General Methodology

Implementation of Section II
[Provisions on seismic regulations applicable to DT 106
certain facilities]. October 2014
of the modified order of October 4, 2010
DT 106 - General Methodology

2-
Table of contents

1. Introduction and general methodology7

1.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 7
1.2 General methodology8
1.2.1 Definition of the "risk 10" perimeter
1.2.2 Determination of the seismic stresses to be taken into account10
1.2.3 Determining the desired level of behavioral requirements11
1.2.4 Verification of the compatibility between the desired behavioural requirements
and seismic loads11
1.2.5 Exploitation of the result and approach itérative................................................11
1.2.6 Implementation effective...................................................................................12
1.2.7 Case of new equipment12
1.3 Application time of l’arrêté.................................................................................12
1.3.1 General principles12
1.3.2 Distinction new / existant...................................................................................12
1.3.3 Special case of an establishment becoming "Seveso" 13
2. Regulatory and normative references15
2.1 Regulatory texts15
2.1.1 Excerpts from the October 4, 2010 Order - Section II........................................15
2.1.2 Excerpts from the order of 24 January 2011.....................................................16
2.1.3 Identification of reference regulations16
2.2 Frame normatif..................................................................................................16
2.2.1 Definition of solicitation sismique.......................................................................16
2.2.2 Cumulative actions and audits17
2.2.3 Constructional provisions and seismic measures18
3. Perimeter of the order19
3.1 Clarifications and basics19
3.1.1 Establishments covered19
3.1.2 Targeted equipment19
3.1.3 Effects considered22
3.1.4 Affected areas23
3.1.5 Seismic event considered24
3.2 Application of the order for the definition of périmètre.......................................24
3.2.1 The two possible approaches24
3.2.2 Establishment of earthquake-related scenarios25
3.2.3 Equipment" approach 28
 3.2.4 Approach"Studiesof 30
3.2.5 Continuation of the process (common to both approches)................................33
4. Movement sismique..............................................................................................35
4.1 Classification.....................................................................................................35
4.1.1 sismicité................................................................................................35% zone
4.1.2 Class of sol.......................................................................................................36
4.2 Definition of Action sismique.............................................................................38
4.2.1 Spectrum réglementaires..................................................................................38
4.2.2 Displacements of sol.........................................................................................41
4.2.3 Speeds particulaires.........................................................................................41
4.2.4 Magnitudes.......................................................................................................41
4.2.5 Selection Guide d’accélérogrammes................................................................43
4.2.6 Case of soil classes S1 and S2..................................................................................... 45
4.3 Transfer of spectres..........................................................................................45
4.4 Rules of accumulation of actions......................................................................46
4.4.1 Actions permanentes........................................................................................46
4.4.2 Actions variables...............................................................................................47
4.4.3 Characteristic value of a action.........................................................................47
4.4.4 Cumulation of actions with the séisme..............................................................47
4.4.5 Masses for seismic action of calcul...................................................................49
4.5 Additional data informatives..............................................................................49
4.5.1 Moving the sol...................................................................................................49
4.5.2 Speed particulaire.............................................................................................50
5. Behavioural requirements and methods of justification...................................51
5.1 General definitions of the comportement.....................................51 requirements
5.1.1 Operability / capacity fonctionnelle...............................................................51
5.1.2 Integrity of the containment / rétention..............................................................51
5.1.3 Stability and supportage...................................................................................52
5.1.4 Lack of physical interaction préjudiciable..........................................................52
5.1.5 Requirements spécifiques.................................................................................52
5.1.6 Combination of requirements / requirements 52
5.2 Justification criteria for structures and équipements.........................................53
5.2.1 Definition of "limit states ».................................................................................53
5.2.2 Criteria related to the requirements of comportement.......................................53
5.2.3 General constructional provisions and measures parasismiques......................54
5.2.4 Interfaces/ancrages..........................................................................................54
5.3 General methods of justification........................................................................55
5.3.1 Principles for approach calculatoire..................................................................55
5.3.2 Justification by return d’expérience...................................................................58
 5.3.3 Essais.......................................................................................................................59
6. Design of works or equipment neufs........................................................................61
6.1 Design strategy for a installation.......................................................................61
6.1.1 General principles guiding the implementation of the équipements..................61
6.1.2 Distinction between "special risk" and »............................................"normal risk
6.1.3 Treatment of "special risk" equipment »............................................................62
6.2 Design principles parasismique........................................................................63
6.2.1 Documents from référence...............................................................................63
6.2.2 Principles généraux..........................................................................................64
6.2.3 Design method ductile......................................................................................65
6.2.4 Systems of fondation........................................................................................69
6.2.5 Soil-structure interaction (ISS)..........................................................................70
6.2.6 Use of isolation devices sismique.....................................................................72
6.3 Application to structures and equipment spécifiques........................................73
6.3.1 Equipment71
6.3.2 Structures in acier.............................................................................................73
6.3.3 Towers, masts and cheminées.........................................................................74
6.3.4 Bâtiments.......................................................................................................... 75
6.3.5 Concrete structures armé.................................................................................76
6.3.6 Elements non-structuraux.................................................................................77
6.3.7 Ponts................................................................................................................79
7. Study of the works or equipment existants..............................................................81
7.1 Procedure for the treatment of a structure or equipment existant.....................81
7.1.1 Approach and stratégies...................................................................................81
7.1.2 Logigram synthétique........................................................................................82
7.1.3 Description of the méthodologie........................................................................83
7.2 Preliminary work (Step 0)................................................................................86)
7.2.1 Data collection on l’équipement........................................................................86
7.2.2 Collection of data on the structure support........................................................87
7.2.3 Data collection on the fondations......................................................................88
7.2.4 Data collection from sol.....................................................................................89
7.2.5 Collection of return data d'expérience...............................................................91
7.2.6 Preparation of the visite....................................................................................92
7.3 On-site visit and classification of equipment (Stage 1)......................................92
7.3.1 Composition of the reconnaissance.........................................................92 team
7.3.2 Objectives of the visite......................................................................................93
7.3.3 Special points during the visite..........................................................................94
7.4 Diagnosis by simplified verification (Step A2)...................................................96
7.4.1 Use of the return d’expérience..........................................................................96
 7.4.2 Compliance with the provisions constructives...................................................96
7.4.3 Tools from diagnostic........................................................................................97
7.4.4 Analysis of the dimensioning notes at séisme...................................................97
7.5 Diagnosis by simplified calculation (Step B2)..................................................97)
7.6 In-depth analysis (Step B3).............................................................................98)
7.6.1 Collecting information complémentaires...........................................................98
7.6.2 Evaluation methods calculatoires......................................................................99
7.6.3 Evaluation methods by essai..........................................................................101
7.7 Corrective Action (Step C2)...........................................................................101)
7.7.1 Seismic treatment of equipment or the structure.............................................102
7.7.2 Strategies of protection...................................................................................103

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Regulatory Texts107

Appendix B: Calculation of earthquake effects / Examples of earthquake scenarios by type of

equipment and associated barriers109

Appendix C: Glossary119

Appendix D : Appendices to Chapter 7...............................................................................125

1. Introduction and general methodology

1.1 Introduction
As part of the general revision of regulations on seismic risk in France, the decree of
January 24, 2011, adding a section II on seismic risk to the decree of October 4, 2010,
on the prevention of accidental risks in facilities classified for environmental protection
and subject to authorization, has profoundly modified the seismic regulations applying
to certain classified facilities (class called "special risk" under articles R563-6 and
R563-7 of the Environmental Code).The decree of October 4, 2010, concerning the
prevention of accidental risks in facilities classified for the protection of the environment
and subject to authorization, has profoundly modified the seismic regulations applying
to certain classified facilities (class known as "special risk" under articles R563-6 and
R563-7 of the Environmental Code).
The text of the order is provided in Appendix A and its main sections are outlined in Chapter 2.

The scope of the special risk is significantly expanded as :

- the new decree applies to both high and low SEVESO establishments1 and no longer
only to high SEVESO establishments;
- the new decree is based on criteria of lethal effects outside the site and is no
longer limited to equipment "significantly aggravating the primary consequences
of the earthquake".

The calculation of equipment2 for their earthquake resistance has also evolved
following the publication of the Eurocodes, one series of which deals with earthquake
resistance.

Given the complexity of the process to be undertaken, the Ministry has mandated a
group of industrialists and professionals to produce methodology guides. The purpose of
these guides is to help manufacturers apply this text. In addition to this general
methodology guide, there are guides for specific installations.

The general methodology guide is responsible for:

- to explain the scope of the order;
- to provide a method for selecting the equipment concerned;
- to give rules for determining seismic motion;
- help define behavioral requirements;
- to guide the user in the study of demonstration of resistance to seismic stresses.

The guides relating to specific installations, established through the collaboration of

earthquake engineering specialists and industrialists, provide the approach to be
adopted for the implementation of the decree for the following equipment
- atmospheric storage tanks ;
- devices for the withdrawal of an installation on seismic detection ;
- piping - fittings ;
- process equipment ;
- support structures.

1 As defined in the amended decree of May 10, 2000, which is part of the transposition into French law of the
Seveso directive and gives this definition.
2 In this introduction, the term "equipment" is used in a broad sense and includes special risk equipment,
prevention and protection barriers, and potential stressors (see Chapter 3 for a definition of this vocabulary).
 A "Case Study" guide complements the "General Methodology" guide and the
"equipment".

1.2 General methodology

The general methodology to achieve compliance with the regulatory requirements imposed
by the Ministerial Order of October 4, 2010 Section II includes several steps that can
be summarized in the following flowchart:
Data on the equipment, their location on the site, their function, the products contained, and their dangers,...
Site data (seismic zoning, soil class,..)

Selection of relevant equipment (Chapter 3)

Geotechnical study
List of concerned facilities (ERS, BPAP, OAP)

Definition of behavioral requirements for each

Determination andpiece of equipment
quantification of the(Chapter
seismic 5)
motions taken into account (chapter 4)

To be done for all identified equipment

no
Requirement
of behaviour identified
Equipment data (construction data, support, foundations, etc.)
yes

Study of the resistance to seismic loads (chapter 7)

Technical guides, standards, codes, etc.

yes
Equipment meeting the requirements of behavior

no

Additional barriers, revision of behavioural

Other measures
requirements
(risk reduction at source,
Reinforcements
urban planning)
to meet behavioral requirements

Verification of reduced scenarios (special risk criteria)

Compliance with the requirements of the order

 The main steps described in this flowchart are:
- The definition of the perimeter of the equipment concerned ("special risk perimeter");
- Determination of the seismic stresses to be taken into account;
- Determining the desired level of behavioral requirement;
- Verification that for the equipment concerned, the desired behavioral
requirements are compatible with the seismic loads.

All the equipment concerned is intended, in the long term :

- or to satisfy the level of requirement of behavior under the effect of the
determined seismic loads;
- or to no longer generate, in the event of an earthquake, hazardous phenomena
that meet the criteria for special risk, by setting up barriers to limit the consequences
of hazardous phenomena (concept of "reduced" scenarios or hazardous phenomena)
or by reducing the risk at source.

In addition, it is possible to leave the special risk perimeter as a result of other

measures (particularly urban planning measures).

1.2.1 Definition of the "special risk" perimeter

 This step corresponds to chapter 3 of the guide.

The purpose of this chapter is to establish the scope of application of the Order of
October 4, 2010 - Section II, establishing the earthquake-resistant rules applicable to
certain classified facilities.
In particular, we are interested in the interpretation of the regulations with respect to the
following points:
- choice of the dangerous phenomena to be taken into account ;
- details of affected areas to be considered ;
- Identification of the equipment concerned and more precisely of the special risk
equipment (SRE), the prevention, mitigation or protection barriers (BPAP) and the
potential aggressor structures (PAO).

The output of this step is a list of equipment (or structures) whose behavioral
requirements will have to be defined and then verified under seismic loads.

1.2.2 Determination of the seismic stresses to be taken into account

 This step corresponds to chapter 4 of the guide.

The chapter is intended to guide the user in determining the parameters needed to:
- establish the response spectrum;
- Determine parameters that may be necessary for the study of the equipment:
ground displacements and velocities, and earthquake magnitude (for liquefaction
studies);
- Quantify the relative displacements of support (multi-supported structure) of the
studied equipment;
- Establish the rules of cumulation of the seismic action with the other unitary actions.

The output of this step is the characterization of the seismic stresses to be taken for the
verification of the concerned equipment.
1.2.3 Determination of the desired level of behavioral requirements
 This step corresponds to chapter 5 of the guide.

The purpose of this chapter is to guide the user in defining the level of behavioral
requirements associated with the equipment concerned.
These requirements are typically: operability, integrity (containment), stability, support,
absence of interaction, or specific requirements.
The output of this step is, for each equipment concerned, one or several behavioral
requirements.
Note that for some equipment protected by barriers, there may be no behavioral
requirements. No seismic strength study is therefore required for the equipment.

1.2.4 Verification of the compatibility between the desired behavioral requirements

and seismic loads
 This step corresponds to chapter 7 of the guide.

The purpose of this chapter is to guide the user in the study of "seismic resistance" or
more precisely in the study of the compatibility between the determined requirement
level and the seismic loads.
It describes how to collect the input data needed for the study and then explains the
seismic diagnostic methods.

The study of the resistance of the equipment, structure or barrier, will be done according to the
specific guides available or directly in application of the concerned standards (case of
buildings or chimneys). The demonstration of the resistance of the equipment can be
done by tests, by analytical or numerical calculations or by analogy.

The output of this step is a judgement on whether or not the level of behavioural
requirements with respect to seismic loads is satisfactory.

1.2.5 Exploitation of the result and iterative approach

It is important to remember that several options are available and that not all the
equipment concerned is intended to be reinforced.

If the equipment, for its assigned requirement level, does not meet the behavioral
requirements associatedwith the determined earthquake, several options are available:
a) the equipment is reinforced or partially replaced to meet the behavioral requirements
associated with the earthquake;
b) additional barriers limiting the effects of seismic scenarios associated with the
equipment are implemented so that the reduced scenarios lead to the exclusion of the
equipment from the special hazard category;
c) A reduction of the risk at the source is carried out in order to limit the effects of
the seismic scenarios;
d) planning measures or easements are established so that the affected areas are no
longer considered to be "permanently occupied by humans" within the meaning of the
Order;
e) Land purchases are made in order to have control over the impacted areas and
to extend the boundaries of the site.
 The choice between these options is up to the operator:
 Options a) and b) are considered seismic protection. The equipment remains at
special risk even after seismic treatment. This is an intrinsic property of the
equipment, its contents and operating conditions.
 Options c), d) and e) allow an exit from the special risk area.

It should be verified after the choice of one of these options that the hazardous
phenomena associated with the reduced scenarios no longer have effects that meet the
criteria of special risk.

The output of all these steps is the seismic study required by the order.

1.2.6 Effective implementation

Once the actions have been determined in the seismic study, a timetable for their
implementation must be established and sent to the DREAL. After validation or modification
by the administration, the operator must respect the deadlines for the implementation of
the measures (see paragraph 1.3.1).

1.2.7 Case of new equipment

The approach applies to both existing and new equipment. For new equipment, the
approach must be applied at the preliminary design level in order to adopt the most
appropriate strategy. The resistance to earthquake stresses can also be integrated at
the design level of new equipment.

 Chapter 6 provides information on the consideration of seismic loads for new

equipment.

1.3 Deadlines for the application of the order

1.3.1 General principles
Article 14 of the amended order of October 4, 2010 sets the deadlines for the
application of the seismic regulations "special risk" for classified facilities:
- New facility:
o study produced when the application for authorization to operate is submitted;
o seismic protection measures in place at commissioning ;
- Existing facility:
o study produced before December 31, 2015;
o implementation schedule for seismic devices no later than January 1, 2021 to
be set by the prefect before December 31, 2016.

For existing facilities, it is recommended that an implementation schedule be proposed

in the study.

1.3.2 Distinction new / existing

The seismic acceleration levels to be considered are different for new and existing
facilities. This lower design seismic level for an existing facility can be related to a higher
annual exceedance probability (see Chapter 4).

A clear definition of the concepts of new and existing facilities is therefore necessary
for the proper application of the October 4, 2010 Order - Section II.
1.3.2.1 Definitions
The excerpt from Article 10 cited in Chapter 2 identifies the facilities as follows:
- New facility: facility authorized after January 1, 2013;
- Existing facility: non-new facility.
1.3.2.2 Extension or modification of a classified installation within a SEVESO establishment
The general principle is as follows:

When existing facilities are modified, there are three cases to consider:
1) First case: the changes are deemed to be non-substantial
In this case, the operator is not expected to implement provisions that go beyond those
providedfor in article 12.2 of the ministerial order of October 4, 2010 - Section II.
2) Second case: the modifications are considered substantial but do not generate an
increased risk in the event of an earthquake
The operator is not expected to implement measures that go beyond those provided for
in article 12.2 of the ministerial order of October 4, 2010 - Section II.
3) Third case: the modifications are considered substantial and may lead, in the event of
an earthquake, to generate an additional risk compared to that existing in the
installation before these modifications

The operator implements the provisions for new installations (article 12.1 of the ministerial
order of October 4, 2010 - Section II).

1.3.3 Special case of an establishment becoming "Seveso".

Several events, dependent or independent of the operator's will, can change the
regulatory classification of an establishment and classify it as "SEVESO":
a) Construction of a new unit, modification, extension of the establishment resulting in
the SEVESO classification of the establishment either because the new installation is
classified as AS in the nomenclature of classified installations, or by application of the
cumulative rule.
b) Change in the nomenclature of classified installations or in the rules for SEVESO
classification (in particular the rule of accumulation);
c) Change in the regulatory classification of a product, leading to the classification under
a new heading of the nomenclature with the attainment of the "SEVESO" classification
criteria;

In case a) if the establishment falls under the SEVESO classification, the decree of October
4, 2010 - Section II applies immediately to the establishment

The operator must comply with the regulations for the whole establishment before
making the modification leading to the change in classification of the establishment. It
is therefore reasonable to assume that a modification or extension leading to the SEVESO
classification of the establishment is a substantial modification, which should be
accompanied by an application for authorization.
The facility's facilities are considered existing, except for what is described in the file as truly
new (see 1.3.2 b.).

In cases b) and c), where the regulatory changes are beyond the operator's control, the
application of the order to the facility without a specific timeframe may, especially after 2015,
pose a compliance problem for the operator, who may not have the material time to
carry out the required studies and possible compliance.

At the time of writing this guide, the administration specifies that the deadline for
submitting the technical study for existing establishments that become SEVESO classified
due to a change in the regulatory framework (cases b) and c)) would be two years (this
deadline is identical to the regulatory deadline for submitting the hazard study).

Note: on the other hand, if following a modification of the quantities stored or of the
nomenclature, the establishment is no longer classified as SEVESO, the decree of October
4, 2010 - Section II ceases to apply to the establishment.
2. Regulatory and normative references

2.1 Regulatory texts

The regulatory text of reference is the amended order of October 4, 2010 on the
prevention of accidental risks in facilities classified for the protection of the environment
subject to authorization - Section II "Provisions relating to seismic rules applicable to
certain facilities".

It is recalled that the order of January 24, 2011 is mainly an amendment to the order of
October 4, 2010, on the prevention of accidental risks in facilities classified for
environmental protection subject to authorization.

2.1.1 Excerpts from the Order of October 4, 2010 - Section II

The paragraphs defining the scope of application of the law are taken from articles 9 to 15 of
the order of October 4, 2010 - Section II "Provisions relating to earthquake-resistant rules
applicable to certain facilities", defined in article 2 of the order of January 24, 2011, from
which are extracted the paragraphs given below.

The installations and equipment concerned by the order are identified in the text by a
paragraph in Article 9:
"The provisions of articles 12 to 15 apply only to equipment within classified installations subject
to the aforementioned decree of 10 May 2000 which may lead, in the event of an earthquake,
to one or more dangerous phenomena whose serious danger zones for human life within the
meaning of the aforementioned ministerial decree of 29 September 2005 exceed the limits of
the site on which they are located, except if the serious danger zones thus determined for this
equipment concern, outside the site, only zones without permanent human occupation »

Section 10 defines the areas without permanent human occupancy referred to in the
preceding paragraph by:
"The following are defined as areas without permanent human occupation within the meaning of
this section: areas in which there are no establishments open to the public, no dwellings, no
permanent workplaces, and no roadways with a traffic volume of more than 5,000 vehicles per
day, and for which new construction is prohibited. »

This subsection of Article 10 distinguishes between the new and existing nature of a
facility based on its date of authorization:
1,
"Facilities permitted after January 2013, are defined as new facilities for the purposes of this
section.
Other facilities are defined as existing facilities for the purposes of this section. »

Article 14 establishes the time limits for the application of the order according to the
new or existing nature of the facilities:
"For new installations, the study mentioned in Article 13 is produced at the latest when the
application for authorization to operate is submitted and the technical means necessary for the
seismic protection of the equipment mentioned in paragraph 2 of Article 9 are implemented
when the installation is commissioned.
For existing facilities, the study referred to in section 13 shall be produced no later than
December 31, 2015.
 Before December 31, 2016, the prefect shall establish by order the timetable for the
implementation of the technical means necessary for the seismic protection of the equipment
mentioned in paragraph 2 of Article 9, without however exceeding January 1, 2021.
Furthermore, in the event of a change in the zoning mentioned in Article R. 563-4 of the
Environmental Code, increasing the level of seismicity of the zone, the operator shall carry out a
new study as mentioned in Article 13 within five years of the publication of the decree amending
the said Article. »

2.1.2 Excerpts from the order of January 24, 2011

Article 3 of the order of January 24, 2011 defines the date of repeal of the application
of the order previously in force:
Art. 3 - The decree of May 10, 1993 setting out the earthquake-resistant rules applicable to
installations subject to legislation on classified installations is repealed as of January 1, 2013.

2.1.3 Identification of reference regulations

The October 4, 2010 Section II Order builds on several previous regulations, including
the following, which will be referred to in this chapter:
- Order of May 10, 2000 on the prevention of major accidents involving dangerous
substances or preparations present in certain categories of installations classified for
environmental protection and subject to authorization
- Order of September 29, 2005 on the evaluation and consideration of the probability
of occurrence, kinetics, intensity of effects and severity of consequences of potential
accidents in hazard studies for classified facilities subject to authorization

Note: as part of the transposition of the Seveso III Directive into French law, the Order
of May 10, 2000 will be amended. In particular, the scope of application of this order will be
clarified. This guide takes into account this modification of the text which will come into
force on June 1st 2015.

2.2 Normative framework

The order of October 4, 2010 - Section II does not explicitly specify the applicable
normative framework.

In this guide, we will place ourselves within the framework of the Eurocode standards
and in particular of the Eurocode 8, standard relating to the calculation of the structures
for their resistance to the earthquake.

Depending on the type of equipment considered, specific standards may be applicable.

These are detailed in the specific application guides.

2.2.1 Definition of the seismic stress

The regulatory seismic stress given in the order of October 4, 2010 - Section II is defined by
soil spectra whose construction is based on the standards of Eurocode 8 - Part 1, NF-EN
1998-1.

The following parameters are taken directly from this regulatory text:
- Definition of soil classes A to E according to the S-wave velocity in the first 30 soil
layers, vs,30 ;
 - Definition of the corresponding response spectrum.
We note that the decree does not recall the definition of soil classes but it explicitly
provides the levels of accelerations and the parameters of definition of the spectra in
accordance with the standard NF-EN 1998-1.

The definitions and values of the parameters and the establishment of the soil spectra will
be detailed in the next chapter.

2.2.2 Cumulative actions and audits

The rules of accumulation of actions are given in the standards NF EN 1990 - Eurocode 0:
Basis of calculation of structures. The calculation of the actions other than seismic will
have to be made in accordance with the standards NF EN 1991 - Eurocode 1: Actions
on the structures.

Seismic testing of equipment for regulatory seismic events shall be in accordance with
the specifications of Eurocode 8 standards and the corresponding national annexes.

The calculations and verifications must be based on the following standards according
to the type of equipment considered:
- NF-EN 1998-1: Eurocode 8 - Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for
buildings for general verification of building type equipment;
- NF-EN 1998-2 : Eurocode 8 - Part 2 : bridges ;
- NF-EN 1998-4 : Eurocode 8 - Part 4 : silos, tanks and pipes ;
- NF-EN 1998-5 : Eurocode 8 - Part 5 : foundations, supporting structures and
geotechnical aspects for the verification of foundations of all equipment
- NF-EN 1998-6 : Eurocode 8 - Part 6 : towers, masts and chimneys ;

The other Eurocode standards, on which the different parts of Eurocode 8 are regularly
based, may also be applicable depending on the type of construction considered:
- NF-EN 1992 : Eurocode 2 : Design of concrete structures ;
- NF-EN 1993 : Eurocode 3 : Design of steel structures ;
- NF-EN 1994 : Eurocode 4 : Design of steel-concrete composite structures ;
- NF-EN 1995 : Eurocode 5 : Design of wooden structures ;
- NF-EN 1996 : Eurocode 6 : Design of masonry structures ;
- NF-EN 1997 : Eurocode 7 : Geotechnical design ;
- NF-EN 1999 : Eurocode 9 : Design of aluminium structures.
For tanks, the following standards may be used for verification:
- API (American Petroleum Institute) standards
- CODRES - Recommendations for the Maintenance of Vertical Cylindrical Storage
Tanks
- CODAP - Construction Code for Pressure Vessels

All applicable standards by type of equipment are given in the Appendix.

2.2.3 Constructional provisions and seismic measures
In addition to the usual resistance checks of the structural elements in accordance with the
standards, the seismic design requires the application of constructive provisions
ensuring the good behavior of the structure under earthquake.

These measures are specified in the NF EN 1998 standards specific to each type of structure.

The "Guide des dispositions constructives parasismiques des ouvrages en acier, béton,
bois et mçonnerie" of the AFPS, republished in 2011, presents in detail the provisions
specified in the NF EN 1998 standards as well as additional recommendations of good
practice.
3. Perimeter of the order
The purpose of this chapter is to establish the scope of application of the Order of
October 4, 2010 - Section II, establishing the earthquake-resistant rules applicable to
certain classified facilities.

In particular, it addresses the interpretation of the regulations with respect to the following
points:
- identification of the installations and equipment concerned;
- choice of the phenomena to be taken into account.

3.1 Clarifications and basics

3.1.1 Targeted institutions
The decree of October 4, 2010 - Section II is intended for installations covered by the
decree of May 10, 2000. It therefore applies only to establishments classified as "SEVESO
high threshold" or "SEVESO low threshold" (as defined by the decree of May 10, 2000) and
within these establishments only to classified installations.

The Ministry has specified that the earthquake studies to be submitted before December
31, 2015 may concern facilities subject to authorization (regimes A and E), provided
that facilities that, taken individually, would be subject to simple declaration are not the
cause of a domino effect.

The order of October 4, 2010 - Section II does not apply:

- sites, structures and equipment that are not classified installations;
- establishments that are not classified as SEVESO high or low.
- within a Seveso establishment, to equipment that would only be subject to the
declaration regime (see above)

For information, the former decree of May 10, 1993 on earthquake-resistant rules only
concerned AS sites, i.e. "SEVESO high threshold". The decree of October 4, 2010 -
Section II extends the installations a priori concerned (high and low SEVESO) but restricts
the field of application of the law according to the nature of the affected zones and the
danger. The consequences of this new definition of the application perimeter of the
order, extension or restriction, will depend on the sites.

3.1.2 Targeted equipment

3.1.2.1 General
This ministerial decree applies to equipment within classified facilities that may induce
dangerous phenomena off-site in the event of an earthquake. It does not therefore
systematically cover all the installations and equipment on a site.

There is no regulatory definition of what constitutes equipment in the context of

classified installations. Within the framework of this decree, all materials and accessories
associated with the exercise of the activity covered by the nomenclature in question must be
considered as equipment within classified installations. Where applicable, this includes:
manufacturing or fluid transfer machines, process equipment, storage tanks, piping,
piping accessories, networks, etc.
Within this framework it is defined:

- Special Risk Equipment (SRE): equipment that directly generates, in the event of an
earthquake, a scenario leading to a dangerous phenomenon whose consequences
fall under the special risk defined by the decree.

But it is also necessary to define, within the framework of the paraseismic protection of
these equipments at special risk :
- Potential Stressor Structure (PSB): structure or equipment that can be the source
of external mechanical aggression (of sufficient kinetic energy) of a HRA or a BPAP
(e.g.: a chimney falling and damaging a tank). The PAO is not necessarily part of a
classified installation.
- Important: Only structures/equipment likely to lead to a mechanical aggression of
sufficient kinetic energy on an ERS are considered as PAO. Equipment likely to lead
to a Domino effect of the thermal and/or overpressure type (effects studied within
the hazard studies according to the definitions of the decree of 29/09/2005) are not
to be taken into account as PAOs.
- Prevention, mitigation or protection barrier (BPAP): structure or equipment
whose loss of functionality would indirectly induce a dangerous phenomenon
leading to lethal effects on areas with permanent human occupation (e.g.:
essential "utility", damage to the control room or injuries to the operators of an ERS
preventing the implementation of safety procedures, loss of means of intervention or
extinction). The BPAP does not have to be part of a classified installation.

Equipment or structures that are not located in a classified facility, or outside the boundaries
of a classified facility, are excluded from the scope of the order as special risk equipment.

Examples include:
- wastewater treatment (except if the treatment constitutes a classified installation);
- sewer and utility systems (see Section 3.2.5);
- pipelines, transport pipelines (regulated by a specific ministerial order, see below);
- equipment of workshops, storage, installations not covered by an ICPE nomenclature
maintenance workshops ;
- administrative offices, canteen.

Equipment that is not classified as ERS, OAP or BPAP is then subject to normal risk and
may be subject to the texts applicable to normal risk equipment or structures when they
exist (decree of October 22, 2010 for buildings, decree of October 26, 2011 for bridges,
decree to come for certain equipment).

HRAs, PAOs, and PAOs are treated with the same earthquake level requirements.
However, the behavioral requirements for these facilities will generally be more stringent for
FRCs and BPAPs than for PAOs whose continued functionality is not required. The
concept of the behavioral requirement of the structure depends on the scenario considered.
It is detailed in Chapter 5.
3.1.2.2 Case of transport pipelines (pipelines, gas pipelines, etc.)
Special risk transport pipelines are covered by a specific ministerial order (order of March
5, 2014).

The Ministry has clarified its vision of the boundaries of application of the different legal
texts via the BSEI n° 07-133 and DPPR/SEI2/CB-07-0212 circular of May 14, 2007,
relating to the regulatory overlap and interfaces relating to transport pipelines and
piping systems of classified installations, taken up by the circular of May 10, 2010. The
limit is generally set at the first isolation device placed in the classified installation
(except for installations specific to the pipeline such as a scraper station, filter,
metering, etc.).
3.1.2.3 Case of buildings
It is specified that a building can be considered as equipment, it is for example the case
of a warehouse of chemical product).

Buildings located within classified facilities that would be "special risk" equipment (as
defined in section 3.1.2.1) of this paragraph, are covered by the Ministerial Order of
October 4, 2010 - Section II.

In other cases, the order of October 22, 2010 on the classification and seismic
construction rules applicable to buildings of the class known as "normal risk" (or a specific
order) applies.

Note: For new buildings that would also be classified as Category IV according to the
October 22, 2010 Order, continuity of operation must be ensured for the appropriate
seismic loads.
3.1.2.4 Case of mobile containers and product transport vehicles
Mobile containers (drums, IBCs, cans, and other small packaging) and product transport
vehicles (tankers, wagons, barges, ships, etc.) are not considered as equipment and are
therefore not covered by the order. Their integrity or stability to earthquake is therefore
not directly required.

Note: it remains that outside the context of the seismic study, the hazard study of the
facility should examine the relevance of the positioning of storage areas in relation to the
Domino effects (thermal effect and / or overpressure) likely to be generated on fixed
facilities in case of earthquake (at least qualitatively).

On the other hand, the contents of a mobile container or product transport vehicle
contained in or connectedto a classified facility may need to be considered in the scenarios
associated with the facility.

Example: a toxic product warehouse may be classified as a special risk if, in the event
of collapse, the contents of the containers generate lethal effects outside the site. No
specific clothing for mobile containers is required, but their contents are part of the scenario
that determines the special risk classification. The warehouse and its fittings used for storage
(shelving, etc.) are then considered as equipment.

On the other hand, if the building and its fittings used for storage (shelving, etc.) are
earthquake resistant, no scenario involving the mobile containers contained will be taken
into account.
 It would also be possible to consider it as a potential aggressor of the containers that it
shelters then considered, as a whole, as an HRA, the result being the same.

3.1.3 Effects considered

The "zones of serious danger for human life" are defined in Appendix II of the Order of
September 29, 2005. These zones are delimited by the first thresholds of lethal effects for
the effects of nature:
- toxic ;
- thermal (flammable cloud, continuous or transient radiation);
- overpressure.

The reference values for the thresholds of these effects are defined in Annex II of the
Order of 29 September 2005.

In particular, the following thresholds for lethal effects should be retained:

Type of effect Threshold of first lethal effects

Overpressure 140 mbar
Toxic Lethal effects thresholds 1% (in concentration or dose)
Continuous thermal Incident flux 5 kW/m².
Transient thermal Received dose : 1000 [(kW/m²)4/3] s
Flashfire Distance to the LII (lower flammable limit) (criterion not
included in the order of September 29, 2005, but added by the
circular of May 10, 2010)

Other effects are not to be taken into account and in particular not :
- the projection of fragments generated by the bursting or explosion of a tank;
- mechanical effects linked to falling objects or the collapse of a nearby structure
(except for the aggression of special risk equipment);
- the collapse of a building, on people, which is eventually treated within the
framework of the normal risk (except if this building shelters functions necessary
to the paraseismic protection of equipments at special risk or if it is itself at special
risk);
- effects on the environment (pollution of the soil, surface water, air), not
generating an effect within the meaning of the decree of 29 September 2005

Within the framework of the decree of October 4, 2010 - Section II, the notion of
severity of the danger does not come into play. It is necessary to reason only in terms
of intensity level of effects (toxic, thermal and overpressure) in order to determine the
zones of serious danger for human life.
3.1.4 Affected areas
3.1.4.1 Notion of site
The text only considers areas of serious danger to human life off-site.

The notion of site must be understood in the same way as for hazard studies. In
particular, in the case of neighbouring establishments (or multi-operator platforms), the
site boundary is the perimeter of the industrial platform and not the boundary of each
operator's fence. The off-site effects concern the populations outside the perimeter of
the platform. The populations of neighboring establishments on the same operating
platform are not considered off-site.

For this notion of site, the principles of sheet 1 B (chapter 1.1.1) of the circular of May
10, 2010 summarizing the methodological rules applicable to hazard studies, to the
assessment of the risk reduction approach at source and to technological risk prevention
plans (PPRT) in classified facilities in application of the law of July 30, 2003, can be
applied.

Compliance with the criteria defined in sheet 1 B will be examined in the light of the
latest version of the hazard study submitted before 31.12.2015.
3.1.4.2 Notion of permanent human occupation
No provision is required by the order if the severe hazard zones are "zones without
permanent human occupation", as defined in Article 10 of the Order of October 4, 2010
- Section II (cited in Chapter 2)

In order to qualify as "without permanent human occupation" areas must meet all of the
following criteria:
- be without a dwelling (collective, individual, even a second home), or ERP (hotel,
restaurant, camping, gas station), or permanent work premises (offices, workshops,
warehouses);
- no roadway with a traffic of more than 5,000 vehicles per day. These roads are
listed at the level of the department because they are classified as "noisy roads".
This threshold applies regardless of the classification of the road (national road,
departmental road, municipal road);
- the new constructions of infrastructures mentioned in the two previous points
must be prohibited by a local urban plan (PLU), an easement, or a PPRT (for high
threshold SEVESO sites).

Special attention must be paid to changes in urban planning:

- changes in the PLU (Plan Local d'Urbanisme) ;
- to sites that have been upgraded to Seveso low threshold with the disappearance of the
PPRT.
This can bring equipment back into the scope of the special risk.

It is recalled in the context of the definition of area without permanent human

occupation, that :
- an outdoor work area is not a workroom;
- Construction site huts are not permanent workplaces;
- railroads, waterways, harbour waters and airfields are not considered areas of
permanent occupancy.
3.1.4.3 Case of land where the operator has secured control of the land
The land of which the operator has secured control can be considered as part of the site and
therefore not taken into account when judging the special risk criterion, insofar as it is not
inhabited. The control of the land ensures de facto the prohibition of construction.

3.1.5 Seismic event considered

The decree only introduces the notion of earthquake level for the study of the
performance of equipment (ERS, OAP and BPAP) identified in the seismic scenarios and the
establishment of seismic measures to be implemented.

The level of seismic action is fixed on a flat-rate basis by defining soil spectra
depending on the seismic zone, the soil class and the new or existing nature of the
installation. Only the vibratory movements of the seismic action, and the associated
induced phenomena in the perimeter of the site, are considered by the decree.

Permanent ground deformations related to surface fault rupture are excluded under the
Order.

3.2 Application of the order for the definition of the perimeter

3.2.1 The two possible approaches
The key point is the identification of special risk equipment (SRE). Two approaches are
possible and will be developed in this chapter:
- Equipment" approach: starting from the equipment, study the direct or indirect
consequences (via a PAO) of an earthquake on this equipment, taking into
account the presence of adequate barriers and check if they are covered by the special
risk (see criteria in 3.1). This approach is developed in detail in chapter 3.2.3.
- Hazard study" approach: starting from the site hazard study, select the hazardous
phenomena meeting the special risk criteria (see criteria 3.1), identify the equipment or
groups of equipment associated with these hazardous phenomena, check that the
initiating events are potentially linked to the earthquake. This approach is developed
in detail in chapter 3.2.4.

The continuation of both approaches is the same: identification of potential stressors and
prevention, mitigation or protection barriers.

The following flowchart explains the two methods; detailed flowcharts specific to each
method are given later in the document.
 Equipment" approach "Hazard study" approach
Site equipment (Classified installations) Site hazard study (list of dangerous phenomena)

Selection of ICPE equipment (or groups of equipment) whose associated hazardous phenomena generate lethal effects outside the site for area
Possible consideration of prevention, mitigation or protection barriers (BPAP) in the calculation
Evaluation of the effects of the earthquake

Possible consideration of prevention, mitigation or protection barriers (BPAP) in the calculation

Verification that the hazardous phenomena taken into account are strictly related to the earthquake
Verification that lethal effects impact areas of permanent human occupation outside the site

Special Risk Equipment (SRE)

Identification of potential stressors (OAP)

List of HRAs, BPAPs and PAOs with seismic requirements

3.2.2 Establishment of earthquake scenarios

Both approaches consider only the consequences of seismic actions.
3.2.2.1 Type of scenario
The scenarios to be considered are generally linked to a loss of containment under the
effects of seismic actions. This loss of containment leads to dangerous phenomena such
as fires, explosions, toxic leaks...

Appendix B indicates the scenarios and hazardous events to be considered for different
types of equipment.
3.2.2.2 Earthquake level
Initially, the possible scenarios related to the earthquake do not take into account the level
of earthquake and the loss of containment and associated hazardous phenomena will be
considered for all the equipment or groups of equipment studied in order to select the
equipment at special risk.

It is during the study of the resistance to earthquake stresses that the earthquake level
will be introduced.

These seismic measures will result in "reduced" dangerous phenomena because it is

possible that the seismic measures limit the dangerous phenomena but do not eliminate
it.
3.2.2.3 Consequences of the deterministic approach
As previously stated, the study required by the October 4, 2010 Order - Section II is
based on a deterministic approach to seismic risk. There is therefore no probability
filter.
 Given the absence of probabilistic notions, there is no notion of confidence level of the
barriers put in place. These barriers (e.g., an isolation valve that closes automatically in
the event of an earthquake) are evaluated in a deterministic manner based on criteria that
are set out in the specific technical guides.

If a barrier meets the criteria of the technical guides, its reliability is taken equal to 1 for
the seismic study. No scenario taking into account the failure of the barrier will be taken
into account in the reduced scenarios.

In the same way, a piece of equipment whose study has demonstrated its resistance to
the seismic level of the order of October 4, 2010 - Section II will no longer generate a reduced
dangerous phenomenon in the event of an earthquake.
3.2.2.4 Concomitances of events and seismic actions
The only initiating event to be considered is an earthquake. The absence of a probability
assessment implies not to consider :
- the consideration of secondary events potentially initiated by an earthquake, and
outside the scope of the order:
o tsunami ;
o dam break.

- the concomitance of accidental events such as :

o earthquake and exceptional weather conditions. earthquake and lightning ;
o earthquake and exceptional groundwater level;
o earthquake and process drift, except if the earthquake-induced process drift
leads to loss of containment (e.g. lack of utility leading to runaway reaction
and loss of containment).

These rules are consistent with the NF EN 1990 standard, according to which no
accidental action should be cumulated with the earthquake.

Important:

- The consequences of the occurrence of an earthquake under normal operating

conditions must be considered. A loss of command control linked to an earthquake,
leading for example to a rise in temperature of a capacity, cannot be considered as a
concomitant event with the failure of the equipment linked to the same
earthquake, given the difference in kinetics of these events. The failure at maximum
temperature is therefore not to be taken into account.

- On the other hand, if the occurrence of an earthquake induces the loss of an

essential utility for the control of a sensitive process (for example a reaction cooling)
and leads to a loss of containment, then the drift of the process must be
considered as a consequence of the earthquake. This essential utility is
potentially considered as BPAP.

In other words, only the destruction or degradation of a function by the earthquake whose post-
earthquake evolution leads to a loss of containment is to be studied

Further details on this topic are provided in Appendix B.

3.2.2.5 External Aggressions
Potential off-site stressors or those related to off-site induced effects are not to be
considered.

Potential stressors linked to induced effects on the site are taken into account (case of
a pipe leaning against a slope: the stability of the slope must be verified).
3.2.2.6 Cumulation of effects from several equipments
The decree requires that the lethal effects be assessed on an equipment-by-equipment
basis (in the sense of a functional unit), so the cumulative effects induced by several
pieces of equipment are not to be taken into account.
3.2.3 Equipment" approach

Lists of Special équipements Risk Finishes

no
yes Remaining
equipment
1 equipment (or group of
equipments)

Next equipment
Membership no
to a classified facility

yes
Determination of the flows, the
effects to be studied, then the
calculation conditions

no
Use of hazardous phenomena from
the ESD
Performing a
specific yes
calculation

yes
Use of a barrier in the calculation

no

Lethal effects outside

no
the site yes

Occupied area
no
permanent human
yes

Special Risk Equipment

Identification of mitigation and protection barriers (BPAP)

Identification of potential stressors (PAO)

Definition of behavioral requirements

Study of the resistance to seismic

stresses (ERS + BPAP + associated OAP)

no
Reinforcements needed

yes
Other possible measures (urban
Reinforcement planning, source reduction,
additional barrier)

Verification of reduced scenarios

(especially if additional barriers)
3.2.3.1 List of equipment concerned
The approach consists in starting from the list of equipment which must be exhaustive.
It is possible to group together equipment that cannot be isolated (e.g. a distillation column,
its boiler and its condenser) and to consider the whole obtained as one piece of
equipment; the effects are then calculated accordingly.

It is possible to eliminate equipment that is not part of an ICPE if necessary.

The equipment or group of equipment and, in particular, its limits must be perfectly defined.

For lines and pipelines, it may be appropriate to consider sections insofar as the limits
of these sections allow a real isolation in case of earthquake:
- or for geometrical reasons insensitive to the earthquake;
- or thanks to the existence of barriers likely to isolate the section, insofar as the
relevance of these barriers in the event of an earthquake is proven (thus to be
integrated into the prevention, mitigation and protection barriers).
3.2.3.2 Study of the consequences of an earthquake
Each piece of equipment in the facility (device, line or pipe, building, other construction)
shall be analyzed:
- the effects (toxic, thermal and overpressure) that it can generate in the event of an
earthquake, in order to determine whether it is an HRA (see § 3.1.2.),
- the surrounding equipment likely to attack it in the event of an earthquake in order to
determine the possible surrounding OAPs (see § 3.1.2.).

Section 3.2.2 and Appendix B provide more detail regarding the development of
earthquake-related scenarios.

In the absence of a specific study, it may be possible to use the major hazard
phenomena associated with the same equipment from the hazard study.

The presence of relevant barriers in case of an earthquake can be directly taken into
account according to the criteria that are set in the specific technical guides. If a barrier
meets the criteria of the technical guides, it can be taken into account in the calculation of
the consequences of the scenario.

The equipment considered will then be considered as special risk by default (skip step
3.2.3.3).

Examples for a gasoline tank in its bowl: only scenarios limited to the bowl (fires, evaporation)
are generally studied, especially for large tanks. The tank will be considered as an HRA and
the bowl as a BPAP. But different choices of behavioral requirements are possible.
Seismic reinforcement can be applied either to the tank, or to the sump, or to a
combination of both.

On the other hand, if it is possible to calculate the effects of a loss of containment of a

tank without its sump, the problem does not arise and the special risk criterion should be
verified.
3.2.3.3 Audit of Special Risk Criteria
The following filter consists in retaining only the equipments whose seismic scenarios fall
under the special risk (first lethal effects outside the site except zone without human
occupation) whose detailed criteria are exposed in chapter 3.1.

If the consequences of the dangerous phenomena resulting from the studied seismic
scenarios do not meet the "special risk" criteria, then the equipment is considered as a
normal risk.

3.2.4 Hazard studies" approach

The following flow chart summarizes the process
 Scenario lists (facility hazard study(s)) End of the special risk approach

no
yes
Remaining scenarios
1 scenario

Next scenario
Use of a barrier in the ouinon calculation
Lethal effects outside the site

no

yes
Area of permanent human occupation no

Identification of the equipment (or group of equipment) involved no

yesRemaining equipment

1 equipment

Next equipment
no
Membership
to a classified facility

yes

no
Potential earthquake-related initiating event"?
yes

Special Risk EquipmentAnything that is not

not at special risk

Identification of potential stressors (PAOs) Identification of prevention, mitigation and protection barriers (PPBs)

Definition of behavioral requirements

HRA study + associated PAO / BPAP

no
Reinforcements needed

yes
Other possible measures (urban planning, source reduction, additional barrier)
Reinforcement

Verification of reduced scenarios

The practical approach is not to start with the equipment, but with the hazard study, which
must of course be exhaustive, and then to apply various filters that will lead to the list of
special risk equipment.
3.2.4.1 Selection of scenarios whose hazardous phenomena meet the criteria of special risk
The first filter consists in selecting only those scenarios whose hazardous phenomena
are related to the special risk (first lethal effects outside the site except in areas without
permanent human occupation), the criteria of which are detailed in chapter 3.1.

It is possible that no hazardous event from the scenario meets the "special risk" criteria. In
this case no equipment will be targeted.
3.2.4.2 Special cases of scenarios calculated with barriers
Some scenarios are calculated by integrating a barrier with a confidence level of 100
(the failure of the barrier cannot be considered because the effects of its failure cannot
be quantified). These are most often passive barriers of the constructive type, such as the
walls of tanks.

These scenarios must be specifically identified since the seismic resistance of the
barrier taken into account must be verified.

The equipment considered will then, by default, be considered as special risk even if the first
lethal effects do not extend outside the site (special risk criterion). To be classified as a
special risk, it must however pass the "earthquake scenario" filter explained in 3.2.4.4).

It should be noted that a specific calculation can always be made without the barriers to
reclassify the equipment as normal risk if the lethal effects do not leave the site.
3.2.4.3 Identification of the equipment or group of equipment concerned
For each scenario whose hazardous phenomena meet the "special risk" criteria, or the
special cases of 3.2.4.2), the equipment or group of equipment concerned must be
identified. Indeed, the same scenario may concern several pieces of equipment,
especially when there is no isolation between the different pieces of equipment.
(example: capacity and its associated piping, distillation column with its reboiler,
condenser and reflux tank, ...).

It is possible not to consider equipment that is not part of an ICPE.

It should be emphasized that the scope of a hazard study is broader than the functional
scope covered by this decree. In fact, in the case of establishments covered by the decree
of May 10, 2000, the hazard study is extended to the entire establishment.
3.2.4.4 Selection of earthquake-related scenarios
The filter consists in retaining among the scenarios only those related to the earthquake.
The knowledge of the equipment concerned is a prerequisite because the effects of an
earthquake vary according to the equipment considered. Appendix B gives indications for
different typesof equipment.

Not all the scenarios in the hazard study are to be considered. In fact, the facility's
hazard study presents a large number of scenarios. The exhaustive use of these scenarios
to select the elements that fall within the scope of the earthquake resistance study is
not justified. In fact, only the scenarios linked to the earthquake and in the conditions
existing at the time of the occurrence of an earthquake are to be taken into account.
 More specifically, the scenarios develop in bow ties around a Central Dread Event
(CDE) and possibly one or more secondary dread events. However:
- Not all of the ERCs in a hazard study are generated by an earthquake.
- The ERC occurs very often with physical parameters (temperature, pressure, flow, ...)
more penalizing than normal operation (case of deviation of the process). Under
these conditions, the consequences calculated for the first lethal effects are increased
compared to what they would be in case of earthquake.
- An ERC generates several hazardous phenomena. The barriers listed in the
associated event trees are treated in a probabilistic way [(probability of failure) in the
hazard study. In the case of an earthquake, these barrier failures will not occur in
the case of seismically designed barriers.

Under these conditions, the exhaustive resumption of the dangerous phenomena is not
justified. The choice of hazardous phenomena with the most important consequences can
allow a fast and simplified approach but with a high majority and therefore a high
penalty.

In particular, the following scenarios should not be selected:

- Scenarios related to human error or inattention;
- corrosion-related events to the extent that they can be dissociated from the
consequences of an earthquake;
- work-related aggression;
- External aggressions (plane crash, transport accident,..);
- certain scenarios related to process parameter drifts (see 3.2.2.4 of this guide).

It is necessary to add to this list the scenarios not retained in application of various
texts (decree of May 10, 2000, circular of May 10, 2010), and also not to cumulate
these events with an earthquake:
- climatic events of greater intensity than those historically known or foreseeable that
could affect the facility, according to the rules in force;
- rupture of a class A or B dam as defined in article R. 214-112 of the Environment
Code or of a class A, B or C dyke as defined in article R. 214-113 of this same code;
- malicious acts.

In practice, the scenarios are related to several types of causes. Appendix B gives
indications of the scenarios to be retained for different types of equipment.

Finally, it will be checked that, if the scenario uses barriers in the calculation of its
consequences, these are relevant in the event of an earthquake, i.e. that they meet the
criteria of the technical guides, and that they are included in the list of barriers to be checked.

3.2.5 Next steps (common to both approaches)

3.2.5.1 Potential Aggressive Works (PAW)
Once the list of special risk equipment has been obtained, it is necessary to identify
any potential stressors (PAO).
 There is no particular method for this identification, which is mainly based on a field visit
and/or a plan study. (see chapter 7)

Elements of assessment are provided in Appendix B.

3.2.5.2 Barriers for Prevention, Mitigation or Protection (BPAP)
A list of typical barriers is given in Appendix B3 for different equipment.

Their effectiveness is subject to compliance with specific guidelines or is the result of the
industry's thinking and ad hoc provisions for those cases that may not be covered by these
guidelines.

The presence of relevant barriers in case of an earthquake can be directly taken into
account in the calculation of the scenario consequences. These barriers must be identified
in order to study their performance in the next step.

Critical utilities whose absence may result in special hazard events must also be identified.
4. Seismic motion
The regulatory seismic action defined in the Order of October 4, 2010 - Section II is
represented as acceleration response spectra, Se(T), for the horizontal and vertical
directions. Only the vibratory motions of the seismic loading are considered.

The spectra are defined by a standard, lumped spectral shape that depends on the
seismic zone and soil class. The anchor accelerations of these spectra are assumed to
correspond to an annual probability of exceedance of less than 2 x 10-4, i.e. a return period
of at least 5000 years.

This paragraph aims at guiding the user in the determination of the parameters necessary
for the establishment of the response spectrum specific to the studied equipment. It
also provides formulas for determining additional parameters related to the seismic action
described by the regulatory response spectrum, which may be necessary for the study
of the equipment: displacements and ground velocities, and earthquake magnitude (for
liquefaction studies). Finally, it establishes the rules of accumulation of the seismic
action with the other unitary actions.

4.1 Classification
The definition of the regulatory seismic hazard requires knowledge of:
- the seismicity zone in which the site is located;
- the class of soil on which the equipment or structure is built.

4.1.1 Seismicity zone

The seismicity zones are defined in the decree n°2010-1254 of October 22, 2010 relating to the
prevention of seismic risk. We distinguish the 5 following zones:
- Zone 1, of very low seismicity;
- Zone 2, low seismicity;
- Zone 3, of moderate seismicity;
- Zone 4, medium seismicity;
- Zone 5, of high seismicity.

The distribution of the communes between these zones is carried out by the decree
n°2010-1255 of October 22, 2010 on the delimitation of the seismicity zones of the
French territory.

The seismic zoning map of France resulting from this decree is presented below:
 Figure 4.1 - Delimitation of seismicity zones for the French territory

An Excel file containing all the French communes and the corresponding regulatory
seismicity zone is available on the official website of the Plan Séisme, national program for
the prevention of seismic risk: http://www.planseisme.fr/Zonage-sismique-de-la-
France.html

4.1.2 Soil class

The seismic load depends on the nature of the soil. In the regulations, this effect is
taken into account by the definition of soil classes, defined in the NF EN 1998-1
standard.

The NF EN 1998-1 standard defines :

 five standard classes (A, B, C, D and E) for which the regulatory seismic action of the
Order of October 4, 2010 - Section II is applicable;

 two special classes (S1 and S2) for which the regulatory seismic solicitation cannot be
applied (see paragraph 4.2.6).
The following table, taken from the NF EN 1998-1 standard, establishes the soil class
from the stratigraphic profile and the soil parameters:

Parameters
Soil NSPT
Description of the stratigraphic profile vs.30 cu
class
(m/s) (shots/30cm) (kPa)
Rock or other such geological formation with a
A surface layer of not more than 5 m >800 - -
less resistant material.
Steep deposits of sand, gravel or over-consolidated
clay, at least several tens of meters thick,
B characterized by a progressive increase in 360-800 >50 >250
mechanical properties with the
depth.
Deep deposits of medium density sand, gravel or
medium stiff clay, with thicknesses of a few tens to 70-
C 180-360 15-50
several hundreds of 250
meters.
Low to medium density cohesionless soil deposits
(with or without soft cohesive layers) or with a
D <180 <15 <70
majority of soft to
farms.
Soil profile comprising a superficial layer of alluvium
with vs values of class C or D and a thickness of
E
between 5 m and 20 m, resting on
on a stiffer material with vs > 800 m/s.
Deposits composed of, or containing, a layer at least
<100
10 m thick of soft clays/mudstones with a high
S1 (indicativ - 10-20
plasticity index (PI > 40) and a w a t e r content
e value)
important.
Liquefiable soil deposits of sensitive clays or any
S2 other soil profile not included in classes A to E or
S1.
Table 4.1: Definition of soil classes

The classification of a site is made according to the average value of the shear wave
velocity, vs,30, established from the properties of the upper 30 m soil layers according to the
following expression:
𝑣𝑠,30
=30 ℎ𝑖
∑𝑖=1,𝑁
𝑣𝑖
Where hi (m) and vi (m/s) are the thickness and velocity of the shear waves (at a level
distortion less than or equal to 10-5) of the i-th formation or layer, on a total of N
existing soil layers on the upper 30 m.

In the absence of knowledge of vs.30, for class B, C or D soils, the following parameters can
be used to characterize the soil type:
- NSPT penetration test value for sandy soils;
- cu cohesion for clay soils.
4.2 Definition of seismic action
4.2.1 Regulatory spectra
The regulatory seismic action defined in the Order of October 4, 2010 - Section II is tri
directional. The horizontal components and the vertical component are described by
acceleration response spectra.

It is therefore necessary to take into account the action of the vertical component of the
earthquake for the 5 seismicity zones, whatever the value of the vertical acceleration.
4.2.1.1 Horizontal elastic response spectrum
The horizontal seismic action is represented by a horizontal response spectrum of the
following form:

Figure 4.2 - Shape of the elastic response spectrum for the horizontal direction

The elastic response spectrum for the horizontal components of the seismic action is
defined by the following expressions from the NF EN 1998-1 standard:

Short period domain:0 ≤ 𝑇 ≤ 𝑇𝐵 ∶ 𝑆𝑒(𝑇) = 𝑎𝑔𝑆 [1 + 𝑇 (2.5𝜂 - 1)]

𝑇𝐵

Constant pseudo-acceleration domain:𝑇𝐵 ≤ 𝑇 ≤ 𝑇𝐶 ∶ 𝑆𝑒(𝑇) = 2.5𝑎𝑔𝑆𝜂 Constant pseudo-

velocity domain:𝑇𝐶 ≤ 𝑇 ≤ 𝑇𝐷 ∶ 𝑆𝑒(𝑇) = 2.5𝑎𝑔𝑆𝜂 [𝑇𝐶] Constant spectral displacement𝑇

domain:𝑇𝐷 ≤ 𝑇 ≤ 4𝑠 ∶ 𝑆𝑒(𝑇) = 2.5𝑎𝑔𝑆𝜂 [𝑇𝐶𝑇𝐷] 𝑇

The parameters for defining the spectrum are as follows:

-𝜼 depreciation correction coefficient ξ if depreciation other than 5% is used :
𝜂 = √10⁄(5 + 𝜉)
- horizontal acceleration of calculation, depending on the seismicity zone, fixed by
Articles 12-1 (new installations) and 12-2 (existing installations) of the order of
October 4, 2010 - Section II :

Seismicity zone New facilities Existing facilities

Zone 1 0.88 0.74

Zone 2 1.54 1.3

Zone 3 2.42 2.04

Zone 4 3.52 2.96

Zone 5 6.60 5.55

Table 4.2: Design horizontal accelerations ag (m/s²)

- S soil parameter, depending on the seismicity zone and the soil class, set by Article
12-3 of the Order of October 4, 2010 - Section II:

Soil class Seismicity zones 1 to 3 Seismicity zones 4 and 5

A 1 1

B 1.35 1.2

C 1.5 1.15

D 1.6 1.35

E 1.8 1.4
Table 4.3: Soil parameter S

- TB , TC and TD periods defining the branches of the spectrum, depending on the

seismicity zone and the soil class, set by Article 12-3 of the Order of October 4,
2010 - Section II:

Soil Seismicity zones 1 to 3 Seismicity zones 4 and 5

class TB TC TD TB TC TD

A 0.03 0.2 2.5 0.15 0.4 2

B 0.05 0.25 2.5 0.15 0.5 2

C 0.06 0.4 2 0.2 0.6 2

D 0.1 0.6 1.5 0.2 0.8 2

E 0.08 0.45 1.25 0.15 0.5 2

Table 4.4: Definition periods of the horizontal spectrum (s)
4.2.1.2 Vertical elastic response spectrum
The elastic response spectrum for the vertical component of the seismic action is
defined by the following expressions from the NF EN 1998-1 standard:

Short period domain:0 ≤ 𝑇 ≤ 𝑇𝐵 ∶ 𝑆𝑣𝑒(𝑇) = 𝑎𝑣𝑔 [1 + 𝑇 (3.0𝜂 - 1)]

𝑇𝐵

Constant pseudo acceleration domain:𝑇𝐵 ≤ 𝑇 ≤ 𝑇𝐶 ∶ 𝑆𝑣𝑒(𝑇) = 3.0𝑎𝑣𝑔𝜂 Constant pseudo

velocity domain:𝑇𝐶 ≤ 𝑇 ≤ 𝑇𝐷 ∶ 𝑆𝑣𝑒(𝑇) = 3.0𝑎𝑣𝑔𝜂 [𝑇𝐶] Constant spectral displacement

𝑇

domain:𝑇𝐷 ≤ 𝑇 ≤ 4𝑠 ∶ 𝑆𝑣𝑒(𝑇) = 3.0𝑎𝑣𝑔𝜂 [𝑇𝐶𝑇𝐷]

𝑇

The parameters for defining the spectrum are as follows:

- 𝜼 depreciation correction coefficient ξ if depreciation other than 5% is used :

𝜂 = √10⁄(5 + 𝜉)

- avg calculation vertical acceleration, depending on the seismicity zone, set by

Articles 12-1 (new installations) and 12-2 (existing installations) of the Order of
October 4, 2010 - Section II :

Seismicity zone New facilities Existing facilities

Zone 1 0.79 0.67

Zone 2 1.39 1.17

Zone 3 2.18 1.84

Zone 4 2.82 2.37

Zone 5 5.28 4.44

Table 4.5: Design vertical accelerations avg (m/s²)

- , and TD periods defining the branches of the spectrum, depending only on the
TB TC
seismicity zone, set by Article 12-3 of the Order of October 4, 2010 - Section II :

Seismicity zone TB TC TD

Zones 1 to 3 0.03 0.20 2.5

Zones 4 and 5 0.15 0.40 2

Table 4.6: Definition periods of the vertical spectrum (s)

There are two main differences between the horizontal and vertical response spectra:

- The amplification factor between the ground acceleration and the pseudo-
acceleration at the plateau is 3 in the vertical direction instead of 2.5 for the
horizontal spectrum;
- The vertical spectrum is independent of the soil class.
Note: case of studies performed with the vertical accelerations of the AM of January 24, 2011
 A first set of regulatory vertical acceleration values set by Articles 12-1 and 12-2 of the
Order of October 4, 2010 - Section II were published in the Order of January 24, 2011.
They were modified by the order of September 13, 2013. The corrected acceleration
values are:
- slightly higher than the initial values for zones 1 to 3;
- slightly lower than the initial values for zones 4 and 5.

Considering the small value of the modification and the moderate influence of the vertical
earthquake on the seismic behavior of the equipment, it is accepted that the studies
implemented with the initial values of vertical accelerations of January 24, 2011 are
acceptable and that their repetition is not necessary.

4.2.2 Soil displacements

The value of displacement of the design soil dg corresponding to an acceleration of the
design soil ag is established from the standard NF EN 1998-1 by the following formula :

𝒅𝒈 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟐𝟓𝒂𝒈𝑺𝑻𝑪𝑻𝑫

S, TC and TD are the parameters depending on the soil class and the seismicity zone
defined in the framework of the definition of the spectra (4.2.1). The origin of the
previous formula is explained in paragraph 4.5.

