Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257830517
CITATIONS READS
2 1,583
3 authors:
Astrid Rubiano
Nueva Granada Military University
14 PUBLICATIONS 13 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Julian Carrillo on 31 May 2014.
Carrillo Julin
Faculty of Engineering
Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, UMNG, Bogot, Colombia
E-mail: wjcarrillo@gmail.com
Rubiano-Fonseca Astrid
Faculty of Engineering
Hernndez-Barrios Hugo Universidad Militar Nueva Granada. Bogot, Colombia
Faculty of Engineering E-mail: astrid.rubiano@unimilitar.edu.co
Universidad Michoacana de San Nicols de Hidalgo, Morelia
E-mail: hugohbarrios@yahoo.com.mx
Abstract
The development of new codes for earthquake-resistant structures has made pos-
sible to guarantee a better performance of buildings, when they are subjected to
Keywords:
seismic actions. Therefore, it is convenient that current codes for design of build-
ing become conceptually transparent when defining the strength modification Mexican codes
factors and assessing maximum lateral displacements, so that the design process buildings
can be clearly understood by structural engineers. The aim of this study is to earthquake-resistant design
analyze the transparency of earthquake-resistant design approach for buildings strength reduction
in Mexico by means of a critical review of the factors for strength modification overstrength
and displacement amplification. The approach of building design codes in US is ductility
also analyzed. It is concluded that earthquake-resistant design in Mexico have displacement amplification
evolved in refinement and complexity. It is also demonstrated that the procedure lateral displacement
prescribed by such design codes allows the assessment of the design strengths
and displacements in a more rational way, in accordance not only with the pres-
ent stage of knowledge but also with the contemporary tendencies in building
codes. In contrast, the procedures used in US codes may not provide a clear view
for seismic response assessment of buildings.
Analysis of the Earthquake-Resistant Design Approach for Buildings in Mexico
Resumen
152 Ingeniera Investigacin y Tecnologa, volumen XV (nmero 1), enero-marzo 2014: 151-162 ISSN 1405-7743 FI-UNAM
Carrillo Julin, Hernndez-Barrios Hugo, Rubiano-Fonseca Astrid
Ingeniera Investigacin y Tecnologa, volumen XV (nmero 1), enero-marzo 2014: 151-162 ISSN 1405-7743 FI-UNAM 153
Analysis of the Earthquake-Resistant Design Approach for Buildings in Mexico
pacity to dissipate hysteretic energy. Because of this elastic strength in this period range. In addition, the
energy dissipation, the structure can be designed eco- seismic overstrength factor will also be higher if the
nomically and thus, the elastic design force Ve can be building is located in low seismic zones, because grav-
reduced to a yield strength level Vy, by the factor Rm (Vy ity and wind loads are more likely to govern the design
= Ve / Rm) (Moroni et al., 1996), and the corresponding (Uang, 1989). Note that overstrength did not enter into
maximum deformation demand is max (Figure 1). In a the previous discussion because the structural response
linearly elastic-perfectly plastic model (Figure 1), the was considered an idealized system.
yield strength level refers to the structural collapse lev- The additional strength reduction is due to the fact
el (D = max), not to the level of first significant yielding. that lateral strength of a structure is usually higher and,
For a correct evaluation of the reduction factor Rm, it is in some cases, much higher that the nominal strength
necessary to guarantee that the structure is able to ac- capacity of the structure. We can divide this reduction
commodate the maximum displacement demand max to take into account the additional strength from the
in Figure 1, preventing collapse. nominal strength to the formation of the first plastic
In general, for structures responding inelastically hinge and the additional strength from this point to the
during earthquake ground motions, inelastic deforma- formation of a mechanism (Miranda, 1997). The sys-
tions increase as the lateral yielding strength of the tems overstrength factor is defined as the product of
structures decreases, or as the design reduction factor the following independent overstrength factors (Uang,
increases. For design purposes, Rm corresponds to the 1989):
maximum reduction in strength that is consistent with
(i) development of sequential plastic hinges in redun-
limiting the displacement ductility ratio demand to the
dant structures,
pre-determined target ductility i , in a structure that
(ii) material strengths higher than those specified in the
will have strength equal to the designed lateral strength
design,
(Miranda and Bertero, 1994). A 5% equivalent viscous
(iii) strength reduction factors,
damping ratio is usually considered in the computation
(iv) specified sections and reinforcement patterns great-
of the reduction factor Rm (Uang, 1989).
