See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/296706982

Comparison of the USA, China and Japan Seismic Design Procedures

Conference Paper · September 2016

CITATION READS
1 860

4 authors, including:

G. Chock
Martin & Chock, Inc.
31 PUBLICATIONS   187 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ASCE 7 Tsunami Loads and Effects Subcommittee View project

All content following this page was uploaded by G. Chock on 04 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Comparison of the USA, China and Japan Seismic Design Procedures

Guangren Yu1, M. ASCE and Gary Y.K. Chock2, F. ASCE

1
Structural Engineer, Martin & Chock, Inc., 1132 Bishop Street, Suite 1550,
Honolulu, HI 96813
2
President, Martin & Chock, Inc., 1132 Bishop Street, Suite 1550, Honolulu, HI
96813

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a comparison of the current seismic design procedures in the
United States, China and Japan. The seismic design practices in the three countries
are compared by focusing on issues such as (1) design ground motion; (2)
classification of building structures; (3) soil/site classification; (4) design response
spectrum; (5) base shear calculation; (5) analysis procedures; and (6) drift control and
deflection. Tables and diagrams are presented to illustrate the differences and
similarities of methodologies utilized by the three countries in dealing with these
common seismic design considerations.

INTRODUCTION

In the U.S., the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) is the currently adopted
building code for most states. The IBC references American Society of Civil
Engineering Standard 7, Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other Structures
(ASCE, 2010) and other material-specific codes as its seismic design provisions
including some amendments or modifications.
Unlike the IBC that references other standards as seismic provisions, the Chinese
Code for Seismic Design of Buildings is a self-contained document that includes
almost all the necessary seismic design requirements for building structures. The
current seismic code in China is the Code for Seismic Design of Buildings GB 50011-
2010.
In Japan the seismic design requirements are specified in the Building Standard
Law of Japan which applies to all buildings throughout the country. Since the first
seismic code was introduced in Japan in 1924, the Japanese seismic design provisions
were substantially revised in 1981 and 2000 (Kuramoto, 2006). The major revision in
1981 was the introduction of a two-phase seismic design procedure. Performance-
based seismic methodologies and requirements were included in the 2000 version
Japanese seismic code, but at the same time the previous seismic design provisions
were kept as an alternative. Since the prescriptive seismic provisions revised in 1981
are still normally used in design offices in Japan, the paper will compare the 1981
Japanese seismic design provisions.

DESIGN GROUND MOTION

In the ASCE 7-10 seismic provisions, ground motion hazards are defined in terms
of the risk-targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER). For most regions of
the U.S., the MCE is defined with a uniform hazard probability of exceedance of 2
percent in 50 years (return period of about 2500 years). In regions of highest
seismicity, such as coastal California (where the seismic hazard is typically controlled
by characteristic large-magnitude events occurring on a limited number of well-
defined fault systems), the MCE is calculated by multiplying the median estimate of
ground motion resulting from the characteristic event by 1.5. The MCE ground
motion parameters are then adjusted such that a 1% of risk of collapse in a 50-year
period is provided for a generic building. The MCER is mapped in terms of the
spectral acceleration at short period (0.2 second), Ss and at 1 second, S1, for Class B
sites, which are firm rock sites. For sites other than Site B, two coefficients, Fa and Fv
are used to modify the Ss and S1 values. The MCER spectral response accelerations
adjusted for Site Class effects are designated SMS (=FaSS) and SM1 (=FvS1),
respectively, for short-period and 1-second-period response. The design ground
motion was selected at a ground shaking level that is 2/3 of the MCER ground motion.
Accordingly, two additional parameters, SDS (= 2/3SMS) and SD1 (=2/3SM1), are used to
define the acceleration spectrum for the design level event (Chock, 2010).
In the Chinese seismic code, the expected performance of a structure is
conceptually defined at three levels of seismic hazard: frequent earthquakes,
moderate earthquakes and rare earthquakes. Table 1 gives the probabilistic definitions
of these three levels of seismic hazard. Seismic hazards in China are defined for the
“moderate earthquake” at a uniform 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years.
The seismic hazards, in terms of Seismic Peak Ground Acceleration and
Characteristic Period of Response Spectrum (Tg) are specified in Seismic Ground
Motion Parameter Zoning Maps of China GB 18306-2001 (CEA, 2001). This
standard includes two maps. The first map is the zoning map of peak ground
acceleration with 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years using a seven-level
grading system, i.e., < 0.05g, 0.05g, 0.1g, 0.15g, 0.20g, 0.30g, and ≥0.40g. The other
map is the Characteristic Period (Tg) zoning map which has three zones or three
Seismic Groups in which the first group is defined as Tg = 0.35s, the second group as
Tg = 0.40s, and the third group as Tg = 0.45s, all based on a reference Site Class II
(medium firm). The Characteristic Period (Tg) has to be adjusted based on the actual
site class.
Instead of the peak ground acceleration map, Seismic Intensity is used for design
purposes, and it is determined by the peak ground acceleration as shown in Table 2.
The Seismic Intensity level used for design is to be adjusted based on building types
and site classes (Yu et al. 2010). The Appendix of the Chinese Seismic Design Code
GB50011-2010 also provides a Tabulation of Seismic Intensity, PGA and Seismic
Group for all administrative districts (county or above).

Table 1 Quantified Definition of the Three-Level Hazards - China

Quantified definition of the hazard

Level of seismic hazard Probability of exceedance
Return period (years)
during 50 years
Frequent earthquake 63% 50
Moderate earthquake 10% 475
Rare earthquake 2% - 3% 1640 - 2475

Table 2 Seismic Intensity Designation and Peak Ground Acceleration

(Return period =475yrs) - China

Peak Ground Acceleration

≤ 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30 ≥ 0.40
(g)
Seismic Intensity 6 7 8 9

In the Japanese seismic code, the expected performance of a structure is

conceptually defined at two levels of seismic hazard: medium-level earthquakes and
severe earthquakes with return periods of around 50 years and 500 years, respectively.
Seismic hazard characteristics are established on the seismic zone (Z) and the
characteristic period (Tc) of the site soil. In Japan the entire country is seismically
active. Although the country is divided into three zones (A, B and C), there is minor
differences among these zones with seismic zone factor ranging from 1.0 to 0.8. For
most areas of Japan, seismic zone factor is either 1.0 or 0.9. The characteristic period
(Tc) is shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Soil Type Definitions and Characteristic Periods (Tc) - Japan

Soil Definition
Tc
type
Rock, stiff sand or gravel, and other soils mainly from
the Tertiary Era or earlier, or any other soil that has been
Type I 0.4
shown by surveys or studies to have a natural period
similar to soils mentioned above
Type II Other than Type I and Type III 0.6
Alluvium mainly consisting of organic or other soft
soil (including fill if any) with a depth of 30m or greater,
reclaimed land from swamps or muddy shoal with a depth
Type III of 3m or greater and less than 30 years have passed since 0.8
the reclamation, or any other soil that has been shown by
surveys or studies to have a natural period similar to soils
above
CLASSIFICATION OF BUILDINGS

The IBC classifies buildings and other structures as Risk Category from I to IV
based on the nature of occupancy (Table 4). Importance factors used in the
calculation of snow loads and seismic load effects are assigned to each structure
based on its Risk Category. For wind loads, rather than importance factors, there are
separate maps of wind speed with different hazard levels that are assigned to each
Risk Category. Generally the value of importance factor increases with the
importance of the facility. Risk Categories I and II have a seismic importance factor
of 1.0. The seismic importance factors for Risk Category III and IV are 1.25 and 1.50,
respectively. Structures assigned a greater seismic occupancy must be designed for
larger seismic forces. As a result, these structures are expected to experience lower
ductility demands than structures with lower occupancy importance factors and, thus
sustain less damage. Risk Categories are also a basis for determining Seismic Design
Categories, which are keys for establishing the detailed seismic design requirements
for any structure.

Table 4 The IBC Classification of Buildings and Other Structures - USA

Risk Category Nature of Occupancy

I Representing a low hazard to human life in the event of failure
II Except those listed in other categories
III Represent a substantial hazard to human life in the event of
failure
IV Designed as essential facilities

The Chinese Standard for Classification of Seismic Protection of Building

Constructions GB 50223-2008 (MHURDC 2008) classifies building structures as
Building Type A to D with Type A as most important and Type D as less important
(Table 5). There is no occupancy importance factor in Chinese code. Instead, the
seismic design intensity should be adjusted according to the function of the building
structure (Yu et al. 2010).

