Comparison of Egyptian and International Seismic Codes for

Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology ISSN No : 1006-7930

Volume XIII, Issue 3, 2021 Page No: 91

Comparison of Egyptian and International

Seismic Codes for Different Building

Heights

Manar M. Hussein

Associate Professor, Department of Structural Engineering, Cairo University, Egypt

Email- [email protected]

Nehal I. Sallam

M.Sc. student, Department of Structural Engineering, Cairo University, Egypt

Walid A. Attia

Professor, Department of Structural Engineering, Cairo University, Egypt

Abstract- This research presented an investigation on different design codes commonly used in tall buildings

subjected to gravity and seismic loads. These codes are the Egyptian seismic building codes ECLF 2003 and

ECLF 2011, compared with three international codes, namely Euro Code 8 (EC 08), International Building Code

(IBC 2006), and Uniform Building Code (UBC 97). The structural systems considered are made of reinforced

concrete. The systems are Shear Wall-central core and Tube in tube. The structural analysis procedure was

carried out by (ETABS) Computer program, using both the Response Spectrum Analysis and Equivalent Static

Analysis Methods with three-dimensional finite elements models to predict the seismic response of the entire

structure. Seismic demands studies included structural period which indicated system stiffness, lateral

displacement, and base shear force resulted from seismic loads on the structure which in turn affected the

foundation design and the volume of concrete for cost effect.. Finally, the study presented a number of useful

conclusions regarding the seismic design code development in Egypt, and including also recommendation for

improving the concept of performance-based engineering (PBE) so that buildings are designed to function at

multiple desired performance levels during earthquakes, based on limiting seismic displacement of the structure,

and minimizing the cost of the whole structure without affecting its safety against resisting lateral seismic loads.

Keywords –Tall buildings,Seismic loads, Egyptian code,International codes,Drift control, Structural systems

I. INTRODUCTION

Lateral load resisting systems are assumed not to contribute in resisting the gravity loads, and are engaged

when the structure is under asset of lateral loads like wind or earthquake. The research in the field of lateral

system is continuously in process to reach optimum systems for lateral load resisting, in order fulfilling the

engineers’ requirement for both safety and economy.

In 2004, Kaihai and Yayong [1] compared the earthquake loads and seismic design provisions presented in

both the Chinese code GB5001-2001 and International Building Code IBC 2003. In 2005, A Comparison of

Seismic Provisions between the International Building Code 2003 and Mexico’s Manual of Civil Works

1993 was presented by Glenn Albert Gannon [2].In 2007, evaluation of seismic actions in Egyptian

standards compared to international codes was presented by A.M. Nasr [3]. The chosen case studies

represent the prevailing low-to mid-rise multistory framed RC building structures used in Egypt. A

comparative study for different systems used in tall buildings[4]. In 2011, The Seismic Analysis for a Multi-



Story Building Due toUBC 1997&IBC 2006 Codes was presented in [5-7]. In 2018, acomparative study for

seismic provisions of four building codes to two reinforced concrete buildings comprising shear-walls [8]. It

was recommended to provide T-formula for SW buildings in the Egyptian code.The usage of Shear walls at

different locations in a multi storied residential building was studied for the structure exposed to earthquake

using Response Spectrum Analysis [9].In 2020 [10], It was demonstrated that structural design methods can

significantly influence the values of the embodied greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions(EGHGE) of structural

systems for tall buildings, by up to 22%.

This study presented the comparative study of uniform and symmetrical tall buildings with different heights

designed according to the Egyptian codes in comparison with three of well-known international codes to

resist both gravity and seismic loads. Codes compared are Egyptian code for loads and Forces, "ECLF

2003", "ECLF 2011"[11-12],the Euro code 08, "EC 08"[13], the international building code, "IBC 2006"[14]

and uniform building code, "UBC 97"[15]. This comparison included also the efficiency of the reinforced

concrete structural systems in limiting the seismic lateral displacement, base shear force, structural period,

the inter story drift,and finally the volume of concrete. These structural systems are shear wall-central core

and tube in tube structural systems. The computer program used is "ETABS"[16] developed for reinforced

concrete structure. It is used to calculate the seismic loads using response spectrum method of analysis

"RSPM" with three-dimensional analysis. However, this method reflected the real behavior of structural

system for each height. The height applied are 10 stories (35m), 20 stories (70m), 30stories (105m), 40

stories (140m) and 50 stories (175m) in all systems with adding 60 stories (210m) and 70 stories (245m)

applied at Tube in tube structure systems [17-18].

