ASIAN JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING (BUILDING AND HOUSING) VOL. 12, NO.

5 (2011)
PAGES 579-596

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE SEISMIC PROVISIONS OF

IRANIAN SEISMIC CODE (STANDARD NO. 2800) AND
INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE 2003
N. Imashi and A. Massumi*
Department of Civil Engineering, Tarbiat Moallem University, Tehran, Iran
Received: 15 September 2010 Accepted: 2 March 2011

ABSTRACT
This article provides a comparison process on how to calculate seismic forces by the static
analysis method stated both in the international Building Code (IBC) 2003 and in the Iranian
Seismic Code (IS 2800-05). The seismic coefficient for the equivalent lateral force is
specified by the following factors: fundamental period, importance factor, spectral response
acceleration, and building response modification factor. In this article the above-mentioned
parameters are obtained through the IBC 2003 and are compared against those covered in
the IS 2800-05. Studies and comparison of factors would lead to significant differences in
the results obtained using the two codes. In order to clarify the problem, design base shear of
a building with combined system (special moment steel frames + eccentric bracings) in four
different soil types and vertical distribution of base shear at story level is obtained, in
accordance with both codes; and the results are compared with diagrams and tables. The
results prove the need to review the IS 2800-05 and develop more appropriate relations
towards achieving economic and functional objectives.

Keywords: Iranian seismic code (IS 2800-05); international building code 2003 (IBC
2003); seismic forces; static analysis method; equivalent lateral force
1. INTRODUCTION
The seismic prone plateau of Iran has registered frequent earthquake occurrences across the
land in its thousands-year-old history. Approval of and the requirement to apply the first
edition of the Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings (Standard No.
2800) was practically enacted in 1987 and 1988. Regulations available in this Code were
translations of some chapters of basic building regulations, issued by the US Building
Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA), and also certain building regulations of
National Building Code of Canada (NBC), 1970, Building Standard Law (BSL) of Japan,
*

E-mail address of the corresponding author: massumi@tmu.ac.ir (A. Massumi)

580

N. Imashi and A. Massumi

1960 and France. The second edition, incorporating criteria of the Uniform Building Code
(UBC 1994), was developed in 1997 which enjoyed greater safety level. Reviewing the
second edition started in 2000 leading to the third edition, approved and officially
announced and imparted and for design, control and inspection of buildings in 2005 [1].
Before 2000, three regional model Codes prevailed in the United States; the UBC Code
in west, the BOCA Code in north and the Standard Building Code (SBC) was prevalent in
the south of that country. The International Council of Codes was established in 1994 to
develop the unique comprehensive code not bound by regional limitations; and it ultimately
formulated the International Building Code (IBC 2000) as the first publication. IBC 2003
was the next version, which was developed based on the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) instructions in the framework of National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program (NEHRP) recommending certain precautions to improve seismic regulations for
new buildings [2].
Since the IS 2800-05 is derived from UBC 1994 and BOCA 1978, which have undergone
major changes over the years, this study aims to compare factors effective in specifying
seismic force by the static method covered in both the IBC 2003 and the IS 2800-05 and to
examine strengths and weaknesses of the IS 2800-05.

2. DESIGN BASE SHEAR

According to IS 2800-05, seismic lateral force for regular buildings to 50 meters high and
irregular buildings to 18 meters high or five stories above the base level may be obtained by
the equivalent static analysis method. In this analysis approach, base shear is obtained from
Eq. (1):
(1)
V = C W
where W is the effective weight of building (all dead load + a percentage of live load) and C
is the seismic response coefficient. This factor is, in accordance with Eq. (2):
C=

ABI
R

(2)

where A is the function of design baseline acceleration, B is the reflection coefficient of the
building, I is the importance factor and R is the response modification factor. The minimum
value of V is Vmin= 0.1AIW [3].
IBC 2003, the earthquake lateral force, effective on the structure may be calculated by
static analysis methods, including Index Force Analysis Procedure, Simplified Analysis
Procedure, and Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure. Index Force Analysis Procedure may be
applied for either regular or irregular structures assigned to seismic design category A.
Simplified Analysis Procedure may be applied for all structures assigned to seismic
design category A, B, and C, both regular and irregular and Equivalent Lateral Force
Analysis, in addition to the above cases, is also applicable to some of the regular and
irregular structures assigned to seismic design category D, E, and F with period smaller of

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SEISMIC PROVISIONS BETWEEN IRANIAN...

