Seismic Design to EC8

Jack Pappin, Arup, Hong Kong

Topics

• Seismic hazard
• Site response / Liquefaction
• Design of buildings to EC8
• Foundation design to EC8
• Other ground effects

1
Ground motion

Plate tectonics

2
 Observed seismicity

Seismic activity 1990 to 1999 within 100km of the surface: Source USGS website

Plate tectonics

Section through South America

3
Earthquake mechanism

Time = 0

Time = 100 years

Slippage causing Energy release

Time = 101 years

Earthquake effects

High Moderate Low

Intensity Intensity Intensity

4
 MSK Intensity scale
II - Very weak Recorded by instruments
III - Weak Felt indoors by a few people
IV - Largely observed Felt indoors by many people, doors and dishes rattle

V - Strong Buildings tremble, unstable objects overturned

VI - Slight damage Slight damage to a few brick buildings

VII - Building damage Large cracks in weak buildings, slight to r.c. building

VIII - Some destruction Partial collapse of weak buildings, a few slopes fail
IX - General damage Large cracks in r.c. buildings, liquefaction observed

X - General destruction Most brick buildings collapse, many landslides

XI - Catastrophe Most buildings collapse

XII - Landscape changes Practically all structures destroyed

Intensity 7
Newcastle 1989

5
Intensity 9
Taiwan 1999

Magnitude

Magnitude is a measure of the size (or energy release)

of the earthquake.

Each unit increase in magnitude scale is about a three

times increase in ground motion for the same distance
from the event. It is also about a 30 times increase in
energy release.

6
 Magnitude
Energy
Release

Ground motion

Step 1 - desk study

Step 2 - Calculation

7
 Step 1 - desk study

M8.5 and 7.9 Southern Sumatra Earthquakes of

12 September 2007 and M7.0 of 13 September 2007

8
 Seismic Hazard of Western Indonesia – April 2008

Ground motion

What measure should be used to

define ground motion

Intensity - measure of peak observed damage potential

Peak motions - acceleration, velocity or displacement

9
Ground motion
Peak motions - acceleration, velocity or displacement

ROCK SOIL

12 Sep 2007 Sumatra

10
Ground motion

What measure should be used to

define ground motion

Intensity - measure of peak observed damage potential

Peak motions - acceleration, velocity or displacement

Frequency content - response spectra

Response spectrum

11
30 Sep 2009 Sumatra

30 Sep 2009 Sumatra

12
Ground motion - Calculation

Key information for a seismic hazard assessment

Seismic source zones

Active faults
Areas of diffuse seismicity

Attenuation relationship
The behaviour of a measure of ground
motion as a function of the distance
from the source of energy, (EERI 1984).

Attenuation relationship
Example for Peak Ground Acceleration
1.0
Magnitude
measure of the size
Peak ground Acceleration (g)

(or energy release)

M = 7.5 of the earthquake.

0.5
M = 6.5

M = 5.5

0
1 10 100 1000
Distance (km)

13
Attenuation relationship
Example of Response Spectra from an event at
10km in the Western USA
1.0
M = 6.5 for Eastern USA
Peak ground Acceleration (g)

M = 7.5

M = 6.5
0.5

M = 5.5

0
0 1 2
Fundamental Period (sec)

Variability of Attenuation relationship

100

40
Peak acceleration (%g)

10

10 100
Distance from energy source (km)

14
Ground motion - Calculation

2 basic methods to determine design ground motion

Deterministic to determine the ground motion at

the site due to maximum expected
earthquakes

Probabilistic to determine the ground motion at

the site which has a desired annual
probability of being exceeded

Deterministic seismic hazard analysis

Source 1 Source 3

R1 R3
M1 M3
Site
R2

M2
Source 2

STEP 1 - source model STEP 2 - distance determination

For each source the maximum magnitude
that is expected is estimated.

Controlling Y1
M3 earthquake
M1 Y= Y2
M2 Y3

R3 R2 R1 Distance
STEP 4 - report
STEP 3 - attenuation

15
Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis
Source 1 Source 3
1
2
Site R 3
R

Source 2
R
7 Magnitude M
STEP 1 - source model STEP 2 - rate of earthquake activity

M=7

M=6

Distance R Parameter value y*

STEP 3 - attenuation STEP 4 - result for all M and R

Geohazard studies
Satellite imagery (IKONOS)
ArcInfo export
geological maps

Hard copy geological maps Aerial photography

GIS
Ground investigation data Maps Field mapping

Hazards

16
Seismic source zones and activity rates

Fault sources - Geology & tectonics

Geomorphology
Slip rates
Observed seismicity

Areal sources - Geology & tectonics

Observed seismicity
Observed seismicity

Observed seismicity

1. Historical data
Based on Intensity
more recent data is more complete

2. Instrumental data
Complied by by several agencies
e.g. ISC, USGS.
Recent data is more complete
since 1920 for M > 6
since 1963 for M > 4.5

1. plus 2. = Earthquake catalogue

17
Tectonic
structure

10.0
5 to 5.4

5.5 to 5.9

6 to 6.9
Kuala
7.5
500km 7 to 7.9

8 to 8.9
Lumpur
9

5.0

2.5
Latitude

0.0

-2.5

-5.0

-7.5
95.0 97.5 100.0 102.5 105.0 107.5 110.0
Longitude

18
Subduction zone model

Kuala Lumpur

Distance (km)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0

100
Depth (km)

5.0 to 5.4
200 5.5 to 5.9
6.0 to 6.9
7.0 to 7.9
8.0 to 8.9
9
300

Activity with depth for subduction events

number of events
0 50 100 150 200

0-20

20-30

30-40

40-60

60-80
Depth (km)

80-100

100-130

130-160

160-200

200-250

250-300

19
Seismic activity in Subduction 100
1800
1920
1964
10 10
1800 Design

Annual number of events > M

1920
1964
Annual number of events > M 1
Design
1

40 to 100km
10 to 40km

0.1 0.1

0.01 0.01

0.001 0.001
4 5 6 7 8 9 4 5 6 7 8 9
Magnitude (M) Magnitude (M)

10 10
1920 1964
1964 Design
100 to 200km

200 to 300km
Design
Annual number of events > M

Annual number of events > M

1 1

0.1 0.1

0.01 0.01

0.001 0.001
4 5 6 7 8 9 4 5 6 7 8 9
Magnitude (M) Magnitude (M)

10.0 5 to 5.4

Sumatra 5.5 to 5.9

6 to 6.9

Fault 7.5
7 to 7.9

Series9

model Series10

5.0

2.5
Latitude

0.0

-2.5

-5.0

-7.5
95.0 97.5 100.0 102.5 105.0 107.5 110.0
Longitude

20
Sumatra
Fault
model
Kuala Lumpur
Distance (km)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0

100
Subduction
Depth (km)

Sumatra
zone Fault Area to the north
and east of the
200 5.0 to 5.4 Sumatra Fault
5.5 to 5.9
6.0 to 6.9
7.0 to 7.9
300

Sumatra fault activity rates

10
1800 - 2005
1920 - 2005
1964 - 2005
Annual number of events > M

1
17mm/yr slip
Background
Total
0.1

0.01

0.001
4 5 6 7 8 9
Magnitude (M)

21
 12

Ground-Motion
Attenuation Relationships 9
for Sumatra Earthquakes Sumatra Eurasian
Fault Plate

Ma
lay
6 Penang
Seulimeum

Pe
Developed by Megawati

nin
Medan

su
(NTU, Singapore) Kuala Lumpur

la
3 Renun

Singapore
Barumun

Latitude ( )
o
Pekan Baru
0
52 mm/yr Sumani

Su
o
(N10 E)

m
at
Su du

ra
Dikit

Su
Palembang

m ctio
-3

b
at
ra n
57 mm/yr
Semangko

-6
Indian-Australian
Plate 60 mm/yr Java
o
(N17 E)
-9
0 500 km

-12
93 96 99 102 105 108 111
o
Longitude ( )

Attenuation Subduction earthquakes (Megawati 2006)

10
9
8
7
Standard deviation = * 1.8
6
1
5
1 second RSA (m/s2)

0.1

0.01

0.001
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Distance (km)

22
Attenuation Sumatra Fault earthquakes (Megawati 2006)
10
9
8
7
Standard deviation = * 2.6
1 6
5
1 second RSA (m/s2)

0.1

0.01

0.001
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Distance (km)

Normal
distribution
0.8

0.6
Likelihood

0.4

0.2

0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Standard deviations from mean

23
 Calculated response spectra
0.8
2% in 50 year 5% damping

0.7 10% in 50 year

50% in 50 year
Spectral Acceleration (m/s2)

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (sec)

5 second period
2% in 50 year (5s)
De-aggregation 20

18

2% in 50 year 16

1 second period
14

12
2% in 50 year (1s)
10
12

10 6

8 2

0
13

0.2 second period

6
63

113

163

213

263

9.25
313

363

8.25
413

4
463

2% in 50 year (0.2sec)
513

7.25
563

613

10 Distance (km) 6.25

663

Mag
713

763

5.25
813

2
863

8
0
13
% Contibution to Hazard

63

113

163

213

263

6 9.25
313

363

8.25
413

463

513

7.25
563

613

Distance (km) 6.25

663

Magnitude (M)
713

4
763

5.25
813

863

1833 type event

2
Subduction 0 to 40km deep
Subduction 40 to 100km deep
0
Subduction 100 to 300km deep
13

63

113

Sumatra Fault
163

213

263

9.25
313

Northeast Sumatra
363

8.25
413

463

513

7.25 Sunda Plate

563

613

Distance (km) 6.25

663

Magnitude (M)
713

763

5.25
813

863

24
 2% in 50 year 10% in 50 year 50% in 50 year

Scenario events Subd M9.3@530 * 1.9

Sum Flt M8@400 * 6

Subd M9.0@530 * 1.7

Sum Flt M8@400 * 3.5

Subd M8.7@550 * 1

Sum Flt M8@400 * 1.5

Local M6@130 * 2.3 Local M6@210 * 2 Local M6@240 * 1

0.8
5% damping

0.7

0.6

Spectral Acceleration (m/s2)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (sec)