Table 5 Chinese Standard for Classification of Seismic Protection of Building

Constructions - China

Building Type Description

A (Extremely Special facilities related to national security or causing secondary
important) disasters in the event of failure.
Facilities designed to be functional during and after earthquake or
B (Very important)
building representing a substantial hazard to human life.
C (Important) Those not listed in other types.
Representing a low hazard to human life or causing no secondary
D (Less important)
hazard.

There is no classification of buildings based on occupancy in the Japanese seismic

code. A building does have to be classified as one of the four groups based on
building height. The purpose of this classification is for the selection of the seismic
design procedure.

SOIL OR SITE CLASSIFICATION

The 2012 IBC classifies each site as one of six site classes from A to F based on
one of three soil properties measured over the top 100 feet. The three properties are
soil shear wave velocity, standard penetration resistance and soil undrained shear
strength. Site Class A is hard rock which is typically found in the eastern United
States. Site Class B is softer rock typical of the western parts of the country. Site
Class C, D or E indicates progressively softer soils. Site Class F indicates soil so poor
that a site-specific evaluation is needed to determine appropriate site coefficients.
The 2010 Chinese seismic code first classifies a site as Favorable, Common,
Unfavorable and Hazardous (Table 6). Some restrictions apply at unfavorable or
hazardous sites as shown in Table 6. The code also classifies a site as one of four
classes from I to IV depending on the equivalent shear wave velocity and the
effective soil depth which is generally measured from ground surface to the soil layer
with shear wave velocity greater than 500m/s.

Table 6 Site Classification of Chinese Seismic Code

Site Classification Definition Restrictions

(I)
Favorable Rock or stiff soil
Except those listed in other
Common
categories
Soft soil, liquefiable soil and Be avoided for all construction
Unfavorable other unfavorable conditions except where appropriate
measures are being taken
Areas with hazards of Prohibited for Building Types
landslide, avalanche, A and B. Not suggested for
Hazardous
subsidence, ground fissure or Building Type C
debris flow

The Japanese seismic code classifies a site as one of three types (per Table 3).
Type I is rock or other hard soil and Type III defines soft soil. Type II soils are those
other than Type I or Type III. There is no soil factors in the Japanese seismic code,
but instead the soil effects are implicitly considered in the design response spectrum,
which indicates that for a building with natural period greater than 1.5 seconds, the
factor can be calibrated as 1.0 for Type I (hard soil), 1.5 for Type II (medium soil)
and 2.0 for Type III (soft soil).
DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM

Figure 1 illustrates the design response spectrum specified by the 2012 IBC. The
point TS (TS = SD1/SDS) corresponds to the period which divides the short-period range
from the long-period range. The point T0 equals 20% of the value of TS. TL is long-
period transition period which marks the transition between long period and very long
period. Relatively few structures have such a long period to fall into this range. The
TL maps are also included in the code.
The Chinese seismic code specifies the seismic influence coefficient curve (α)
which is comparable to a response spectrum (Figure 2). In fact, the curve expresses
two levels of seismic hazard, the frequent earthquake or rare earthquake depending on
the value of αmax (maximum seismic influence coefficient). Table 7 gives the values
of αmax for the three levels of seismic hazards. Seismic design forces are determined
based on the αmax for the frequent earthquake multiplied by a load factor of 1.3.
Characteristic Period of Response Spectrum, Tg, is the period where the transition to
long-period range occurs. T= 5Tg is the point corresponding to the period which
divides the nonlinear relationship (between α and T) and linear relationship. The
parameters, γ, η1, η2, in Figure 2 are determined by Equations 1-3, respectively.
0.05 − ζ
γ = 0.9 + Eq. 1
0.3 + 6ζ
0.05 − ζ
η1 = 0.02 + Eq. 2
4 + 32ζ
0.05 − ζ
η2 = 1 + Eq. 3
0.08 + 1.6ζ
where ζ is the damping ratio and η2 ≥ 0.55.

Table 7 Maximum Horizontal Seismic Influence Coefficient (αmax) - China

Seismic Intensity 6 7 8 9
≥
PGA Zone < 0.10g 0.10g 0.15g 0.20g 0.30g
0.40g
Frequent earthquake1 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.24 0.32
2
Moderate earthquake 0.12 0.22 0.32 0.42 0.60 0.80
Rare earthquake3
(elasto-plastic drift 0.28 0.50 0.72 0.90 1.20 1.40
check)
1, 2, 3
See Table 1 for definitions of “Frequent earthquake”, “Moderate earthquake” and
“Rare earthquake”.

Based on Table 7, as return period lengthens, the hazard (i.e. peak ground
acceleration) range deviation gets larger (Yu et al. 2010). For the moderate
earthquake with a return period of 475 years, the PGA of Seismic Intensity 6 is about
3 times that of frequent earthquake, and the PGA of Seismic Intensity 9 is about 2.5
times that of frequent earthquake. However, for a rare earthquake with a return period
of around 2000 years, the PGA of Seismic Intensity 6 is about 7 times that of the
frequent earthquake, and the PGA of Seismic Intensity 9 is only about 4.4 times that
of the frequent earthquake. For areas designated with low or moderate seismicity,
designs based on hazards of the shorter return period of frequent earthquakes could
have inadequate protection if a severe earthquake occurs (Chock, 2010).
In the Japanese seismic code, the design spectral coefficient (Rt) curve is
comparable to a response spectrum. A design response spectrum as shown in Figure 3
can be constructed by multiplying design spectral coefficient Rt by the seismic zone
factor Z and the standard shear coefficient C0. Depending on the value of C0, the
curve in Figure specifies two levels of seismic hazard, moderate earthquakes (when
C0 = 0.2 or 0.3 for wood construction at a site with soft soil) or severe earthquakes
(when C0 = 1.0).
Figure 4 shows a comparison of the U.S. and Japanese design spectra. The
parameters used for constructing the spectra are given in Figure 4. While the U.S.
design spectral acceleration for the short period is similar to the Japanese spectra for
severe earthquake, for the long period the Japanese design spectral acceleration is
higher.

Figure 1 USA Design Response Spectrum, Sa

 α

η2αmax

γ
T 
a =  γ  η2a max
T 
0.45αmax
a = [η 2 0.2γ − η1 (T − 5Tγ )]a max

0 T (s)
0.1 Tg 5Tg 6.0

Figure 2 China Seismic Influence Coefficient, α

Figure 3 Japan Design Response Spectrum, Sa

 Figure 4 The U.S. and Japan Design Spectra

SEISMIC BASE SHEAR

For the equivalent lateral force procedure, ASCE-7, GB 50011 and the Japanese
seismic code multiply seismic weight by a factor and use a similar equation to
calculate base shear (Table 8). However, there are some essential differences in
determining the factors CS, α1 and Ci.
The base shear in ASCE -7 is determined based on the design ground motion
which is about two-thirds of the soil-modified and risk-adjusted maximum considered
ground motion (MCER). In contrast, two levels of seismic load effects
(frequent/moderate earthquake and rare/severe earthquake) are given both in the
Chinese seismic code and the Japanese seismic code.
ASCE-7 uses the response modification factor, R, to account for the inherent
ductility and overstrength of seismic lateral resisting systems. Basically the R-factor
decreases the design base shear for those systems with good earthquake performance.
For example, the R-factor for a special concrete moment frame system is 8 and a
ordinary concrete moment frame (with much less stringent detailing and other
requirements) has a R-factor of 3.5. Seismic load effects for the special moment
frame may have less than half of the ordinary moment frame. The R-factor ranges
from 1.5 to 8.
No response modification factor (R) appears in the GB 50011 base shear equation.
A lateral system and its components are required to meet the code required detailing
so that only minor damage would occur during a moderate earthquake. Adjustment
factors (γRE) ranging between 0.75 and 1.0 are used to modify seismic capacity of
structural components based on the type of material and type of structural
components (generally seismic capacity is increased by dividing the nominal capacity
by this γRE factor).
As stated earlier, the Japanese seismic code adopts a two-phase design procedure.
In the first-phase design for moderate earthquake, allowable stress design is employed
to determine structural configuration and dimensions. The structure is required to
respond elastically to seismic loads specified for moderate earthquake by the
Japanese seismic code. The second-phase design is to explicitly check lateral system
overstrength given that system ductility is sufficient during severe earthquake. Ds is a
structural characteristics factor to account for the contribution of ductility. The factor
ranges from 0.25 to 0.55 which means seismic load effects are reduced in a factor of
4.0 to 1.8 due to the contribution of ductility. Thus the required overstrength factor
ranges from 1.0 for a ductile system to 2.2 for a non-ductile system.
The Japanese seismic code implicitly uses a constant equivalent R factor (= 4) for
all building systems when the building’s ultimate strength has to be checked
explicitly (Uang, 1991). This value is only approximately half the highest values used
by ASCE-7. Even smaller equivalent R factors are adopted if a simpler design
procedure is used.
In ASCE -7 seismic importance factor (I) increases the base shear for an Risk
Category III or IV structure with a factor of 1.25 or 1.5, respectively. The Chinese
code does not explicitly include such an importance factor and the issue is addressed
by adjusting the seismic fortification intensity according to the building type. The
Japanese code does not adjust the base shear for occupancy categories.
The Chinese Seismic Code requires that besides dead loads, seismic weight have
to include 50% uniform live load for residential or office buildings and 80% uniform
live load for library stack rooms or archive rooms. In ASCE-7 no live load is required
to be included in seismic weight except a minimum of 25% of floor live load for
storage area plus partition weight assuming partitions can be rearranged.
The seismic load effect (E) has a load factor of 1.0 when combining factored
loads using strength design according to ASCE-7 or the IBC. The Chinese seismic
code assigns a load factor of 1.30 to the horizontal seismic load effect (SEhk) when
combining the load effect of the frequent earthquake (50-year return period) with
other loads to perform strength design. No load factor is assigned to seismic load
effect in the Japanese seismic code.
 Table 8 Base Shear Calculations

