You are on page 1of 79


Submitted By

Dr. Raafat El-Shafei Fat-Helbary

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Professor of Applied Seismology

National Research Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics Earthquake Department Egyptian National Seismic Network Lab. Helwan, Cairo, Egypt March 2006


1.1. MOTIVATION AND STEPS .........1


2.1. INTRODUCTION . ....... .3 2.2. DETERMINISTIC METHODOLOGY.........5 2.3. PSHA METHODOLOGY...........5 2.3.1. Seismic Source Model......7 2.3.2. Earthquake Occurrence Model.....8 2.3.3. Ground Motion Attenuation Model......9 2.3.4. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Model..10 2.4. CASE STUDY OF SEISMIC HAZARD IN UPPER EGYPT........................................................13 2.4.1. Method........13 2.4.2. Earthquake Source Geometry.....14 2.4.3. Maximum Earthquake Magnitudes....14 2.4.4. Earthquake Recurrence Rates. ...14 2.4.5. Ground Motion Attenuation Model .......15 2.4.6. Expected Maximum Acceleration at Surface Layers.....16


3.1. INTRODUCTION..........18 3.2. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT.........19 3.2.1. Vulnerability Index Assessment.....20 3.2.2. Proposed Vulnerability Functions......23 3.2.3. Damage Evaluation....23 3.2.4. Damage Probability Matrices.........24 3.2.5. Damage Models and Vulnerability Function.25 3.2.6. Loss Function Estimation...........26 3.2.7. Monetary Losses.....27 3.2.8. Human Losses....28 3.3. CASE STUDY OF ASSESSMENT OF SEISMIC RISK IN ASWAN CITY (UPPER EGYPT)....30


4.1. INTRODUCTION......40 4.2. EFFECT OF LOCAL SITE CONDITIONS ON GROUND MOTION.....41 4.2.1. Ground Response Analysis....41 4.2.2. Transfer Function for Layered, Damped Soil on Elastic Rock..43 4.3. CASE STUDY OF GROUND-RESPONSE ANALYSIS IN UPPER EGYPT......46 4.3.1. Input Data.......48 4.3.2. Calculated Ground Response.........51


5.1. INTRODUCTION......56 5.2. EGYPTIAN CODE OF BUILDINGS......58 5.2.1. Seismic Loads....58 5.2.2. Scope and General Fundamentals......58 Lateral design forces.........61 Distribution of lateral force..63 5.2.4. Response Spectra Method......64 5.2.5. Dynamic Response Method...64 5.2.6. Torisonal Moment......65 5.2.7. Lateral Displacement and Joints........65




1.1. MOTIVATION AND STEPS: Most hazards generated by earthquakes are directly related to the shaking of ground caused by the passage of seismic waves. The rapid movement of building foundations during an earthquake generates inertial loads, that can lead to damage and collapse, which are the cause of the vast majority of fatalities due to earthquakes. The basis for earthquake-resistant design of buildings requires quantitative assessment of the ground motion, that may be expected at the location of the project during its design life. Hazard maps in terms of peak ground acceleration (PGA) are the basis of zonation maps included in seismic design codes. For this reason, the main focus of chapter 2, in the state of the art is seismic hazard assessment and its application to the Aswan area in Upper Egypt. Seismic risk at a particular location is widely understood as the convolution of seismic hazard (the possibility of ground shaking or collateral geotechnical hazard) with exposure (number of buildings and people in the area) and vulnerability (the lack of seismic resistance in buildings). Seismic hazard can generally be quantified but not altered, hence the focus of earthquake risk mitigation is generally on engineering measures to increase the seismic resistance of buildings, and hence to reduce its vulnerability. However, it is also possible to reduce the level of seismic risk by reducing the product of hazard and exposure, for example by relocating settlements to areas of lower seismicity. In chapter 3, a brief overview of seismic risk analysis and its application to four different types of buildings constructed in Aswan city, as the case study is presented. Local site effects play an important role in earthquake-resistant design, and must be accounted for a case-by-case basis. This is usually

accomplished by the development of one or more design ground motions (i.e., motions, that reflect the levels of strong motion amplitude, frequency content and duration that, a structure or facility at a particular site should be designed for). Number of research works related to the study of local site effects and ground response analysis in different areas in Upper Egypt such as: the proposed site of El-Kiefl Dam at the fourth Tushka depression, proposed site of Tushka barrage on Tushka spillway canal and proposed location of Aswan new city on the west bank of the River Nile are done. In this state of the art, the study of local site effects and ground response analysis of the proposed location of Aswan new city is presented as case study in Chapter 4. Finally the seismic code of buildings and regulation for earthquakeresistant design of building in Egypt are summarized in chapter 5.



SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT 2.1. INTRODUCTION: The seismic hazard analysis refers to the estimation of some measure of the strong earthquake ground motion expected to occur at a selected site. This is necessary for the purpose of evolving earthquake resistant design of a new structure or for estimating the safety of an existing structure of importance, like dams, nuclear power plants, long-span bridges, high-rise buildings, etc. at the site. In earthquake engineering and related areas, it is customary to distinguish between earthquake hazard and earthquake risk, although the semantic of these two words are the same. Earthquake hazard is used to describe the severity of ground motion at a site (Anderson and Trifunac, 1977a, 1977b and 1978a), regardless of the consequences, while the risk refers to the consequences (Jordanovski et al., 1991 and 1993). By taking into account all the available database on seismicity tectonics, geology and attenuation characteristics of the seismic waves in an area of interest, the seismic hazard analysis is used to provide an estimate of the site-specific design ground motion at the site of a structure (Dravinski et al., 1980 and Westermo et al., 1980). One important application of hazard analysis is the preparation of seismic zoning maps for generalized applications (Lee and Trifunac, 1987, Trifunac, 1989a and 1990a and Anderson and Trifunac, 1977a, 1977b, 1978a and 1978b). By estimating the amplitudes of a parameter describing ground motion or the earthquake effect at a closely spaced grid of sites covering the complete area of a big city or an entire state, zoning maps can be developed by contouring the sub-areas with equal hazard. Such maps are useful for applications in the earthquake-resistant design of common types of structures, for which it is not possible to carry out the detailed site-specific 3

studies. The zoning maps are also useful for land-use planning, assessing the needs for remedial measures, and estimation of possible economical losses during future earthquakes (Trifunac, 1989b and Trifunac and Todorovska, 1998). The seismic hazard at a site can be described by a variety of parameters of ground shaking. Before the actual instrumental measurements of strong ground motions became available, various intensity scales (MMI, MKS, etc.) based on the description of observed damages were used to describe the severity of ground motion. Intensity data are (and should be) still used as a supplement to the instrumental recordings. Mores recently, peak ground acceleration, and to a much lesser extent the peak velocity and displacement, had been popular instrumental measurements of ground motion. Most of the existing code provisions, and design procedures have been developed in terms of peak acceleration and a normalized standard spectral shape (IAEE, 1984). However, to account for the effects of earthquake magnitude and distance on the spectral shape, one should define directly the spectral amplitudes at different frequencies by using the frequency-dependent scaling equations for the spectral amplitudes (Lee, 1987). For the seismic zoning one should thus prepare a separate zoning map in terms of the response spectrum amplitude at each frequency (Trifunac, 1989a and 1990a). In addition, there may be other derived parameters like peak strain or liquefaction potential, for example, to quantify the seismic hazard and preparation of zoning maps (Todorovska and Trifunac, 1996a, 1996b and 1999). There are two basic philosophies for the seismic hazard analysis, viz., deterministic and probabilistic. The former proposes design for the maximum earthquake, that is the one that will produce most severe ground motion at a site. The latter advocates that, likelihood of occurrence should also be considered in view of the fact that, the life of a structure is very 4

short compared to the recurrence intervals of large events. The first basic step in seismic hazard analysis is to collect the input data on tectonic, seismicity and ground motion scaling models. One should then decide the methodology of hazard analysis, which may be deterministic (scenario earthquake) or probabilistic (an ensemble of earthquakes). The hazard may be characterized in terms of a variety of ground motion parameters (e.g., peak amplitudes, duration of shaking, Fourier and response spectra, differential motions, artificial time histories, etc.) or the effects of ground shaking on structure (displacement, shear and bending moment envelopes) and site response (liquefaction occurrence, slope stability, permanent displacements, etc.). However, the present study addresses mainly the issue of estimating the strong-motion parameters of interest for earthquakeresistant design and seismic safety assessment purposes. 2.2. DETERMINISTIC METHODOLOGY: The deterministic approach for seismic hazard analysis is not well documented in literature, and it is practiced differently in different parts of the world and even in different application areas. In its most commonly used form, the deterministic method first assesses the maximum possible earthquake magnitude for each of the seismic sources (important faults or seismic provinces) within an areas in circle shapes of about 300 km radius around the site of a structure of interest. Then, by assuming each of these earthquakes to occur at a location, that places the focus at the minimum possible distance to the site, the ground motion is predicted by using an empirical attenuation relation or some other appropriate technique. 2.3. PSHA METHODOLOGY: The probabilistic seismic hazard methodology involves integrating the probabilities of experiencing a particular level of a selected strong motion parameter due to the total seismicity expected to occur in the area (in circle shapes about 300 km radius) of a site of interest during a 5

specified life period (Cornell, 1968 and Anderson and Trifunic, 1977a, 1977b and 1978a). This approach is able to consider the inherent random uncertainties and scattering present in the input database as well as in the attenuation characteristics of ground motion parameters (Lee and Trifunac, 1985 and Gupta, 1991). It is thus able to provide the estimate of ground motion with a specified confidence level (probability of not exceeding). The probabilistic approach is convenient to compare risks in various parts of a country, and to compare the earthquake risk with other natural and man-made hazards. For example, the design loads should be such that the risk of damage is equal through out the country, and that it is comparable to other risks that, we are prepared to take (e.g., risk of a traffic accident, or a plane crash, or damage from floods and cyclones). The probabilistic approach opens the possibility for risk-benefit analysis and respective design motions. The motivation for such a design principle is that, at the time of construction or strengthening, if it is invested in strength beyond that required just to prevent collapse (e.g., by codes), the monetary losses during future likely earthquakes may be reduced significantly. The main idea of the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is to estimate the probability that, a certain peak ground acceleration (PGA) will be exceeded during a known period of time at a certain site. Achievement of this idea involves the development of four constituent models (Algermission et al., 1975). These are: (1) a seismic source model, that defines the spatial distribution of earthquakes within the region of concern (Fig. 2.1A), (2) an earthquake occurrence model, that describes the recurrence of events in time within the seismic source zones (Fig. 2.1B), (3) a ground-motion attenuation model, that describes mathematically the manner in which earthquake ground motions decrease with distance from an earthquake source for various magnitude levels (Fig. 2.1C), and (4) a probability model for calculating the expected maximum amplitude of 6

ground motion within a given period of time corresponding to a chosen probability level for a number of individual sites in the region and the result is shown in figure (2.1D).

