Part 2 - Seismic Design Provisions In NBCC 2005 - The Schulich ...

1
Seismic Design Provisions
In
NBCC 2005
by
C. James Montgomery
CSCE Workshop
Calgary 23 January 2007

2
Road Map
• Earthquakes
• Seismic Risk in Canada
• Behaviour of Structures In Earthquakes
• Structural Dynamics
• Design Philosophy
• NBCC 2005

Earthquakes
3

4
Global Seismicity and Tectonic Plates
Bolt, 1993
NRC website

Movement At Faults
5

6
Strain
energy is
released
when slip
occurs at
fault

Earthquake
Magnitude
is a measure of
the amount of
energy released
at the source
7

8
Richter Magnitude
• Richter defined magnitude of a local
earthquake as the logarithm to base ten
of the maximum seismic-wave
amplitude (in thousands of a millimeter)
recorded on a standard seismograph at
a distance of 100 kilometers from the
earthquake epicenter.

9
Ground
motions occur
as earthquake
waves
propagate

10
Modified Mercalli
Intensity for New
Madrid, Missouri
earthquake
16 Dec 1811
(MM Intensity is a
measure of the
intensity of ground
shaking at a
particular location)
Bolt, 1993

11
Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale
Intensity Description Peak
Velocity
(mm/s)
Peak
Acceleration
(g)
VI
Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy
furniture moved. Damage slight.
50-80 0.06-0.07
VIII
X
XII
Damage slight in specially designed
structures; considerable in ordinary
structures with partial collapse. Panel
walls thrown out of frame structures.
Heavy furniture overturned.
Some well-built wooden structures
destroyed; most masonry and frame
structures destroyed. Landslides
considerable.
Damage total. Waves seen on ground
surface. Objects thrown into the air
200-300 0.25-0.30
>600 >0.60

Strong Ground Motions At A Site
12

13
Seismic Risk in Canada
http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca

15
Seismic Risk
Adams, et al. Trial Seismic Hazard Maps of Canada –
1999…, Geological Survey of Canada, Open File
3724

20
Seismic Risk
Location PGA * S a (0.2) * S a (0.5) * S a (1.0) * S a (2.0) *
Calgary 0.088 0.15 0.084 0.041 0.023
Edmonton 0.059 0.12 0.056 0.023 0.008
Toronto 0.17 0.26 0.13 0.055 0.015
Vancouver 0.46 0.94 0.64 0.34 0.17
*
Expressed as a ratio to g

21
Design
Response
Spectra

22
Behaviour of Structures in
Earthquakes

23
Northridge, CA *
Date 17 Jan 1994
Magnitude 6.7
Fatalities 60
Injured 7,000+
Homeless 20,000+
Buildings damaged 40,000+
Cost
$13-20 Billion
*
From EERI website

Northridge Meadows Parking Lot
24

Parking Garages
25

26
Parking
Structures

27
I-5 at Gavin
Canyon

28
Suspended Walkways, Cal State
Structural Separation Not Adequate

Bullocks Store
29

Apartment Building on Wilshire
30

St. John’s Hospital Admin Bldg
31

Ruptured Utility Pipe
32

HSS fracture due to local buckling
33

Seismic Isolator at USC Hospital
34

35
Failure of Concrete Members
Mitchell et al. 1995

36
Kobe, Japan *
Date 16 Jan 1995
Magnitude 6.9
Fatalities 5,502
Injured 36,896
Homeless
Buildings damaged 200,000
Cost
*
From EERI website

37
Splice Failure
at Weakest
Point of
Tapered
Column
(Elevated
Railway near
Sanomiya)

Hanshin Expressway – Pier 142
38

39
Hanshin
Expressway
Shear Failure –
Pier 165
Splice Failure –
Pier 99

40
Damage
to
Railway
Lines

41
Failure at
Intermediate
Floors

42
Pancake
Collapse

43
Soft-Storey
Failure
Sanomiya

Seven Storey Reinforced Concrete Frame
Failed At Fifth Floor Due To Setback
44

45
Michoacan (Mexico City) *
Date 19 Sep 1985
Magnitude 8
Fatalities 9,500
Injured 30,000
Homeless 100,000
Buildings damaged
Cost
412 collapsed
3,124 seriously
damaged in Mexico City
$3-4 Billion
∗
From EERI website