The U. S. The Chinese The Japanese code (BSL)

Subject code code (GB Moderate
Severe earthquake
(ASCE – 7) 50011) earthquake
n
Base shear V = CS W FEk = α1 Geq Qi = Ci ∑ W j Qun = Ds Fes Qud
j =i

α1 seismic
Seismic influence Qun = Required
CS = Ci = Z Rt Ai
design coefficient ultimate lateral
S /(R/I) C0
coefficient DS determined strength
by Figure 2 Qud =
CS ≤ n
SD1/(T)(R/I) Qi = ZRt Ai C0 ∑ W j
Upper
for T ≤ TL Governed by Governed by j =i
limit
CS ≤ SD1 TL Figure 2 Figure 3 Ds = structural
/(T2)(R/I) characteristics
for T ≥ TL factor
CS ≥ 0.01 Fes = a factor
Lower
CS ≥ Governed by Governed by accounting for
limit eccentricity and
0.5S1/(R/I) Figure 2 Figure 3
for S1 ≥ 0.6g vertical stiffness
Seismic Wi = weight of distribution
W Geq
weight the j-th story

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

Approaches to analyze a structure subject to seismic load effects includes static

methods (linear or nonlinear) and dynamic methods (response spectrum analysis or
time history analysis).The more complex the building is and the greater the seismic
hazard, the more rigorous analysis needs to be performed. Table 9 summarizes the
requirements of ASCE-7, GB 50011, and the Japanese seismic code when selecting
the structural analysis procedure. The analysis procedure required by ASCE-7 is
based on seismic design category and building configuration. GB 50011 requires that
the analysis procedure be selected based on dynamic properties, building height,
regularity and seismic hazard.
In Japanese seismic code, usually two-phase design needs to be performed. At
first, a building is classified as Group from 1 to 4 based on building height. Then a
design route is selected based on the building group. The first-phase design is
allowable stress design and the structure responds elastically so any linear analysis is
acceptable. For the second-phase design, when it is needed to check lateral system
overstrength, usually nonlinear static or dynamic analysis (pushover or nonlinear time
history analysis) is required. The second-phase design is not required for a building
up to 31m in height, provided the building is of regular shape (Trembley et al. 1996).
A structure taller than 60m is required to be designed by special study and usually
nonlinear time history analysis needs to be employed. The design is subject to
technical peer review and the Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport
has final authority.

