Chapter 2

Earthquake-Resistant Buildings

2.1 DYNAMIC ACTIONS ON BUILDINGS – WIND versus EARTHQUAKE

Dynamic actions are caused on buildings by both wind and earthquakes.
But, design for wind forces and for earthquake effects are distinctly different.
The intuitive philosophy of structural design uses force as the basis, which is
consistent in wind design, wherein the building is subjected to a pressure on its
exposed surface area; this is force-type loading. However, in earthquake design,
the building is subjected to random motion of the ground at its base (Figure
1.1), which induces inertia forces in the building that in turn cause stresses; this
is displacement-type loading. Another way of expressing this difference is
through the load-deformation curve of the building – the demand on the
building is force (i.e., vertical axis) in force-type loading imposed by wind
pressure, and displacement (i.e., horizontal axis) in displacement-type loading
imposed by earthquake shaking.

Wind force on the building has a non-zero mean component

superposed with a relatively small oscillating component (Figure 1.2). Thus,
under wind forces, the building may experience small fluctuations in the stress
field, but reversal of stresses occurs only when the direction of wind reverses,
which happens only over a large duration of time. On the other hand, the
motion of the ground during the earthquake is cyclic about the neutral position
of the structure. Thus, the stresses in the building due to seismic actions
undergo many complete reversals and that too over the small duration of
earthquake.

roof

Fw

ag(t)
(a) (b)

Figure 1.1: Difference in the design effects on a building during natural actions of
(a) Earthquake Ground Movement at base, and (b) Wind Pressure on
exposed area
2.2 BASIC ASPECTS OF SEISMIC DESIGN
The mass of the building being designed controls seismic design in
addition to the building stiffness, because earthquake induces inertia forces that
are proportional to the building mass. Designing buildings to behave elastically
during earthquakes without damage may render the project economically
unviable. As a consequence, it may be necessary for the structure to undergo
damage and thereby dissipate the energy input to it during the earthquake.
Therefore, the traditional earthquake-resistant design philosophy requires that
normal buildings should be able to resist (Figure 1.3):
(a) Minor (and frequent) shaking with no damage to structural and non-structural
elements;
(b) Moderate shaking with minor damage to structural elements, and some damage to non-
structural elements; and
(c) Severe (and infrequent) shaking with damage to structural elements, but with NO
collapse (to save life and property inside/adjoining the building).
Therefore, buildings are designed only for a fraction (~8-14%) of the
force that they would experience, if they were designed to remain elastic
during the expected strong ground shaking (Figure 1.4), and thereby
permitting damage (Figure 1.5). But, sufficient initial stiffness is required to be
ensured to avoid structural damage under minor shaking. Thus, seismic design
balances reduced cost and acceptable damage, to make the project viable. This
careful balance is arrived based on extensive research and detailed post-
earthquake damage assessment studies. A wealth of this information is
translated into precise seismic design provisions. In contrast, structural
damage is not acceptable under design wind forces. For this reason, design
against earthquake effects is called as earthquake-resistant design and not
earthquake-proof design.

Figure 1.2: Earthquake-Resistant Design Philosophy for buildings: (a) Minor

(Frequent) Shaking – No/Hardly any damage, (b) Moderate Shaking – Minor
structural damage, and some non-structural damage, and (c) Severe (Infrequent)
Shaking – Structural damage, but NO collapse

H, roof
 Lateral Force H
Maximum Force ,
if the structure remains elastic
Elastic Structure

Actual Structure Reductionin Design Force

when some damage can be allowed

Design Force ,
that codes require to be used
Lateral Deflection
0

Figure 1.3: Basic strategy of earthquake design: Calculate maximum elastic forces and
reduce by a factor to obtain design forces.

(a) (b)

Figure 1.4: Earthquake-Resistant and NOT Earthquake-Proof: Damage is expected

during an earthquake in normal constructions (a) undamaged building, and (b)
damaged building.

The design for only a fraction of the elastic level of seismic forces is
possible, only if the building can stably withstand large displacement demand
through structural damage without collapse and undue loss of strength. This
property is called ductility (Figure 1.6). It is relatively simple to design
structures to possess certain lateral strength and initial stiffness by
appropriately proportioning the size and material of the members. But,
achieving sufficient ductility is more involved and requires extensive
laboratory tests on full-scale specimen to identify preferable methods of
detailing.

