Iem Workshop Ec8 2012

Seismic Design to EC8
Jack Pappin, Arup, Hong Kong
Topics
Seismic hazard
Site response / Liquefaction
Design of buildings to EC8
Foundation design to EC8
Other ground effects
Ground motion
Plate tectonics
Observed seismicity
Seismic activity 1990 to 1999 within 100km of the surface: Source USGS website
Plate tectonics
Section through South America
Earthquake mechanism
Time = 0
Time = 100 years
Slippage causing Energy release
Time = 101 years
Earthquake effects
High
Intensity
Moderate
Intensity
Low
Intensity
MSK Intensity scale

II - Very weak
Recorded by instruments
III - Weak
Felt indoors by a few people
IV - Largely observed
Felt indoors by many people, doors and dishes rattle
V - Strong
Buildings tremble, unstable objects overturned
VI - Slight damage
Slight damage to a few brick buildings
VII - Building damage
Large cracks in weak buildings, slight to r.c. building
VIII - Some destruction Partial collapse of weak buildings, a few slopes fail
IX - General damage
Large cracks in r.c. buildings, liquefaction observed
X - General destruction Most brick buildings collapse, many landslides

XI - Catastrophe
Most buildings collapse
XII - Landscape changes Practically all structures destroyed
Intensity 7
Newcastle 1989
Intensity 9
Taiwan 1999
Magnitude
Magnitude is a measure of the size (or energy release)
of the earthquake.
Each unit increase in magnitude scale is about a three
times increase in ground motion for the same distance
from the event. It is also about a 30 times increase in
energy release.
Magnitude
Energy
Release
Ground motion
Step 1 - desk study

Step 2 - Calculation
Step 1 - desk study
M8.5 and 7.9 Southern Sumatra Earthquakes of

12 September 2007 and M7.0 of 13 September 2007
Seismic Hazard of Western Indonesia April 2008
Ground motion
What measure should be used to
define ground motion
Intensity - measure of peak observed damage potential

Peak motions - acceleration, velocity or displacement
Ground motion
ROCK
SOIL
12 Sep 2007 Sumatra
10
Ground motion
What measure should be used to
define ground motion
Intensity - measure of peak observed damage potential

Frequency content - response spectra
Response spectrum
11
30 Sep 2009 Sumatra
30 Sep 2009 Sumatra
12
Ground motion - Calculation

Key information for a seismic hazard assessment
Seismic source zones
Active faults
Areas of diffuse seismicity
Attenuation relationship
The behaviour of a measure of ground
motion as a function of the distance
from the source of energy, (EERI 1984).
Example for Peak Ground Acceleration
Peak ground Acceleration (g)
1.0
Magnitude
measure of the size
(or energy release)
of the earthquake.
M = 7.5
0.5
M = 6.5
M = 5.5
10
100
1000
Distance (km)
13
Example of Response Spectra from an event at
10km in the Western USA
1.0
Peak ground Acceleration (g)
M = 6.5 for Eastern USA
M = 7.5
M = 6.5
0.5
M = 5.5
1
Fundamental Period (sec)
Variability of Attenuation relationship

100
10
6
Peak acceleration (%g)
40
1
10
100
Distance from energy source (km)
14
Ground motion - Calculation

2 basic methods to determine design ground motion
Deterministic
to determine the ground motion at

the site due to maximum expected
earthquakes
Probabilistic
to determine the ground motion at

the site which has a desired annual
probability of being exceeded
Deterministic seismic hazard analysis

Source 3
Source 1
R1
M3
M1
Site
Source 2
R2
M2
STEP 1 - source model
For each source the maximum magnitude

that is expected is estimated.
STEP 2 - distance determination
Controlling
earthquake
M3
R3
Y1
Y=
M1
M2
Y2
Y3
R3 R2
R1
Distance
STEP 4 - report
STEP 3 - attenuation
15
Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis

Source 3
Source 1
1
2
R
Site
Source 2
STEP 1 - source model
Magnitude M
STEP 2 - rate of earthquake activity
M=7
M=6
Distance R
Parameter value y*
STEP 4 - result for all M and R
STEP 3 - attenuation
Geohazard studies
Satellite imagery (IKONOS)
ArcInfo export
geological maps
Aerial photography
Hard copy geological maps
GIS
Ground investigation data
Maps
Field mapping
Hazards
16
Seismic source zones and activity rates

Fault sources - Geology & tectonics
Geomorphology
Slip rates
Observed seismicity
Areal sources - Geology & tectonics

Observed seismicity
Observed seismicity
Observed seismicity
1.
Historical data
Based on Intensity
more recent data is more complete
2.
Instrumental data
Complied by by several agencies
e.g. ISC, USGS.
Recent data is more complete
since 1920 for M > 6
since 1963 for M > 4.5
1. plus 2. = Earthquake catalogue
17
Tectonic
structure
10.0
5 to 5.4
5.5 to 5.9
6 to 6.9
500km
7 to 7.9
7.5
Kuala
Lumpur
8 to 8.9
9
5.0
Latitude
2.5
0.0
-2.5
-5.0
-7.5
95.0
97.5
100.0
102.5
105.0
107.5
110.0
Longitude
18
Subduction zone model
Kuala Lumpur
Distance (km)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Depth (km)
100
200
5.0 to 5.4
5.5 to 5.9
6.0 to 6.9
7.0 to 7.9
8.0 to 8.9
9
300
Activity with depth for subduction events

number of events
0
50
100
150
200
0-20
20-30
30-40
Depth (km)
40-60
60-80
80-100
100-130
130-160
160-200
200-250
250-300
19
Seismic activity in Subduction
100
1800
1920
10
Design
0.1
0.01
Annual number of events > M
1964
40 to 100km
1920
10 to 40km
1964
10
1800
Design
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.001
4
Magnitude (M)
10
10
1964
1964
200 to 300km
Design
Design
0.1
0.01
0.001
100 to 200km
1920
Magnitude (M)
0.1
0.01
0.001
Magnitude (M)
5 to 5.4
10.0
Sumatra
Fault
model
Magnitude (M)
5.5 to 5.9
6 to 6.9
7 to 7.9
Series9
7.5
Series10
5.0
Latitude
2.5
0.0
-2.5
-5.0
-7.5
95.0
97.5
100.0
102.5
105.0
107.5
110.0
Longitude
20
Sumatra
Fault
model
Kuala Lumpur
Distance (km)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Depth (km)
100
200
Subduction
zone
Sumatra
Fault
Area to the north

and east of the
Sumatra Fault
5.0 to 5.4
5.5 to 5.9
6.0 to 6.9
7.0 to 7.9
300
Sumatra fault activity rates

10
1800 - 2005
1920 - 2005
1964 - 2005
1
17mm/yr slip
Background
Total
0.1
0.01
0.001
4
Magnitude (M)
21
12
Ground-Motion
Attenuation Relationships
for Sumatra Earthquakes
Developed by Megawati
(NTU, Singapore)
Penang
Seulimeum
Medan
3
Eurasian
Plate
la
su
nin
Pe
lay
Ma
Sumatra
Fault
Kuala Lumpur
Renun
Pekan Baru
52 mm/yr
o
(N10 E)
Sumani
ra n
at
m ctio
Su du
b
Su
ra
at
m
Su
Latitude ( )
Singapore
Barumun
Dikit
-3
57 mm/yr
-6
Palembang
Semangko
Indian-Australian
Plate
60 mm/yr
Java
(N17 E)
-9
500 km
-12
93
96
99
102
105
108
111
Longitude ( )
Attenuation
Subduction earthquakes (Megawati 2006)

10
9
8
7
Standard deviation = * 1.8
1
1 second RSA (m/s2)
0.1
0.01
0.001
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Distance (km)
22
Sumatra Fault earthquakes (Megawati 2006)
Attenuation
10
9
8
7
Standard deviation = * 2.6
1
1 second RSA (m/s2)
0.1
0.01
0.001
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Distance (km)
Normal
distribution
0.8
Likelihood
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-3
-2
-1
Standard deviations from mean
23
Calculated response spectra

0.8
5% damping
2% in 50 year
10% in 50 year
0.7
Spectral Acceleration (m/s2)
50% in 50 year
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.01
0.1
10
Period (sec)
5 second
period
2% in 50 year
(5s)
De-aggregation
20
18
2% in 50 year
16
1 second period
14
12
2% in 50 year (1s)
10
12
8
6
10
4
8
Mag
5.25
863
763
6.25
813
663
713
563
8.25
7.25
613
Distance (km)
10
513
463
9.25
363
2% in 50 year (0.2sec)
413
263
313
163
213
63
13
113
0.2 second period
8.25
Magnitude (M)
5.25
863
763
6.25
813
663
713
563
7.25
613
463
Distance (km)
513
313
363
9.25
413
213
263
113
163
13
63
1833 type event
Subduction 0 to 40km deep

813
Northeast Sumatra
Sunda Plate
Magnitude (M)
5.25
863
713
6.25
763
613
7.25
663
463
8.25
513
Distance (km)
563
363
9.25
413
263
Sumatra Fault
313
113
163