Fig. (2.1): Elements in the seismic hazard method (after Algermission et al., 1975). 2.3.1. Seismic Source Model: Based on geological evidence, geotectonical province, historical seismicity, geomorphic investigation and any other subjective input, seismic sources can be identified and modeled as line source, area source and point source. In fact, the numerical computation of the seismic hazard at the site is carried out by dividing the line and area sources into a number 7

of discrete point sources. The line source is used to model faults or fault provinces. In a geographical region, where recorded earthquakes can not be related to any well-defined fault system, the concept of seismotectonic provinces is invoked, and the region is represented by a set of area sources, or seismogenic zones. A source, whether a line source or an area source, is distinguished by a uniform seismic activity; that is, the mean rate of earthquake occurrence per unit length or unit area is constant over the entire source. The seismic sources around a site are identified by studying the epicentral locations of past earthquakes together with the geologic and geomorphologic features of the site region. The inclusion of a source in the hazard model depends on its contribution to the seismic hazard, which, in turn, depends on the activity rate, the upper-bound magnitude or epicentral intensity and the distance to the site 2.3.2. Earthquake Occurrence Model: For each seismic source, the magnitude distribution was taken to be exponential and of the form given in the Gutenberg-Richter relation of occurrence frequencies (Gutenberg and Richter, 1965) (Fig. 2.1B): log Nm = a - bm (2.1) where, Nm is the number of earthquakes in a given time period having magnitude greater than m; (a) and (b) are constants to be determined. The parameter a depends on the level of seismicity, the length of time taken into account and the extent of an area (Miyamura, 1962). The parameter (b) depends on the ratio between the number of large events, and the number of small events, and is very important as it has some association with several important problems in seismology such as earthquake predictions and stress generating in focal region. If equation (2.1) is expanded to include an upper-bound as well as lower-bound magnitude, the relationship becomes nonlinear at large magnitudes. From equation (2.1), we can derive a probability density 8

function, that gives the probability that, if an earthquake occurs, it will be of magnitude m. Incorporating minimum and maximum magnitudes m o and m1 (EERI, 1989), this is the truncated exponential distribution of earthquake magnitudes : fM(m) = K e - b(m- m o ) K = [1- e (m1 m o ) ] -1 m o < m < m1 (2.2)


where, = b ln(10), K is a normalizing constant, and m1 is the earthquake thought to be the largest, that can occur in that source. Earthquakes larger than m1 are excluded from the analysis, so the choice of m1 will have a direct impact on low-probability assessments of hazard and risk. For fault sources, m1 is often estimated from empirical correlation between magnitude and rupture length (e.g. Bonilla et al., 1984). For area sources, its determination is more problematic. 2.3.3. Ground Motion Attenuation Model: An important aspect of the probabilistic ground-motion mapping procedure is knowing how the ground motion produced by an earthquake is modified by transmission from source to site (Fig. 2.1C). A research has shown that, much of the variability in estimates of peak ground motion is in attenuation models (Bender, 1984 and McGuire and Shedlock, 1981). Attenuation is the decay in the amplitude of earthquake ground motion parameters (e.g. peak ground acceleration, spectral velocity, peak displacements and peak spectral content). The main factors affecting attenuation are the source conditions, the transmission path characteristics, and the local site conditions (Chung and Bernreuter, 1981). In general, the attenuation model is an expression of the change of the ground motion parameters with distance (R) at a certain magnitude (M). Attenuation model is typically developed by applying statistical regression analyses to

data recorded by a strong-motion instrument, or derived from such recordings, such as acceleration, velocity and displacement time series. The most common formula is represented by the attenuation relationship of the forms: Y= b1 e b 2 m (+r) b 3 where Y: Ground motion parameter of interest (such as acceleration (a), velocity(v), or displacement (d) ). b1, b2 and b3: Constants derived from regression analysis. : Hypocentral distance. r : Constant for a given data source region. Whenever strong motion data are not available, intensity attenuation relationship is considered, such as a common assumption (Ipek et al., 1965, Wiggins, 1964 and Kanai, 1961) that in the range of interest the intensity (I) has the following dependence on magnitude (M) and focal distance ( R): I = c1 + c2M - c3 Ln (R+r) where, c1,c2 and c3 are empirical constants. 2.3.4. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Model: The two models, most widely used in probabilistic forecasting of earthquake occurrences, are the Poisson and Markov models. The Poisson model characterizes events, that are independent and form a memoryless process. In the Markov process, the occurrences of events in the future depend on the occurrences of events in the past. I. Poisson model of seismic occurrences: For earthquake events to follow the Poisson probability law, the following assumptions must be valid: 1. Earthquakes are space independent phenomena. 2. Earthquakes are time independent processes. (2.4) (2.3)


3. Probability of two earthquakes occurring simultaneously in the same place is nil. In principle, these assumptions are quite realistic and physically match the phenomenon of earthquakes very well. The general term of Poissons law is: P n (t) =
e- t ( t) n n!


where, P n (t) = the probability of having n events in time period (t). n = the number of events. = mean rate of occurrence per unit time. II. Concept of return period: Once the seismic activity rate per unit area or per unit length of fault is determined for the seismic source zones of the region, and a ground motion attenuation function is decided upon, a distribution of ground motion is calculated for a number of individual sites located on an appropriate grid pattern throughout the region (Paul, et al., 1989). The relationship between return period (R y (a)), exposure time (T) and probability of exceedance during that exposure time (1-F max,t (a)) is explained by the following development. First, the distribution of the expected number of occurrences of ground motion at each location is calculated. The peak ground motion, for example, the peak acceleration corresponding to some extreme probability, is then calculated from the distribution of the expected number of occurrences in the following manner. Let the peak acceleration to be (a), then F(a) = P[A a m m o ] (2.6)

The probability (F(a)) that, an observed acceleration (A) is less than or equal to the value (a), given that an earthquake with magnitude (M), greater


than some minimum magnitude of interest, has occurred. The calculation is performed for every acceleration (a) of interest as follows: F(a) =
Number of expected occurrences A a and m m o Total number of expected occurrences(m m o )


F(a) is the probability that, the acceleration value (a) will not be exceeded, given that an earthquake larger than minimum magnitude occurs in the source zone. Therefore (1-F(a)) is the probability that, (a) will be exceeded. The return period (R(a)), which is interesting from engineering viewpoint, represents the average number of events, that must occur to get an acceleration exceeding (a), and can be calculated by formula : R y (a) =
1 1 F(a)


The return period in years is given by: R y (a) =

R(a) Expected number of events per year (M Mmin).


The cumulative distribution of the maximum acceleration of the N accelerations is given (Algermissen, et al., 1975), if N has a Poisson distribution with mean rate () as: F max (a) = e - (1- F(a)) years in a period of interest, then: F max,t (a) = e -t(1-F(a)) From (2.10) and (2.11):
t R y (a )


If = t, where is the mean rate per year and t is the number of (2.11)

t(1-F(a)) =


thus, from equations (2.11) and (2.12), the relationship between any extreme probability and the corresponding return period can be represented as: Fmax,t (a) = e t/ R y ( a ) 12 (2.13)

and ln (Fmax,t(a)) =
t R y (a)


2.4. CASE STUDY OF SEISMIC HAZARD IN UPPER EGYPT: A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis was conducted for assessing the ground motion at 19 selected sites in the proposed Aswan new city area (Fat-Helbary et al., 2004b). The objective of the analysis was to evaluate the probability of exceedance of different levels of ground motion due to earthquakes, that may occur in and around the proposed Aswan new city area. All data relating to known earthquakes with magnitude 3.0 around Aswan new city site are collected and analyzed. This analysis includes: 1. All significant seismic sources in the area are identified. 2. For each seismic source, the rate of earthquakes at different magnitudes is determined by a statistical analysis on all data related to that source. 2.4. 1. Method: For this work the Cornell approach (Cornell, 1968) was applied. In this approach the fundamental elements, that enter into a seismic hazard analysis, are arranged as in following steps: 1. Identification of the regional earthquake source zone model, that defines the spatial distribution of earthquakes within the region of concern, 2. Assessment of maximum earthquake magnitudes and earthquake occurrence model, that describes the recurrence of events in time within the seismic source zones, 3. Selection of relationships of ground motion attenuation model, that describes mathematically the manner in which earthquake ground motions decreases with distance from an earthquake source for various magnitude levels, 13

4. Calculation of the probability of the expected maximum amplitude of ground motion within a given period of time corresponding to a chosen probability level for a number of individual sites in the region using inputs from (1), (2) and (3) above. 2.4.2. Earthquake Source Geometry: The Cornell method requires the seismicity of the region under consideration to be divided into spatially distinct earthquake source zones. Based on the spatial distribution of the catalogue of earthquake data for the period from 1900 to 2003, the seismicity around Aswan new city area has been modeled as 6 source zones significant to the studied area as shown in figure (2.2). 2.4.3. Maximum Earthquake Magnitudes: One of the most controversial and important variables in representing a source of seismicity is the size of the maximum credible earthquake. In this study for each seismic source area, the cutoff magnitude is taken to be the observed maximum magnitude known for the source plus 0.5 (AlHadad et al., 1992). 2.4.4. Earthquake Recurrence Rates An earthquake occurrence model describes the recurrence of events in time within each seismic source zones. A linear regression analysis was carried out to estimate the coefficients of Gutenberg-Richters relationship between magnitudes and their cumulative frequency of occurrence, i.e., Log Nm = a bm (2.15) where, Nm is the number of earthquakes in a given period having magnitude greater than or equal to m. The program used for this purpose is the ESA program (Ahmed, 1991). The rate of occurrence at the minimum magnitude as well as the value [ = b Ln (10)] are given in Table (2.1).


28 27 26



25 24 23 22 26

Aswan New City

(4) (6)


150 km











Fig. 2.2. Epicentral distribution of the catalogued events in the period from 1900 to 2003 and the significant earthquakes source zones to Aswan new city site (after Fat-Helbary et al., 2004b). 2.4.5. Ground Motion Attenuation Model: Ground motion attenuation model describes mathematically the manner in which earthquake ground motions decrease with distance from an earthquake source for various magnitudes. Attenuation model developed from peak ground acceleration for Aswan area (Fat-Helbary, 1995) was used. Ln A = 1.895 mb 0.938 Ln () 3.715 ( = 0.558) (2.16) where, A represents the peak ground acceleration in cm/s2 , mb is the body wave magnitude and is the hypocenteral distance in km. The residuals of this equation are log normally distribution with standard deviation () 0.558.


Table (2.1): Parameters of seismic recurrence curve for each source. Source No. A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 Mag. (mb) 5.3 4.7 6.1 5.8 4.9 4.2 No. of events 36 27 488 294 51 29 1.441 2.121 2.256 2.120 2.231 2.141 Occurrence Average rate () depth 0.375 9.28 0.281 10.70 4.743 10.80 0.677 16.31 0.531 7.75 0.302 6.55

2.4.6. Expected Maximum Acceleration at Surface Layers: The maximum amplitude of ground motion expected within a given period of time and corresponding to a chosen probability level using inputs from steps (2.4.2) - (2.4.5) is calculated (Table 2.1). The computer program used for this purpose is EQRISK (McGuire, 1976). The program yields the expected accelerations with 90 percent probability of not being exceeded in exposure times of 100 years. The procedure of analysis is repeated systematically in the 19 selected sites on the proposed Aswan new city area. The results show that, the expected acceleration at the 19 sites is almost the same and in range from 42 to 47 cm/sec2. For use, as input motions at the bottom of the actual soil columns, one must remove from the computed motions the effects of free-surface boundary conditions, which invoke certain components of the stress tensor to be zero. To achieve this, the free-surface motions are divided by a factor of 2 (Jacob et al., 1995). Local site conditions play an important role in changing the characteristics of seismic waves. It is often associated with the extent of damage and destructiveness of a site incurs due to a strong earthquake. Therefore, it is important to incorporate some type of site factor into the analysis of risk such as amplification factor. The amplification factors at the 19 selected sites are calculated by Fat-Helbary et al. (2004a), and were used in the present study.