II. METHODOLOGY

Main Objectives–

The aim of this study is to assess the current Egyptian seismic building code, through a comparative

approach with three international codes. The main objectives are as follows:

1. Linear analysis is used to study the response of the structures. The response of the structure under the

effect of lateral loads is expressed in terms of the inter-story drift in addition to lateral displacement.

The “Extended Three-dimensional Analysis of Building Structures” (ETABS) Computer program is

used to calculate the seismic response of the buildings.

2. To verify the compatibility between the Egyptian and international seismic design codes as a step

towards a unified technical specification due to the increasing number of international construction

projects which require the use of foreign codes other than the national standard.

3. To evaluate the seismic loading provision in Egypt, in comparison with current state-of the-art

earthquake resistant trends and international seismic building codes best practices.

4. To illustrate graphically a comparative study between the seismic responses outputs of the entire

structure using different design codes.

Methods of Structural Analysis–

Two methods of analysis are used. The first one is the Response Spectrum analysis. In this method, an elastic

dynamic analysis of a structure is carried out, utilizing the peak dynamic response of all modes having a significant

contribution to total structural response. Peak modal responses are calculated using the ordinates of the appropriate

response spectrum curve which correspond to the modal periods. Maximum modal contributions are combined in a

statistical manner to obtain an approximate total structural response as discussed briefly at (UBC 97, sec.1631.5).

The second method is the Time History analysis.In thismethod, an analysis of the dynamic response of a structure at

each increment of time, when the base is subjected to a specific ground motion time history as discussed briefly at

(UBC 97, sec.1631.6).



Comparison of Different Seismic Load Design–

This study investigated the seismic design following different codes and standards. These codes are the

Egyptian seismic building codes ECLF 2003 and ECLF 2011, compared with three international codes,

namely Euro Code 8 (EC 08), International Building Code (IBC 2006), and UniformBuilding Code (UBC

97). The structural systems considered are made of reinforced concrete. The systems are Shear Wall-central

core and Tube in tube. Seismic demands studies included lateral displacements, structural period, base shear

force resulted from seismic loads on the structure and the volume of concrete. Table 1 showed comparison

of base shear analysis using different studied codes.

III. CASE STUDY

Structural Systems Models–

The case-study is a symmetrical with a regular-shaped (Figure 1). Slab spans are assumed to be 6.0 m arranged in

five bays for each direction. The story height is assumed to be 3.5 m.

The first studied system is the shear wall-central core which consisted of vertical continuous stiffening

elements that deform in bending mode. It is used in reinforced concrete buildings suited to residential

buildings and hotels (Figures 2.a and 2.b). It behaved as vertical cantilevers when responding to lateral

loads, its response depends on the interaction between the horizontal floor and the vertical wall.As shown in

figure 3 Configuration of Shear wall /Central core system in "ETABS" program, the opening of central core

is 6x6 m and the columns are arranged every 6m on the floor slab, which acting as a rigid diaphragm

transmits seismic loads to the central core walls, we ignored the flexure stiffness of columns in X-direction

and Y-direction to make seismic loads resists only by central core walls, which acts as the main seismic

force resisting elements and columns used to support vertical loads only. In shear wall central core

preliminary model, the selected wall thickness is based on "ETABS" program designed according to "ACI

318-08[19-20] /IBC 2006/ (ECLF 2003, Section 6.5.1)".

The second system is the Tube in Tube which consisted of closely spaced columns and deep spandrels to tie

the columns around the perimeter of the building. The core is not only used for gravity loads but to resist

lateral loads, as well (Figure 4). Floor slabs acts as a rigid diaphragm, distribute the lateral loads to the

exterior and interior tubesaccording to their stiffness.Tube in tube system can represent by interior tube

which around the opening of the central core and exterior tube on the outer face of the structure as shown in

the figure 5. The floor slabs are very stiff and strong to transfer lateral seismic loads to both interior and

exterior tubes according to their relative stiffness. While the columns are designed supporting the vertical

loads. So, the flexure stiffness of these columns is neglected and entered to the program equal to 0.001.