In summary, the loading imposed by earthquake shaking under the building is of

displacement-type and that by wind and all other hazards is of force-type. Earthquake
shaking requires buildings to be capable of resisting certain relative displacement
within it due to the imposed displacement at its base, while wind and other hazards
require buildings to resist certain level of force applied on it (Figure 1.7a). While it is
possible to estimate with precision the maximum force that can be imposed on a
building, the maximum displacement imposed under the building is not as precisely
known. For the same maximum displacement to be sustained by a building (Figure
1.7b), wind design requires only elastic behaviour in the entire range of displacement,
but in earthquake design there are two options, namely design the building to
remain elastic or to undergo inelastic behaviour. The latter option is adopted in
normal building
2.3 THE FOUR VIRTUES OF EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT BUILDINGS
For a building to perform satisfactorily during earthquakes, it must meet the
philosophy of earthquake-resistant design discussed in Section 1.2.

2.3.1 Characteristics of Buildings

There are four aspects of buildings that architects and design engineers
work with to create the earthquake-resistant design of a building, namely
seismic structural configuration, lateral stiffness, lateral strength and ductility, in
addition to other asepcts like form, aesthetics, functionality and comfort of
building. Lateral stiffness, lateral strength and ductility of buildings can be
ensured by strictly following most seismic design codes. But, good seismic
structural configuration can be ensured by following coherent architectural
features that result in good structural behaviour.

(a) Seismic Structural Configuration

Seismic structural configuration entails three main aspects, namely (a)
geometry, shape and size of the building, (b) location and size of structural
elements, and (c) location and size of significant non-structural elements
(Figure 1.8). Influence of the geometry of a building on its earthquake
performance is best understood from the basic geometries of convex and
concave lenses from school-day physics class (Figure 1.9). The line joining any
two points within area of the convex lens, lies completely within the lens. But,
the same is not true for the concave lens; a part of the line may lie outside the
area of the concave lens. Structures with convex geometries are preferred to
those with concave geometries, as the former demonstrate superior earthquake
performance. In the context of buildings, convex shaped buildings have direct
load paths for transferring earthquake shaking induced inertia forces to their
bases for any direction of ground shaking, while concave buildings necessitate
bending of load paths for shaking of the ground along certain directions that
result in stress concentrations at all points where the load paths bend.

Figure 1.5: Components of seismic structural configuration: (a) overall geometry, (b)
structural elements

(e.g., moment resisting frames and structural walls), and (c) significant non-structural
elements (e.g., façade glass)
2.3.2 What are the Four Virtues?
All buildings are vertical cantilevers projecting out from the earth’s surface.
Hence, when the earth shakes, these cantilevers experience whiplash effects,
especially when the shaking is violent. Hence, special care is required to protect
them from this jerky movement. Buildings intended to be earthquake-resistant
have competing demands. Firstly, buildings become expensive, if designed not
to sustain any damage during strong earthquake shaking. Secondly, they
should be strong enough to not sustain any damage during weak earthquake
shaking. Thirdly, they should be stiff enough to not swing too much, even
during weak earthquakes. And, fourthly, they should not collapse during the
expected strong earthquake shaking to be sustained by them even with
significant structural damage. These competing demands are accommodated in
buildings intended to be earthquakeresistant by incorporating four desirable
characteristics in them. These characteristics, called the four virtues of
earthquake-resistant buildings, are:
1. Good seismic configuration, with no choices of architectural form of the
building that is detrimental to good earthquake performance and that does
not introduce newer complexities in the building behaviour than what the
earthquake is already imposing;
2. At least a minimum lateral stiffness in each of its plan directions (uniformly
distributed in both plan directions of the building), so that there is no
discomfort to occupants of the building and no damage to contents of the
building;
3. At least a minimum lateral strength in each of its plan directions (uniformly
distributed in both plan directions of the building), to resist low intensity
ground shaking with no damage, and not too strong to keep the cost of
construction in check, along with a minimum vertical strength to be able to
continue to support the gravity load and thereby prevent collapse under
strong earthquake shaking; and
4. Good overall ductility in it to accommodate the imposed lateral deformation
between the base and the roof of the building, along with the desired
mechanism of behaviour at ultimate stage. Behaviour of buildings during
earthquakes depend critically on these four virtues. Even if any one of these
is not ensured, the performance of the building is expected to be poor.

(a) Who Controls the Four Virtues?

Henry Degenkolb, a noted earthquake engineer of USA, aptly
summarized the immense importance of seismic configuration in his words: “If
we have a poor configuration to start with, all the engineer can do is to provide a band-
aid - improve a basically poor solution as best as he can. Conversely, if we start-off with
a good configuration and reasonable framing system, even a poor engineer can’t harm
its ultimate performance too much.” Likewise, Nathan M. Newmark and Emilo
Rosenbleuth, eminent Professors of Earthquake Engineering in USA and
Mexico, respectively, batted for the concepts of earthquake-resistant design in
their foreword to their book: “If a civil engineer is to acquire fruitful experience in a
brief span of time, expose him to the concepts of earthquake engineering, no matter if he
is later not to work in earthquake country.”

In many countries, like India, in the design of a new building, the architect is the
team leader, and the engineer a team member. And, in the design of retrofit of
 an existing building, the engineer is the team leader, and the architect a team
member. What is actually needed is that both the architect and the engineer
work together to create the best design with good interaction at all stages of the
process of the design of the building. Here, the architect brings in perspectives
related to form, functionality, aesthetics and contents, while the engineer brings
the perspectives of safety and desired earthquake performance during an expected
earthquake. There is a two way influence of the said parameters handled both
by the architect and by the engineer; their work has to be in unison.

(a) How to Achieve the Four Virtues?

The four virtues are achieved by inputs provided at all stages of the
development of the building, namely in its planning, design, construction and
maintenance. Each building to be built is only one of the kind ever, and no
research and testing is performed on that building, unlike factorymade
products like aircrafts, ships and cars. The owner of the building trusts the
professionals (i.e., architect and engineer) to have done due diligence to design
and construct the building. Thus, professional experience is essential to be able
to conduct a safe design of the building, because it affects the safety of persons
and property.

Traditionally, in countries that have advanced earthquake safety

initiatives, governments have played critical role through the enforcement of
techno-legal regime, wherein the municipal authorities arrange to examine, if
all requisite technical inputs have been met with to ensure safety in the
building, before allowing the building to be built, the construction to be
continued at different stages, or the users to occupy the building. These stages
are: (1) conceptual design stage, (2) design development stage through peer
review of the structural design, (3) construction stage through quality control
and quality assurance procedures put in place. Senior professionals (both
architects and engineers) are required to head the team of professionals to
design a building; these senior professionals should have past experience of
having designed buildings to resist strong earthquakes under the tutelage of
erstwhile senior professionals.

2.4 EARTHQUAKE DEMAND VERSUS EARTHQUAKE CAPACITY

Unlike all other loading effects, e.g., wind loads, wave loads (excluding
tsunami loads), blast loads, snow loads, imposed (live) loads and dead loads,
earthquake shaking is the most severe, because it imposes displacement under
the building, which is time varying. This, in turn, demands lateral deformation
in the building between its base and upper elevations. Higher is the seismic
zone, larger is the severity of this imposed relative deformation (Figure 1.12).
Therefore, the main challenge is to meet the double demand – the building
should be able to withstand this imposed deformation with damage under small
intensity shaking, and with no collapse under high intensity shaking. The
building needs to possess large inelastic deformation capacity and needs to
have the strength in all its members to sustain the forces and moments induced
in them.

