
considerable uncertainty in the predicted response. In this report, the computer aided design
package, ETABS, is used to carry out a dynamic analysis comparison between the two AS1170.4
[4][7] codes.
2.6.2
Modal superposition techniques
This method is an elastic dynamic approach and relies on the assumption that the dynamic response
of a structure may be found by considering the independent response of each natural mode of
vibration and then combining the responses in some way. Its advantage is that only a few of the
lowest modes of vibration have significance when calculating moments, shears and deflections at
different levels of the building.

40

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Figure 2-31 Shows an example of modal superpositioning [12].
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.
41

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
2.6.3
Equivalent lateral force procedures
This method when combined with a capacity design philosophy, ensuring that ductility can occur
only in carefully selected and detailed plastic regions, it is still the most used method for designing
seismic resistance. This force-based method trades-off strength with ductility to ensure that the
structure has sufficient energy absorption capacity although as seen in the reference papers
[31][33][34][35] a move towards a displacement demand method is being recommended and
described below.
2.6.4
Capacity Spectrum Method
Wilson and Lam [34][35][36] have recommended a method to obtain the seismic demand by using
an acceleration-displacement response spectrum and the structural capacity curves (obtained by nonlinear push-over analysis) as shown in Figure 2-32, Figure 2-33 and Figure 2-34. The structure is
considered to survive the design earthquake if the capacity curve intersects the demand curve and
collapses if the curves do not intersect.

42

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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
43

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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?
Figure 2-34 Bi-linear approximation of the push-over curve [34]
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
44

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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 2.4The 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 Halls [26]
suggested soil classifications of D or De for Sydneys 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
45

AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.

46

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 CODE COMPARISON
With the introduction of the new code AS1170.4 2007 Earthquake Actions in Australia (AS2007), 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.
3.1
Code Layout Comparison
The old and the new codes [4] [7] vary in presentation and therefore firstly a brief summary of the
revisions should be described.
3.1.1
AS1170.4:1993 Layout
The old code is layed out in 8 Sections and has 5 Appendices A through to E. A brief description of
each section is presented below.
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.
2 General requirements Requirements for structural and system classification, coefficients,
factors and limits are all described in this section.
3 Domestic structures Covers the requirements for domestic structures.
4 Structural detailing requirements for general structures The detailing of the structural forceresisting system, including minimum forces to be resisted are set out in this section.

47

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
A Structure classification (informative) Expands on the identification of structural
configurations.
B Structural systems (informative) Defines the classification of the structural systems and states
the appropriate material codes to be used for design and detailing.
C Domestic structures (informative) Gives guidance on improving horizontal earthquake
resistance for domestic structures.
D Types of dynamic analysis (informative) Gives guidance and technical references for types of
dynamic analysis.
E Structural Alterations (informative) Gives guidance on the strengthening required to existing
buildings due to structural alterations.
3.1.2
AS1170.4:2007 Layout and Revisions
The new code is also layed out in 8 Sections but has only 1 Appendix A. The layout and brief
description of each section is presented below.

48

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.

49

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.

50

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
3.2
May 2009
Site Hazard
The acceleration coefficient, a, an index related to the severity of earthquake ground motion in the
old code [4], is now notated as the Hazard Factor, Z in the new code [7].
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%
51

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
chance that a 500-year earthquake will occur during a 50 year period, and a 90% chance that it
wont.
City
Brisbane
Darwin
Gold Coast
Hobart (Tasmania)
Launceston (Tasmania)
Wollongong
1993
A
0.06
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.08
2007
Z
0.05
0.09
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.09
Decreased
Increased
Decreased
Decreased
Decreased
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.
3.2.1
Return Period Calculation
General probability P is the probability that an event will occur or be exceeded during an interval of
n years. The annual probability of occurrence of an event is approximately equal to 1/R (for large R
in years) and the annual probability of non-occurrence is approximately 1 - 1/R.
The probability that it wont 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
52

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
(1- 0.10) 1/50= 1 - (1/R)

(0.90) 1/50= 1 - (1/R)
(-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 wont.
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
Annual Probability of
Exceedance
1:2500
1:1500
1:1000
1:800
1:500
1:250
Probability Factor (kp)

2002
2007
1.80
1.50
1.40
1.30
1.25
1.25
1.00
1.00
0.75
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

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.

54

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
BCA Table
B1.2b
Importance
Level
1
2
3
4
May 2009
Annual probability of
exceedance
2007
1:250
1:500
1:1000
1:1500
Previous
1:500
1:500
1:500
1:800
Table 3-3 this table shows the differences between the current and previous annual probability of exceedance values from the
BCA [11].
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.

55

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
3.3.1
May 2009
Response Spectra and Spectral Shape Factor (Ch(T))
In the new code the spectral shape factor is introduced and is the combined multiplication factor
taking into account the sites condition and the structural period of the building. The resonance of the
site has large implications on the amplifying of the ground motion.
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.

56

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Figure 3-4 shows the RSD, displacement response spectra [34]
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.

57

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.

58

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Figure 3-6 Recommended response spectrum model in tripartite presentation [21]
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 = 2 (RSVmax/RSAmax)
T2 = 0.5 + 0.5 (M-5)
In AS1170.4 1993: RSAmax = 2.5(PGA) = 2.5(a)S
In AS1170.4 2007: RSAmax = 3.0(PGA) = 3.0(KpZ)Fa
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.
59


Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
In AS1170.4 1993: RSVmax = 1.8(PGV)S

In AS1170.4 2007: RSVmax = 1.8(PGV)Fv
In both codes RSDmax = (T2 / 2) RSVmax
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.
3.3.2
Site Classification
The new code [7] determines the Site class according to both soil type and depth, which determines
the sites dynamic stiffness and period. The soil type and depth are major factors in determining the
60

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
sites 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 Lams paper [22] and are the recommended
values for a return period of 500yr.
1997
Site Factor S
0.67
1
1.25
1.5
2
Strong Rock
Rock
Shallow Soil
Deep or Soft Soil
Very Soft Soil
2007
Sub-Soil Class
Ae (0.8 Fa) (0.8 Fv)
Be (1.0 Fa) (1.0 Fv)
Ce (1.25 Fa) (1.4 Fv)
De (1.25 Fa) (2.3 Fv)
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 layers 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.
61

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Particular caution is required where different foundation types or supporting soils occur under the
same building. In such cases the differing foundation stiffnesss 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
Selection of Earthquake Design Category
The design requirements are constructed to reflect the relationship between the use of a structure and
the level of earthquake motion it may be exposed. The main concern with earthquake design is the
protection of life and the degree of exposure of the public to earthquake risk.
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.

62

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Soil Factor
S
0.67
1
1.25
1.5
2
AS1170.4:1993 Earthquake Design Category

Sydney
(I = 1.0)
Design
(I = 1.25)
a
aSI
Category
aSI
0.08
0.0536
C
0.067
0.08
0.08
C
0.1
0.08
0.1
D
0.125
0.08
0.12
D
0.15
0.08
0.16
D
0.2
May 2009
Design
Category
C
D
D
D
E
Table 3-5 shows the design category selections for Sydney using the AS1170.4:1993 code.
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.
Bearing wall systems are limited to 50m
Building frame systems are limited to 70m
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.

63

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
3.4.2
May 2009
AS1170.4:1993 (with AS1170.4:2002 Appendix D considerations)
With the introduction of AS1170.0:2002, which required the application of importance levels rather
than building type, and the probability of exceedance terminology revisions to the earthquake design
category selection table occurred.
However, as can be seen in Table 3-6 there were no revisions to the category definitions it was
purely a notational change.
Soil
Factor
S
0.67
1
1.25
1.5
2
AS1170.4:1993 & AS1170.0:2002 Appendix D Earthquake Design Category

Importance Level
Importance
1,2 & 3
Level 4
Sydney
1/500
Design
1/800
Design
a
Kp
kpaS Category
Kp
kpaS Category
0.08
1.0
0.0536
C
1.25
0.067
C
0.08
1.0
0.08
C
1.25
0.1
D
0.08
1.0
0.1
D
1.25
0.125
D
0.08
1.0
0.12
D
1.25
0.15
D
0.08
1.0
0.16
D
1.25
0.2
E
Table 3-6 show the change in terminology for earthquake design categories in Sydney using the AS1170.4:2002 Appendix D
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:
I a minimum static check
II static analysis
III dynamic 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.

64

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Soil Factors
0.8
1
1.4
2.25
3.5
May 2009

Importance Level 2
Height <=12 12 < Height < 50
Sydney 1/500
Design
Design
Z
kp
kpZ
Category
Category
0.08
1
0.08
I
II
0.08
1
0.08
I
II
0.08
1
0.08
I
II
0.08
1
0.08
NA
II
0.08
1
0.08
NA
II
Height > 50
Design
Category
III
III
III
III
III
Table 3-7 shows the earthquake design categories for Importance level 2 structures in Sydney using AS1170.4:2007
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.
Importance Level 3
Height
Height
Height
<50
> 50
< 25
Sydney 1/1000
Design
Design
Design
Soil
Factors
0.8
1
1.4
2.25
3.5
Z
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
Kp
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
kpZ
0.104
0.104
0.104
0.104
0.104
Category
II
II
II
II
NA
Category
III
III
III
III
NA
Category
NA
NA
NA
NA
II
Height
>=25
Design
Category
NA
NA
NA
NA
III
Table 3-8 shows the earthquake design categories for importance level 3 structures in Sydney using AS1170.4:2007
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
65

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
Importance Level 4
Height <12
Height >12
Sydney 1/1500
Design
Design
Soil Factors
Z
kp
kpZ
Category
Category
0.8
0.08
1.5
0.12
II
III
1
0.08
1.5
0.12
II
III
1.4
0.08
1.5
0.12
II
III
2.25
0.08
1.5
0.12
II
III
3.5
0.08
1.5
0.12
II
III
Table 3-9 shows the earthquake design categories for importance level 4 structures in Sydney using AS1170.4:2007
3.4.4
Earthquake Design Category Comparison
With height restrictions governing the analysis method, a more onerous but practical determination
of structural behaviour than previously considered is required. The engineer gains a greater
understanding of modal response and building irregularities when a computer generated model is
produced and analysed.
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.

66

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
3.5
May 2009
Period Calculation
In calculating the periods of vibration, the influence of the flexibility of the supporting soils has been
considered, however, the topic of calculating the natural period for the structure is still to be
expanded. The calculation of natural period of a structure, with reasonable accuracy, is very
difficult.
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 Rayleighs method once member sizes have been selected.
3.5.1
AS1170.4:1993 Approximated Formulae
The equations listed below give a conservative estimation of the natural structural period.
Fundamental Period
T = hn/46
Period for the orthogonal direction

3.5.2
T = hn/58
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

67

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
T1 = 1.25kthn0.75
for the ultimate limit state
Where Kt = 0.11 for Moment Resisting Steel Frames

=0.075 for Moment Resisting Concrete Frames
= 0.06 for Eccentrically Braced Steel Frames
= 0.05 for all other structures
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.
Fi = (Wi hi)k V/ ( Wj hj) k
3.5.3
Period Calculation Comparison
The values obtained from the empirical formulae of the two codes vary significantly as can be see in
the Figure 3-8.

68

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.