Incorporation of uncertainty
Example of a logic tree analysis
Attenuation Magnitude Maximum
model distribution magnitude

0.18

25
 2% in 50 year 10% in 50 year 50% in 50 year

Time histories 2% in 50yrs - Short 10% in 50yrs - Short 50% in 50yrs - Short

2% in 50yrs - Long 10% in 50yrs - Long 50% in 50yrs - Long

0.8
5% damping

0.7

0.6

Spectral Acceleration (m/s 2)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (sec)

Time histories
0.3 0
.3
0.25 0
.2
5
0.2 0
.2
Acceleration [m/sec2]

0.15 0
.1
5
0.1 0
.1
0.05 0
.5
0 0
-0.05 -0
.5
-0.1 -0
.1
-0.15 -0
.1
5
-0.2 -0
.2
-0.25 -0
.2
5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Time [sec]
Short Period Same scale

0 .2

0 .1 5
Acceleration [m/sec2]

0 .1

0 .0 5

- 0 .0 5

- 0 .1

- 0 .1 5

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
T im e [ s e c ]

0 .2

0 .1 5

0 .1
Acceleration [m/sec2]

0 .0 5

- 0 .0 5

- 0 .1

- 0 .1 5

- 0 .2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Long Period T im e [ s e c ]

26
2% in 50 year bedrock motion
7
5% damping Hong Kong
Kuala Lumpur
6 New York (IBC2006)
Spectral Acceleration (m/s )

5
2

0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (sec)

27
USGS catalogue since 1972 - 0 to 50 km depth

USGS catalogue since 1972 - 50 to 150 km depth

28
USGS catalogue since 1972 - 150 to 300 km depth

USGS catalogue since 1972 - 300 to 500 km depth

29
Section R1

30
Section R2

Section R3

31
Magnitude recurrence plots

10% in the next 50 year bedrock response spectra

2
5% damping Semporna
Sandakan
Bedrock Spectral acceleration (m/s2)

Kota Kinabalu
Kuala Lumpur
Penang
Kuantan
Kuching
1

0
0.01 0.1 1 10

Structural period (s)

32
Comparison with Eurocode 8 rules (3.2.1(4))

Comparison with Eurocode 8 rules (for bedrock)

0.15 0.4 2

33
Comparison with Eurocode 8 rules (for bedrock)
2
5% damping Semporna
Seismic
design Sandakan
required Kota Kinabalu
Spectral acceleration (m/s2)

with ductile
detailing Kuala Lumpur
Penang
Kuantan
Kuching
1

Seismic
design not
required

0
0.01 0.1 1 10

Structural period (s)

Concern with seismicity near to KL

34
Events observed since 2004

10

Annual exceedance rate
1

0.1
2.2 2.7 3.2 3.7 4.2

Magnitude

10% in the next 50 year bedrock response spectra

2
Kuala Lumpur
Seismic
design KL with local
Spectral acceleration (m/s2 )

required events
with ductile
detailing

1
Seismic
design not
required

0
0.01 0.1 1 10

Structural period (s)

35
 Site Response

Bedrock

Mexico City - 1985

• 2 week visit two weeks after

the event

36
Mexico City - 1985

Earthquake source

Mexico City

D D

Epicentre
Magnitude 8.1

37
Mexico City

5 km

Mexico City

5 km

38
Television studio

Mexico City

5 km

39
Recorded ground motion

Recorded ground motion

40
Response spectra

Observed building damage

43%

41
Notable non-damage

Lake bed
ground
conditions

42
 Cyclic triaxial testing of
lake bed clay

Nottingham University

Response spectra

43
Site Response Effects – US approach

IBC 2000+ Classification of soil profile types

Soil Profile Shear wave SPT Undrained shear

Type velocity (m/sec) N value strength (kPa)

A - Hard rock >1,500 - -

B - Weak to medium rock 750 - 1,500 - -

C - Dense stiff soil 375 - 750 > 50 > 100

D - Medium dense firm soil 180 - 375 15 - 50 50 - 100

E - Loose soft soil < 180 < 15 < 50

F - Deep soft soils that require site specific investigations

The upper 30m of the soil profile are considered

Site Response Effects

IBC 2000+ Soil amplification factors
4

Long period motion (1 sec)

3
Soil Amplification Factor

Soft soil
E E

2
D
D
C C
1 B B
A A
Hard Rock
Short period motion (0.2 sec)
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Approximate Peak Ground Acceleration (g)

44
Eurocode classification
IBC

Eurocode classification

45
Eurocode classification

Eurocode classification
EC8 : 10% in 50 year bedrock response spectra

3
Soil amplification factor

Class D
Class C
Class B
0
0.1 1 10

Structural period (s)