213
13
0
63
% Contibution to Hazard
24
Scenario events
2% in 50 year
10% in 50 year
50% in 50 year
Subd M9.3@530 * 1.9
Subd M9.0@530 * 1.7
Subd M8.7@550 * 1
Sum Flt M8@400 * 6
Sum Flt M8@400 * 3.5
Sum Flt M8@400 * 1.5
Local M6@130 * 2.3
Local M6@210 * 2
Local M6@240 * 1
0.8
5% damping
0.7
Spectral Acceleration (m/s2)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.01
0.1
10
Period (sec)
Incorporation of uncertainty
Example of a logic tree analysis
Attenuation
model
Magnitude
distribution
Maximum
magnitude
0.18
25
Time histories
2% in 50 year
10% in 50 year
50% in 50 year
2% in 50yrs - Short
10% in 50yrs - Short
50% in 50yrs - Short
2% in 50yrs - Long
10% in 50yrs - Long
50% in 50yrs - Long
0.8
5% damping
0.7
Spectral Acceleration (m/s 2)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.01
0.1
10
Period (sec)
Acceleration [m/sec2]
Time histories
0.3
0
.3
0.25
0
.2
5
0.2
0
.2
0.15
0
.1
5
0.1
0
.1
0.05
0
.5
-0.05
-0
.5
-0.1
-0
.1
-0.15
-0
.1
5
-0.2
-0
.2
-0.25
-0
.2
5
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Time [sec]
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
Short Period
Same scale
0 .2
0 .1 5
0 .1
0 .0 5
0
- 0 .0 5
- 0 .1
- 0 .1 5
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
T im e [ s e c ]
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
250
300
350
400
T im e [ s e c ]
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
0 .2
0 .1 5
0 .1
0 .0 5
0
- 0 .0 5
- 0 .1
- 0 .1 5
- 0 .2
0
Long Period
50
100
150
200
26
2% in 50 year bedrock motion

7
5% damping
Hong Kong
Kuala Lumpur
Spectral Acceleration (m/s )
New York (IBC2006)
0
0.01
0.1
10
Period (sec)
27
USGS catalogue since 1972 - 0 to 50 km depth
28
29
Section R1
30
Section R2
Section R3
31
Magnitude recurrence plots
10% in the next 50 year bedrock response spectra

2
Bedrock Spectral acceleration (m/s2)
5% damping
Semporna
Sandakan
Kota Kinabalu
Kuala Lumpur
Penang
Kuantan
Kuching
0
0.01
0.1
10
Structural period (s)
32
Comparison with Eurocode 8 rules (3.2.1(4))
Comparison with Eurocode 8 rules (for bedrock)
0.15
0.4
33
Spectral acceleration (m/s2)
5% damping
Seismic
design
required
with ductile
detailing
Semporna
Sandakan
Kota Kinabalu
Kuala Lumpur
Penang
Kuantan
Kuching
1
Seismic
design not
required
0
0.01
0.1
10
Concern with seismicity near to KL
34
Events observed since 2004
Annualexceedancerate
10
0.1
2.2
2.7
3.2
3.7
4.2
Magnitude
10% in the next 50 year bedrock response spectra

2
Spectral acceleration (m/s2 )
Kuala Lumpur
Seismic
design
required
with ductile
detailing
KL with local
events
1
Seismic
design not
required
0
0.01
0.1
10
35
Site Response
Bedrock
Mexico City - 1985

2 week visit two weeks after
the event
36
Mexico City - 1985
Earthquake source
Mexico City
Epicentre
Magnitude 8.1
37
Mexico City
5 km
Mexico City
5 km
38
Television studio
Mexico City
5 km
39
Recorded ground motion
Recorded ground motion
40
Response spectra
Observed building damage
43%
41
Notable non-damage
Lake bed
ground
conditions
42
Cyclic triaxial testing of

lake bed clay
Nottingham University
Response spectra
43
Site Response Effects US approach

IBC 2000+ Classification of soil profile types
Soil Profile
Type
Shear wave
velocity (m/sec)
SPT
N value
>1,500
750 - 1,500
C - Dense stiff soil
375 - 750
> 50
> 100
D - Medium dense firm soil
180 - 375
15 - 50
50 - 100
< 180
< 15
< 50
A - Hard rock
B - Weak to medium rock
E - Loose soft soil
Undrained shear
strength (kPa)
F - Deep soft soils that require site specific investigations
The upper 30m of the soil profile are considered
Site Response Effects

IBC 2000+ Soil amplification factors
4
Soil Amplification Factor
Long period motion (1 sec)

3
Soft soil
E
2
D
D
C
B
A
C
B
A
Hard Rock
Short period motion (0.2 sec)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Approximate Peak Ground Acceleration (g)
44
Eurocode classification
IBC
45
EC8 : 10% in 50 year bedrock response spectra
Soil amplification factor
1
Class D
Class C
Class B
0
0.1
10
46
IBC 2000+ Soil amplification factors
4
Long period motion (1 sec)
Soft soil
C
B
B
1
1
Class D
Hard Rock
Short period motion (0.2 sec)
Class C
Class B
0
0.1
10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Approximate Peak Ground Acceleration (g)
Oasys SIREN site response analysis
Output motion
Soil Surface
F
Bedrock
Input motion
47
Soil shear behaviour
Gsec
Gmax or G0
Backbone
curve
G0
1.0
Modulus
reduction curve
Gsec
Gsec
G0
log
G0(ij) = vs(ij)2
v
Vs(vh)
1
h1
Vs(hv) 2
Porous
stone
Vs(hh) 3
Mid-plane
pore
pressure
probe
h2
where G0(ij) is the elastic shear modulus

is the bulk density of soil and
vs(ij) is the shear wave velocity through soil
Bender
element
(vs(vh))
Bender element (vs(hv))
Bender
3 element
Soil
triaxial
specimen
Base
pedestal
Bender element (vs(hh))