Table 9 Permitted Analytic Procedures

Analysis ASCE 7-10 GB 50011- Japanese Code

procedure 2010
1. Structures assigned to Seismic Structures with Applicable to
Design Category A, B or C a linear first first-phase
2. Structures assigned to Seismic mode shape or design
Design Category D, E or F with structures not
the following characteristics: higher than
Equivalent a) light-frame construction; or 40m and with
static b) Regular structures with dominant shear
approach T<3.5Ts or deflection and
c) Irregular structures with vertically
T<3.5Ts and not having torsional uniformly
irregularities and not having distributed
vertical stiffness, weight or stiffness
geometric irregulaties.
Modal Structures not Applicable to
response permitted for first-phase
spectrum equivalent design. For
analysis static procedure second-phase
Extremely design,
irregular nonlinear
All structures structures, Type pushover or
Time A structures or nonlinear time-
history those high-rise history analysis
analysis structures listed usually is
in Table 10. required to
check ultimate
lateral strength

Table 10 Criteria for when the Time History Analysis Should be Selected for
the High-Rise Buildings in China

Intensity or Site class Building height limit (m)

Intensity 8 and Site Class I or II
>100
Intensity 7
Intensity 8 and Site Class III or IV >80
Intensity 9 >60
DRIFT AND DEFLECTION

The design story drift (Δ) shall be computed as the difference of the deflections at
the top and bottom of the story under consideration. ASCE-7 uses Eq. 4 to calculate
the deflection of Level x.
Cd
d x = d xe Eq. 4
I
where
Cd = the deflection amplification factor depending on type of seismic lateral
resisting system;
δxe = the deflection determined by an elastic analysis using design seismic load
effect; and
I = the importance factor.

Table 11 Allowable Story Drift, Δa (ASCE-7) - USA

Occupancy Category
Structure
I or II III IV
Structures, other than masonry shear wall
structures, 4 stories or less with interior walls,
0.025hsx* 0.020hsx 0.015hsx
partitions, ceilings and exterior wall that have
been designed to accommodate the story drift
Masonry cantilever shear wall structures 0.010hsx 0.010hsx 0.010hsx
Other cantilever shear wall structures 0.007hsx 0.007hsx 0.007hsx
All other structures 0.020hsx 0.015hsx 0.010hsx
* hsx = the story height below Level x

The Chinese seismic code GB 50011 requires that the elastic story drift (Δue) is
determined using seismic load effects of the frequent earthquake level with load
factor of 1.0. Δue should not be greater than the allowable story drift in Table 12.
The Chinese code also requires that some structures have to be checked for elasto-
plastic story drift criteria under seismic load effects of the rare earthquake event
(Table 13). Nonlinear static or nonlinear time history analysis has to be performed to
compute the elasto-plastic drift except that a simplified method may be used for
concrete moment frames or concrete columns in a single story industrial building with
no stiffness irregularity and not higher than 12-stories. Using the simplified method,
the elasto-plastic story drift may be calculated from the following equations:
∆u p = η p ∆u e Eq. 5
ηp
or ∆u p = µ∆u y = ∆u y Eq. 6
ξy
where
Δup = elasto-plastic story drift
Δue = elastic story drift under rare earthquake event
ηp = Amplification factor.
 The elasto-plastic story drift, Δup, should not be greater than the allowable elasto-
plastic story drift as shown in Table 14.

Table 12 Allowable Elastic Story Drift (GB 50011) - China

Structure Allowable story drift (θeh)

Concrete moment frame 0.00182h
Concrete moment frame –shear wall interactive 0.00125h
system
Concrete shear wall with flat plate floor
Moment frame with a tube core
Concrete shear wall or tube within a tube 0.001h
Moment frame supporting discontinuous walls 0.001h
Mid-rise or high-rise steel structure 0.0033h

Table 13 Structures Required or Suggested to Check for Elasto-Plastic Story

Drift - China

Required
1. Tall single-story concrete bent frame
with Seismic Intensity 9 or Seismic
Intensity 8 with site class III or IV.
2. Concrete moment frame with story
yielding ratio less than 0.5 and with
Intensity 7 , 8 or 9
3. Steel structures higher than 150m
4. All Building Type A structures; and
Building Type B: concrete or steel
structures
5. Seismically isolated structures or
structures with damping systems.
Suggested
1. High-rise steel structures with height of
less than 150m
2. Masonry structures with concrete
moment frame supporting structures
above
3. Shear wall structure with flat plate
floor
4. Building Type B: concrete or Steel
structures with Intensity 8 or Intensity 7
with site class III or IV
5. Structures listed in Table 10 and with
vertical irregularity, i.e., beams, slabs or
trusses supporting discontinuous walls or
frames above.
 Table 14 Allowable Elasto-Plastic Story Drift (GB 50011) - China