The computed amplification has its minimum value of about 1.61 at the central western part of the area, while the maximum value is about 4.46 at the southern and northwestern parts of the area, where the sediments are loose and thick. Finally the maximum surface
24.2 24.21 24.22

acceleration was estimated by the multiplication of peak acceleration


at the base rock with the relative amplification factor for the surface layers. The maximum and ground their accelerations



distributions at the ground surface in exposure time 100 years are represented by a contour map as shown in figure (2.3). The calculated acceleration has its minimum value of about 36 gals at the central eastern part, while the maximum value is about 64 gals at the southern part of the studied area.
24.16 32.84 32.85 32.86 32.87 24.17

0.0 0.5 1.0 km

Fig. 2.3: Surface acceleration for expected values in 100 years (in gals) (after Fat-Helbary et al., 2004a)





3.1. INTRODUCTION: Seismic risk assessment is an important activity in any community living in an earthquake region. It enables choices to be made in the level of protection employed. The three principal components of a seismic risk analysis are seismic hazard assessment, inventory and categorization of the elements at risk and vulnerability assessment for each element of risk. The idea that, earthquake risk can be minimized by a degree of planning and preparedness, has long been advocated, and the detailed study of the ways in which damage and injury are caused and contributing factors to the risk faced is seen as being necessary to inform the process of risk reduction planning. The actual evaluation of risk is necessary in order to appreciate the magnitude of the seismic problem, its comparative importance with other problems faced by a community, and the value of measures taken to reduce it (Karink, 1981 and 1982). By attempting to evaluate risk, an overall framework of assessment, which can structure the study and understanding of settlements in earthquake areas can be proposed. To do so, the detailed definitions of hazard, population and seismic performance are required in a form, which can be applied as a planning tool for any particular community. Risk is most easily assessed in terms of direct economic loss, and is defined by UNDRO (1979) as: [RI] = [H] [V] NE certain degree of ground shaking within a given time period. (3.1) where: [H] is the natural hazard, the probability of experiencing in a


[V]: is the vulnerability, the average expected proportion of damage, that would be caused by that degree of ground shaking, measured in specific loss. N: is the quantity of elements at risk, e.g. the number of buildings in the community. E: is the element value, e.g. each of the buildings as a replacement cost. NE: represents the total value of elements, e.g. buildings stock in a community) [RI]: is the risk, the probable loss as a probability of replacement cost. [RI * ] is the specific risk, can be used, where [RI * ] = [H] [V], the probable loss as a percentage of the total value of the elements at risk. The specification of hazard has been discussed in chapter (2). The vulnerability method will be discussed in this chapter. Also the seismic risk analysis was performed on four different samples of buildings constructed in Aswan city as the case study. The numerical results of inventory and analysis are given and discussed in the following sections. 3.2. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT: General Approach: As defined earlier, vulnerability is the degree of loss to a given element at risk resulting from the occurrence of specified earthquake. For loss assessment over a population of buildings (or other elements at risk) we need: 1. a mean of specifying the earthquake hazard. 2. a classification of the buildings or other facilities into distinct types, whose performance in earthquakes is likely to be similar both in nature and degree. 3. a method of defining loss to that the extent of loss to a particular building or population of buildings can be quantified. 19

4. a mean of estimating the distribution of losses to each building type of each discrete level of ground shaking (if intensity scales are used), or as a function of ground shaking (if a continuous parameter of ground shaking is used). There are two principal methods of vulnerability assessment, which have been referred to as predicted vulnerability and observed vulnerability. Predicted vulnerability refers to the assessment of expected performance of buildings based on calculation and design specification, or if no other method is available, on judgment based on the assessors experience. Observed vulnerability refers to assessment based on statistics of past earthquake damage. The former is suitable for use primarily with engineering structures and facilities, where a reasonable estimate of earthquake resistance may be made, but for which only a limited amount of damage data, if any, is available. The latter method is more suitable for use with non-engineered structures made with low-strength materials such as timber or unreinforced masonry, whose earthquake resistance is more difficult to be calculated, but for which substantial statistical damage data may be available. The use of observed vulnerability is increasingly relevant in the case of very common forms of engineered construction, such as reinforced concrete frame structures, as the amount of damage data increases over time. Observed and predicted vulnerability methods are likely to converge in the future as theoretical models of earthquake performance of buildings improve, and as statistical data become available for less common building types (Coburn and Spence, 1992). 3.2.1. Vulnerability Index Assessment: In order to account for the vulnerability indices of different structures, eight items were selected from the factors affecting vulnerability. The main criteria in selecting these items were to obtain a 20

rapid survey form, to collect information about different components for each building included in the studied area, based on visual inspection of the building, without benefit of entry to the building, or review of structural drawings. For each element a grade (as in Table 3.1) is assigned out of three classes 1 (score 0, low vulnerability) refers to situations, which may be considered as conforming to the prescriptions of aseismic design, whereas class 2 (score 10) refers to medium vulnerability, and class 3 (maximum score 20, high vulnerability) refers to unsafe configuration. Weights are also assigned to each element. The vulnerability index is the sum of the partial parameters times the relevant weight factor (El-Remaily, 1992). Table 3.1: Vulnerability index evaluation scheme
Element 1- Proportionality of building dimensions. 2- Horizontal size. 3- Number of stories. 4- Construction quality. 5- Vertical irregularity. 6- Plan irregularity. 7- Soft story. 8- Pounding. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Class 2 3 10 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Weight factor 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.5

It should be noted that, the seismic quality of single items (and of the building as a whole) increases with the decrease of vulnerability index values. These values are indirect expressive estimates to the seismic quality of the building and of its structural and non-structural parts. The distinctive feature of the method consists in the possibility of a practically continuous description of the seismic quality of the buildings, capable of taking into account any possible morphological configuration. As will be described later, this description can be easily handled numerically in risk evaluation procedures, and may be accounted for prior strengthening. If, for instance, 21

the original poor quality is improved by adding new well designed or by strengthening the old ones, item 4 will move from class 3 (score 20) to class 1 (score 0), and the total VI will change accordingly. Table 3.2: The rules and instructions followed by the surveyors during the field investigation.
Element 1-Proportionality of building dimension. Class 1 Buildings with length to depth ratio (R1) < 2 and height to depth ratio (R1) <4 2-Horizontal size. Buildings with length (L) < 15 m 3- Number of Buildings with stories. number of stories (N) <=5 4- Construction New structures with good quality quality. control Class 2 Buildings with R1 > 2, or R2 > 4. Class 3 Buildings with R1 > 2 and R2 > 2

Buildings with L >=15 m and <30 m Buildings with N > 5 and <=8 - Old structures with good structures condition. - New structures with poor quality control, (nonengineered buildings).

Buildings with L >30 m Buildings higher than 8 stories - Very old structures - Structures with visible wide cracks - New structures with unsafe structural elements, whether corresponding to design or construction. Buildings with large irregularity. Buildings with large irregularity. Buildings with complete open first stories, e.g. garages, restaurants and shopping areas occupying the whole of the ground floor.

5- Vertical regularity. 6- Plan regularity. 7- Soft story.

Regular structures Regular structures No soft story

8- Pounding

No pounding.

Buildings with small irregularity. Buildings with small irregularity. - Buildings with upper soft story, e.g. non finished top story without infill walls and/or without roof. - Buildings with partial soft story at the ground floor, i.e. only a limited part of the story is soft. Pounding from one side.

Pounding from more than one side.


The rules and instructions to be followed by the surveyors during the field investigation are summarized in Table 3.2. 3.2.2. Proposed Vulnerability Functions: The derivation of vulnerability functions is essentially based on data obtained from damaged caused by previous earthquakes. In the absence of such kind of data for Egypt, vulnerability functions have to be reasonably assumed based on studies carried in other countries, and are modified by expert judgment. The suggested vulnerability functions are based on those given by Benedetti and Benzoni (1985) for stone masonry structures in Italy. Some modifications were made by El-Remaily (1992) to apply this method in Egypt. The suggested vulnerability functions for stone masonry structures are given in figure (3.1) and represented by the relationship between the damage degree and vulnerability index. Based on the relative vulnerability functions given by Coburn (1986) and values given by UNDRO (1991) correlating damage of different building types the following average relative vulnerabilities are assumed in order of increasing susceptibility to damage: RC structures BM structures SM structures 3.2.3. Damage Evaluation: Quantification of structural damage presents a number of difficulties. The mechanisms of damage are different for each building type; in some cases it is possible to avoid these differences by quantifying and comparing damage in financial terms. The most commonly used economic measure of damage is repair cost ratio. This is the ratio of the cost of repair and reinstatement of the structure (or building) to the cost of replacing the 23 1 1.45 1.6

By this way the vulnerability functions for RC and BM are obtained.

structure (or building). The evaluation of damage in terms of economic cost is unsatisfactory for many purposes, though, because of its dependence on the economy at that time and place. Repair cost ratio varies, because there are different ways of repairing and strengthening, and construction costs also vary from place to place and through time; it is also significantly affected by the type of building.

Figure (3.1): Proposed vulnerability functions for Stone masonry structures (after El-Remaily, 1992). For these reasons, the evaluation of damage in terms of structural damage is becoming more common. This has the advantage that, if it is defined with sufficient accuracy, it can be converted into a repair cost in any economic situation. The definition of structural damage generally used involves a sequence of damage states, with broad descriptors such as light,moderate,severe,collapse, elaborated with more detailed descriptions, which may use quantitative measures such as crack widths. In this study damage is rated in 4 categories as shown in Table 3.3.


3.2.4. Damage Probability Matrices: The expected damage data are converted into damage probability matrix format through the following equation (Ergunay and Gulkan, 1990). P k (D i ) = where: P k (D i ): ratio of type k buildings subjected to intensity falling in damage state D, Ai AD : total gross area of building of type K within region subjected to intensity earthquake, : gross area of buildings in damage state D. Table 3.3: Definition of damage states.
Damage Level 1 Damage Range 0 - 20 Damage State Slight Description Thin cracks in walls (width of cracks less than 1 mm); moderate damage to infill walls.


20 - 40

Moderate Structural cracks less than 5 mm wide and/or heavy damage to infill walls. Heavy Large structural cracks more than 5 mm wide and/or partial collapse of infill walls. Partial or total collapse of the main structural system.