er than those required in design,
Several studies (i.e., Miranda and Bertero,1994; Or-
(v) nonstructural elements, and
daz and Prez, 1998; Avils and Prez, 2005) agree that
(vi) variation of lateral forces (Varela et al., 2004).
for a given ground motion, the reduction factor Rm is
primarily influenced not only by the level of inelastic It is not uncommon for the true strength of a structure
deformation, but also by the natural period of the struc- to be two or three times the design strength (FEMA-
ture T, the soil conditions at the site, and the soil-struc- 451, 2006).
ture interaction. Since the strength reduction factor Rm One important source of overstrength in many
is a function of the ground motion for a given system structures is the design procedure itself. The structure
undergoing a ductility demand i, the reduction will be must be analyzed using forces reduced with a factor
different for different ground motions. Soil conditions that depends on the structures global ductility capacity
at site can have an important effect on Rm, particularly rather than the displacement itself. However, the global
for very soft soils. Other factors that may affect the re- behavior of the structure is not, in general, linearly elas-
duction factor Rm, but to a much lesser degree, are the tic-perfectly plastic; it would be so if all structural
damping and the type of hysteretic behavior of the members had linearly elastic-perfectly plastic behavior
structure (under the assumption that there is no signifi- and they yielded at the same time. This consideration
cant strength deterioration). implies that, in many cases, the real strength is higher
than its nominal strength (Ordaz and Meli, 2004).
Strength amplification factor due to overstrength Consider, for example, the typical global structural
response in Figure 2. The design strength of a structure,
Real structures are usually much stronger than re- Vd, is equal to the resistance at first significant yield.
quired by design. This extra strength, when recognized, If the hinging region has adequate ductility, it can sus-
can be used to reduce the ductility demands. For in- tain increased plastic rotations without loss of strength.
stance, if the overstrength were so large that the re- The first hinge to form is continuing to rotate inelasti-
sponse was elastic, the ductility demand would be less cally but has not reached its rotational capacity. As ad-
than 1.0 (FEMA-451, 2006). The role of overstrength is ditional load is applied to the structure, the other
even more significant for buildings with short periods, potential hinging regions of the structure will attract
because ductility is ineffective in reducing the required additional moment until they begin to yield (FEMA-
154 Ingeniera Investigacin y Tecnologa, volumen XV (nmero 1), enero-marzo 2014: 151-162 ISSN 1405-7743 FI-UNAM
Carrillo Julin, Hernndez-Barrios Hugo, Rubiano-Fonseca Astrid
451, 2006). Even more load can be applied as additional between the base shear developed in the structure if it
hinges form. However, the first hinges to form are near were to remain in the elastic range and the minimum
their rotational capacity and may begin to loose strength. required base shear to resist the seismic action and to
Hence, the backbone curve begins to flatten. At the ulti- accommodate nonlinear displacements without any
mate stage, the structure has finally reached its strength risk to its stability (Moroni et al., 1996). From Figure 3,
and deformation capacity. The additional strength be- the total strength modification factor R can be consid-
yond the design strength is called the overstrength and ered as the product of the ductility reduction factor Rm
the total strength of the system is referred to as the ac- and the structural overstrength factor W (Varela et al.,
tual maximum strength, Vy. 2004).
Figure 2 shows that the overstrength factor W can be
defined as the ratio between Vy and Vd (W = Vy/Vd), the
latter being the required strength prescribed by codes Ve
that use a strength design approach (Moroni et al., R= = Rm W (1)
Vd
1996). Existence of structural overstrength has been ex-
plicitly recognized in some building codes in the world.
Although the effect of overstrength should be account- Most of investigations reviewed by Miranda and Bertero
ed for when evaluating members strength (increasing (1994) recommended the use of period-dependent
the strength), because of the limitations when using ad- strength reduction factors. In addition, Uang (1989) has
vanced non-linear analysis techniques by practicing en- established basic formulas for evaluating R factor from
gineers, it is necessary to continue applying the effect of the global structure response characterized by the rela-
overstrength as a reduction factor to the loads instead tionship between the base shear ratio and the story drift.
of an amplification factor to the strength (Ordaz and It is noteworthy that strength reduction factor R pre-
Meli, 2004). However, the use of force demands lower scribed by current US codes are independent of period of
than those developed in the structure can be unsafe for vibration, which is incorrect and thus, their use is not
designing of the foundation. recommended (Miranda, 2007; Tena et al., 2009).
Even though the equations presented by Miranda
Strength modification factors in US building codes and Bertero (1994) seem reasonable and may be incor-
porated in future US seismic codes, the reality is that
In US building codes and provisions, such as IBC-09, today (2012) single values of the R factors are still pro-
NEHRP-03 and ASCE 7-10, the factor used to calculate posed in those seismic codes to design different struc-
the reduced design base shear and design seismic forc- tural systems (Varela et al., 2004). For instance, current
es of a structural system, is called response modifica- seismic design provisions in US do not require design-
tion factor R. This factor R is defined as the ratio ers to quantify R and W factors. Table 12.2-1 of ASCE
Ingeniera Investigacin y Tecnologa, volumen XV (nmero 1), enero-marzo 2014: 151-162 ISSN 1405-7743 FI-UNAM 155
Analysis of the Earthquake-Resistant Design Approach for Buildings in Mexico
7-10 provides R factors for a large number of structural by law, is of the municipal competence (Ordaz and
systems. Table 1 shows the factors for a few selected Meli, 2004). Agencies of the Federal Government
concrete and steel systems. have issued standards and manuals, such as the
When designing the elements, the ACI 318-11 Build- Manual of Civil Structures MDOC-08. This manual is
ing Code mainly relies on conventional force-based a very comprehensive code that specifically address-
limit states (i.e. ultimate limit state) and on a service- es the design of several structural systems (buildings,
ability limit state, but they do not include an explicit bridges, dams, power stations, industrial facilities,
relationship between displacement demand and capac- etc.) to such hazards as earthquakes and winds. This
ity. In an attempt to make US building codes conceptu- manual is another model design code in Mexico (Tena
ally transparent, new edition of the ACI 318-11 specifies et al., 2009).
explicitly an overstrength factor 0. This factor is relat- Mexico City building code (NTC-S-04) includes
ed to the seismic-force-resisting system used for the two procedures for seismic design of buildings: main
structure, and is used for the design of certain fragile body and appendix A. In the main body of NTC-S-04
elements that are incapable to dissipate energy in the and in the previous version of MDOC, spectra are not
non linear range, such as certain wall piers, anchors related to elastic seismic demands. In these codes, the
and collector elements, or where greater concerns about elastic design spectrum is obtained by dividing the
shear failure remain. For designing such elements, the spectral ordinates by a somewhat obscure reductive
design shear force need not exceed 0 times the fac- seismic force factor that accounted for everything
tored shear determined by analysis of the structure for (ductility, redundancy, overstrength, etc.) (Tena et al.,
earthquake effects. The amplification factor 0 ranges 2009). Hence, the overstrength parameter is implicitly
between 1.5 and 3.0, depending on the type of seismic included in the spectrum, so that it is an invisible pa-
system. In this approach, the design shear force is com- rameter for the engineer. Thus, their use is not recom-
puted as 0 times the shear induced under design dis- mended. Instead, spectra specified by appendix A of
placements. NTC-S-04 or by MDOC-08 should be used (Miranda,
2007; Tena et al., 2009).