Structure Allowable story drift

(θph)
Single story concrete bent frame column 0.0333h
Concrete moment frame 0.02h
Ground-level Moment frame or shear wall supporting 0.01h
masonry structure above
Concrete moment frame –shear wall interactive system; 0.01h
Concrete shear wall with flat plate floor;
Moment frame with a tube core
Concrete shear wall or tube within a tube 0.0083h
Mid-rise or high-rise steel structure 0.02h

The Japanese seismic code calculates the story drift (δi) using seismic load effects
of the moderate earthquake level. The story drift angle is then calculated as
δ
Ri = i Eq. 7
hi
Where hi is the story height. Ri should not exceed 1/200. This limit may be
exceeded if nonstructural members are designed to sustain the story drift, but in no
case should Ri exceed 1/120. The Japanese code has no difference in the drift control
requirement for different occupancies.
The allowable story drifts in Table 11 specified by ASCE-7 are corresponding to
maximum inelastic deformation. Based on Equation 1, the allowable story drift (Δa’)
corresponding to design seismic force level can be calculated as
′ ∆
∆a = a I Eq. 8
Cd
where Cd varies from 1.0 to 6.5. For a special steel moment frame structure, with
standard occupancy and nonstructural elements not designed to accommodate the
story drift, the allowable story drift corresponding to design seismic force is
′ ∆
∆a = a I =
0.020hsx
(1.0) = 0.0036hsx
Cd 5.5
The allowable story drift specified by the Japanese seismic code is 0.005 hsx.
However, considering the Japanese seismic code uses a constant equivalent R factor
(= 4) for all building systems and the US code uses R = 8.0 for a special steel moment
frame, resulting a higher base shear the Japanese comparable allowable story drift
would be equivalent to
″
∆ a = 0.005hsx (4 / 8) = 0.0025hsx
which is more stringent than the U.S. seismic code. However, for a less ductile
lateral system with R less than 5.5, the U.S code will become more stringent.
 CONCLUSIONS

The main features of the U. S. and Japanese seismic design practices have been
discussed and compared. While they have essential common features, there are many
considerations on which the U. S., China and Japanese seismic designs have
significant differences.

REFERENCES

American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute (2010),

Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures ASCE 7-10, Reston,
VA., USA.
Building Seismic Safety Council (2009), FEMA P-750, NEHRP Recommended
Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures, Washington D.C.,
USA.
China Earthquake Administration (2001), Seismic Ground Motion Parameter
Zonation Map of China, GB 18306-2001(in Chinese), Beijing, China.
Chock, G. (2010), Martin & Chock, Inc., Overview of Current USA Seismic Design
Provisions for New Construction, China/USA Symposium for the Advancement of
Earthquake Sciences and Hazard Mitigation Practices, Beijing, China.
International Code Council, International Building Code (2012), USA.
Kuramoto, H. (2006), Seismic Design Codes for Buildings in Japan, Journal of
Disaster Research, Vol.1 No. 3, 341- 356.
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of China (2001), Code for
Seismic Design of Buildings, GB 50011-2001 (in Chinese), Beijing, China.
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of China (2008), Standard for
Classification of Seismic Protection of Building Construction GB 50223-2008 (in
Chinese), Beijing, China.
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of China (2010), Code for
Seismic Design of Buildings GB 50011-2010(in Chinese), Beijing, China.
Tremblay R., Bruneau, M., Nakashima, M., Prion, H., Filiatrault, A. and Devall, R.
(1996), Seismic Design of Steel Buildings: Lessons from the 1995 Hyogo-ken
Nanbu Earthquake, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 23:727-756, Canada.
Uang, C. M. (1991), Comparison of Seismic Force Reduction Factors Used in USA
and Japan, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 20, 389-397.
Yu, G., Chock, G. and Luo, C. (2010), Comparison of USA and China Seismic
Design Provisions, China/USA Symposium for the Advancement of Earthquake
Sciences and Hazard Mitigation Practices, Beijing, China.

View publication stats