Harmonized European standards for construction in Egypt

Similar documents
Seminar Bridge Design with Eurocodes

Geotechnical Site Classification and Croatian National Annex for EC 8

Design of Earthquake-Resistant Structures

Chapter 6 Seismic Design of Bridges. Kazuhiko Kawashima Tokyo Institute of Technology

PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE 2012 BUILDING CODE O. REG. 332/12 AS AMENDED

EUROCODE EN SEISMIC DESIGN OF BRIDGES

7 SEISMIC LOADS. 7.1 Estimation of Seismic Loads. 7.2 Calculation of Seismic Loads

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE 2 PRINCIPLES OF SEISMIC ISOLATION OF BRIDGES 3

Seismic site response analysis for Australia

SEISMIC RESPONSE OF SINGLE DEGREE OF FREEDOM STRUCTURAL FUSE SYSTEMS

Geotechnical issues in seismic assessments: When do I need a geotechnical specialist?

SEISMIC BASE ISOLATION

An Overview of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering

Micro Seismic Hazard Analysis

Pushover Seismic Analysis of Bridge Structures

INTRODUCTION TO STATIC ANALYSIS PDPI 2013

Effective stress analysis of pile foundations in liquefiable soil

Seismic design of bridges

Eurocode 8 Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings

Reinforced Soil Structures Reinforced Soil Walls. Prof K. Rajagopal Department of Civil Engineering IIT Madras, Chennai

Nonlinear static analysis PUSHOVER

Geotechnical Aspects of the Seismic Update to the ODOT Bridge Design Manual. Stuart Edwards, P.E Geotechnical Consultant Workshop

Y. Shioi 1, Y. Hashizume 2 and H. Fukada 3

Inelastic shear response of RC coupled structural walls

IAEA SAFETY STANDARDS Geotechnical Aspects of Site Evaluation and Foundations in NPPs, NS-G-3.6

ROSESCHOOL ANALYSIS OF CODE PROCEDURES FOR SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS: ITALIAN SEISMIC CODE, EC8, ATC-40, FEMA356, FEMA440

CHAPTER 5. T a = 0.03 (180) 0.75 = 1.47 sec 5.12 Steel moment frame. h n = = 260 ft. T a = (260) 0.80 = 2.39 sec. Question No.

Project S4: ITALIAN STRONG MOTION DATA BASE. Deliverable # D3. Definition of the standard format to prepare descriptive monographs of ITACA stations

STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LONG PERIOD RESPONSE SPECTRA OF EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTION

Analysis of a single pile settlement

BEHAVIOR OF BUILDING FRAMES ON SOILS OF VARYING PLASTICITY INDEX

Evaluation of the ductility demand in partial strength steel structures in seismic areas using non-linear static analysis

Dynamic Soil Pressures on Embedded Retaining Walls: Predictive Capacity Under Varying Loading Frequencies

14 Geotechnical Hazards

Evaluation of short piles bearing capacity subjected to lateral loading in sandy soil

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering

EN Eurocode 7. Section 3 Geotechnical Data Section 6 Spread Foundations. Trevor L.L. Orr Trinity College Dublin Ireland.

Earthquake Loads According to IBC IBC Safety Concept

BI-DIRECTIONAL SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF BRIDGE STEEL TRUSS PIERS ALLOWING A CONTROLLED ROCKING RESPONSE

Distribution Restriction Statement Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Chapter (11) Pile Foundations

SOME OBSERVATIONS RELATED TO LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY OF SILTY SOILS

Displacement ductility demand and strength reduction factors for rocking structures

Investigation of Liquefaction Behaviour for Cohesive Soils

Numerical Modelling of Dynamic Earth Force Transmission to Underground Structures

SEISMOLOGICAL INFORMATION FOR DISPLACEMENT-BASED SEISMIC DESIGN A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER S WISH LIST

Comparison of Natural and Artificial Time Histories for Non-Linear Seismic Analyses of Structures

Structural Fire Design according to Eurocodes

Clayey sand (SC)

Lecture 4 Dynamic Analysis of Buildings

EXAMPLE OF PILED FOUNDATIONS

2C09 Design for seismic and climate changes

The seismic risk of new and existing dams

Theory of Shear Strength

Case Study - Undisturbed Sampling, Cyclic Testing and Numerical Modelling of a Low Plasticity Silt

Cyclic Behavior of Sand and Cyclic Triaxial Tests. Hsin-yu Shan Dept. of Civil Engineering National Chiao Tung University

Chapter 6 Bearing Capacity

Seismic resistance of a reinforced concrete building before and after retrofitting Part II: The retrofitted building

Dynamic Analysis Contents - 1

ANALYSIS OF THE CORRELATION BETWEEN INSTRUMENTAL INTENSITIES OF STRONG EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTION

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

Analysis of the horizontal bearing capacity of a single pile

STUDY OF THE BEHAVIOR OF PILE GROUPS IN LIQUEFIED SOILS

Seismic Design of a Hydraulic Fill Dam by Nonlinear Time History Method

EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSES OF TWO SITES WITH DIFFERENT EXTENT OF LIQUEFACTION DURING EAST JAPAN EARTHQUAKE

NONLINEAR SEISMIC SOIL-STRUCTURE (SSI) ANALYSIS USING AN EFFICIENT COMPLEX FREQUENCY APPROACH

Comparison of Base Shear Force Method in the Seismic Design Codes of China, America and Europe

HIERARCHY OF DIFFICULTY CONCEPT: COMPARISON BETWEEN LINEAR AND NON LINEAR ANALYSES ACCORDING TO EC8

TORSIONAL EFFECTS AND REGULARITY CONDITIONS IN RC BUILDINGS

Severe accident risk assessment for Nuclear. Power Plants

The significance of site effect studies for seismic design and assessment of industrial facilities

ANALYSIS OF LATERALLY LOADED FIXED HEADED SINGLE FLOATING PILE IN MULTILAYERED SOIL USING BEF APPROACH

ENERGY DIAGRAM w/ HYSTERETIC

EVALUATION OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS IN LIQUEFIABLE SOILS

KINEMATIC RESPONSE OF GROUPS WITH INCLINED PILES

GNS Science, Lower Hutt, New Zealand NZSEE Conference

Department of Civil Engineering, Serbia

WHAT SEISMIC HAZARD INFORMATION THE DAM ENGINEERS NEED FROM SEISMOLOGISTS AND GEOLOGISTS?

Gravity dam and earthquake

Role of hysteretic damping in the earthquake response of ground

Hand Calculations of Rubber Bearing Seismic Izolation System for Irregular Buildings in Plane

THE EC3 CLASSIFICATION OF JOINTS AND ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS

Numerical analysis of effect of mitigation measures on seismic performance of a liquefiable tailings dam foundation

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF PILES IN SAND BASED ON SOIL-PILE INTERACTION

Influence of the Plastic Hinges Non-Linear Behavior on Bridges Seismic Response

Seismic Evaluation of Tailing Storage Facility

Important Concepts. Earthquake hazards can be categorized as:

Landslide FE Stability Analysis

Frequency response analysis of soil-structure interaction for concrete gravity dams

Verification of a Micropile Foundation

Deep Foundations 2. Load Capacity of a Single Pile

Engineeringmanuals. Part2

Cyclic fatigue demands on structures subjected to the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence

Comparative study between the push-over analysis and the method proposed by the RPA for the evaluation of seismic reduction coefficient

Seismic Performance of RC Building Using Spectrum Response and Pushover Analyses

Structural behavior of a high-rise RC structure under vertical earthquake motion

Seismic Assessment of a RC Building according to FEMA 356 and Eurocode 8

Dynamic behavior of turbine foundation considering full interaction among facility, structure and soil

Seismic Design of New R.C. Structures

DETERMINATION OF PERFORMANCE POINT IN CAPACITY SPECTRUM METHOD

Transcription:

Harmonized European standards for construction in Egypt EN 1998 - Design of structures for earthquake resistance Jean-Armand Calgaro Chairman of CEN/TC250 Organised with the support of the Egyptian Organization for Standardization and Quality

Eurocode 8 - Design of structures for earthquake resistance EN1998-1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings EN1998-2: Bridges EN1998-3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings EN1998-4: Silos, tanks and pipelines EN1998-5: Foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects EN1998-6: Towers, masts and chimneys All parts published by CEN (2004-2006)

EN1998-1: 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings EN1998-1 to be applied in combination with other Eurocodes

EN1998-1: 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings General Performance requirements and compliance criteria Ground conditions and seismic action Design of buildings Specific rules for: Concrete buildings Steel buildings Composite Steel-Concrete buildings Timber buildings Masonry buildings Base isolation

Objectives In the event of earthquakes: Human lives are protected Damage is limited Structures important for civil protection remain operational Special structures Nuclear Power Plants, Offshore structures, Large Dams outside the scope of EN 1998

Fundamental requirements No-collapse requirement: Withstand the design seismic action without local or global collapse Retain structural integrity and residual load bearing capacity after the event For ordinary structures this requirement should be met for a reference seismic action with 10 % probability of exceedance in 50 years (recommended value) i.e. with 475 years Return Period

Fundamental requirements Damage limitation requirement: Withstand a more frequent seismic action without damage Avoid limitations of use with high costs For ordinary structures this requirement should be met for a seismic action with 10 % probability of exceedance in 10 years (recommended value) i.e. with 95 years Return Period

Reliability differentiation Target reliability of requirement depending on consequences of failure Classify the structures into importance classes Assign a higher or lower return period to the design seismic action In operational terms multiply the reference seismic action by the importance factor γ I

Importance classes for buildings Importance factors for buildings (recommended values): γ I = 0,8; 1,0; 1,2 and 1,4

Fundamental requirements Compliance criteria (design verifications): Ultimate limit state Resistance and Energy dissipation capacity Ductility classes and Behaviour factor values Overturning and sliding stability check Resistance of foundation elements and soil Second order effects Non detrimental effect of non structural elements Simplified checks for low seismicity cases (a g < 0,08 g) No application of EN 1998 for very low seismicity cases (a g < 0,04 g)

Fundamental requirements Compliance criteria (design verifications): Damage limitation state Deformation limits (Maximum interstorey drift due to the frequent earthquake): 0,5 % for brittle non structural elements attached to the structure 0,75 % for ductile non structural elements attached to the structure 1,0 % for non structural elements not interfering with the structure Sufficient stiffness of the structure for the operationality of vital services and equipment DLS may control the design in many cases

Collapse of intermediate storeys w/ reduced stiffness Kobe (JP) 1995.

Fundamental requirements Compliance criteria (design verifications): Specific measures Simple and regular forms (plan and elevation) Control the hierarchy of resistances and sequence of failure modes (capacity design) Avoid brittle failures Control the behaviour of critical regions (detailing) Use adequate structural model (soil deformability and non strutural elements if appropriate) In zones of high seismicity formal Quality Plan for Design, Construction and Use is recommended

Torsional response difference in seismic displacements between opposite sides in plan; larger local deformation demands on side experiencing the larger displacement ( flexible side ). Collapse of building due to its torsional response about a stiff shaft at the corner (Athens, 1999 earthquake).

Ground conditions Five ground types: A - Rock B - Very dense sand or gravel or very stiff clay C - Dense sand or gravel or stiff clay D - Loose to medium cohesionless soil or soft to firm cohesive soil E - Surface alluvium layer C or D, 5 to 20 m thick, over a much stiffer material 2 special ground types S 1 and S 2 requiring special studies Ground conditions defined by shear wave velocities in the top 30 m and also by indicative values for N SPT and c u

Ground conditions Table 3.1: Ground types Ground type A B Description of stratigraphic profile Rock or other rock-like geological formation, including at most 5 m of weaker material at the surface. Deposits of very dense sand, gravel, or very stiff clay, at least several tens of metres in thickness, characterised by a gradual increase of mechanical properties with depth. Parameters v s,30 (m/s) N SPT (blows/30cm) > 800 c u (kpa) 360 800 > 50 > 250

Ground conditions Table 3.1: Ground types Ground type C D Description of stratigraphic profile Deep deposits of dense or mediumdense sand, gravel or stiff clay with thickness from several tens to many hundreds of metres. Deposits of loose-to-medium cohesionless soil (with or without some soft cohesive layers), or of predominantly soft-to-firm cohesive soil. Parameters v s,30 (m/s) N SPT (blows/30cm) c u (kpa) 180 360 15-50 70-250 < 180 < 15 < 70

