Iran Seismic Design Code Evaluation Through Comparison with NZS 1170.5 and a Critical Look at its Directivity Effects Implementation

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

This paper intends to evaluate the existing Iran seismic design code (standard No. 2800) through a comparison process with those of New Zealand seismic code (NZS-1170.5) due to their apparent shape similarity of spectral accelerations being in two parts form. Both standards represent the seismic hazard level of ten percent chance in fifty years. The evaluations made are: the basic design acceleration (A) (in 2800), and the hazard factor (Z) (in NZS), the constant acceleration and constant maximum velocity period ranges of the two spectral shape forms on the four types of site soil conditions, and the approach of implementing the directivity effects by representative parameters, [N(T), in 2800] and [N(D,T), in NZS]. The 2800’s spectral accelerations on the four soil types including the FD-pulses are qualitatively evaluated through hazard-based FD-pulse method. The quantitative results of this study expose that the existing 2800 s’ spectral accelerations need to be increased at relatively small period ranges of 2 s while be decreased at the period ranges longer than 2 s. In brief conclusion, the required design spectral accelerations for buildings which currently are widely constructed in near field sites, are smaller than those of the rationale hazard-based values.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

[1] A. Nicknam, A. Mazarei, M. Ganjvar , The assessment of design response spectra in Iran standard No. 2800 ignoring the explicit effects of splitting to two parameters, A and B(T) and site-to-source distance, 2016.
[2] A. Nicknam, Consequences of the recently modification of Iran seismic design code (No. 2800) (due to A* B form) and proposing forward directivity effects coefficients (NA and NV), (2017).
[3] A. Nicknam , M. Farahangdoost, A.Mazarei, M.Ganjvar ,Seismic design parameters assessment of special steel moment resisting frames using the collapse margin ratio method (CMR)(Modification factor R and over-strength factor Ω0), Amirkabir J. Civil Eng, 50(2) (2018) 81-90.
[4] A. Ben-Menahem, Radiation of seismic surface-waves from finite moving sources, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 51(3) (1961) 401-435.
[5] S.K. Shahi, J.W. Baker, An empirically calibrated framework for including the effects of near-fault directivity in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 101(2) (2011) 742-755.
[6] N.A. Abrahamson, Effects of rupture directivity on probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, in: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on seismic zonation, Palm Springs CA, 2000, pp. 151-156.
[7] B. Rowshandel, Directivity correction for the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) relations, Earthquake Spectra, 26(2) (2010) 525-559.
[8] M. Yousefi, T. Taghikhany, Incorporation of directivity effect in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and disaggregation of Tabriz city, Natural hazards, 73(2) (2014) 277-301.
[9] C. Champion, A. Liel, The effect of near-fault directivity on building seismic collapse risk, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 41(10) (2012) 1391-1409.
[10] E. Kalkan, S.K. Kunnath, Relevance of absolute and relative energy content in seismic evaluation of structures, Advances in Structural Engineering, 11(1) (2008) 17-34.
[11] J.F. Hall, T.H. Heaton, M.W. Halling, D.J. Wald, Near-source ground motion and its effects on flexible buildings, Earthquake spectra, 11(4) (1995) 569-605.
[12] T.H. Heaton, J.F. Hall, D.J. Wald, M.W. Halling, Response of high-rise and base-isolated buildings to a hypothetical Mw 7.0 blind thrust earthquake, Science, 267(5195) (1995) 206-211.
[13] W. Iwan, Drift spectrum: measure of demand for earthquake ground motions, Journal of structural engineering, 123(4) (1997) 397-404.
[14] N.Z. Standard, NZS 1170.5: 2004 Structural Design Actions Part 5: Earthquake actions–New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand: Standards New Zealand, (2004).
[15] R. Fenwick, G. MacRae, Comparison of New Zealand Standards used for seismic design of concrete buildings, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 42(3) (2009) 187.
[16] G.P. Kouretzis, M.J. Masia, C. Allen, Structural Design Codes of Australia and New Zealand: Seismic Actions, in: Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering, Springer, 2013, pp. 1-16.
[17] R.P. Dhakal, S.-L. Lin, A.K. Loye, S.J. Evans, Seismic design spectra for different soil classes, Bull New Zealand Soc Earthq Eng, 46(2) (2013) 79-87.
Amirkabir Journal of Civil Engineering
Volume 50, Issue 4
November and December 2018
Pages 725-734

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics