Concrete Institute of Australia

Robust Concrete Structures Design Seminar

Earthquake Engineering
BD6/11 Committee: Chair John L Wilson
1. Earthquake Design Overview
2. AS1170.4 Overview
3. AS1170.4 Update and DB design
 Concrete Institute of Australia
Robust Concrete Structures Design Seminar
Earthquake Engineering
BD6/11 Committee: Chair John L Wilson
References and recommended reading:
1. Dowrick D, 2009, ‘Earthquake resistant design and risk reduction’, Wiley Publishing.
2. Booth E, Key D, 2009, ‘Earthquake design practice for buildings ‘ Thomas Telford
Publishing
3. AEES, 2010, ‘AS1170.4 Commentary’, www.aees.org.au
4. Woodside J, McBean P, 2015, ‘Guide to seismic design & detailing of RC buildings in
Australia‘, Steel Reinforcement Institute of Australia, SRIA Publication.
5. Wilson JL, Lam NTKL, 2006, “Earthquake design of buildings in Australia using velocity
and displacement principles” Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 6 No 2,
pp 103-118.
6. Wilson JL, Wibowo A, Lam NTKL, Gad EF, 2015, “Drift behaviour of lightly reinforced
concrete columns and structural walls for design applications”, Australian Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol 16, No 1, pp 62-73.
Part 1: Earthquake Design Overview
BD6/11 Committee: Chair John L Wilson
 Earthquake Design Overview

• World and Australian seismicity

• Earthquake design principles
• Building damage studies
• Co-lateral damage studies
• Contemporary design trends
200 million years
60 million years
Plate tectonics
Inter-plate earthquakes

•earthquake occurrence maps outline plate boundaries

•predictability

Intra-plate earthquakes

•away from boundary

•less frequent, less predictable
•more damaging as structures more vulnerable
 Magnitude and Intensity
• Magnitude
– measure of energy released
– logarithmic scale
– Mn=5 moderate
– Mn>7 very severe

• Intensity
– measure of destruction
– scale 1 to 12
– subjective measure of vulnerability

• Earthquake event will have one Magnitude but Intensity

will vary from place to place
Fault rupture
Elastic re-bound
theory
Earthquake
ground motion:
time history
Earthquake Engineering
Australian
Seismicity

Australian
earthquakes
M>4
1788-2006
 Australian Earthquakes
Year Location Magnitude Damage
$ (1990)
1954 Adelaide M=5.4 $60M

1968 Meckering M=6.8 $30M

1988 Tennant M=6.8 $1M

Creek
1989 Newcastle M=5.5 $1500M
 General Earthquake Risk
• No Australian city is immune from an earthquake event

• Most Australian cities are unprepared for an earthquake

event

• Around $300 million transferred off-shore for re-

insurance associated with earthquake risk in Australia

• The building stock is very vulnerable to earthquake

excitation, in particular:
– Un-reinforced masonry
– Tilt-up construction
– Soft-storey construction
– Building facades
Fault rupture –
Meckering, WA
Mn 6.8, 1968
Meckering earthquake
 Earthquake Design Overview

• World and Australian seismicity

• Earthquake design principles
• Building damage studies
• Co-lateral damage studies
• Contemporary design trends
 Seismic Risk - Context and Overview
 Urbanisation and development of mega-cities
 Increasing seismic risk with concentration of people and
infrastructure

http://www.21stcentech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/World-Population-growth.jpg
 Earthquake Design Philosophy
• Earthquake loading maybe the highest loading
expected but the chance of occurrence is remote
– Low probability but high consequence

• Design philosophy
– conservative design approach
• expensive for society
– ignore hazard
• construed as negligent
– collapse prevention but expect damage
• pragmatic and cost effective approach
 Dual Design Criteria
• Damageability limit state
– Operational with limited damage for
75year RP earthquake event

• Collapse limit state

– Collapse prevention but severe damage
for 475-2500 year RP earthquake event
 Seismic Design Approach
• High seismic regions
– Earthquake actions control the design
– Initial design considerations vital
– Large acceleration, displacement, duration demands
– Design and detail for ductility and displacement capacity