46
 Eurocode classification
IBC 2000+ Soil amplification factors
4

EC8 : 10% in 50 year bedrock response spectra Long period motion (1 sec)

3 3
Soft soil
D D
Soil amplification factor

2 2
C
C
B B
1 1
Class D
Hard Rock
Class C
Class B
Short period motion (0.2 sec)
0 0
0.1 1 10 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Structural period (s) Approximate Peak Ground Acceleration (g)

Oasys SIREN site response analysis

Output motion
Soil Surface 
F


= F

Bedrock

Input motion

47
Soil shear behaviour
  Gsec

Gmax or G0


Backbone
 curve
G0 1.0
Gsec Modulus
reduction curve
Gsec
 G0

log 

G0(ij) = vs(ij)2 where G0(ij) is the elastic shear modulus

 is the bulk density of soil and
Vs(vh) v
vs(ij) is the shear wave velocity through soil
1
Bender Bender element (vs(hv))
h2 Porous element
h1 stone (vs(vh))
Vs(hv) 2 2
Vs(hh) 3 Bender
3 element
Mid-plane
Soil
pore
triaxial
pressure Base
1 specimen Bender element (vs(hh))
probe pedestal
Bender element probe

Bender element embedded in base platen

Bender element probe Mid-plane pore pressure probe

Hall-effect gauge (axial) Hall-effect gauge (radial)

48
 1.0
Variation
with
strain Gsec
G0

0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
PI =0

15
Damping ratio (%)

20
30

50

100
10
200

0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10

Cyclic shear strain (%)

Geophysical methods for G0

G0 = VS2

Up hole Down hole

Cross hole - simple Cross hole - accurate

49
Down hole
seismic cone
testing

Oasys SIREN is a computer programme for a non-linear model

which solves the one dimensional site response problem in the
time domain using the explicit finite difference method.

Output motion

Displacement Soil Surface 

F


= F

Bedrock
Input motion

50
Site Class Definition – EC8

Class B
C profiles, 10% in 50-year ground motion, long period

Spectral 7
+2 Sigma CK1
OR4
Ratios 6
+1 Sigma
Average
BH3 Alex Rd
BH 2 Alex Rd
BH ARN5
5
-1 Sigma BH ARN1
BH 1936-3
-2 Sigma BH 799-TB8
BH 2111-5
Spectral Ratio

4 BH 1263-4
BH 1808-6
BH 91F-86
3 BH 703-69A
BH 1222-6
BH 460-14
BH 2122-15
2 BH 348-31
Average

0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (s)

Class D
E profiles, 10% in 50-year ground motion, long period

9
+2 Sigma BH 233-11
8 +1 Sigma BH 1982-25
BH 1754-4
Average BH 1626-25
7 BH 1627-23
-1 Sigma BH 1144-505-1
BH 24B-PP2
6 -2 Sigma BH 144K-5
BH 2131-2
Spectral Ratio

BH 1493-13
5
BH 262-D19
BH 424-9
4 DTL/20/PZS/VST
DTL/31/VST
DTL/43/PZM/VST
3 DTL/45/VST
M2019
M2020
2 Average

0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (s)

51
Resulting Spectra
10% in 50 year - Long period
2
Bedrock
B
Site Class C
C
Site Class D
Site Class ED
Site Class FS
1.5
Spectral Acceleration (m/s/s)

0.5

0
0.1 1 10
Period (s)

Displacement spectra
10% in 50 year - Long period
1
Bedrock
Site Class C
B
C
Site Class D
D
Site Class E
Site Class FS
Spectral Displacement (m)

0.1

0.01
0.1 1 10
Period (s)

52
Design spectra

2
Site Class B
Bedrock
Site Class C
B
Site Class D
C
Spectral Acceleration (m/s )

Site Class ED
2

Site Class FS

0
0.1 1 10
Structural Period (s)

Spectral ratios

10% in 50 year spectral ratios

5
Site Class B

Site Class C
4
Spectral Ratio

Site Class D
EC8 : 10% in 50 year bedrock response spectra
Site Class S
3 3
Soil amplification factor

2 2

1 1

Class D
Class C
Class B

0 0
0.1 1 10
0.1 1 10
Structural period (s)
Period T

53
Eurocode classification for KL / Penang
10% in 50 year design spectra

2
Site Class C
Site Class D
Site Class S
C Equation
Spectral Acceleration (m/s2 )

D Equation
E Equation

1
C 1.6 0.4 1.1 10.4
D 2.5 0.9 1.6 4.6
S1 3.2 1.6 2.4 2.4

ag = 0.175 m/s 2

0
0.1 1 10
Structural Period (s)

Comparison with Eurocode 8 rules (for bedrock)

2
5% damping Semporna
Seismic
design Sandakan
required Kota Kinabalu
Spectral acceleration (m/s2)

with ductile
detailing Kuala Lumpur
Penang
Kuantan
Kuching
1

Seismic
design not
required

0
0.01 0.1 1 10

Structural period (s)

