AS 1170.

4 Earthquake actions in Australia—Background and

application
R Weller
Cardno – Central Coast, GOSFORD, NSW, Australia

2005-03-30

1. Summary

This paper provides an introduction to the use of AS 1170.4 Structural design actions Part 4:
Earthquake actions in Australia.

It describes the background to the revision, the relationship to AS/NZS 1170.0 and the BCA, the
basic principles of design for earthquake, the design procedures in the Standard and gives
examples of determining for typical sites the hazard level and the design effort required.
Background on the role of AS/NZS 1170.0 is given in Annex A and the list of changes given in
the Preface to DR 04303 is attached as Annex B.

The key to understanding AS 1170.4 is that the performance of our building stock needs to take
into account the unpredictable nature of earthquake activity in our low seismic environment.
This approach arises from the small knowledge we have of earthquake risk in Australia coupled
with the very low levels of earthquake risk we do currently expect (see objectives below under
Basic requirements of AS 1170.4—200X). Therefore, the detailing requirements of the Standard
are intended to provide some measure of resistance to earthquakes for all structures while the
design levels for 1/500 annual probability of exceedance are somewhat nominal, intended for use
mainly in the design of the seismic force resisting structural system and other components.

2. Background

This latest revision of the Earthquake loading Standard was begun in 1993 along with the other
parts of the AS 1170 series. The original aim was to have all parts of the series joint
Australian/New Zealand Standards. This has been achieved with Parts 0, 1, 2 and 3:

AS/NZS 1170 Structural design actions

Part 0: General principles
Part 1: Permanent, imposed and other actions
Part 2: Wind actions
Part 3: Snow and ice actions

Originally to be a joint Part 4, the Earthquake actions Standard has been split into two parts:
Part 4 Earthquake actions in Australia (AS 1170.4) and Part 5 Earthquake actions in New
Zealand (NZS 1170.5). Part 4 was issued to Public Comment by Standards Australia as
DR 04303.

The new proposed Standard follows the format set up for the other parts of the AS/NZS 1170
series in that it operates from an annual probability of exceedance provided through Part 0 and
the Building Code of Australia (BCA). This format has already been put in place through
Appendix D of AS/NZS 1170.0 published in 2002. That Appendix provides for the use of the
annual probabilities of 1:500 and 1:800 that are specified in the BCA. These probabilities reflect
similar loads to those given in the 1993 edition as it was originally published (i.e., the 1.0 and
1.25 importance factors).

The New Zealand Part (NZS 1170.5) remains a full earthquake design Standard and should be
used with the NZ materials design Standards. It is suitable for designing in high hazard regions
such as near active plate boundaries.

There are restrictions placed on the content of the AS/NZS 1170 series due to their being called
up in legislation. As a result, the Standards may no longer contain any ‘open-ended’ statements
and good practice advice. The Commentary on each Standard is therefore of increased
importance as such information is relegated from the Standard to the Commentary. The
Standards may also not repeat any requirements that are incorporated into the regulations.

3. Basic requirements of AS 1170.4—200X

3.1 Objectives

The new Standard incorporates the following three objectives:

¾ Serviceability limit state: resist frequent earthquake shaking without loss of use.
¾ Ultimate limit state: withstand severe earthquake shaking with a reasonable margin
against structural collapse and failure of life threatening parts or parts that are critical to
evacuation.
¾ Ultimate limit state: withstand the most severe earthquake shaking with a small margin
against collapse.

The first and third objectives are satisfied for Australia’s relatively low seismicity by general
detailing of the structure and by strength design for the second objective. Serviceability is not
considered for Australia except for post disaster structures, where continued use should be
considered at the design event for normal structures. This is in fact a life safety issue as the
recovery period immediately following a major earthquake is critical to the preservation of life.

It should be noted that the criteria and methods given for earthquake design are simplified and
graded as Earthquake Design Categories I, II and III with the understanding that they are for use
in Australia (where there is relatively low seismicity) and that normal structures are designed for
an annual probability of exceedance of 1/500. The Standard may be seen as an ‘engineered
solution’ defined with an understanding of the design required at Australia’s hazard level.

Put simply, for the risk of earthquakes in Australia, it is expected that most structures will be
subject to very low levels of acceleration, if any, during their predicted life. These structures
need only support this low level to satisfy design for lateral loading at the 1/500 event. For the
small risk that they may be subject to high seismic deformations (objective 3), structures need to
avoid collapse. To improve the general ability of our building stock to achieve this third
objective, ductility must be provided in order to have sufficient reserve capacity against collapse
for the unexpectedly large demands on the structure.