• Low seismic regions

– Gravity and wind loads control design
– Check for earthquake actions: force or displacement
– Modest displacement and duration demands
– Limited ductile detailing
 Initial design considerations
• Material selection
– Ductile vs brittle
– Light vs heavy

• Configuration
– Regular in plan and elevation
– Uniform in strength, stiffness and mass
– Direct and simple load paths

• Collapse mechanism
– Identify rational yielding mechanism
– Tie structure together to create system
– Displacement capacity and compatibility
Initial design considerations: Soft storey

Higher Stiffness

Much Lower Stiffness

Soft-Storey Building
ag

Building with weak beam-strong column

ag
Initial design considerations: Soft storey
Initial design considerations: Soft storey
Initial design considerations:
Soft storey and URM infill
 Earthquake Design Overview

• World and Australian seismicity

• Earthquake design principles
• Building damage studies
• Co-lateral damage studies
• Contemporary design trends
 R/C Structures –
Improved drift capacity and robustness
1. Reduce axial load on columns
– Factored axial load below balance point
– Improves drift capacity of columns

2. Transverse steel in columns and joints

– Improve concrete confinement
– Prevent longitudinal rebar buckling
– Increase shear capacity

3. Continuous bottom steel in beams and slabs

– Improves robustness through catenary action
– Avoid shear failure
Transverse steel in R/C columns & joints
R/C column – poor detailing
Ductile R/C columns – confinement rebar
Continuous bottom steel in slabs and beams
Newcastle Workers Club
Pyne Gould Building - Christchurch
CTV Building - Christchurch
Precast floors – poor connections
URM – 3 Stage improvement process
1. Eliminate falling hazards
– Chimneys, parapets
– Ornaments, gable ends

2. Prevent out-of plane wall failures

– Connect walls to floors at every level
– Avoid walls acting as cantilevers secured only at the
base

3. Strengthen building to act as a cohesive

system
– Wall to floor connections
– Diaphragm stiffening and strengthening
– Increase lateral strength of building if needed
Un-reinforced masonry
Un-reinforced masonry
Non- structural Components:
- Architectural components
- Building contents
- Mechanical and Electrical services

Earthquake Damage Issues:

- Occupant Safety
- Business Interruption
Non structural damage - contents
 Earthquake Design Overview

• World and Australian seismicity

• Earthquake design principles
• Building damage studies
• Co-lateral damage studies
• Contemporary design trends
Co-lateral damage - landslides
Co-lateral damage - rockfall
 Earthquake Design Overview

• World and Australian seismicity

• Earthquake design principles
• Building damage studies
• Co-lateral damage studies
• Contemporary design trends
Earthquake engineering research
 Smart
Structures
Laboratory
 Rocking
Wall
Technology

UCSD
 Base
Isolation
Technology
“Human memory is fortunately and
unfortunately shorter than the
return period of most disasters”
Part 2: A1170.4 -2007 Overview

BD6/11 Committee: Chair John L Wilson

 AS 1170.4 - 2007
• Section 2: Design procedure
• Section 3: Site hazard
• Section 4: Soil class
• Section 5: Design methods
• Section 6: Static analysis
• Section 7: Dynamic analysis
• Section 8: Parts and Components
• Appendix A: Domestic Housing
 AS 1170.4 - 2007
• Earthquake Design Categories 1, 2 , 3
– Importance Level: 1, 2, 3 or 4 [BCA]
– Site Hazard: kp Z
– Soil class
– Building height
• All designs must also comply with
robustness clauses of AS1170.0 and
material standards
 Site Hazard (Table 3.2)

TABLE 3.2
HAZARD FACTOR (Z) FOR SPECIFIC AUSTRALIAN LOCATIONS
Location Z Location Z Location Z
Adelaide 0.10 Geraldton 0.09 Port Augusta 0.11
Albany 0.08 Gladstone 0.09 Port Lincoln 0.10
Albury/Wodonga 0.09 Gold Coast 0.05 Port Hedland 0.12
Alice Springs 0.08 Gosford 0.09 Port Macquarie 0.06
Ballarat 0.08 Grafton 0.05 Port Pirie 0.10
Bathurst 0.08 Gippsland 0.10 Robe 0.10
Bendigo 0.09 Goulburn 0.09 Rockhampton 0.08
Brisbane 0.05 Hobart 0.03 Shepparton 0.09
Broome 0.12 Karratha 0.12 Sydney 0.08
Bundaberg 0.11 Katoomba 0.09 Tamworth 0.07
Burnie 0.07 Latrobe Valley 0.10 Taree 0.08
Cairns 0.06 Launceston 0.04 Tennant Creek 0.13
Camden 0.09 Lismore 0.05 Toowoomba 0.06
Canberra 0.08 Lorne 0.10 Townsville 0.07
Carnarvon 0.09 Mackay 0.07 Tweed Heads 0.05
Coffs Harbour 0.05 Maitland 0.10 Uluru 0.08
Cooma 0.08 Melbourne 0.08 Wagga Wagga 0.09
Dampier 0.12 Mittagong 0.09 Wangaratta 0.09
Darwin 0.09 Morisset 0.10 Whyalla 0.09
Derby 0.09 Newcastle 0.11 Wollongong 0.09
Dubbo 0.08 Noosa 0.08 Woomera 0.08
Esperance 0.09 Orange 0.08 Wyndham 0.09
Geelong 0.10 Perth 0.09 Wyong 0.10
Probability Factor kp
PROBABILITY FACTOR (kp )
Annual probability of exceedance Probability factor
P kp
1/2500 1.8
1/2000 1.7
1/1000 1.3
1/800 1.25
1/500 1.0
1/250 0.75
1/200 0.7
1/100 0.5
1/50 0.35
1/25 0.25
1/20 0.20
 Building Code of Australia
Importance Building Type Return Kp
Level Period
(Years)

1 Minor, temporary, farm Nil Nil

buildings

2 Buildings not included 500 1.0

in IL 1,2 or 3

3 Buildings containing 1000 1.3

large number of people

4 Post-disaster recovery, 1500 1.5

hazardous facilities
 Site Classification
Site A (S=0.8)
Hard rock

Site B (S=1)
Rock

Site C (S=1.4)
Shallow soil sites with natural period less
than 0.6 sec

Site D (S=2.25) 0.450

Deep or soft soil sites with natural period 0.400

exceeding 0.6 sec 0.350

0.300
E

0.250

Site E (S=3.5)
0.200
D

0.150
C

Sites containing very soft soil layers with 0.100

0.050
A
B

shear wave velocities of below 150 0.000

m/sec (SPT<6) and over 10m in

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Displacement (m)

thickness
 AS 1170.4 - 2007
• Section 2: Design procedure
• Section 3: Site hazard
• Section 4: Soil class
• Section 5: Design methods
• Section 6: Static analysis
• Section 7: Dynamic analysis
• Section 8: Parts and Components
• Appendix A: Domestic Housing
 Earthquake Design Category 1
• Building height < 12 metres
• V = 0.10 W for building and parts
 Earthquake Design Category 2
Static analysis – Section 6
• Simplified analysis for buildings not exceeding 15m

Parts and components – Section 8

Earthquake Design Category 3

Dynamic analysis – Section 7
• Response spectrum modal analysis

Parts and components – Section 8

 AS 1170.4 - 2007
• Section 2: Design procedure
• Section 3: Site hazard
• Section 4: Soil class
• Section 5: Design methods
• Section 6: Static analysis
• Section 7: Dynamic analysis
• Section 8: Parts and Components
• Appendix A: Domestic Housing
Section 6: Static Analysis Method
V = kp [Z Ch(T1)]*[ Sp / µ ] Wt