For clarity in the design process, there is an impor-
Strength modification factors in Mexican codes
tant conceptual adjustment in the reduction of elastic
The Mexico City Building Code for seismic design of response parameters for design in appendix A of NTC-
buildings NTC-S-04 has been a model code in Mexico S-04 and in MDOC-08. In these codes, design spectra
for the drafting of most of the Mexican codes, which, are site specific and values of overstrength parameter
are explicitly specified, because the de-
Table 1. Design factors specified by ASCE 7-10 for building structures sign spectra are not reduced by an over-
strength parameter W (Alcocer and
Structural system R 0 Rm=R/0 Cd
Castao, 2008). In fact, the proposal for
Special moment frame 8.0 3.0 2.7 5.5 the W factor in MDOC-08 is an improved
Reinforced concrete
Intermediate moment frame 5.0 3.0 1.7 4.5 version of the one presented in appen-
Ordinary moment frame 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.5 dix A of NTC-S-04. In appendix A of
structures
Special reinforced shear wall 5.0 2.5 2.0 5.0 NTC-S-04, W is independent of the
structural system. This conceptual
Ordinary reinforced shear wall 4.0 2.5 1.6 4.0
shortcoming is fixed in MDOC-08,
Detailed plain concrete wall 2.0 2.5 0.8 2.0
where it is also recognized that the over-
Ordinary plain concrete wall 1.5 2.5 0.6 1.5 strength that a structure can develop
Special moment frame 8.0 3.0 2.7 5.5 under earthquake loading strongly de-
Intermediate moment frame 4.5 3.0 1.5 4.0 pends on the structural system, as it is
done in other modern seismic codes,
Steel structures
156 Ingeniera Investigacin y Tecnologa, volumen XV (nmero 1), enero-marzo 2014: 151-162 ISSN 1405-7743 FI-UNAM
Carrillo Julin, Hernndez-Barrios Hugo, Rubiano-Fonseca Astrid
Ingeniera Investigacin y Tecnologa, volumen XV (nmero 1), enero-marzo 2014: 151-162 ISSN 1405-7743 FI-UNAM 157
Analysis of the Earthquake-Resistant Design Approach for Buildings in Mexico
quake motions are observed, such as in the lake bed displacement concept allows structural engineers to
zone of Mexico City (Tena et al., 2009). use elastic analysis to predict inelastic displacements,
As in previous versions, MDCO-08 defines 11 con- that is, the displacements from the reduced-force elastic
ditions of regularity for elevation and plan analysis analysis must be multiplied by the ductility ratio to
that buildings must satisfy to directly use the reduc- produce the true inelastic displacements.
tive seismic force factor Q. If a building structure sat- It has been shown that the equal displacement ap-
isfies all 11 conditions of structural regularity, it is proximation is non-conservative for short period
defined as a regular structure, so Q remains un- structures and therefore, the equal energy approxima-
changed. However, if at least one conditions of struc- tion should be applied for these structures. Thus, in
tural regularity is not satisfied, the building is defined the first region of the spectrum, Rm increases linearly
as irregular structure, and then Q is reduced for de- with increasing period from Rm = 1 to a value which is
sign purposes using the corrective reduction factor a near to the value of the ductility ratio m (FEMA-451,
that varies between 1.0 (regular structure) and 0.7, and 2006). ASCE 7-10 effectively reduces the acceleration
depends on the degree of irregularity according to spectrum by a strength reduction factor at all period
MDOC-08. For design purposes, irregular buildings ranges. However, the ASCE 7-10 provisions allows no
must be designed for higher forces but required to reduction to the peak ground acceleration in the very
comply with the lateral story drift criteria specified for short period region (acceleration spectrum with a con-
regular buildings (Tena et al., 2009). stant plateau that extends from T = 0 s) so this partially
compensates for error in equal displacement as-
sumption at short period values (FEMA-451, 2006). In
Deflection amplification factor
the medium region of the spectrum, the reduction fac-
The requirement of a strength level is insufficient as the tor Rm is only slightly dependent on the period of vi-
only parameter for seismic design. Therefore, it is nec- bration T. For very long periods, the Rm factor maintains
essary to combine it with an adequate criterion to esti- a constant value equal to the prescribed ductility m,
mate the maximum displacements that a structure will and thus, the equal displacement approximation can
have to accommodate during the action of a severe be applied (Rm=m) (FEMA-451, 2006). Simplified ex-
earthquake. The most common assumption is the pressions to obtain analytical estimates of the strength
equal-displacement approximation. This approxima- reduction factors have been proposed. According to
tion implies that the displacement of an inelastic sys- Newmark and Hall (1982), for structures with long,
tem, with stiffness K and strength Vy, subjected to a medium and short periods, Rm = m, Rm = (2m 1)0.5, and
particular ground motion, is approximately equal to Rm = 1, respectively. These expressions indicate that
the displacement of the same system responding elasti- Rm/m is not greater than 1. Moreover, this ratio is sig-
cally (FEMA-451, 2006). Figure 1 shows that the equal nificantly less than 1 for structures with medium and
displacement approximation of seismic response im- short periods.