Bender element probe
Bender element embedded in base platen

Mid-plane pore pressure probe
Bender element probe
Hall-effect gauge (axial)
Hall-effect gauge (radial)
48
Variation
with
strain
1.0
Gsec
G0
0
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
Damping ratio (%)
PI =0
15
20
30
50
100
10
200
0
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
Cyclic shear strain (%)
Geophysical methods for G0
G0 = VS2
Up hole
Cross hole - simple
Down hole
Cross hole - accurate
49
Down hole
seismic cone
testing
Oasys SIREN is a computer programme for a non-linear model

which solves the one dimensional site response problem in the
time domain using the explicit finite difference method.
Output motion
Displacement Soil Surface

F
Bedrock
Input motion
50
Site Class Definition EC8
Class B
C profiles, 10% in 50-year ground motion, long period
Spectral
Ratios
Spectral Ratio
+2 Sigma
+1 Sigma
CK1
OR4
BH3 Alex Rd
BH 2 Alex Rd
BH ARN5
BH ARN1
BH 1936-3
BH 799-TB8
BH 2111-5
BH 1263-4
BH 1808-6
BH 91F-86
BH 703-69A
BH 1222-6
BH 460-14
BH 2122-15
BH 348-31
Average
Average
-1 Sigma
-2 Sigma
0
0.01
0.1
10
Period (s)
Class D
E profiles, 10% in 50-year ground motion, long period
9
8
+2 Sigma
+1 Sigma
BH 233-11
BH 1982-25
BH 1754-4
BH 1626-25
BH 1627-23
BH 1144-505-1
BH 24B-PP2
BH 144K-5
BH 2131-2
BH 1493-13
BH 262-D19
BH 424-9
DTL/20/PZS/VST
DTL/31/VST
DTL/43/PZM/VST
DTL/45/VST
M2019
M2020
Average
Average
7
Spectral Ratio
-1 Sigma
-2 Sigma
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.01
0.1
10
Period (s)
51
Resulting Spectra
10% in 50 year - Long period
2
Bedrock
B
Site Class C
C
Site Class D
Site Class ED
Site Class FS
Spectral Acceleration (m/s/s)
1.5
0.5
0
0.1
1
Period (s)
10
Displacement spectra
10% in 50 year - Long period
1
Bedrock
Site Class C
B
Site Class D
C
Site Class E
D
Spectral Displacement (m)
Site Class FS
0.1
0.01
0.1
1
Period (s)
10
52
Design spectra
2
Site
Class B
Bedrock
Site Class C
B
Site Class ED
Spectral Acceleration (m/s )
Site Class D
C
Site Class FS
0
0.1
10
Structural Period (s)
Spectral ratios
10% in 50 year spectral ratios
5
Site Class B
Site Class C
Site Class D
Site Class S
Spectral Ratio
1
Class D
Class C
Class B
0.1
10
0.1
10
Period T
53
Eurocode classification for KL / Penang

10% in 50 year design spectra
2
Site Class C
Site Class D
Spectral Acceleration (m/s2 )
Site Class S
C Equation
D Equation
E Equation
C
D
S1
1.6
2.5
3.2
ag =
0.4
0.9
1.6
0.175
1.1
1.6
2.4
10.4
4.6
2.4
m/s 2
0
0.1
10
5% damping
Seismic
design
required
with ductile
detailing
Semporna
Sandakan
Kota Kinabalu
Kuala Lumpur
Penang
Kuantan
Kuching
1
Seismic
design not
required
0
0.01
0.1
10
54
Comparison with IBC rules

IBC: (2/3 2% in 50 year) response spectra
2
Seismic design
required with no
ductility
Seismic design
required with
ductility
KL Rock
KL Soil C
seismic
design not
required
KL Soil D
KL Soil S
0
0.1
10
Comparison with IBC rules

Bedrock
2
Seismic design
required with
ductility
Kuala Lumpur
Kota Kinabalu
Semporna
seismic
design not
required
0
0.1
10
55

Soil Class D
Comparison
with IBC rules
3
Seismic design
required with
ductility
Kuala Lumpur
Kota Kinabalu
Semporna
seismic
design not
required
0
0.1
10
2
Bedrock Spectral acceleration (m/s2)
Semporna
Comparison with
Eurocode 8 rules (with Semporna
soil) D
Sandakan
Kota Kinabalu
Kuala Lumpur
Penang
Kuantan
Kuching
KK D
KL D
Group D ; S = 1.35
0
0.01
0.1
10
56
10% in 50 year response spectra