4.2.3 Particle velocities

The particle velocity of the design soil vg corresponding to an acceleration of the
design soil ag is obtained by the formula :
𝒗𝒈 𝒂𝒈𝑺𝑻𝑪
= 𝟐𝝅
S and TC are the parameters depending on the soil class and the seismicity zone defined in
the definition of the spectra (4.2.1). The origin of the previous formula is explained in
paragraph 4.5.

4.2.4 Magnitudes
The characterization of the seismic action in terms of moment magnitude Mw is necessary
for the study of the risk of soil liquefaction.

The values of the accelerations used to calibrate the regulatory spectra are taken from a
probabilistic seismic hazard study conducted by GEOTER in 2000. The maximum
acceleration for each zone is associated with a return period of at least 5000 years.

A disaggregation of the seismic hazard makes it possible to determine the contribution of

each seismic source to the acceleration of the zone considered. Thus, to each seismic zone,
is assigned the magnitude whose contribution is the most important.

The seismic hazard studies have led to the following magnitude values corresponding to the
regulatory accelerations of the October 4, 2010 order - Section II:
 Seismicity zone Magnitude
Mw
1 5.0
2 5.5
3 6.0
4 6.5
6.5 (local source)
5
7.7 (subduction source)
Table 4.7 - Magnitude by Seismicity Zone

Given the low magnitude of zone 1 and based on feedback that indicates that
liquefaction is not observed for magnitudes below 5.5, it is accepted to exclude this risk
without a specific study for sites in zone 1, of very low seismicity.

The study of the risk of liquefaction can be based on Annex B of the standard EN NF
1998-5. This normative annex, in the context of the use of SPT tests, provides empirical
diagrams, used for simplified liquefaction analysis. The diagrams represent experimental
correlations between measurements made in situ and cyclic shear stresses found to
cause liquefaction in previous earthquakes. It should be noted that the appendix is based
on earthquake magnitudes in terms of MS surface waves. Therefore, the moment
magnitude Mw should be converted to MS magnitude. The following correlations may be
used:

Figure 4.3 - Correlations between Ms and mb magnitudes with the moment magnitude
Mw, established by Scordilis (2006) on a worldwide database of more than 20,000
earthquakes
 Other methods for determining the risk of liquefaction are allowed by EN 1998-5; they are
based on the use of experimental data measured in situ such as the peak resistance to the
static penetration test (CPT) or the shear wave velocity. However, these methods are
not detailed in the standard and must be based on the state of the art of the technical
literature.

4.2.5 Accelerator Selection Guide

The seismic study of a structure can be carried out by transient methods for which the
seismic solicitation is represented by accelerograms, i.e. ground accelerations as a
function of time, compatible with the seismic action defined by the regulatory spectra of
the Order of October 4, 2010 - Section II.
4.2.5.1 Representation of the seismic action
The three-dimensional seismic motion must consist of three accelerograms acting
simultaneously in the three directions of space, two horizontal directions and one
vertical direction. The same accelerogram cannot be used simultaneously for both
horizontal directions.

For each direction, several accelerograms should be used to define the seismic action.
This is called a set or sequence of accelerograms.

Depending on the nature of the application and the information available, the
description of the seismic motion may be based on the use of artificial accelerograms
or recorded or simulated accelerograms.
4.2.5.2 General selection rules
Regardless of their nature, the sequence of accelerograms should respect the following
rules:
- the average of the zero period spectral acceleration values (calculated from the
accelerograms) should not be less than the agS value for the facility site;
- the average response spectrum of the accelerograms is calculated, at a sufficient
number of frequencies, as the average of the spectral accelerations. For this
purpose, a frequency discretization of the type 100.03NHz, N integer varying from -33
to 50, is allowed.
- in the period range between 0.2T1 and 2T1, where T1 is the fundamental period of
the structure in the direction in which the accelerogram is to be applied, no value of
the average elastic response spectrum with 5% damping, calculated from all
accelerograms, should be less than 90% of the corresponding value of the elastic
response spectrum with 5% damping;
- the number of accelerograms to be used is adapted to the methodology of the
calculations carried out and to the method of treatment of the variability of the
results chosen. For a linear analysis, the use of a set of 3 accelerograms per
earthquake direction is sufficient. For non-linear models, the variability of the
results can be important and it is then advisable to use a minimum of 5
accelerograms per set;
- the statistical independence of the accelerograms of the same set must be ensured.
The intercorrelation coefficient of the signals must be less than 0.2. Moreover, it
is forbidden to constitute a set of accelerograms by shifting the origin of one of
the signals;
 - Accelerograms should be selected with the following parameters consistent with
those associated with the study site:
 type of mechanism at the seismic source;
 soil properties;
 couple magnitude - distance to the seismic source (Mw-d)

For seismicity zones 1 to 4, only earthquakes associated with relatively close sources
are considered. For zone 5 (West Indies), two types of sources must be considered: close
sources and subduction sources.

We will retain earthquakes associated with a range of magnitude ± 0.5 around the
values retained for the study of liquefaction. The couples of values distance -
magnitude recommended for the choice of accelerograms according to the zone of
seismicity are given in the following table:

Zone of Distance to the fault Magnitude Mw

seismicit
y
1 5-35 km 4.5 – 5.5
2 5-35 km 5.0 – 6.0
3 5-35 km 5.5 – 6.5
4 5-35 km 6.0 – 7.0
Nearby source: 5-35 km Near source: 6.0-7.0
5
Subduction source: 50-80 km Source of subduction: 7.2-8.2
Table 4.8 - Distance-magnitude range by seismicity zone for
accelerogram selection

In order to adopt a safe approach, the use of minorizing (M,d) pairs corresponding to a
minorizing magnitude and a majorizing distance to the source (Mmin,dmax) should be
excluded.
4.2.5.3 Artificial accelerograms
Artificial accelerograms shall be constructed to match the regulatory elastic response
spectra for 5% damping. The duration of the accelerograms shall be consistent with the
magnitude and other characteristics of the seismic event used to define ag.

In the absence of specific data, the duration values given in Table 4.9 are
recommended.

Seismicity zone Strong phase duration

1 3 to 6 seconds
2 5 to 10s
3 8 to 12s
4 10 to 15s
Near source: 10 to 15s
5
Subduction source : 18 to 25s
Table 4.9: Strong phase duration of artificial accelerograms
4.2.5.4 Recorded or simulated accelerograms
Recorded accelerograms, or accelerograms developed from a physical simulation of the
source and wave propagation mechanisms, may be used, provided that the samples
used are recognized as representative of the characteristics of the seismogenic sources
and the ground conditions at the site, and that their values are calibrated to the value of agS
for the area considered.

Natural accelerograms can be selected from the following databases:

- Pacific Earthquake Engineering Reasearch Center (PEER) NGA database, available at
http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database ;
- database of the Euro-Mediterranean Seismological Centre (EMSC), available at
http://www.emsc-csem.org.

For studies involving pronounced nonlinear behavior, it is preferable to use

accelerograms recorded during real earthquakes, as they have a more realistic low-
frequency content than artificial accelerograms and appropriate phasing between the
horizontal and vertical components of motion.
4.2.5.5 Exploitation of the results
The exploitation of results related to a transient study using accelerograms as input
data is detailed in Chapter 5 - Behavioral Requirements and Justification Methods.

4.2.6 Case of soil classes S1 and S2

For sites corresponding to soil classes S1 and S2, the regulatory seismic action of the
Order of October 4, 2010 - Section II is not applicable. Special studies are required to
define the seismic action.

Class S1 soils generally have very low vs values, low internal damping, and an abnormally
wide range of linear behavior, and thus may produce anomalous site seismic motion
amplification and soil-structure interaction effects. The effects of the thickness and vs
value of the soft clay/surface layer and the stiffness contrast with the lower layers on
the response spectrum should be evaluated.

For class S2 soils, the high risk of soil failure by liquefaction under seismic action makes it
impossible to define a response spectrum. It is advisable never to install equipment on
a liquefiable soil since it is impossible, except for very particular provisions at the level
of the foundations, to ensure its resistance to the earthquake. In the case of an existing
equipment built on a liquefiable soil, the industrialist will have to take measures to treat
the soil or to modify the layout to ensure the earthquake resistance of his equipment.

4.3 Spectrum transfer

The response spectra defined in the Order of October 4, 2010 - Section II represent the
seismic action for a structure at ground level for single supported structures. When the
equipment has multiple supports that may have relative motions (e.g., piping and networks),
a static relative displacement must be added to the inertial seismic action defined by the
spectrum.
 For equipment resting on support structures, the design seismic action depends on the
response of the support and the spectra of the decree are not directly applicable. It is
necessary to establish transferred spectra, which represent the seismic action at the
equipment level.

The methods for calculating the transfer of spectra and relative displacements from the
regulatory spectra are detailed in the "Supporting Structures" guide.

4.4 Rules for the accumulation of shares

The unit actions and combinations of actions to consider depend on the equipment or
structure studied. It is advisable to take into account the unit actions on the structures
defined in the NF EN 1991 standard and to combine them according to the rules given in
the NF EN 1990 standard.

The following paragraphs provide a list of generally applicable unit actions, distinguished
according to their permanent or variable character. The general rules of accumulation with
the seismic action are then exposed.

It should be kept in mind that the actions to be taken into account for a study are
specific to the structure studied. In the case of industrial equipment, it may be
necessary to consider particular actions related to the specificity of design or operating
conditions, which do not appear explicitly in the following paragraph.

4.4.1 Permanent actions

The permanent unit actions to be considered in the study of an equipment are the
following:

Permanent unit actions

Gk,0 dead weight of permanent structures and equipment
Gk,i1 static earth pressure for buried elements
Gk,WL hydrostatic pressure of the water table at permanent level for
buried elements or for liquefaction studies
Gk,P static pressures due to a liquid or a gas
Gk,T1 permanent thermal deformations
Gk,T2 deformations due to shrinkage and creep of concrete
Pk action of the pre-stressing
Gk,other other permanent equipment-specific action
Table 4.8 - Permanent unit actions
4.4.2 Variable actions
The variable unit actions to be considered in the study of a piece of equipment are the
following:

Variable unit actions

Qk,L operating expenses
Qk,WL variation of the water table height in relation to the permanent height
Qk,P variation of the static pressures of the liquid or gas with respect to the
value
permanent
Qk,M mooring forces or actions induced by machines or lifting devices
Qk,other other equipment-specific variable action
Qk,T thermal variations around the mean value
Qk,W wind action
Qk,S action of the snow
Table 4.9 - Variable unit actions

4.4.3 Characteristic value of a share

It is appropriate to consider the characteristic value of the action (Fk), i.e. the main
representative value of an action. To the extent that it can be statistically based, the
characteristic value is chosen to correspond to a given probability of not exceeding the
adverse side, during a "reference time" taking into account the project service life of the
structure and the duration of the project situation.

Indicative values of the characteristic values for the different types of loads are given in the
EN NF 1991 standards.

For tanks, the characteristic values of the actions defined in the standard EN NF 1991- 4
are supposed to correspond to the values which have a 2% probability of being
exceeded during a reference period of one year.

4.4.4 Cumulation of actions with the earthquake

No accidental action should be cumulated with the earthquake. As a general rule,
seismic actions and earthquake-induced accidental actions are not cumulative (see
Chapter 3).

The standards NF EN 1998 stipulate that the seismic action must be cumulated with
the quasi-permanent values of the variable actions. This value is determined in such a
way that the total time during which it will be exceeded is a considerable fraction of the
reference time. It is expressed as a determined fraction of the characteristic value using a
factor ψ2,i≤1.

The concomitant actions to be considered with the dimensioning seismic movements are
therefore:
- Permanent actions (Gk,j and Pk);
- The variable actions (Qk,i) assigned a simultaneity coefficient (ψ2,i≤1), given their
probability of occurrence.
Consequently, the general combination of actions concurrent with the design
earthquake AEk is expressed symbolically as follows:
∑ 𝐺𝑘,𝑗 ⊕ 𝑃𝑘 ⊕∑ 𝜓2,𝑖𝑄𝑘,𝑖 ⊕ 𝐴𝐸,𝑘

The following simultaneity coefficients ψ2,i for variable actions, inspired by the standards
NF EN 1990 and 1991, should be used:

Simultaneity
Variable unit actions
coefficient ψ2,i

Qk,L operating loads for factory building floors :

-
Control room (Category B) 0.3
Technical rooms 0.3
Stores (Category E) 0.8
Fire station 0.3
Workshop or boom 0.3
-….