• kp = Return period factor

(typically 1.0)
• Z = Hazard factor
(acceleration co-efficient)
• Ch(T1) = Elastic response spectrum
• Sp = Structural performance factor
(reciprocal of over-strength)
• µ = Structural ductility
Response of
SDOF system
to earthquake
excitation
Response
spectrum
analysis
Normalised response spectrum
Elastic Design Response Spectrum
Elastic Design Response Spectrum
TABLE 6.4
SPECTRAL SHAPE FACTOR (Ch (T))
Site sub-soil class
Period Ae Be Ce De Ee
(seconds) Strong rock Rock Shallow soil Deep or soft soil Very soft soil
0.0 2.35 (0.8)* 2.94 (1.0)* 3.68 (1.3)* 3.68 (1.1)* 3.68 (1.1)*
0.1 2.35 2.94 3.68 3.68 3.68
0.2 2.35 2.94 3.68 3.68 3.68
0.3 2.35 2.94 3.68 3.68 3.68
0.4 1.76 2.20 3.12 3.68 3.68
0.5 1.41 1.76 2.50 3.68 3.68
0.6 1.17 1.47 2.08 3.30 3.68
0.7 1.01 1.26 1.79 2.83 3.68
0.8 0.88 1.10 1.56 2.48 3.68
0.9 0.78 0.98 1.39 2.20 3.42
1.0 0.70 0.88 1.25 1.98 3.08
1.2 0.59 0.73 1.04 1.65 2.57
1.5 0.47 0.59 0.83 1.32 2.05
1.7 0.37 0.46 0.65 1.03 1.60
2.0 0.26 0.33 0.47 0.74 1.16
2.5 0.17 0.21 0.30 0.48 0.74
3.0 0.12 0.15 0.21 0.33 0.51
3.5 0.086 0.11 0.15 0.24 0.38
4.0 0.066 0.083 0.12 0.19 0.29
4.5 0.052 0.065 0.093 0.15 0.23
5.0 0.042 0.053 0.075 0.12 0.18
Equations for spectra
0 < T ≤ 0.1 0.8 + 15.5T 1.0 + 19.4T 1.3 + 23.8T 1.1 + 25.8T 1.1 + 25.8T
0.1 < T ≤ 1.5 0.704/T but ≤ 2.35 0.88/T but ≤ 2.94 1.25/T but ≤ 3.68 1.98/T but ≤ 3.68 3.08/T but ≤ 3.68
T > 1.5 1.056/T2 1.32/T2 1.874/T2 2.97/T2 4.62/T2
 Building Natural Period T1
T1 = 1.25 kt h0.75
h = Building height
Kt = frame dependent co-efficient
= 0.11 steel MRF
= 0.075 concrete MRF
= 0.05 all other structures
(eg. h = 40m, Kt=0.05, T1=1.0sec)

T1 = h/46 (1993 version)

T1 = n / 10 (estimate)
n = Number of storeys
 Section 6: Static Analysis Method
• µ / Sp = Rf
– Structural response factor AS1170.4 (1993)
– Allows for over-strength and inelastic energy
absorption through ductility
• Table of µ and Sp values provided for:
– Steel structures
– Concrete structures
– Timber structures
– Masonry structures
 Inelastic response of structures
Re

Elastic
µ Rf = µ / Sp
Inelastic
Rµ
Ω=1/Sp
Ry

∆y ∆yu ∆u
µ
System Ductility and Over-strength

System µ Sp µ / Sp

URM 1.25 0.77 1.6

Limited Ductile 2 0.77 2.6

Moderate Ductile 3 0.67 4.5

Ductile 4 0.67 6
 Seismic design of R/C systems
• Limited Ductile (Rf=2.6)
– Base or default detailing in R/C Standard

• Moderately Ductile (Rf=4.5)

– Increased level of detailing

• Ductile (Rf=6.0)
– Capacity design
– Special detailing
 Vertical Distribution of Lateral Load
m6

m5 V = (∑ mi) Sa
m4

m3
∑ mi
m2
hi
m1

V V

Fi = V ( mi hki / ∑ mi hki )
Static Torsion: Basic Principles

SC CM

static es ea
accidental
eccentricity
eccentricity
=10% width
ed1
Design eccentricity
 Deflections
Seismic deflections calculated need to be factored
up by [µ / Sp] to allow for inelastic action
Re