3.2 Providing ductility

Structures will perform better in earthquakes of the size found in Australia provided they have
some measure of ductility—ability to flex without collapse (represented by Mu (the Greek
letter)). The simplest means of achieving a degree of ductility is to provide load paths and tie all
the parts of the structure together. Selection of structure configuration and material of
construction also have a bearing on this.

3.3 Hazard

Australia experiences fairly frequent damaging earthquakes of around 5.5 magnitude. For
example:

Newcastle 1989—5.6
Robertson 1961—5.6
Adelaide 1954—5.4
Bundaberg 1918—6.0

Seismologists indicate that an earthquake of magnitude 6 is overdue for the south-east of

Australia (including the Melbourne/Canberra/Sydney area). The expected maximum credible
earthquake load for normal structures has been compared with the load expected from a
magnitude 6 plus one standard deviation at 40 km from the site. A revision of the mapped hazard
values is being considered but is unlikely to be ready for publication in the Standard. Significant
change to the values may require the issue of an amendment.

It should be noted that although the higher magnitude earthquakes may be characterized as
having higher peak ground acceleration, these larger magnitude earthquakes also continue for a
much longer period of time, say 30s or as much as 60 seconds. To design for these events would
mean surviving many repetitions of gross cyclic motion where cumulative damage would have a
critical influence on collapse avoidance. Such design is not required in Australia for most
structures.

A new format has been adopted for defining the hazard level for a site (elastic site hazard
spectrum) and it is used as the basis for determining the design effort required (see Table 2.1
below):

kpZCh(T1) (1)

kp relates the hazard to the annual probability of exceedance,

Z is the mapped earthquake hazard factor (equivalent to ‘a’—this has not changed from the 1993
maps, only the notation) and
Ch(T1) is the spectral shape factor for the fundamental natural period of the structure (T1) related
to the site sub-soil class (A, B, C, D or E).

Incorporated into the spectral shape factor is both the old site factor S and the adjustment for
structure period that was part of the earthquake design coefficient. This more rationally
combines in one factor the influence of the soil conditions and the effect of frequency of
vibration. This hazard format reflects the acceleration at the ground surface for the most
vulnerable frequency.

3.4 Structure configuration

The Standard assumes that structures are irregular as the vast majority of structures in Australia
fail to achieve regularity. For the various types of structure, the ductility (Mu) and structural
performance factors (Sp) have been made more explicit than before (where a single factor
represented both). Some configurations will be encouraged due to the lower Sp/Mu values which
lead to reduced design loads. Values for Sp and Mu are given in Section 6.
Stiff elements should not impose themselves on the behavior of the seismic force resisting
system. If they do, the structure will not exhibit the ductility required of it and will therefore
attract a much higher load than that for which it is designed.

3.5 Other issues

Drift—A limit of 1.5% is put on inter-storey drift to restrict ductility demand at joints and reduce
eccentricity of vertical loads on columns.

Pounding—Pounding is to be avoided at the ultimate limit state. A deemed-to-satisfy clearance

of 1% of the building height is given.

Existing structures—The Standard no longer includes any requirements for existing structures.
This will be dealt with in the Commentary as the BCA only covers new buildings.

Related earthquake phenomena—gross ground movements—Gross settlement, slides,

subsidence, liquefaction and faulting near a structure are not covered by the Standard. On sub-
soil class E, design should include consideration of subsidence or differential settlement.

Structures not covered—Tanks, dams, offshore structures, soil-retaining, bridges and structures
with period greater than 5 seconds are not covered.

4. The engineer’s approach to design

Earthquakes produce waves in the earths crust. These are amplified by the soil conditions at the
site of the structure depending on the sub-soil class. The situation is complicated by the varying
transmission by different ground types of the frequencies of vibration and by the natural
resonances of the structure. The methods given in AS 1170.4 are based on the same fundamental
earthquake design methods used in many other national Standards.

The structure type and configuration also has a large bearing on the collapse resistance of the
structure. These are quantified in the structural ductility and the structural performance factors.
The latter is an adjustment factor that relates the known ductility of a structure to the
performance of structures in real earthquakes. There is continuing international debate on the
values of the performance factors that should be assigned to the various structure types.