581

3.5 TS (TS = SD1/SDS). In the Index Force Analysis structures designed to resist the minimum
lateral force, Fx, applied at each level given by Eq. (3): in which Wx is the portion of the total
building weight at story level x.
Fx = 0.01 W x

(3)

In the two other procedures, seismic base Shear, V, will be determined in accordance with
Eq. (4):
(4)
V = CS W
where W, the effective seismic weight of the structure, includes the total dead loads and
some percentage of live and snow load [4]. The values considered in the code are slightly
different from those of IS 2800-05.
Cs is the seismic response coefficient which is, in simplified analysis procedure, the
function of response modification factor, R, and design spectral response acceleration at
short periods, SDS, and is given by Eq. (5).
CS =

1.2 S Ds
R

(5)

In the equivalent lateral force procedure, Cs is the function of response modification

factor, R, fundamental period, T, design spectral response acceleration at period of 1 second,
SD1, and importance factor of the structure, which is obtained from Eq. (6).
CS =

S D1
R
( )T
IE

(6)

The minimum value for Cs equals 0.44 SDS IE and shall not exceed SDS /(R / IE ). For
structures located in seismic design category E or F, and for those located in areas where
SI 0.6g, CS shall not be taken less than 0.5S1 /(R / IE ).
In order to incorporate the vertical component impacts of seismic force, the code takes
into account a combination of the conjugate impacts of horizontal and vertical components
of seismic force. The seismic force that must be considered in the combination of structural
load design is given by Eq. (7).
(7)
E = QE + 0.2 S DS D
The vertical component of seismic force is equal to 0.2 SDS D and includes up and down
pointing impacts of earthquake. In this equation, D is the effect of dead load, E is the
combined effect of horizontal and vertical earthquake-induced forces, QE is the effect of
horizontal seismic forces, SDS is the design spectral response acceleration at short periods
and to account for structural redundancy scale, the code offers a factor named redundancy
coefficient . where is a redundancy coefficient obtained in accordance with Eq. (8) [4].

N. Imashi and A. Massumi

582

= 2

6 .1
rmax AX

(8)

is a scalar between 1.0 and 1.5 and shall in no case be taken less than 1.0. rmax is the ratio
of design story shear resisted by the single element carrying the most shear force in the story
to the total story shear, for a given direction of loading. Ax is the floor area in m2 of the
diaphragm level immediately above the story [4]. This is also another difference between the
two codes. The IS 2800-05 incorporates the vertical earthquake-induced forces in few
special cases and it normally considers only the effect of horizontal seismic force in
structural calculations, except for the above cases; also, structural redundancy effect is not
explicitly foreseen by the code.
2.1 Soil classification
In IS 2800-05, soil is categorized into four groups I through IV and only the shear wave
velocity parameter is taken into consideration in this classification [3]. On the other hand,
there are six seismic site soil classifications, A through F in IBC 2003 and in addition to
considering shear wave velocity for soil classification, Standard Penetration Resistance N
(or NCH) and undrained Shear Strength of soil (Su) parameters are also taken into account,
such that having available one of the specifications, classification may often be done easily.
In case of uncertainty about soil type, IBC 2003 recommends that type D profile is selected
and profile E is chosen only if there is proof of such soil in the area [4]. However, it is stated
in IS 2800-05 that if there is any doubt on conformity of building site with soil type
specifications given in table, the soil profile offering greater reflection factor should be
selected [3]. Taking shear wave velocity in the ground as the base criterion, relation between
the two codes with respect to soil classification is given in Table 1.
Table 1: Comparison of soil profile classification in IS 2800-05 and IBC 2003
Soil profile name/generic
description

Average soil properties for top (30.480 m) of soil profile

Shear wave velocity
Vs(m/s)

Soil type in
IBC

Soil type in
2800

1500 Vs

I-a

Rock

750 Vs 1500

I-a

Very dense soil and soft rock

375 Vs 750

I-b, II

Stiff soil profile

175 Vs 375

III

Soft soil profile

Vs 175

IV

---

---

Hard rock

Soil requiring site-specific evaluation

2.2 Site ground motion

In IS 2800-05, cities and important places in Iran are divided into four regions in terms of
relative seismic hazard such that it may be very high (Base design acceleration = 0.35g), high

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SEISMIC PROVISIONS BETWEEN IRANIAN...

583

(Base design acceleration = 0.3g), medium (Base design acceleration = 0.25g) or low (Base
design acceleration = 0.2g) for different regions [3]. Considering earthquake occurrence risk in
different regions of each province and sectional division maps, six pro-seismic sections are
introduced in IBC 2003 and the mapped maximum considered earthquake spectral response
acceleration for the short period and 1-second period respectively denoted by Ss and S1 forms.
Two factors Fa and F are also defined in the code, which express nonlinear property of the soil
profile. Fa is the site coefficients for short periods and F is the site coefficients for the 1second periods the site coefficients and were multiplied by Ss and S1 respectively for each site
class, and is specified in Tables 2 and 3. They collectively incorporate the combined regional
seismicity impact and soil profile type [4].
Table 2: Values of site coefficient (Fa) as a function of site class, and mapped spectral response
acceleration at the short period (Ss)

Site class

Mapped maximum considered earthquake spectral response

acceleration at short period
Ss0.25

Ss=0.5

Ss=0.75

Ss=1.00

Ss=1.25

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.2

1.2

1.1

1.0

1.0

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.1

1.0

2.5

1.7

1.2

0.9

0.9

Table 3: Values of site coefficient (Fv) as a function of site class, and mapped spectral response
acceleration at 1-second period (S1)

Site class

Mapped maximum considered earthquake spectral response

acceleration at 1-second period
S10.1

S1=0.2

S1=0.3

S1=0.4

S10.5

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

2.4

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.5

3.5

3.2

2.8

2.4

2.4

b: in specifying proper values for Fa and F, geological research and dynamic analyses should be
carried out, except for structures with periods less than or equal to 0.5s [4].

N. Imashi and A. Massumi

584

2.3 Occupancy importance factor

From importance perspective, IS 2800-05 divides buildings in four groups and defines the
importance factor for very high importance buildings as 1.4, for high importance buildings
as 1.2, for average important buildings as 1.0, and for lesser importance buildings as 0.8 [3].
In IBC 2003 also, buildings were divided in four groups with the difference that importance
factor for the essential buildings (Seismic Use Group (SUG) III) is 1.5, for high importance
buildings (SUG II) 1.25 and for average and low importance buildings (SUG I) is 1.0 [4].
2.4 Fundamental period of building
The most common method to estimate vibration period of a building is from empirical
relations, considering building specifications (structure type) and its height from base level.
Empirical relations to calculate the fundamental period of the building is given in Table 4
for both codes.
Table 4: Comparison of empirical period in IS 2800-05 and IBC 2003
Structural system

IS 2800-05 (m)

IBC 2003 (ft)

IBC 2003 (m)

Steel moment-resisting frames

0.08H0.75

0.028H0.80

0.0724H0.80

Concrete moment-resisting frames

0.07H0.75

0.016H0.90

0.0466H0.90

Eccentrically braced steel frames

---

0.030H0.75

0.0731H0.75

All other structural systems

0.05H0.75

0.020H0.75

0.0488H0.75

Figure 1(a, b, c and d) shows periods calculated by two codes for 5, 10, 15 and 20 story
buildings, respectively (all stories height is equal to 3.40 m).
In the third edition of IS 2800-05 and in calculation of period, frames with concentric and
eccentric bracing are in one group whereas in IBC 2003, frames with eccentric bracing are
separated from concentric bracing group, with respect to period calculation relations. In fact
there is a distinction between the two codes in this regard. It seems that grouping the two
bracing systems in one setting to determine the fundamental period of building would be
problematic.
According to IS 2800-05, the fundamental period of building may be calculated using
analytical methods; in which case, the specified value shall not exceed 1.25 times the period
obtained by empirical relation [3].
In IBC 2003, the maximum period value for design purposes depends on design
acceleration response spectrum at 1-s period shall not be taken larger than CuTa, where Ta is
the approximate fundamental period of building with concrete and Steel moment frame
structure obtained from relation 0.1N (N number of stories) provided that building height
does not exceed 12 floors and that minimum height of each floor is 10 feet (3 m). It may be
noted that larger value of Cu are permitted as the soil-dependent seismic risk of a location
decreases (Table 5) [4].

2.5

2.5

2.0

2.0

1.5

1.5

T(s)

T(s)

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SEISMIC PROVISIONS BETWEEN IRANIAN...