40 - 60

60 100


3.2.5. Damage Models and Vulnerability Function: Effective correlation of ground motion with damage requires consideration of the way ground motion affecting structures response and of the type and degree of damage caused. To correlate the ground motion


intensity with structural damage, a damage model is needed. The damage model can be effectively described with the following two variables. (a) Damage Ratio (DR): DR =
Number of buildings damaged Total number of buildings


(b) Damage Cost Factor (DCF): DCF =

Damage repair cost Value of building


These two nondimensional parameters are quite general, and can be used for a geographical area or subarea as well as for various building classification or types of construction. 3.2.6. Loss Function Estimation: Loss function is defined as the probability of the loss of value in a certain element due to seismic hazard or, in more general terms, as the expected loss due to a particular natural phenomenon as a function of both hazard and vulnerability. Since vulnerability is linked with a particular element (building type), the term specific risk has been introduced for such cases. Vulnerability functions such as that shown in figure (3.2) (Coburn and Spence, 1992) may be combined with the hazard data defined as shown above in order to estimate the probable distribution of losses for all possible earthquake events in a given time period and thus to determine the risk to that element or set of elements at risk. This definition may also be expressed mathematically, in a way, which facilitates the computation of risk. The general equation for the calculation of risk can be given as: [RI ij ] = [H i ] [V ij ] where, for an element at risk (e.g. an individual building) j : [RI ij ] is the risk; the probability or average rate of loss to element j due to earthquake ground motion of severity i . 26 (3.5)

[H i ] is the hazard; the probability or average expected rate of experiencing earthquake ground motion (or other earthquake-related damaging event) of severity i . [V ij ] is the vulnerability; the level of loss, that would be caused to element
j as a result of experiencing earthquake ground motion of severity i

(where loss is the specific loss; loss as a proportion of the total value of element j ). By summing the risk from all levels of hazard, (min i max), the total risk to any individual element can be derived.

Fig. (3.2): Risk is a product of hazard and vulnerability: typical curve shapes (after Coburn and Spence, 1992). 3.2.7. Monetary Losses: The cost of the expected value of damage within the considered sectors referred to 100 m.sq. is evaluated as follows (Benedatti et al., 1988): L= C j Aj



where: L i : loss due to an event of intensity i , 27

N : the total number of buildings, C j : the cost factor corresponding to damage level of building number j at intensity i , (see Table 3.4) A j : gross area of building number j , R : the cost of rebuilding per square meter, K : a factor taking into account indirect monetary damage. Table 3.4: Cost factors for the various damage levels.
Damage Level 0 1 2 3 4 Damage Range 0 0 - 20 20 - 40 40 - 60 60 - 100 Cost Factor C j 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.0

A value of K = 2 has been assumed here. The values of C j factor account for fraction of damage cost, pertaining to a certain damage level, with respect to the cost of reconstruction are calculated. It must be noted that, for heavy damage (level 3), the cost of rehabilitation is rather high, owing to the need of highly sophisticated technical interventions. However, it must be noted that, the numerical values of K and C j assumed herein are mainly based on judgment. The expected annual loss is given by UNDP/UNIDO (1985) as follows: Expected annual loss =

Pi Li


where, Pi is the annual expected occurrence of intensity (i) at the site under consideration and L i losses due to intensity (i). 3.2.8. Human Losses: The casualty rate depends on many factors. The majorities of them are the seismic input motion to man-made structures, the occupants 28

behavior and the situation under which they are attacked by the earthquake. The first one, is considered most influential, and is evaluated by the degree of structural damage as a function of seismic intensity (Ohta and Satoh, 1980; Ohta and Ohashi, 1983 and Ohta, et al., 1986). The behavioral performance depends on the variety of personal attributes. The situation, when an earthquake attacks, is a time factor depending mostly upon whether it occurs during daytime or at night. However, it is very difficult to account for the last two factors. Empirical relations have been developed between fatality and heavy damage and collapse totals. The expression below was given by Ergunay and Gulkan (1990). D = 0.003 to 0.010 H1.32 where: D = total number of deaths, H = total number of collapsed and heavily damaged buildings The range 0.003 to 0.010 depends on the building type as follows: For reinforced concrete buildings : 0.003 For wood frame buildings For brick masonry buildings For stone or adobe masonry : 0.005 : 0.008 : 0.010 (3.8)

A fatality / injury ratio of 1/3 is assumed (Erguny and Gulkan, 1990). The number of people made homeless is calculated based on the assumption that, heavily damaged and collapsed buildings are out of use after the earthquake. A population of 1 inhabitant per 20 m.sq. of gross building area was assumed for calculating the expected human losses in this study. For emergency plans the number of houses collapsed and the number of people killed is an indication of the relief and rescue needs in the first 3 29

days after the earthquake. Injuries are an indication of the medical facilities needed, and the number of people made homeless is an indication of the level of need for temporary shelter. The number of houses heavily or structurally damaged represents levels of long term construction needed. 3.3. CASE STUDY OF ASSESSMENT OF SEISMIC RISK IN ASWAN CITY (UPPER EGYPT): The methodology was applied in a risk assessment on Aswan city, Upper Egypt. The goals of this study are to improve the assessment of seismic hazard, to investigate the vulnerability of the built environment and finally to combine the results to elaborate risk scenarios as the first fundamental step in the mitigation process. Aswan city locally is divided into three districts: East, west and south district. The representative classes or type of residential building concentration varies from district to district, and in general they are classified according to the material of structural vertical load bearing elements in four types. Reinforced concrete structures (RC), brick masonry buildings (BM), stone masonry buildings (SM) and mixed building as a combination of any two, or more of the above stated types. The samples from four local sectors were selected for vulnerability survey representing all types of buildings in Aswan region. I. Computer implementation: A computer code named Seismic Risk Analysis (SRA), that was developed (El-Remaily, 1992) for the purpose of interpreting the data in the survey form, was used for calculating VI, combining them with vulnerability functions and hazard curve to obtain an estimation of the overall losses. Only one file is required as an input for this program consisting of three major parts: 1) hazard curve for the region under


consideration, 2) the weights of different vulnerability items, and 3) building data as obtained from the survey form. The output of the program consists of building stock data and its distribution in the given sample, some summary statistical results related to VI and expected damage, and expected monetary and human losses, as well as the effect of different strengthening strategies are calculated. The application of the various strategies originates new distribution of vulnerability index. II. Seismic hazard at a selected site in Aswan city: The probabilistic seismic hazard analyses were conducted in detail in Aswan area (Fat-Helbary, 1995). According to the seismic hazard analysis from area source model, the seismic hazard for a selected site with coordinates (32.9oE, 24.09oN) in Aswan town is carried out. The resulting hazard curves are shown in figure (3.3), and the numerical results are given in Table 3.5. The intensities chosen in this table are based on the relation of PGA vs intensity (in MSK scale) given by Medvedev and Sponheuer (1969). The probabilities of occurrence per year for the range of acceleration values defining the intensities from V to X in MSK scale are calculated taking the difference of the probabilities of exceedance of each pair of successive values. III. Damage probability matrices: The output analysis of the damage probability matrices for the four predominant type of building in Aswan city is presented in bar chart form in Figs. 3.4 to 3.7. By comparing the damage probability matrix from the four types of buildings, it is clear in general that, the percentage of buildings in low damage states decreases with increasing the intensity, while the percentage of building in high damage states increases with increasing the intensity. The damage probability matrix represents the 31

highest values for mixed buildings, while it represents the less value for the RC buildings. Table 3.5: Seismic hazard at selected site in Aswan city.
PGA 12.5 25 50 100 200 400 Annual exceedance probability 0.634E-01 0.214E-01 0.681E-02 0.162E-02 0.186E-03 0.715E-05 Acceleration range < 25 25 - 50 50 - 100 100 - 200 200 - 400 > 400 Intensity (MSK) V VI VII VIII IX X Annual occurrence probability 0.042 .01459 .00519 .001434 .00017885 .00000715

Fig. (3.3): Hazard curve at selected site in Aswan city (after Fat-Helbary, 1995).


Fig. (3.4): Damage probability matrix for reinforced concrete buildings in Aswan city (after Fat-Helbary, 1995).

Fig.(3.5): Damage probability matrix for brick masonry buildings in Aswan city (after Fat-Helbary, 1995).


Fig. (3.6): Damage probability matrix for stone masonry buildings in Aswan city (after Fat-Helbary, 1995).

Fig. (3.7): Damage probability matrix for mixed buildings in Aswan city (after Fat-Helbary, 1995).


IV. Loss function estimation: Vulnerability function is represented by the relationship between the damage ratio (DR) and acceleration as in figure (3.8). DR was calculated as a summation of damage from level 2 (moderate state) to level 4 (collapse state) as in Table (3.6). By combining the vulnerability function (Fig. 3.8) with the hazard function given by the curve in figure (3.3), the probable losses for all possible earthquake events for buildings of the type RC, BM, SM and mixed has been assessed as shown in figure (3.9). The numerical results are tabulated in Table (3.6). R(Aa) expresses the expected degree of loss within a given area caused by all earthquakes with acceleration equals or greater than a. The total expected degree of loss (specific risk) is obtained from summation of seismic risk of a=25 gals to a=400 gals. V. Monetary losses: The cost of rebuilding was assumed here as 800 Egyptian pound (LE) per m.sq. for buildings in El-Syeal, where the buildings were constructed mainly from RC. and 500 LE For other buildings. The summary of monetary losses due to earthquakes of different intensities as well as the annual losses are given in Table (3.7) in terms of LE per 100 m.sq. Column 3 gives the average loss due to intensity from V to X in LE/100 m.sq. and column 4 gives the annualized expenses in LE/100 m.sq. for each intensity. The mean values of annualized losses would be used to decide on insurance needs and determine insurance premiums. VI. Human losses: The general levels of homelessness, deaths and injuries, which would result from expressing ground motion of different intensities, are given in Table (3.8).


Fig. (3.8): Vulnerability function of residential buildings in Aswan area (after Fat- Helbary, 1995).

Fig. (3.9): Specific risk for building types in Aswan city (after Fat-Helbary, 1995). 36

Table 3.6: Average percent of annual loss in the expected damaged area.
Peak acceleration 25 50 Hazard Prob. (P) .0214 .0068 Vulnerability(V):RC 0.0 0.0256 :BM 0.0645 0.5161 :SM 0.0169 0.5730 :Mix 0.0722 0.8351 0.000174 RI(Aa)=V*P :RC 0.0 0.00138 0.003503 :BM 0.000362 0.003896 :SM 0.00155 0.005679 :Mix Specific risk for : RC = 0.002 = 0.20 % : BM = 0.0064 = 0.64 % : SM = 0.0060 = 0.60 % : Mix.=0.009 = 0.90 % 100 .00162 0.0897 0.8065 0.9719 0.9691 0.000145 0.001307 0.001574 0.001570 200 .000186 0.269 1.0 0.9943 1.0 0.000042 0.000186 0.000185 0.000186 400 .715E-05 0.423 1.0 1.0 1.0 .302E-05 .715E-05 .715e-05 .715e-05

Table 3.7: Estimated economic losses.

Intensity V VI VII VIII IX X Annual occurrence probability 0.042 0.01459 0.00519 0.001434 0.00017885 0.00000715 Loss due to one event LE/100 m.sq. 1232.02 6983.51 18172.30 26988.81 35409.05 46369.70 Total Annual loss LE/100 m.sq. 51.74 101.96 94.31 38.59 6.34 0.33 293.28

Table 3.8: General levels of estimated human losses .