plies that m = Rm (Priestley, 2000). The equal-displace-
ment approximation implies that peak displacements
Displacement amplification
may be related to peak accelerations assuming sinusoi-
dal response equations, which is reasonable approxi- Most codes recognize that a structures actual deforma-
mation for medium period structures (Priestley et al., tion may be several times the elastics displacements es-
2007) of or for structures whose period of vibration is timated from the action on the prescribed seismic
distant from the site period (Ordaz and Prez, 1998). An design forces (Moroni et al., 1996). In order to estimate
apparently conservative assumption (with regard to maximum expected displacements of structure includ-
displacements) is shown in Figure 1. The basis assump- ing effects of inelastic deformations max, displacements
tion is that the displacement demand is relatively in- from elastic analysis, with reduced forces d, are ampli-
sensitive to system yield strength Vy, because the value fied by the displacement amplification factor Cd. This
of max will be the same for any value of Vy (FEMA-451, factor can also be derived from Figure 2 as follows
2006). (Uang, 1989):
For design purposes, it may be assumed that inelas-
tic displacements are equal to the displacement that
would occur during an elastic response. The required max max y
force levels under inelastic response are much less than Cd = = = m W (2)
d y d
the force levels required for elastic response. The equal
158 Ingeniera Investigacin y Tecnologa, volumen XV (nmero 1), enero-marzo 2014: 151-162 ISSN 1405-7743 FI-UNAM
Carrillo Julin, Hernndez-Barrios Hugo, Rubiano-Fonseca Astrid
Table 2. Story drift limits specified by ASCE 7-10 7-10 also provides the allowable story drift to be com-
Drift limit pared with true maximum inelastic drift. Table 2 shows
that allowable drift ratio depends on risk category (im-
Risk category
portance) of the building.
Structural system I or II III IV
Structures, other than masonry wall
structures, 4 stories or less above the base Displacement amplification factor in Mexican codes
2.5 % 2.0 % 1.5 %
with partitions that have been designed to
accommodate the story drifts
In the main body of NTC-S-04 and in the previous ver-
sion of MDOC, inelastic displacement demands gener-
Masonry cantilever shear wall structures 1.0 % 1.0 % 1.0 %
ally did not lead to suitable estimates because the
Other masonry shear wall structures 0.7 % 0.7 % 0.7 % values of the ratio Q/Q (Figure 4) are not adequate (Mi-
All other structures 2.0 % 1.5 % 1.0 % randa, 2007; Tena et al., 2009). One more drawback of
some building codes for seismic design is that lateral
From these derivations, it is observed that Cd factors a displacements of buildings are evaluated in a deficient
function of the structural overstrength factor, the struc- way. For instance, allowable story drift ratios pre-
tural ductility ratio, and the damping ratio; the effect of scribed in the main body of the NTC-S-04 are equal to
the damping ratio is generally included in the ductility 0.6% if non-structural elements are not separated from
reduction factor Rm. the structure, and 1.2% if non-structural elements are
isolated. Actually, these values are not related to the
displacements under the design earthquake, because
Displacement amplification factor in US
the expected drift values will be significantly higher.