69

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
3.5.4
May 2009
The Rayleigh Method
It should be noted that the Rayleigh Method is used in the New Zealand [27] code, for calculating
the fundamental natural period of vibration.
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, , 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 /Sp relationship [34]

70

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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 and an over-strength
factor but notation similar to the New Zealand [28] code has been used.
System
URM
Limited Ductility
Moderate Ductility
Ductile
Ductility ()
1.25
2
3
4
Over-strength ()
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.5
Rf = x
1.6
2.6
4.5
6
Table 3-10 shows the revised ductility and over-strength factors used in the code but not in used notation [36].
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/ value reduces (i.e. Rf and Sp/ 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 =2, requires basic detailing as specified
in the material standard [8]. While Moderate ductility, with =3, requires special detailing set-out
in the appendices of the material code [8]. Fully ductile structures, with =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 = 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 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)
Fully ductile eccentrically braced frames (steel)
71

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Ductile Coupled Walls (concrete - fully ductile)

Ductile Shear Walls (concrete - fully ductile)
3.7
Earthquake Base shear
The horizontal equivalent static shear force (V) acting at the base of the structure (base shear) in the
direction being considered is calculated from the following equations;
3.7.1
AS1170.4: 1993 Earthquake Base shear
V = I (CS/Rf) Gg
C = 1.25a/T2/3
n=2/3; Factor=1.25
Base shear multiplier = V/Gg = 1.25aIS/RfT2/3

There is a lower limit of V >0.01Gg and an upper limit of V< I (2.5a/Rf) Gg.
Also it should be noted that kp replaced I in AS1170.4:2002 Appendix D.
3.7.2
AS1170.4: 2007 Earthquake Base shear
V = Cd(T1)Wt
Cd(T1) = C(T1) (Sp/)
C(T1) = Ch(T1)kpZ
Base shear multiplier = V/Wt = Ch(T1)kpZ(Sp/)
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.
72

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
3.8
May 2009
Structural Systems and Restrictions
The best way to understand implications to structural design is in terms of loading magnitude (either
increasing or decreasing), the comparison of the horizontal design action coefficient was calculated
using both codes and the differences compared for structural systems.
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.

73

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
3.8.1
May 2009
Bearing wall systems
Bearing Wall System; Soil Class Ae Comparison
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?
74

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
Bearing Wall Frame System Comparison
Multiplier %
AS1170.4:1993
AS1170.4:2007
Difference
Soil Class Ae
Fundamental Orthogonal Limited Ductile Limited Ductile
Comparing Upper Limit Multiplier at T1
Period secs T <=
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
Height m <=
9.2
11.6
8.1
8.1
Cd(T1) Upper Limit %
4.35%
4.35%
7.23%
4.18%
2.88%
-0.18%
Comparing Upper Limit Multiplier at 1993 Orthogonal Maximum % Loading Height
Period secs T
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.4
Height m
11.6
11.6
24.9
11.6
Cd(T1) %
2.49%
3.27%
3.00%
3.13%
-0.27%
-0.14%
Comparing Structural Heights for 1993 Lower Limit Multiplier
Period secs T
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.2
Height m
78.2
98.6
87.3
50.9
Cd(T1) %
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
Table 3-11 show the comparison of the base shear multiplier for BWS, for AS1170.4:1993 and 2007, for soil class Ae

75

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
Bearing Wall System; Soil Class De Comparison
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.

76

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.

77

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Bearing Wall Frame System Comparison

Multiplier %
AS1170.4:1993
AS1170.4:2007
Difference
Soil Class De
Period secs T <=
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
Height m <=
27.6
34.8
15.9
15.9
Cd(T1) Upper Limit %
4.44%
4.44%
11.32%
6.54%
6.88%
2.10%
Period secs T
0.8
0.6
0.9
0.9
Height m
34.8
34.8
34.8
34.8
Cd(T1) %
4.44%
4.44%
6.77%
3.91%
2.32%
-0.53%
Comparing Maximum Height for a Ductile Load Difference of Zero
Period secs T
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.8
Height m
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
Cd(T1) %
4.44%
4.44%
7.63%
4.41%
3.19%
-0.04%
Period secs T
5.0
5.0
3.0
2.3
Height m
230.0
290.0
172.2
120.9
Cd(T1) %
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0%
0%
Table 3-12 show the comparison of the base shear multiplier for BWS, for AS1170.4:1993 and 2007, for soil class De
The above Figure 3-11 and Table 3-12 considered loading increases for soil class De, which is
considered the worst founding material for Sydneys 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.

78

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
3.8.2
May 2009
Building Frame systems
The old 1993 code [4] limited the height of a building frame system to a structural height limit of
70m in design category E.
Building Frame System with Shear Walls; Soil Class Ae Comparison
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
79

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
Building Frame System with RC Walls Comparison
Multiplier %
AS1170.4:1993
AS1170.4:2007
Difference
Soil Class Ae
Period secs T <=
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
Height m <=
9.2
11.6
8.1
8.1
Cd(T1)Upper Limit
%
3.27%
3.27%
7.23%
4.18%
3.97%
0.91%
Period secs T
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.4
Height m
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
Cd(T1)%
2.49%
3.27%
5.42%
3.13%
2.92%
-0.14%
Period secs T
0.25
0.20
0.39
0.39
Height m
11.60
11.60
11.60
11.60
Cd(T1)%
2.49%
3.27%
5.42%
3.13%
2.92%
-0.14%
Period secs T
1.1
1.1
1.8
1.2
Height m
50.6
63.8
87.3
50.9
Cd(T1) %
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.00%
0.00%
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.
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.
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
80

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
Building Frame System with Shear Walls; Soil Class De Comparison
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
81

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
shear is 6.54%. That is an increase of 3.21% which is shown in Table 3-14.
Building Frame System with RC Walls Comparison
Multiplier %
AS1170.4:1993
AS1170.4:2007
Difference
Soil Class De
Period secs T
<=
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
Height m <=
27.6
34.8
15.9
15.9
Cd(T1) Upper
Limit %
3.33%
3.33%
11.32%
6.54%
7.99%
3.21%
Period secs T
0.8
0.6
0.9
0.9
Height m
34.8
34.8
34.8
34.8
Cd(T1) %
2.9%
3.33%
6.77%
3.91%
3.87%
0.58%
Period secs T
1.6
1.3
1.6
1.6
Height m
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
Cd(T1) %
1.83%
2.10%
3.62%
2.09%
1.79%
-0.01%
Period secs T
3.7
3.7
3.0
2.3
Height m
170.2
214.6
172.2
120.9
Cd(T1) %
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
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.
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.
Building Frame System with CB Frames; Soil Class Ae Comparison
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].
82

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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;
83

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
implying that taller buildings experience a reduced seismic loading applied and is maintained at 87m
for the limited ductile concentrically braced frame.
Building Frame System with Concentrically Braced Frames Comparison
Multiplier %
AS1170.4:1993
AS1170.4:2007
Difference
Soil Class Ae
Period secs T <=
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
Height m <=
4.6
5.8
8.1
8.1
Cd(T1) Upper Limit
%
4.0%
4.0%
7.23%
4.18%
3.23%
0.18%
Period secs T
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
Height m
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
Cd(T1) %
4.0%
4.0%
7.23%
4.18%
3.23%
0.18%
Period secs T
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.2
Height m
69.0
87.0
87.3
50.9
Cd(T1) %
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Table 3-15 show the comparison of the base shear multiplier for CBF, for AS1170.4:1993 and 2007, for soil class Ae.
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.
Building Frame System with CB Frames; Soil Class De Comparison
In Figure 3-15 it can be seen that there is sizeable difference in the base shear multiplier.

84

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.

85

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Building Frame System with Concentrically Braced Frames Comparison

Multiplier %
Difference
AS1170.4:1993
AS1170.4:2007
Soil Class De
Period secs T <=
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Height m <=
23.0
29.0
15.9
15.9
Cd(T1) Upper Limit
%
3.97%
3.97%
11.32%
6.54%
7.35%
2.57%
Period secs T
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.8
Height m
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
Cd(T1) %
3.51%
3.97%
7.63%
4.41%
4.12%
0.44%
Period secs T
1.6
1.3
1.6
1.6
Height m
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
Cd(T1) %
2.1%
2.1%
3.62%
2.1%
1.52%
-0.01%
Period secs T
3.7
3.7
3.0
2.3
Height m
170.2
214.6
172.2
120.9
Cd(T1) %
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Table 3-16 show the comparison of the base shear multiplier for CBF, for AS1170.4:1993 and 2007, for soil class De.
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
class De requires design for Earthquake Category II.

86

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
3.8.3
May 2009
Moment Resisting Frame System

Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames (OMRF) Moment resisting frame with no
particular earthquake detailing, specified in the relevant material standard AS 3600 [8] and
AS4100 [9]. In the old code [4], a height limitation of 50m above the structural base of the
structure applied for ordinary moment resisting frames where the product of acceleration
coefficient and site factor (aS) is greater than or equal to 0.1 (1993) i.e. kpaS (2002)
Intermediate Moment Resisting Frames (IMRF) Moment resisting frame of concrete
or steel which is designed and detailed to achieve moderate structural ductility.
Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame; Soil Class Ae Comparison
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%.
87

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame; Soil Class De Comparison
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.
88

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.

89

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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
class De requires design for Earthquake Category II. Charts showing loading multipliers for all soil
classes are provided in the Appendix A.
Intermediate Moment Resisting Frame; Soil Class Ae Comparison
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.

90

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
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.

91

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
Intermediate Moment Resisting Frame; Soil Class De Comparison
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.

92

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
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).

93

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
3.8.4
Dual System
In the old 1993 code a moment resisting frame in a dual system had a restriction that if over a
structural height of 30m then a special moment resisting frames had to be provided down to the
footing.
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.

94

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
3.9.1
May 2009
In the old code [4] the actual response of the structure is calculated by applying the earthquake
actions through the shear centre obtaining the static eccentricity and then factoring it to include
dynamic amplification of the response.
ed1 = A1es + 0.05b
and
ed2 = A2es - 0.05b
Where, A1 = 2.6 3.6(es/b)] or 1.4, whichever is greater

A2 = dynamic eccentricity factor = 0.5
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.

95

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Figure 3-20 shows the geometric eccentricities from the AS1170.4:1993 code.
3.9.2
Unlike the old code [4], amplification or de-amplification of the static eccentricities between the
centre of mass and stiffness is not required. This is convenient because normally the storey stiffness
centre cannot be uniquely defined with accuracy. Therefore in reality the amplification factor
requires tremendous analyses.
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.
96

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
3.9.3
Torsion Comparison
As discussed above the fraction of the storey plan dimension has increased from 5% to 10% for the
calculation on accidental torsional effects. There is not a direct comparison to be drawn between
these two figures though as in the 1993 code [4], the accidental eccentricity is added or subtracted,
to or from the static eccentricities and an equal force is applied directly through the shear centre of
the building with an equivalent moment.
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.
97

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
3.10
Drift and P-Delta Effects
3.10.1
AS1170.4: 1993 Storey Drift Determination and P-delta Effects
May 2009
The design storey drift () shall be calculated as the difference of the deflections (X) at the top and
the bottom of the storey under consideration.
(X) = KdXe
Where
Kd = deflection amplification factor
Xe = deflection determined by an elastic analysis using ultimate earthquake forces.
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
Px = total vertical design load at storey x
= design storey drift
Vx = total horizontal earthquake shear force at the storey x
hsx = height of storey x

98

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
3.10.2
AS1170.4: 2007 Storey Drift Determination and P-delta Effects
As in the 1993 code, the design storey drift (dst) shall be calculated as the difference of the
deflections (i) at the top and the bottom of the storey under consideration.
di = die/Sp Where,
die = deflection determined by an elastic analysis using ultimate earthquake forces.
The inter-storey stability coefficient () 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 (), 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 is greater than 0.25.
= dst Wj / [hsiFj]
The calculation of P-delta effects is similar to the old code [4] however the ductility is used rather
than the deflection amplification factor to reduce the inter-storey stability coefficient.
99

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
3.10.3
May 2009
Storey Drift Determination and P-delta Effects Comparison
As can be seen in Table 3-21 and Table 3-22 there are revisions to the storey drift and inter-storey
coefficient values. The percentage differences are calculated using the following equations;
Storey drift % difference = [(/Sp) - Kd] / Kd
Inter-storey Stability Coefficient % difference = [(1/) - (1/Kd)] / (1/Kd)
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.
1993
Kd
System
% Difference in Design
Deflections Multiplier
RC
Limited
Ductile
Limited
Bearing Wall
2.6
4.5
-35%
13%
Building Frame with RC Shear Walls
2.6
4.5
-48%
-10%
4.5
2.6
4.5
-42%
0%
2.6
-35%
2.6
30%
Building Frame with CB Frames
Steel
2007
/Sp
4.5
Ductile
Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames

Steel
Concrete
Intermediate Moment Resisting
Frames
Steel
4.5
Concrete
3.5
4.5
0%
4.5
29%
Table 3-21 Shows the percentage difference in the design deflections multiplier for storey drift calculation for AS1170.4: 1993
& 2007
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.