I V VI VII VIII IX X % of houses with heavy damage or collapse 0.00 0.00 0.26 11.98 25.26 58.59 % of people made homeless 0.00 0.00 0.35 7.42 16.64 31.91 No. of injuries per million 0.00 0.00 4.21 520.91 1248.06 3896.62 No. of fatalities per million 0 0 2 174 416 1299


VII. Effects of selected strategies: The application of the various strategies originates new distributions of the vulnerability index. The three effective elements were selected, and modifying the present vulnerability index distributions as follows: 1. Stiffening of soft story; thus moving element (7) to class (1). 2. Enhancing construction quality: thus moving element (4) to class (1). 3. Separating adjacent buildings: thus moving element (8) to class (1). Considering this technical investigation, the new annual damage probabilities have been evaluated. Results are shown in figures (3.10) and (3.11) for economic and human losses respectively, together with the probability curve for the present situation. Table (3.9) shows the annual expected cost of damage for the various strategies and the decrements with respect to the present situation. Table 3.9: Effect of different strategies on expected annual damage referred to 100 m. sq.
Strategy Present situation Soft story elimination Enhancing quality Pounding elimination Expected annual loss 293.28 220.51 133.49 124.12 Variation of expected damage with respect to present situation -------- 26.61 % - 60.64 % - 64.07 %

Although this is a rough estimation of the monetary benefits of the strategies considered, the above results show that, a prior strengthening campaign is economically advantageous as it reduces the monetary losses considerably. Also, it is worth noting that, even the implementation of the lowest strengthening gives rise to a considerable decrement of the risk to human life.


Fig. (3. 10): Annual probability of damage for Aswan city in the present situation and after implementation of different strengthening strategies (after Fat-Helbary, 1995).

Fig. (3.11): Effect of different strengthening strategies on fatallities for Aswan city (after Fat-Helbary, 1995).




4.1. INTRODUCTION: The influence of local geological and soil conditions on the intensity of ground shaking and earthquake damage has been known many years before. Wood (1908) and Reid (1910) showed that, the intensity of ground shaking in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake was related to local soil and geological conditions. Gutenberg (1927) developed site-dependent amplification factors from recordings of microseisms at sites with different subsurface conditions. Since these early observations, the effects of local site conditions on ground motions have been illustrated in earthquakes around the world. More recently, the availability of strong-motion instruments has allowed local site effects to be measured quantitatively in recent years. Local site effects play an important role in earthquake-resistant design and must be accounted for a case-by-case basis. This is usually accomplished by the development of one or more design ground motions (i.e., motions, that reflect the levels of strong motion amplitude, frequency content, and duration that a structure or facility at a particular site should be designed for). Despite considerable evidence, the existence of local site effects was a matter of some debate in past years. Indeed, provisions specifically accounting for local site effects did not appear in building codes, until the 1970s. This part discusses procedures, that are commonly used for the development of site-specific design ground motions, and reviews the


manner in which local site effects are treated in the specification of design ground motions by contemporary building codes and standards. 4.2. EFFECT OF LOCAL SITE CONDITIONS ON GROUND MOTION: Local site conditions can profoundly influence all of the important characteristics- amplitude, frequency content, and duration of strong ground motion. The extent of their influence depends on the geometry and material properties of the subsurface materials, on site topography and on the characteristics of the input motion. The nature of local site effects can be illustrated in several ways: by simple, theoretical ground response analyses and by measuring of ground surface motions from sites with different subsurface conditions. 4.2.1. Ground Response Analysis: There are important theoretical reasons why ground surface motions should be influenced by local site conditions. At most sites the density and S-wave velocity of materials near the surface are smaller than at greater depths. If the effects of scattering and material damping are neglected, the conservation of elastic wave energy requires that, the flow of energy from depth to the ground surface must be constant. Under ideal conditions, a complete ground response analysis would model the rupture mechanism at the source of an earthquake, the propagation of stress waves through the earth to the top of bedrock beneath a particular site, and would then determine how the ground surface motion is influenced by the soils, that lie above the bedrock. In reality, the mechanism of fault rupture is so complicated and the nature of energy transmission between the source, and the site is so uncertain that, this approach is not practical for common engineering applications. In practice, empirical methods based on the characteristics of recorded earthquakes are used to develop predictive relations of the different types of ground 41

motions. These predictive relationships are often used in conjunction with a seismic hazard analysis to predict bedrock motion characteristics at the site. The problem of ground response analysis then becomes one of determining the response of the soil deposit to the motion of the bedrock immediately beneath it. Seismic waves may travel through tens of kilometers of rock and often less than 100 m of soil, the soil plays an important role in determining the characteristics of the ground surface motion. The influence of local soil conditions on the nature of earthquake damage has been recognized for many years. Since the 1920s, seismologist and more recently, geotechnical earthquake engineers have worked toward the development of quantitative methods for predicting the influence of local soil conditions on strong ground motion. Over the years, a number of techniques have been developed for ground response analysis. The techniques are often grouped according to the dimensionality of the problems that, they can address, although many of the two-and threedimensional techniques are relatively straightforward extensions of corresponding one-dimensional techniques (Kramer, 1996). One-dimensional ground response analyses are based on the assumption that, all boundaries are horizontal and that, the response of a soil deposit is predominantly caused by SH-waves propagating vertically from the underlying bedrock. For one-dimensional ground response analysis, the soil and bedrock surfaces are assumed to extend infinitely in the horizontal direction. Procedures based on this assumption are able to predict ground response, that is in reasonable agreement with measured response in many cases. An important class of techniques of the ground response analysis is also based on the use of transfer functions. For the ground response problem, transfer functions can be used to express various response parameters, such as displacement, velocity, acceleration, shear stress, and shear strain, to an input motion parameter given as bedrock 42

acceleration. Because this approach relies on the principle of superposition, it is limited to the analysis of linear systems. Non-linear behavior can be approximated, however, using an iterative procedure with equivalent linear soil properties. Kramer (1996) derived transfer functions for a series of successively more complicated geotechnical conditions. Although the simplest of these conditions may only rarely be applicable to actual problems, they illustrate some of the important effects of soil deposits on ground motion characteristics without undue mathematical complexity. The more complex cases are capable of describing the most important aspects of ground response and are very commonly used in geotechnical earthquake engineering practice. 4.2.2. Transfer Function for Layered, Damped Soil on Elastic Rock: According to Kramer (1996), the key to the linear approach is the evaluation of transfer functions. In the following, the transfer functions are derived for multiple soil layers. Real ground response problems usually involve soil deposits with layers of different stiffness and damping characteristics with boundaries at which elastic wave energy will be reflected and /or transmitted. Such conditions require the development of transfer functions for layered soil deposits. Consider a soil deposits consisting of N horizontal layers, where the Nth layer is the bedrock (Fig. 4.1). Assuming that, each layer of soil behaves as a viscoelastic Kelvin-Voigt solid, the wave equation for time displacement can be written as function of density (), shear modulus (G) and viscosity () as follows:
2u 2u 3u = G + dt 2 dz 2 z 2 t


The solution to the wave equation can be expressed in the form:


u ( z , t ) = Ae i (t + k


+ Be i (t k



where, the circular frequency of ground shaking, k* is a complex wave number and A and B represent the amplitudes of waves traveling in the z (upward) and +z (downward) directions, respectively. The shear stress () is then given by the product of the complex shear modulus (G*) and the shear strain (
u ) ,so: z u u u = (G + i ) = G (1 + 2i ) z z z

( z, t ) = G *


where, is known as damping coefficient. Introducing a local coordinate system (Z) for each layer, the displacement at the top and bottom of layer (m) will be:
u m ( Z m = 0, t ) = ( Am + B m )e it

um ( Z m = hm , t ) = ( Am eik m hm + Bme ik m hm )eit


Displacements at layer boundaries must be compatible (i.e., the displacement at the top of a particular layer must be equal to the displacement at the bottom of overlying layer). Applying the compatibility requirement to the boundary between layer (m) and layer (m+1), that is, um (Zm =hm , t) = um+1 (Zm+1 =0,t) yields
Am +1 + Bm +1 = Am eik m hm + Bm e ik m hm
* *

(4.5) (4.6)

The shear stresses at the top and bottom of layer (m) are:
* * m ( Z m = o, t ) = ikm Gm ( Am Bm )eit


* * m ( Z m = hm , t ) = ik m Gm ( Am e ik

* m hm

Bm e ik m hm )e it


Since stresses must be continuous at layer boundaries,

m ( Z m = hm , t ) = m +1 ( Z m +1 = 0, t )


Am +1 Bm +1 =
* * * k Gm ( Am e ik m hm Bm e ik m hm ) * k G m +1 * m * m +1



Adding equations (4.6) and (4.10) and subtracting equation (4.10) from equation (4.6) gives the recursion formulae:
Am +1` = Am (1 + )e
1 2 * m
* ik m hm * hm ik m

+ Bm (1 )e
1 2 * m


Bm + 1 =

1 2

* * Am (1 m ) e ik m h m + 1 Bm (1 + m ) e ik m h m 2


* is the complex impedance ratio at the boundary between layers where, m

(m) and (m+1)

* m = * * k Gm m ( vs )m = * * k Gm +1 m +1 (vs ) m +1 * m * m +1


The complex velocity (Vs ) can be expressed as:

* vs =


G (1 + i 2 )

(1 + i ) = vs (1 + i )


At the ground surface, the shear stress must be equal to zero, which requires [from equation (4.7)] that, A1 = B1. If the recursion formulae of equations (4.11 and 4.12) are applied repeatedly for all layers from (1) to (m), functions relating the amplitudes in layer (m) to those in layer (1) can be expressed by: Am = am () A1 Bm = bm () B1 to that at layer (j) is given by:
Fij ( ) = ui a ( ) + bi ( ) = i u j a j ( ) + b j ( )

(4.15) (4.16)

The transfer function relating the displacement amplitude at layer (i)


2 Because u =u = u for harmonic motion, equation (4.17) also describes

the amplification of acceleration and velocities from layer (i) to layer (j). Equation (4.17) indicates that, the motion at any layer can be determined from the motion at any other layer. Hence if the motion at any one point in the soil profile is known, the motion at any other point can be contributed. 45

1 2 m Z1 Z2

U2 Um



Zm Um+1

G m m m Gm+1 m+1 m+1 Um+2 UN G N N N

hm hm+1

m+1 Zm+1 Zm+2 N ZN

hN= infinite

Fig. (4.1): Nomenclature for layered soil deposit on elastic bedrock (after Kramer, 1996). 4.3. CASE STUDY OF GROUND-RESPONSE ANALYSIS IN UPPER EGYPT: Each layer in the analytical model is completely defined by its values of shear modulus and damping ratio, density and thickness. These values are independent of frequency. The responses in the analytical model are caused by the upward propagation of shear waves or pressure waves from the underlying bedrock. The strain dependence of modulus and damping of the bedrock (half-space) on the calculated motions are included in the procedure. The input motion can be given in any one layer in the model, and new motions can be computed in any other layer. The stress-strain characteristics of soils are strongly non-linear and may significantly influence the dynamic response of a site subjected to strong earthquake motions. The shear modulus reduces rapidly and hysteretic damping increases as the strain, that develops in soil material increases. A good site response analysis must therefore consider these nonlinear effects. It is known that, the non-linear behavior of soil material


cannot be fully described by constant elastic moduli and damping coefficients. However, a good approximation of the effects of non-linear behavior of soils on the response can be obtained by use of constant strain compatible moduli and damping ratios in a sequence of linear analyses. The equivalent linear method (Seed and Idriss, 1969) can be briefly described in the following manner. In a site response analysis, the equivalent linear method starts with a linear analysis using low-strain properties of the soil system. The analysis yields complete time histories of shear strain, from which the effective shear strain amplitudes are calculated in each layer. The effective shear strain (eff) is determined from maximum shear strain (max): eff = R max (4.18) where, R is the ratio of the effective shear strain to maximum shear strain, which depends on the earthquake magnitude. R is the same for all layers. Using the computed strain amplitudes, an improved set of soil moduli and damping ratios are obtained from the appropriate soil data curves and new linear analysis is performed with these properties. The process is repeated until the differences between the computed values of shear modulus and damping ratio in two successive iterations fall below some predetermined value in all layers. Generally 8 iterations are sufficient to achieve convergence. The transfer functions are computed using obtained strain compatible modulus and damping values. This technique has been widely used in practice, because it is an efficient method, and is easy to implement in a computer program. Number of research works related to the study of ground response analysis is done in different areas in Upper Egypt such as: the proposed site of El-Kiefl dam at the forth Tushka depression, proposed site of Tushka barrage on Tushka spillway canal and proposed location of Aswan new city 47

