Advertisement

Evolution of Earthquake Resistant Design Code - A Template for Future

  • Ashok K. Jain
Chapter

Abstract

Each society has developed its own guidelines on how to construct safe houses in its own ways from time immemorial based on its own experiences with materials, forms, and nature. Over the last century, each code has evolved based on scientific and technical inputs. This chapter traces the development of seismic codes based on prescriptive criteria. Now the time has come to develop a concise performance-based but philosophical format so that it gives more flexibility to the designers as well as more accountability. The knowledge base is increasing exponentially, while different concepts are at different stages of implementation or acceptance. Nevertheless, under very controlled conditions, a lot of amazing innovative solutions are being implemented on ground all over the world. The future codes have to be easy and flexible enough to permit such innovations.

Keywords

ADRS Base isolation Codes Earthquake Displacement-based design Ductility Hysteresis Performance-based design Prescriptive design Pushover analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

In the preparation of this chapter, a lot of assistance has been derived from the FEMA and NEHRP publications summarizing the latest enhancements in the knowledge base in the aseismic design. This help is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Aparna, K.P. and Jain, A.K. (2016). Performance evaluation of mutistoreyed RC frames. Indian Concrete Journal. 90(6). 38-45.Google Scholar
  2. ASCE 41. (2007). Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06 with supplement 1. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.Google Scholar
  3. ASCE 7. (2016). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE/SEI Standard ASCE 7-16. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.Google Scholar
  4. ATC 40. (1996). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings (Vol. 1). Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.Google Scholar
  5. Deierlein, G. G., Reinhorn, A. M., & Willford, M. R. (2010). Nonlinear structural analysis for seismic design—A guide for practicing engineers, NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 4, Oct., NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland.Google Scholar
  6. Eurocode 1998. (2003). Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Brussels: European Committee For Standardization.Google Scholar
  7. FEMA 440 (2005). Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  8. FEMA 445 (2006). Next generation performance based seismic design guidelines, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  9. FEMA 454 (2006). Designing for earthquakes: A manual for architects, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  10. FEMA 749 (2010). Earthquake-resistant design concepts, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  11. IRC 112. (2011). Reinforced concrete bridges. New Delhi: Indian Roads Congress.Google Scholar
  12. IRC 6. (2014). Loads and stresses. New Delhi: Indian Roads Congress.Google Scholar
  13. IS 13920. (1993). Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.Google Scholar
  14. IS 13920. (2016). Ductile design and detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic forces. First revision. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.Google Scholar
  15. IS 1893. (1962). Recommendations for earthquake resistant design of structures. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.Google Scholar
  16. IS 1893. (1966). Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. First revision, New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.Google Scholar
  17. IS 1893. (1970). Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Second revision, New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.Google Scholar
  18. IS 1893. (1975). Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Third revision, New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.Google Scholar
  19. IS 1893. (1984). Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Fourth revision, New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.Google Scholar
  20. IS 1893. (2002). Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, part 1 General provisions and buildings. Fifth revision, New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.Google Scholar
  21. IS 1893. (2016). Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, part 1 General provisions and buildings. Sixth revision, New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.Google Scholar
  22. Jain, A. K. (1980). Review of seismic provisions for concrete buildings. Indian Concrete Journal, 54(11), 294–300.Google Scholar
  23. Jain, A. K. (2012). Reinforced concrete: Limit state design (7th ed.). Roorkee: Nem Chand & Bros.Google Scholar
  24. Jain, A. K. (2016). Dynamics of structures with MATLAB applications, Chennai: Pearson education.Google Scholar
  25. Jain, A. K. (2017). A critical review of IS 13920-2016, Indian Concrete Journal, 91(9), 18-24.Google Scholar
  26. Mahaney, J. A., Paret T. F., Kehoe B. E., & Freeman S. A. (1993). The capacity spectrum method for evaluating structural response during the Loma Prieta earthquake, National Earthquake Conference, Memphis.Google Scholar
  27. McClure, F. E. (1968). Modern earthquake codes: History & development. Berkeley: Computers and Structures Inc.. reprinted in 2006.Google Scholar
  28. Naeim, F., & Kelly, J. M. (1999). Design of seismic isolated structures: From theory to practice. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Opensees (2014). Open system for earthquake engineering simulation, PEER, Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  30. Pal, S., Dasaka, S. S., & Jain, A. K. (1987). Inelastic response spectra. Computers and Structures, 25, 335–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Popov, E. P., Grigorian, C. E., & Yang, T. S. (1995). Developments in seismic structural analysis and design. Engineering Structures, 17(3), 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prakash, V., Pore, S. M., & Jain, A. K. (2006a). The role of reduction factor and importance factor in fifth revision of IS:1893, Proceedings of 13th Symposium on Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Dec 18–20, 2006, 964–977.Google Scholar
  33. Prakash, V., Pore, S. M., & Jain, A. K. (2006b). Response reduction factors for earthquake resistant design of liquid retaining tanks, Proceedings of 13th Symposium on Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Dec 18–20, 2006, 985–995.Google Scholar
  34. Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., & Kowalsky, M. J. (2007). Displacement based seismic design of structures. Pavia, Italy: IUSS Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ashok K. Jain
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology RoorkeeRoorkeeIndia

Personalised recommendations