100

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
1993
1/Kd
System
Steel
Bearing Wall
Building Frame with RC Shear Walls
Building Frame with CB Frames
0.22
% Difference in inter-storey
Stability Coefficient
Multiplier
2007
1/
RC
Limited
Ductile
Limited
Ductile
0.25
0.5
0.33
100%
33%
0.2
0.5
0.33
150%
67%
0.22
0.5
0.33
125%
50%
0.5
100%
0.5
0.5
0%

Steel
0.25
Concrete
Intermediate Moment Resisting
Frames
Steel
0.22
Concrete
0.29
0.33
50%
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 isnt 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.
3.11
Dynamic Analysis
As the two codes only provide minimum coverage of requirements, limitations and guidelines it can
be seen that there is very little difference between the two codes for dynamic analysis procedures.
The analysis methods chosen can be either a response spectrum analysis or a time history analysis. A
time history analysis involves the calculating of the response of a structure at each increment of time
when the base is subjected to a specific ground motion time history. It should be noted that the
dynamic analysis is only as good as the assumptions and inputs initial made.

101

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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;
Cd(T) = C(T) (Sp/) = Ch(T)kpZ(Sp/)
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;
Cvd(T) = Cv(Tv)Sp = 0.5C(Tv)Sp =0.5Ch(Tv)SpkpZ
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.
102

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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 twodimensional 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
103

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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%
Ductile
4.35%
4.44%
4.18%
Building Frame System with Shear Walls
Limited
3.27%
3.33%
7.23%
Ductile
3.27%
3.33%
4.18%
Building Frame System with Concentrically Braced Frames
Limited
4.00%
3.97%
7.23%
Moderately ductile
4.00%
3.97%
4.18%
Concrete
5.00%
5.00%
7.23%
Steel
4.35%
4.44%
7.23%
Intermediate Moment Resisting Frames
Concrete
3.27%
3.33%
4.18%
Steel
3.08%
3.08%
4.18%
11.32%
6.54%
2.88%
-0.17%
6.88%
2.10%
11.32%
6.54%
3.96%
0.91%
7.99%
3.21%
11.32%
6.54%
3.23%
0.18%
7.35%
2.57%
11.32%
6.54%
2.23%
2.88%
6.32%
2.10%
11.32%
6.54%
0.91%
1.10%
7.99%
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.
104

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.

105

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
ANALYSIS COMPARISON OF A TYPICAL CONCRETE
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
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.
4.1
Building, Site and Design Method Selection
4.1.1
Structural System
One of the most common construction systems due to its versatility is a reinforced concrete frame
with reinforced concrete shear walls. It is basically a column and beam frame system (which
supports the vertical loads) and where a reinforced concrete lift shaft has a dual purpose providing
the main obvious function and the primary lateral load resisting system of the building.
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.

106

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.

107

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
108

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.

109

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Figure 4-3 shows a typical architectural section through Building Type 3.
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.

110

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.

111

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.

112

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
4.1.4
May 2009
Core Properties
The cores in each building are maintained in the same dimensions. However depending on structural
height, they are required to be different thicknesses in order to withstand the stresses induced. Figure
4-6 and Figure 4-7 below show the typical core properties for the two cores of building 3.
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.
113

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
4.1.5
Shear Centre and Centre of Mass
As discussed in Section 2.3 during an earthquake the acceleration-induced inertia forces will be
generated at each floor level, where the mass of the entire storey are assumed to be concentrated
(centre of mass). Torsion will be induced in the floor plate unless these forces act through the shear

114

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.

115

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Figure 4-9 shows the calculation of the centre of mass and shear centre for the y-y direction
4.1.6
AS1170.4:1993 Design Eccentricity Calculation
The design eccentricities have to be calculated for both directions:

X-X Direction (Load applied perpendicular)
ed1 = A1es + 0.05b
ed2 = A2es - 0.05b

116
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Where,
A1 = dynamic eccentricity factor = [2.6 3.6(es/b)] or 1.4, whichever is greater
es = 8.59 7.05 = 1.54 (Figure 4-8)
b = 49.5
A1 = [2.6 3.6(1.54/49.5)] = 2.488
ed1 = 2.488(1.54) + 0.05(49.5) = 6.30m
ed2 = 0.5(1.54) - 0.05(49.5) = -1.705m
Y-Y Direction (Load applied perpendicular)
es = 0 (Figure 4-9)
b = 35
A1 = [2.6 3.6(0/49.5)] = 2.6
ed1 = 2.6(0) + 0.05(35) = +1.75m
ed2 = 0.5(0) - 0.05(35) = -1.75m
4.1.7
AS1170.4:2007 Design Eccentricity Calculation
The design eccentricities have to be calculated for each direction of earthquake action and orientated
to produce the most adverse torsion moment:
X-X Direction (Load applied perpendicular)
117

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
ed1 = es + 0.1b
ed2 = es - 0.1b
es = 8.59 7.05 = 1.54 (Figure 4-8)
b = 49.5
ed1 = (1.54) + 0.1(49.5) = 6.49m
ed2 = (1.54) - 0.1(49.5) = -3.41m
Y-Y Direction (Load applied perpendicular)
es = 0 (Figure 4-9)
b = 35
ed1 = (0) + 0.1(35) = +3.5m
ed2 = (0) - 0.1(35) = -3.5m
4.1.8
Analysis Method
The equivalent lateral force method procedure is used for the static analysis and consists of the
following steps;
Estimate the first-mode natural period.
Choose the appropriate seismic base shear coefficient.
Calculate the seismic design base shear
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
118

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Estimate structural displacements and particularly, story drifts.

4.1.9
Site & Structural Factors
4.1.10
Structural Classification / Importance level for the structure
When considering the old 1993 code the structure for building 3, is classified as Type II, which are
structures including buildings that are designed to contain a large number of people, or people of
restricted or impaired mobility.
For the new 2007 code this corresponding to Importance Level 3 (2002 & 2007) defined in Part B of
the Building Code of Australia [11].
4.1.11
Acceleration Coefficient/Hazard Factor
The site of the structure is to be considered in Sydney therefore:

a = 0.08 (1993 & 2002)
Z = 0.08 (2007)
4.1.12
Probability Factor kp
For Importance Level 3 Structure in the BCA 2002, for a 1:500 year annual probability of
exceedance: kp = 1.0
For Importance Level 3 Structure in the BCA 2007, for a 1:1000 year annual probability of
exceedance: kp = 1.3
4.1.13
Site Factor / Sub Soil Class
Comparison has been done for soil class Ae and De and both these soil types will be considered for
the four buildings being compared.
4.1.14
Period Calculation for the buildings
An example of the natural period of the structure will be shown below for building 3.
For 1993: The Fundamental Period: hn/46 = 56.1/46 = 1.22 sec
119

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
For 1993: The Orthogonal Direction: hn/58 = 56.1/58 = 0.97 sec

For 2007: T1 = 1.25kthn0.75
for the ultimate limit state
Where Kt = 0.05 for all other structures

T1 = 1.25 x 0.05 x (56.1)0.75 = 1.28 sec
4.1.15
Response Factor and Ductility Ratio
For 1993: Response Factor Rf for a Building Frame System: Rf = 6.0

For 2007: Ductility Ratio: Sp/ = 0.22
The inverse of the ductility ratio corresponds to Rf = / Sp = 4.5
4.1.16
Earthquake Base shear Multiplier
An example of the calculation for the earthquake base shear multiplier is shown below for building
3.
1993: For Soil Class Ae
V = I (CS/Rf) Gg
C = 1.25a/T2/3
n=2/3; Factor=1.25
V/Gg = 1.25aIS/RfT2/3
V Fund = 1.0 x 0.08 x (1/6) x ((1.25 x 0.67)/1.222/3) = 0.009 Gg
V Orth = 1.0 x 0.08 x (1/6) x ((1.25 x 0.67)/0.962/3) = 0.011 % Gg
2007: For Soil Class Ae
V = Cd(T1)Wt
120

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Cd(T1) = C(T1) (Sp/)

C(T1) = Ch(T1)kpZ
Ch(T1) = 0.558 (Obtained from Table 6.4)
V ductile walls = (1.3 x 0.08) x (0.558) x (0.22) = 0.013 Wt
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.
Basement Levels: (1750m2)
Live Load:
Dead Load
Service Dead
Loads
(c= 0.4)
Slab
Beams
Car Parking
(160mm Dp)
(300mm Dp)
24 x 0.16 =
Equivalent
kPa
Min
Max
2.5
3.84
1.2
0
3.84
1.2
1
3.84
1.2
1.2
0.3
6.54
11445
1.2
0.3
7.54
13195
Screeds
Services
Total UDL (kPa)

Load per Floor (kN)
Table 4-1 shows the typical loading to be taken for the basement areas
Typical Floor: (1750m2)

Live Load:
Dead Load
Service Dead
Loads
(c= 0.4)
Slab
Beams
Office
(170mm Dp)
(450mm Dp)
24 x 0.17 =
Equivalent
kPa
Min
Max
3
4.08
1.7
0
4.08
1.7
1.2
4.08
1.7
1
1.2
0.3
8.28
14490
1
1.2
0.3
9.48
16590
Walls
Screeds
Services
Total UDL (kPa)

Load per Floor (kN)
Table 4-2 shows the typical loading to be taken for the floor areas

121

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Plant Room Floor: (1750m2)

Live Load:
Dead Load
(c= 0.4)
Slab
Beams
Walls
Screeds
Services
Service Dead Loads
Plant
(200mm Dp)
(500mm Dp)
24 x 0.2 =
Equivalent
kPa
Min
Max
5
4.8
1.5
0
4.8
1.5
1
1.2
0.3
8.8
15400
2
4.8
1.5
1
1.2
0.3
10.8
18900
Total UDL (kPa)

Load per Floor (kN)
Table 4-3 shows the typical loading to be taken for the plant floor
Steel Roof: (770m2)
kPa
Min
Max
Live Load:
Dead Load
0.25
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.3
1.3
1001
0.3
2.6
2002
(c= 0.0) Roof

Steel Beams
Cladding
Service Dead
Loads
Services
Total UDL (kPa)
Total Roof Load (kN)
Table 4-4 shows the typical loading to be taken for the steel roof
Core Walls:
kPa
Dead
Load:
(300mm
Wd)
Core
Area Core
1:
6.66 m2
Area Core
2:
10.83 m2
Height of Core Walls Building 1:
Total Load Core 1
Total Load Core 2
Total Load Core 1
Total Load Core 2
Total Load Core 1
Total Load Core 2
Total Load Core 1
Total Load Core 2
24 x 0.3
=
7.2
14.4
29.7
56.1
97.9
Table 4-5 shows the typical loading to be taken for each core

122
Min/Max
104
691
1123
214
1424
2316
404
2690
4374
705
4695
7634
kN
kN
kN
kN
kN
kN
kN
kN
kN
kN
kN
kN

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Axial Load on Core Walls:
Trib Area for Each Core
Roof
Plant
Typical Floor
Basement
115
m2
Height of Core Walls Building 1: (4 Floors & Roof)

Total Load Core 1
691 kN
Total Load Core 2
1123 kN
Height of Core Walls Building 1: (2 Base, 4 Floors, Plant &
Roof)
Total Load Core 1
1424 kN
Total Load Core 2
2316 kN
Roof)
Total Load Core 1
2690 kN
Total Load Core 2
4374 kN
Roof)
Total Load Core 1
4695 kN
Total Load Core 2
7634 kN
May 2009
Min
kPa
1.3
8.8
8.28
6.54
P
Min
4649
5081
P
Min
7899
8791
P
Min
15982
17666
P
Min
28461
31400
Max
kPa
2.6
10.8
9.48
7.54
P
Max
5351
5783
P
Max
9060
9952
P
Max
18155
19839
P
Max
32152
35091
Table 4-6 shows the minimum and maximum axial load acting on the cores.
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.

123

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
4.2
May 2009
Hand Calculation Analysis
After defining the building geometry above, spreadsheets were created using Microsoft Excel for all
four building and two soil class cases Ae and De. The equivalent lateral force method is used for the
static analysis.
All spreadsheets for all four buildings can be referenced in Appendix B
4.2.1
First-Mode of Natural Period
As discussed previously in Section 3.5, there was revision in the calculation of the period of a
structure. This revision can be seen below in Table 4-7. Also the base shear multipliers have been
shown for comparison.
Ref
1
2
3
4
Height
(m)
14.40
29.70
56.10
97.90
First Mode Natural Period (sec)

AS1170.4:1993 AS1170.4:2007
Fund
Orth kt =
0.05
0.31
0.25
0.46
0.65
0.51
0.80
1.22
0.97
1.28
2.13
1.69
1.95
Base shear Multiplier

Ae
AS1170.4:1993
Fund
Orth 2007
0.024 0.028 0.04
0.015 0.017 0.02
0.1
0.1
0.13
0.1
0.1
0.01

De
AS1170.4:1993
2007
Fund
Orth
0.033 0.033 0.084
0.033 0.033 0.084
0.022 0.025 0.056
0.015 0.017 0.028
Table 4-7 shows the first mode of natural period and base shear multiplier for the four buildings
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.
4.2.2
Seismic Design Base Shear
The base shear was calculated for all four buildings using the Multiplier set out in Table 4-7 and the
loadings defined in Section 4.1.17.

124

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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%.
Ref
1
Height
(m)
14.4
29.7
56.1
97.9
Soil
Class
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Base shear Min Loading (G only)

Fundamental
Orthogonal
2007
kN
kN
kN
1478
1725
2165
2035
2035
5139
1424
1662
1946
3176
3176
8021
2023
2310
2583
4431
5172
11249
3670
3670
2368
5545
6472
10479
Numerical
Difference
439
3105
284
4846
273
6077
-1302
4007
%
Difference
25.5
152.6
17.1
152.6
11.8
117.5
-35.5
61.9
Table 4-8 shows the differences in the base shear values for the AS110.4:1993 & 2007 codes for minimum loading
Ref
1
Height
(m)
14.4
29.7
56.1
97.9
Soil
Class
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Base shear Max Loading (G + cG)

Fundamental
Orthogonal
2007
kN
kN
kN
1687
1969
2471
2341
2341
5913
1653
1929
2259
3686
3686
9310
2333
2663
2978
5109
5962
12969
4241
4241
2736
6407
7478
12109
Numerical
Difference
501
3572
330
5625
315
7006
-1504
4630
%
Difference
25.5
152.6
17.1
152.6
11.8
117.5
-35.5
61.9
Table 4-9 shows the differences in the base shear values for the AS110.4:1993 & 2007 codes for maximum loading
4.2.3
Overturning Moment
The overturning moment was calculated for all four buildings using the vertical load distribution as
shown in Figure 4-10 below.

125

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
Ref
1
Height (m)
14.4
29.7
56.1
97.9
Soil Class
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Overturning Moment (G only)

Fundamental Orthogonal
2007
kNm
kNm
kNm
21288
24846
31170
29297
29297
74004
42294
49362
57809
94312
94312
238228
113507
129596
144915
248595
290139
631081
359277
359277
231811
542858
633578
1025889
Numerical
Difference
6324
44706
8447
143916
15319
340942
-127466
392311
%
Difference
25.5
152.6
17.1
152.6
11.8
117.5
-35.5
61.9
Table 4-10 shows the differences in the overturning moment values for the AS110.4:1993 & 2007 codes for minimum loading
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.
126

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Ref
1
Height
(m)
14.4
29.7
56.1
97.9
Soil Class
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
May 2009
Overturning Moment (G + cG)

2007
kNm
kNm
kNm
24297
28357
35576
33707
33707
85142
49092
57296
67101
109471
109471
276519
130857
149404
167065
286593
334487
727542
415148
415148
267860
627277
732104
1 185423
Numerical
Difference
7218
51435
9805
167048
17661
393055
-147288
453319
% Difference
25.5
152.6
17.1
152.6
11.8
117.5
-35.5
61.9
Table 4-11 shows the differences in the overturning moment values for the AS110.4:1993 & 2007 codes for maximum loading
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)
Fundamental
X-Direction
X-Direction
Y-Direction
X-Dir
Y-Dir
(ed2)
(ed1)
(ed2)
(ed1)
(ed2)
(ed1)
(ed2)
(e)
(e)
9323
2521
2587
2587
10881
2942
3019
3019
14048
7576
De
12831
3469
3560
3560
12831
3469
3560
3560
33353
17987
Ae
8981
2428
2492
2492
10482
2834
2909
2909
12632
6813
De
20026
5414
5557
5557
20026
5414
5557
5557
52057
28074
Ae
12760
3450
3541
3541
14569
3939
4043
4043
16765
9041
De
27946
7555
7755
7755
32616
8818
9051
9051
73007
39372
Ae
23144
6257
6422
6422
23144
6257
6422
6422
15367
8287
De
34970
9454
9704
9704
40814
11034
11325
11325
68008
36676
Ref
Soil
Class
(ed1)
14.4
Ae
3
4
29.7
56.1
97.9
2007
Y-Direction
Height
(m)
Orthogonal

127

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Ref
1
Height
(m)
14.4
29.7
56.1
97.9
May 2009
Torsion (G only)
Numerical
Difference
% Difference
X-Direction
kN
X-Direction
3167
29.1
20522
159.9
2151
20.5
32031
159.9
2196
15.1
40391
123.8
-7777
-33.6
27195
66.6
Soil Class
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Numerical
Difference
Y-Direction
kN
4557
14427
3904
22517
4998
30322
1865
25351
% Difference
Y-Direction
150.9
405.2
134.2
405.2
123.6
335.0
29.0
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 + cG)
Fundamental
X-Direction
Ref
Height
(m)
14.4
2
3
4
29.7
56.1
97.9
Orthogonal
2007
Y-Direction
X-Direction
Y-Direction
(ed1)
(ed2)
(ed1)
(ed1)
2953
2953
12419
3358
3446
3446
16034
8647
3991
4096
4096
14762
3991
4096
4096
38373
20694
10424
2818
2893
2893
12166
3289
3376
3376
14663
7908
De
23245
6284
6450
6450
23245
6284
6450
6450
60425
32586
Ae
14710
3977
4082
4082
16795
4541
4661
4661
19327
10423
De
32218
8710
8940
8940
37602
10166
10434
10434
84167
45390
Ae
26743
7230
7421
7421
26743
7230
7421
7421
17757
9576
De
40408
10924
11213
11213
47161
12750
13087
13087
78584
42380
Soil
Class
(ed1)
Ae
10641
2877
De
14762
Ae

(ed2)
128
(ed2)
(ed2)
X-Dir
Y-Dir
(e)
(e)

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Ref
1
Height
(m)
14.4
29.7
56.1
97.9
Soil
Class
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
May 2009
Torsion (G + cG)
Numerical
Difference
% Difference
Numerical
Difference
% Difference
X-Direction
3615
23611
2496
37179
2532
46565
-8986
31424
Y-Direction
5201
16598
4531
26136
5762
34956
2155
29293
Y-Direction
150.9
405.2
134.2
405.2
123.6
335.0
29.0
223.8
X-Direction
29.1
159.9
20.5
159.9
15.1
123.8
-33.6
66.6
Table 4-13 shows the differences in the torsion values for the AS110.4:1993 & 2007 codes for maximum loading
4.2.5
Tension & Compression Core Stresses due to Overturning Moment
The calculation of the tension and compression stresses in the core allows the easy identification of
the cores ability to satisfactorily support the lateral loads. The tension and compression stresses have
been calculated using the following equation: P/A M/Z. The distribution of the lateral loads to the
cores was based on the stiffness proportion of each core to the stiffness of the cores together.
Core 1 Tension Min Loading (G only) N/mm2
Ref
1
Height
(m)
14.40
29.70
56.10
97.90
Core
Thickness
(mm)
200
200
200
400
300
400
400
400
Soil Class
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Fundamental
0.10
-0.11
-0.11
-1.39
-1.11
-4.21
-5.48
-9.93
Orthogonal
-0.06
-0.11
-0.42
-1.39
-1.61
-5.22
-5.48
-12.13
2007
-0.03
-2.10
-0.80
-4.88
-2.08
-13.49
-2.39
-21.64
Numerical
Difference
0.13
1.99
0.69
3.49
0.97
9.28
-3.09
11.71
%
Difference
134
1809
627
251
87
220
56
118
Table 4-14 shows the comparison of tension stress induced in core 1 for minimum 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
129

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
Core 1 Tension Max Loading (G + cG) N/mm2
Ref
1
Height
(m)
14.40
29.70
56.10
97.90
Core
Thickness
(mm)
200
200
200
400
300
400
400
400
Soil
Class
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Fundamental
-0.04
-0.45
-0.41
-1.76
-1.65
-5.13
-6.83
-11.98
Orthogonal
-0.22
-0.45
-0.77
-1.76
-2.22
-6.30
-6.83
-14.52
2007
-0.54
-2.73
-1.21
-5.81
-2.77
-15.83
-3.26
-25.51
Numerical
Difference
0.50
2.28
0.80
4.05
1.12
10.70
-3.57
13.53
%
Difference
1250
507
195
230
68
209
52
113
Table 4-15 shows the comparison of tension stress induced in core 1 for maximum loading
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.
Core 1 Compression Min Loading (G only) N/mm2
Ref
1
Height
(m)
14.40
29.70
56.10
97.90
Core
Thickness
(mm)
200
Soil
Class
Ae
Fundamental
2.14
Orthogonal
2.30
2007
2.58
Numerical
Difference
0.44
%
Difference
21
200
De
2.50
2.50
4.48
1.98
79
200
400
Ae
De
3.90
3.18
4.22
3.18
4.59
6.67
0.69
3.49
18
110
300
400
Ae
De
6.24
8.09
6.73
9.10
7.21
17.37
0.97
9.28
16
115
400
400
Ae
De
12.37
16.82
12.37
19.02
9.28
28.53
-3.09
11.71
-25
70
Table 4-16 shows the comparison of compression stress induced in core 1 for minimum loading
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.