46
Zona
Rosa

Zona Rosa
47

Zona Rosa
48

Continental Hotel on Reforma
49

50
Collapsed
Buildings

51
Damaged
Buildings

52
Damaged
Building and
Parkade

53
Illustrates
Need For
Separation
Between
Adjacent
Buildings

54
Partially
Collapsed
Buildings

55
Relationship Between Strength
and Ductility
• In seismic design, building can be proportioned to respond
elastically, with restricted ductility or with full ductility
• In general members must be able to resist several load cycles
Paulay and Priestly 1992

56
Hysteresis Loops For Some
Concrete Systems
Paultre, et al. 1989

57
Hysteresis Loops For Some
Structural Members
Krawinkler and Popov, 1982; Paulay and Priestly, 1992

58
Structural Dynamics
Chopra, 1981
Clough and Penzien, 2003

59
One-Storey Building Idealized as
Single-Degree-of-Freedom System
Subjected to dynamic
forces
Subjected to ground
motion

60
mx && +
cx&
+
kx
=
0
f
=
1
T
=
ω
=
2π
1
2π
k
m
Free Vibration
ξ =
2
c
km

61
Ground
Motion
Response of
SDF systems
Plot of Elastic Spectral
Displacements, S d
(Displacement Response
Spectrum)

62
Elastic Response of Single-
Degree-of-Freedom Systems
Elastic Acceleration Response Spectrum (S a = ω 2 S d )

63
Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Systems
• MDF building will respond to
earthquake in several normal
modes of vibration
• In a normal mode, MDF
vibrates harmonically while
maintaining a characteristic
deflected shape
• Total response can be
estimated by combining
responses in various normal
modes
• In general, response in first
mode is most important
t

64
Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Systems
• Equations of motion
[ m ]{ x& ( t)
} + [ c]
{ x&
( t)
} + [ k] x(
t)
} = −[ m] { 1}
{ & x
g
• For simple harmonic free vibration, can
solve for frequencies of vibration and
mode shapes
[ ]
2
k −ω
[ m] { φ}
= ( 0)
frequencies ω , ω ,...
1
2
and mode
shapes
{
() 1
}
( 2
φ , φ )
}
{ ,...

65
Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Systems
• Total response of a structure can be
developed by superimposing the
response in each mode
{ x = ∑ φ Y
n = 1 n
{ }
N ( n )
}
• Use modal orthogonality to uncouple
equations

66
Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Systems
{
( n)
}
T
[ ]{
( m)
φ m φ }
{
( n)
}
T
[]{
( m)
φ c φ }
{
( n)
}
T
[ ]{
( m)
φ k φ }
and
L
n
=
M
= 〈
0
( m)
T ( n)
{ φ } [ m] { φ }
C
= 〈
0
( m)
T ( n)
{ φ } [] c { φ }
n
( m)
T ( n)
{ φ } [ k] { φ }
Also L
K
= 〈
0
{
( n)
}
T
φ [ m] {1 }
n
n
for
=
n
for
M
= 〈
0
Cn
for n = m
= 〈
0 for n ≠ m
K
for n = m
= 〈
n0
for ≠n
≠ m
( n)
T
{ φ } [ m] {1 }
for
for
for
n
for n = m
for n ≠ m
n
n
n
for n
≠
=
≠
m
m
=
=
m
m
m
m

67
Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Systems
• The result is a set of N uncoupled modal
equations
M
n
Y&
n
+
C
n
Y&
n
+
K
n
Y
• Displacement response in n-th mode (by
analogy to response for SDF system)
Y
n
( t)
=
where
L
M
x
n
n
n
with n − th
x
n
( t)
=
( t)
response
frequency
n
of
of
=
−L
n
SDF
& x
vibration
g
System