The method of design of buildings should therefore take into account

the deformation demand on the building, and the deformation capacity of the
building. The former depends on the seismo-tectonic setting of the location of
the building, but the later is within the control of the design professionals (i.e.,
architects and engineers). The concern is that both of these quantities have
uncertainties. On one hand, even though some understanding is available on
the maximum possible ground dispalcement at a location, earth scientists are
not able to clearly provide the upper bound for these numbers. Each new
damaging earthquake has always provided surprises. And, on the other hand,
analytical tools are not available to estimate precisely the overall nonlinear
behaviour of an as-built structure, and its ultimate deformation capacity.
On part of the design engineer, a procedure should be employed that is
known to result in higher confidence on the structural safety of the building
being designed to withstand without collapse during expected severe
earthquake shaking and render the requisite post-earthquake performance
(e.g., at least a minimum desired ultimate deformation capacity). There are
many procedures that are adopted/suggested worldwide [e.g., Goel, 2008]. One
structural design procedure includes adherence to the following sequence:
(1) Arrive at a simple overall geometry of the building for the needed height. Building
should be well-proportioned in keeping with the known tenets of acceptable upper
limits of overall slenderness ratio and plan aspect ratio, and all the discussions
available in earthquake design literature on acceptable seismic structural
configurations;
(2) Adopt a structural system that will resist the vertical and lateral loads offering
direct load paths in both plan directions of the building. It is preferable to use
structural walls in RC building intended to resist strong earthquake shaking.
(3) Determine the preliminary sizing of individual structural elements, based on
acceptable slenderness ratios and cross-sectional aspect ratios, and minimum
reinforcement requirements.
(4) Identify a desired collapse mechanism in which the building should deform in,
under the extreme condition of collapse, if ever, when the earthquake shaking well
exceeds the design earthquake shaking for which buildings are normally designed.
Usually, in frame structures, plastic moment hinges are desired at the ends of the
beams with good rotational ductility. The hinge forms over a small length of the
beam, often termed as plastic hinge length; this length depends on the depth, span
and end connectivity of the member.
(5) Prepare a basic structural analysis model of the building with the dimensions and
details obtained from preliminary design strategies. Impose a horizontal
deformation on the building corresponding to permissible inter-storey drift at all
storeys, and perform an elastic analysis of the building. Use concentrated loads at
floor levels to push the building by the desired amounts. Note that this step is not
usual adopted by common designers. Instead, they apply design lateral forces,
perform structural analysis, and then design structural elements based on
stressresultants obtained from structural analysis. In the sequence of steps
suggested in this structural design procedure, that step appears later as Step 8
below.
(6) Perform seismic design of all structural elements of the building. For instance, in a
momentresisting frame building:
1. Design the slabs of the building.
2. Design beams first for flexure, and then for shear, adopting the capacity
design method for design of shear following the desired collapse
mechanism identified.
3. Design all columns and structural walls, to be stronger than the
connected beams, first for flexure, and then for shear, adopting the
 capacity design method for design of shear and following the desired
collapse mechanism identified.
4. Design the beam-to-column, beam-to-wall and slab-to-wall joints.
5. Design the foundation(s) of the building.
6. Ensure that the soil underneath is capable of resisting the loads from
above under strong strong shaking, and that it remains intact during the
said shaking.
(7) Prepare the improved structural analysis model of the building with the
dimensions and details obtained from the design calculations performed above.
Estimate the fundamental translational natural period T of the building, and
calculate the design seismic base shear VB on the building.
(8) Apply the design seismic base shear VB on the structural analysis model of the
building. And, check the adequacy of the design of all structural elements,
including beam-column and beamwall joints.
(9) Verify, if the desired mechanism is generated in the building through:
1. Nonlinear quasi-static displacement pushover analysis of the building
to begin with, AND then
2. Nonlinear time-history analysis of the building under different ground
motions, whose intensities and spectrum are within the design shaking
intensities and design spectrum, respectively.
If the desired mechanism is not achieved, make suitable changes in
the design (i.e., choice of the structural system, and/or proportioning of
structural members) to achieve the same. The above steps should be
repeated for the new design chosen. If the desired mechanism is achieved,
requisite ductile detailing may be performed and the drawings prepared
accordingly.
This book explains the nuances behind some of these steps of seismic design, though
not the steps themselves.
2.5 FORCE-BASED DESIGN TO DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN
A change of frame of reference of deformation facilitates converting the
moving base problem of earthquake shaking of buildings into a fixed base
problem (Figure 1.13). The latter is easy to handle, since design practice is
conversant with analysis and design of structures subjected to forces, and not
subjected to displacements or accelerations. Therefore, now the acceleration
response spectrum allows quick, back-of-the-envelope type calculations by
senior engineers to check the ball park values of force generated in a building
during earthquake shaking.

In early days of designing buildings to resist earthquakes, an earthquake-

induced lateral force was thought to be the root cause of the earthquake
problem. Designers observed that buildings performed well, if they were
designed for lateral forces; mostly, this lateral force was due to wind effects.
Hence, as a first measure of consciously designing for earthquake effects,
designers took 10% of the weight of the building and applied it as a lateral force
on the building (distributed along the height). But, the 10% force was too
penalising for taller buildings. Around that time, understanding grew on the
ground motions, and it was learnt that different buildings respond differently
to the same ground shaking. Thus, the design lateral force was now taken as a
function of the fundamental natural period of the building. This was not sufficient
either. Many buildings showed brittle performance, i.e., collapsed suddenly in
low seismic regions. This was the beginning of understanding the importance of
 introducing ductility in buildings. But, the method of introducing ductility was
prescriptive; it was based on limited laboratory tests performed on structural
elements and sub-assemblages.