building codes
This fact results from using a design spectrum that is
In US building codes, the displacement modification not adequate for calculating displacements under the
factor Cd is used to compute the expected maximum in- ultimate level (Ordaz and Meli, 2004).
elastic displacement from the elastic displacement in-
Table 3. Story drift limits for collapse prevention specified
duced by the seismic design forces. Based on the equal by MDOC-08 for RC structures
displacement approximation, the inelastic displace-
Drift
ment demand is the same as the elastic displacement Structural system
limit
demand. The approach of US seismic-codes for dis-
Special ductile frame (m = 3 or 4) 3.0 %
placements is to determine design forces generated by
concrete structures
vertically and horizontally through the structure in or- Concentric braced frame 1.5 %
der to determine members forces, and compute dis- Dual system: walls with ductile frames (m = 3) 1.5 %
placements using linear elastic analysis. The analysis Dual system: walls with ordinary or intermediate
1.0 %
domain represents the response of the linear elastic sys- moments-resisting frame (m = 1 or 2)
tem as analyzed with the reduced forces. Special ductile frame (m = 3 or 4) 3.0 %
Clearly in Figure 3, the displacement d predicted
structures
contains ingredients other than pure ductility (FEMA- Confined wall system: walls made with (i) solid
units, and (ii) hollow units and horizontal steel 0.30 %
451, 2006). Both factors R and Cd prescribed in US seis-
reinforcement (joint reinforcement or wire mesh)
mic codes are primarily based on the observation of the
Combined and confined wall system 0.30 %
performance of different structural systems in the past
strong earthquakes, on consensus of engineering judg- Confined wall system made with hollow units
and without horizontal steel reinforcement (joint 0.20 %
ment, on technical justification, and on tradition (NE-
reinforcement or wire mesh)
HRP-03). Similarly to R and W factors, Table 1 of ASCE
Unreinforced and unconfined wall system 0.15 %
7-10 provides the Cd factor (see Table 1). Table 1 of ASCE
Ingeniera Investigacin y Tecnologa, volumen XV (nmero 1), enero-marzo 2014: 151-162 ISSN 1405-7743 FI-UNAM 159
Analysis of the Earthquake-Resistant Design Approach for Buildings in Mexico
In the appendix A of NTC-S-04 and in MDOC-08, US and Mexico. The following conclusions can be
actual lateral displacements are computed multiply- drawn from this study:
ing those obtained under reduced loads by certain fac-
tors (Figure 4). The criterion for controlling the lateral In the main body of NTC-S-04 and in the previous ver-
displacements is improved, because these codes pro- sion of MDOC, the overstrength factor is implicitly in-
pose revision of displacements for two limit states: cluded in the spectrum, so that it is an invisible parameter
serviceability and collapse prevention under maxi- for the engineer. In addition, inelastic displacement de-
mum credible earthquake. The review of drift limits mands generally did not lead to suitable estimates be-
for the service earthquake is a novelty in MDOC-08. It cause the ratio Q/Q (Figure 4) is not adequate. Thus,
was proposed to have a clearly specified service limit their use is not recommended. Instead, spectra specified
state, to limit displacements for earthquakes that oc- by appendix A of NTC-S-04 or by MDOC-08 should be
cur much more frequently than the collapse event. used (Miranda, 2007; Tena et al., 2009).