54
Comparison with IBC rules
IBC: (2/3 2% in 50 year) response spectra

2
Seismic design Seismic design
required with no required with
ductility ductility KL Rock
KL Soil C
seismic
design not KL Soil D
Spectral acceleration (m/s2)

required KL Soil S

0
0.1 1 10
Structural period (s)

Comparison with IBC rules

IBC: (2/3 2% in 50 year) response spectra
Bedrock

2
Seismic design
required with
ductility

seismic Kuala Lumpur

design not
Spectral acceleration (m/s2)

required Kota Kinabalu

Semporna

0
0.1 1 10
Structural period (s)

55
 IBC: (2/3 2% in 50 year) response spectra
Soil Class D
Comparison 3

with IBC rules Seismic design

required with
ductility

Kuala Lumpur
Kota Kinabalu
Semporna
2

seismic
design not

Spectral acceleration (m/s2)

required

0
0.1 1 10
Structural period (s)

2
Semporna
Sandakan
Bedrock Spectral acceleration (m/s2)

Comparison with Kota Kinabalu

Kuala Lumpur
Penang
Eurocode 8 rules (with Semporna
soil) D Kuantan
Kuching
1

KK D

KL D
Group D ; S = 1.35 0
0.01 0.1 1 10

Structural period (s)

56
 10% in 50 year response spectra
Soil Class D
Comparison 3
Kuala Lumpur
with EC 8 Kota Kinabalu
Semporna
EC 8 Ductile
EC 8 Design

Spectral acceleration (m/s2)

2

0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Structural period (s)

Possible EC8 Zoning map for Malaysia

57
 Comparison with Eurocode 8 rules (for bedrock)
2
5% damping Semporna
Seismic
design Sandakan
required Kota Kinabalu
Spectral acceleration (m/s2)

with ductile
detailing Kuala Lumpur
Penang
Kuantan
Kuching
1

Seismic
design not
required

0
0.01 0.1 1 10

Structural period (s)

Eurocode classification for KL / Penang

10% in 50 year design spectra

2
Site Class C
Site Class D
Site Class S
C Equation
Spectral Acceleration (m/s2 )

D Equation
E Equation

1
C 1.6 0.4 1.1 10.4
D 2.5 0.9 1.6 4.6
S1 3.2 1.6 2.4 2.4

ag = 0.175 m/s 2

0
0.1 1 10
Structural Period (s)

58
Possible EC8 Zoning map for Malaysia

<4%g 6%g 8%g

<4%g

Liquefaction

59
Liquefaction

Liquefaction

60
Liquefaction

Philippines 1989

Turkey 1999
Liquefaction

61
 BUT
Liquefaction When you are designing the structure,
can you rely on liquefaction happening?

No Liquefaction

Turkey 1999

Liquefaction
Standard method of assessing the likelihood of liquefaction
Average peak shear stress / vertical effective stress

0.5
Percent fines (%) 35 15 <5
Note: figure applies
0.4 for a magnitude 7.5
earthquake
Liquefaction
0.3

0.2

No Liquefaction
0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Corrected SPT N value (N1)

62
Estimation of shear stress

5
Depth (m)

10

15

20

25
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Stress reduction factor rd

Liquefaction
How to overcome
Modify soil Densify Vibroflotation
Dynamic compaction
Displacement piling

Stabilise Grouting
Improve drainage

63
Ground Improvement

• Typical methods include stone

columns, dynamic compaction, Vibro-replacement
grouting, soil cement mixing,
dewatering.
• Suitability of method must be
checked by field trials.
• For example stone columns do not
work well with a high fines content
(>15%).

Liquefaction
How to overcome
Modify soil Densify Vibroflotation
Dynamic compaction
Displacement piling

Stabilise Grouting
Improve drainage

Change foundation Float

Pile

64
Liquefaction
How to overcome: Float

Basement void
Shear
failure

Liquefied soil

65
 Liquefaction
How to overcome: Pile

Liquefied soil Ductile

detailing

Liquefaction - Lifelines

Flotation

Loose backfill
Flow of
liquefied
soil Stone columns

Jet grout walls

Hashash et al, 2001

66
 Building Design to EC8

Background to Eurocodes

• Set of unified design codes bringing together structural,

civil, and geotechnical disciplines
• Adopted by all 28 member states of the European Union
• Conflicting national standards withdrawn by March 2010
• Main objective is:
“the elimination of technical obstacles to trade and the
harmonisation of technical specifications”
(European Committee for Standardisation)

134

67
 How are they Organised?

Eurocode Basis of Design

EN 1990

Eurocode 1 Eurocode 2 Eurocode 3 Eurocode 4 Eurocode 5 Eurocode 6 Eurocode 7 Eurocode 8 Eurocode 9

Actions on Design of Design of Steel Design of Design of Design of Geotechnical Design of Design of
Structures Concrete Structures Composite Timber Masonry Design Structures for Aluminium
Structures Steel and Structures Structures Earthquake Structures
Concrete Resistance
Structures