Soil Class D
Comparison
with EC 8
Kuala Lumpur
Kota Kinabalu
Semporna
EC 8 Ductile
EC 8 Design
2
0
0.01
0.1
10
Possible EC8 Zoning map for Malaysia
57
5% damping
Semporna
Seismic
design
required
with ductile
detailing
Sandakan
Kota Kinabalu
Kuala Lumpur
Penang
Kuantan
Kuching
1
Seismic
design not
required
0
0.01
0.1
10

2
Site Class C
Site Class D
Site Class S
C Equation
D Equation
E Equation
C
D
S1
1.6
2.5
3.2
ag =
0.4
0.9
1.6
0.175
1.1
1.6
2.4
10.4
4.6
2.4
m/s 2
0
0.1
10
58
Possible EC8 Zoning map for Malaysia
<4%g
6%g
8%g
<4%g
Liquefaction
59
Liquefaction
Liquefaction
60
Liquefaction
Philippines 1989
Liquefaction
Turkey 1999
61
BUT
When you are designing the structure,
can you rely on liquefaction happening?
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Turkey 1999
Liquefaction
Average peak shear stress / vertical effective stress
Standard method of assessing the likelihood of liquefaction

0.5
Percent fines (%) 35 15
<5
Note: figure applies
for a magnitude 7.5
earthquake
0.4
Liquefaction
0.3
0.2
No Liquefaction
0.1
10
20
30
40
50
Corrected SPT N value (N1)
62
Estimation of shear stress
Depth (m)
10
15
20
25
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Stress reduction factor rd
Liquefaction
How to overcome
Modify soil
Densify
Vibroflotation
Dynamic compaction
Displacement piling
Stabilise
Grouting
Improve drainage
63
Ground Improvement
Typical methods include stone

columns, dynamic compaction,
grouting, soil cement mixing,
dewatering.
Vibro-replacement
Suitability of method must be

checked by field trials.
For example stone columns do not
work well with a high fines content
(>15%).
Liquefaction
How to overcome
Modify soil
Densify
Vibroflotation
Dynamic compaction
Displacement piling
Stabilise
Grouting
Improve drainage
Change foundation
Float
Pile
64
Liquefaction
How to overcome: Float
Shear
failure
Basement void
Liquefied soil
65
Liquefaction
How to overcome: Pile
Ductile
detailing
Liquefied soil
Liquefaction - Lifelines
Flotation
Loose backfill
Flow of
liquefied
soil
Stone columns
Jet grout walls

Hashash et al, 2001
66
Building Design to EC8
Background to Eurocodes
Set of unified design codes bringing together structural,
civil, and geotechnical disciplines
Adopted by all 28 member states of the European Union
Conflicting national standards withdrawn by March 2010
Main objective is:
the elimination of technical obstacles to trade and the
harmonisation of technical specifications
(European Committee for Standardisation)
134
67
How are they Organised?
Eurocode Basis of Design

EN 1990
Eurocode 1
Actions on
Structures
Eurocode 2
Design of
Concrete
Structures
Eurocode 3
Design of Steel
Structures
Eurocode 4
Design of
Composite
Steel and
Concrete
Structures
Eurocode 5
Design of
Timber
Structures
Eurocode 6
Design of
Masonry
Structures
Eurocode 7
Geotechnical
Design
Eurocode 8
Design of
Structures for
Earthquake
Resistance
Eurocode 9
Design of
Aluminium
Structures
National
Annex
From Bond & Harris
68
Eurocode 8 - Part 1: General Rules
Eurocode 8 Parts 2 to 6
69
Eurospeak
Loads
Actions
Dead Loads
Permanent
Actions
Imposed
Loads
Variable
Actions
Design
Value
Characteristic
Value
Construction
Execution
Eurospeak
Principles: Denoted by P after the clause number mandatory requirements
Application Rules: Generally recognised rules that comply with the principles and satisfy
their requirements
Example
140
70
Eurostyle
General, Non-prescriptive, Flexible
Performance Specification for Design
Pros
Gives designer freedom
to choose appropriate
method
Economies are possible
Allows for evolving design
methods
Can be applied to wide
range of design situations
in different locations
Cons
Can be daunting for
those with little design
experience
Less straightforward to
use
Could be ambiguous
141
Design Philosophy
Limit State Design is adopted in all Eurocodes
Defined in EN 1990
Fundamentally, all ULS and SLS shall be considered and
verified where applicable
Verification of Limit States should be carried out by either
the partial factor, or probabilistic methods
Important Considerations:
-
Design Working Life

Design Situations, e.g. normal use, transient, accidental, seismic
142
71
Limit State Design Philosophy
Ed Rd
Ed E F Frep ; X k M ; ad
Rd R F Frep ; X k M ; ad
Limit State Design Philosophy
Separation Calibrated
by partial factors
Probability of Failure (Eurocode Target <0.0001%)
72
The Partial Factor Method