Table-1 Comparison of Codes Formulae foe Determining the Base Shear Force

Item

Base Shear Formula

Base Shear

Coefficient

Considered Base Shear

Coefficient Design Factor

ECLF 2003

Fb = ɣ1 Sd (T1) . λ .W/g

ɣ1 .Sd (T1) . λ /g

Sd (T1) ordinate of the design

spectrum at period T1

No range limit is g acceleration of gravity ɣ1 importance factor of the

specified building λ effective modal mass correction

factor

EC08: 2003

Fb = Sd (T1). m. λ Sd (T1). λ /g

No range limit is

specified

Sd (T1) ordinate of the design

spectrum at period T1

g acceleration of gravity

λ effective modal mass correction

factor

SDS, SD1 design elastic response If Ta < TS acceleration at short period (0.2

IBC 2006 V = Cs W Cs =SDS /(R/IE ) sec.) and (1 sec.) period. If Ta > TS IE occupancy importance factor

Cs =SD1 /(R/IE )T Cs ≥0.044 SDS IE

R Response modification factor Cs= the seismic response coeff.

UBC 97

V= (Cv . I/R.T).W

Vmax=2.5 Ca.

I.W/R

V min =0.11 Ca. I.

W

T is a fundamental period of the structure in the direction under

consideration

I is seismic importance factor

Cv , Ca are a numerical

coefficient dependent on the soil

conditions R Response modification factor

Story Drift Limitations–

Story drift is the lateral displacement of one level of a structure relative to the level above or below. Based

on the (UBC-97, Sec. 1630.10) [15], story drifts should be determined using the maximum inelastic response

displacement, ΔM, which is defined as the maximum total drift or total story drift caused by the design-level

earthquake. Displacement includes both elastic and inelastic contributions to the total deformation. The

maximum inelastic response displacement, ΔM, should be computed from UBC-97 Formula 30-17

ΔM= 0.7 R ΔS................................................................................... ( 1 )

Where ΔS is a design level elastic response displacement found from the elastic static analysis of

"UBC-97" Sec. 1630.2.1 [15] or the elastic dynamic analysis of (UBC-97, Sec. 1631). The resulting

deformations (ΔS) should be determined at all critical locations in the structure under consideration. In

calculation of ΔS, translational and torsional deflections should be included.

For structures with a period less than 0.7 seconds, the maximum story drift is limited to



ΔS ≤ 0.025 h (T < 0.7 seconds) ............................................................ ( 2 )

Where: h is the story height.

For structures with a period equal to or greater than 0.7 seconds, the story drift limit is

ΔS ≤ 0.020 h (T ≥ 0.7 seconds) ............................................................... ( 3 )

Preliminary and Final Analysis-

By considering the chosen case-study, a thorough analysis has been carried out for the common structural

systems of tall buildings. These structural systems have been applied to be considered case-study using two

models. The first one is constructed based on designing lateral seismic force resisting element used for

different structural systems according to mentioned codes to strengthen these main elements against vertical

and seismic loads, it is called preliminary model. Then check maximum displacementlimits. If the maximum

value within the allowable limits, this model will be final model. If the value of second model out of range

the size of effective seismic force elements will be increased, until the displacement and seismic drift will be

limited.Seismic Displacement of shear wall-central core for 30 stories (preliminary and final models) are

presented in Figures 6-7.

Loading–

• Seismic Loads

The normal response spectrum shape, corresponding to "type1"(Elastic Response Spectrumfor all region of

Egypt including coastal are a lying on the Mediterranean Sea) spectrum in ECLF 2003, ECLF 2011and

"type2", low seismicity regions, the normal shape spectrum with low amplification in the long period range

(Ms < 5,5) spectrum in EC 08, is used in the analysis cases of their respective codes. For the other codes

(UBC97 and IBC2006) are with their respective normalized response spectrum curves scaled to the required

design peak ground accelerations (PGAs).

• Gravity Load

For residential building the Dead load (Superimposed load) = 3 kN/m² and the live loads = 2 kN/m²

Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture

Volume XIII, Issue 3, 2021

of Architecture & Technology

Figure 1 Structural model typical floor plan

ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 96



Figure

Figure


Figure 2 Shear wall central core building and examples of cores

Figure 3 Configuration of Shear wall -Central core system

Figure 4 Tube in tube structural system

ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 97



Figure 5 Configuration of Tube in Tube system



Figure 6 Seismic Displacement of shear wall-central core for 30 stories (preliminary models)

Figure 7Seismic Displacement of shear wall-central core for 30 stories (Final models)

