You are on page 1of 24

PHASE CONSIDERATION IN SEISMIC DESIGN CODE FOR STRUCTURES IN NEPAL

RISHI RAM PARAJULI

OUTLINE

 Introduction  Worldwide trend in change of codes  Consideration of phase for design ground motion  Discussion  Conclusion

INTRODUCTION

Population Economy

Development

URBANAIZATION

INTRODUCTION
POPULATION AND DISTRIBUTION SCENARIO OF NEAPL

Population Distribution
Urban 17%

Rural 83%

INTRODUCTION

MEGA CITY ???????
 Population >10 million  Density >2000/sq.Km.

 UN projects for 60% of world population will be in cities by 2030.  We have now just 17% of our population are in urban areas.  Hence we must have to step for big cities.

INTRODUCTION

EXPECTATION !!!!!!

Who have to own this??

INTRODUCTION

What we (Engineers) have to do………
 Obviously Perception of needs to society.  Planning and execution  Maintenance and operation

What we must consider………
Safety Cost

Major Earthquakes in Himalaya N

Are we in safe zone????………
 Obviously Perception of needs to society.  Planning and execution  Maintenance and operation

Brahmaputra River

What we must consider………
Safety Cost  Indian plate moving toward north at a rate of 2 to 5 cm per year and the occurrence
of frequent seismic activities along the Himalaya and its surroundings  During past 120 years, five great earthquakes occurred along the Himalayan front

INTRODUCTION

Can we stand like this??

INTRODUCTION

What can we do…….
 For Public facilities owned by Government,  Safety first…….  Specific Design and Construction guidelines…….  Quality of result ………  Private owned Public Facilities,  Strict regulations and monitoring on guidelines.  Private owned,  Awareness about disasters.

INTRODUCTION
Can we make structures earthquake proof ???
 No!!!!!  We can make it safe against life of people to some limit but not for life of structure in all case.

What we consider ………
 Damage  Demand  Death

WORLDWIDE TREND IN CHANGING DESIGN CODES AFTER DISASTER

TRENDS …….

Japan ………
1923
• Kanto earthquake (142,000 Fatalities) • They start to consider seismic design as seismic coefficient 0.2
• Kobe earthquake (5100 + death) • Devastating structural damage • Propose new independent seismic design code

1995

2011

• Great East Japan earthquake • Structures performance was considerably good but death toll high due to tsunami.

TRENDS …….

USA ………
1971
• San Fernando Earthquake • They start to consider seismic design.

• Loma Prieta earthquake 1989 • Change in design codes

TRENDS …….

NEW ZEALAND ………
1992
• They prepare seismic design code for building.

1994

• Prepare seismic design code for bridges
• Canterbury earthquake • Changing in seismic design codes.

2010

TRENDS …….

INDONESIA………
1970
• They have seismic design code for main islands. • Seismic coefficient 0.1g for PADANG City

1987

• Change in seismic design code, for Padang City 0.28-0.36 g

• Sumatra earthquake 2002 • Changing in seismic design codes as 0.8g seismic coefficient.

• Padang earthquake 2009 • Changing in seismic design codes as 1.9g seismic coefficient.

TRENDS …….

Main Causes in revision (case of Indonesia)
 Less researches cause not much data to analyze and make accurate design methodologies.  Design is mostly ok but construction methodologies and quality of construction.  Thought of economical only not about safety.

TRENDS …….

Constraints in our door …….
 Same as Indonesia, less researches and data records, so no much data to analyze and make accurate design methodologies.  Construction industry is not even fully enter in to professionalism.  Initial cost of well designed structure is obviously expensive but life cycle cost is cheaper than now a days practice. So we have to force.

Consideration of phase for design ground motion

Phase angle of wave is most useful…….
 We can see the ground motion in to summation of sinusoidal waves. X(t)= A∑sin(ωt+Φ)  Phase of wave can represent the characteristic of ground motion on that area.  Hence we can consider phase angle of recorded dataset and can simulate the ground motion.

acceleration (m/s2)

Consideration of phase for design ground motion
Time Series Plot:unnamed 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

We can see …….
-0.2 0 5 10 15
acceleration (m/s2) acceleration (m/s2)

acceleration (m/s2)

1 0.4

20 25 30 Time (sec) Time Series Plot:unnamed Time Series Plot:unnamed

35

40

45
Time Series Plot:unnamed 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2

0.5 0.2 0

0

-0.5 -0.2 -1 0 -0.4

5

0

5

10 10

15 15

acceleration (m/s2) acceleration (m/s2)

Kobe Earthquake
1
acceleration (m/s2)

20 25 30 Time 20 (sec) 25 30 Time (sec) Time Series Plot:unnamed

35 35

40

45

0

5

10

15

40

45
1

El Centro Earthquake Time Series Plot:unnamed

20 25 30 Time (sec) Time Series Plot:unnamed

35

40

45

0.4
0.5

0.2
0

0.5

-0.5

0

0

-0.2 -1
0

5

10

15

-0.5

0

5

10

15

20 25 Time (sec)

30

35

40

45

-0.4

20 25 Time (sec)

30

35

40

45

0

5

10

15

Amplitude Kobe phase El Centro
ation (m/s2)

Amplitude El Centro phase Kobe 1
0.5

20 25 30 Time (sec) Time Series Plot:unnamed

35

40

45

Discussion

How can we use …….
 We can simulate the design ground motion according to the design response spectra too when we can collect and analyze ground motion data.  Source of earthquake and soil properties with bed rock depth are influential for phase of ground motion.  After getting phase of data we can generate design ground motion keeping phase as constant and changing amplitude.

Conclusion

Beneficial for us…….
 We are in benchmark of development phase, hence for Urban development we have to move toward safe structures against earthquake too.  For major cities we can prepare different design ground motion if more irregularities considering soil type and possible source of earthquake.

Future work

To be continue…….
 We are starting to do some research in phase and its relations to site specific condition. Hence hope we will success to deliver better result in making design ground motion.  Research in its early phase, these are preliminary way outs….

THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION