Researches about the conversion relationships among the

parameters of ground motions in the seismic design

codes of China, America and Europe

Luo Kaihai, Wang Yayong

Institute of Earthquake Engineering, China Academy of Building Research, Beijing

SUMMARY:
By the comparison between the seismic design codes of China and America and Europe about the site
classification and the seismic hazard characteristics, this paper determines the coincidence relations of the site
classifications among the three codes, presents the conversion relationships between the parameters of ground
motions in China Code and that in the other Codes, and the parameter values of ground motions of Chinese
seismic zones in the forms of America Code and Europe Code

Keywords: seismic design; site classification; seismic hazard characteristics; parameters of ground motions.

1. INSTRUCTIONS

Now almost every country had its own engineering design criterion, but there were many differences
among those criteria with respect to the design ideas, the design concepts, the design requirements and
so on. So, for the Chinese enterprises which prepare participating in international competition, the
principle problem is how to learn, understand and apply a fire-new technical criterion. By the
comparison between the seismic design codes of China and America and Europe about the site
classification and the seismic hazard characteristics, this paper presents the conversion relationships
between the parameters of ground motions in China Code and that in the other Codes. It was wished to
have some helps to understand and apply the seismic design codes of America and Europe

2. SITE CLASSIFICATION

The seismic design codes of worldwide had considered the site effects on the design earthquake in
different degrees, that is, to classify the site in accordance with its seismic responses, and adopt
different design earthquake for different site classification. The China code, Code for seismic design of
buildings GB 50011-2001, the America code, 2003 International Building Code(IBC-2003) and
SEI/ASCE 7-02 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures(ASCE7-02), and the
Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and
rules for buildings(EN 1998-1:2004) had all presented the methods for site classification (seen Table
1~3), and adopted different design response spectra for different site. In the same code, there were
obvious differences in the heights (αmax or SDS) and the widths (Tg or Ts) of the flat phases of the design
response spectra. In additional, these differences also exist between the different codes. These facts
indicated that the site classes have important impacts on the determining of the seismic actions on the
structures.

2.1 The China Code GB50011-2001

The China code GB50011-2001 specified that the site class of building structures shall be classified
according to the equivalent shear-wave velocity of soil and the site overlying depth as guideline.
The site overlaying depth shall be determined in according to the following provisions:

1. In generally, the overlaying depth shall be determined according to the distance from the ground
surface to a soil-layer level, which any profile under such level of soil having the shear-wave
velocity more than 500m/s.

2. For a soil layer, which depth lower than 5 m underground and the shear-wave velocity is more
than 2.5 times of that in above this soil layer and is not less than 400m/s, then the overlaying
thickness may be adopted the distance from the ground surface to this layer.

3. The lone-stone and lenticular-soil with a shear-wave velocity greater than 500m/s shall be deemed
the same as surrounding soil profile.

4. The hard volcanic inter-bedded rock in the soil profile shall be deemed as rigid body and its
thickness shall be deducted from the overlaying thickness.

The equivalent shear-wave velocity of the soil profile shall be calculated according to the following
equation:

v se  d 0 / t (1)

n
t   (d i / vsi ) (2)
i 1

Where, vse is equivalent shear wave velocity, in m/s; d0 is the calculated depth, in m, and it shall be taken as
the minor of both the overlaying thickness and 20m; t is the transmission time of the shear-wave from the
ground surface to the calculated depth; di is the thickness of the i-th soil layer within the range of calculated
depth, in m; vi is the shear-wave velocity of the i-th soil layer within the calculated depth, in m/s; and n is
number of soil layers within the range of calculated depth.

The construction sites shall be classified as one of four site classes defined in Table 1 depend on the
equivalent shear-wave velocity and the overlaying depth of soil profile. Only the values of the reliable
shear-wave velocity and/or the overlaying depth are near to the dividing line of the listed site values in
Table 1, the design characteristic period value shall be permitted to determine by the interpolation method
in calculating the seismic action.

Table 1 The site classification of China code GB50011-2001

Site
Equivalent shear-wave Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ
velocity (m/s)
Overlaying depth of soil profile for site classification, in m
vse>500 0
500≥vse>250 <5 ≥5
250≥vse>140 <3 3~50 >50
vse≤140 <3 3~15 >15~80 >80

2.2 The America Code IBC-2003

In the America code IBC-2003, the site classes were defined in Table 2. Where site-specific data are not
available to a depth of 100 feet (30 480 mm), appropriate soil properties are permitted to be estimated by
the registered design professional preparing the soils report based on known geologic conditions.
 Table 2 The site classification of America code IBC-2003
Average properties in top 100 feet
Site Class Soil profile name Soil shear wave velocity standard penetration soil undrained shear
vs resistance, N strength, su(psf)
(ft/s)
AUS Hard rock vs > 5,000

BUS Rock 2,500 < vs ≤ 5,000

Very dense soil and
CUS
soft rock 1,200 < vs ≤ 2,500 N>50 Su>2,000

DUs Stiff soil profile 600 ≤ vs ≤ 1,200 15≤N≤50 1,000≤Su≤2,000

EUS Soft soil profile vs < 600 N<15 Su<1,000

2.3 The Europe Code EN 1998-1:2004

In the Europe Code EN 1998-1: 2004, in order to consider the influence of local ground conditions and
deep geology on the seismic action, the site shall be classified as Ground types AEN, BEN, CEN, DEN, or EEN,
described by the stratigraphic profiles and parameters given in Table 3.

Table 3 The site classification of Europe code EN 1998-1: 2004

Parameters
Ground NSPT
Description of stratigraphic profile vs,30 (m/s)
type (blows/30c cu (kPa)
m)
Rock or other rock-like geological formation, including
AEN > 800
at most 5 m of weaker material at the surface.
Deposits of very dense sand, gravel, or very stiff clay,
at least several tens of meters in thickness,
BEN 360 – 800 > 50 > 250
characterized by a gradual increase of mechanical
properties with depth.
Deep deposits of dense or medium dense sand, gravel
CEN or stiff clay with thickness from several tens to many 180 – 360 15 - 50 70 - 250
hundreds of meters.
Deposits of loose-to-medium cohesionless soil (with or
DEN without some soft cohesive layers), or of < 180 < 15 < 70
predominantly soft-to-firm cohesive soil.
A soil profile consisting of a surface alluvium layer
with vs values of type CEN or DEN and thickness varying
EEN
between about 5 m and 20 m, underlain by stiffer
material with vs > 800 m/s.

2.4 The relationships between the site classes of the three Codes

All the parameters of ground motion for seismic design in the three codes were presented in the basis
of site reference, for example, in China, the reference is site class II; in America, the reference is site
class BUS; and in Europe, the reference is ground type AEN; furthermore, there were a lot of differences
between the site references of the three codes. So, if we want to give the conversion relationships
among the parameters of ground motions in the seismic design codes of China, America and Europe,
we must know the relationships between the site classes of the three codes clearly, especially the
relationships of the site references. It can be found out from the site classifications of the three codes
that there were obvious differences between the three classifications with respect on the number of
parameters, calculated depth, confirming of the rock top and so on.
For the sake of convenient for comparison, we ignore the differences of the confirming of the rock top
and the methods for the menstruations of the shear-wave velocities in the three codes, and extend the
calculated depth of China code from 20 meters to 30 meters. And according to the principle of
maintaining the site classes, we re-estimate the equivalent shear-wave velocity of site class II in China
code. The assumptions used in the calculations were as follows:

1. The shear-wave velocity of the soil layers below the overlaying were taken as 500 m/s;

2. When the overlaying depth of soil profile, dov, was greater than 20 meters, the shear-wave
velocity of the soil layers which depths were between 20 meters and dov were taken as 1.3v20;

3. When the value of v20 was less than 140m/s, the low limit of v20 was taken as 70m/s.

Figure 1. The site classes in IBC-2003 Figure 2. The ground types in EN 1998-1:2004

The site classifications of IBC-2003 and ground types of EN 1998-1:2004 were shown in Figure 1
and Figure 2, respectively, and in which the shaded areas were the conversion scopes of the site class
II of China code GB 5001-2001. It can be seen from the two figures that:

1. the site class II of China code was corresponding to the site class CUS or DUS of America code and
the ground type BEN or CEN of Europe code approximately;

2. the ground type AEN of Europe code was corresponding to the site class AUS and BUS of America
code, and the ground type BEN, CEN and DEN in EN 1998-1:2004 were corresponding to the site
class CUS, DUS and EUS in IBC-2003, respectively.

3. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERISTICS

The probability levels of the fortification earthquakes used in the China, America and Europe code
were different, for example, in China, the probability of exceedance of the fortification earthquake was
10% in 50 years; in America, the 2% in 50 years ground motions were selected as the maximum
considered earthquake ground motions; and in Europe, the design seismic action for the no-collapse
requirement was expressed in terms of the reference seismic action with a reference probability of
exceedance, 10% in 50 years. So, we must find out the relationships between the ground motions with
different probabilities of exceedance or return periods in order to convert the parameters of ground
motions among the seismic design codes in China, America and Europe.

3.1. The China Code GB 50011-2001

The fortification principle with three level ground motions was adopted in China code GB 50011-2001.
The three level ground motions were frequent earthquake, basic intensity earthquake and rare
earthquake, that is, the so-called little earthquake, moderate earthquake and great earthquake, with the
probabilities of exceedance of 63.2%, 10% and 2~3% in 50 years or the return periods of about 50
years, 475 years and 2475~1642years, respectively(Wang Yayong, 2006). The intensities or the peak
accelerations of ground motions corresponding to the moderate earthquake were presented by the
seismic intensity zonation map or seismic ground motion parameter zonation map. And then, taking
the intensity I of moderate earthquake as the benchmark, we defined the intensity of little earthquake
as I-1.55, and the intensity of great earthquake as I+1.0. In fact, such definitions were only the average
results of the seismic hazard analysis for some cities according to the 1977 edition Seismic Intensity
Zonation Map of China, and different from the average results of every edition seismic intensity
zonation maps after the year of 1977. Furthermore, according to the seismic hazard analysis, the
relationship of the seismic intensities or the peak accelerations of seismic ground motions with
different return periods was not constant but variational with zone. For a certain site or a special region,
if we define the little earthquake and great earthquake by the probability of exceedance or return
period, the intensity differences of the little earthquake and great earthquake to moderate earthquake
were generally unequal to -1.55 and 1.0; if we define the little earthquake and great earthquake by the
intensity differences of the little earthquake and great earthquake to moderate earthquake with -1.55
and 1.0, the return period of little earthquake and great earthquake were generally unequal to 50 years
and 1975years(Zhou Xiyuan,2002). Actually, from the statistic analysis for the results of seismic
hazard analysis of 7,000 regions of China made by Gao Mengtan in 1992, the intensity differences of
the great earthquake to moderate earthquake were less than 1.0 at large, and with distinct regionality.

In order to keep the continuity of seismic design code, GB50011-2001 still used the definitions by
intensity differences. For the sake of convenient for engineering application, GB50011-2001 presented
the peak accelerations of ground motions corresponding to seismic fortification intensities. In
GB50011-2001, for the regions with same basic seismic intensity, the relationship of the peak
accelerations of ground motions or seismic intensity to return period was unique, that is, the seismic
hazard characteristic or the seismic hazard curve was invariable. According to the definitions for little
earthquake and great earthquake used in China code and the assumptions as following, we can
approximately determine the seismic hazard curves for each seismic intensity region. As shown in the
Figure 3, it was the seismic hazard curves of different intensity regions in China, and Table 4 gives
the ratios of the peak accelerations of seismic ground motions with other return periods to that of
ground motions with return period of 475 years, that is, the return period modification factors CN. It
can be seen from the Figure 3 and Table 4 that with the increasing of the basic intensity (or the peak
accelerations of basic seismic ground motions), the seismic hazard curves tend to flat, and the return
period modification factors CN decline gradually.

Table 4 The ratios CN of the peak accelerations of seismic ground motions with other return periods to
that of the 475-year return period ground motions
Ratios ( CN )
Return Period
Intensity VII Intensity VII Intensity VIII Intensity VIII Intensity IX
(Year)
(0.10g) （0.15g） （0.20g） （0.30g）
50 0.35 0.37 0.35 0.37 0.35
475 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1975 2.51 2.31 2.00 1.70 1.50
2500 2.97 2.69 2.25 1.84 1.58
 800 4.0
Intensity VII Intensity VII
700 Intensity VII (0.15g) 3.5 Intensity VII (0.15g)
Intensity VIII (0.20g) Intensity VIII (0.20g)
600 Intensity VIII (0.30g) 3.0 Intensity VIII (0.30g)
Intensity IX Intensity IX
500
(g/1000)

2.5

Ratio
400 2.0

300 1.5
PGA

200 1.0

100
0.5

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

` Return Period (Years) Return Period (Years)

(a) the relationship between peak accelerations of seismic (b) the normalization relationship between peak
ground motions and return periods accelerations of seismic ground motions and return periods

Figure 3. The seismic hazard curves of different intensity regions in China

3.2 The America Code IBC-2003

Before the year of 2000, the seismic ground motions with probability of exceedance, 10% in 50years,
were always used as the design earthquake in the Uniform Building Code of America. But some
research results (see Kennedy et al. 1994; Cornell, 1994 and Ellingwood, 1994）indicated that if a
structure is subjected to a ground motion 1.5 times the design earthquake, the structure should have a
low likelihood of collapse, however, when the ground motions are greater than 1.5 times the design
earthquake, the probability of structural collapse will increase rapidly. So, the concept of seismic
margin which was equal to 1.5 times the design earthquake was presented in the 1997 Edition NEHRP
Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures. On the
other hand, due to the differences of the seismic structures and the earthquake source mechanisms, the
relationships between peak accelerations of seismic ground motions and returns periods have regional
differences as shown in Figure 4 and Table 5. It can be observed in the figure that the difference
between the 10% in 50 years ground motion and the 2% in 50 years ground motion in the western
United States is typically less than the difference between these two probabilities in less active seismic
areas such as those in the central and eastern United States. For example in Los Angeles and San
Francisco, California, the ratio (hereinafter named the return period modification factors US ) between
the 0.2 second spectral acceleration for the 2% in 50 years and the 10% in 50 years is about 1.5;
whereas in other parts of the United States the ratio varies from 2.0 to 5.0 and more in some areas.
Differences such as these raised a question that a same design level based on 10% in 50 years ground
motions for the entire United States would result in not the same levels of seismic safety for structures
in all regions. In order to provide a uniform level of safety across the country against collapse in the
maximum considered earthquake, 1997 NEHRP provisions and 2000 International Building Code
(IBC) defined the 2500-year return period earthquake ( 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) as
the seismic margin, that is, the maximum considered earthquake (MCE), and determined the design
earthquake equal to two-third ( the reciprocal of 1.5) of MCE (see Leyendecker, E.V 2000).

Table 5. Ratio US of spectral acceleration at 0.2 seconds for 2%-50yrs to 10% - 50yrs
City name Ratio US
Los Angeles 1.7
San Francisco 1.7
New York City 3.3
Charleston 5.0
Memphis 5.1
 Figure 4. Normalized hazard curves for some cities of USA (Leyendecker et al, 2000)

3.3 The Europe Code EN 1998-1:2004

Two fortification levels were employed in the Europe code EN 1998-1:2004, that is, subjected to the
design seismic action with 475-year-return period, the structure shall have no local or global collapse;
subjected to the frequent earthquake with 95-year-return period, the structure shall have no occurrence
of damage and the associated limitations of use, the costs of which would be disproportionately high
in comparison with the costs of the structure itself. The design earthquake and the frequent earthquake
were mainly presented by the National Authorities, and may be founded in the National Annex.

And meanwhile, EN 1998-1:2004 presented a reduction factor v to take into account the determination
of the frequent earthquake from the design earthquake. The value of the reduction factor v may also
depend on the importance class of the building. The values to be ascribed to v for use in a country may
be found in its National Annex. Different values of v may be defined for the various seismic zones of a
country, depending on the seismic hazard conditions and on the protection of property objective. The
recommended values of v are 0.4 for importance classes III and IV and v = 0.5 for importance classes I
and II.