585

1.0

IBC 2003

1.0

IBC 2003

0.5

IS2800-05

0.5

IS2800-05

0.0

0.0
5

10

15

20

10

No. of Stories

15

20

No. of Stories

(a) Steel moment frames

(b) Concrete moment frames

2.5

2.5
IBC 2003

2.0
1.5

T(s)

T(s)

IS2800-05

1.0
0.5

2.0

IBC 2003

1.5

IS2800-05

1.0
0.5

0.0

0.0
5

10

15

No. of Stories

(c) Concentric braced steel frames

20

10

15

No. of Stories
(d) Other buildings

Figure 1. Calculated periods by IBC 2003 and IS 2800-05 codes for 5, 10, 15 and 20 story
buildings, (all stories height is equal to 3.40 m)
Table 5: Coefficient for upper limit on calculated period
SD1

Cu

>0.4

1.4

0.3

1.4

0.2

1.5

0.15

1.6

0.1

1.7

<0.05

1.7

2.5 Spectral response acceleration

Building reflection factor in IS 2800-05 is obtained from Eq. (9):

20

N. Imashi and A. Massumi

586

B = 1 + S (T T0 )

0 T T0

B =1 + S

T0 T Ts

B = (1+ S)(TS T )2

(9)

T Ts

where Ts is a scalar and it represents the ground period. T is the fundamental period of
building in terms of seconds and T0 indicates the boundary between very stiff structures
acceleration and the constant acceleration range from acceleration spectrum [3]. Also, S is
considered to account of the resonating effect of soft soil on ground movement at bedrock;
its value increases as the soil gets softer and is specified in Table 6.
Table 6: Values of S in IS 2800-05

Soil type

T0

Ts

Low and medium

relative hazard area

High and very high

relative hazard area

0.1

0.4

1.5

1.5

II

0.1

0.5

1.5

1.5

III

0.15

0.7

1.75

1.75

IV

0.15

1.0

2.25

1.75

In order to obtain design acceleration spectrum through IBC 2003, the following
measures are taken: the design ground motion parameters can be derived from the table and
contour maps of IBC 2003. The mapped maximum considered earthquake spectral response
acceleration for 0.2s (short), Ss, and 1.0s (long) periods, S1, are first obtained from the IBC
2003 seismic maps. The contours represent the spectral response acceleration as a percent of
gravity, assuming 5% damping and soil condition classified under site class B. The spectrum
is based on Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) with 2 percent probability of
reoccurrence in 50 years (2500-year return period). IBC 2003 goal is to provide Design
Based Earthquake (DBE) level design with 10 percent probability of reoccurrence in 50
years (475-year return period) [4].
In order to convert Maximum Considered Earthquake spectral response acceleration
(MCE) to Design Based Earthquake (DBE), the 2/3 ratio is used. Considering the soil type
and acceleration response spectrum on bedrock, applying Fa (Acceleration-Related Soil
Factor) and F (Velocity-Related Soil Factor) factors, maximum acceleration response
spectrum parameters (SMI and SMS) and then their corresponding design values (SDI and SDS)
that are 2/3 parameters for maximum acceleration response spectrum are obtained, in this
code [4].
2
2
S DS = .S MS = Fa S s
3
3

(10)

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SEISMIC PROVISIONS BETWEEN IRANIAN...

587

2
2
S D1 = .S M 1 = Fv S1
3
3

(11)

Where Fa, site coefficient is the peak response part of fixed acceleration (equivalent to B = 1 + S
in the IS 2800-05). Acceleration magnification factor in addition to soil type depends also on
sectional acceleration of earthquake and as it decreases, magnification increases. This rule is
observed in IS 2800-05 in a way that for 0.20g to 0.25g accelerations, the maximum B factor
that is equal to (1 + S) is increased up to 3.25 times but for 0.30g to 0.35g accelerations,
maximum B value has become 2.75 [5]. At the beginning of the diagram, (T<T0) value for
spectral acceleration is obtained from Eq. (12).
S a = 0.6

S DS
T + 0.4S DS
T0

(12)

The value is relevant to the maximum acceleration in fixed acceleration region (SDS). This
equation represents a linear, sloped section that connects the spectrum value SDS at 0.2Ts to
0.4SDS at T0 period. This section area is special to rigid structures in very short period.
Acceleration spectrum value in the fixed acceleration area e.g. between T0 and Ts is taken
equal to SDS. In fixed velocity area also, the curve fit for S1/T is multiplied by the factor F
which has far greater value than that of Fa [4].
Sa =

S
S
2
Fv . 1 = D1
3
T
T

(13)

