Analysis of The Earthquake-Resistant Design Approach For Buildings in Mexico

Ingeniería Investigación y Tecnología, volumen XV (número 1), enero-marzo 2014: 151-162
ISSN 1405-7743 FI-UNAM

(artículo arbitrado)
Analysis of the Earthquake-Resistant Design Approach

for Buildings in Mexico
Análisis del enfoque de diseño sismorresistente
para edificios en México
Carrillo Julián
Faculty of Engineering
Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, UMNG, Bogotá, Colombia
E-mail: wjcarrillo@gmail.com
Rubiano-Fonseca Astrid
Faculty of Engineering
Hernández-Barrios Hugo Universidad Militar Nueva Granada. Bogotá, Colombia
Faculty of Engineering E-mail: astrid.rubiano@unimilitar.edu.co
Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, Morelia
E-mail: hugohbarrios@yahoo.com.mx
Information on the article: received: November 2012, accepted: March 2013
Abstract
ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȬȱȱȱȱȬ
ȱȱȱȱĴȱȱȱǰȱ ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
Keywords:
ȱǯȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȬ
ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ Ȋȱ Mexican codes
ȱȱȱ¡ȱȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱ Ȋ buildings
ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȋ earthquake-resistant design
¢£ȱȱ¢ȱȱȬȱȱȱȱȱ Ȋ strength reduction
ȱ¡ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱęȱ Ȋ overstrength
ȱȱęǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Ȋ ductility
ȱ¢£ǯȱȱȱȱȱȬȱȱȱ¡ȱȱ Ȋ displacement amplification
ȱȱęȱȱ¡¢ǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Ȋ lateral displacement
ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ¢ǰȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ ȱȱȬ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
ǯȱȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱǯ
Analysis of the Earthquake-Resistant Design Approach for Buildings in Mexico
Resumen
El desarrollo de nuevos reglamentos de diseño de estructuras sismorresis-

tentes ha hecho posible que se garantice un mejor comportamiento de los Descriptores:
ęȱȱ·ȱȱȱȱȱÇǯȱȱǰȱȱ-
ȱȱȱȱȱȱÛȱȱęȱȱ- Ȋ reglamentos mexicanos
ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ęàȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭ Ȋ edificios
ęàȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¤¡ȱ£- Ȋ diseño sismorresistente
tos laterales, de tal manera que los ingenieros estructurales puedan com- Ȋ reducción de resistencia
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ûǯȱ ȱ àȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȋ sobrerresistencia
£ȱȱȱȱȱȱÛȱȱȱę- Ȋ ductilidad
ȱ ȱ ·¡ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ àȱ Çȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ę- Ȋ amplificación de
àȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ęàȱ ȱ £ǯȱ ¤ȱ ȱ desplazamiento
£ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱÛȱȱęȱȱȱ- Ȋ desplazamiento lateral
dos. Se concluye que los reglamentos de diseño sismorresistente en México
ȱȱȱęȱ¢ȱǯȱ¤ȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱęȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱÛȱ¢ȱȱ£ȱȱȱȱ¤ȱǰȱ-
ȱȱàȱȱȱȱȱȱǰȱȱȱȱ-
ȱ ¤ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ęǯȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ
ȱ£ȱȱȱȱȱȱÇȱȱ-
ȱȱàȱȱȱȱàȱȱȱȱÇȱȱęǯ
Introduction earthquake characterizing the life safety limit state.

This situation limits the force demands in the structural
Many areas of Latin America are widely known for elements, hence allowing the use of smaller design
their high seismicity. Recognizing the seismic activity strengths, at the cost of certain limited levels of struc-
in the region, earthquake-resistant design of structures tural damage due to yielding of some portions of the
is a requirement in these countries. Therefore, each structure (Ordaz and Meli, 2004).
country has developed their own seismic codes based ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
on their experience and laws (Chavez, 2012). The re- building structures, the most controversial part is the
examination of the fundamental precepts of seismic de- ȱȱȱȱȱęȱȱȱ
ȱȱęȱȱȱ¢ǰȱ ȱȱȱȱ ȱ ęȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ǰȱ
ȱ Ěȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱęȱȱȱȱ-
ǰȱȱěȱ ȱȱȱȱ- mic codes, they are intended to account for damping,
ǰȱ ȱȱȱȱěȱȱ- energy dissipation capacity, as well as for overstrength,
ȱǻ¢ǰȱŘŖŖŖǼǯȱȱǰȱȬȱȬ ȱȱȱȱęȱȱȱȱȱ-
ȱȱȱȱęȱȱ¡ǰȱȱ marily based on observation of the performance of dif-
at each revision the current state-of-the-art knowledge. ferent structural systems in previous strong earth-
However, code compliance and code misinterpretation ǯȱȱǰȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ
are prevalent, mainly because two reasons, users are ěȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ-
not familiar with the concepts and technologies in- tion factor, it seems that the absolute value of the
volved, or the parameters prescribed by codes are un- ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǯȱȱȱȱȱ
clearly presented (Alcocer and Castaño, 2008). ȱ ęȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
Contemporary earthquake-resistant codes are de- assumption is the equal-displacement approximation,
veloped with the intention of ensuring serviceability which states that the displacement of the inelastic sys-
requirements, life safety and collapse prevention dur- tem is the same as that of an equivalent system with the
ing frequent, moderate, and major earthquakes, respec- ȱȱěȱȱȱǯȱ
ǰȱ
¢ǯȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵȱ ǰȱ ¡ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ this approximation is known to be non-conservative for
structure may be acceptable as long as collapse is pre- short period structures (FEMA-451, 2006; Priestley ȱ
vented (Moroni ȱ ., 1996). Design criteria admit in- ., 2007) or for structures whose period of vibration is
elastic excursions when the structure is subjected to the close to the site period (Ordaz and Pérez, 1998).
152 Ingeniería Investigación y Tecnología, volumen XV (número 1), enero-marzo 2014: 151-162 ISSN 1405-7743 FI-UNAM
Carrillo Julián, Hernández-Barrios Hugo, Rubiano-Fonseca Astrid
The seismic design codes in Mexico are more than

70 years old. At several moments of their history, Mexi-
can codes have contributed with new ideas and meth-
ods, some of which have later been adopted in codes
ȱǻ£ȱȱǰȱŘŖŖŚǼǯȱȱȱȱěȱȱ
develop the Mexican codes have been made in Mexico
City, the capital and largest city in the country; almost
40% of the population lives in the capital and its metro-
politan area. Agencies of the Federal Government have
ȱȱȱǯȱȱȱȱȱ
practices in Mexico, observations have indicated that
lack of compliance with technical standards; adequate
design and construction practices are becoming prob-
ȱȱ¡ȱ¢ǯȱȱęȱȱȱȱȱ
of compliance with construction codes is that, require-
ments are dissociated from current construction tech-
Figure 1. Idealized structural response: equal displacement
nology and practice, and are understood and correctly approximation
applied by only a few designers and contractors. There
ȱȱȱěȱ ȱȱȱȱ¡ȱȱ codes allows most structures to undergo inelastic de-
quality of practice of a relatively small group of well- formations in the event of strong earthquake ground
informed specialist and academics, and that of most motions. As a result, the designed lateral strength can
professionals and construction workers (Alcocer and be lower than that required to maintain the structure in
Castaño, 2008). On the other hand, after some lessons the elastic range. The evolution of seismic codes and
learned from earthquakes that occurred in Chile and ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ȱ ȱ Ě¢ȱ ȱ ȱ
Mexico in 1985, Bertero (1986) proposed two solutions ¢ȱ ¢£ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȬȱȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ǻȱ ȱ
of building structures: an ideal (rational) method and a original codes) in order to make comparisons among
compromise solution. Bertero (1986) emphasizes that them.
ȱȱȱȱę¢ȱȱ
simply by increasing the seismic forces because the
Strength reduction factor due to nonlinear
forces developed during an earthquake shake depend
hysteretic behavior
ȱȱȱěǰȱǰȱȱ¢ȱ-
teristic supplied to the constructed building. ȱȱ¢ȱȬ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ
The goals of this paper are: () to provide an over- 1, the displacement ductility ratio Pȱȱęȱȱȱ
view of development and most relevant changes of ratio of maximum relative displacement to its yield
earthquake-resistant design codes in Mexico, and () to displacement (P = '¡/'¢). The displacement is com-
compare and analyze seismic-design approaches speci- ¢ȱ¡ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱǯȱȱǰȱȱ
ęȱ¢ȱȱȱ¡ȱǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ is customary to divide the story drift by the story
discussion of the most important parameters for seis- height and express it as a percentage of this height. An
ȱǰȱȱȱȱęȱǰȱ- adequate design is accomplished when a structure is
ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ dimensioned and detailed in such a way that the local
results are presented in a common format that allows a (story and member) ductility demands are smaller
straightforward comparison. than their corresponding capacities. Thus, during the
preliminary design of a structure, there is a need to
Strength modification factors estimate the lateral strength (lateral load capacity) of
the structure that is required in order to limit the glob-
As an understanding developed in the 1960s and 1970s al (structure) displacement ductility demand to a cer-
of the importance of inelastic structural response to tain pre-determined value which results in the
large earthquakes, the research community became in- adequate control of local ductility demands (Miranda
¢ȱȱȱĴȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ and Bertero, 1994).
deformation capacity of structural components. The Since a properly designed structure usually can pro-
seismic design philosophy of most current building vide a certain amount of ductility, the structure has ca-
Ingeniería Investigación y Tecnología, volumen XV (número 1), enero-marzo 2014: 151-162 ISSN 1405-7743 FI-UNAM 153
pacity to dissipate hysteretic energy. Because of this ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ
energy dissipation, the structure can be designed eco- seismic overstrength factor will also be higher if the
nomically and thus, the elastic design force Ve can be building is located in low seismic zones, because grav-
reduced to a yield strength level V¢, by the factor RP (V¢ ity and wind loads are more likely to govern the design
= Ve / RP) (Moroni ȱ ., 1996), and the corresponding ǻǰȱŗşŞşǼǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
maximum deformation demand is '¡ȱǻȱŗǼǯȱȱȱ the previous discussion because the structural response
linearly elastic-perfectly plastic model (Figure 1), the was considered an idealized system.
yield strength level refers to the structural collapse lev- The additional strength reduction is due to the fact
el (' = '¡Ǽǰȱȱȱȱȱȱęȱęȱ¢ǯȱ that lateral strength of a structure is usually higher and,
For a correct evaluation of the reduction factor RP, it is in some cases, much higher that the nominal strength
necessary to guarantee that the structure is able to ac- capacity of the structure. We can divide this reduction
commodate the maximum displacement demand '¡ to take into account the additional strength from the
in Figure 1, preventing collapse. ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ
ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ hinge and the additional strength from this point to the
during earthquake ground motions, inelastic deforma- formation of a mechanism (Miranda, 1997). The sys-
tions increase as the lateral yielding strength of the Ȃȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
structures decreases, or as the design reduction factor ȱ ȱȱȱȱǻǰȱ
increases. For design purposes, RP corresponds to the 1989):
maximum reduction in strength that is consistent with
() development of sequential plastic hinges in redun-
limiting the displacement ductility ratio demand to the
dant structures,
pre-determined target ductility Pȱ , in a structure that
(Ǽȱȱȱȱȱȱęȱȱȱ
will have strength equal to the designed lateral strength
design,
(Miranda and Bertero, 1994). A 5% equivalent viscous
() strength reduction factors,
damping ratio is usually considered in the computation
(ǼȱęȱȱȱȱĴȱ-
of the reduction factor RPȱǻǰȱŗşŞşǼǯ
er than those required in design,
Several studies (i.e., Miranda and Bertero,1994; Or-
(v) nonstructural elements, and
daz and Pérez, 1998; Avilés and Pérez, 2005) agree that
(vi) variation of lateral forces (Varela ȱ., 2004).
for a given ground motion, the reduction factor RP is
¢ȱ Ěȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
deformation, but also by the natural period of the struc- to be two or three times the design strength (FEMA-
ture T, the soil conditions at the site, and the soil-struc- 451, 2006).
ture interaction. Since the strength reduction factor RP One important source of overstrength in many
is a function of the ground motion for a given system structures is the design procedure itself. The structure
undergoing a ductility demand P, the reduction will be must be analyzed using forces reduced with a factor
ěȱȱěȱȱǯȱȱȱ that depends on the structure’s global ductility capacity
ȱȱȱȱȱȱěȱȱRP, particularly rather than the displacement itself. However, the global
ȱ¢ȱȱǯȱȱȱȱ¢ȱěȱȱ- behavior of the structure is not, in general, linearly elas-
duction factor RP, but to a much lesser degree, are the tic-perfectly plastic; it would be so if all structural
damping and the type of hysteretic behavior of the members had linearly elastic-perfectly plastic behavior
ȱǻȱȱȱȱȱȱȱę- and they yielded at the same time. This consideration
cant strength deterioration). implies that, in many cases, the real strength is higher
than its nominal strength (Ordaz and Meli, 2004).
Strength amplification factor due to overstrength Consider, for example, the typical global structural
response in Figure 2. The design strength of a structure,
Real structures are usually much stronger than re- Vǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȃęȱęȱ¢Ȅǯȱ
quired by design. This extra strength, when recognized, ȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ǰȱȱȱ-
can be used to reduce the ductility demands. For in- tain increased plastic rotations without loss of strength.
stance, if the overstrength were so large that the re- ȱęȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ-
sponse was elastic, the ductility demand would be less cally but has not reached its rotational capacity. As ad-
than 1.0 (FEMA-451, 2006). The role of overstrength is ditional load is applied to the structure, the other
ȱȱęȱȱȱ ȱȱǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱěȱȱȱȱȱ additional moment until they begin to yield (FEMA-
Figure 2. General structural response Figure 3. Procedure in US building codes
451, 2006). Even more load can be applied as additional between the base shear developed in the structure if it
ȱǯȱ
ǰȱȱęȱȱȱȱȱȱ were to remain in the elastic range and the minimum
their rotational capacity and may begin to loose strength. required base shear to resist the seismic action and to
ǰȱȱȱȱȱȱĚĴǯȱȱȱ- accommodate nonlinear displacements without any

ȱǰȱȱȱȱę¢ȱȱȱȱ risk to its stability (Moroni ȱǯǰȱŗşşŜǼǯȱȱȱřǰȱ
and deformation capacity. The additional strength be- ȱȱȱęȱȱȱcan be consid-
yond the design strength is called the overstrength and ered as the product of the ductility reduction factor RP
the total strength of the system is referred to as the ac- and the structural overstrength factor : (Varela ȱ .,
tual maximum strength, V¢. 2004).
Figure 2 shows that the overstrength factor : can be
ęȱȱȱȱ ȱV¢ȱ and V (: = V¢/V), the
Ĵȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ Ve
that use a strength design approach (Moroni ȱ ., R RP : (1)
Vd
1996). Existence of structural overstrength has been ex-
plicitly recognized in some building codes in the world.
ȱȱěȱȱȱȱȱ- Most of investigations reviewed by Miranda and Bertero
ed for when evaluating member’s strength (increasing (1994) recommended the use of period-dependent
the strength), because of the limitations when using ad- ȱȱǯȱȱǰȱȱǻŗşŞşǼȱȱ
vanced non-linear analysis techniques by practicing en- established basic formulas for evaluating ȱfactor from
ǰȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱěȱȱ the global structure response characterized by the rela-
overstrength as a reduction factor to the loads instead tionship between the base shear ratio and the story drift.
ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǻ£ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ pre-
Meli, 2004). However, the use of force demands lower ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
than those developed in the structure can be unsafe for vibration, which is incorrect and thus, their use is not
designing of the foundation. recommended (Miranda, 2007; Tena ȱ., 2009).
Even though the equations presented by Miranda
Strength modification factors in US building codes and Bertero (1994) seem reasonable and may be incor-
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȬŖşǰȱ today (2012) single values of the ȱfactors are still pro-

ȬŖřȱȱȱŝȬŗŖǰȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱěȱ-
the reduced design base shear and design seismic forc- tural systems (Varela ȱ., 2004). For instance, current
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ę- ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ-
tion factor R. This factor Rȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ers to quantify R and : factors. Table 12.2-1 of ASCE
7-10 provides R factors for a large number of structural by law, is of the municipal competence (Ordaz and
systems. Table 1 shows the factors for a few selected Meli, 2004). Agencies of the Federal Government
concrete and steel systems. have issued standards and manuals, such as the
ȱȱȱǰȱȱȱřŗŞȬŗŗȱ- Manual of Civil Structures MDOC-08. This manual is
ing Code mainly relies on conventional force-based ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱę¢ȱ-
limit states (i.e. ultimate limit state) and on a service- es the design of several structural systems (buildings,
ability limit state, but they do not include an explicit bridges, dams, power stations, industrial facilities,
relationship between displacement demand and capac- etc.) to such hazards as earthquakes and winds. This
¢ǯȱȱȱĴȱȱȱȱȱȱ- manual is another model design code in Mexico (Tena
¢ȱǰȱ ȱȱȱȱȱřŗŞȬŗŗȱęȱ ȱ., 2009).
explicitly an overstrength factor :0. This factor is relat- ¡ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ǻȬȬŖŚǼȱ ȱ
ed to the seismic-force-resisting system used for the two procedures for seismic design of buildings: main
structure, and is used for the design of certain fragile ¢ȱȱ¡ȱǯȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȬȬŖŚȱ
elements that are incapable to dissipate energy in the and in the previous version of MDOC, spectra are not
non linear range, such as certain wall piers, anchors ȱȱȱȱǯȱȱȱǰȱȱ
and collector elements, or where greater concerns about elastic design spectrum is obtained by dividing the
shear failure remain. For designing such elements, the spectral ordinates by a somewhat obscure reductive
design shear force need not exceed :0 times the fac- seismic force factor that accounted for everything
tored shear determined by analysis of the structure for (ductility, redundancy, overstrength, etc.) (Tena ȱ.,
ȱ ěǯȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ :0 ranges 2009). Hence, the overstrength parameter is implicitly
ȱŗǯśȱȱřǯŖǰȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ included in the spectrum, so that it is an invisible pa-
¢ǯȱȱȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱ- rameter for the engineer. Thus, their use is not recom-
puted as :0 times the shear induced under design dis- ǯȱ ǰȱ ȱ ęȱ ¢ȱ ¡ȱȱ ȱ
placements. ȬȬŖŚȱȱ¢ȱȬŖŞȱȱȱȱǻǰȱ
2007; Tena ȱ., 2009).
For clarity in the design process, there is an impor-
Strength modification factors in Mexican codes
tant conceptual adjustment in the reduction of elastic
The Mexico City Building Code for seismic design of ȱȱȱȱȱ¡ȱȱȱȬ
ȱȬȬŖŚȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¡ȱ ȬŖŚȱ ȱ ȱ ȬŖŞǯȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ
for the drafting of most of the Mexican codes, which, ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
ȱ¡¢ȱęǰȱȱȱ-
Table 1. Design factors specified by ASCE 7-10 for building structures sign spectra are not reduced by an over-
strength parameter : (Alcocer and
Structural system R :0 Rm=R/:0 Cd
ÛǰȱŘŖŖŞǼǯȱȱǰȱȱȱȱ
Special moment frame 8.0 3.0 2.7 5.5 the : factor in MDOC-08 is an improved
Reinforced concrete
Intermediate moment frame 5.0 3.0 1.7 4.5 version of the one presented in appen-
Ordinary moment frame 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.5 ¡ȱ ȱ ȱ ȬȬŖŚǯȱ ȱ ¡ȱ ȱ ȱ
structures
Special reinforced shear wall 5.0 2.5 2.0 5.0 ȬȬŖŚǰȱ : is independent of the
structural system. This conceptual
Ordinary reinforced shear wall 4.0 2.5 1.6 4.0
ȱ ȱ ę¡ȱ ȱ ȬŖŞǰȱ
Detailed plain concrete wall 2.0 2.5 0.8 2.0
where it is also recognized that the over-
Ordinary plain concrete wall 1.5 2.5 0.6 1.5 strength that a structure can develop
Special moment frame 8.0 3.0 2.7 5.5 under earthquake loading strongly de-
Intermediate moment frame 4.5 3.0 1.5 4.0 pends on the structural system, as it is
done in other modern seismic codes,
Steel structures
Ordinary moment frame 3.5 3.0 1.2 3.0

ȱȱȱŝȬŗŖȱȱȬŖşȱǻȱȱ
Eccentric braced frame 8.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 ., 2009). The general procedure of seis-
Eccentric braced frame (pinned) 7.0 2.0 3.5 4.0 mic design prescribed by MDOC-08 and
by appendix A is shown in Figure 4,
Special concentrically braced frame 6.0 2.0 3.0 5.0
where Q’ is a seismic reduction force
Ordinary concentric braced frame 3.3 2.0 1.6 3.3
factor that accounts primarily for ductil-
Not detailed 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 ity (deformation) capacity, : is an over-
sign spectrum. For all other periods, the force reduction

factor was Pȱ(Alcocer and Castaño, 2008). The bilinear
RP spectrum, similar to that used in the Mexico City
Code, has also been recommended in the Argentine
Building Code (Sonzogni ȱ., 1984). Then, bilinear ex-
pressions for RPȱ ǰ ȱ ȱ ǻȱ ȱ ǰȱ
1991) to improve the period-independent reduction fac-
ȱȱȱŗşşŖȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Canada. Period-dependent RP factors have been pro-
ȱǻǰȱŗşŞşǼȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ-
mic code.
Parameters U, Aȱȱ and D are included in MDOC-08
only. The introduction of a redundancy factor U in
MDOC-08 is a new concept for Mexican seismic codes.
Factor U basically corrects the previous assessment of
the overstrength factor :, as most of the available stud-
ies where : has been computed using 2-D models with
Figure 4. Procedure in modern Mexican codes ěȱȱȱ¢ǯȱȱȱ£ȱ
directly that structural systems are able to develop
strength factor that depends on the structural period more strength and increase their deformation capacity
and/or the structural system. ȱ¢ȱȱȱǯȱȱǰȱȱȱ
ȱȱȬŖŞȱȱȱȱ¡ȱȱȱȬ takes into account unfavorable performances of weak-
S-04, the seismic force reduction factor Q’ stands only ly-redundant structures in strong earthquakes occurred
for the approximate ductility deformation capacity of ȱȱȱȱřśȱ¢ǯȱȱȱȱ Ȭ ȱ
the selected structural system, given in terms of the by the structural engineering community worldwide.
ȱȱęȱȱQ. The proposed However, it seems some seismic codes have come up
Q’ factor is not constant and depends on the structural short before, by not recognizing that a more redundant
period TȱȱȱȱǯȱȱǰȱQ’ is the ratio be- structural system under lateral loading should be al-
tween the minimum strength required to limit a struc- lowed to be designed with higher reductions and that
tural system to an elastic response and the strength weakly-redundant systems should be penalized and be
required for a structural system to limit its ductility ca- ȱ ȱȱǯȱȱȱȱ ȱ-
pacity to a given Q value (Tena, 2009). The seismic re- ing that the value of U may vary in each main orthogo-
ȱęȱȱQ of Mexican codes account nal direction (Tena-Colunga, 2009).
primarily for the deformation capacity of the structural Factor U varies between 0.8 and 1.25. The value de-
system. Therefore, it is valid to compare the Q factors pends on number of bays and lines of defense in the
used in the design of the building with respect to the direction of analysis. One-bay framed buildings are
global ductility demand. The values of Q established by now penalized with U = 0.8, because they are weakly-
ȱȱ¡ȱȱȱŗǰȱŗǯśǰȱŘǰȱřȱȱŚǰȱȱ¢ȱ redundant, and their observed performance during
depend on the selected structural system (Tena ȱ ., ȱȱȱȱǯȱȱȱȱȱȱ
2009). Hence, parameters Q’ and Q prescribed by approach would help structural engineers to promote
ȬŖŞȱȱȱ¢ȱ¡ȱȱȱȬȬŖŚȱȱ- the use of more redundant structural systems in zones
lated to RP and P, respectively. of high earthquake hazard and to limit or avoid the use
ȱ ŗşŝŜȱ ¡ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ of weakly-redundant structures (Tena ȱ., 2009).
earthquake-resistant code to prescribe explicitly peri- The introduction of a correction factor A to account
od-dependent strength reduction factors, which ac- ȱ ěȱ Ȧȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ
count for smaller reductions in the short period range loading of reinforced concrete (RC) structural systems
(Rosenblueth, 1979). That code included a bilinear RP located in soft soils, is also a new concept for the seis-
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱĚȱ ȱȱȱ¡ǯȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ Ȭ¢ȱ
ȱȱȬ£ȱȱȱ¢ǯȱȱěǰȱȱRP was fatigue is very important in the seismic behavior of
linearly interpolated between 1.0 and the displacement ěȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ -
ductility ratio P (termed as QȱȱȱǼȱȱěȱ- ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǻȱ ȱǰȱ ŘŖŗřǼǰȱ
tures falling in the linear ascending branch of the de- located in soft soils where large durations of the earth-
quake motions are observed, such as in the lake bed displacement concept allows structural engineers to
zone of Mexico City (Tena ȱ., 2009). use elastic analysis to predict inelastic displacements,
ȱȱȱǰȱȬŖŞȱęȱŗŗȱ- that is, the displacements from the reduced-force elastic
ditions of regularity for elevation and plan analysis analysis must be multiplied by the ductility ratio to
that buildings must satisfy to directly use the reduc- ȱȱȱȃȄȱǯ
tive seismic force factor QȂǯȱȱȱȱȱ- ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ-
ęȱ ȱ ŗŗȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǰȱ ȱ ȱ proximation is non-conservative for short period
ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ Q’ remains un- structures and therefore, the equal energy approxima-
changed. However, if at least one conditions of struc- tion should be applied for these structures. Thus, in
ȱ¢ȱȱȱęǰȱȱȱȱęȱ ȱęȱȱȱȱǰȱ RP increases linearly
as irregular structure, and then Q’ is reduced for de- with increasing period from RP = 1 to a value which is
sign purposes using the corrective reduction factor D near to the value of the ductility ratio Pȱ (FEMA-451,
that varies between 1.0 (regular structure) and 0.7, and ŘŖŖŜǼǯȱȱ ŝȬŗŖȱ ě¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
depends on the degree of irregularity according to spectrum by a strength reduction factor at all period
MDOC-08. For design purposes, irregular buildings ranges. However, the ASCE 7-10 provisions allows no
must be designed for higher forces but required to reduction to the peak ground acceleration in the very
¢ȱ ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱęȱȱ short period region (acceleration spectrum with a con-
regular buildings (Tena ȱ., 2009). stant plateau that extends from T = 0 s) so this partially
ȱ ȱ ȃȄȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ -
ȱȱȱȱȱǻȬŚśŗǰȱŘŖŖŜǼǯȱȱ
Deflection amplification factor
the medium region of the spectrum, the reduction fac-
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱĜȱȱȱ tor RP is only slightly dependent on the period of vi-
only parameter for seismic design. Therefore, it is nec- bration T. For very long periods, the RP factor maintains
essary to combine it with an adequate criterion to esti- a constant value equal to the prescribed ductility P,
mate the maximum displacements that a structure will and thus, the equal displacement approximation can
have to accommodate during the action of a severe be applied (RP = PǼȱ ǻȬŚśŗǰȱ ŘŖŖŜǼǯȱ ęȱ ¡-
earthquake. The most common assumption is the pressions to obtain analytical estimates of the strength
equal-displacement approximation. This approxima- reduction factors have been proposed. According to
tion implies that “the displacement of an inelastic sys- ȱ ȱ
ȱ ǻŗşŞŘǼǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ
ǰȱ ȱ ěȱ K and strength V¢, subjected to a medium and short periods, RP = P, RP = (2P – 1)0.5, and
particular ground motion, is approximately equal to RP = 1, respectively. These expressions indicate that
the displacement of the same system responding elasti- RP/P is not greater than 1. Moreover, this ratio is sig-
¢ȄȱǻȬŚśŗǰȱŘŖŖŜǼǯȱȱŗȱ ȱȱȱȱ ę¢ȱȱȱŗȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ
displacement approximation of seismic response im- short periods.
plies that P = RPȱ (Priestley, 2000). The equal-displace-
ment approximation implies that peak displacements
Displacement amplification
may be related to peak accelerations assuming sinusoi-
dal response equations, which is reasonable approxi- Most codes recognize that a structure’s actual deforma-
mation for medium period structures (Priestley ȱ ., tion may be several times the elastics displacements es-
2007) of or for structures whose period of vibration is timated from the action on the prescribed seismic
distant from the site period (Ordaz and Pérez, 1998). An design forces (Moroni ȱǯǰȱŗşşŜǼǯȱȱȱȱȱ
apparently conservative assumption (with regard to maximum expected displacements of structure includ-
displacements) is shown in Figure 1. The basis assump- ȱěȱȱȱȱ'¡, displacements
tion is that the displacement demand is relatively in- from elastic analysis, with reduced forces ', are ampli-
sensitive to system yield strength V¢, because the value ęȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ C. This
of '¡ will be the same for any value of V¢ (FEMA-451, factor can also be derived from Figure 2 as follows
2006). ǻǰȱŗşŞşǼǱ
For design purposes, it may be assumed that inelas-
tic displacements are equal to the displacement that
would occur during an elastic response. The required ' max ' max ' y
force levels under inelastic response are much less than Cd P: (2)
'd ' y 'd
the force levels required for elastic response. The equal
Table 2. Story drift limits specified by ASCE 7-10 7-10 also provides the allowable story drift to be com-
Drift limit pared with true maximum inelastic drift. Table 2 shows
that allowable drift ratio depends on risk category (im-
Risk category
portance) of the building.
Structural system I or II III IV
Structures, other than masonry wall
structures, 4 stories or less above the base Displacement amplification factor in Mexican codes
2.5 % 2.0 % 1.5 %
with partitions that have been designed to
accommodate the story drifts
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȬȬŖŚȱȱȱȱȱ-
sion of MDOC, inelastic displacement demands gener-
Masonry cantilever shear wall structures 1.0 % 1.0 % 1.0 %
ally did not lead to suitable estimates because the
Other masonry shear wall structures 0.7 % 0.7 % 0.7 % values of the ratio Q/Q’ (Figure 4) are not adequate (Mi-
All other structures 2.0 % 1.5 % 1.0 % randa, 2007; Tena ȱ ., 2009). One more drawback of
some building codes for seismic design is that lateral
From these derivations, it is observed that C factors a ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱęȱ
function of the structural overstrength factor, the struc- way. For instance, allowable story drift ratios pre-
ȱ¢ȱǰȱȱȱȱǲȱȱěȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȬȬŖŚȱȱȱȱ
the damping ratio is generally included in the ductility 0.6% if non-structural elements are not separated from
reduction factor RP. the structure, and 1.2% if non-structural elements are
isolated. Actually, these values are not related to the
displacements under the design earthquake, because
Displacement amplification factor in US
ȱ ¡ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ę¢ȱ ǯȱ
building codes
This fact results from using a design spectrum that is
ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ not adequate for calculating displacements under the
factor C is used to compute the expected maximum in- ultimate level (Ordaz and Meli, 2004).
elastic displacement from the elastic displacement in-
Table 3. Story drift limits for collapse prevention specified
duced by the seismic design forces. Based on the equal by MDOC-08 for RC structures
displacement approximation, the inelastic displace-
Drift
ment demand is the same as the elastic displacement Structural system
limit
ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭȱ ȱ -
Special ductile frame (m = 3 or 4) 3.0 %
placements is to determine design forces generated by
concrete structures
Ordinary or intermediate frame (m = 1 or 2) 1.5 %