68
Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Systems
• Displacement vector from all modal
responses obtained by superposition
N
{ } ∑
N
{
( n )
} ∑{
( n )
}
Ln
x( t)
= φ Y
=
n
= φ xn(
t)
n 1
n=
1 M
n
• Recall that spectral displacement in the
n-th mode is equal to the maximum
displacement response of SDF system
S =
( n)
d
x
n,max

69
Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Systems
• Upper bound displacement vector (sum of
absolute values of maximum modal
displacements)
N
N
{ } ∑ {
( n)
} ∑ {
( n )
}
Ln
( n)
x
upper bound
≤ xmax
= φ Sd
n=
1
n=
1 M
n
• Probable displacement vector (square root of
the sum of squares of maximum modal
displacements)
N
{ } {
( n)
x ≈ x }
prob
∑
n=
1
( )
2
∑ {
( n
= ⎜ )
}
max
φ
N
n=
1
⎛
⎜
⎝
L
M
n
n
S
( n)
d
⎞
⎟
⎠
2

Multi-Degree-of-Freedom System
• Elastic force vector in n-th mode
{ } [ ]{ }
f
( n)
( t)
= k φ
( n)
Y ( t)
s
n
• But
−ω
2
n
• Therefore
[ ]{
( n)
} [ ]{
( n)
m + } φ k φ = 0
{
( n)
( )} 2[ ]{
( n)
f t = ω m φ }
s
=
n
L
Y
[ ]{
( n)
}
n 2
m φ ω x ( t)
n
M n
n
n
70

71
Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Systems
• Recall
S
( n)
a
• Maximum elastic force N vector in n-th mode
{
( n)
} [ ]{
( n)
}
n ( n)
f = m φ S
s,max
= ω S = ω
2
n
n
d
L
M
n,max
• Base shear in n-th mode
V
( n)
e
( t)
=
N
∑
i=
1
f
( n)
si
2
n
V
( n)
e
( t)
x
( t)
=
∑
i=
1
n
f
( n)
si
( t)
a

Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Systems
• Maximum base shear in n-th mode
N
∑
( n)
V e
= f
,max
i=
1
( n)
si,max
• Overturning moment in n-th mode
M
( n)
e
where
( t)
h
= ∑ h
i
N
i=1
i
f
( n)
si
( t)
= height of i − th floor
• Maximum overturning moment in n-th mode
M
N
( n )
∑
( n)
e,max
= hi
f
si,max
i=
1
72

73
Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Systems
• Can determine the upper bound to the
base shear or overturning moment by
taking the sum of the absolute values of
the modal values.
• Can determine a probable value of the
base shear or overturning moment
taking the square root of the sum of the
squares of the modal values.

74
Inelastic Response
• Studies by Newmark and others at the
University of Illinois, Wilson and others at
Berkeley, and researchers at many other
institutions have shown that:
– Displacements of a building during an earthquake
are about the same whether the building responds
elastically or inelastically
– Forces, shears and moments in a building are
approximately equal to the forces, shears and
moments obtained assuming the building responds
elastically, divided by the ductility factor (or R-
factor)

Design Philosophy
75

76
• Accept damage without collapse
• Minimize loss of life
• Cannot afford to design for no damage

There is always a good reason for “No
Parking” signs
Bolt 1993
77

78
NBCC 2005 *
4.1.8 Earthquake Loads and
Effects
*
Alberta Building Code (June 2007)

79
NBCC 2005
• 4.1.8.1 Analysis
• 4.1.8.3 General Requirements
• 4.1.8.4 Site Properties
• 4.1.8.5 Importance Factor
• 4.1.8.6 Structural Configuration
• 4.1.8.8 Direction of Loading
• 4.1.8.9 Seismic Force Resisting Systems (SFRS), Force
Reduction Factors, System Overstrength Factors
• 4.1.8.10 Additional System Restrictions
• 4.1.8.11 Equivalent Static Force Procedure
• 4.1.8.12 Dynamic Analysis Procedure
• 4.1.8.13 Deflections and Drift Limits
• 4.1.8.14 Structural Separation
• 4.1.8.15 Design Provisions
• 4.1.8.16 Foundation Provisions
• 4.1.8.17 Elements of Structures, Non-structural Components
and Equipment