130

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Ref
1
Height
(m)
14.40
May 2009
Core 1 Compression Max Loading (G + cG) N/mm2

Core
Thickness
Soil
Numerical
(mm)
Class
Fundamental
Orthogonal
2007
Difference
200
Ae
2.27
2.45
2.78
0.51
%
Difference
22
200
De
2.69
2.69
4.98
2.29
85
29.70
200
400
Ae
De
4.20
3.55
4.57
3.55
5.00
7.60
0.80
4.05
19
114
56.10
300
400
Ae
De
6.77
9.01
7.35
10.17
7.89
19.71
1.12
10.70
17
119
97.90
400
Ae
13.72
13.72
10.15
-3.57
-26
400
De
18.87
21.41
32.40
13.53
72
Table 4-17 shows the comparison of compression stress induced in core 1 for maximum loading
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.
Core 2 Tension Min Loading (G only) N/mm2
Ref
1
Height
(m)
14.40
29.70
56.10
97.90
Core
Thickness
(mm)
200
200
200
200
300
400
400
400
Soil
Class
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Fundamental
-1.29
-2.04
-2.75
-4.60
-5.69
-11.10
-15.63
-24.73
Orthogonal
-1.63
-2.04
-3.41
-4.60
-6.73
-13.16
-15.63
-29.23
2007
-2.22
-6.23
-4.20
-11.20
-7.72
-30.06
-9.31
-48.69
Numerical
Difference
0.93
4.19
1.45
6.60
2.03
18.96
-6.32
23.96
% Difference
-72
205
53
143
36
171
40
97
Table 4-18 shows the comparison of tension stress induced in core 2 for minimum loading
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.

131

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Core 2 Tension Max Loading (G + cG) N/mm2
Ref
1
Height
(m)
14.40
29.70
56.10
97.90
Core
Thickness
(mm)
200
200
200
400
300
400
400
400
Soil
Class
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Fundamental
-1.58
-2.46
-3.39
-4.82
-6.81
-12.98
-18.40
-28.92
Orthogonal
-1.96
-2.46
-4.16
-4.82
-8.01
-15.36
-18.40
-34.12
2007
-2.63
-7.28
-5.08
-13.10
-9.15
-34.85
-11.10
-56.60
Numerical
Difference
1.05
4.82
1.69
8.28
2.34
21.87
-7.30
27.68
%
Difference
66
196
50
172
34
168
40
96
Table 4-19 shows the comparison of tension stress induced in core 2 for maximum loading
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.
Core 2 Compression Min Loading (G only) N/mm2
Ref
1
2
Height
(m)
Core
Thickness
(mm)
Soil
Class
14.40
200
29.70
Ae
Fundamental
2.79
Orthogonal
3.12
2007
3.72
200
200
De
Ae
3.54
5.33
3.54
6.00
400
De
5.37
Numerical
Difference
0.93
% Difference
33
7.73
6.79
4.19
1.46
118
27
5.37
12.51
7.14
133
56.10
300
400
Ae
De
9.16
13.71
10.20
15.77
11.19
32.68
2.03
18.97
22
138
97.90
400
400
Ae
De
20.26
29.36
20.26
33.86
13.94
53.32
-6.32
23.96
-31
82
Table 4-20 shows the comparison of compression stress induced in core 2 for minimum loading
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.

132

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Ref
Height
(m)
14.40
2
3
4
May 2009
Core 2 Compression Max Loading (G + cG) N/mm2

Core
Thickness
Soil
Numerical
(mm)
Class
Fundamental
Orthogonal
2007
Difference
29.70
56.10
97.90
%
Difference
200
Ae
3.07
3.45
4.13
1.06
35
200
De
3.95
3.95
8.77
4.82
122
200
Ae
5.97
6.74
7.66
1.69
28
400
De
6.12
6.12
14.41
8.29
135
300
Ae
10.28
11.48
12.62
2.34
23
400
De
15.59
17.97
37.46
21.87
140
400
Ae
23.03
23.03
15.73
-7.30
-32
400
De
33.55
38.75
61.23
27.68
83
Table 4-21 shows the comparison of compression stress induced in core 2 for maximum loading
4.2.6
Shear Force on Core due to Base Shear & Torsion
Base shear and shear load due to torsion are to be combined to give the worst effect on the core
walls. The torsion values have been presented above.
Base shear Due to Torsion Minimum Loading (G only) kN
Fundamental
Orthogonal
2007
X-Direction
Core Core
1
2
Y-Direction
Core Core
1
2
X-Direction
Core Core
1
2
Y-Direction
Core Core
1
2
X-Direction
Core Core
1
2
Y-Direction
Core Core
1
2
Ref
Height
(m)
Soil
Class
8.59
5.88
11.58
2.89
8.59
5.88
11.58
2.89
8.59
5.88
11.58
2.89
14.4
Ae
382
71
143
36
446
306
167
42
576
395
419
105
De
526
97
197
49
526
360
197
49
1368
937
995
248
Ae
368
68
138
34
430
294
161
40
518
355
377
94
De
822
152
307
77
822
562
307
77
2136
1462
1553
387
Ae
523
97
196
49
598
409
224
56
688
471
500
125
De
1147
212
429
107
1338
916
501
125
2995
2050
2178
543
Ae
949
176
355
89
949
650
355
89
630
432
458
114
De
1435
266
537
134
1674
1146
626
156
2790
1910
2028
506
2
3
4
29.7
56.1
97.9
Table 4-22 shows the comparison of additional shear due to torsion for minimum loading

133

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Base shear Due to Torsion Maximum Loading (G + cG) kN
Ref
1
Height
(m)
14.4
29.7
56.1
97.9
Soil
Class
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Fundamental
X-Direction Y-Direction
Core Core Core Core
1
2
1
2
Orthogonal
Core Core Core Core
1
2
1
2
2007
Core Core Core Core
1
2
1
2
8.59
437
606
428
954
604
1322
1097
1658
8.59
510
606
499
954
689
1543
1097
1935
8.59
658
1574
602
2479
793
3453
728
3224
5.88
81
112
79
176
112
245
203
307
11.58
163
227
160
357
226
494
410
620
2.89
41
57
40
89
56
123
102
155
5.88
349
415
342
653
472
1056
751
1324
11.58
191
227
187
357
258
577
410
724
2.89
48
57
47
89
64
144
102
181
5.88
450
1078
412
1697
543
2364
499
2207
11.58
478
1145
437
1802
576
2510
530
2344
Table 4-23 shows the comparison of additional shear due to torsion maximum loading
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.

134
2.89
119
286
109
450
144
627
132
585

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Base shear Minimum Loading (G only) kN

Fundamental
X-Direction
Core Core
1
2
Height
(m)
Ref
1
2
3
4
14.4
29.7
56.1
97.9
Orthogonal
Y-Direction
Core Core
1
2
X-Direction
Core Core
1
2
2007
Y-Direction
Core Core
1
2
X-Direction
Core Core
1
2
Y-Direction
Core Core
1
2
Soil
Class
0.41
0.59
0.2
0.8
0.41
0.59
0.2
0.8
0.41
0.59
0.2
0.8
Ae
606
872
296
1183
707
1018
345
1380
887
1277
433
1732
De
834
1200
407
1628
834
1200
407
1628
2107
3032
1028
4111
Ae
584
840
285
1139
681
981
332
1330
798
1148
389
1557
De
1302
1874
635
2540
1302
1874
635
2540
3289
4732
1604
6417
Ae
830
1194
405
1619
947
1363
462
1848
1059
1524
517
2067
De
1817
2614
886
3545
2120
3051
1034
4137
4612
6637
2250
8999
Ae
1505
2165
734
2936
1505
2165
734
2936
971
1397
474
1894
De
2273
3272
1109
4436
2653
3818
1294
5177
4296
6183
2096
8383
Table 4-24 shows the comparison of equivalent horizontal base shear for minimum loading
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.
Base shear Maximum Loading (G + cG) kN
Ref
1
Height
(m)
14.4
29.7
56.1
97.9
Soil
Class
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Fundamental
Core Core Core Core
1
2
1
2
Orthogonal
Core Core Core Core
1
2
1
2
2007
X-Direction
Y-Direction
Core Core Core Core
1
2
1
2
0.41
692
960
678
1511
956
2095
1739
2627
0.41
807
960
791
1511
1092
2445
1739
3066
0.41
1013
2424
926
3817
1221
5317
1122
4964
0.59
996
1381
975
2175
1376
3014
2502
3780
0.2
337
468
331
737
467
1022
848
1281
0.8
1350
1873
1322
2949
1866
4087
3392
5126
0.59
1162
1381
1138
2175
1571
3518
2502
4412
0.2
394
468
386
737
533
1192
848
1496
0.8
1575
1873
1543
2949
2131
4770
3392
5982
Table 4-25 shows the comparison of equivalent horizontal base shear for maximum loading

135
0.59
1458
3488
1333
5493
1757
7652
1614
7144
0.2
494
1183
452
1862
596
2594
547
2422
0.8
1976
4730
1807
7448
2382
10375
2189
9687

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Ref
1
Height
(m)
14.4
29.7
56.1
97.9
Soil
Class
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
May 2009
Total Base shear Minimum Loading (G only) kN

Fundamental
Orthogonal
X-Direction Y-Direction X-Direction Y-Direction
Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2007
Core Core Core Core
1
2
1
2
0.41
989
1361
952
2124
1353
2963
2454
3708
0.41
1464
3475
1316
5424
1747
7607
1601
7086
0.59
943
1298
908
2026
1291
2827
2341
3537
0.2
439
604
423
942
600
1315
1089
1646
0.8
1218
1677
1174
2617
1668
3652
3025
4570
0.41
1154
1361
1111
2124
1545
3459
2454
4328
0.59
1324
1561
1275
2436
1772
3967
2815
4964
0.2
512
604
493
942
686
1535
1089
1921
0.8
1422
1677
1370
2617
1904
4262
3025
5334
0.59
1672
3969
1503
6194
1995
8687
1829
8092
0.2
852
2023
766
3157
1017
4427
932
4124
0.8
1836
4360
1651
6804
2191
9543
2009
8889
Table 4-26 shows the comparison of total torsional and equivalent horizontal base shear for minimum loading
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.
Ref
1
Height (m)
14.4
29.7
56.1
97.9
Total Base shear Minimum Loading (G only) kN

Numerical Difference
% Difference
X-Direction
Y-Direction
X-Direction
Y-Direction
Core 1
Core 2 Core 1
Core 2
Core 1
Core 2 Core 1
Core 2
Soil Class
0.41
0.59
0.2
0.8
0.41
0.59
0.2
0.8
Ae
310
348
340
414
27
26
66
29
De
2115
2408
1419
2683
155
154
235
160
Ae
205
228
273
281
18
18
55
21
De
3301
3758
2214
4187
155
154
235
160
Ae
202
223
331
287
13
13
48
15
De
4149
4720
2892
5280
120
119
188
124
Ae
-853
-987
-157
-1016
-35
-35
-14
-34
De
2759
3128
2204
3556
64
63
115
67
Table 4-27 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the total torsional and equivalent horizontal base shear for
minimum loading

136

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
It is shown that core 2 attracts much larger loadings in the y-direction due to its larger stiffnesss. It
would be beneficial to have cores of relatively similar stiffness in order to distribute the loading
evenly between the two cores.
Ref
1
Height
(m)
14.4
29.7
56.1
97.9
Soil
Class
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Total Base shear Maximum Loading (G + cG) kN

Fundamental
Orthogonal
X-Direction Y-Direction X-Direction Y-Direction
Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2007
X-Direction
Y-Direction
Core Core Core Core
1
2
1
2
0.41
1128
1565
1105
2465
1560
3416
2836
4285
0.41
1671
3998
1528
6296
2014
8770
1850
8188
0.59
1076
1493
1054
2351
1488
3259
2705
4087
0.2
501
695
491
1094
692
1516
1259
1902
0.8
1391
1929
1362
3038
1922
4210
3495
5281
0.41
1317
1565
1290
2465
1781
3987
2836
5001
0.59
1511
1796
1480
2827
2043
4574
3253
5736
0.2
584
695
573
1094
790
1770
1259
2219
0.8
1623
1929
1590
3038
2195
4914
3495
6163
0.59
1908
4566
1745
7190
2300
10015
2113
9351
0.2
972
2327
889
3664
1172
5104
1077
4766
0.8
2096
5016
1917
7898
2526
11001
2321
10272
Table 4-28 shows the comparison of total torsional and equivalent horizontal base shear for maximum loading
Ref
1
Height (m)
14.4
29.7
56.1
97.9
Total Base shear Maximum Loading (G + cG) kN