Input
Characteristic
Values
Design
Values
Material
Parameters
Xk
Material
Parameters
Xkm =Xd
Geometry
ak
Geometry
ak +a = ad
Actions
Frep
Calculation
Model
ULS verified?
Calculate
Design
Resistance
Rd=f(Xd,ad)
Rd > Ed ?
Calculate
Design Effect
of Actions
Ed=f(Fd,Xd,ad)
Actions
FrepF = Fd
145
q factor
force
elastic
Real behaviour
Design force
(= elastic / q)
Sd
displacement
146
73
EC8 detailing DCL low ductility; q = 1.5

Beam
Column
Sb
Sc
Densified zones
0.6Sc
Sb <
0.75x effective depth of beam
Lc
20 x minimum main bar diameter

Sc min of The lesser of the column dimension
400 mm
The larger of column dimension

Lc larger of Length of lapped joints, minimum 3
transverse reinforcement bars
Diameter of transverse reinforcement bars not less than 6 mm or
of the maximum diameter of the longitudinal bars
EC8 detailing DCM moderate ductility; q = 3.9

Horizontal reinforcement in beam-column
joints not less than that in the critical region
of columns
Beam
Sb
Lb
C
ol
u
m
n
Densified zones
24 times the stirrup diameter
8 x smallest main bar diameter
beam depth / 4
225 mm
Sc
Sb < minimum of
beam depth
Sc < minimum of
8 x minimum main bar diameter

half the width of the column confined concrete core
175 mm
Lc > maximum of
1/6 clear height of the column

Largest column section dimension
450mm
Lc
Lb >
Note that the shear capacity of the beams and columns must be able to
resist a shear force derived from the bending moment strength capacities
considering actual reinforcement provided and material overstrength
(material probable strength being higher than the design strength value)
74
3 Storey building in KK
Force
Lateral force
distribution
0.42*5.3/15.8 = 0.14M
10.5*0.5M = 5.3M
Shear
0.5M
Height
(m)
10.5
28%
0.42*7.0/15.8 = 0.19M
7*M = 7.0M
3.5
22%
0.42*3.5/15.8 = 0.09M
3.5*M = 3.5M
Sum = 15.8M
17%
Period T = 0.05 * H0.75 = 0.29 s

For KK with Soil Class D
Lateral base shear = 0.85*Sa = 0.85*2.5*1.35 * 6% = 17% g
Lateral shear = 0.17*2.5M = 0.42M
75
3 Storey building in KL
Force
Lateral force
distribution
0.13*5.3/15.8 = 0.044M
10.5*0.5M = 5.3M
Shear
0.5M
Height
(m)
10.5
9%
7*M = 7.0M
0.13*7.0/15.8 = 0.058M
3.5
7%
3.5*M = 3.5M
Sum = 15.8M
0.13*3.5/15.8 = 0.029M
5%
Period T = 0.05 * H0.75 = 0.29 s

For KL with Soil Class D
Lateral base shear = 0.85*Sa = 0.85 * 6% = 5% g
Lateral shear = 0.05*2.5M = 0.13M

2
Site Class C
Site Class D
Site Class S
C Equation
D Equation
E Equation
C
D
S1
1.6
2.5
3.2
ag =
0.4
0.9
1.6
0.175
1.1
1.6
2.4
10.4
4.6
2.4
m/s 2
0
0.1
10
76
Example building from Hong Kong D11

15 storey residential
H = 41m, W = 7200t
Normalised mode shapes
Mode shapes
40
35
30
Height (m)
25
20
15
10
Mode 1
5
Mode 2
Mode 3
0
-1
Displacement
77
Modal contributions - KL
Scaled mode shapes

Shear
40
Moment
40
40
RSS
RSS
Mode 1
Mode 1
35
35
35
Mode 2
Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 3
Height (m)
Height (m)
25
20
15
10
RSS
30
30
25
25
Height (m)
30
20
20
15
15
10
10
Mode 1
5
Mode 2
Mode 3
0
-5
5
10
Displacement (mm)
15
20
0
-1
1
Shear (MN)
-20
20
40
60
Moment (MNm)
80
100
Modal contributions - KK
Scaled mode shapes

Shear
40
Moment
40
40
RSS
RSS
Mode 1
Mode 1
35
35
35
Mode 2
Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 3
Height (m)
Height (m)
25
20
15
10
RSS
30
30
25
25
Height (m)
30
20
20
15
15
10
10
Mode 1
5
Mode 2
Mode 3
-10
10
20
Displacement (mm)
30
40
0
-5
5
Shear (MN)
10
-50
50
100
Moment (MNm)
150
200
78
Modal contributions - Semporna
Scaled mode shapes

Shear
40
Moment
40
40
RSS
RSS
Mode 1
Mode 1
35
35
35
Mode 2
Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 3
Height (m)
20
15
10
RSS
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
Mode 1
5
Mode 2
Mode 3
-10
10
20
30
Displacement (mm)
40
50
-5
5
Shear (MN)
10
15
0
-100
100
Moment (MNm)
200
300
Shear (q = 1.5)
Shear
40
35
30
25
Height (m)
Height (m)
25
30
Height (m)
30
20
15
10
KL
KK
Semporna
0
0
10
15
Shear (%)
20
25
79
Example building from Hong Kong D17

