Standards for seismic design of building structures have been applied in China since 1978 However, the Chinese seismic design philosophy is quite different from the capacity design philosophy incorporated in New Zealand's Standards. In this paper, the disadvantages of Chinese Standards designed RC frame structures (potential structural flexural and shear collapses when subjected to “large earthquakes” at ultimate limit state level) are discussed when compared to New Zealand Standards designed frame structures. To suppress the potential flexural collapse, a cycling research project is presented, comprising of member experimental tests for hysteresis loops (further for hysteresis models), inelastic dynamic time-history analyses for seismic damage assessment purposes (taking overall structural displacement ductility as principle damage measurement), redesign of members if flexural collapse is predicted, experimental tests again of redesigned members etc. Meanwhile, having the potential shear collapse suppressed, the capacity design procedure needs to be applied to seismic design, leading to quantify the structural displacement ductility capacities.
BS8110 (1989). Structural Use of Concrete: Part 1. Code of Practice for Design and Construction, British Standard, British Standards Institution, London, UK.
2.
CarrA.J. and TabuchiM. (1993). “The structural ductility and the damage index for reinforced concrete structure under seismic excitation”, Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN'93, Trondheim, Norway, June, Vol. 1, pp. 169–176.
3.
CarrA. (1994). “Dynamic analysis of structures”, Bulletin of New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 129–146.
4.
CarrA.J. (2002). User's Manual of RUAUMOKO, The Maori God of Volcanoes and Earthquakes, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
5.
CS (1978). Standards for Seismic Design of Industry and Civil Buildings (TJll-78), The State Construction Committee, China. (in Chinese)
6.
CS (1989). Standards for Seismic Design of Buildings (GBJ11–89), The Ministry of Construction, China. (in Chinese)
7.
CS (2001). Standards for Seismic Design of Buildings (GB50011–2001), The Ministry of Construction, China. (in Chinese)
8.
CSA A23.3–94 (1994). Design of Concrete Structures, Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
9.
DongP. (2003). Effect of Varying Hysteresis Models and Damage Models on Damage Assessment of R/C Structures Under Standard Design Level Earthquakes Obtained Using a New Scaling Method, PhD Thesis, The University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
10.
DongP. and ChandlerA. M. (2008). “Minimum member curvature ductility capacity for a 10-storey R/C framed structure to survive future code design level earthquake excitations in Hong Kong”, Proceedings of Tenth International Symposium on Structural Engineering for Young Experts, Changsha, China, October.
11.
EC2 (2004). Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
12.
IdrissI.M. and SunJ.I. (1992). User's Manual for SHAKE 91, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Maryland, USA and Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, USA.
13.
IHEE (1994). International Handbook of Earthquake Engineering: Codes, Programs and Examples, Chapman and Hall, New York, USA.
LamN.T.K.WilsonJ.L. and HutchinsonG.L. (2000). “Generation of synthetic earthquake accelerograms using seismological modelling: A review”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 321–354.
16.
NewmarkN.M. and VeletsosA.S. (1960). “Effect of behaviour of simple systems to earthquake motion”, Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, July, pp. 895–912.
17.
NZS3101 (1995). Concrete Structures Standard, Standards New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
18.
NZS1170.5 (2004). Structural Design Actions Part 5: Earthquake Actions – New Zealand, Standards New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
19.
OtaniS. (1981). “Hysteresis models of reinforced concrete for earthquake response analysis”, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 125–159.
20.
ParkR. and PaulayT. (1975). Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.
21.
PaulayT. (1977). “Seismic design of ductile moment resisting reinforced concrete frames, columns: Evaluation of actions”, Bulletin of New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 85–94.
22.
PaulayT. (1979). “Capacity design of earthquake resisting ductile multi-storey reinforced concrete frames”, Proceedings of the 3rd Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Montreal, Canada, Vol. 2, pp. 917–948.
23.
PaulayT. (1980). “Deterministic design procedure for ductile frames in seismic areas”, ACI Special Publication, Vol. 63, pp. 357–381.
24.
PaulayT. (1988). “Seismic design in reinforced concrete: The state of the art in New Zealand”, Bulletin of New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 57–69.
25.
PaulayT. and PriestleyM.J.N. (1992). Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.
26.
PriestleyM.J.N.SeibleF. and CalviG.M. (1996). Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.
27.
PriestleyM.J.N. and KowalskyM.J. (2000). “Direct displacement-based seismic design of concrete buildings”, Bulletin of New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 421–444.
28.
PriestleyM.J.N. (2003). Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering, The Mallet Milne Lecture, IUSS Press.
29.
TP (1987). Seismic Design of Concrete Structures, Technical Press, New York, USA.
30.
USGS (2008). Magnitude 7.9 – Eastern Sichuan, China, the United States Geological Survey, 12 May.
31.
XNA (2008). Magnitude of SW China Earthquake Revised to 8.0, Xinhua News Agency, 18 May.