on the west bank of the River Nile. In this state of the art, the ground response analyses at the proposed location of Aswan new city are presented (Fat-Helbary et al., 2004a). The software program selected for this study is called EERA (Bardet et al., 2000). This program was developed from the same calculated response of soil sites (Schnabel et al., 1972). EERA stands for equivalentlinear earthquake site response analysis. EERAs input and output are fully integrated within the spreadsheet program Excel. 4.3.1. Input Data: To calculate the response of soil sites using the selected software EERA, two types of data are used as input data known as geotechnical input data and input rock motion data. I. Geotechnical data: Required soil parameters and properties for each layer include soil layer thickness, shear wave velocity (Vs) the maximum shear modulus, (Gmax), density () and unit weight (). The variation of shear modulus and damping ratios of the bedrock with shear strains are also required. The shallow seismic refraction survey was carried out using Strata Visor- NZ 48 channels instrument. Seismic refraction P-and S-waves profiles were conducted in 19 sites on the proposed location of Aswan new city, as shown in figure (4.2). The survey was applied to obtain P-and S-waves velocities and the thickness of each layer. The bulk density (), unit weight () and maximum shear modulus (Gmax)are calculated as follows: The bulk density( ): The bulk density( ) of soil layers are calculated from an empirical relationship of Gardner et al. (1974), which shows the increase in P-wave velocity (Vp) with density () as follows: = a Vp0.25 (4.19)


where, a is a constant equal to 1670, when is given in kg/m3 and Vp is in km/sec. This relationship makes it possible to make a rough estimation of the P-wave velocity, when only the bulk density is known and vice versa. Unit weight (): The unit weight is related to bulk density as follows: = g. (4.20) where, g is the acceleration of gravity equal to 9.81 m/sec2. The unit weights for the soil layers of the profiles were calculated for all the profiles. Maximum shear modulus (Gmax): Since most seismic geophysical tests induce shear strains lower than about 3x10-4%, the measured elastic shear wave velocities can be used to compute the maximum shear modulus, (Gmax)
Latitude 24.20



from the relation: (2.21) Gmax = Vs2 The use of measured shear wave velocities is generally a very reliable means of evaluating in situ the value of Gmax for a particular soil deposit. Shear modulus reduction and damping curves: A number of investigators have studied the modulus reduction and the damping behavior of different soils and proposed standard modulus reduction and damping curves for those soils. In this study; the shear



12 11

14 16



24.16 32.84

32.85 32.86 Longitude




Fig. (4.2) Location map of the conducted refrection profiles (after Fat-Helbary et al., 2004a).

modulus reduction curve proposed by Seed and Idriss (1970) was used for dense and loose sand, along with the damping curve for sand proposed by 49

Idriss (1990). The Seed et al. (1984) shear modulus reduction and damping curves for gravel were used, the shear modulus reduction and damping curves for rock proposed by Schnabel et al. (1972) were used, whereas for clay the shear modulus reduction proposed by Seed and Sun (1989) and damping curves proposed by Idriss (1990) were used. II. Input rock motion: In the absence of a representative strong motion record in the vicinity of the profiles site, one of rock outcrop motions was used as input motion for the selected profiles to model the seismic response at the selected profiles: A horizontal acceleration time history recorded on tonalite bedrock from the 1985 Michoacan earthquake in Mexico, Ms = 8.1, that was recorded at distance of 80 km at site Teacalco Villita. The Michoacan earthquake in Mexico was used in this study, because it has a high magnitude (8.1), and distance (80 km) from Teacalco Villita, as nearly the same distance from the main active seismic area (Kalabsha area) to the proposed location of Aswan new city. The input rock motion was formatted to mach with the EERA input data format. For use as input motions at the bottom of the actual soil columns, one must remove from the computed motions the effects of freesurface boundary conditions, which invoke certain components of the stress tensor to be zero. To achieve this, the free-surface motions are divided by a factor of 2. A low-pass corner frequency of 25 Hz was used to filter the high frequencies from the input acceleration as shown in figure (4.3). 4.3.2. Calculated Ground Response: The results of calculation and site response analyses are summarized in this section. Response spectrum: The motions may be computed at any layer in the soil deposits, but only the surface ground motions are calculated in the present


study. The computed motions are presented by acceleration time histories and corresponding response spectra with 5% damping.

Fig. (4.3): Acceleration rock motion records used in analysis (after FatHelbary et al., 2004a). From the corresponding maximum accelerations calculated at the surface layer, figure (4.4) shows an example of the calculated maximum acceleration at the surface layer for one profile (No. 19), and this was repeated for each profile in the studied area. The maximum acceleration at all profiles is plotted and contoured as in figure (4.6). From this figure the maximum acceleration has its minimum value of about 0.101g at the northeastern part and the maximum of about 0.116 g at the southeastern part of the studied area. From the maximum acceleration at the surface layer, the response spectral with damping ratio 5% are obtained as in figure (4.5), which shows an example of the maximum spectral acceleration, and this was repeated to the all profiles. The maximum spectral acceleration at all profiles is represented by a contour map as shown in figure (4.7). The minimum value of the maximum spectral acceleration is about 0.3845g at the central northern part and central southern part of the area, and the maximum value is about 0.4196g at the southeastern and northwestern parts of the studied area. Site amplification ratio: In the present study, the maximum amplification at the studied area was calculated for all profiles. Figure (4.8) represents an 51

example of the site amplification at the surface layer of the profile No. 19. The maximum amplification at all profiles is represented by a contour map as shown in figure (4.10). In this map it is noticed that, the computed maximum amplification has its minimum value of about 1.641 at frequencies (7.400 HZ) at the central western part of the area, while the maximum value is about 4.464 at frequencies (25.00 HZ) at the southern and northwestern parts of the area, where the sediments are loose and thick. Fourier amplitude: Figure (4.9) shows example of calculated Fourier amplitude at profile No. 19. The values of Fourier amplitude at the all profiles are represented by a contour map as shown in figure (4.11). From this map the minimum value of Fourier amplitude is about 0.0355 at the central northern and central southern parts, and the maximum value is about 0.0386 at the southeastern part of the studied area. Shear stress and shear strain: Figures (4.12 and 4.13) showing an example of the computed time histories of shear strain and shear stress at sub-layer No. 2 at the profile No. 19. The maximum stress at the all profiles is represented by a contour map as shown in figure (4.14). From this map the maximum stress ranges from 2.0962 kpa as a minimum value at the central eastern part to the maximum value of about 7.4342 kpa at the southwestern part of the studied area. The maximum strain at the all profiles was calculated and represented by a contour map as shown in figure (4.15). The values of the contour lines were multiple by a constant value, that equals to 100. This map shows that, the maximum strain has its minimum value about (0.0002% ) at the central western part of the area and the maximum value (about 0.0032%) at the northwestern part of the studied area.


Fig. (4.4): Computed time histories of acceleration at the free surface (after Fat-Helbary et al., 2004a).

Fig. (4.5): Computed acceleration of response spectrum at the free surface (5% damping ratio) (after FatHelbary et al., 2004a).













24.16 32.84 0.0 0.5

32.85 32.86 Longitude 1.0 km


24.16 32.84 0.5

32.85 32.86 Longitude


Cont. Inter. = 0.001

1.0 km

Cont. Inter. = 0.002

Fig. (4.6): Distribution of maximum acceleration at the surface layer (after Fat-Helbary et al., 2004a).

Fig. (4.7): Maximum spectral acceleration distributed at the surface layer (after Fat-Helbary et al., 2004a).


Fig. (4.8): Computed amplitude of amplification ratio between rock outcroup and free surface. (after Fat-Helbary et al., 2004a).

Fig. (4.9): Computed Fourier amplitude at free free surface (after Fat-Helbary et al., 2004a).








32.85 32.86 Longitude 1.0 km 32.87






24.16 32.84

24.16 32.84 0.0 0.5

32.85 32.86 Longitude 1.0 km




Cont. Inter. = 0.2

Cont. Inter. = 0.0002

Fig. (4.10): Distribution of amplification ratio between bedrock and surface layer (after Fat-Helbary et al., 2004a).

Fig. (4.11): Distribution of Fourier amplitude (after FatHelbary et al., 2004a).


Fig. (4.12): Computed time histories of shear strain at sub-layer No. 2 (after Fat-Helbary et al., 2004a).

Fig. (4. 13): Computed time of histories shear stress at sub-layer No. 2 (after Fat-Helbary et al., 2004a).








32.85 32.86 Longitude 32.87






24.16 32.84

24.16 32.84 0.0 0.5

32.85 32.86 Longitude




1.0 km

Cont. Inter. = 0.2

1.0 km

Cont. Inter. = 0.2

Fig. (4.14): Distribution of stress calculated at the sub-layer No. 2 (after Fat-Helbary et al., 2004a).

Fig. (4. 15): Distribution of the maximum strain calculated at the sub-layer No. 2 (after FatHelbary et al., 2004a).





5.1. INTRODUCTION: The first building code, motivated primarily by insurance losses due to fire, was published in 1905. In 1927, the first edition of the uniform building code (UBC) was published by what is now the International Conference of Building Officials. The UBC has become widely adopted, particularly in the western United States, where seismic hazards are high. As a result, the UBC has been near the forefront of activity on issues relating to earthquake- resistant design. In the United States, the Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA) Code, Standard Building Code (SBC) and National Building Code (NBC) are frequently used in the mid-west, south, and northeast, respectively. Historically, building code provisions relating to earthquake safety have developed incrementally, with each increment occurring shortly after the occurrence of a damaging (Berg, 1983). Explicit provisions for earthquake resistance did not appear in U.S. building codes until after the 1925 Santa Barbara earthquake (ML = 6.3). After the 1933 Long Beach, California earthquake (ML = 6.3), in which the potentially tragic consequences of the collapse of many school buildings were averted by earthquakes occurrence after school hours, the state of California passed a bill known as the Field Act, which required that all new school construction to be designed for higher levels of earthquake resistance and that school construction be closely supervised in the field. Shortly thereafter, California also passed the Riley Act, which established mandatory design requirements for nearly all occupied buildings in the state.


In 1959, the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) published a document titled Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Tentative Commentary, more commonly known as the SEAOC Blue Book, whose provisions were incorporated into the 1961 UBC. Since then the Blue Book has been modified about every three years with its revised provisions adopted first by the ICBO in the UBC and then by the other major regional codes. These codes developed in an incremental, evolutionary manner as new research and experience was gained. The provisions of the UBC, for example, have historically been based on those of the SEAOC Blue Book (e.g., SEAOC, 1990). In 1975 the Applied Technology Council began, with support from the National Science Foundation and the National Bureau of standards (now the National Institute for Standards and Technology), to take a fresh look at all aspects of earthquake-resistant design, with the aim of developing code provisions, that could be adopted nationwide. In 1978, ATC published a report titled Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings (ATC, 1978), popularly known as ATC 3-06. This document included many innovations, including several relating to the treatment of local site effects and development of design ground motions. Years later, many of the provisions of ATC 3 -06 were incorporated into the NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reducing Program) Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for New Buildings produced by the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC, 1994a and b). The UBC and NEHRP provisions are the most influential contemporary documents, that describe minimum standards for earthquakeresistant design of buildings in the United States. Although codes and provisions change with time, both the UBC and NEHRP provisions address the issue of local site conditions and present commonly used approaches to the development of design ground motions. 57

5.2. EGYPTIAN CODE OF BUILDINGS: The ministry of housing published in 1993 a new code of practice for the calculation of loads and forces in the structural works and building works. This code has made a good and new modifications and additions to loads stated in E.C.O.P. (1989). 5.2.1. Seismic Loads: According to Egyptian code of practice for loads in building, Dec, (E.C.O.P. 1993) for loads in buildings, up to (5) floors building height, you can neglect the effect of wind or seismic loading safely, but more than (10) ten floors, wind or seismic loading effect becomes as a main loads, which cant be neglected in design ( structurally or architechturally). Between 510 floors the designer should check that the building is capable to support wind or seismic loadings safely. The designer has to design for wind or seismic loading but not for both of them. The designer should take the worst case of wind or seismic loading cases. The resistance of the building against lateral loads, wind or earthquakes is called the overall stability of the building. 5.2.2. Scope and General Fundamentals: This part is special for general rules to take effect of earthquakes in design of ordinary buildings, and is not for special structures. The stated rules are based as follows so that the structure will behave with the earthquakes according to seismic intensity and structure system for the structure, and so that the structure will resist medium intensity vibrations without any structure cracks, and will resist high seismic vibration intensity without structure total failure. Earthquake causes force, which can be analysed into three components, two are horizontal, and the third is vertical. In structure analysis it is assumed that, the horizontal seismic forces act in the main axes of the structure and in each direction alone and 58

not in both directions in the same time. Do not take seismic loads and wind loads both in the same time and the structures and all their parts will be designed to resist the biggest of wind or earthquake. Seismic loads on structures are estimated using one of the following methods and according to the rules to use each one. 1. Static equivalent loads: is used for structures of regular shape and regular structural system with height not more than 100 m and the ratio between height to horizontal dimension in the direction of seismic force is not more than 5. 2. Response spectra: for structures of regular shape and regular structural system with height between 100 to 150 m or the ratio between height to horizontal dimension in the direction of seismic force is more than 5. 3. Dynamic response: for structures of irregular shape or irregular structural system or structures with height more than 150 m. The regular structural system is defined as the system which its structural vertical members are extended continuously down to structure foundations without any sudden changes in stiffness. Egypt is divided according to seismic activity into three zones: First zone: includes all parts of Egypt except parts in zone (2) and zone (3). The first zone is considered to be subjected to earthquake of weak intensity. Second zone: includes parts of Sinai, Delta, Nile Valley and the Eastern and Western Deserts. This zone is considered to be subjected to weak to medium seismic intensity. Third zone: includes parts of red sea coasts, Mediterranean Sea coasts, Aswan, Fauum, Ismalia and the western Desert. This zone (3) is considered to be subjected to earthquakes of medium intensity. The map given in Fig. (5.1) shows the approximate bounds for these zones. 59 Exceptions from design to support seismic forces are structures with height not more than (from foundation level) 18 m for zone (1), 15 m for zone (2) and 12 m for zone (3), if the following condition is fulfilled. A. The structure has dwelling using. B. The structure has concrete skeleton from beams and columns (frames) and designed according to Egyptian code for design and construction of reinforced concrete structure 1996. C. Structure frames have suitable stiffness in the two main directions of the structure. D. Exterior beams and stair case beam are with depth not less than 25 cm. E. The ratio between building height to least horizontal dimension is not more than 2.5. The previous exception of design to resist seismic forces in article ( is not valid for buildings, in which the structure members to resist earthquakes are from precast units. 5.2.3 Static Equivalent Loads
The seismic design loads given in this article are used to calculate

horizontal shear force and bending moments in structures with height not more than 100 m and the ratio between the height to horizontal dimension in the seismic force direction is not more than 5 in condition that, the statical system resisting these loads is regular in the horizontal projection and the whole height of the structure. Methods stated in articles (5.2.4), (5.2.5) can be used instead of equivalent static load method in condition that, the lateral forces measured by these methods will not be less than 80% of the forces measured by equivalent static load method. Lateral design forces: The structures (governed by this article) are designed to resist seismic total lateral force (V) acting at the top foundation level and in the 60

direction of the two main structure axes each one alone. This force is calculated from the following equation: V = Z.I.K.C.S.W where: (Z): Factor of seismic intensity, and is taken equal 0.1 for zone (1), 0.2 for zone (2) and 0.3 for zone (3). (I): Importancy factor for the structure and is taken as follows: I = 1.25 for emergency purposes structures after earthquake such as hospitals, police centers, fire stations .etc. I = 1.0 for the rest of public buildings, administration buildings and dwellings. (K): is the factor of structural (statical) system of the structure and depends on the type of system resisting horizontal loads and its ductility degree. Its value is taken from table (5-1). (C): Structure factor, and is determined from the following equation. C = 1/15 T (C) value should be not more than 0.12. where, (T) is the fundamental natural period for the building in seconds, and can be determined by performing tests on similar structures or measuring it by any root analysis methods. As an alternative solution we can determine (T) for multistory structures as follows: A- For structure of frames resisting bending moments designed to support total lateral force: T = 0.1 N where, N is the number of structure floors including basement. B- For multistory structures of another systems: C = 0.09H B (5.4) (5.3) (5.2) (5.1)


where, (H) is the total building height over foundation level in meters (B) is the horizontal building dimension in meters in the direction of seismic force. (S) in equation (5.1) is the soil factor and depends the soil type below foundation level for shallow foundation and below the bottom of pile caps. The value of this factor is taken from Table (5.2) where, (W) in equation (5.1) is the design structure with weight, and is taken equal to permanent load of the structure with design live loads up to 500 kg/m2 or it is taken equal to permanent loads in addition to half of live loads, if the live load is more than 500 kg/m2.

Fig. (5.1): The approximate boundaries of zone of seismic activities (after E.C.O.P., 1993).


Table (5.1): Factor of structure system of the structure (K) (after E.C.O.P., 1993).
Structure system Box system in which the total lateral force is resisted by shear walls or bracing frames. Framing system resisting bending moments designed to resist total lateral force: A-ductile frames. B- non-ductile frames. Combined system consisting of resisting moments frames with shear walls (or bracing frames), this system shall be designed according to the following rules. 1. Frames and shear total lateral forces sharing it according to its relative stiffness. 2. Shear walls (or bracing frames) resist alone the total lateral force. 3. Bending moments resisting frames resist alone 25% of the total lateral force. K 1.33

0.67 0.80 1.00

Table (5-2): Soil factor (S) (after E.C.O.P., 1993).

Soil type and depth Rock, stiff cohesion soil with depth more than 15.0 or medium density soil or cohesive soil with depth less than 15 m over layer of soil of better properties. Medium density or cohesive soil of depth more than 15 m loose or weak cohesion soil of depth less than 15 m over layer of soil of better properties. Loose or weak cohesion soil of depth more than 15 m S 1.00 1.15 1.30 Distribution of lateral force: The total lateral force (V) calculated according to article ( is distributed into lateral static forces and acts as slab level of each floor of the structure floors including roof slab. These lateral forces are calculated according to the following equation:
F j = W j.H j .(v Ft ) /
i =1, N



where: Wj = design weight of the floor number (j). Hj = slab height of floor number (j) measured from foundation level. Ft = additional force acts at roof slab level and calculated from the following equation: Ft = 0.07 T.V 63 (5.6)

(Ft) should not be more than 0.25 V and will be taken zero, when (T) is less or equal 0.7 seconds. 5.2.4. Response Spectra Method: This method is used to measure design seismic forces and their distribution method for structures with regular shape and regular structural system with height between 100 and 150 m, or the ratio between height to horizontal dimension in the direction of seismic force is more than 5. The effect of earthquake is taken on the structures covered by this article as a lateral static forces affects at the slab, the values of these forces are determined using dynamic properties of the structure such as natural period and natural mode, which are determined by model analysis method. The lateral forces calculated by this article should not be less than 80% of the value of the lateral forces value calculated according to article ( 5.2.5. Dynamic Response Method: This method is used to calculate internal forces causing in the structure members for structures by seismic effect, and should be used in the following cases. Structures of height more than 150 m. Structures of irregular seismic resisting structural system, in which the vertical structure members are not continuously extended done to foundation, or there is sudden big changes in the stiffness of these members from floor to the next floor. Structures with irregular shape and not symmetry. Structures with set-back, so that the change in floor area for the next is more than 25%. Structures with design eccentricity is measured according to article (4.2.6) is more than 25% from the biggest dimension of the structure in the horizontal projection perpendicular to the lateral forces direction. 64 Structures with another non-ordinary structure properties. In this method, the internal forces in the different members of the structure are measured by determining the dynamic response of it with ground movement caused from earthquake by differential equations and structure movement relative to time, the dynamic analysis should include the dynamic properties for each structure including its foundation and soil bearing it. 5.2.6. Torisonal Moment: The members resisting shear in the structures should be able to resist additional shearing force due to torisional moment on building caused from design eccentricity for the lateral forces in each of the two main building directions. This eccentricity is determined either from actual eccentricity between center of mass and center of rigidity in addition to +5% of the biggest building dimension in the horizontal projection perpendicular to the direction of the lateral forces or one times and half of the actual eccentricity which ever is grater. 5.2.7. Lateral Displacement and Joints: The relative lateral displacement between two excessive floors caused by seismic design forces should not be more than 0.005 from the difference between levels of these two floors. The space between two adjacent buildings should not be less than 2 cm2, or the lateral displacement caused by seismic design forces, which ever is greater.


Ahmed, K. A . (1991): Engineering applications of the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis in Egypt. Master Thesis, Cairo University. Algermissen, S. T., David M., Perkins, W., Isherwood, D., Gordon, G.R. and Howard, C. (1975): Seismic risk evaluation of the Balkan region. Proceedings of the Seminar on Seismic Zoning Maps, Skopje, Vol. II, pp. 173-219. Al-Hadad, M., Siddiqi, G.H., Al-Zaid, R. Arafah, A. and Turkelli, N. (1992): Seismic hazard and design criteria for Saudi Arabia. Proc. of 10th WCEE, pp. 449-454. Anderson, J.G. and Trifunac, M.D. (1977a): Uniform r isk f unctionals for c haracterisation of strong earthquake ground motion. Report CE 77-02, Dept. of Civil Eng., University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. Anderson, J.G. and Trifunac, M.D. (1977b): Uniform r isk f unctionals for c haracterisation of strong e arthquake g round m otion. Proc. Second Annual ASCE EMD Specialty Conference, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, N.C., U.S.A., pp. 332-335. Anderson, J.G. and Trifunac, M.D. (1978a): Uniform r isk f unctionals for c haracterization of strong earthquake ground motion. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., Vol. 68, pp. 205-218. Anderson, J.G. and Trifunac, M.D. (1978b): Application of seismic risk procedures to problems in m icrozonation. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Microzonation for Safer Construction, Research and Applications, Vol. I, pp. 559-569. ATC (1978): Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations of building. ATC 3-06, Applied Technology Council, Palo Alto, California. Bardet, J. P., Ichll, K. and Lin, C. H. (2000): ERRA: A computer programe for equivalent-linear earthquake site response analysis of layered soil deposits. University of Southern California, Department of Civil Engineering. Bender, B. (1984): Incorporating acceleration variability into seismic hazard analysis. Bull. Seism. Soc., Vol., 74, pp. 1451-1462. Benedetii, D., Benzoni, G. and Parisi, M. A. (1988): Seismic vulnerability and risk evaluation for old Urban Nuclei. EESD, Vol. 16, pp. 183-201. Benedetti, D., and Benzoni, G. M. (1985). Seismic vulnerability index versus damage for unreinforced masonry buildings. International Conference on Reconstruction. Restoration and Urban Planning in Seismic Prone Areas, Skopje, Yugoslavia, pp. 333-347.