Ground conditions Table 3.1: Ground types Ground type Description of stratigraphic profile Parameters v s,30 (m/s) N SPT (blows/30cm) c u (kpa) E A soil profile consisting of a surface alluvium layer with v s values of type C or D and thickness varying between about 5 m and 20 m, underlain by stiffer material with v s > 800 m/s. S 1 Deposits consisting, or containing a layer at least 10 m thick, of soft clays/silts with a high plasticity index (PI > 40) and high water content < 100 (indicative) _ 10-20 S 2 Deposits of liquefiable soils, of sensitive clays, or any other soil profile not included in types A E or S 1

Seismic zonation Competence of National Authorities Described by a gr (reference peak ground acceleration on type A ground) Corresponds to the reference return period T NCR Modified by the Importance Factor γ I to become the design ground acceleration (on type A ground) a g = a gr.γ I Objective for the future updating of EN1998-1: European zonation map with spectral values for different hazard levels (e.g. 100, 500 and 2.500 years)

EXAMPLE : SEISMIC ZONATION OF THE FRENCH TERRITORY Zone a gr (m/s 2 ) 1 0 2 0,7 3 1,1 4 1,6 5 3,0

Basic representation of the seismic action Elastic response spectrum Common shape for the ULS and DLS verifications 2 orthogonal independent horizontal components Vertical spectrum shape different from the horizontal spectrum (common for all ground types) Possible use of more than one spectral shape (to model different seismo-genetic mechanisms) Account of topographical effects (EN 1998-5) and spatial variation of motion (EN1998-2) required in some special cases

Definition of the horizontal elastic response spectrum (four branches) 0 T T B S e (T) = a g. S. (1+T/T B. (η. 2,5-1)) T B T T C S e (T) = a g. S. η. 2,5 T C T T D S e (T) = a g. S. η. 2,5 (T C /T) T D T 4 s S e (T) = a g. S. η. 2,5 (T C. T D /T 2 ) S e (T) a g T B T C T D S η elastic response spectrum design ground acceleration on type A ground corner periods in the spectrum (NDPs) soil factor (NDP) damping correction factor (η = 1 for 5% damping) Additional information for T > 4 s in Informative Annex

Normalised elastic response spectrum (standard shape) Control variables S, T B, T C, T D (NDPs) η ( 0,55) damping correction for ξ 5 % Fixed variables Constant acceleration, velocity & displacement spectral branches acceleration spectral amplification: 2,5 Different spectral shape for vertical spectrum (spectral amplification: 3,0)

Elastic response spectrum Two types of (recommended( recommended) ) spectral shapes Depending on the characteristics of the most significant earthquake contributing to the local hazard: Type 1 - High and moderate seismicity regions (M s > 5,5 ) Type 2 - Low seismicity regions (M s 5,5 ); near field earthquakes Optional account of deep geology effects (NDP) for the definition of the seismic action

Recommended elastic response spectra S e /a g.s 4 3 2 E D C B A S e /a g.s 5 4 3 2 D E C B A 1 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 T(s) Type 1 - M s > 5,5 0 0 1 2 3 4 T(s) Type 2 - M s 5,5

Recommended elastic response spectra S e /a g.s 4 3 E D C B Type 1 - M s > 5,5 2 A 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 T (s)

Recommended elastic response spectra S e /a g.s 5 D E 4 C B Type 2 - M s 5,5 3 A 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 T (s)

Design spectrum for elastic response analysis (derived from the elastic spectrum) 0 T T B S d (T) = a g. S. (2/3+T/T B. (2,5/q -2/3)) T B T T C S d (T) = a g. S. 2,5/q T C T T D S d (T) = a g. S. 2,5/q. (T C /T) β. a g T D T 4 s S d (T) = a g. S. 2,5/q. (T C. T D /T 2 ) β. a g S d (T) design spectrum q behaviour factor β lower bound factor (NDP recommended value: 0,2) Specific rules for vertical action: a vg = 0,9. a g or a vg = 0,45. a g ; S = 1,0; q 1,5

Alternative representations of the seismic action Time history representation (essentially for NL analysis purposes) Three simultaneously acting accelerograms Artificial accelerograms Match the elastic response spectrum for 5% damping Duration compatible with Magnitude (T s 10 s) Minimum number of accelerograms: 3 Recorded or simulated accelerograms Scaled to a g. S Match the elastic response spectrum for 5% damping

Thank you for your attention