Difference
% Difference
X-Direction
Y-Direction
X-Direction
Y-Direction
Core 1 Core 2 Core 1 Core 2 Core 1 Core 2 Core 1 Core 2
Soil Class
0.41
0.59
0.2
0.8
0.41
0.59
0.2
0.8
Ae
354
397
388
473
27
26
66
29
De
2433
2770
1632
3087
155
154
235
160
Ae
238
265
317
327
18
18
55
21
De
3831
4363
2570
4860
155
154
235
160
Ae
233
257
382
331
13
13
48
15
De
4783
5441
3335
6088
120
119
188
124
Ae
-985
-1140
-182
-1174
-35
-35
-14
-34
De
3188
3614
2546
4109
64
63
115
67
Table 4-29 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the total torsional and equivalent horizontal base shear for
minimum loading
4.2.7
Structural Displacements
A fundamental assumption underlying the provisions in AS1170.4:1993 and 2007 for the design of
energy dissipation and ductility is that the global inelastic response of a structure to monotonic
137

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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 secondorder 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/fcAg)] 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.
4.2.8
Deflection at Roof Level
Using the equation above to calculate the equivalent moment of inertia for the cores the deflections
at each storey were calculated. Table 4-30 through to Table 4-37, present the deflections at roof level
of the two cores under minimum and maximum loading in both directions.
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.

138

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Core 1 Deflection Min Loading (G only) mm X-Direction

Core
Thickness Soil
Numerical
(mm)
Class Fundamental Orthogonal 2007 Difference
200
Ae
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.21
200
De
0.9
0.9
2.3
1.38
200
Ae
4.6
5.2
6.5
1.25
400
De
5.7
5.5
14.7
9.21
Ref
1
Height
(m)
14.40
Limit
28.80
29.70
59.40
56.10
112.20
97.90
195.80
300
400
400
400
Ae
De
Ae
De
28.0
48.6
278.0
420.0
30.1
53.6
261.8
461.6
36.2
125.2
175.1
775.0
%
Difference
27
147
27
163
6.05
71.58
-86.62
313.45
22
147
31
75
Table 4-30 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the deflection at roof level of Core 1 for minimum loading (Xdirection)
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.
Ref
1
Height
(m)
14.40
Limit
28.80
29.70
59.40
56.10
112.20
97.90
195.80
Core 1 Deflection Max Loading (G + cG) mm X-Direction

Core
Thickness
Soil
(mm)
Class Fundamental Orthogonal
2007
200
Ae
0.8
1.0
1.2
200
De
1.1
1.1
2.9
200
Ae
5.5
6.2
7.7
400
De
6.7
6.5
17.5
300
Ae
32.7
35.3
42.3
400
De
57.0
62.7
146.5
400
Ae
328.0
309.0
206.7
400
De
495.7
544.8
914.7
Numerical
Difference
0.28
1.82
1.48
10.92
7.08
83.79
-102.27
369.87
Table 4-31 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the deflection at roof level of Core 1 for maximum loading (Xdirection)

139
%
Difference
34
160
27
163
22
147
31
75

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Ref
Height
(m)
Limit
14.40
28.80
May 2009
Core 2 Deflection Min Loading (G only) mm X-Direction

Core
Thickness
Soil
(mm)
2007
Numerical
Difference
%
Difference
200
Ae
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.22
31
200
De
1.0
1.0
2.4
1.41
145
6.7
7.6
9.4
1.80
27
29.70
59.40
200
Ae
200
De
8.4
8.1
21.8
13.62
163
56.10
112.20
300
Ae
40.8
44.0
52.8
8.84
22
400
De
71.9
79.2
185.0
105.83
147
400
Ae
411.0
387.0
258.9
-128.08
31
400
De
621.0
682.5
1146.0
463.47
75
97.90
195.80
Table 4-32 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the deflection at roof level of Core 2 for minimum loading (Xdirection)
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.
Ref
1
Height
(m)
14.40
Limit
28.80
29.70
59.40
56.10
112.20
97.90
195.80
Core 2 Deflection Max Loading (G + cG) mm X-Direction

Core
Thickness
Soil
Numerical
(mm)
2007
Difference
200
Ae
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.25
200
De
1.2
1.2
2.8
1.66
200
Ae
7.9
9.0
11.1
2.14
400
De
9.9
9.7
25.8
16.14
300
Ae
47.8
51.5
61.9
10.35
400
De
84.2
92.8
216.7
123.90
400
Ae
474.5
447.6
299.1
-148.46
400
De
716.9
789.3
1323.9
534.54
%
Difference
30
142
27
163
22
147
31
75
Table 4-33 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the deflection at roof level of Core 2 for maximum loading (Xdirection)
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.

140

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Ref
1
Height
(m)
14.40
Limit
28.80
29.70
59.40
56.10
112.20
97.90
195.80
May 2009
Core 1 Deflection Min Loading (G only) mm Y-Direction

Core
Thickness
Soil
(mm)
Class Fundamental Orthogonal 2007
200
Ae
2.11
2.44
3.17
200
De
2.91
2.88
7.53
200
Ae
2.28
2.59
3.21
400
300
400
400
400
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
2.76
13.74
23.71
135.50
204.74
2.68
14.80
26.11
127.59
225.00
7.17
17.78
61.00
85.37
377.80
Numerical
Difference
0.73
4.65
0.62
%
Difference
35
160
27
4.49
2.98
34.89
-42.22
152.80
163
22
147
-31
75
Table 4-34 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the deflection at roof level of Core 1 for minimum loading (Ydirection)
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.
Ref
1
Height
(m)
14.40
Limit
28.80
29.70
59.40
56.10
112.20
97.90
195.80
Core 1 Deflection Max Loading (G + cG) mm Y-Direction

Core
Thickness
Soil
(mm)
2007
200
Ae
2.53
2.92
3.80
200
De
3.51
3.47
9.09
200
Ae
2.71
3.07
3.81
400
De
3.27
3.18
8.50
300
Ae
16.09
17.33
20.81
400
De
27.76
30.58
71.42
400
Ae
156.41
147.56
98.62
400
De
236.34
260.22
436.45
Numerical
Difference
0.88
5.62
0.74
5.32
3.48
40.84
-48.94
176.23
%
Difference
35
160
27
163
22
147
-31
75
Table 4-35 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the deflection at roof level of Core 1 for maximum loading (Ydirection)
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.

141

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Ref
1
Height
(m)
14.40
Limit
28.80
29.70
59.40
56.10
112.20
97.90
195.80
Core 2 Deflection Min Loading (G only) mm Y-Direction

Core
Thickness
Soil
(mm)
2007
200
Ae
2.18
2.47
3.07
200
De
3.00
2.98
6.93
200
Ae
8.97
10.19
12.62
400
De
11.27
10.97
29.31
300
Ae
55.68
59.31
71.23
400
De
96.85
106.67
249.19
400
Ae
553.48
521.18
348.71
400
De
836.30
919.00
1543.21
May 2009
Numerical
Difference
0.60
3.95
2.43
18.34
11.92
142.52
-172.47
624.21
%
Difference
28
132
27
163
21
147
-31
75
Table 4-36 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the deflection at roof level of Core 2 for minimum loading (Ydirection)
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.
Ref
1
Height
(m)
14.40
Limit
28.80
29.70
59.40
56.10
112.20
97.90
195.80
Core 2 Deflection Max Loading (G + cG) mm Y-Direction

Core
Thickness
Soil
Numerical
2007
Difference
(mm)
200
Ae
2.42
2.75
3.43
0.68
200
De
3.36
3.34
7.85
4.51
200
Ae
10.64
12.08
14.96
2.88
400
De
13.36
13.00
34.74
21.74
300
Ae
64.45
69.45
83.39
13.94
400
De
113.40
124.91
291.75
166.84
400
Ae
638.91
602.75
402.84
-199.91
400
De
965.37
1062.94
1782.78
719.84
%
Difference
28
134
27
163
22
147
-31
75
Table 4-37 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the deflection at roof level of Core 2 for maximum loading (Ydirection)
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
142

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
4.2.9
Storey Drift and P-Delta Effects
The instability effects due to second-order P-Delta effects can be substantial. The deflections in the
previous section are used to calculate the storey drift in order to establish if second-order effects
need to be considered.
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.

143

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Table 4-40 shows the comparison of storey drift and P-delta consideration of Core 1 for minimum and maximum loading (Ydirection)

146

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Table 4-41 shows the comparison of storey drift and P-delta consideration of Core 2 for minimum and maximum loading (Ydirection)

147

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
4.3
Etabs Analysis
In this section the Hand Calculations and Etabs computer model results are compared for accuracy
of the methods used for building 3.
Figure 4-11 shows the model used for building 3 within the Etabs model

148

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
4.3.1
First-Mode of Natural Period
Table 4-42 shows the results for building 3 from the hand calculations carried out in Section 4.2.1.
Table 4-43 show the calculated first 5 modes for the building using Etabs. As can be seen the period
of the structure for the first mode of natural frequency is significantly larger in the computer model.
This large first mode of natural period would ensure that less load can be considered when analysing
and designing the building. It also highlights the crudeness of the empirical methods stated in the
codes.
Ref
3
Height
(m)
56.10
First Mode Natural Period (sec)

AS1170.4:1993 AS1170.4:2007
0.05
Fund
Orth kt =
1.22
0.97
1.28

Ae
AS1170.4:1993
Fund
Orth 2007
0.1
0.1
0.13

De
AS1170.4:1993
2007
Fund
Orth
0.022 0.025 0.056
Table 4-42 shows the first mode of natural period and base shear multiplier for building 3
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
Etabs Model
Natural Period (sec)
3.48
3.44
2.16
0.99
0.78
Frequency
0.28
0.29
0.46
1.01
1.28
Table 4-43 shows the first five modes of natural period for building 3 calculated using Etabs
4.3.2
Seismic Design Base Shear
The base shear has been compared. However the equivalent earthquake shear forces were inputted
into the system from the hand calculations and therefore this allows a model comparison rather than
an output result comparison. Table 4-44 shows the hand calculated base shears and Table 4-45
shows the base shear out puts from the Etabs model. The results shown in the tables numerically
correlate well therefore giving the first indication that the model will satisfactorily represent
expected responses.

149

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Ref
3
Load
Case
Min
Max
Soil
Class
Ae
De
Ae
De
Base shear Hand Calculation

Fundamental
Orthogonal
2007
kN
kN
kN
2023
2310
2583
4431
5172
11249
2333
2663
2978
5109
5962
12969
May 2009
Numerical
Difference
273
6077
315
7006
%
Difference
11.8
117.5
11.8
117.5
Table 4-44 shows the differences in the base shear values for the AS110.4:1993 & 2007 codes by hand calculations
Base shear for Building 3 By Etabs

Dir
X
Load
Case
Min
Max
Min
Max
Soil
Class
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
Ae
De
1993 kN
2060
4510
2370
5200
2310
4440
2660
5110
2007 kN
2630
11500
3040
13200
2590
11300
2980
18000
Difference
kN
570
6990
670
8000
280
6860
320
12890
Percentage
Difference
27%
155%
28%
154%
12%
155%
12%
252%
Table 4-45 shows the differences in the base shear values for the AS110.4:1993 & 2007 codes using Etabs
4.3.3
Overturning Moment
The overturning moment was calculated for building 3 using the Etabs model. Table 4-46 shows the
difference in the over turning moments calculated by hand. Table 4-47 shows the difference in the
overturning moment for the two soil classes Ae and De for building 3.
Ref
3
Load Case
Min
Max
Overturning Moment Hand Calculations

2007
kNm
kNm
kNm
Soil Class
Ae
113507
129596
144915
De
248595
290139
631081
Ae
130857
149404
167065
De
286593
334487
727542
Numerical
Difference
15319
340942
17661
393055
%
Difference
11.8
117.5
11.8
117.5
Table 4-46 shows the differences in the overturning moment values for the AS110.4:1993 & 2007 codes for minimum loading
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.

150

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Dir
X
Load
Case
Min
Max
Min
Max
Overturning Moment for Building 3 By Etabs

Soil
Difference
kNm
Class
1993 kNm
2007 kNm
Ae
53800
69200
15400
De
118000
301000
183000
Ae
62500
80500
18000
De
137000
350000
213000
Ae
59100
69100
10000
De
118000
301000
183000
Ae
68600
80400
11800
De
137000
596000
459000
May 2009
Percentage
Difference
28%
155%
28%
154%
17%
155%
17%
335%
Table 4-47 shows the differences in the over turning moment for the AS110.4:1993 & 2007 codes using Etabs
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.
Ref
3
Load Case
Tension
Compression
Maximum Stresses For Core 2 Hand Calculations

2007
Numerical
Soil Class
N/mm2
N/mm2
N/mm2
Difference
Ae
-6.81
-8.01
-9.15
2.34
De
-12.98
-15.36
-34.85
21.87
Ae
10.28
11.48
12.62
2.34
De
15.59
17.97
37.46
21.87
%
Difference
34%
168%
23%
140%
Table 4-48 shows the differences in the stresses (Core 2) for the AS110.4:1993 & 2007 codes
Ref
3
Load Case
Tension
Compression
Maximum Stresses For Cores Etabs Calculations

1993
2007
Difference
Soil Class
N/mm2
N/mm2
N/mm2
Ae
-1.887
-4.912
3.025
De
-7.216
-21.394
14.178
Ae
1.814
4.053
2.239
De
6.037
17.652
11.615
Percentage
Difference
160%
196%
123%
192%
Table 4-49 shows the differences in the stresses in the cores for the AS110.4:1993 & 2007 codes
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.
151

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.

152

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Ref
Core 1
Height
(m)
Min
Limit
112.20
Core 2
Min
112.20
Core 1
Max
112.20
Core 2
Max
112.20
Core Deflections mm X-Direction Hand Calculations

Core
Thickness Soil
(mm)
2007
300
Ae
28.0
30.1
36.2
400
De
48.6
53.6
125.2
300
Ae
40.8
44.0
52.8
400
De
71.9
79.2
185.0
300
Ae
32.7
35.3
42.3
400
De
57.0
62.7
146.5
300
Ae
47.8
51.5
61.9
400
De
84.2
92.8
216.7
May 2009
Numerical
Difference
6.05
71.58
8.84
105.83
7.08
83.79
10.35
123.90
%
Difference
22
147
22
147
22
147
22
147
Table 4-50 shows the comparison of percentage difference in the deflection at roof level in the X-direction
Ref
Core 1
Height
(m)
Min
Limit
112.20
Core 2
Min
112.20
Core 1
Max
112.20
Core 2
Max
112.20
Core Deflections mm Y-Direction Hand Calculations

Core
Thickness Soil
(mm)
2007
300
Ae
13.74
14.80
17.78
400
De
23.71
26.11
61.00
300
Ae
55.68
59.31
71.23
400
De
96.85
106.67
249.19
300
Ae
16.09
17.33
20.81
400
De
27.76
30.58
71.42
300
Ae
64.45
69.45
83.39
400
De
113.40
124.91
291.75
Numerical
Difference
2.98
34.89
11.92
142.52
3.48
40.84
13.94
166.84

153
%
Difference
22
147
21
147
22
147
22
147

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
Ref
Core 1
Load
Class
Min
Limit
112.20
Core 2
Min
112.20
Core 1
Max
112.20
Core 2
Max
112.20
Core Deflections mm X-DirectionEtabs

Core
Thickness
Soil
(mm)
Class
1993
2007
300
Ae
28.0
36.0
400
De
63.0
160
300
Ae
29.0
36.0
400
De
63.0
160
300
Ae
34.0
42
400
De
74.0
185
300
Ae
34.0
42
400
De
74.0
185
Difference
8
97
27
97
8
111
4
111

154
Percentage
Difference
28%
154%
94%
154%
23%
150%
12%
150%

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Ref
Core 1
Load
Class
Min
Limit
112.20
Core 2
Min
112.20
Core 1
Max
112.20
Core 2
Max
112.20
Core Deflections mm Y-Direction Etabs

Core
Thickness
Soil
(mm)
Class
1993
2007
300
Ae
13.0
13.0
400
De
25.0
60.0
300
Ae
13.0
18.0
400
De
26.0
78.0
300
Ae
14.0
18.0
400
De
30.0
133.0
300
Ae
15.0
20.0
400
De
30.0
183.0
May 2009
Difference
0
35.0
5.0
52.0
3.0
103.0
5.0
153.0
Percentage
Difference
0%
140%
38%
200%
21%
343%
33%
510%
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.

155

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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:
1)
Equivalent Moment of Inertia Ie, used to represent reinforcement yield. (Section

4.2.7).
2)
Core Configuration and Stiffness Distribution
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.

156

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
There are many differences in the two codes as shown in Section 3 and Section 4. Wilson and Lams
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.
These factors are:
Site factors
Sub-soil Classes

157

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Structural Natural Period

Torsion
Drift and P-delta effects
What are the differences between the calculation methods?
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
158

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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 periods 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 doesnt
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.
159

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
What are the limitations to structural systems and combinations?

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 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.
160

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
5.3
Success Criteria
T two criteria questions can be raise to assess to what extent this report has succeeded in achieving
its goals:
1)
In what ways can the implications be readily used?
2)
To what extent information contained here in can be applied to a wide variety of

building types?

161

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
5.4
Future Work
The next step in the comparison of the AS1170.4 1993 and 2007 code is in establishing the
implications to existing buildings and to develop an assessment method for renovations if required.
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.
5.4.1
Fragility Curves
The capacity response spectrum represents seismic demand in the form of acceleration-displacement
response spectrum and the structural capacity is estimated from a non-linear push-over analysis.
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.
5.4.2
Design and Detailing of the Lateral Supporting System
No implementation details of the experimental results were presented, which implies that these
analyses are purely theoretical.
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.
162

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
5.5
May 2009
Final Note
The research presented in this report has demonstrated that the new code AS1170.4:2007 has
implemented technical advances in the area of soil and structural behaviour during seismic events
from the past 15 years. Although loadings have been increased dramatically, especially for the more
onerous soil classes the actual cost of designing a structure to survive a seismic event is a fraction of
the overall cost of a building.
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.

163

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1]
[2]
AS/NZS 1170.0:2002 Structural design actions Part 0: General Principles

AS/NZS 1170.1:2002 Structural design actions Part 1: Permanent, imposed and other
actions
[3]
AS/NZS 1170.2:2002 Structural design actions Part 3: Wind Actions
[4]
AS/NZS 1170.4:1993 Minimum design loads on structures Part 4: Earthquake loads
[5]
AS/NZS 1170.4 Supp 1:1993 Minimum design loads on structures Part 4: Earthquake
loads - Commentary
[6]
AS/NZS 1170:2002 Structural design actions Part 0: General Principles General Principles,
Appendix D, Factors for use with AS1170.4-1993
[7]
AS 1170.4:2007 Structural design actions Part 4: Earthquake actions in Australia
[8]
AS 3600:2001 Concrete Structures
[9]
AS 3826:1998 Strengthening existing buildings for earthquake
[10]
AS 4100:1998 Steel Structures
[11]
Building Code of Australia
[12]
Bungum, H., Project 3: Hazard, Risk and Loss. ICG Assessment,
http://www.geohazards.no/projects/project3_08/project_3_earthq.htm,
Accessed
November 2008
[13]
Corus
in
Construction,
Teaching
resources,
Structural
Principles,
http://www.corusconstruction.com/en/reference/teaching_resources/architectural_studi
o_reference/design/choice_of_structural_systems_for_multi/structural_principles/,
Accessed November 2008.
[14]
Dowrick, J.D. Earthquake Resistant Design, SJohn Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1977.
[15]
European Steel Designers Education Program. ESDEP. http://www.esdep.org Accessed
November 2008.
[16]
Fardis et al. Designers guide to EN1998-1 and EN1998-5 Eurocode 8: Design of
structures for earthquake resistance. Thomas Telford, 2005.
[17]
Gibson, Gary. Seismological contributions to earthquake risk mitigation. In Proceedings of AEEC
Conference, November 2006.
[18]
Gurley, Colin. Protecting life and reducing damage in earthquakes and terrorist attacks. In
Proceedings of AEEC Conference, November 2006.
[19]
Kayvani, K. and Barzegar, F. Influence of local inertia on seismic response of offshore jackets.
Engineering Structures, Vol 18, No 2, pp. 93-101, 1996.
[20]
Kayvani, K. and Barzegar, F. Hysteretic modelling of tubular members and offshore platforms. Journal
of Structural Engineering, Vol 123, No 1, January 1997.
[21]
Kayvani, K., Schmidt, B., Steele, J. and Sidwell, G. HSeismic Engineering for Replacement
Research Reactor in Australia. EIn Proceedings of Earthquake Engineering, Pacific
Conference, 2003.
[22]
Lam, N. and Wilson, J. The new response spectrum model for Australia. eJSE International Special
Issue, Earthquake Engineering in the low and moderate seismic regions of Southeast Asia
and
Australia,
http://www.ejse.org/Archives/Fulltext/2008/Special1/200801.pdf,
Accessed November 2008.
[23]
Li, B., Duffield, C.F. and Hutchinson G.L. A parametric study of the lateral performance of a highrise structure. In Proceedings of ASEC Conference, June 2008.
164

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
May 2009
Lumantarna, E.,Vaculik, J., Griffith, M., Lam, N. and Wilson, J. Seismic fragility curves for unreinforced masonry walls. In Proceedings of AEES Conference, November 2006.
McPherson, A. and Allen, T. An improved understanding of earthquake ground shaking in Australia.
In Proceedings of AEES Conference, November 2006.
McPherson, A. and Hall, L. Site Classification for earthquake hazard and risk assessment in
Australia. In Proceedings of AEES Conference, November 2006.
National Geographic. Large earthquake Bounces are stronger than gravity.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/10/081030-earthquakebounce.html?source=rss Accessed November 2008.
NZS 1170.5:2004 Structural Design Actions Part 5: Earthquake actions New Zealand
NZS 1170.5 Supp 1:2004 Structural Design Actions Part 5: Earthquake actions New
Zealand - Commentary
Paulay, T. and Priestley, M.J.N. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992.
Rodsin, K., Lam, N., Wilson, J. and Goldsworthy, H. Seismic fragility curves for soft-storey
buildings. In Proceedings of AEES Conference, November 2006.
SAI Global, AS1170.4 Earthquake Actions in Australia. In Proceedings of SAI Seminar, May
2007.
Venkatesan, S., Lam, N. and Wilson, J. Simple model accounting for the soil resonance phenomenon.
In Proceedings of AEES Conference, November 2006.
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
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
Wilson, J. and Lam, N. Recent developments in the research and practice of earthquake
engineering in Australia. In Proceedings of AEES Conference, November 2006.