The diagram presented in IBC 2003, is the acceleration spectrum Sa; therefore, to provide
a correct comparison between the two codes, reflection factor B in IS 2800-05 is multiplied
by the base design acceleration A to obtain spectral acceleration. In the comparison process,
base design accelerations in IS 2800-05 are taken as reference in comparison of 0.2, 0.25,
0.3 and 0.35 g accelerations. For 0.25 and 0.35 values, linear interpolation method is used in
IBC 2003. Figure 2(a, b, c and d) shows design acceleration spectra as compared to each
other in IBC 2003 and IS 2800-05 for different soil profiles and different specifications and
for maximum effective accelerations recommended in each code.
An examination of acceleration spectra on different soil profiles, in both codes, shows
that a few significant points are worth noting as following:
a)
The offered acceleration spectrum level for areas with different degree of seismicity
and different soil profile types varies in IBC 2003 from 0.27 to 0.33 and in IS 2800-05
from 0.50 to 0.96. In other words, spectral accelerations values in IS 2800-05 are
greater than those of IBC 2003, in all soil profiles.
b)

Considering percentage difference of the spectra plotted for uniform soil profiles and
for areas with similar seismicity, it may be concluded that increase in relative seismic
hazard lead to far higher percentage differences of spectral acceleration values
between the two codes and reaches from 13% in areas with low relative hazard to 34%
in areas with very high relative hazard.

N. Imashi and A. Massumi

588

c)

In calculating spectral acceleration, the exponent (power) for fundamental period of

structure in IS 2800-05 is taken to be 2/3, while in IBC 2003 it is 1; consequently, the
descending part of the spectrum in IBC 2003 is steeper than that of the IS 2800-05.

1.0

1.0

Very High Risk - IS 2800-05

Very High Risk - IS 2800-05

High Risk - IS 2800-05

0.8

High Risk - IS 2800-05

0.8

Medium Risk - IS 2800-05

Medium Risk - IS 2800-05

Low Risk - IS2800-05

Low Risk - IS2800-05

Very High Risk - IBC 2003

0.6

High Risk - IBC 2003

Sa

Sa

Medium Risk - IBC 2003

0.4

Very High Risk - IBC 2003

0.6

High Risk - IBC 2003

Medium Risk - IBC 2003

0.4

Low Risk - IBC 2003

Low Risk - IBC 2003

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.0
0.0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3.0

0.0

3.6

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3.0

3.6

(a) Soil type I or B with 5 percent attenuation

(b) Soil type II or C with 5 percent attenuation

1.0

1.0
Very High Risk - IS 2800-05

Very High Risk - IS 2800-05

High Risk - IS 2800-05

0.8

High Risk - IS 2800-05

0.8

Medium Risk - IS 2800-05

Medium Risk - IS 2800-05

Low Risk - IS2800-05

Low Risk - IS2800-05

Very High Risk - IBC 2003

0.6

Very High Risk - IBC 2003

0.6

High Risk - IBC 2003

Sa

Sa

High Risk - IBC 2003

Medium Risk - IBC 2003
0.4

Low Risk - IBC 2003

Medium Risk - IBC 2003

0.4

0.2

Low Risk - IBC 2003

0.2

0.0

0.0
0.0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3.0

3.6

(c) Soil type III or D with 5 percent attenuation

0.0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3.0

3.6

(d) Soil type IV or E with 5 percent attenuation

Figure 2. Design acceleration spectra for different soil profiles with 5 percent attenuation in IBC
2003 and IS 2800-05

2.6 Response modification factor

Response modification factor, proposed in IS 2800-05 is for structures that are designed by
permissible stress method whereas in IBC 2003 ultimate strength design method is applied.
Since ultimate limit response modification factor (RU) and ultimate allowable stress factor
(RW) are approximately related through RW=1.4RU [6], response modification factor values
in IBC are multiplied by the scalar 1.4 and are compared in Table 7 for several systems.
Comparison of response modification factors in IBC 2003 and IS 2800-05 shows that IBC
2003 has assumed greater response modification factors for bearing walls and building frame
systems. The values for intermediate reinforced concrete moment frames are equal in both

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SEISMIC PROVISIONS BETWEEN IRANIAN...