120

Equivalent static force method of analysis

113

Response spectrum method of analysis

100 93

83 83

80

66

60

allowable

limits

40

20 10 12

7

0

UBC 97 IBC EC 08 ECLF 2003 ECLF 2011

INTERNATIONAL CODES

Equivalent static force method of analysis Response spectrum method of analysis

50

45

40

35

43 40

35 37

30

25

20

15

26

10

5

0

5 6 6

UBC 97 IBC EC 08 ECLF 2003 ECLF 2011

INTERNATIONAL CODES

DIS

PLA

CE

ME

NT

(cm

) D

ISP

LAC

EM

EN

T(c

m)



IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

In this section a numerical comparison of earthquake design loads among existing Egyptian codes of

practice and three of the well-known international codes was run. Codes compared are EC 08, IBC 2006,

and UBC 1997.The comparison is conducted for terms of base shear force, lateral seismic displacement,

seismic drift, structural period, as well as the volume of concrete for economic reasons. These parameters

are chosen since they form the basis for calculating all other seismic induced actions and displacements.The

tube in tube system will be presented with comparing the central core system for 20 stories height and more

up to 70 stories. Where, the tube in tube system has been used for increasing the effective depth of central

core structures and limiting the lateral seismic displacement of a high rise building.. So, we can say the tube

in tube system is very efficient in limiting the lateral seismic displacement by using the building height up to

70 stories and more, Also,It is clear that tube in tube system is more economic at 40 stories and more as

shown in figures8-9, it illustrate the volume of concrete for tube in tube system compared to shear wall-

central core system. Where, volume of concrete for 40 stories and 50 stories for tube in tube is less than

volume of concrete for shear wall-central core by approximately 52% and 75% respectively,. In fact,

beginning from 30 stories, the size of concrete walls in lower floors in shear wall core system is so big

making it unpractical to use this it in high rise building. So that tube in tube system is used in the most

famous world's tallest building.

The analytical studies are performed on real case study building structures using the dynamic analysis

procedures by each code. Finally, the results are analyzed and commented upon.

Lateral Seismic Displacement–

For Shear Wall-Central core system, figure 10 illustrates the estimated lateral seismic displacement, which

resulted from the final models by ESFM. It is obvious that, at 10, 20, stories structure, ECLF 2003 is more

conservative than other four international codes because it has the largest values of lateral seismic

displacement. Figure 11 illustrates the estimated lateral seismic displacement at Shear Wall-Central core

system, which resulted from the final models by RSPM. In general, ECLF 2003 is more conservative than

other four international codes because it has the largest values of lateral seismic displacement.With

increasing the height of structure to 30 stories, the seismic displacement is more than allowable limits at

preliminary model. With increasing the sizes of lateral forces resisting elements, in order to limit the lateral

seismicdisplacement, we have to increase the volume of concrete.

For Tube in tube system, figure 12 illustrates the estimated lateral seismic displacement, which resulted

from the final models by ESFM. It is obvious that, at 40, 50, 60 stories IBC 2006 is more conservative than

other three international codes because it has the largest values of lateral seismic displacement. On the other

side figure 13 illustrates the estimated lateral seismic displacement at tube in tube system, which resulted

from the final models by RSPM. In general, ECLF 2003 is more conservative than other three international

codes because it has the largest values of lateral seismic displacement.

Base Shear Force–

Figures14-15 illustrate comparisons between four codes due to base shear force for the shear wall central

core and Tube in tube structural systems. In general, it found that ECLF 2003 is more conservative code

relative to other three international codes. It followed by "ECLF 2011" and then EC 08. While, UBC 97

gave the least conservative values in all codes

Structural Period–

Figures 16-17 illustrate comparisons between five codes due to structural period at structural systems. In

general, it was found that the values of structural period do not have a large difference range between codes

especially at ECLF2003 which is more conservative than ECLF 2011, EC 08, UBC 97 and IBC 2006.

Where, it has the least values of structural period relative to other three mentioned codes.



Figure 8 Volume of Concrete for shear wall-central core system

Figure 9 Volume of Concrete for tube in tube and central core system

prelimenary models final models

25000

20664

20000

15000

10000 8484

5000 4620

2583 2226

168 168 378 462 903

0

10 stories 20 stories 30 stories 40 stories 50 stories

shear wall-central core tube in tube

25000

20664

20000

15000

10000 8484 8799

6783

5229

5000

2016

462

2583 3024 4053

0

20 stories 30 stories 40 stories 50 stories 60 stories 70 stories

vo

lum

e o

f co

ncre

te(m

3)

vo

lum

e o

f co

ncr

ete

(m3

)