80
4.1.8.1 Analysis
• Do not need to consider earthquake
loads and deflections when the design
spectral response acceleration,
expressed as a ratio to gravitational
acceleration, for a period of 0.2 s,
S(0.2), is less than or equal to 0.12.

81
4.1.8.3 General Requirements
• Clearly defined load paths
• Clearly defined Seismic Force Resisting
System (SFRS)
• Other building components must go
along for the ride

82
4.1.8.4 Site Properties
• Peak ground acceleration, PGA
• 5% damped spectral response
acceleration values, S a (T)
– Reference conditions – Very dense soil and
soft rock
– 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years
(return period of 2,475 years)

83
4.1.8.4 Site Properties (con’d)
Rosenblueth 1980

84
4.1.8.4 Site Properties (con’d)
• Site classification for soil
– Shear wave velocity, V s
– Standard penetration resistance, N 60
– Undrained shear strength, S u
• Acceleration and velocity based site
coefficients, F a and F v
– Site Class A Hard rock
– Site Class B Rock
– Site Class C Very dense soil and soft rock
– Site Class D Stiff soil
– Site Class E Soft soil

85
4.1.8.4 Site Properties (con’d)
• Coefficients F a and F v vary as a function
of
– Site class
– Spectral response acceleration
• F a varies between 0.7 and 2.1
• F v varies between 0.5 and 2.1
• For Site Class C, very dense soil and
soft rock, F a and F v are 1.0

86
4.1.8.4 Site Properties (con’d)
• Design spectral acceleration values of
S(T)
– F a S a (0.2) for T < 0.2 s
– Smaller of F v S a (0.5) or F a S a (0.2) for T = 0.5 s
– F v S a (1.0) for T = 1.0 s
– F v S a (2.0) for T = 2.0 s
– F v S a (2.0)/2 for T > 4.0 s

87
4.1.8.5 Importance Factor, I E
• Post disaster 1.5
• Schools 1.3
• Other 1.0

88
4.1.8.6 Structural Configuration
• Regular structures
• Irregular structures
– Vertical stiffness
– Mass
– Vertical geometry
– In-plane discontinuity in
vertical lateral forceresisting
element
– Out-of-plane offsets
– Weak storey
– Torsional sensitivity
– Non-orthogonal systems
• For irregular structures
– Must do a dynamic
analysis
– Restrictions on use

89
Vertical stiffness
irregularily
Weak storey
Caracas 1967
Earthquake
Rosenblueth 1980

90
Torsional sensitivity (1)
Vertical geometric irregularity (2)
Bolt 1993

91
4.1.8.8 Direction of Loading
• SFRS oriented along orthogonal axes
– Independent analysis about each principal
axis
• SFRS not oriented along orthogonal
axes and higher seismic zones
– 100% one direction plus 30% perpendicular
direction

92
4.1.8.9 Force Reduction Factors
and Overstrength Factors
• Force reduction factor, R d
– Factor to reflect system
ductility
– Similar to R-factor in
previous code
– About the same as the
ductility factor measured
in a hysteresis experiment
• Overstrength factor, R o
R
o
=
R
φ
R
yield
R
size
mech
–R f =1/f
–R yield = prob /spec yield
sh
R
R
–R sh strain hardening
–R size discrete mem size
–R mech formation of
collapse mech