589

codes. Also, intermediate and ordinary steel moment frames in IBC 2003 assumes smaller
response modification factors relative to IS 2800-05. Intermediate concrete moment frames
system + ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls, and intermediate steel moment frames +
concentrically steel bracings assume smaller response modification factors relative to IS 280005. Special moment frames (concrete or steel) + Special reinforced concrete shear walls have
approximately the same values in both codes. Other lateral resistant systems in the IBC 2003
have greater response modification factors in comparison with IS 2800-05.
Table 7: Comparison of response modification factors in IS 2800-05 and IBC 2003 Standards

Bearing
walls
system

Special reinforced masonry shear walls

Intermediate reinforced concrete shear walls
Ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls
Shear walls with reinforced masonry

7
6
5
4

5.5
4
3
3.5

7.7
5.6
6.3
4.9

Difference
based on
IBC (%)
9.0
-7.1
20.6
8.4

Building
frames
system

Special reinforced concrete shear walls

Intermediate reinforced concrete shear walls
Ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls
Shear walls with reinforced masonry
Steel eccentrically braced frames
Steel concentrically braced frames

8
7
5
4
7
6

6
-5
4
7-8
5-6

8.4
-7.0
5.6
11.2
7.0

4.7
28.6
28.6
37.5
14.3

Moment
resisting
frames
systems

Special reinforced concrete moment frames

Intermediate reinforced concrete moment frames
Ordinary reinforced concrete moment frames
Special steel moment frames
Intermediate steel moment frames
Ordinary steel moment frames

10
7
4
10
7
5

8
5
3
8
4.5
3.5

11.2
7.0
4.2
11.2
6.3
4.9

10.7
0.0
4.7
10.7
-11.1
-2.0

11

11.2

1.7

5.5

7.7

-3.8

Dual
system
with
moment
frames

Special moment frames (concrete or steel) +

Special reinforced concrete shear walls
Intermediate concrete moment frames +
Ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls
Intermediate steel moment frames + Ordinary
reinforced concrete shear walls
Special steel moment frames + Special steel
eccentrically braced frames
Special steel moment frames + Special steel
concentrically braced frames
Intermediate steel moment frames +
Eccentrically steel bracings
Intermediate steel moment frames +
Concentrically steel bracings

5.5

7.7

-3.8

10

7-8

9.8-11.2

10.7

11.2

19.6

4.5

6.3

-11.1

Structural
system

Lateral force resisting system

2800
(Rw)

IBC
(Ru)

IBC
(Rw)

IBC 2003 considers eccentrically braced frames in both moment-resisting and nonmomentresisting connections at columns away from links conditions, but for the latter connection, it

590

N. Imashi and A. Massumi

considers a 15 percent greater response modification factor. Also, IBC 2003 considers three
special, intermediate and ordinary states for reinforced masonry shear walls, intermediate and
ordinary steel concentrically braced frames. IBC 2003 considers each of the above cases in its
own place, while in IS 2800-05, they are all covered within a unique system.

3. VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF BASE SHEAR

Force distribution through the height is linear for all structures and all periods, in IS 2800-05
and is calculated by Eq. (14).
Fx = (V Ft )

Wx hx
n

(14)

W h
i =1

i i

For long period buildings an extra force Ft=0.07TV is applied to the top floor, in IS 280005. If the building period is less than or equal 0.7 sec, Ft value may be considered zero [3].
The distribution of force over the height of building, in IBC 2003 is complex and
depends on the period of vibration of the building, and the characteristic shape of the
vibration modes, and is obtained from Eq. (15).
Fx = V

W x h xn
n

W h
i =1

(15)
k
i

where Fx = the lateral seismic force at story level x; wi(wx) = the portion of the total building
weight at story level i (or x); hi(hx) = the hight from the ground floor to story level i (or x);
k = an exponent related to the period of structure [4].
IBC 2003 prescribes three types of distribution of the entire base shear:
A triangular distribution for buildings having a fundamental period not exceeding 0.5
seconds, k is equal to 1.

A parabolic distribution for buildings having an elastic period in exceeding 2.5 seconds,
k is equal to 2.

A linear interpolation between linear and parabolic distribution for buildings with
periods between 0.5 and 2.5 seconds [7].

Unlike IS 2800-05, additional force Ft is not considered here. When period is greater than
2.5s, the impact of higher modes is important and that's why instead of linear distribution of
shear the height, some parabolic distribution is used.

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SEISMIC PROVISIONS BETWEEN IRANIAN...