Berg, G.V. (1983): Seismic design codes and procedures. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California,119 p. Bonilla, M.G., Mark, R.K. and Lienkaemper, J.J. (1984): Statistical relations among earthquake magnitude, surface rupture length, and surface fault displacement. Bull. Seis. Soc. Am., V. 74, pp. 2379-2411. BSSC (1994a): NEHRP recommended provisions for the development of seismic regulations for new buildings, Part I. Provisions, Building Seismic Safety Council, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. BSSC (1994b): NEHRP recommended provisions for the development of seismic regulations for new buildings, Part II. Commentary, Building Seismic Safety Council, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. Chung, D. H. and Bernreuter, D. L. (1981): Regional relationships among earthquake magnitude scales. Rev. Geophys. and Space Phys., Vol. 19, pp. 649-663. Coburn, A. W. (1986): Relative vulnerability assessment. 8ECEE, Vol. 2, Lisbon, pp. 4.2/23-4.2/30 Coburn, A. W. and Spence, R. J. S. (1992): Earthquake Protection, Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data. Cornell, C.A. (1968): Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., Vol. 58, No. 5, pp. 1583-1606. Dravinski, M., Trifunac, M.D. and Westermo, B.D. (1980): Ratios of u niform r isk s pectrum amplitudes for different probabilities of exceedance and for shallow, random seismicity surrounding the site. Report CE 80-02, Dept. of Civil Eng., Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. E.C.O.P. (1989): Egyptian code of practice for loads in building. Ministry of Housing. E.C.O.P. (1993): Egyptian code of practice for loads in building. Ministry of Housing, No. 45. EERI Committee on Seismic Risk (1989): The basic of seismic risk analysis. Earthquake Spectra, Vol., 5, No. 4, pp. 675-702. El-Remaily A. F. (1992): Seismic risk evaluation for urban area in Egypt. M.Sc. Thesis, Cairo University, Egypt. Ergunay, O. and Gulkan, P. (1990): Loss and risk assessment. National Report of Turkey, Workshop II on Earthquake Vulnerability, Trieste, Italy, December 1990. Fat-Helbary, R. E. (1995): Assessment of seismic hazard and risk in Aswan area, Egypt. Ph D Thesis, Tokyo University, Japan. Fat-Helbary, R.E., El-Faragawy, K.O. and Abdel-Motall, A.M. (2004a): Engineering seismological studies on the proposed location of Aswan new city, Egypt. NRIAG Journal of Geophysics, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 65-81. 67

Fat-Helbary, R. E., El-Faragawy, K.O. and Abdel-Motall, A.M. (2004b): Land use planning and seismic hazard of the proposed Aswan new city Area, Egypt. Acta Geodyn. Geomater., Vol. 1, No. 4 (136), pp. 99-106. Gardner,G. H. F., Gardner,L.W. and Gregoy, A. R. (1974): Formation velocity and density-the diagnosyic basics for stratigraphic traps. Geophysics, Vol. 39,pp. 770-780. Gupta, I.D. (1991): A note on computing uniform risk spectra from intensity data on earthquake occurrence. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., Vol. 10, No. 8, pp. 407-413. Gutenberg, B. (1927). Grundlagen der Erdlebenkunde, Berlin. Gutenberg, B. and Richter C.F. (1965): Seismicity of the earth, Hafner, New Yourk and London, 310 p. IAEE (1984): Earthquake resistant regulations, a world list-1984. International Association of Earthquake Engineering, Gakujutsu Bunken Fukyn-Kai, Tokyo, Japan. ICBO (1991): International conference of building officials, Whittier, California. Idriss, I. M. (1990): Response of soft soil sites during earthquakes. In H. Bolton Seed Memorial Symposium: Berkeley, CA, BiTech, V. 2, pp. 273289. Ipek, M. et al. (1965): Earthquake zones of Turkey according to seismicity data. Prof. Con. Earthquake Resistant Construction Regulations, (in Turkish) Ankara, Turkey. Jacob, K., Horton, S., Barstow, N. and Armbruster, J. (1995): Seismic hazard assessment, design ground motions and comments on liquefaction potential for the site of the Tappan Zee Bridge, New York. Final Report, Part1, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, F.R. Harris, Inc. pp. 1-75. Jordanovski, L.R., Todorovska, M.I. and Trifunac, M.D. (1991): A model for assessment of the total loss in a building exposed to earthquake hazard. Report CE 92-05, Dept. of Civil Eng., Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. Jordanovski, L.R., Todorovska, M.I. and Trifunac, M.D. (1993): Total loss in a building exposed to earthquake hazard, Part I. The Model; Part II: A Hypothetical Example. European Earthq. Eng., Vol. VI, No. 3, pp. 14-32. Kanai, K. (1961): An empirical formula for the spectrum of strong earthquake motions. Bull. Eq. Res. Inst. , Vol. 39, pp. 85-95. Karink V. (1981): Problems of earthquake hazard assessment and vulnerability assessment. Special paper, UNDRO, Geneva.


Karink V. (1982). New trends in the management of earthquake risk, Undro News, March 1982. Kramer, S. L. (1996): Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, pp. 254-280. Lee, V.W. (1987): Influence of l ocal s oil and g eologic s ite c onditions on p seudo r elative velocity r esponse s pectrum a mplitudes of r ecorded s trong m otion a ccelerations. Report CE 87-05, Dept. of Civil Eng., Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. Lee, V.W. and Trifunac, M.D. (1985): Uniform risk spectra of strong earthquake ground motion: NEQRISK. Report CE 85-05, Dept. of Civil Eng., Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. Lee, V.W. and Trifunac, M.D. (1987): Microzonation of a metropolitan area. Report CE 87-02, Dept. of Civil Eng., Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. McGuire, R. K.(1976): FORTRAN computer program for seismic risk analysis. U. S. Dept. of Interior, Geol. Surv., Open-File Rep. 76-67, 90 p., Denver, Colorado. McGuire, R. K., and Shedlock, K. M. (1981): Statistical uncertainties in seismic hazard evaluations in the United States. Bull. Seis. Soc. Am, Vol. 71, pp. 243-248. Medvedev, S. V. and Sponheuer, W. (1969): Processing of the Fourth Conference on Earthq. Eng., A-2, pp. 143-153. Miyamura, S. (1962): Magnitude-frequency relation of earthquakes and its bearing in geotectonics. Proc. Japan Academy, Vol. 38, pp. 27-30. Ohta, Y. and Ohashi, H. (1983): A proposal of systematic approach to seismic risk assessment in Turkey. A Comprehensive Study on earthquake Disasters in Turkey in View of Seismic Risk Reduction, Hokkaido University, pp. 203-210. Ohta, Y. and Satoh, K. (1980): Analyses on seismic intensity and earthquake disaster in the Caldron earthquake. Engineering Seismological Studies on the 24 November 1976 Caldron Earthquake in Turkey, Hokkaido University, pp. 89-117. Ohta, Y., Ohashi, H. and Kagami, H. (1986): A semi-empirical equation for estimating occupant casualty in an earthquake. 8 ECEE, Vol. 1, Lisbon, pp. 2.3/81-2.3/88. Paul, C. et al. (1989): Probabilistic estimates of the seismic ground motion hazard in the western of Saudi Arabia, U. S. Geological Survey Bull. 1868. Reid, H. F. (1910): The California earthquake of April 18, 1906. Publication 87, Vol.21, Institute of Washington, Washington, D.C. Schnabel, P. B., Lysmer, J., and Seed, H. B. (1972): Shake: A computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites.


Report No. EERC 72-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California. SEAOC (1990): Recommended lateral force requirements and tentative commentary. Structural Engineers Association of California, San Francisco, 64 p. Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M. (1969): The influence of soil conditions on ground motion during earthquake. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, Vol. 94, No. SM1, pp. 99-137 . Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M. (1970): Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses. Report No. EERC 70-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley. Seed, H. B. and Sun, J. I. (1989): Amplifications of site effects in the Mexico earthquake of Sept. 19, 1985 for Earthquake-Resistant Design Criteria in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley. Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K. and Harder, L. (1984): The influence of SPT procedures in evaluating soil liquefaction resistance. Report UCB/EERC84-15, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley. Todorovska, M.I. and Trifunac, M.D. (1996a): A seismic hazard model for peak strains in soils during strong earthquake shaking. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib., Vol. 16, Supplement, pp. 1-12. Todorovska, M.I. and Trifunac, M.D. (1996b): Hazard mapping of normalized peak strain in soil during earthquakes - Microzonation of a Metropolitan area. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 321-329. Todorovska, M.I. and Trifunac, M.D. (1999): Liquefaction o pportunity m apping via s eismic wave energy. Jour. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE, Vol. 125, No. 12, pp. 1032-1042. Trifunac, M.D. (1989a): Seismic m icrozonation. Proc. UNDRO Seminar on Lessons Learned from Earthquakes, Moscow, USSR, pp. 21-27. Trifunac, M.D. (1989b): Threshold magnitudes which cause ground motion exceeding the values expected during the next 50 years in a Metropolitan area. Geofizika, Vol. 6, pp. 1-12. Trifunac, M.D. (1990a): A microzonation method based on uniform risk spectra. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 34-43. Trifunac, M.D. and Todorovska, M.I. (1998): Comment on the role of earthquake hazard maps in loss estimation: A study of the Northridge e arthquake. Earthq. Spectra, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 557-563. UNDP/UNIDO Project RER/ 79/015,(1985): Building construction under seismic conditions in the Balkan, Vol.4, Vienna. UNDRO, (1979): Natural disasters and vulnerability analysis. Report of Expert Group Meeting, 9-12 July, 1979.


UNDRO, (1991): Mitigating natural disasters, phenomena, effects and options. A manual for Policy Makers and Planners, New York. Westermo, B.D., Anderson, J. G., Trifunac, M. D. and Dravinski, M. (1980): Seismic risk tables for pseudo relative velocity spectra in regions with shallow seismicity. Report CE 80-01, Dept. of Civil Eng., Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. Wiggins, J. H. (1964): Effect of site conditions on earthquake intensity, Proc. ASCE, Vol. 90, pp. 279-312. Wood, H.O. (1908): Distribution of apparent intensity in San Francisco, in the California earthquake of April 18, 1906. Report of the State Earthquake Investigation Commission, Carnegie Institute of Washington, Washington, D.C., Vol.1,pp. 220-245.