165

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
APPENDIX A: CODE COMPARISON GRAPHS FOR STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

AND SITE SUB SOIL CLASSES
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.
Comparisons were carried out using Excel 2003.

166

167
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
200
Ae 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 Limited Ductile Shear Walls
Ae 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Ductile Shear Walls
250
Ae 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 4.5 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
Ae 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 4.5 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
300
Bearing Wall System Comparison for Soil Class Ae
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Bearing Wall System
Multiplier Cd(T1)

168
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
200
Be 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 Limited Ductile Shear Walls
Be 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Ductile Shear Walls
250
Be 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 4.5 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
Be 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 4.5 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
300
Bearing Wall System Comparison for Soil Class Be
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Multiplier Cd(T1)

169
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
200
Ce 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 Limited Ductile Shear Walls
Ce 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Ductile Shear Walls
250
Ce 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 4.5 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
Ce 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 4.5 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
300
Bearing Wall System Comparison for Soil Class Ce
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Multiplier Cd(T1)

170
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
200
De 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 Limited Ductile Shear Walls
De 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Ductile Shear Walls
250
De 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 4.5 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
De 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 4.5 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
300
Bearing Wall System Comparison for Soil Class De
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Multiplier Cd(T1)

171
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
200
250
Ee 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 Limited Ductile Shear Walls
Ee 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Ductile Shear Walls
Ee 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 4.5 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
Ee 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 4.5 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
300
Bearing Wall System Comparison for Soil Class Ee
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Multiplier Cd(T1)

172
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
200
250
Ae 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 Limited Ductile Shear Walls
Ae 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Ductile Shear Walls
Ae 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 6.0 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
Ae 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 6.0 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
300
Building Frame System Comparison for Soil Class Ae
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Building Frame System with Reinforced Concrete Walls
Multiplier Cd(T1)

173
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
200
250
Be 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 Limited Ductile Shear Walls
Be 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Ductile Shear Walls
Be 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 6.0 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
Be 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 6.0 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
300
Building Frame System Comparison for Soil Class Be
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Multiplier Cd(T1)

174
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
200
Ce 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 Limited Ductile Shear Walls
Ce 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Ductile Shear Walls
250
Ce 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 6.0 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
Ce 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 6.0 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
300
Building Frame System Comparison for Soil Class Ce
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Multiplier Cd(T1)

175
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
200
De 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 Limited Ductile Shear Walls
De 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Ductile Shear Walls
250
De 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 6.0 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
De 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 6.0 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
300
Building Frame System Comparison for Soil Class De
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Multiplier Cd(T1)

176
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
200
250
Ee 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 Limited Ductile Shear Walls
Ee 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Ductile Shear Walls
Ee 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 6.0 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
Ee 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 6.0 Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
300
Building Frame System Comparison for Soil Class Ee
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Multiplier Cd(T1)

177
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
200
250
300
Ae 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 5.0 Concentrically-Braced Frames

Ae 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 5.0 Concentrically-Braced Frames
Ae 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Moderately Ductile Concentrically-Braced Frames
Ae 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 Limited Ductile Concentrically-Braced Frames
Building Frame System Comparison for Soil Class Ae
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Building Frame System with Concentrically Braced Frames
Multiplier Cd(T1)

178
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
200
250
300
Be 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 5.0 Concentrically-Braced Frames

Be 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 5.0 Concentrically-Braced Frames
Be 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Moderately Ductile Concentrically-Braced Frames
Be 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 Limited Ductile Concentrically-Braced Frames
Building Frame System Comparison for Soil Class Be
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Multiplier Cd(T1)

179
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
200
250
300
Ce 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 5.0 Concentrically-Braced Frames

Ce 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 5.0 Concentrically-Braced Frames
Ce 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Moderately Ductile Concentrically-Braced Frames
Ce 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 Limited Ductile Concentrically-Braced Frames
Building Frame System Comparison for Soil Class Ce
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Multiplier Cd(T1)

180
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
200
250
300
De 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 Limited Ductile Concentrically-Braced Frames
De 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Moderately Ductile Concentrically-Braced Frames
De 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 5.0 Concentrically-Braced Frames
De 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 5.0 Concentrically-Braced Frames
Building Frame System Comparison for Soil Class De
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Multiplier Cd(T1)

181
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
200
250
300
Ee 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 5.0 Concentrically-Braced Frames

Ee 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 5.0 Concentrically-Braced Frames
Ee 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Moderately Ductile Concentrically-Braced Frames
Ee 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 Limited Ductile Concentrically-Braced Frames
Building Frame System Comparison for Soil Class Ee
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Multiplier Cd(T1)

182
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
Ae 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 4.0 RC

Ae 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 4.0 RC
Ae 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 RC
Ae 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 4.5 Steel
Ae 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 4.5 Steel
Ae 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 Steel
200
250
300
Ordinary Moment Resistant Frame Comparison for Soil Class Ae
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame System
Multiplier Cd(T1)

183
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
Be 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 4.0 RC

Be 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 4.0 RC
Be 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 RC
Be 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 4.5 Steel
Be 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 4.5 Steel
Be 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 Steel
200
250
300
Ordinary Moment Resistant Frame Comparison for Soil Class Be
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Multiplier Cd(T1)

184
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
Ce 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 RC

Ce 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 4.0 RC
Ce 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 Steel
Ce 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 4.5 Steel
Ce 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 4.0 RC
Ce 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 4.5 Steel
200
250
300
Ordinary Moment Resistant Frame Comparison for Soil Class Ce
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Multiplier Cd(T1)

185
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
De 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 RC

De 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 4.0 RC
De 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 Steel
De 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 4.5 Steel
De 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 4.0 RC
De 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 4.5 Steel
200
250
300
Ordinary Moment Resistant Frame Comparison for Soil Class De
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Multiplier Cd(T1)

186
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
200
Ee 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 RC

Ee 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 4.0 RC
Ee 2007 u/Sp = 2.6 Steel
Ee 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 4.5 Steel
Ee 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 4.0 RC
Ee 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 4.5 Steel
250
300
Ordinary Moment Resistant Frame Comparison for Soil Class Ee
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Multiplier Cd(T1)

187
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
Ae 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 6.0 RC

Ae 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 6.0 RC
Ae 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 RC
Ae 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 6.5 Steel
Ae 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 6.5 Steel
Ae 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Steel
200
250
300
Intermediate Moment Resistant Frame Comparison for Soil Class Ae
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Intermediate Moment Resisting Frame System
Multiplier Cd(T1)

188
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
Be 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 6.0 RC

Be 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 6.0 RC
Be 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 RC
Be 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 6.5 Steel
Be 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 6.5 Steel
Be 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Steel
200
250
300
Intermediate Moment Resistant Frame Comparison for Soil Class Be
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Multiplier Cd(T1)

189
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
Ce 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 6.0 RC

Ce 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 6.0 RC
Ce 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 RC
Ce 1993(Fund P) Rf = 6.5 Steel
Ce 1993(Orth P) Rf = 6.5 Steel
Ce 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Steel
200
250
300
Intermediate Moment Resistant Frame Comparison for Soil Class Ce
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Multiplier Cd(T1)

190
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
De 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 6.0 RC

De 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 6.0 RC
De 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 RC
De 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 6.5 Steel
De 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 6.5 Steel
De 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Steel
Height m
200
250
300
Intermediate Moment Resistant Frame Comparison for Soil Class De
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Multiplier Cd(T1)

191
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
50
100
150
Height m
Ee 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 6.0 RC

Ee 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 6.0 RC
Ee 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 RC
Ee 1993 (Fund P) Rf = 6.5 Steel
Ee 1993 (Orth P) Rf = 6.5 Steel
Ee 2007 u/Sp = 4.5 Steel
200
250
300
Intermediate Moment Resistant Frame Comparison for Soil Class Ee
350

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
Multiplier Cd(T1)

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
APPENDIX B: STATIC ANALYSIS BUILDING COMPARISON

CALCULATIONS
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.
Comparisons were carried out using Excel 2003.

192

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Bld 1 (14.4m) Soil Class Ae Base shear & Moment

193
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

194
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

195
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Bld 1 (14.4m) Soil Class Ae Tension & Comp Core Stress

196
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

May 2009
197
v

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Bld 1 (14.4m) Soil Class De Base shear & Moment

198
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

199
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

200
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Bld 1 (14.4m) Soil Class De Tension & Comp Core Stress

201
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

202
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

203
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

204
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

205
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

206
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

207
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

208
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

209
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

210
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

211
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

212
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

213
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

214
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

215
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Bld 3 (56.1mm) Soil Class Ae Tension & Comp Core Stress

216
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

217
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

218
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

219
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

220
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
Bld 3 (56.1mm) Soil Class De Tension & Comp Core Stress

221
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

222
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

223
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

224
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

225
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

226
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

227
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

228
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

229
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

230
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

231
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007

232
May 2009

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
Braced frame Two-dimensional structural system composed of an essentially vertical truss
(or its equivalent) where the members are subject primarily to axial forces when resisting
earthquake actions.
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.
Drift See definition of Storey Drift
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

233

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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.
Moment-resisting frame, intermediate Concrete or steel moment-resisting frame designed
and detailed to achieve moderate structural ductility.
Moment-resisting frame, ordinary Moment-resisting frame with no particular earthquake
detailing, specified in the relevant material standard
Moment-resisting frame, special Concrete or steel moment-resisting frame designed and
detailed to achieve high structural ductility and where plastic deformation is planned under
ultimate actions
Partition Permanent or relocatable internal dividing wall between floor spaces.
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 rockweathering 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.
Space frame A three-dimensional structural system composed of interconnected members
(other than load bearing walls) that are capable of supporting vertical loads, which may also
provide horizontal resistance to earthquake forces.
234

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
May 2009
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 Height The distance from floor level to floor level.
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.
Structural performance factor ( Sp ) The Numerical assessment of the additional ability of
the total building (structure and other parts) to survive earthquake motion.
Structural ductility factor ( ) The Numerical assessment of the ability of a structure to
sustain cyclic displacements in the inelastic range. Its value depends upon the structural form,
the ductility of the materials and structural damping characteristics.

235

Australia AS1170.4 1993 & 2007
236
May 2009

Comparison AS11704 1993&amp;2007

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparison AS11704 1993&amp;2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

School of Civil Engineering

Sydney NSW 2006

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4:

Research Report No R897

Deborah G Hegarty B.Sc. (Eng), Dip. Eng, MIEAust CPEng

School of Civil Engineering

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4:

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in

School of Civil Engineering

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in

School of Civil Engineering

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................ 2

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING BACKGROUND ................................. 5

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia

AS1170.4: 1993 & 2007 CODE COMPARISON ........................................ 47

School of Civil Engineering

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 101

4 ANALYSIS COMPARISON OF A TYPICAL CONCRETE

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK................................................. 157

LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 160

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia

School of Civil Engineering

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia

School of Civil Engineering

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in

School of Civil Engineering

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in

School of Civil Engineering

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia

School of Civil Engineering

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia

Aims and Objectives

The objectives of this report are as follows:

School of Civil Engineering

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia

The remainder of this report is divided into the following sections:

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia

School of Civil Engineering

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING BACKGROUND

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia

Bearing Wall Systems

Building Frame Systems

Moment Resisting Frame Systems

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia

School of Civil Engineering

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia

Ductility Elastic and Dynamic Response

Figure 2-2 shows a cantilever subjected to a horizontal load [12].

An elastic responding system has an idealized response. It has a linear strength-displacement

School of Civil Engineering

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia

School of Civil Engineering

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia

Structural Ductility Factor ()

Comparison of Structural Design Actions Part 4: Earthqauke Actions in Australia

Comparison AS11704 1993&2007

Comparison AS11704 1993&2007