591

4. STORY DRIFT
In IS 2800-05, the design story drift is obtained by multiplying the lateral deflections at the
floor level resulted from elastic analysis under design base shear, by 0.7R factor
(Mi=0.7RWi), after applying P- effects. IS 2800-05 has limited design story drift for
structures with period less than 0.7 seconds to 0.025 times the floor height and for structures
with period greater than or equal to 0.7 seconds to 0.020 times the floor height [3].
The IBC 2003 offers the design story drift limitation in accordance with the importance
factor value. This tries to provide safety through applying restrictions. For instance, by
applying more restrictions on story drift of the likely sensitive structures it thrives to reduce
probable failure of filler walls, partitions and other non-structural elements and consequently
provide more safety. The code considers different structural systems; for example, with
regard to buildings less than 4 stories high with shear wall or masonry wall and partitioning,
it assumes 0.015, 0.020 and 0.025 times floor height restrictions respectively to buildings of
III, II and I importance. Also, for higher than 4 storey buildings, 0.01, 0.015 and 0.02 times
storey height restrictions are respectively applied to buildings of III, II and I importance. For
masonry shear wall structures, a more severe restriction, as low as 0.007 times the storey
height is applied, as these structures have low ductility. The adjusted design earthquake
displacement at floor level x, is obtained from Eq. (16) [4].

x =

C d xe
I

(16)

Instead of 0.7R factor, other parameters such as importance factor and structural system
type are termed, in this code. Cd is the deflection amplification factor and is a functional of
response modification factor and represents displacement increase in nonlinear phase; its
specific value varies in accordance with structure type. xe is the lateral deflection at floor
level x resulted from elastic analysis.
The design story drift, x, for story x, is obtained from Eq. (17).

x = x x 1

(17)

5. CASE STUDY
To better show the difference between two codes, a 12-story building, located on the soil
profile type D (IBC 2003) or type III (IS 2800-05), is selected and its base shear force, in
linear static form is obtained by both codes and are compared to each other. The building is
located in a high relative hazard area with 0.3g base design acceleration (according to IS
2800-05).The system is equipped with special steel moment frame + eccentric steel bracing
and is residential. Its total weight is 100788 kN and its height from base level is 49.2 m.
Computer analysis specifies 2.0 second as the fundamental period of structure.
Specifications of the building are shown in Figure 3 [7].
The base shear force obtained by both IS 2800-05 and IBC 2003, are summarized in Table 8.

N. Imashi and A. Massumi

592

Figure 3. Specifications of the case study building

Table 8: Base shear force according to IS 2800-05 and IBC 2003 (kN)

Steel moment frame system

Eccentric bracing system
Approximate period
Tave
Tmax

Sa

IS 2800-05
Relation
Scalar value
0.75
1.47
T=0.08H
0.75
0.92
T=0.08H
1.2
1.50
1.25T

0.30

1.75

F
Fa

1.8
1.2

B = (1+ S)(TS T )

1.65

SM1=FS1
SMS=FaSs
SDS=2/3 SM1
SD1=2/3 SM1

0.54
0.90
0.60
0.36

Ru=Rw/1.4
residential
C=ABI/R
0.1AI
C.W
Ft=0.07TV

7.14
1
0.069
0.03
6985
587

Ru
residential
SD1/(R.T)
0.44SDSIE
SDS/(R/IE)
CsW
-

8
1
0.023
0.024
0.075
2666
-

2 3

R
I
C
Csmin
Csmax
V=C.W
T>0.7s

IBC 2003
Relation
Scalar value
0.75
1.62
T=0.08H
0.75
1.35
T=0.08H
1.2
Ta=0.1N
1.39
1.95
CuTa=1.4Ta
0.3
S1
0.75
Ss

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SEISMIC PROVISIONS BETWEEN IRANIAN...

593

The base shear force values for the building studied on the different soils are obtained
based on both codes and compared with each other in Figure 4, shows the ratio of base shear
force in IS 2800-05 to the base shear force in IBC 2003 over different soil profiles.
3.0

10000

IS2800-05

V2800/ VIBC

Shear (kN)

2.5

IBC2003

8000

6000

4000

2.0
1.5
1.0

2000

0.5

0.0
B

Soil Profile

Soil Profile

(a) Base shear force vs. soil type

(b) Ratio of base shear force in IS 2800-05

relative to IBC 2003

Figure 4. Base shear force vs. soil type and ratio of base shear force in IS 2800-05 relative to
IBC 2003

5.1 Vertical distribution of base shear for the building studied

After specifying shear force, seismic lateral force exerted on each floor is obtained and are
presented in Table 9. (k is calculated from linear interpolation as 1.73).
Table 9: Vertical distribution of base shear (kN)
Stories

IS 2800-05

IBC 2003

12

1676.8

531.8

11

866.9

459.2

10

790.3

391.3

713.6

327.9

636.9

269.4

560.3

215.8

483.6

167.3

406.9

124.1

330.3

54.7

253.6

29.4

176.9

29.4

88.5

8.9

N. Imashi and A. Massumi

594

Figure 5(a, b, c and d) shows vertical distribution of base shear for the buildings studied
on different soil profiles and Figure 6 shows the ratio of lateral force, calculated based on IS
2800-05, to lateral force of the same stories based on IBC 2003.