The above also was found insufficient, when buildings did not collapse, but
were rendered not-usable after many strong earthquakes. Performance of
buildings during and after the earthquake came into focus. And, this was the
beginning of a new direction of designing buildings to resist earthquake
effects. Fresh thinking began towards displacement-based design of buildings.
Then, it was clear that imposed lateral displacement was the root cause of the
earthquake problem and not any lateral force. Thus, the present effort in the
research community is to arrive at a displacement based design with capability
to quantitatively assess the ultimate deformation capacity of buildings at the
design stage itself.

In the following chapters, earthquake DEMAND on the building and earthquake

CAPACITY of the building are discussed. While doing so, the associated basic
concepts are elaborated and demonstrated with appropriate numerical work.

- mag(t)

a g( t )
Mass m

Figure 1.6: Acceleration time history at the base of a building: Converted to a force time
Chapter 3
Earthquake-Resistant Design of Buildings
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Buildings subjected to earthquake shaking at their base oscillate back and forth in all
three directions. Under low levels of shaking, their amplitudes of shaking and directions of
shaking are dependant on how they are proportioned geometrically and in terms of stiffness
throughout the building in plan and elevation. Under strong earthquake shaking, buildings
undergo damage also. Controlling the damage type and sequence of damage in various
structural elements is the main focus of earthquake-resistant design. It is possible to get a
reasonable understanding of the overall mechanism of failure of the building by suitable
nonlinear static analysis. Many deficiencies discussed in this document can be identified at
the design stage itself, and the structural configurations and design and detailing of
members modified to make the building resist the earthquake effects generated in the
building during strong earthquake shaking.

Displacement-controlled loading subjected at the base of the building during

earthquake shaking and inelastic actions accrued in them during strong shaking, together
make earthquakeresistant design of buildings exciting and special. Inter-relationships between
analysis, design and behaviour determine the overall seismic performance of a building. These
inter-relationships exist in design of buildings for other loading actions also (e.g., wind,
wave, snow, and temperature). But, it is the expected inelastic actions in buildings under
seismic conditions and the absence of the same under other load actions, which makes
understanding earthquake behaviour of buildings challenging. Analysis and design both influence
the earthquake behaviour of buildings (Figure 5.1). Understanding seismic behaviour is
possible only through suitable analyses of building that captures all behavioural actions
possible in buildings during earthquakes. And, controlling seismic behaviour is possible only
through faithful design that ensures all behavioural actions considered in buildings during
analysis. Between design and analysis also there are relationships. For designing a new
building, design should reflect the analysis performed, and for assessing an existing
building, analysis should assess the design performed.

Behaviour

Design Analysis

Figure 2.1: Inter-relations that affect Earthquake-Resistant Design of Buildings: Focus of

earthquakeresistant design is desired earthquake behaviour
Thus, in earthquake-resistant design of new buildings, design development process
involves (Figure 5.2):
(1) Analysing the building to capture desired seismic behaviour, i.e., performing suitable
analyses of building to ensure the limited expected behavioural actions ALONE are realised
in building during earthquake shaking;
(2) Designing the building to reflect that all assumptions made in analysis are honoured, and
thereby controlling desired seismic behaviour through design of the new building; and
(3) Observing the building (during the next earthquake in the region where the building is
built) to gain confidence in the design process or understand deficiencies in it.
But, in assessment of earthquake resistance of existing buildings, safety assessment
process involves marginally separate steps (Figure 5.3) depending on whether the
assessment is done after an earthquake or before it. For the pre-earthquake assessment, the
steps involved are (Figure 5.3a):
(1) Analysing the building to capture possible seismic behaviour, i.e., performing suitable
analyses of building to include all possible behavioural actions that can be CONCEIVED in
building during earthquake shaking. Here, synthetic or recorded earthquake ground
motions of known characteristics are employed to project the demand on the building;
(2) Designing retrofit of each member (and thereby of the whole building) to capture the
true behaviour that is conceived in analysis and desired to be realized, and thereby
understanding the likely seismic behaviour of the existing building; and
(3) Observing the building (during the next earthquake in the region where the building is
built) to gain confidence in the retrofit design process or understand deficiencies in it.
Design