The EN 1998-1:2004 also presented recommended seismic hazard curve, that is, the annual rate of
exceedance, H(agR), of the reference peak ground acceleration agR may be taken to vary with agR as
following equation:

H (agR )  k o(agR )  k （3）

with the value of the exponent k depending on seismicity, but being generally of the order of 3.

4. CONVERSION BETWEEN THE PARAMETERS OF GROUND MOTIONS IN CHINA

AND AMERICA CODES
4.1 The parameters for China cities in terms of that in America code

For a certain city in China, the basic intensity earthquake and the design earthquake group can be
found in Seismic ground motion parameter zonation map of China GB18306-2001 and Code for
seismic design of buildings GB50011-2001. So, the parameters of ground motions for the city in
terms of that in America code IBC-2003 can be determined by the following equations.

Ss  2.5 CN Acc / Fa (4)

S1  2.5 CNTg Acc / Fv (5)

Where Ss and S1 are the mapped maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration at
short period and 1-second period for site class BUS in IBC-2003, respectively. Fa and Fv are the
acceleration-related and velocity-related soil factors, respectively, for a site class CUS or DUS in
IBC-2003 that was corresponding to site class II in China code. Acc Is the basic peak acceleration of
ground motion corresponding to the basic intensity earthquake in China code; Tg is the design
characteristic period of ground motion of site class II in China code, and CN is the return period
modification factor, determined from Table 6 by the return period as 2500 years.

Applying the calculation methods above can give the parameters of ground motions for each
intensity region in China code in terms of that in America code IBC-2003, as shown in Table 8,9.

Table 8 the spectral response acceleration for intensity regions of China (IIC) (Unit :g)
Intensity VII Intensity VII Intensity VIII Intensity VIII Intensity IX
Parameter
(0.10g) (0.15g) (0.20g) (0.30g) (0.40g)
Ss 0.65 1.01 1.13 1.38 1.58
S1(1st Group) 0.16 0.22 0.25 0.33 0.39
S1(2nd Group) 0.18 0.26 0.30 0.39 0.48
S1(3rd Group) 0.21 0.30 0.35 0.46 0.55
Note: IIC indicates that the site class II in China code is corresponding to site class CUS in America code.

Table 9 the spectral response acceleration for intensity regions of China (IID) (Unit :g)
Intensity VII Intensity VII Intensity VIII Intensity VIII Intensity IX
Parameter
(0.10g) (0.15g) (0.20g) (0.30g) (0.40g)
Ss 0.55 0.89 1.04 1.38 1.58
S1(1st Group) 0.11 0.17 0.20 0.26 0.31
S1(2nd Group) 0.13 0.20 0.23 0.31 0.40
S1(3rd Group) 0.15 0.24 0.28 0.38 0.46
Note: IID indicates that the site class II in China code is corresponding to site class DUS in America code.

4.2 The parameters for America cities in terms of that in China code

For a given city in United States, the maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration
at short period Ss and 1-second period S1can be determined in accordance with the provisions of
IBC-2003 and SEI/ASCE 7-02, and the corresponding parameters of ground motions in
GB50011-2001 can be derived from Equation (6).
 Fa Ss Fv S1
Acc  Tg  (6)
2.5 US Fa Ss

When the basic peak acceleration Acc of ground motion with 475-year return period for site class II
was calculated by the equation (6), the intensity region which shall be consistent with China code for a
certain America city can be determined according to the provisions of GB50011-2001, and
furthermore, the parameter αmax for seismic design of buildings may be defined (seen Table 10).

Table 10 the parameters of seismic ground motions for some America cities in terms of that in China code
IIC IID
Calculating Calculating
City results Intensity & design results Intensity & design
earthquake group Acc earthquake group
Acc (g) Tg (s) Tg (s)
(g)
Intensity IX Intensity IX
Los Angeles 0.471 0.65 rd 0.471 0.75
3 group 3rd group
Intensity VIII(0.30g) Intensity VIII(0.30g)
San Francisco 0.353 0.77 0.353 0.89
3rd group 3rd group
Intensity VI Intensity VI
Memphis 0.078 0.45 0.086 0.49
3rd group 3rd group
Note: IIC indicates that the site class II in China code is corresponding to site class CUS in America code.
IID indicates that the site class II in China code is corresponding to site class DUS in America code.