National
Annex

From Bond & Harris

68
Eurocode 8 - Part 1: General Rules

Eurocode 8 – Parts 2 to 6

69
 Eurospeak

Loads Actions

Permanent
Dead Loads Actions

Imposed Variable
Loads Actions

‘Design Characteristic
Value’ Value

Construction Execution

Eurospeak
• Principles: Denoted by ‘P’ after the clause number – mandatory requirements
• Application Rules: Generally recognised rules that comply with the principles and satisfy
their requirements
• Example

140

70
 Eurostyle

• General, Non-prescriptive, Flexible

• “Performance Specification for Design”
Pros Cons
•Gives designer freedom •Can be daunting for
to choose appropriate
method those with little design
•Economies are possible experience
•Allows for evolving design •Less straightforward to
methods use
•Can be applied to wide
•Could be ambiguous
range of design situations
in different locations

141

Design Philosophy

• Limit State Design is adopted in all Eurocodes

• Defined in EN 1990
• Fundamentally, all ULS and SLS shall be considered and
verified where applicable
• Verification of Limit States should be carried out by either
the partial factor, or probabilistic methods
• Important Considerations:
- Design Working Life
- Design Situations, e.g. normal use, transient, accidental, seismic

142

71
Limit State Design Philosophy

Ed  Rd
Ed  E  F Frep ; X k  M ; ad 
Rd  R F Frep ; X k  M ; ad 

Limit State Design Philosophy

Separation Calibrated
by “partial factors”

Probability of Failure (Eurocode Target <0.0001%)

72
 The Partial Factor Method

Input
‘Design’ Calculation
‘Characteristic’ ULS verified?
Values Model
Values

Material Material
Parameters Parameters Calculate
Design
Xk Xk×γm =Xd Resistance
Rd=f(Xd,ad)
Geometry Geometry
Rd > Ed ?
ak ak +∆a = ad
Calculate
Design Effect
Actions Actions of Actions
Frep Frep×γF = Fd Ed=f(Fd,Xd,ad)

145

q factor

force
elastic

Real behaviour

Design force
(= elastic / q)

Sd displacement

146

73
EC8 detailing DCL low ductility; q = 1.5
Beam

Sb
Column

Sc

Densified zones
0.6Sc
Sb < 0.75x effective depth of beam

Lc

20 x minimum main bar diameter

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

The larger of column dimension

Lc  larger of Length of lapped joints, minimum 3
transverse reinforcement bars

Diameter of transverse reinforcement bars not less than 6 mm or ¼

of the maximum diameter of the longitudinal bars

EC8 detailing DCM moderate ductility; q = 3.9

Horizontal reinforcement in beam-column
joints not less than that in the critical region
of columns
Beam

Sb

Lb
C Densified zones
ol
u
24 times the stirrup diameter
m 8 x smallest main bar diameter
n Sb < minimum of beam depth / 4
225 mm
Sc

Lb > beam depth

Lc

8 x minimum main bar diameter

Sc < minimum of half the width of the column confined concrete core
175 mm

1/6 clear height of the column

Lc > maximum of Largest column section dimension
450mm

Note that the shear capacity of the beams and columns must be able to
resist a shear force derived from the bending moment strength capacities
considering actual reinforcement provided and material overstrength
(material probable strength being higher than the design strength value)

74
 3 Storey building in KK
Lateral force Height
Force Shear
distribution (m)
0.42*5.3/15.8 = 0.14M 10.5*0.5M = 5.3M 0.5M 10.5
28%

0.42*7.0/15.8 = 0.19M 7*M = 7.0M M 7

22%

0.42*3.5/15.8 = 0.09M 3.5*M = 3.5M M 3.5

Sum = 15.8M 17%

Period T = 0.05 * H0.75 = 0.29 s

For KK with Soil Class D

Lateral base shear = 0.85*Sa = 0.85*2.5*1.35 * 6% = 17% g
Lateral shear = 0.17*2.5M = 0.42M

Eurocode classification

75
 3 Storey building in KL
Lateral force Height
Force Shear
distribution (m)
0.13*5.3/15.8 = 0.044M 10.5*0.5M = 5.3M 0.5M 10.5
9%

0.13*7.0/15.8 = 0.058M 7*M = 7.0M M 7

7%

0.13*3.5/15.8 = 0.029M 3.5*M = 3.5M M 3.5

Sum = 15.8M 5%

Period T = 0.05 * H0.75 = 0.29 s

For KL with Soil Class D

Lateral base shear = 0.85*Sa = 0.85 * 6% = 5% g
Lateral shear = 0.05*2.5M = 0.13M

Eurocode classification for KL / Penang

10% in 50 year design spectra

2
Site Class C
Site Class D
Site Class S
C Equation
Spectral Acceleration (m/s2 )

D Equation
E Equation

1
C 1.6 0.4 1.1 10.4
D 2.5 0.9 1.6 4.6
S1 3.2 1.6 2.4 2.4

ag = 0.175 m/s 2

0
0.1 1 10
Structural Period (s)