Earthquake Behaviour
Behaviour
Seismic Design Code
Real Earthquake Ground Motion
start

Design Analysis

Analysis

Synthetic/Recorded Earthquake Ground Motion

Figure 2.2: Earthquake Performance Assessment of NEW Buildings

And, for the post-earthquake assessment, the steps involved are (Figure 5.3b):
(1) Observing the building (during the earthquake that occurred in the region where the
building is built) to gain confidence in the design process or understand deficiencies in
it;
(2) Designing retrofit of each member (and thereby of the whole building) to capture the
true behaviour that is desired to be realized, and thereby understanding the likely seismic
behaviour of the existing building in the next earthquake; and
Analysing the building to capture possible seismic behaviour, i.e., performing suitable
analyses of building to include all possible behavioural actions that can be CONCEIVED
in building during earthquake shaking. Here, synthetic or recorded earthquake
ground motions of known characteristics are employed to project the demand on the
building.

start
Analysis

Analytical Assessment Earthquake Behaviour

Synthetic/Recorded Earthquake Ground MotionReal Earthquake Ground Motion

Behaviour Design

Retrofit

Seismic Design Code

Figure 2.3: Earthquake Performance Assessment of EXISTING Buildings: (a) BEFORE

Earthquake,
3.2 EARTHQUAKE-RESISTANT DESIGN METHODS
The ideal lateral load-deformation (backbone) curve of a building under monotonic
lateral displacement loading in pushover analysis reflects three clear features, namely linear
behaviour, onset of nonlinear behaviour and plastic behaviour (Figure 5.4). These features may be
used to identify three dominant ranges of structural behaviour in the sequence in which
they appear, namely elastic behaviour, early inelastic behaviour and ductile inelastic behaviour.
An important consequence of all these three characteristics together is inelastic energy
dissipation capacity of the building.

Stiffnes

Strength
Lateral Force H

Ductilit
y
Inelastic

Lateral Deformation

Figure 2.4: Four Virtues of Earthquake-Resistant Buildings control earthquake performance of

buildings: Stiffness, Strength and Ductility directly affect load-deformation behaviour
of buildings, while Seismic Structural Configuration affects these three virtues
indirectly; Energy Dissipation Capacity is an overall consequence of all the four virtues
of buildings

In keeping with the key characteristics of buildings (Figure 5.4), structural design of
buildings can be stiffness-based (considering only stiffness), strength-based (considering
stiffness and strength), deformation-based (considering stiffness, strength and ductility) or
energy-based (considering stiffness, strength, ductility and energy dissipation capacity) (Figure
5.5). Strength-based design can be further classified as Force Design and Capacity Design. In
the former, the design is based simply on the design lateral force on the building; members
are designed to resist the stress-resultants obtained from linear structural analysis of the
building subjected to code-specified design lateral forces. There is no pre-determined
hierarchy of strengths across adjoining members and within each member. Within each
member, the shear design of RC members is performed using the shear forces obtained from
above structural analysis, and is independent of the design for axial forces and bending
moments. In the latter, the design is based on BOTH the stress-resultants obtained from
linear structural analysis of the building subjected to code-specified design lateral forces
AND equilibrium-compatible stress-resultants derived from the pre-determined collapse
mechanism. A pre-determined hierarchy of strengths is ensured both across adjoining
members and within each member. Again within each member, the shear design of RC
members is performed using larger of (a) the shear forces obtained from above structural
analysis, and (b) plastic hinge based shear forces that are dependant on axial forces and
bending moments.

CURRENT Earthquake Resistant Design Philosophies

Figure 2.5: Four broad methods available for Earthquake-Resistant Design: Rigour increases in
each higher level method
Of the four methods of design, the deformation-based design method is the most
advanced, and is expected to give best earthquake performance. It requires more
engineering experience and judgment, but the results build more confidence in designers to
arrive at a building that is more likely to perform as intended. Therefore, this method is best
suited for special buildings, where earthquake performance of the building should be
guaranteed, e.g., critical and lifeline buildings that are required to remain functional after
the earthquake. The capacity design method is best suited for normal buildings that are
required to sustain moderate to severe seismic shaking. The energybased design method is still
under research. The force design method is known not to result in good seismic behaviour,
and hence should be discouraged even in low seismic regions. But, owing to lack of
adequate manpower and arguments of economy, it may be practiced for some more time.