Damage to non-structural members should not be tol- Strength modification and displacement amplifica-
erated for an earthquake like this one. For the service tion factors, which to date are empirical in nature, are
limit state, buildings should remain elastic, so the based on general consensus of engineering judgment,
damage control of non-structural members is achieved observed structural performance in the past earth-
by comparing the calculated elastic displacements quakes, and so on (NHRP-03). The only way to ratio-
with allowable drift ratios equal to 0.2% if non-struc- nalize these factors is to quantify the overstrength
tural elements are connected to the structural system, and structural ductility ratios by analytical studies
or 0.4% if non-structural elements are properly sepa- and experimental testing (Uang, 1989). Rational
rated from the structural system (Ordaz and Meli, strength modification and displacement amplifica-
2004). tion factors based on ductility, period and soil condi-
For the collapse prevention limit state, story drifts tions, together with estimates of the overstrength of
are commonly computed by multiplying the reduced the structure and the relationship between global and
displacements from linear analysis for the reduced local ductility demands (Varela et al., 2004), are now
spectrum d by Qr. In contrast with the previous ver- used to establish more rational and transparent seis-
sions of MDOC or in the main body of NTC-S-04, where mic design approaches in Mexico. For instance, Mex-
the story drift limits are not defined in terms of the ican seismic codes are moving towards design
structural system, the story drift limits defined in procedures where the overstrength is directly taken
MDOC-08 for collapse prevention are function of the on account to reduce the elastic design spectra. This
structural system. The calculated displacements must is the philosophy in the procedure outlined in appen-
be compared with allowable values (drift limits) given dix A of NTC-S-04 and in the new guidelines MDOC-
in Table 3 for diverse structural systems. Table 3 shows 08 (Tena et al., 2009).
that these values are significantly higher than those It is also apparent that the design codes are often in-
specified in the main body of NTC-S-04, because the de- correctly understood or misinterpreted, and are often
sign spectrum is specified in a rational way (Ordaz and not complied with by lay practitioners. The lack of
Meli, 2004). In addition, note that proposed drift limits building code compliance shall not be regarded
mostly coincide with whose recommended in US codes merely as a legal issue to be addressed only through
(ASCE 7-10, IBC-09, see Table 2). enforcement actions. To attain a reasonable safety
level, it is essential to have consistency between the
Final remarks regulations, the level of expertise of most design and
construction professionals, and local materials and
Modern design procedures give more emphasis to the construction systems (Alcocer and Castao, 2008).
deformation capacity of the system. For example, per- Given that the level of expertise and quality of prac-
formance-based seismic design requires the explicit tice of design and construction professionals in Mex-
consideration of lateral displacement as a performance ico is quite diverse, one way to reach this goal is to
indicator, besides verifying the structural design implements codes with procedure and requirements
through an essentially force-based procedure (Priest- of different levels of complexity. The most complex
ley, 2000). There is currently an intensive re-examina- and comprehensive rules should be aimed at large,
tion of the approaches for seismic design of structures. important structures; simple yet conservative ap-
This paper has summarized and discussed the ap- proaches would be followed for most common struc-
proach in the seismic design provisions for buildings in tures limited to certain size, geometry and complexity
160 Ingeniera Investigacin y Tecnologa, volumen XV (nmero 1), enero-marzo 2014: 151-162 ISSN 1405-7743 FI-UNAM
Carrillo Julin, Hernndez-Barrios Hugo, Rubiano-Fonseca Astrid
(Ordaz and Meli, 2004). This is the case of the recently Moroni M., Astroza M., Gmez J., Guzmn R. Establishing R and
released ACI 314-11 Guideto simplified design for re- Cd Factors for Confined Masonry Buildings. Journal of Struc-
inforced concrete buildings of limited size and height tural Engineering-ASCE, volume 122 (issue 10), 1996: 1208-
could be also included. Finally, for non-engineered 1215.
construction guidelines, other educational sources NEHRP-03. Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for
are needed in lieu of merely enforcing codes. New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 450), Building
Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
Newmark N. and Hall W. Earthquake Spectra and Design, Earthquake
References Engineering Research Institute, EERI, El Cerrito, CA, USA, 1982.
ACI Committee 314. Guide to Simplified Design for Reinforced Con- NTC-S-04. Mexico City Building Standards for Seismic Design of
crete Buildings (ACI-314R-11), Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2011. Building Structures, Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal, Mexi-
ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural co, 2004.
Concrete (ACI-318) and commentary (ACI-318R), American Ordaz M. and Meli R. Seismic Design Codes in Mexico, on: Pro-
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2011. ceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Alcocer S. and Castao V. Evolution of Codes for Structural De- Engineering12WCEE, Vancouver, Canada, paper 4000,
sign in Mexico. Journal of Structural Survey, volume 26 (issue 2004.