76
Example building from Hong Kong – D11

• 15 storey residential
• H = 41m, W = 7200t

Normalised mode shapes

Mode shapes
40

35

30

25
Height (m)

20

15

10

Mode 1
5 Mode 2
Mode 3

0
-1 0 1 2
Displacement

77
 Modal contributions - KL

Scaled mode shapes

Shear Moment
40 40
40
RSS RSS
Mode 1 Mode 1
35 35
35 Mode 2 Mode 2
Mode 3 Mode 3

30 30
30

25 25 25
Height (m)

Height (m)
20 Height (m) 20 20

15 15 15

10 10 10
RSS
Mode 1
5 Mode 2 5 5
Mode 3

0 0 0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 -1 0 1 2 3 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm) Shear (MN) Moment (MNm)

Modal contributions - KK

Scaled mode shapes

Shear Moment
40 40
40
RSS RSS
Mode 1 Mode 1
35 35
35 Mode 2 Mode 2
Mode 3 Mode 3

30 30 30

25 25 25
Height (m)

Height (m)
Height (m)

20 20 20

15 15 15

10 10 10
RSS
Mode 1
5 Mode 2 5 5
Mode 3

0 0 0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 -5 0 5 10 -50 0 50 100 150 200
Displacement (mm) Shear (MN) Moment (MNm)

78
 Modal contributions - Semporna

Scaled mode shapes

Shear Moment
40 40
40
RSS RSS
Mode 1 Mode 1
35 35
35 Mode 2 Mode 2
Mode 3 Mode 3

30 30 30

25 25 25
Height (m)

Height (m)
20 Height (m) 20 20

15 15 15

10 10 10
RSS
Mode 1
5 Mode 2 5 5
Mode 3

0 0 0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -5 0 5 10 15 -100 0 100 200 300
Displacement (mm) Shear (MN) Moment (MNm)

Shear (q = 1.5)

Shear 40

35

30

25
Height (m)

20

15

10

5 KL
KK
Semporna
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Shear (%)

79
Example building from Hong Kong – D17

• 53 storey residential
• H = 158m, W = 33000t

Normalised mode shapes

Mode shapes
160

140

120

100
Height (m)

80

60

40

Mode 1
20 Mode 2
Mode 3

0
-1 0 1 2
Displacement

80
 Modal contributions - KL

Scaled mode shapes

Shear Moment
160 160
160
RSS RSS
Mode 1 Mode 1
140 140
140 Mode 2 Mode 2
Mode 3 Mode 3

120 120 120

100 100 100

Height (m)

Height (m)
Height (m)
80 80 80

60 60 60

40 40 40
RSS
Mode 1
20 Mode 2 20 20
Mode 3

0 0 0
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Displacement (mm) Shear (MN) Moment (MNm)

Modal contributions - KK

Scaled mode shapes

Shear Moment
160 160
160
RSS RSS
Mode 1 Mode 1
140 140
140 Mode 2 Mode 2
Mode 3 Mode 3

120 120 120

100 100 100

Height (m)

Height (m)
Height (m)

80 80 80

60 60 60

40 40 40
RSS
Mode 1
20 Mode 2 20 20
Mode 3

0 0 0
-100 0 100 200 300 -5 0 5 10 15 -500 0 500 1000 1500
Displacement (mm) Shear (MN) Moment (MNm)

81
 Modal contributions - Semporna

Scaled mode shapes

Shear Moment
160 160
160
RSS RSS
Mode 1 Mode 1
140 140
140 Mode 2 Mode 2
Mode 3 Mode 3

120 120 120

100 100 100

Height (m)

Height (m)
80 Height (m)
80 80

60 60 60

40 40 40
RSS
Mode 1
20 Mode 2 20 20
Mode 3

0 0 0
-200 0 200 400 600 -10 0 10 20 30 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Displacement (mm) Shear (MN) Moment (MNm)

Shear (q = 1.5)

Shear 160

140

120

100
Height (m)

80

60

40

20 KL
KK
Semporna
0
0 5 10 15
Shear (%)

82
 Foundation design

Failure Modes of Pad Foundations

Sliding
Bearing capacity

Overturning Structural

83
Failure by Sliding

Provided structure can hold itself together the only

requirement is for No damage
Design check
Small movement in 50% in 50 year ground motion

Failure by Bearing Capacity

Due to uncontrolled displacement the Life safety check will be

required. If the structure could collapse as result of bearing failure of
the foundation then the No collapse check is required.
Design check
Controlled displacement in the 10% in 50 year ground motion.
Possibly required to check for failure 2% in 50 year ground motion.

84
Mexico City 1985

Failure by Overturning

If the structure could collapse due to overturning capacity failure then

the No collapse check is required. Otherwise the only requirement is
for No damage. For buildings on a raft failure could lead to collapse.
Design check
Small movement in 50% in 50 year ground motion.
For a raft, required to check for failure in 2% in 50 year ground motion

85
Structural Failure

Due to uncontrolled displacement the Life safety check will be

required. If the structure could collapse as result of structural failure
of the foundation then the No collapse check is required.
Design check
Structural integrity in the 10% in 50 year ground motion.
Possibly required to check for failure 2% in 50 year ground motion.