3.3 EARTHQUAKE-RESISTANT DESIGN PROCEDURE

In keeping with the sequence in which the characteristics of buildings appear in the
loaddeformation behaviour of buildings (Figure 5.4), the current process of designing
buildings has three stages, namely Stiffness Design Stage, Strength Design Stage, and
Ductility Design Stage. Details are given below of steps involved in each of the three stages
of seismic design of buildings.

3.3.1 Stiffness Design Stage

The main activities in this stage are:

(1) Choosing a seismic structural configuration, that is expected to give desirable earthquake
behaviour
(a) Overall geometry of the building of required height should be convex. It should be
well proportioned, in keeping with elevation slenderness ratios and plan aspect
ratios that have been observed in well-designed buildings. For instance, the
proportioning of the building should be such that
(i) the maximum slenderness ratio (H/B) achieved in different well-designed
buildings worldwide is generally found to be around 10, and that of maximum
plan aspect ratio (L/B) to be around 4;
(ii) the absolute dimensions of buildings should not be unduly long to attract
differential ground motion under different parts; for this a seismic wavelength
analysis is required to understand the relative dimension of the building with
respect to the predominant seismic wave;
(iii) the absolute plan area of the building should not be too large to attract large
inertia force; and
(iv) the obvious irregularities as stated in the design codes and literature of standard
should be minimised, if not entirely eliminated.
(b) Structural system chosen should be suitable for good earthquake performance, with
vertical and horizontal members of lateral load resisting system (LLRS) that can
carry earthquake effects safely during strong earthquake shaking. For instance, the
structural system should
(i) be symmetrical in both directions in plan,
(ii) be regular in stiffness along elevation with gradually increasing stiffness
towards the lower levels of the building (for instance, open ground storey
buildings are unacceptable with sudden drop in lateral storey stiffness and
lateral storey strength in the lower storey),
(iii) have many direct and short load paths, i.e., the building should have large
redundancy, but there should be no unexpected load paths that are not known
at the time of design e.g., short-column effects owing to lateral restraint offered
by infills are unacceptable,
(iv) have no or only limited offsets in plan of the building, and
 (v) no cut-outs in horizontal LLRS elements, e.g., slabs should not have any cut-outs
along their edges.
Also, just moment resisting frames may be unsuitable for resisting effects due to strong
earthquake shaking in RC buildings; RC walls or braces should be used in buildings
meant to be built in moderate to severe seismic zones.
This proportioning of the building geometry and choosing the most suitable seismic
structural configuration is best achieved by an objective negotiation effort between the
architect and structural engineer involved in the project.

(2) Proportioning of Vertical LLRS members in the structural system of the building
(a) The structural plan density of vertical LLRS elements should be at least 4-8% along
each direction in plan. Often, this cannot be achieved with just moment frames;
structural walls are required, which run full height of the building and oriented
along each plan directions.
(b) The building should have at least a minimum amount of lateral stiffness, to ensure
that deformation (and hence damage) is small under low and moderate shaking. In
general, buildings with large lateral stiffness are preferred over those with small
lateral stiffness.
(c) The cross-section of each vertical member and its design (be it a structural steel or an
RC column or structural wall) should be designed ideally to have the maximum
axial load demand less than 30% of its uniaxial axial compression capacity.
(d) The cross-section of each vertical column or structural wall should be such that
difficulties do not arise with adjoining horizontal members in detailing of
reinforcement bars in RC members and of connections in structural steel members.
(e) The cross-section strengths of each vertical column or structural wall should be such
that the vertical members are stronger than the adjoining horizontal members
framing into them.

(3) Modeling the structural system of the building for structural analysis (on a computer)
Prepare a basic structural analysis model of the building with the dimensions and
details obtained from preliminary design strategies. The analytical model of the
building should
(a) be a 3-dimensional one to be able to study dynamic behaviour, with all possible
stiffness and masses of the building included in it; two-dimensional models are
unacceptable, because seismic design codes require all buildings to be analysed with
torsional effects with at least a minimum eccentricity between mass and stiffness at
each floor level of the building; (classical literature requires that cracked moment of
inertia properties be used in modeling moment frame members, e.g., 0.35Igross for
beams and 0.7Igross for columns); and
(b) include effect of soil flexibility where the underlying soil layers are either flexible or
weak; in most such cases, the associated constitutive relation of soils is nonlinear.
Sometimes, even a linear idealization of the soil flexibility can reveal significantly
different structural actions.