Qk,L operating loads for plant building roofs 0

Qk,WL change in water table height 0

Qk action of ensiled particulate materials (silos) 0.9
Qk action of stored liquids (tanks) 0.9
Qk action of the contained products (process equipment) 1
Qk action of the contained products (pipes) 1
Qk,P variation of the static pressures of the liquid or gas 0
Qk,M mooring forces or dynamic actions induced by the
0
machines or lifting devices
Value to be set
according to the
Qk,other variable action specific to the equipment probability
of occurrence of
the action
Qk,T climatic temperature variations 0
Qk,W wind action 0
0
Qk,S snow action 0.2 for sites with
altitude >1000m
Table 4.10 - Simultaneity coefficients for variable actions

For the action of the products contained in the tanks, the Eurocode recommends the use of
a coefficient of 0.8 applied to a fluid height equal to the height of the walls. The approach
proposed in this guide is to apply a coefficient of 0.9 applied to the maximum operating
height of the product. This approach will allow some equipment to be cleared provided
that the operating height is limited.
It is recalled that the design seismic action AEk must be calculated taking into account
the masses specified in Section 4.4.5.
4.4.5 Masses for the seismic action of calculation
In order to establish the inertial contribution of the design seismic action AEk, the masses
associated with all gravity loads that appear in the following action combination should
be considered:
∑ 𝐺𝑘,𝑗 ⊕ ∑ 𝜓𝐸,𝑖𝑄𝑘,𝑖

ψE,i is a combination coefficient for the variable actions Qk,i .

The coefficients ψE,i take into account the probability that the live loads Qk,i are not present
on the entire structure during the earthquake. These coefficients can also take into
account a reduced participation of masses in the motion of the structure, due to a non-rigid
connection between them.

Note that the coefficients ψE,i are not necessarily equal to the coefficients ψ2,i to be
assigned to the live loads in the seismic action combinations detailed in Section 4.4.4. ψE,i
is usually noted as φ ψ2,i. The values of ψE,i for different types of structures are given in
the specific technical guides. In the absence of information, ψE,i = ψ2,i will be taken.

For buildings, the following values of ψE,i from the NF EN 1998-1 standard will be used:

Coefficient
Variable unit actions
ψE,i
Qk,L operating expenses Stages with correlated occupations 0.24
- Category A: residential, Floors with independent occupancy 0.15
residential areas
Roofing 0.30
- Category B: offices
Stages with correlated occupations 0.48
Qk,L operating expenses
Floors with independent occupancy 0.30
Category C: meeting places Roofing 0.60
Qk,L operating expenses
0.60
Category D: Commercial
Qk,L operating expenses
0.80
Category E: storage
Qk,L operating expenses
0.60
Category F: traffic area, vehicles of weight ≤ 30 kN
Qk,WL change in water table height 0
Qk,P variation of the static pressures of the liquid or gas 0
0
0.2 for
Qk,S snow mass sites
altitude
>1000m

4.5 Additional informative data

4.5.1 Soil displacement
The ground displacement value is obtained by assuming that the spectral displacement
in the constant spectral displacement domain is 2.5η times the ground displacement dg.
 The spectral displacement is calculated from the spectral pseudo acceleration Se(T) by :
𝑇 2
𝑆𝐷𝑒(𝑇) = ( ) 𝑆𝑒(𝑇)
2𝜋

In the constant spectral displacement branch (𝑇𝐷 ≤ 𝑇 ≤ 4𝑠), we therefore have:

𝑇2 𝑇𝐶𝑇𝐷 𝑎𝑔𝑆𝑇𝐶𝑇𝐷
𝑆𝐷𝑒(𝑇) = ( ) 2.5𝜂𝑎𝑔𝑆 ]= 𝑆𝐷𝑒( 𝑇𝐷)
2𝜋 𝑇2 (2𝜋)2=
[
2.5𝜂

Thus, the displacement of the ground is obtained by :

𝑇𝐷
𝑑 = 𝑆 (𝑇 )/2.5𝜂 = 𝑎𝑔𝑆𝑇𝐶 = 𝑆𝑇 𝑇
0.025𝑎
𝑔 𝐷𝑒 𝐷 𝐶𝐷
(2𝜋)2

4.5.2 Particle velocity

The ground velocity value is obtained by assuming that the spectral pseudo-velocity in the
constant spectral pseudo-velocity domain is 2.5η times the ground velocity vg. The spectral
pseudo-velocity is calculated from the spectral pseudo-acceleration Se(T) by :
𝑇
𝑆𝑉𝑒(𝑇) = ( ) 𝑆𝑒(𝑇)
2𝜋

In the constant pseudo-spectral velocity branch (𝑇𝐶 ≤ 𝑇 ≤ 𝑇𝐷), we thus have:

𝑇
𝑆 (𝑇) = ( ) 𝑎𝑔𝑆𝑇𝐶
2.5𝑎 𝜂 𝑇𝐶 = 2.5𝜂
𝑆 = 𝑆 (𝑇 )
𝑉𝑒
2𝜋 𝑔[ 2𝜋 𝑉𝑒 𝐶

Thus, the ground speed is obtained by :

𝑣 𝑎𝑔𝑆𝑇𝐶
= 𝑆 (𝑇 )/2.5𝜂 =
𝑔 𝑉𝑒 𝐶
2𝜋
5. Behavioral requirements and justification methods
The purpose of this chapter is to define the behavioral requirements and justification
methods to be adopted in the context of the seismic strength study of equipment
covered by the order of October 4, 2010 - Section II.

5.1 General definitions of behavioural requirements

The selection of the equipment concerned is carried out in accordance with the
procedure developed in Chapter 3.

For each piece of equipment concerned, the requirement for behaviour in the event of an
earthquake depends on the role of this equipment, the nature of the products contained,
the type of scenario that gave rise to the special risk classification and the environment
of the installation.

The different behavioral requirements identified for the equipment are defined in the
following paragraphs.

Note that a piece of equipment may have no behavioral requirements if prevention/protection

barriers are implemented.

5.1.1 Operability / functional capacity

The requirements of operability and functional capacity correspond to the continued
performance of the function associated with the structure or equipment.

The operability of a piece of equipment is expressed by the maintenance of certain active

functions such as the ability to open or close an isolating device or to perform the safety
function associated with the structure or equipment.

The requirement to maintain the functional capacity applies to static mechanical elements
through which a fluid flows and for which there must be no limitation of flow or more generally
no hindrance to the performance of the function.

Typically, these behavioral requirements are primarily related to prevention, mitigation, or

protection barriers (PPBs).

5.1.2 Integrity of containment / retention

The integrity of the containment of an equipment generally translates the maintenance
of the passive function of sealing, allowing the maintenance of a product (gas, liquid, solid)
in a defined space. Generally, this requirement of behavior concerns mainly the
equipment with special risk (ERS) inducing directly the dangerous phenomenon.

This requirement can also apply to retention basins or walls of a room, i.e. a second level
containment intended to collect a product after a first loss of containment.

The degree of tightness to be provided (acceptable leakage rate with respect to the
special risk criterion, etc.) should be specified.
 This requirement is less stringent than the operability requirement.

5.1.3 Stability and support

The requirement of stability and support is declined in :
- overall stability (no collapse or generalized tilting),
- local stability (non-collapse of one or more elements),
- equipment support (maintenance of support, despite damage).

It can concern any type of equipment

- directly from special risk equipment (stability of a capacity, of a warehouse
classified as special risk)
- Supporting structures for special risk equipment (support of a capacity, piping,...)
or mitigation or protection barriers (BPAP)
- potential stressors (PAO) (stability requirement)

This requirement is less stringent than the operability or containment requirement.

5.1.4 Absence of harmful material interaction

The term detrimental interaction refers to the aggression of a structure by a
neighboring structure of type :
- shocks between structures that can generate significant stresses and vibrations in the
latter;
- Excessive differential displacements between equipment;

The requirement of absence of interaction is thus translated by the control of the movements of
the equipment in order to avoid these phenomena.

5.1.5 Specific requirements

Some equipment may have behavioral requirements specific to its functionality,
operating conditions, and hazardous phenomena related to the equipment.

5.1.6 Combination of requirements / induced requirements

One behavioral requirement may induce others. The following table specifies these
induced requirements:

Primary requirement Induced requirements

Operability Stability
+ possible absence of material
interaction
+ possibly specific requirements
Integrity of containment / retention Stability
+ possible absence of material
interaction
+ possibly specific requirements
Harmful material non-interaction Stability
+ possibly specific requirements
5.2 Justification criteria for structures and equipment
The design or verification process of an equipment requires the definition of criteria to
demonstrate compliance with the behavioral requirements.

These criteria can be expressed in terms of:

- stress or strain limitation;
- limitation of reversible or irreversible deformations;
- travel restrictions.

5.2.1 Definition of "limit states

Design criteria are often associated with the concept of limit state. A "limit state" is a
state beyond which a structure or equipment ceases to perform the functions for which
it was designed or the behavioral requirements assigned to it.

A distinction should be made between:

- The ultimate limit states (ELU), the exceeding of which could lead to significant
disorders, or even to the ruin of the element considered. They correspond to the
limit of static equilibrium, resistance, stability of form, ...

- The serviceability limit states (SLS) which, if exceeded, could compromise the
good serviceability of the structural element considered. These states correspond in
practice to a limit value of compression of the concrete, to a limit value of crack
opening or to a limit value of acceptable deformations

5.2.2 Criteria related to behavioural requirements

The criteria are most often given by the codes specific to this or that equipment. It is
advisable to refer to the various specific guides.

The following paragraphs present the principles of the criteria related to the behavioral
requirements defined in paragraph 5.1.
5.2.2.1 Criteria of operability or functional capacity
In general, elastic behavior will be required for a structure whose post-seismic
operability or functional capacity is to be maintained. The criteria related to these
requirements generally correspond to a limitation of the stresses or strains to values
lower than the elastic limits (ELS type calculation).
5.2.2.2 Containment / retention integrity criteria
In general, the criteria related to the containment or retention requirement can be
translated into the following principles:
- limitation of the plastic deformations to 80% of the deformation corresponding to
the achievement of the breaking strength applicable to the metallic equipment
and/or the metallic lining of the retention (ELU calculation);
- limitation of the opening, spacing and length of the through cracks to a value that
limits the leakage rate to an acceptable value (ELS calculation).
5.2.2.3 Stability and support criteria
The criteria related to the stability and support requirement are reflected in:
- verification of the ultimate deformation or strength of structural elements for
seismic loading combinations;
 - verification of the stability of the foundations in terms of slippage, overturning and
bearing capacity of the soil.

These checks are generally of the ELU type.

5.2.2.4 Material non-interaction criterion
The criteria related to the requirement of material non-interaction can induce a stability
criterion or correspond to the control of displacements.

For example, a couple of elements separated by a joint, which may come into contact
or collide. In this case, the differential displacement must be less than the width of the joint.

5.2.3 General constructional provisions and seismic measures

The types of verification to be performed depend on the level of behavioral
requirement. For example, a call for ductility by formation of plastic zones may be
tolerated for a structure whose behavioral requirement is non-collapse or containment
integrity while elastic behavior is generally required for a structure whose post-seismic
operability is needed.

Ductile behavior of structures is characterized by large deformations without significant

loss of strength, by incursion into the plastic domain. The implementation of a ductile
behavior requires the application of specific constructive provisions that allow the
development of plastic zones where deformations are concentrated or by verifying that,
in the zones where plastic or inelastic deformation occurs, deformations are admissible
without tearing or elastoplastic instability and without concentration. The seismic design
recommended by Eurocode 8 for structures in which damage is tolerated is based on the
notion of ductility, particularly in areas of moderate to high seismicity.

The design of a structure with elastic behavior can be difficult in moderate to high
seismicity zones. It may require the implementation of seismic isolation devices, and the
implementation of special constructional provisions for the proper use of these devices.

All constructional provisions for ductile design of structures or in case of use of isolation
devices are specified in the parts of Eurocode 8 specific to each type of structure.

The "Guide to earthquake-resistant construction provisions for steel, concrete, wood and
masonry structures" of the AFPS, republished in 2011, presents in detail the provisions
specified in the Eurocode 8 standards as well as additional recommendations for good
practice for the case of structures.

5.2.4 Interfaces/anchors
The presence of adequate anchors is perhaps the most important element in the
seismic behavior of equipment.

Feedback from strong seismic movements shows that equipment can be subject to
slippage, overturning or excessive movement when not properly anchored.
 These observations concern large and heavy equipment. The anchorage failures of
equipment listed concern anchorages implemented during casting (anchorages with
embedded rods) as well as anchorages implemented after casting (pegged anchorages).
Special attention should be paid to the verification of these elements. The verification
methods are detailed in the specific guide
"Supporting Structures".

5.3 General methods of justification

The approaches to justifying compliance with the performance requirements differ for
new and existing equipment:
- The sizing of a new structure or equipment is the subject of chapter 6 ;
- the diagnosis of existing structures or equipment is dealt with in Chapter 7.

The purpose of this paragraph is to present the general methods and associated
principles used to study the seismic response of a piece of equipment and to evaluate
whether it meets the set requirement criteria.