µ
Elastic

Inelastic
Rµ
Ω=1/Sp
Ry

∆y ∆yu ∆u
µ
Part 3: A1170.4 (2007) Update
Hazard Map and DB design
BD6/11 Committee: Chair John L Wilson
 Australian
Seismicity

Australian earthquakes
(M>4 1788-2006)
AS1170.4 (2007) Hazard Map from 1990
Geoscience Australia (2013) Hazard Map
 GA (2013) Hazard Map Discussion
• Hazard map is not based on a tectonic model
• Past events are not good predictors of future events
– Location of next event is very uncertain
– Example: 1988 Tennant Creek earthquakes
• Probabilistic Hazard Analyses (PHS)
– Rational approach in high seismic regions where tectonic model
exists
– Questionable approach in regions of lower seismicity away from the
plate boundaries
• Deterministic Threshold Approach
– An alternative approach for regions of lower seismicity
– Use the PHS approach to calibrate threshold values selected
– NZ 1170.5 uses a threshold approach with Zmin=0.13 (M6.5@20Km)
Geoscience Australia (2013) Hazard Map

Comparison of 2013 GA
parameters compared with
AS1170.4(2007):

• Z values for the 500 year RP

are significantly lower
• Z values for the 2500 year RP
are significantly greater
• Kp values are significantly
greater
Return Period Factor Kp (2007 vs 2013)
 Comparison of Hazard Values for
different RPs (2007 vs 2013)
Parameter RP=500yr RP=1000yr RP=1500yr RP=2500yr RP=5000yr
Z (2007) 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.15 NA
Z (2013) 0.06 0.10 0.12 0.18 0.24
PGV 50 mm/sec 70 mm/sec 90 mm/sec 150 mm/sec 200 mm/sec
(2013)
M=7.0 R=90km R=70km R=50km R=35km R=25km
M=6.5 R=40km R=30km R=25km R=15km R=10km
AS1170.4 Future Hazard Map?
M6@20km

Zmin=0.08g??
 Comparison of 500 year RP Hazard
values for different cities (2007 vs 2013)
City 2007 2013 2013
Z values Z values Zmin=0.08

Adelaide 0.10 0.06 0.08

Brisbane 0.05 0.05 0.08
Canberra 0.08 0.06 0.08
Darwin 0.09 0.04 0.08
Hobart 0.03 0.02 0.08
Melbourne 0.08 0.06 0.08
Newcastle 0.11 0.05 0.08
Perth 0.09 0.05 0.08
Sydney 0.08 0.06 0.08
Proposed Changes to AS1170.4
Proposed Changes to AS1170.4
 Building Natural Period Tcode
Tdyn > a Tcode
a = 0.8 (old)
a = 0.7 (new)

Tcode = 1.25 kt h0.75

h = Building height
Kt = frame dependent co-efficient
= 0.11 steel MRF
= 0.075 concrete MRF
= 0.05 all other structures
(eg. h = 40m, Kt=0.05, T1=1.0sec)
Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM)

Demand Curve –
**Increase 1.5 times

Capacity Curve
Acceleration

Performance Point

Displacement
Response Spectra: RSA, RSV, RSD
RSDmax D
V
A V D
A
T1 RSD = RSVmax x T/2π
RSVmax V
T2

D
T1 T2
(a) Tripartite Velocity Response Spectrum (b) Displacement Response Spectrum

A A V D A
RSAmax
A RSAmax
2
RSVmax
RSA =
A = Vmax x 2π/T RSD
V

D
T1 T2 RSDmax D
(c) Traditional Force-Based (d) Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectrum
Acceleration Response Spectrum
Response Spectra: RSA, RSV, RSD
Elastic Design Response Spectrum
Design Response Spectra in ADRS format
Z=0.08 or PGV = 60 mm/sec
0.350
ADRS Diagram for Z=0.08
0.300

0.250
Acceleration (g's)

E
0.200
T2=1.5 secs
0.150 D

0.100 C

B
0.050 A

0.000
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Displacement (m)
 ADRS: Z= 0.08g and RP 500-5000 years
1.000