(4) Studying dynamic modes of oscillation of the building

This is a critical step in evaluating suitability of the overall geometry, seismic
structural configuration, and distribution of mass and stiffness of the building. An
important feature that should be ensured is that
(a) The building should have minimum, if not no, asymmetry in plan. In particular, the
early modes of vibration should be the pure LATERAL TRANSLATIONAL modes of
 vibration, and NOT either the diagonal translational or the torsional mode(s) of
vibration that result in poor performance of the building; and
(b) The modal mass of early pure translational modes together should account for at
least 90% of the mass of the building along each plan direction of the building,
excluding that of the torsional modes of vibration. If this is not being achieved, the
structural configuration, member proportioning, connectivity and/or material
properties need to be changed to seek the desired pure translational behaviour in the
early modes of vibration.

(5) Performing Linear Elastic Structural Analysis of the building

(a) Prepare the improved structural analysis model of the building with the dimensions
and details obtained from the preliminary design calculations performed above.
Estimate the approximate fundamental translational natural period Ta of the
building, and calculate the design seismic base shear VB on the building by the
Equivalent Lateral Force Design procedure (sometimes called the Seismic Coefficient
Method).
(b) Apply seismic code specified design lateral forces Qi at each floor i of the building on
the analytical model of the building, perform linear elastic structural analysis, and
estimate the stress-resultants from all load combinations given in the seismic code.
Estimate the lateral deformation in the building, under the various load
combinations. If the governing lateral deformation is within the permissible lateral
deformation in the building specified in the seismic design codes, the structural
configuration and sizing adopted may be accepted. Else, the vertical LLRS should be
made stiffer to arrive at a revised structural configuration of the building.
Perform Linear Dynamic Structural Analysis of the building for buildings that are irregular,
tall, long, important and in high seismic zones. This can be done in two ways, using
recorded/synthetic ground motion time histories or design response spectrum. Some codes
categorically require that the seismic base shear from the Response Spectrum Method of
analysis should not fall below that obtained from the Seismic Coefficient Method, even
though the displacements estimated by the former method can exceed those by the
latter.
3.3.2 Strength Design Stage
The main activities in this stage are:

(6) Choosing relative member flexural strength ratio to seek desired collapse
mechanism
(a) Identify a desired collapse mechanism of the structural system in which the building
should deform in, under the extreme condition of collapse, if ever, when the strong
earthquake shaking exceeds the design earthquake shaking for which buildings are
normally designed. Determine the locations and type of inelastic actions that are
desired in the building.
(b) Perform Capacity Design of all members, to ensure strength hierarchy is such that
shear failure is preceded by large flexural plastic actions, and that the plastic actions are
localized to only to the desired locations as identified in step 6(a) above. In doing so,
the beam-to-column design moment strength ratio in moment-resisting frame buildings or
frame-structural wall buildings may take values much higher than those normally
recommended in some seismic codes.

(7) Performing seismic design of all structural elements of the building (a)
Design the slabs of the building.
(b) Design each beams for flexure for the governing moment demand obtained from the
load combinations. Then, design these beams for shear, by the capacity design method
and in line with the plastic hinges in the identified desired collapse mechanism.
(c) Design all columns and structural walls for flexure, for the governing axial force and
bending moment combinations specified by the seismic design code, and for the
stress-resultants arising out of an additional special load combination of the building
with overstrength plastic moment hinges as per identified desirable collapse
mechanism. Then, design the columns for shear, for the shear demand from the load
combinations specified by the seismic design code and for that arising out of an
additional special load combination based on the capacity design method for design
of shear considering the plastic hinges in beams as per identified desirable collapse
mechanism. RC columns and RC walls should be designed to have all design points
within the tension failure region on the P-M interaction diagram, i.e., usually to
have axial load demand to be about less than 30% of the uniaxial compression
capacity of the section. Members of RC moment-resisting frame buildings need to
have few more important features, namely:
(i) the column should be much wider than the beam (in both directions) to allow
beam bars to be passed into/through column without cranking;
(ii) the longitudinal bars in beams should adopt standard hook detailing at the end,
to avoid constructional difficulties of anchoring beam bars into the adjoining
column.
(d) Design the beam-to-column and beam-to-wall joints to have shear stresses within
the permissible values specified in seismic design code.
(e) Design foundation(s) of the building in keeping with the capacity of the soil
underneath it.