The engineer first considers the hazard at his site: the mapped value of Z, the soil structure
(leading to Ch(T)) and the building importance (kp). The structure height will give the value of
the hazard and also the analysis method required to be used (see Table 2.1 below).

For the vast majority of structures (low height, normal importance on firm or shallow soils) the
next step is to estimate if the load is likely to be less than the wind load. Structure
performance/ductility is the final number to determine (Sp/Mu) in order to calculate the base
shear. The base shear may be understood to be the percentage of the weight of the building to be
applied laterally (eg. say 15% of (G + 0.4Q) for the building).

Once the horizontal design action is calculated from the above information and the seismic
weight of the structure, the structure is analyzed according to the method required for the hazard
level (kpZ) and soil type. The materials design Standards are then used to design the members for
the required resistance including achieving the ductility required by applying detailing specified
for each value of Mu. Finally, the parts of the structure must be tied together and individually
designed to perform. Inter-storey drifts should be checked to ensure that parts such as stiff walls
do not interfere with the seismic force resisting system. Walls will usually require a check of the
resistance to face loading.

The analysis and materials design is where AS 1170.4 differs most from NZS 1170.5. The
Australian Standard provides for simplified analysis methods based on the low level of hazard.
Also, as a result of the lower earthquake loads expected, the detailing required is minimal
compared to that for New Zealand. Therefore, the materials design Standards are much simpler
than those required in New Zealand.

Capacity design approach

Part 5: Earthquake actions in New Zealand remains a full earthquake design Standard and should
be used with the NZ materials design Standards. The New Zealand method is based on a
capacity design approach where portions of the structure are designated to deform plastically
(absorbing energy) while the rest of the structure remains elastic and continues to stand up. The
New Zealand materials Standards therefore provide for design of the ductility capacity and
include plastic design methods so that structures and joints will support the ductility demands
required of them. This enables sophisticated design of the dynamic behavior of the structures so
that considerable deformations can be imposed and the energy absorbed by deformations of the
structure without collapse.

The additional data required to use this method includes, for example, the ductility capacity of
steel reinforcement.

5. Design data—Section by Section

Section 1

Additional information and figures have been provided in Section 1 to help define the number of
floors, the top seismic mass and the base of the building (where it couples with the ground). The
following figures are an example:
 Figure 1 Case with a large mass in the roof

Figure 2 Defining the base for various foundation arrangements

Selection of procedure (Section 2)

Section 2 provides for the selection of the design procedure required. This depends on the
importance level of the structure, the earthquake hazard (kpZ), the site sub-soil classification and
the height of the structure. One of three Earthquake Design Categories is selected using
Table 2.1: EDCI, EDCII or EDCIII (see the Table re-produced below). The exceptions to these
are housing which is covered by Appendix A and importance level 1 structures which do not
require design for earthquake.

TABLE 2.1 FROM THE STANDARD

SELECTION OF EARTHQUAKE DESIGN CATEGORIES
Importance Mapped hazard (k p Z)
Structure
level, type of for site sub-soil class Earthquake
height, h n
structure (see design category
E D C B A (m)
Foreword)
Not required to be
1 — — designed to this
Standard
Appendix A
≤8.5m (top of roof) —
Domestic procedure
housing as Select design
defined in method as for
Appendix A >8.5m (top of roof) —
Importance
Level 2 structures
≤12 I
2 ≤0.05 ≤0.08 ≤0.11 ≤0.14 >12, <50 II
≥50 III
Importance Importance Importance Importance <50 II
level 2: >0.05 to level 2: >0.08 to level 2: >0.11 to level 2: >0.14 to
≤0.08 ≤0.12 ≤0.17 ≤0.21
≥50 III
2 and 3 Importance Importance Importance Importance
level 3: ≤0.08 level 3: ≤0.12 level 3: ≤0.17 level 3: ≤0.21
<25 II
>0.08 >0.12 >0.17 >0.21
≥25 III
<12 II
4 —
≥12 III
Hazard data (Section 3)

Section 3 includes the probability factor, kp (which links the Standard to Part 0 and the BCA)
and the mapped hazard factor, Z, which is the peak ground acceleration for an annual probability
of exceedance of 1/500. The probability factor differs slightly from the values given in
Appendix D of Part 0.

Site sub-soil classes (Section 4)

The sub-soil class descriptions (A to E) have been aligned with those given for New Zealand.
The associated spectra are given in Section 6 where they are first used in the static design
method. In the 1993 edition the spectral shape was part of the equation for base shear
(1.25S/T0.67). The new curves given reflect the considerable research over the past decade and
give increased loads on low period structures but reduced loads on high period structures.