V. Then, the reduced design strength is distributed
Reinforced
vertically and horizontally through the structure in or- Concentric braced frame 1.5 %
der to determine members’ forces, and compute dis- Dual system: walls with ductile frames (m = 3) 1.5 %
placements using linear elastic analysis. The analysis Dual system: walls with ordinary or intermediate
1.0 %
domain represents the response of the linear elastic sys- moments-resisting frame (m = 1 or 2)
tem as analyzed with the reduced forces. Special ductile frame (m = 3 or 4) 3.0 %
¢ȱ ȱ ȱ řǰȱ ȱ ȱ ' predicted
structures
Ordinary or intermediate frame (m = 1 or 2) 1.5 %

Steel
¢ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
Eccentric braced frame 2.0 %
codes compensate through the use of the C factor. To
Concentric braced frame 1.5 %
correct for the too-low displacement predicted by the
reduced force elastic analysis, the “computed design Infill panels 0.60 %
Ȅȱ' should be multiplied by the factor C Confined wall system made with solid units
to obtain estimate of true maximum inelastic response. and with horizontal steel reinforcement (joint 0.40 %
reinforcement or wire mesh)
This factor is always less than the R factor because R
Masonry structures
contains ingredients other than pure ductility (FEMA- Confined wall system: walls made with (i) solid
units, and (ii) hollow units and horizontal steel 0.30 %
451, 2006). Both factors R and Cȱȱȱȱ-
reinforcement (joint reinforcement or wire mesh)
mic codes are primarily based on the observation of the
Combined and confined wall system 0.30 %
ȱȱěȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
strong earthquakes, on consensus of engineering judg- Confined wall system made with hollow units
and without horizontal steel reinforcement (joint 0.20 %
ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ęǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǻ-
reinforcement or wire mesh)
ȬŖřǼǯȱ¢ȱȱR and : factors, Table 1 of ASCE

Unreinforced and unconfined wall system 0.15 %
7-10 provides the C factor (see Table 1). Table 1 of ASCE
ȱȱ¡ȱȱȱȬȬŖŚȱȱȱȬŖŞǰȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