Figure 10 Comparison between seismic

Figure 11 Comparison between seismic displacements in Different


seismic displacement in Different Codes for Shear Wall-Central core system to

seismic displacements in Different Codes for Shear Wall-Central core system due

ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 102

to "ESFM"

due to "RSPM”



Figure 12 Seismic Displacements in Different Codes for Tube in Tube system using "ESFM"

Figure 13 Seismic Displacements in Different Codes for Tube in Tube system using "RSPM”

60 20 story 30 story 40 story 50 story

53 60 story 70 stories

50

43 43 44

40 34

32

30 28 28 28

20 20

19 16 16 16

11

10 7 7 7 8

1 3

1 3

1 3

1 3

5

1 2

0

ECLF 2003 ECLF 2011 EC 08 IBC 2006 UBC 97

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

20 story 43

30 story 40 story 50 story 60 story 70 stories 43

28 28

16 16

10

5

0

7 7 9

6 6 7

3 1

3 1 1 2

4 3 1 1

5 5 7

1 1 2 4 4


Dis

pla

cem

en

t (c

m)

Dis

pla

cem

en

t (c

m)



20 story 30 story 40 story 50 story 60 story 70 story

30000 26800 26570

24695 25000

22525 22520 23011

5000

0


Figure 14 Comparison between base shear force in Different Codes for Shear Wall-Central core system

20000

18209

18200

20447 19112

15000

14470

14460

16600

13113

15559

12301

15684

13080

10000

10812

7227

10847

7220

9751

6452

11093

9130 10627

8143 8380

6567

Figure15 Base Shear Forces in Different Codes for Tube in Tube system

Ba

se S

he

ar

Fo

rce

(k

n)



Figure 16 Comparison between structural period in Different Codes for Shear Wall-Central core system

Figure17 Structural Period in Different Codes for Tube in Tube system

20 story 30 story 40 story 50 story 60 story 70 story

6

5.011 5.047 5.136

5 4.815 4.901

3.949 3.99 4.0801 4.109 4.181

4

3.022 3.07 3.143 3.166 3.222

3

2.073 2.11 2.154 2.169 2.208

2

1.25 1.27 1.299 1.308 1.331

1 0.649 0.661 0.6722 0.6771 0.6892

0


Str

uct

ura

l Pe

rio

d (

sec.

)



V. CONCLUSION

A comparative study of uniform and symmetrical tall buildings with different heights designed according to the

Egyptian codes in comparison with three of well-known international codes to resist both gravity and seismic loads.

Codes compared are Egyptian code for loads and Forces, "ECLF 2003", "ECLF 2011",the Euro code 08, "EC 08",

the international building code, "IBC 2006" and uniform building code, "UBC 97". This comparison included the

seismic lateral displacement, base shear force, structural period, the inter story drift,and finally the volume of

concrete. The structural systems studied are shear wall-central core and tube in tube structural systems.The

following conclusions are based on the results obtained in this study:

1. Base shear values obtained from Response Spectrum Analysis Method "RSPM" were generally found

less than the corresponding base shear values calculated using Equivalent Static Analysis Method

"ESFM".

2. Comparing lateral seismic displacement in five international codes, it was found that ECLF 2003 had

the highest values of lateral seismic displacement by percentage ranged from 60%-85% relative to IBC

2006 at "RSPM" while at "ESFM" ECLF 2003 with higher values at 10, 20 stories by percentage

ranged from 6%-50%, while IBC 2006 with higher values at 30 stories and more by percentage ranged

from 3%-31%,. It was followed by ECLF 2011 by percentage ranged from 0%-7% relative to ECLF

2003 then IBC 2006, EC 08 and the least values were for UBC 1997.

3. Comparing structural period in five international codes, there was no big difference in their values,

where it ranged from 0%-3%.UBC 1997 was more conservative than, IBC 2006 and EC 08 with the

largest values of structural period. While, ECLF 2003 had the least values of structural period and

followed by ECLF 2011.

4. Comparing base shear force in five international codes, it was found that, generally, ECLF 2003 was

the most conservative code with higher values of base shear force. It was followed by ECLF 2011, EC

08, then IBC 2006 and the least values for UBC 1997. On the other hand, "ECLF 2003"&"ECLF

2011" tended to underestimate the ESFM base shear forces for higher buildings compared to the other

codes.