1), 2008: 17-28. Ordaz M. and Prez-Rocha L. Estimation of Strength-Reduction
ASCE 7-10. Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other Struc- Factors for Elastoplastic Systems: a New Approach. Journal of
tures, American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, Reston, Vir- Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, volume 27,
ginia, USA, 2010. 1998: 889-901.
Avils J. and Prez-Rocha L. Influence of Foundation Flexibility Priestley M. Performance Based Seismic Design, on: Proceedings of
on Rm and Cm Factors. Journal of Structural Engineering-ASCE, 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering12WCEE,
volume 131 (issue 2), 2005: 221-230. Auckland, New Zealand, paper 2831, 2000.
Bertero V. Implications of Recent Earthquakes and Research on Priestley M., Calvi G., Kowalsky M. Displacement-Based Seismic
Earthquake-Resistant Design and Construction of Buildings, Design of Structures, IUSS Press, Italy, 2007.
Report No. UCB/EERC-86/03, University of California, Berke- Rosenblueth E. Seismic Design Requirements in a Mexican 1976
ley, March, 1986. code. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynam-
Carrillo J. and Alcocer S. Experimental Investigation on Dynamic ics, volume 7, 1979: 49-61.
and Quasi-Static Behavior of Low-Rise Reinforced Concrete Sonzogni V., Cardona A., Idelsohn S. Inelastic Seismic Analysis of
Walls. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynam- a Building Structure Designed by Argentine Codes. Journal of
ics, volume 45 (issue 5), 2013: 635-652. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, volume 12,
Chavez J. Overview of the Current Seismic Codes in Central and 1984: 721-736.
South America. Bulleting of IISEE, volume 46, 2012: 153-160. Tena-Colunga A., Mena-Hernndez U., Prez-Rocha L., Avils J.,
FEMA-451. Recommended Provisions: Design Examples, Federal Ordaz M., Vilar J. Updated Seismic Design Guidelines for
Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, Washington, USA, 2006. Model Building Code of Mexico. Journal of Earthquake Spectra,
IBC-09. International Building Code, International Code Council, volume 25 (issue 4), 2009: 869-898.
Falls Church, VA, USA, 2009. Tso W. and Naumoski N. Period-Dependent Seismic Force Reduc-
MDOC-08. Design Manual of Civil StructuresSeismic Design, tion Factors for Short-Period Structures. Canadian Journal of
Comisin Federal de Electricidad, CFE, Mexico, 2008. Civil Engineering, volume 18, 1991: 568-574.
Miranda E. Course of Earthquake EngineeringClass Notes, Na- Uang Ch. Establishing R (or Rw) and Cd Factors for Building Seis-
tional University of Mexico-UNAM, 2007. mic Provisions. Journal of Structural Engineering-ASCE, vol-
Miranda E. Strength Reduction Factors in Performance-Based De- ume 117 (issue 1), 1989: 19-28.
sign, on: Proceedings of EERC-CUREe Symposium, Berkeley, Varela J., Tanner J., Klingner R. Development of Response Modifi-
CA, 1997. cation Coefficient and Deflection Amplification Factors for
Miranda E. and Bertero V. Evaluation of Strength Reduction Fac- Design of AAC Structural Systems, on: Proceedings of 13th
tors for Earthquake-Resistant Design. Journal of Earthquake World Conference on Earthquake Engineering12WCEE,
Spectra, volume 10 (issue 2), 1994: 357-379. Vancouver, Canada, paper 1058, 2004.
Ingeniera Investigacin y Tecnologa, volumen XV (nmero 1), enero-marzo 2014: 151-162 ISSN 1405-7743 FI-UNAM 161
Analysis of the Earthquake-Resistant Design Approach for Buildings in Mexico
162 Ingeniera Investigacin y Tecnologa, volumen XV (nmero 1), enero-marzo 2014: 151-162 ISSN 1405-7743 FI-UNAM