10

10

Story No.

12

Story No.

12

IS2800-05

IS2800-05
4

IBC2003

IBC2003
2

0
0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

400

(a) Vertical distribution of base shear on soil

types B or I

1200

1600

2000

2400

(b) Vertical distribution of base shear on

soil types C or II
12

10

10

Story No.

12

Story No.

800

Lateral Force (kN)

Lateral Force (kN)

IS2800-05

IS2800-05
4

IBC2003

IBC2003
2

0
0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

Lateral Force (kN)

(c) Vertical distribution of base shear on

soil types D or III

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

Lateral Force (kN)

(d) Vertical distribution of base shear on

soil types E or IV

Figure 5. Vertical distribution of base shear for the buildings studied on different soil profiles

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SEISMIC PROVISIONS BETWEEN IRANIAN...

595

12

10

Story No.

Soil Profile B
6

Soil Profile C
Soil Profile D

Soil Profile E

0
0

10

F2800/ FIBC

Figure 6. Ratio of stories lateral force in IS 2800-05 to lateral force of same stories in IBC 2003

5.2 Determining the story drift for the building studied

Both codes have restricted the maximum inelastic story drift for the building studied to 0.02
times the story height. The Cd factor in the IBC 2003 for this structural system is 4.5 and the
actual story drift at x level is 4.5 times story drift resulted from elastic analysis. IS 2800-05
assumes the actual story drift as the product of story drift obtained from elastic analysis of
design earthquake and the 0.7R factor. Thus, the conversion factor, in this case study
example, to translate story drift from elastic analysis into actual story drift is taken to be 5.

6. CONCLUSIONS
This study signifies the considerable differences in the factors effective on determining
shear force in the two codes. These differences are especially pronounced in response
modification and spectral acceleration factors and eventually lead to major differences in the
shear force value from both codes.
Shear force values assume greater quantity in IS 2800-05 as compared to the IBC 2003,
for all soil profiles and all seismically active areas. Regarding structural systems studied, the
least difference in shear force value is seen for the soil type B and the greatest difference in
soil type D. Also, increases in relative seismic hazard would lead to greater percentage
difference for shear force values between the two codes.
Lateral force distribution in the building height shows that distribution pattern is different
among the two codes. In IS 2800-05, force distribution in the height is linear for all
structures and all periods but an additional force is applied to the top floor of long period
buildings. In IBC 2003, however, the additional force Ft is not considered and vertical force
distribution for all structures with period greater than 0.5s is parabolic.
The IBC 2003 offers the story drift limitation in accordance with structural system type

596

N. Imashi and A. Massumi

and importance factor value. By applying more restrictions on relative displacement of the
likely sensitive structures, the code has reduced failure probability for filler walls, partitions
and other non-structural elements. In IS 2800-05, however, the story drift limitation is
dependent only on fundamental period of the structure.
In order to incorporate the vertical component impacts of seismic force, in IBC 2003 the
earthquake load effect, E, considered as a combination of horizontal effect and a vertical
component force; also, to account for structural redundancy scale, the code offers a factor
named redundancy coefficient . This factor is directly multiplied by the seismic force, but
no such measure is taken in the IS 2800-05.

REFERENCES
1.

Building and Housing Research Center (BHRC), Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic
Resistant Design of Buildings, Standard No. 2800-94, 1st edition, Building and Housing
Research Center: Tehran, Iran, 1994.

2.

Pong W, Lee ZH, Lee A. A comparative study of seismic provisions between

International Building Code 2003 and Uniform Building Code 1997, Earthquake
Engineering and Engineering Vibration, No.1, 5(2006) 49-60.

3.

Building and Housing Research Center (BHRC). Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic
Resistant Design of Buildings, Standard No. 2800-05, 3rd edition, Building and Housing
Research Center, Tehran, Iran, 2005.

4.

International Code Council, Inc. International Building Code (IBC 2003), 2003.

5.

Faroughi A. A review on starting point of acceleration response spectrum in 3rd edition

of standard no. 2800, www.civilica.com, 2005, (in Persian).

6.

Taheri Behbahani AA. A Philosophical Approach to Seismic Codes for Buildings,

Building and Housing Research Center, Tehran, Iran, 1997, (in Persian).

7.

Taranath BS. Wind and Earthquake Resistant Buildings: Structural Analysis and
Design, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2005.