ADRS Diagram for Z=0.08

0.900

0.800

0.700
Acceleration (g's)

0.600

0.500
5000
0.400
2500
0.300
1500
0.200
1000
500
0.100

0.000
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
Displacement (m)
Displacement Capacity of Structural Systems

a) Soft Storey Buildings

b) Structural Columns

c) Structural Walls
Displacement Capacity of Soft Storey Buildings
Displacement Capacity of Soft Storey Buildings
Displacement Capacity of Soft Storey Buildings
Displacement Capacity of Soft Storey Buildings
OoH Tests # 1,3

350

300

250

200
Force (kN)

150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Deflection (mm)
Precast Soft Storey Buildings - Conclusions
• The rigid body rocking mechanism was critical to the
displacement capacity of the system.

• It was found that the drift at axial load failure was greater
than 5% for all specimens despite the poor detailing and
significantly greater than that predicted by current
guidelines.

• The displacement and drift capacity was a function of the

column width in such rocking systems with low levels of
axial load.
Displacement Capacity of Structural Systems

a) Soft Storey Buildings

b) Structural Columns

c) Structural Walls
Lightly Reinforced Concrete Columns
 Lightly Reinforced Concrete Columns

S1 S2 S3 S4
0.56%, 0.2 1.0%, 0.2 1.0%, 0.4 0.56%, 0.4
 90

Lightly Reinforced
80 Specimen S1
Specimen S2
70
Specimen S3

Concrete Columns
60

Lateral Load (KN)

Specimen S4

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Drift (%)

S1 S2 S3 S4

F-max (kN) 59.7 75.1 82.5 63.7

δ at F-max (%) 1.71 1.73 1.12 1.01
F-80% (post peak) (kN) 47.7 60.1 66.0 52
δ at F-80% (post peak) (%) 3.3 2.1 1.4 1.5

F-Axial failure (kN) 16.1 28.3 50.1 52

δ -Axial failure (%) 5.0 2.5 1.5 1.5
 Lightly Reinforced Concrete Columns
Backbone Curve Model
Lateral Strength

C
Fu
D
Flf

Fy B
E

Ieff θ pl = (ϕ u − ϕ y ) L p

Fcr A

δcr δy δu δlf δaf

Drift (%)

Point A : Cracking Strength

Point B : Yield Strength
Point C : Peak Strength
Point D : Lateral Load Failure
Point E : Axial Load Failure
R/C Columns - Axial Load Failure Drift Model
 Lightly Reinforced Concrete Columns
Case Study Example for axial load ratios n =0.1 – 0.5
 R/C Columns - Simplified Code Bi-Linear Model
Base Shear

ΩφVu B

φVu
A

Ieff

∆yu Ω∆yu ∆m= Ωµ∆yu

Displacement
Point A
The effective stiffness Ieff can be conservatively estimated using FEMA356(2000) to account for tensioning
stiffness effects in R/C structures as follows:
Ieff = 0.7Ig for axial load ratio n ≥ 0.5
= 0.5Ig for axial load ratio n ≤ 0.3
For 0.3 ≤ n < 0.5, the value of Ieff should be interpolated.
Point B
The maximum displacement ∆m is calculated by multiplying the yield displacement ∆yu by the ductility
and over-strength value µ.Ω. In the Australian context, this results in ∆m=2.6∆yu (µ.Ω=2.0*1.3=2.6), for
limited ductile columns with standard detailing.
 Lightly Reinforced Concrete Columns
Case Study Example for axial load ratios n =0.1 – 0.5

n=0.1 n=0.2 n=0.3

n=0.4 n=0.5
Lightly Reinforced Concrete Columns - Conclusions
• The axial load ratio critically controls the column drift capacity.

• The axial load failure drift capacity decreases significantly

with increasing axial load ratio as shown in the experimental
tests and predictive models.

• Designers should aim to keep below the balance point of the

column interaction diagram

• The drift at axial load failure was at least 1.5% for all
specimens despite the poor detailing and significantly
greater than that predicted by current guidelines.
Displacement Capacity of Structural Systems

a) Soft Storey Buildings

b) Structural Columns

c) Structural Walls
 Displacement Capacity of R/C Wall Systems
C
C Fu
D
Fu

Lateral Strength
Lateral Strength

Fy B
Fy B
θ pl . p = (φ peak − φ y ) L p
Ieff
Fcr A θ pl .u = (φu − φ y ) L p Fcr A

γcr γy γpeak γu γcr γy γm

Drift (%) Drift (%)
Detailed wall model Simplified wall model
• The Detailed Wall model
– Providing a more comprehensive estimate of the lateral load-displacement behaviour of
walls using a simple flexure-dominant approach
– Comprising four stages; cracking strength, yield strength, peak strength and ultimate
displacement.

• The Simplified Wall Model

– Providing a quick and conservative estimate for initial design checking purposes and
– Comprising three stages; cracking strength, yield strength and ultimate strength.
– Assume Ieff=0.5Igross
 R/C Wall Test Database
Hw Lw tw ρv ρh Drift (%)
Walls a n
(mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) Yield Ultimate
0.11 3.19
M1 0.56 0.02 565 1000 100 0.34 0.31
0.23 2.65
Greifenhagen & Lestuzzi M2 0.56 0.02 565 1000 100 0.34 0.00
(2005) 0.12 1.42
M3 0.63 0.10 565 900 80 0.39 0.26
0.11 1.95
M4 0.63 0.05 565 900 80 0.39 0.26
0.18 1.04*
WSH1* 2.28 0.05 4560 2000 150 0.54 0.25
0.17 1.38
WSH2 2.28 0.06 4560 2000 150 0.54 0.25
0.25 2.03
WSH3 2.28 0.06 4560 2000 150 0.82 0.25
Dazio et al. (2009)
0.25 1.35
WSH4 2.28 0.06 4560 2000 150 0.82 0.25
0.14 1.36
WSH5 2.28 0.13 4560 2000 150 0.39 0.25
0.22 2.07
WSH6 2.26 0.11 4520 2000 150 0.82 0.25
0.77 1.91
Thomsen & Wallace RW1 3.00 0.10 3658 1219 102 0.17 0.47
(2004) 0.74 2.17
RW2 3.00 0.10 3658 1219 102 0.17 0.70
0.72 2.69
W1 4.00 0.25 1600 400 80 1.96 0.52
Su & Wong (2007)
0.61 1.42
W2 4.00 0.50 1600 400 80 1.96 0.54

* Non ductile reinforcement used in this test

 Detailed Wall Model Simplified Wall Model

R/C Wall
Displacement
Capacity
(Greifenhagen
2005 Test data)
R/C Wall Displacement Capacity - Conclusions

 Yield drifts for all walls varied widely between 0.1-0.7%

 Ultimate drifts for all walls were reasonable and in the range 1.3-3.2%,
 except specimen WSH1 where the low ductile longitudinal reinforcement
resulted in a maximum drift of 1.0%.

 Overall, the detailed wall model provided good correlation with the
experimental results, whilst the simplified wall model provided a
conservative and quick guide for the initial checking of wall drift
capacities, particularly for walls with an axial load ratio n<0.20.
Summary and Conclusions
AS1170.4 Future Hazard Map?

Zmin=0.08g??
 Summary and Conclusions
 Displacement Based (DB) principles are an excellent design and
checking tool for seismic performance assessment
 A design response spectra has been developed for low seismic
regions with a corner period T2=1.5 sec.
 Seismic displacement demands in regions of lower seismicity
(30 -150mm) are much more modest than regions of higher
seismicity (200 -500+ mm)
 Summary and Conclusions
 Designers have a good understanding of the lateral strength of
structures but reduced understanding of the post elastic deflection
behaviour
 Numerous studies have been undertaken to better understand the
lateral load-deflection behaviour of structural systems
 Most systems analysed have a drift capacity of at least 1.5%
 However, the axial load ratio critically controls drift capacity
 Concrete Institute of Australia
Robust Concrete Structures Design Seminar
Earthquake Engineering
BD6/11 Committee: Chair John L Wilson
1. Earthquake Design Overview
2. AS1170.4 Overview
3. AS1170.4 Update and DB design