5. Tube in tube structural system is The stiffest system relative to other four structural systems with

respect to five international codes. It is Recommended for tall building ranged from (40-70) stories

(140m -245m) height. Also, it Got the lowest values of lateral seismic displacement in all structural

systems with respect to five international studied codes. More economic, considering the volume of

concrete.

6. Shear wall central-core system Recommended up to 20 stories (70m) height with accepted volume of

concrete. Huge thickness of walls at lower stories caused a loss in available free area and increased the

cost of buildings. More economic than rigid frame for 10 stories height. But, it was more flexible in

resisting lateral seismic loads in tall buildings

Some recommendations could be drawn from this research:

1. In future code updates of "ECLF 2011", it is necessary to add base shear ratio for RSPM to ESFM to

make it consistent with other studied codes which generally consider a minimum ratio of 0.8 to 0.9.

2. This study did not include non-structural elements, so it needs to be re-evaluated in the future.

3. The effect of wind loads was not included in this study for five international codes, so this load needs

to be added and re-examined these structural systems.

4. This study did not include the accidental torsional effects into considerations, so it needs to be re-

examined in the future.



REFERENCES

[1] Kaihai and Yayong, “Compared the Earthquake Loads and Seismic Design Provisions Presented in both the Chinese code GB5001-2001 and International Building Code IBC 2003”, Los Angeles, California: John A. Martin & Associates, 2004

[2] Glenn Albert Gannon, "A Comparison of Seismic Provisions between the International Building Code 2003 and Mexico’s Manual of Civil Works 1993" ,M.Sc. Thesis, San Francisco, California,May, 2005

[3] A. M. Nasr, "Evaluation of Seismic Actions in Egyptian standards compared to international codes ", M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt,2007.

[4] N. F. El-Leithy, "Comparative Study of Structural Systems for tall Buildings ", M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University,

Giza, Egypt, 2010

[5] Abdal Karim, k. Alaa. "The Seismic Analysis for a multi-story Building due to UBC 1997&IBC 2006 Codes ", Eng. & Tech. Journal, Vol. 29, No. 7, 2011.

[6] Mizam Dogan, "Failure Analysis of Shear Columns to Seismic Events" Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Civil Engineering Dept., 26480 Eskisehir, Turkey, 2011

[7] Kai Hu, "A study on High-rise Structure with Oblique Columns by ETABS, SAP2000, MIDAS/GEN and SATWE" International Conference on Advances in Computational Modeling and Simulation, 2012

[8] A. El-Kholy, H. Sayed, A. Shaheen, “Comparison of Egyptian Code 2012 with Eurocode 8-2013, IBC 2015 and UBC 1997 for seismic analysis of residential shear-walls RC buildings in Egypt”, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, Vol. 9, N. 4, pp. 3425-3436.

[9] S. Akhil Ahamad, K. Pratap, “Dynamic analysis of G + 20 multi storied building by using shear walls in various locations for different seismic zones by using Etabs”, Materials Today Proceedings, In press, 2020

[10] J.Helal, A. Stephan, R. Crawford,“The influence of structural design methods on the embodied greenhouse gas emissions of structural systems for tall buildings”, Stuctures, Vol. 20, pp. 650-665, 2020

[11] ECLF 201permenant Committee, "ECLF 203:2006: Egyptian Code of Calculating Loads and Forces in structural work and Masonry" HBRC, Giza, 2007.

[12] ECLF 201 permanent Committee, "ECLF 201:2011: Egyptian Code of Calculating Loads and Forces in structural work and Masonry" HBRC, Giza, 2011.

[13] CEN/TC 250 Technical Committee "Euro Code 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-part1: General Rules, seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings", final Draft Ref. No. prEN 1998-1:2003 E, CEN, Brussels, December, 2003.

[14] IBC, International Building Code 2006, International Code Council, Birmingham, Alabama, January, 2006.

[15] Uniform Building Code (UBC), Structural Engineering Design Provisions, Vol.2, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier,

Calif.,1997

[16] ETABS Version 9.6, Computers & Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California.

[17] Bryan Stafford Smith and Alex Coull, “Tall Building Structures, Analysis and Design”, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,1991

[18] S.Bungale, Taranath, “Wind and Earthquake Resistance Buildings Structural Analysis and Design”, Los Angeles, California: John A. Martin & Associates, 2004.

[19] ASCE Standard, "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other Structures, ASCE 7-05", American Society of Civil Engineering, Washington DC, 2005.

[20] ACI 318-05, American Concrete Institute Code (2005), “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary”.

Documents

Comparison of Egyptian and International Seismic Codes for