5. CONVERSION BETWEEN THE PARAMETERS OF GROUND MOTIONS IN CHINA

AND EUROPE CODES

Because the same probability level of 10% in 50 years was adopted in China and Europe code for
seismic ground motion parameter zonation, the seismic design ground motion parameters in the two
codes can be directly used for each other without the conversion for return period. But, due to the
differences of the reference site, the site effects must be considered carefully.

For a given city in China, the parameters of ground motions in terms of that in Europe code
EN1998-1:2004 can be determined by the following equation.

ag  Acc / S (7)

For a certain city in Europe, the corresponding design ground motion parameters of the China code
GB50011-2001 can be determined by equation (8).

Acc  S  ag ， Tg  Tc (8)

Where ag is the peak acceleration of the seismic design ground motions for ground type AEN in
EN1998-1:2004. S is the soil factor for ground type BEN or CEN in EN1998-1:2004 that was
corresponding to site class II in China code. Acc is the basic peak acceleration of ground motion
corresponding to the basic intensity earthquake in China code.

6 . CONCLUSIONS
By the comparison between the seismic design codes of China and America and Europe about the site
classification and the seismic hazard characteristics, this paper presents the conversion relationships
between the parameters of ground motions in China Code and that in America Code and Europe Code,
and simultaneously, with the following conclusions:

(1) The site class II of China code was corresponding to the site class CUS or DUS of America code
and the ground type BEN or CEN of Europe code approximately.

(2) The ground type AEN of Europe code was corresponding to the site class AUS and BUS of America
code, and the ground type BEN, CEN and DEN in EN 1998-1:2004 were corresponding to the site
class CUS, DUS and EUS in IBC-2003, respectively.

(3) The probability levels of the fortification earthquakes used in the China, America and Europe
code were different, so the special attention shall be given to the relationships between the ground
motions with different probabilities of exceedance or return periods, that is, the seismic hazard
characteristics, when the America code or Europe code was used in China.

(4) The parameters for China cities in terms of that in America code and Europe code can be
determined by the Equation (4), (5) and (7).

(5) The parameters for America cities and Europe cities in terms of that in China code can be
determined by Equation (6) and Equation (8), respectively.

REFERENCES

National Standard of The People’s Republic Of China, GB 50011-2001 Code for seismic design of buildings,
China Architecture & Building Press. October 2001
International Code Council, Inc. 2003 International Building Code. May 2003
ASCE Standard. SEI/ASCE 7-02 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. 2003
European Standard. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic
actions and rules for buildings . EN 1998-1:2004.
Wang Yayong, Dai Guoying, The question answers of the Code for seismic design of buildings, China
Architecture & Building Press. October 2006
Zhou Xiyuan, Zeng Demin, Gao Xiaoan, 2002, A simplified method for estimating design basic intensity of
structure with different service period, Building structure, Vol.32, No.1
Zhou Yongnian, 2000, Considerations in earthquake design levels, Journal of building structures, 21(2): 17-20
Gao Mengtan, Han Wei, 1992, The Evaluation of Small, Medium and Large Earthquakes, Earthquake
Engineering Research Corpus, Earthquake Press
Leyendecker, E.V., Hunt, R,J., Frankel, A.D., and Rukstales, K.S., 2000, Development of Maximum Considered
Earthquake Ground Motion Maps, Earthquake Spectra, 16,21-40.
BSSC,1998, 1997 Edition NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and
Other Structures, FEMA 302/303, Part 1 (Provisions) and Part 2 (Commentary), Washington, DC.
Guy J. P. Nordenson, and Glenn R. Bell, 2000, Seismic Design Requirements for Regions of Moderate Seismicity,
Earthquake Spectra, 16,205-226
National Standard of The People’s Republic Of China, GB 18306-2001 Seismic Ground Motion Parameter
Zonation Map of China. China Criterion Press, 2001.