Static and dynamic analysis methods (Sections 6 and 7)

Sections 6 and 7 give the methods for static analysis and dynamic analysis of structures and are
similar to those found in the 1993 edition.

Design of parts and components (Section 8)

Section 8 gives simple methods for calculating forces for the design of supports for equipment or
architectural components. It must be remembered that EDCI, EDCII and EDCIII all require parts
and components to be designed for lateral forces.

6. Design procedure (Section 5)

General requirements

Besides the requirements defined in Section 2, Section 5 lists a number of basic design principles
that apply to all earthquake designed structures (except houses covered in Appendix A):

• Seismic force resisting system—a seismic force resisting system must be provided to
resist the effects of an earthquake. It must incorporate appropriate load paths.
• Parts and components—all parts and components require attention regardless of the EDC
applied.
• Tying structure together—all parts of the structure need to be tied together to enable all
masses in the structure to move with the earthquake in a controlled manner.
• Performance under earthquake deformations—stiff elements (e.g., brick walls) must not
interfere with the seismic force resisting systems capacity to respond to the earthquake.
• Walls—these must be connected to floors and roofs and designed for in-plane and out-of-
plane forces.
• Diaphragms—deflections should be able to be supported by the elements connected to
and supporting the diaphragm.
• Openings—are to be strengthened to resist local stresses.
EDCI

Earthquake design category I is a simple lateral load applied at each level. This is applied for all
structures of 12m height or less that are on low hazard sites (except for housing and importance
level 1 structures).

EDCII

Earthquake design category II requires a static analysis (dynamic can be used if desired).
Section 6 sets out the method including the spectral shape factor, the structural ductility and
performance factors, the natural period of vibration of the structure, etc. This method differs
from that in the 1993 edition mainly in the values of the spectral shape, ductility and
performance factors.

The base shear equation is—

V = [kpZCh(T1)Sp/Mu]Wt (2)

A new equation is also provided for the first mode of vibration, T1. The 100% plus 30% rule for
forces in two orthogonal directions has been kept. Connections are required to support 5% of the
vertical action arising from the seismic weight. Torsion effects are modeled by a 10% offset in
the application of the earthquake forces.

There are some simplified rules for structures up to 15m.

EDCIII

Earthquake design category III requires a full design with dynamic analysis. This is required for
the highest hazard levels and tallest structures.

Due to the increasing availability of analysis software, modal analysis is becoming the preferred
method of analysis of earthquake actions on structures. It is no longer necessary to scale the
results up to those for the static method.

EXAMPLES

As an illustration of the selection of design effort required, following are some examples of the
design required for various site conditions.

For Importance Level 2 structures—

In Sydney/Canberra/Melbourne (kpZ = 0.08):

On soil class A—EDCI for up to 12m, EDCII 12m to 50m, EDCIII when taller
On soil class B—EDCI for up to 12m, EDCII 12m to 50m, EDCIII when taller
On soil class C—EDCI for up to 12m, EDCII 12m to 50m, EDCIII when taller
On soil class D—EDCII for up to 25m, EDCIII when taller

In Adelaide/Maitland/Wyong/North-West coast of Aust. (kpZ = 0.10):

On soil class A—EDCI for up to 12m, EDCII 12m to 50m, EDCIII when taller
On soil class B—EDCI for up to 12m, EDCII 12m to 50m, EDCIII when taller
On soil class C—EDCII for up to 50m, EDCIII when taller
 On soil class D—EDCII for up to 25m, EDCIII when taller

For Importance Level 3 structures—

In Sydney/Canberra/Melbourne (kpZ = 0.104):

On soil class A—EDCI for up to 12m, EDCII 12m to 50m, EDCIII when taller
On soil class B—EDCI for up to 12m, EDCII 12m to 50m, EDCIII when taller
On soil class C—EDCI for up to 12m, EDCII 12m to 50m, EDCIII when taller
On soil class D—EDCII for up to 25m, EDCIII when taller

In Adelaide/Maitland/Wyong/North-West coast of Aust. (kpZ = 0.13):

On soil class A—EDCII for up to 50m, EDCIII when taller
On soil class B—EDCII for up to 50m, EDCIII when taller
On soil class C—EDCII for up to 25m, EDCIII when taller
On soil class D—EDCII for up to 25m, EDCIII when taller

7. Selection of configuration; design of materials

Once a design analysis is required, the structural configuration must be selected with resulting
Sp/Mu values. As the Sp/Mu value reduces, the structure will absorb increasing energy and
therefore is designed for less direct load but for more plastic capacity. For the lowest values (i.e.,
highest ductility), dynamic analysis should be used and sophisticated methods are employed to
establish the plastic capacity and ductility available at joints and designated hinges. At the other
extreme, for the highest values (Sp/Mu = 1.0) the structure is designed to remain fully elastic
under the full loads.