Failure Modes of Piles - Vertical Loads

Fill

Soft Clay

Stiff Clay

86
Mexico City - 1985

Mexico City - 1985

87
Mexico City - 1985

Soft
clay

Sand

Building in Mexico City – 1 year later

88
Failure Modes of Piles - Vertical Loads

Fill

Soft Clay

Stiff Clay

Building in Taiwan - 1999

89
 Building in Taiwan - 1999

Yielding Piles - Hermes Tokyo

The Hermes is built on a narrow site in
Tokyo’s central Ginza district. It uses a
new structural system that relieves
seismic forces vertically through a
lifting rear column at ground floor level,
restrained by dampers.

This ‘stepping column’ system is able

to move with the earthquake, thereby
reducing forces and foundation and
steelwork costs.

90
Case Study - Hermes Tokyo

Effects on Piles

91
Pile Failure - Lateral Loads

Piles - Lateral Loads

Bending Moment (kNM) Horizontal displacement (mm)
500 250 0 50 100 150

Pile
displacement
Fill

Soft Clay Soil displacement

from SIREN

100 : 30
Stiff Clay combination rule

Bedrock

92
 Case Study - LNG Tanks, Trinidad

Dynamic soil-pile-tank interaction study to assess

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

Case Study - LNG Tanks, Trinidad

Typical cross-section through the tank and foundation system

93
Case Study - LNG Tanks, Trinidad

Foundation Design Options

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

Driven Steel Tube Piles

Preferred Solution

Case Study - LNG Tanks, Trinidad

1-D Soil Model

94
Case Study - LNG Tanks, Trinidad
Soil Column Analysis

Case Study - LNG Tanks, Trinidad

Site Response Results

95
Case Study - LNG Tanks, Trinidad
Soil-Pile Model

Case Study - LNG Tanks, Trinidad

Effect of Piles on Response

96
Case Study - LNG Tanks, Trinidad
Complete SSI Model

Case Study - LNG Tanks, Trinidad

Analysis of Complete SSI System

97
Case Study - LNG Tanks, Trinidad

Bending Moments in the Piles

Effects on raking piles

Soil displacement

98
Raking Piles

Raking Piles

99
 Other ground effects

Effects on Railways / Basements

Horizontal displacement (mm)
0 50 100 150

Fill

Soft Clay

Stiff Clay

Bedrock

100
Cut and cover tunnel box
A pseudo static Horizontal Acceleration (=3%g) is applied to whole model

68mm

68mm

results of pseudo static model

Horizontal earth pressures

101
 Lifelines - Longitudinal Motion

• Maximum ground strain is Vm / C

Where Vm is the peak ground velocity and
C is the propagation velocity

• If this strain is too large then further analysis is required

Lifeline (EA)

Elastic/plastic spring to Point of applied ground

model movement motion displacement
between lifeline and soil

Observed Damage to Water Pipe Systems

Pipe Damage Ratio (repairs per kilometre)

0.5

0.2

0.1

0.05

0.02

0.01

0.005

0.002

0.001
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1
Peak Horizontal Particle Velocity (m/s)

O’Rourke and Liu, 1999

102
 Propagation Velocities

Measured apparent S - wave propagation velocities

C
Event Site conditions
(km/s)

Japan 23/1/68 60 m soft alluvium 2.9

Japan 1/7/68 60 m soft alluvium 2.6

Japan 9/5/74 70 m silty clay, sand &silty sand 5.3

Japan 8/7/74 70 m silty clay, sand &silty sand 2.6

Japan 4/8/74 70 m silty clay, sand &silty sand 4.4

San Fernando 9/2/71 Variable 2.1

Imperial Valley 15/10/79 > 300 m alluvium 3.8

Imperial Valley 15/10/79 > 300 m alluvium 3.7

O’Rourke and Liu, 1999

Fault Rupture
Turkey 1999

103
Fault Rupture
Turkey 1999

Example -
Factory in
Turkey

D
Gölcük Stepover Fault
(2.5m vertical movement)
(0.7m horizontal movement) U

104
 Example -
Factory in
Turkey

D
Gölcük Stepover Fault
Body
(2.5m vertical movement) Shop
(0.7m horizontal movement) U

Example - Factory in Turkey

Damage to Body Shop

Tilting of columns Differential settlement Lateral displacement

105
Fault Rupture - Lifelines

Elastic/plastic spring to Point of applied ground

model movement between motion displacement
lifeline and soil

O’Rourke and Liu, 1999

Slope stability

106
Slope stability

Slope stability
Standard method of considering down-slope movement

Ac is the
acceleration
required to
cause the slope
to have a
factor of safety
of one

If Ac / Am is greater than 0.5 then movements are small

107
Slope Stability - Effects on Piles
Bending Moment (kNM) Horizontal displacement (mm)
500 250 0 50 100 150

Bedrock

108