93
4.1.8.9 Force Reduction Factors
and Overstrength Factors * (con’d)
Type of SFRS R d R o R d R o
Steel
•Ductile moment resisting frame
•Limited ductility concentric braced frame
5.0
2.0
1.5
1.3
7.5
2.6
Concrete
•Ductile moment resisting frame
•Moderately ductile shear wall
4.0
2.0
1.7
1.4
6.8
2.8
Masonry
•Limited ductility shear wall 1.5 1.5 2.25
* Height restrictions apply to systems with less ductility, in higher
seismic zones

94
4.1.8.10 Additional System
Restrictions
• Post disaster buildings
– (Generally) no irregularities
– Ductile systems

95
4.1.8.11 Equivalent Static Force Procedure
V
=
S(
T
a
) M
R
d
v
R
o
I
E
W
S(T a ) = spectral response acceleration
M v = factor to account for higher mode effect
I E = importance factor
W = dead load + 25% snow + 60% storage
R d = force reduction factor
R o = overstrength factor

96
4.1.8.11.3) Fundamental Period
• Moment resisting frames
– T a = 0.085(h n ) 3/4 steel
– T a = 0.075(h n ) 3/4 concrete
– T a = 0.1N other
• Braced frames
– T a = 0.25h n
• Shear walls other lateral load resisting systems
– T a = 0.05(h n ) 3/4
• Methods of mechanics
– But T a not greater than 1.5 times code value for moment
resisting frames and 2.0 times value for braced frames and
shear walls

97
4.1.8.11.5) Factor To Account For
Higher Mode Effect, M v
Depends on:
• Shape of response spectrum
• Period
• Type of lateral load resisting system

98
4.1.8.11.6) Distribution of Load Over
Height
F
n
= − ∑
x
(V F
t
)Wxhx
/( Wh
i i)
i=
1
When F t = 0, it can be shown that F x are the forces that would
result for a triangular shaped first mode. The force F t represents
the contribution of higher modes.

99
4.1.8.11.7) Overturning Moments
M
J
J
x
x
x
n
= J ∑F(h
i
where
= 1.0
x
i=
x
i
−h
hx
= J+
(1−
J)(
0.6h
x
)
n
)
h
h
x
x
≥
<
0.6h
0.6h
n
n
Where J depends on:
• Shape of response spectrum
• Period
• Type of lateral load resisting system

100
4.1.8.11.8) to 10) Torsion
• Torsional effects
– Calculated eccentricity
– Accidental eccentricity
• Torsional sensitivity
– B x =δ max /δ ave
– B = maximum of B x

101
4.1.8.11.8) to 10) Torsion (con’d)
• For B < 1.7, apply floor torques
– T x =F x (e x + 0.1D nx )
– T x =F x (e x -0.1D nx )
• For B > 1.7, use a dynamic analysis

102
Torsion
(con’d)

Japanese Full Scale Test
103
Movie has been removed from presentation.

104
4.1.8.12 Dynamic Analysis
• Linear dynamic analysis
– Modal response spectrum method
– Numerical integration linear time history
method
• Nonlinear dynamic analysis method

105
4.1.8.12 Dynamic Analysis (con’d)
• Numerical integration linear time history method
– Ground motion histories compatible with NBCC response
spectrum
• Scale base shears from linear dynamic analysis
– Elastic base shear from dynamic analysis, V e
– Design base shear, V d = I E V e /(R o R d )
– V d not < 0.8V for regular structures
– V d larger of (V d,dyn anal and V) for irregular structures
• Accidental torsion
– Consider in addition to effects from dynamic analysis

106
4.1.8.13 Deflections
• Anticipated deflections =
R d R o /I E * elastic deflections
• Anticipated interstorey deflections <
0.01h s post-disaster
0.02h s schools
0.025h s other buildings

107
4.1.8.14 Structural Separation
Bolt 1993 Mitchell, et al. 1990
• Separate adjacent structures by
2
bldg1
δ +
δ
2
bldg2

108
4.1.8.15 Design Provisions
• Diaphragms and connections shall be
designed to not yield

109
4.1.8.16 Foundation Provisions
• Design foundations to transfer seismic loads
without
– Exceeding capacity of soil or rock
• For higher seismic zones
– Interconnect piles or pile caps
– Design piles for a minimum tension force
• For very high seismic zones
– Design piles to accommodate inelastic behavior
– Connect spread footings for poor soil conditions

4.1.8.16 Foundation Provisions (con’d)
• Consider potential for liquefaction
Bolt 1993
110

111
4.1.8.17 Elements, Nonstructural
Components and Equipment
Mitchell, et al. 1990; Bruneau 1995

112
4.1.8.17 Elements, Nonstructural
Components and Equipment
Rosenblueth 1980

113
4.1.8.17 Elements, Nonstructural
Components and Equipment (con’d)
Lateral force, V p
V = 0.3F
S (0.2)
I
p
a
a
E
S
p
W
p
where
F a = acceleration-based site coefficient
S a (0.2) = spectral response acceleration
I E = importance factor
S p = C p A r A x /R p
C p = element factor
R p = element response modification factor
A r = element force amplification factor
A x = 1 + 2h x /h n
W p = weight of element

114
4.1.8.17 Elements, Nonstructural
Components and Equipment (con’d)
Category C p
A r
R p
1 Exterior and interior walls
(except cantilever walls and
ornamentations)
5 Towers and chimneys when
connected to building
12 Machinery, fixtures, equipment
(flexibly connected)
17 Electrical cable trays, bus
ducts, conduit
1.00 1.00 2.5
1.00 2.50 2.50
1.50 2.50 2.50
1.00 2.50 5.00

Wood-Frame Bldg Test (0.46g)
115
Movie has been removed from presentation.

Examples
116

Example 1 – Site Coefficients For
Edmonton Clinic
117

118
Example 1 (con’d)
total thickness of all layers
N
60
=
⎛ layer thickness
∑⎜
⎝ layer standard penetration resistance
30m
=
3m 2.5m 9m 9.5m 6m
+ + + +
10 8 26 58 75
= 24.95
• From Table 4.1.8.4.A., Site Class D
• From Table 4.1.8.4.B., S a (0.2)

119
Example 2 – Six Storey Concrete Building
With Ductile Moment-Resisting Frame *
*
See Chapter 11, CAC Concrete Design Handbook, 2006 Edition, but use
Equivalent Static Force Procedure and Code Period

120
Example 2 (con’d)
• Site
– Located in Vancouver
– Site Class C. Site coefficients, F a = F v = 1.0
• Building importance
– “Other building”, I E = 1.0
• Structural configuration
– Regular
• Force reduction factors
– R d = 4.0
– R o = 1.7
• Period
– T a = 0.075(21.9) 3/4 = 0.759 s

121
Example 2 – Response Spectrum
Design Spectral Accel (g)
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Period (s)

122
Example 2 (con’d)
• Design spectral acceleration
– S(0.759 s) = 0.479
• Factors to account for higher mode effects
(Table 4.1.8.11)
– M v =1.0
– J = 1.0
• Lateral earthquake design force
– V/W = 0.479 * 1.0*1.0/(4.0*1.7) = 0.07044

123
Example 2 (con’d)
• Lateral earthquake design force
– V = 0.07044*44,765 = 3,153 kN
• Portion of V to be concentrated at top
– F t = 0.07 T a V = 0.07(0.759 s)(0.07044*44,765 kN) = 168 kN
• Lateral force applied to level x
F
x
= ( V − Ft
) Wxhx
/( ∑Wihi
)
= (3,153kN
−168kN
) W h
n
i=
1
x
x
/ 570,068kNm