For moderately ductile structures such as shear walls, ‘ordinary’ moment resisting frames,
braced frames, and similar, there is no explicit design of plastic hinges. The ductility is achieved
by applying the detailing provided in the materials design Standards currently in use.

It should be noted that there will be a need to revise AS 3600, AS 4100 and AS 3700 as these
refer directly to the Earthquake design categories in the 1993 edition and should be modified to
provide different detailing for the different values of Mu.

——————

8. Annex A—Function of AS/NZS 1170.0

AS/NZS 1170.0 Structural design actions Part 0: General principles provides the link between
the limit states actions imposed on the structure and the design of materials for resistance. As
background it should be noted that the format embodied in the new AS/NZS 1170 series of
Standards (set out most comprehensively in Appendix F of Part 0 and it’s Commentary) is
founded on work done in the APEC TG1 Informal network. This was a group of loading experts
from across the APEC region that met to create a means of establishing inter-changeability
between the loading codes of different nations. The motivation for this move is the GATT
agreement and the reduction of technical barriers to trade.

The basic aim is to state the design event in terms of the annual probability of the action being
exceeded. The load is then defined for any annual probability of exceedance so that the design
event is independent of the technical definition of the loads. This can be clearly seen in the wind
Standard where AS/NZS 1170.2 is simply the technical solution that gives the loads
independently of the annual probability of exceedance (design event) which is set elsewhere.

One of the fundamental principles of this approach is the removal of hidden factors through the
provision of an umbrella document that defines the loading and resistance levels for design using
the design event approach. This led to the development of Part 0.

This APEC work has been taken through to the ISO arena and will be embodied into the next
generation of International Standards from ISO TC98 Basis for design of structures.

AS/NZS 1170.0 is of relevance to AS 1170.4 as it provides the combinations and design events
(via the BCA) for use with AS 1170.4.

9. Annex B—List of changes

The following list is a copy of the list in the Preface of DR 04303. It includes the main changes
from AS 1170.4—1993 at that time:
a) Importance factors have been replaced with variable annual probability of exceedance, to
enable design to be set by the use of a single performance parameter. Values of
earthquake hazard are determined using the return period factor determined from the
annual probability of exceedance (see AS/NZS 1170.0).
b) Combinations of actions are now given in AS/NZS 1170.0.
c) Clauses on domestic structures have been simplified and moved to an Appendix.
d) Soil profile descriptors have been replaced with 5 new site sub-soil classes.
e) Site factors and the effect of sub-soil conditions have been replaced with spectral shape
factor in the form of response spectra that vary depending on the fundamental natural
period of the structure.
f) The 5 earthquake design categories have been simplified to 3 new categories simply
described as: I—a minimum static check; II—static analysis; and III—dynamic analysis.
g) The option to allow no analysis or detailing for some structures has been removed
(except for importance level 1 structures).
h) All requirements for each of the earthquake design categories are collected together in a
single clause (in Section 5) with reference to the Sections on static and dynamic analysis.
i) The 50 m height limitation on ordinary moment resisting frames has been removed but
dynamic analysis is required above 50 m.
j) Due to new site sub-soil spectra, adjustments were needed to simple design rules
throughout the Standard. The basic static and dynamic methods have not changed in this
respect.
k) The equation for base shear has been aligned with international methods.
l) Structural response factor has been replaced by the combination of structural
performance factor and structural ductility factor (1/Rf replaced by Sp/µ) and the values
modified for some structure types.
m) A new method has been introduced for the calculation of the fundamental natural period
of the structure. The Clause on torsion effects has been simplified.
n) The Clause on stability effects has been removed.
o) The requirement to design some structures for vertical components of earthquake action
has been removed.
p) Scaling of results has been removed from the dynamic analysis.
q) The Section on structural alterations has been removed.
r) The clauses on parts and components have been simplified.
s) The informative Appendices have been removed.