Dear Mohamed,

The problem here is that Eurocode and RPOA definition of the design spectrum are not
the same. They follow a different approach. I will try to explain next:

1. The Eurocode definition for the design spectrum can be observed next. As you
can see the behaviour factor q is included within the definition of the spectral
acceleration.

2. The Eurocode definition for the elastic spectrum can be observed next.

3. As you can see when q=1 both spectrum defined in the EN gives the same
spectral acceleration ( expect for the first branch 0<T<Tb where they are
slighlty different for reasons irrelevant now) . They are coherent with each other.
This is why in the Eurocode , when designing foundations they allow you to use
the design spectrum and multiply the results by q=1. It gives the same results as
if you use the elastic response spectrum.

The two spectrums are not exactly the same, the first branch has changed in the
design spectrum, in our opinion the reason is to cover the overestimated low period of
rigid structure (cracked section not considered for example), so if the period will slide
so we will be close to the max acceleration. And also you can see that there are a
minimum limit in the two last branches.

As we already said the first branch is different in the design spectrum for , among
others, the reasons you mention. In any case, it is irrelevant for your design since you
do not have periods that low.

As for the limit in the last two branches, they are also irrelevant. EN 1998-2
recommends the use of α=0.2 which results in α ·ag = 0.03·g which is always smaller
than the spectral acceleration calculated with the normal equation for the relevant
periods.

Therefore, for q=1 the elastic response spectrum and the design response spectrum as
defined in the EN 1998-2 give coincident spectral accelerations which makes a lot of
sense.
 4. On the other hand. The definition of the design spectrum in the RPOA does not
include the "q" factor within its definition. The approach they propose is to use
this design spectrum if q>1 ( regardless of its value) and with the internal forces
you obtain then you can divide them by q.

5. As we indicated in the previous email for q=1 both the elastic spectrum and
design spectrum of the RPOA are not coherent and gives different results.
Simply because the design spectrum in the RPOA is defined to be used only for
q>1. This is why it is also indicated in the RPOA that when using q=1 the elastic
response spectrum should be used( see image below).

In our opinion, the coefficient q representing the behavior of the structure should be the
same for the whole system, for this reason the EUROCODE indicate that we should use the
same spectrum after we major the forces for foundations by q to have security gap and not
allowed plastic hinges to be formed in foundation (stay in elastic).

In RPOA there is no article that allowed us to use a different q for foundation thus a
different spectrum, additionally, the definition of q in the RPOA clearly indicate that we should
use the same design spectrum if we take into account q > 1 :

Furthermore, in the foundation’s design chapter, the only suggestion available said that we
should use the forces resulting from design spectrum analysis :

I agree with you about the fact that we shouldn’t get plastic hinges in foundation and as you
can see RPOA allowed it !!. I know also that there some unclear topics in RPOA (the main lines
in the code was taken from SETRA seismic guideline they just changed parameters related with
the area : spectrums, soils characteristics… ), for this reason we took as reference the
EUROCODE 8 about this issue.

The RPOA approach is quite different to the EN 1998-2. The RPOA does not require to design
the foundations using q=1 whereas in the EN 1998-1 this is compulsory. The RPOA request for
the foundations design , in accordance with 5.6.2 of RPOA, to use the design forces obtained
by applying the “capacity” design method defined in 5.5.1 ( Be careful because the capacity
concept in RPOA is not the same as in the Eurocode).

The capacity design approach defined by the RPOA is based on :

 • analyzing the structure with the design spectrum as defined in the RPOA
• obtain the design forces as MRd=Md/q where Md are the forces obtained from the
analysis with the design spectrum and q should be taken as q=1.5 for this project.
• Calculate the so called capacity forces , Mo ,as MRd times an overstrength factor
which is computed as 0.8+0.2q and results in 1.1 for q=1.5.

This means that the only measure considered by the RPOA to ensure that the foundations are
not damaged under the seismic action is to design them using a magnified moment Mo.

On the other hand, as you know, the EN1998-2 requests you to design the foundations to
remain elastic under the seismic action. It is requested to use q=1 for its design. This is
equivalent to use the elastic response spectrum as explained before.

We believe that the design concept from the EN 1998-1 is more reliable and safe than the
methodology proposed by the RPOA. This is why we allowed you to design the foundations for
q=1. The only problem was the use of the design spectrum of the RPOA instead of the elastic
spectrum. The design spectrum of the RPOA ,because of its definition, only has sense for q<1 (
please see chapter 3.5 of the Guide of Application of the RPOA which I attach to you in this e-
mail).

Just for curiosity, we have compared the results obtained with the elastic response spectrum
with the results obtained applying the methodology of the RPOA ( i.d using the design
spectrum, dividing the forces by q=1.5 to obtain Mrd and multiply it by the overstrength factor
1.1). Results show that both methodologies give similar( the elastic response spectrum
method is more conservative). You can try it yourself.

I know your approach gives conservative results for the design of the foundations.
Nonetheless, the differences are in some cases important and lead to oversizing the
foundations. Since our job as BCS is not only to ensure the technical feasibility of
the structure but also to control the cost and the fulfillment of the project budget, we
ask you to use the elastic response spectrum for the design of the foundations from
now onwards. Actually, we thought that was what you were doing since in your
report you present both the definitions of the elastic response spectrum and the
design response spectrum ( we thought the first was used for the design of
foundations and the second for the design of the piers).

I hope this clarifies the issue. We suggest you to run the analysis again with the elastic
response spectrum and compare the results with the ones we shared with you to see if
they are coherent ( they will not be exact since we did not consider the braking of the
trains for seismic action which you can use if you want).

As explained above, we are on side of using the design spectrum of RPOA as the only spectrum
of seismic model and the project will be submitted accordingly. We kindly ask you to give
official response with FV or letter, if the BCS considers that it is safe to use elastic spectrum for
foundation design. After we have received FV or the letter, we will revise calculations
accordingly.

We have issued an official letter requesting you to design foundations with the elastic
response spectrum from now onwards. The viaducts already submitted and approved will not
be subject to revision since their design is conservative.

Please share your comments and results with you.

Kind regards,