53 storey residential
H = 158m, W = 33000t
Normalised mode shapes
Mode shapes
160
140
120
Height (m)
100
80
60
40
Mode 1
20
Mode 2
Mode 3
0
-1
Displacement
80
Modal contributions - KL
Scaled mode shapes

Shear
160
Moment
160
160
RSS
RSS
Mode 1
Mode 1
140
140
140
Mode 2
Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 3
Height (m)
Height (m)
100
80
60
40
RSS
120
120
100
100
Height (m)
120
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
Mode 1
20
Mode 2
Mode 3
-50
50
100
150
200
Displacement (mm)
250
300
-2
4
Shear (MN)
0
-200
10
200
400
600
Moment (MNm)
800
1000
Modal contributions - KK
Scaled mode shapes

Shear
160
Moment
160
160
RSS
RSS
Mode 1
Mode 1
140
140
140
Mode 2
Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 3
Height (m)
Height (m)
100
80
60
40
RSS
120
120
100
100
Height (m)
120
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
Mode 1
20
Mode 2
Mode 3
0
-100
100
Displacement (mm)
200
300
-5
5
Shear (MN)
10
15
0
-500
500
Moment (MNm)
1000
1500
81
Modal contributions - Semporna
Scaled mode shapes

Shear
160
Moment
160
160
RSS
RSS
Mode 1
Mode 1
140
140
140
Mode 2
Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 3
Height (m)
80
60
40
RSS
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
Mode 1
20
Mode 2
Mode 3
0
-200
200
Displacement (mm)
400
600
-10
10
Shear (MN)
20
30
0
-500
500
1000
1500
Moment (MNm)
2000
2500
Shear (q = 1.5)
Shear
160
140
120
100
Height (m)
Height (m)
100
120
Height (m)
120
80
60
40
KL
KK
Semporna
20
0
0
10
15
Shear (%)
82
Foundation design
Failure Modes of Pad Foundations
Sliding
Overturning
Bearing capacity
Structural
83
Failure by Sliding
Provided structure can hold itself together the only

requirement is for No damage
Design check
Small movement in 50% in 50 year ground motion
Failure by Bearing Capacity
Due to uncontrolled displacement the Life safety check will be

required. If the structure could collapse as result of bearing failure of
the foundation then the No collapse check is required.
Design check
Controlled displacement in the 10% in 50 year ground motion.
Possibly required to check for failure 2% in 50 year ground motion.
84
Mexico City 1985
Failure by Overturning
If the structure could collapse due to overturning capacity failure then

the No collapse check is required. Otherwise the only requirement is
for No damage. For buildings on a raft failure could lead to collapse.
Design check
Small movement in 50% in 50 year ground motion.
For a raft, required to check for failure in 2% in 50 year ground motion
85
Structural Failure
Due to uncontrolled displacement the Life safety check will be

required. If the structure could collapse as result of structural failure
of the foundation then the No collapse check is required.
Design check
Structural integrity in the 10% in 50 year ground motion.
Possibly required to check for failure 2% in 50 year ground motion.
Failure Modes of Piles - Vertical Loads
Fill
Soft Clay
Stiff Clay
86
Mexico City - 1985
Mexico City - 1985
87
Mexico City - 1985
Soft
clay
Sand
Building in Mexico City 1 year later
88
Failure Modes of Piles - Vertical Loads
Fill
Soft Clay
Stiff Clay
Building in Taiwan - 1999
89
Building in Taiwan - 1999
Yielding Piles - Hermes Tokyo

The Hermes is built on a narrow site in
Tokyos central Ginza district. It uses a
new structural system that relieves
seismic forces vertically through a
lifting rear column at ground floor level,
restrained by dampers.
This stepping column system is able
to move with the earthquake, thereby
reducing forces and foundation and
steelwork costs.
90
Case Study - Hermes Tokyo
Effects on Piles
91
Pile Failure - Lateral Loads
Piles - Lateral Loads

Bending Moment (kNM)
500
Fill
Soft Clay
Stiff Clay
250
Horizontal displacement (mm)

0
50
100
150
Pile
displacement
Soil displacement
from SIREN
100 : 30
combination rule
Bedrock
92
Case Study - LNG Tanks, Trinidad
Dynamic soil-pile-tank interaction study to assess

loads in the piles and tank.
1-D soil column modelled in Oasys LS-DYNA.
Took account of the effect of liquefaction.
Took account of stiffening effect of the piles.
Analysed the entire problem in one step.

Typical cross-section through the tank and foundation system
93

Foundation Design Options
Foundation types considered included:
Ground replacement.
Closely spaced stone columns.
Lowered foundation scheme.
Bored piles.
Driven piles (combined with stone columns).
There was no clear cost advantage in any of

the foundation types examined.
Driven Steel Tube Piles
Preferred Solution

1-D Soil Model
94

Soil Column Analysis

Site Response Results
95

Soil-Pile Model

Effect of Piles on Response
96

Complete SSI Model

Analysis of Complete SSI System
97

Bending Moments in the Piles
Effects on raking piles
Soil displacement
98
Raking Piles
Raking Piles
99
Other ground effects
Effects on Railways / Basements

0
50
100
150
Fill
Soft Clay
Stiff Clay
Bedrock
100
Cut and cover tunnel box

A pseudo static Horizontal Acceleration (=3%g) is applied to whole model
68mm
68mm
results of pseudo static model
Horizontal earth pressures
101
Lifelines - Longitudinal Motion

Maximum ground strain is Vm / C
Where Vm is the peak ground velocity and
C is the propagation velocity
If this strain is too large then further analysis is required
Lifeline (EA)
Elastic/plastic spring to
model movement
between lifeline and soil
Point of applied ground

motion displacement
Pipe Damage Ratio (repairs per kilometre)
Observed Damage to Water Pipe Systems

1
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.5
Peak Horizontal Particle Velocity (m/s)
ORourke and Liu, 1999
102
Propagation Velocities
Measured apparent S - wave propagation velocities
Event
Site conditions
C
(km/s)
Japan 23/1/68
60 m soft alluvium
2.9
Japan 1/7/68
60 m soft alluvium
2.6
Japan 9/5/74
70 m silty clay, sand &silty sand
5.3
Japan 8/7/74
2.6
Japan 4/8/74
4.4
San Fernando 9/2/71
Variable
2.1
Imperial Valley 15/10/79 > 300 m alluvium
3.8
Imperial Valley 15/10/79 > 300 m alluvium
3.7
Fault Rupture
Turkey 1999
103
Fault Rupture
Turkey 1999
Example Factory in
Turkey
D
Glck Stepover Fault
(2.5m vertical movement)
(0.7m horizontal movement)
104
Example Factory in
Turkey
D
Glck Stepover Fault
(2.5m vertical movement)
(0.7m horizontal movement)
Body
Shop
Example - Factory in Turkey

Damage to Body Shop
Tilting of columns
Differential settlement
Lateral displacement
105
Fault Rupture - Lifelines
Elastic/plastic spring to
model movement between
lifeline and soil
Point of applied ground

motion displacement
Slope stability
106
Slope stability
Slope stability
Standard method of considering down-slope movement
Ac is the
acceleration
required to
cause the slope
to have a
factor of safety
of one
If Ac / Am is greater than 0.5 then movements are small
107
Slope Stability - Effects on Piles

Bending Moment (kNM)
500
250

0
50
100
150
Bedrock
108

Iem Workshop Ec8 2012

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

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

Iem Workshop Ec8 2012

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Seismic Design to EC8

Jack Pappin, Arup, Hong Kong

Section through South America

Time = 100 years

Slippage causing Energy release

Time = 101 years

MSK Intensity scale

Felt indoors by a few people

Felt indoors by many people, doors and dishes rattle

Buildings tremble, unstable objects overturned

Slight damage to a few brick buildings

VII - Building damage

Large cracks in weak buildings, slight to r.c. building

Large cracks in r.c. buildings, liquefaction observed

X - General destruction Most brick buildings collapse, many landslides

Most buildings collapse

XII - Landscape changes Practically all structures destroyed

Step 1 - desk study

Step 1 - desk study

M8.5 and 7.9 Southern Sumatra Earthquakes of

Seismic Hazard of Western Indonesia April 2008

Intensity - measure of peak observed damage potential

12 Sep 2007 Sumatra

Intensity - measure of peak observed damage potential

30 Sep 2009 Sumatra

30 Sep 2009 Sumatra

Ground motion - Calculation

Peak ground Acceleration (g)

M = 6.5 for Eastern USA

Variability of Attenuation relationship

Peak acceleration (%g)

Ground motion - Calculation

to determine the ground motion at

to determine the ground motion at

Deterministic seismic hazard analysis

STEP 1 - source model

For each source the maximum magnitude

STEP 2 - distance determination

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis

STEP 1 - source model

STEP 2 - rate of earthquake activity

STEP 4 - result for all M and R

Hard copy geological maps

Seismic source zones and activity rates

Areal sources - Geology & tectonics

1. plus 2. = Earthquake catalogue

Subduction zone model

Activity with depth for subduction events

Seismic activity in Subduction

Annual number of events > M

Annual number of events > M

Annual number of events > M

Area to the north

Sumatra fault activity rates

Annual number of events > M

Subduction earthquakes (Megawati 2006)

Sumatra Fault earthquakes (Megawati 2006)

Standard deviations from mean

Calculated response spectra

Spectral Acceleration (m/s2)

0.2 second period

1833 type event

Subduction 0 to 40km deep

Subduction 100 to 300km deep