actual lateral displacements are computed multiply- drawn from this study:
ing those obtained under reduced loads by certain fac-
tors (Figure 4). The criterion for controlling the lateral ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȬȬŖŚȱȱȱȱȱ-
displacements is improved, because these codes pro- sion of MDOC, the overstrength factor is implicitly in-
pose revision of displacements for two limit states: cluded in the spectrum, so that it is an invisible parameter
serviceability and collapse prevention under maxi- ȱȱǯȱȱǰȱȱȱ-
mum credible earthquake. The review of drift limits mands generally did not lead to suitable estimates be-
ȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȬŖŞǯȱȱ cause the ratio Q/Q’ (Figure 4) is not adequate. Thus,
ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱęȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱǯȱǰȱȱęȱ
state, to limit displacements for earthquakes that oc- ¢ȱ¡ȱȱȱȬȬŖŚȱȱ¢ȱȬŖŞȱȱȱ
cur much more frequently than the collapse event. used (Miranda, 2007; Tena ȱ., 2009).
Damage to non-structural members should not be tol- ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ę-
erated for an earthquake like this one. For the service tion factors, which to date are empirical in nature, are
limit state, buildings should remain elastic, so the based on general consensus of engineering judgment,
damage control of non-structural members is achieved observed structural performance in the past earth-
by comparing the calculated elastic displacements ǰȱȱȱȱǻ
ȬŖřǼǯȱȱ¢ȱ ¢ȱȱ-
with allowable drift ratios equal to 0.2% if non-struc- nalize these factors is to quantify the overstrength
tural elements are connected to the structural system, and structural ductility ratios by analytical studies
or 0.4% if non-structural elements are properly sepa- ȱ ¡ȱ ȱ ǻǰȱ ŗşŞşǼǯȱ ȱ
rated from the structural system (Ordaz and Meli, ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ę-
2004). tion factors based on ductility, period and soil condi-
For the collapse prevention limit state, story drifts tions, together with estimates of the overstrength of
are commonly computed by multiplying the reduced the structure and the relationship between global and
displacements from linear analysis for the reduced local ductility demands (Varela ȱ., 2004), are now
spectrum ' by Q:Uǯȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ- used to establish more rational and transparent seis-
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȬȬŖŚǰȱ ȱ mic design approaches in Mexico. For instance, Mex-
ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ican seismic codes are moving towards design
ȱ ¢ǰȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ procedures where the overstrength is directly taken
MDOC-08 for collapse prevention are function of the on account to reduce the elastic design spectra. This
structural system. The calculated displacements must is the philosophy in the procedure outlined in appen-
be compared with allowable values (drift limits) given ¡ȱȱȱȬȬŖŚȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȬ
ȱȱřȱȱȱȱ¢ǯȱȱřȱ ȱ 08 (Tena ȱ., 2009).
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ę¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ-
ęȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȬȬŖŚǰȱȱȱ- correctly understood or misinterpreted, and are often
ȱȱȱęȱȱȱȱ ¢ȱǻ£ȱȱ not complied with by lay practitioners. The lack of
ǰȱŘŖŖŚǼǯȱȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱ building code compliance shall not be regarded
¢ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ merely as a legal issue to be addressed only through
ǻȱŝȬŗŖǰȱȬŖşǰȱȱȱŘǼǯ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ Ĵȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ
level, it is essential to have consistency between the
Final remarks regulations, the level of expertise of most design and
construction professionals, and local materials and
Modern design procedures give more emphasis to the construction systems (Alcocer and Castaño, 2008).
deformation capacity of the system. For example, per- Given that the level of expertise and quality of prac-
formance-based seismic design requires the explicit tice of design and construction professionals in Mex-
consideration of lateral displacement as a performance ico is quite diverse, one way to reach this goal is to
indicator, besides verifying the structural design implements codes with procedure and requirements
through an essentially force-based procedure (Priest- ȱ ěȱ ȱ ȱ ¡¢ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ȱ
ley, 2000). There is currently an intensive re-examina- and comprehensive rules should be aimed at large,
tion of the approaches for seismic design of structures. important structures; simple yet conservative ap-
This paper has summarized and discussed the approaches would be followed for most common struc-
proach in the seismic design provisions for buildings in tures limited to certain size, geometry and complexity
(Ordaz and Meli, 2004). This is the case of the recently ȱǯǰȱ£ȱǯǰȱ à£ȱǯǰȱ £¤ȱǯȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱřŗŚȬŗŗȱ ȱęȱȱȱ- ȱȱȱęȱ¢ȱǯȱȱȱȬ
inforced concrete buildings of limited size and height ȱ Ȭ, volume 122 (issue 10), 1996: 1208-
could be also included. Finally, for non-engineered 1215.
construction guidelines, other educational sources
ȬŖřǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
are needed in lieu of merely enforcing codes. ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǻȱ ŚśŖǼǰȱ ȱ
ȱ¢ȱǰȱǰȱǰȱǰȱŘŖŖřǯ
ȱǯȱȱ
ȱǯȱȱȱȱ, Earthquake
References ȱȱǰȱǰȱȱǰȱǰȱǰȱŗşŞŘǯ
ȱĴȱřŗŚǯȱ ȱȱęȱȱȱȱ- ȬȬŖŚǯȱ¡ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱǻȬřŗŚȬŗŗǼǰȱȱ
ǰȱǰȱŘŖŗŗǯ ȱǰȱ ȱęȱȱȱǰȱ¡-
ȱĴȱřŗŞǯȱȱȱȱȱȱ co, 2004.
ȱ ǻȬřŗŞǼȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ǻȬřŗŞǼǰȱ ȱ Ordaz M. and Meli R. Seismic Design Codes in Mexico, on: Pro-
ȱǰȱȱ
ǰȱǰȱŘŖŗŗǯ ȱ ȱ ŗřȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
Alcocer S. and Castaño V. Evolution of Codes for Structural De- ƺŗŘǰȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ȱ ŚŖŖŖǰȱ
sign in Mexico. ȱȱȱ¢, volume 26 (issue 2004.
1), 2008: 17-28. Ordaz M. and Pérez-Rocha L. Estimation of Strength-Reduction
ASCE 7-10. Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other Struc- ȱȱȱ¢Ǳȱȱ ȱǯȱȱȱ
tures, American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, Reston, Vir- ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢, volume 27,
ǰȱǰȱŘŖŗŖǯ 1998: 889-901.
·ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ·£Ȭȱ ǯȱ Ěȱ ȱ ȱ ¡¢ȱ Priestley M. Performance Based Seismic Design, on: Proceedings of
on Rm and Cm Factors. ȱȱȱȬ, ŗŘȱȱȱȱȱƺŗŘǰȱ
ȱŗřŗȱǻȱŘǼǰȱŘŖŖśǱȱŘŘŗȬŘřŖǯ ǰȱ ȱǰȱȱŘŞřŗǰȱŘŖŖŖǯ
ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Priestley M., Calvi G., Kowalsky M. Ȭȱ ȱ
Earthquake-Resistant Design and Construction of Buildings, ȱȱǰȱȱǰȱ¢ǰȱŘŖŖŝǯ
ȱǯȱȦȬŞŜȦŖřǰȱ¢ȱȱǰȱ- Rosenblueth E. Seismic Design Requirements in a Mexican 1976
ley, March, 1986. code. ȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢Ȭ
ȱǯȱȱȱǯȱ¡ȱȱȱ¢ȱ , volume 7, 1979: 49-61.
and Quasi-Static Behavior of Low-Rise Reinforced Concrete £ȱǯǰȱȱǯǰȱȱǯȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ
Walls. ȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢Ȭ a Building Structure Designed by Argentine Codes. ȱȱ
ǰȱȱŚśȱǻȱśǼǰȱŘŖŗřǱȱŜřśȬŜśŘǯ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢, volume 12,
Chavez J. Overview of the Current Seismic Codes in Central and ŗşŞŚǱȱŝŘŗȬŝřŜǯ
South America. ȱȱǰȱȱŚŜǰȱŘŖŗŘǱȱŗśřȬŗŜŖǯ ȬȱǯǰȱȬ
¤£ȱǯǰȱ·£Ȭȱǯǰȱ·ȱǯǰȱ
FEMA-451. Recommended Provisions: Design Examples, Federal £ȱ ǯǰȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
¢ȱȱ¢ǰȱǰȱǰȱǰȱŘŖŖŜǯ Model Building Code of Mexico. ȱȱȱ,
ȬŖşǯȱȱȱǰȱȱȱǰȱ volume 25 (issue 4), 2009: 869-898.
ȱǰȱǰȱǰȱŘŖŖşǯ ȱǯȱȱȱǯȱȬȱȱȱ-
MDOC-08. Design Manual of Civil Structures–Seismic Design, tion Factors for Short-Period Structures. ȱ ȱ
àȱȱȱǰȱǰȱ¡ǰȱŘŖŖŞǯ ȱ, volume 18, 1991: 568-574.
ȱǯȱȱȱȱȮȱǰȱ- ȱǯȱȱȱǻȱ Ǽȱȱȱȱȱȱ-
ȱ¢ȱȱ¡ȬǰȱŘŖŖŝǯ mic Provisions. ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭ, vol-
Miranda E. Strength Reduction Factors in Performance-Based De- ume 117 (issue 1), 1989: 19-28.
ǰȱǱȱȱȱȬȱ¢ǰȱ¢ǰȱ ȱǯǰȱȱǯǰȱ ȱǯȱȱȱȱę-
CA, 1997. ȱ Ĝȱ ȱ Ěȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ
Miranda E. and Bertero V. Evaluation of Strength Reduction Fac- ȱ ȱȱ ȱ ¢ǰȱ Ǳȱ ȱ ȱ ŗřȱ
tors for Earthquake-Resistant Design. ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ƺŗŘǰȱ
ǰȱȱŗŖȱǻȱŘǼǰȱŗşşŚǱȱřśŝȬřŝşǯ Vancouver, Canada, paper 1058, 2004.
Citation for this article:

Chicago citation style
Carrillo, Julián, Hugo Hernández-Barrios, Astrid Rubiano-Fonseca.
Analysis of the Earthquake-Resistant Design Approach for Build-
ings in Mexico. Ingeniería Investigación y Tecnología, XV, 01
(2014): 151-162.
ISO 690 citation style
Carrillo J., Hernández-Barrios H., Rubiano-Fonseca A. Analysis of
the Earthquake-Resistant Design Approach for Buildings in Mexi-
co. Ingeniería Investigación y Tecnología, volume XV (issue 1),
January-March 2014: 151-162.
About the authors

¤ȱ. He has been assistant professor in the Department of Civil Engineering
ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱǰȱȱȱŘŖŖŚǯȱ
ȱ-
ved his B.S. degree in civil engineering from the same university. He received his
ǯǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱ ǰȱ
ȱȱŘŖŖŚȱȱȱǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱàȱȱ·¡ǰȱȱȱŘŖŗŖǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱ Ȭȱǰȱȱȱ ȱȱȱǯȱ
ȱȱȱ-
ȱȱȱĴȱřŗŚǰȱęȱȱȱȱǲȱřŜşǰȱȱ
ȱȱǲȱȱřŝŚǰȱȬȱȱȱȱȱ
Buildings.

ȱ
¤£Ȭ. He received his bachelor degree in civil engineering in 1990.
He worked for 6 years as a design engineer, designing various reinforced concrete
structures. He received his M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees and graduated with honors
ȱ ȱ ȱàȱ ȱ ¡ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ŘŖŖŘǯȱ
¤£Ȃȱ
research interests include but not limited to seismic analysis and design of highway
bridges, laboratory testing of reinforced and prestressed concrete members. He is
ȱȱŗǰȱȱȱȬ¢ǯȱȱŘŖŖŚȱȱȱȱȱ-
ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ǰȱ
ǰȱȱȱǰȱ
Morelia, México.
ȱȬǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŜȱȱȱ-
ȱȱȱ ȱȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȂȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱàȱȱ-
reira. Currently, she is professor, researcher and chief of the Department of Electro-
nics at the Program of Technology in Electronics and Communications in the
¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ǰȱ
ǯ

Analysis of The Earthquake-Resistant Design Approach For Buildings in Mexico

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Analysis of The Earthquake-Resistant Design Approach For Buildings in Mexico

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Ingeniería Investigación y Tecnología, volumen XV (número 1), enero-marzo 2014: 151-162

ISSN 1405-7743 FI-UNAM