124
Example 2 (con’d)
Floor x h x W x W x h x F x F x /8 Frames
(m) (kN) (kNm) (kN) (kN)
Roof 6 21.90 7,457 163,308 1,023.1 127.89
6 5 18.25 7,365 134,411 703.8 87.98
5 4 14.60 7,365 107,529 563.0 70.38
4 3 10.95 7,526 82,410 431.5 53.94
3 2 7.30 7,526 54,940 287.7 35.96
2 1 3.65 7,526 27,470 143.8 17.98
Total 44,765 570,068 3,153.0 394.13

125
Example 2 (con’d)
• Torsional moment
[ 0 + 0.1(42m) ] F 4.2m
Tx = Fx
=
x
• Additional lateral force on frames from torsion
T
– To illustrate calculations, conservatively (but
incorrectly) assume that frames in the EW direction
resist all of the torsion
– Assume frames in EW direction have equal stiffness
– Shears from torsion will be proportional to distance
from centre of stiffness
– Therefore, F2 xt = (15/21) F1 xt , F3 xt = (9/21) F1 xt ,
F4 xt = (3/21) F1 xt and F1 xt = T x /72

126
Example 2 (con’d)
Floor x F x T x F1 x F1 xt F1 x,total
(kN) (kNm) (kN) (kN) (kN)
Roof 6 1,023.1 4,297 127.89 59.68 187.57
6 5 703.8 2,956 87.98 41.06 129.03
5 4 563.0 2,365 70.38 32.84 103.22
4 3 431.5 1,812 53.94 25.17 79.11
3 2 287.7 1,208 35.96 16.78 52.74
2 1 143.8 604 17.98 8.39 26.37
Total 3,153.0 13,243 394.13 183.93 578.05

127
Example 3 - Dynamic Analysis of
Three-Storey Building
(Adapted from Clough and Penzien 2003, Example E26-3)

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137
Example 3 – Response Spectrum
Design Spectral Accel (g)
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Period (s)

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

References
156

• Blume, J. A., Newmark, N. M. and Corning, L. 1961. Design of
Multi-Story Reinforced Concrete Buildings for Earthquake
Motions, Portland Cement Association, 318 p.
• Bolt, B. A. 1993. Earthquakes. W. H. Freeman and Company,
331 p.
• Bruneau, M. 1995. Performance of Masonry Structures During
the 1994 Northridge (Los Angeles) Earthquake. Can.J.Civ.Eng.,
Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 378-402.
• Cement Association of Canada. 2006. CAC Concrete Design
Handbook. Third Edition, Cement Association of Canada.
• Chopra, A. K. 1981. Dynamics of Structures, A Primer.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 121 p.
• Clough, R. W. and Penzien, J. 2003. Dynamics of Structures.
Second Edition (Revised), Computers and Structures, Inc., 739
p.
• Earthquake Engineering Research Institute website for
earthquake damage photographs http://www.eeri.org
• Krawinkler, H. and Popov, E. P. 1982. Seismic Behavior of
Moment Connections and Joints. ASCE, Vol. 108, No. ST2, pp.
373-391.
157

• Mitchell, D., DeVall, R. H., Saatcioglu, M., Simpson, R., Tinawi,
R. and Tremblay, R. 1995. Damage to Concrete Structures Due
to the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. Can.J.Civ.Eng., Vol. 22, No.
2, pp. 361- 377.
• Mitchell, D., Tinawi, R. and Redwood, R. G. 1990. Damage to
Buildings Due to the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake – a
Canadian Perspective. Can.J.Civ.Eng., Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 813-
834.
• National Research Council of Canada website for information on
Canadian earthquakes
http://www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca
• Newmark, N. M. and Hall, W. J. 1982. Earthquake Spectra and
Design. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 103 p.
• Paulay, P. and Priestly, M. J. N. 1992. Seismic Design of
Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 744 p.
• Paultre, P., Castele, D., Rattray, S. and Mitchell, D. 1989.
Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Frame
Subassemblages – a Canadian Code Perspective.
Can.J.Civ.Eng., Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 627-649.
• Rosenblueth, E. 1980. Design of Earthquake Resistant
Structures. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 295 p.
158