Overall, there are three types of approaches to evaluate the seismic behavior of a
member:
- the computational approach;
- feedback;
- the tests.

5.3.1 Principles for the computational approach

5.3.1.1 Calculation methods
The evaluation of the seismic behavior of the equipment or structure can be done by
calculations generally using a finite element model. These calculations can be more or less
sophisticated depending on the level of dimensioning and the margins necessary to
justify the equipment or structure.

The types of calculations that can be performed are (in order of increasing complexity):
(1) Equivalent static calculation;
(2) Linear static calculation with soil-structure interaction ;
(3) Linear dynamic calculation (modal-spectral) ;
(4) Linear dynamic calculation with behavior coefficients q ;
(5) Linear transient calculation;
(6) Linear transient computation with soil-structure interaction;
(7) Non-linear static computation (push over) ;
(8) Non-linear static calculation with non-linear soil-structure interaction ;
(9) Non-linear transient computation.

Some of these methods are described in the appendix of this document.

5.3.1.2 Modeling of the structure
The seismic response of structures should be evaluated on the basis of a dynamic
analysis performed using appropriate structural models, taking into account, if necessary, soil-
structure interaction and structure-equipment interaction effects.
 The model must adequately represent the mass and stiffness distribution of the
equipment and its supporting structure. In order to develop an appropriate model,
special attention must be paid to the following points:

- Structure-equipment interaction: if the mass of a piece of equipment is significant

compared to the mass of the supporting structure studied, the risk of coupling
between the supporting structure and the equipment must be taken into account.
If there is no structure-equipment interaction, only the mass of the equipment
concentrated in its center of gravity can be represented. The "Supporting
Structures" guide details the methodology to be applied to take into account the
equipment-structure interaction and specifies the criteria to be considered to
evaluate the coupling risks;

- Structural configuration and construction details (joints, hoppers, anchors and

supports);

- Appropriate representation of the size and geometric layout of foundations, especially

for foundations common to several structures whose response is then coupled
(concrete invert, stringers,...);

- Taking into account the differences in modeling for static and dynamic load cases
(foundation stiffness (impedance), hydrodynamic effects,...);

- Non-structural elements, such as masonry infills or prefabricated elements, that

may modify the response of the structure. The stiffness and strength of these
elements, and those of their connections to the structure, must be examined and
possibly taken into account in the formulation of the models;

- Material properties and dimensions of as-built structural members;

- Geotechnical characteristics of the foundation soil and possible consideration of

soil-structure interaction (SSI) ;

Based on this model, the seismic calculation should allow:

- determine the seismic response of the structure and the internal forces in the
structural elements and equipment;

- and/or calculate floor spectra and seismic displacements for the evaluation of the
seismic capacity of components and systems. If the equipment is represented in a
simplified manner in the dynamic model of the structure and the stresses in the
equipment are determined with a more detailed model, the spectral accelerations
from the first dynamic calculation can be applied statically to the detailed model of
the equipment.
5.3.1.3 Consideration of uncertainties
The variability of the mechanical characteristics of soils and structural elements or even
of the equipment must be taken into account in the analysis by means of parametric studies.
In cases where these characteristics have been obtained from tests, the range of
variation of the parameters will take into account the measurements. The number of
configurations to be analyzed should be reasonably limited; as described in the
following paragraphs.
 To take into account the variability of the structure, the floor spectra corresponding to
the average value of the soil characteristics (Gmoy) may be expanded by +/-15%.

If the soil properties have a significant influence on the seismic response of the
structure, the uncertainties of these parameters should be taken into account by
considering at least the following 3 cases, defined by their dynamic shear modulus value
G from the estimated or measured mean value Gmoy:

- Minimum value: Gmin = 2/3 Gmoy

- Characteristic value: Gmoy
- Maximum value: Gmax = 3/2 Gmoy

The proposed ranges cover the modeling uncertainties provided that the calculation
methods implemented follow the recommendations of the guide.
5.3.1.4 Amortization
In the absence of specific data, the following critical damping values should be used in
evaluating the seismic behavior of structures or equipment:
CRITICAL AMORTIZATION ξ
ELEMENT
Structures
Reinforced concrete structures 7%
Pre-stressed concrete structures 5%
Riveted or welded metal structures 2%
Bolted metal structures 4%
Reinforced or confined masonry wall 7%
Unarmed masonry wall 5%
Metal structures with prefabricated elements 7%
Systems and equipment 5%
Except for :
Tank balancing modes 0.5%
Cable racks 10%
Ventilation ducts 7%
Vertical pumps 3%
Instrument racks 3%

The above damping value refers to the material damping of the structure. This
depreciation is lower than the radiative depreciation related to the soil-structure
interaction which can reach values of the order of 20 to 30%. It is advisable to be
careful about the accumulation of material and radiative depreciation.

Eurocode 8 recommends one of the following two options:

- Or we perform a linear elastic calculation taking full advantage of the radiative
damping of the soil but limiting the behavior coefficient to 1.5 ;
- Either we perform an anelastic calculation with a behavior coefficient q>1.5 but we
limit the total damping to 5%.

In the case of non-linear time calculations, the critical damping values given in the table
above should not be used for elements in which material non-linearities are taken into
account. If damping is necessary for the convergence of the calculation, it should be
limited to 1 or 2%.
5.3.1.5 Soil-structure interaction
Simple (skewer type) representative models can be used to estimate the influence of
soil-structure interaction (SSI).

In the general case where the soil properties do not have a considerable influence on the
seismic response of the structure, the calculation including SSI effects can be
performed using a characteristic value of the soil properties. The characteristic value of
a geotechnical parameter should be a conservative estimate of the value that
influences the occurrence of the limit state (see EN 1997-1).

If the effects of SSI are significant, i.e. the main mode of deformation of the system
comes from SSI, the forces in the structure should be calculated without taking into account
non-linearities or increased damping in the structure, since the displacements will be
mainly dictated by the SSI mode. It is recalled that in this case it is recommended to
take into account the uncertainties of the soil properties by a parameterized study (see
5.3.1.3).

It is assumed that the overall effects of ISS can be neglected if the shear wave velocity
in the foundation soil vs. is greater than 1000 m/s, which corresponds to a steep soil of
soil class A defined in 4.1.2.

5.3.2 Justification by feedback

5.3.2.1 Framework for the use of feedback
The seismic performance of equipment can be evaluated by using the experience
gained from the seismic response of comparable equipment that has undergone
seismic movement or has been the subject of a seismic study, called reference equipment.

Justification of equipment by feedback requires that the following conditions be met:

 The actual seismic excitation experienced by the reference equipment or used for the
seismic study shall be enveloped by the regulatory seismic action for the equipment
under study;

 The studied equipment and the reference equipment must have similar physical
characteristics: geometry, material, mass, qualification level... ;

 If the support and anchoring systems are different, a verification of these

elements will have to be carried out by complementary studies;
 In the case of active equipment, it is usually also necessary to show that the reference
equipment retained its functionality during or after this earthquake, as required by the
behavioral requirements for the equipment being diagnosed.
5.3.2.2 American SQUG database
In the United States, the Seismic Qualifications Utility Group (SQUG) has jointly developed
with the NRC a seismic evaluation procedure based on feedback from past
earthquakes and tests (i.e. the Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP)). The GIP uses
empirical seismic methods to verify the seismic performance of safety-critical equipment in
operating nuclear power plants.
 This procedure is primarily based on the performance of in-place mechanical and electrical
equipment that has been subjected to actual strong seismic motions as well as the behavior of
equipment components during seismic action simulation tests.
5.3.2.3 Databases in France
To date, there is no database in France such as the SQUG database.

The construction of such a database is a very consequent work which will take years
but which must be initiated.

For this purpose, two types of databases can be developed:

- A database established from post-seismic REX;
- A database of seismic surveys by pooling seismic surveys of equipment by
operators.

However, it is now possible to use existing public data on SQUG-type approaches. In

particular, visit sheets can be drawn up for certain families of equipment, indicating the
points to be checked during on-site visits and allowing certain equipment to be cleared,
either directly during the visit or after additional post-visit checks.

5.3.3 Tests
It is possible to qualify an equipment by tests showing that it satisfies, under the
conditions of its use, the requirements associated with vibrations simulating a seismic
motion at least equal to that corresponding to the transferred regulatory spectrum.

The accelerograms to be used for these tests shall be selected according to the
requirements described in Chapter 4. In the absence of adequate seismic testing facilities,
sine scan or white noise tests may be performed.

In the case of equipment resting on a supporting structure, the transferred spectrum

and not the ground spectrum should of course be considered as the reference seismic
action. In this case, the signals must take into account the uncertainties of the
characteristics of the supporting structure.

The anchorages and the strength of the support structure will have to be the subject of
particular verifications.
6. Design of new works or equipment
This chapter presents the general principles guiding the operator for the design of a
new "special risk" facility or equipment (as well as the associated BPAPs and OAPs) taking
into account seismic stresses in the framework of the October 4, 2010 Order - Section II.

6.1 Facility design strategy

6.1.1 General principles guiding the installation of equipment
6.1.1.1 Seismic behavior of equipment
The seismic forces and displacements induced in an aerial structure by a seismic loading
depend on the principal frequency and the damping of the system formed by the structure
and the ground. The design forces are represented by soil spectra giving the
acceleration as a function of the period (see Chapter 4). Given the shape of the
spectra, the more flexible a structure is, the lower the forces but the higher the
displacements.

The seismic action experienced by a piece of equipment is highly dependent on the

structure that supports it. Seismic ground motion is typically amplified by the supporting
structure, with the degree of amplification generally increasing with height. The
acceleration experienced by a piece of equipment is generally calculated from transferred
spectra, reflecting the modification of the seismic ground motion, represented by the
regulatory ground spectra, by the supporting structure. The specific guide "Supporting
Structures" specifies the methodology for establishing the transferred spectra. These
spectra make it possible to establish the forces and displacements undergone by the
equipment and the structure when they are subjected to a seismic stress.

Seismic motion can induce significant differential displacements that must be considered
for design. These differential displacements can occur:
- between several points of a multi-support equipment (pipes for example);
- between two dynamically independent but mechanically connected neighbouring units
(e.g. chimney oven connected to a chimney by a pipe).
6.1.1.2 General recommendations
Considering the seismic behavior of the equipment, the following general recommendations
can be taken into account by the operator when designing his installation in order to
minimize the risks related to seismic solicitations:

 Prefer a location at ground level, especially for heavy equipment;

 In general, give preference to lightweight structures;
 Provide distances or joints between equipment to avoid interactions.

6.1.2 Distinction between "special risk" and "normal risk

When designing his installation, the operator should refer to chapter 3 of this guide for
the identification of equipment or structures falling within the scope of the Order of October
4, 2010 - Section II, known as "special risk".
 All the equipment that does not fall into this category is regulated by the "normal risk"
equipment decree, which was published at the time this guide was written. This chapter
deals only with "special risk".

6.1.3 Treatment of "special risk" equipment

For equipment identified as "special risk," there are several strategies for meeting the
requirements of the order:

 Carry out a seismic design ensuring compliance with the requirements of the HRA
and any associated PAOs in relation to the regulatory seismic loading;

 Implement a protection strategy (independent of the level of seismic risk) limiting

the effects induced by the equipment in order to meet the requirements of the decree
without going through a seismic design:
- Modification of the equipment layout to an area that reduces lethal impacts
off-site;
- Acquisition of the land control of the lands concerned by the lethal impacts
induced by the equipment in case of earthquake;
- Safety of the installation on seismic stress by instrumentation or human
operation (BPAP);
- Implementation of relevant physical barriers (BPAP).

The following flow chart illustrates the process:

6.2 Principles of seismic design
When designing new equipment or structures falling within the scope of the Order of
October 4, 2010 - Section II, the industrialist must apply the principles of good
earthquake-resistant design and the rules specified in the standards NF EN 1998
(Eurocode 8 - Design of structures for their resistance to earthquakes) or other
applicable standard.

This paragraph is not intended to rewrite the seismic standards. It provides the reference of
standards, guides and other documents to which the user can refer to obtain the details
of the design rules and constructive provisions. It also outlines the principles of good
seismic design, then their application for different types of structures and equipment are
presented in the following paragraph.

6.2.1 Reference documents

6.2.1.1 Standards
We remind the parts of the NF EN 1998 standard related to the seismic design of new
structures and equipment:

 NF EN 1998-1 : Part 1 : General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings
 NF EN 1998-1/NA : National Annex of the NF EN 1998-1 standard
 NF EN 1998-1/A1 - Eurocode 8 - Design of structures for earthquake resistance -
Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings - Amendment A1-
03 May 2013

 NF EN 1998-2 : Part 2 : Bridges

 NF EN 1998-2/NA : National Annex of the NF EN 1998-2 standard

 NF EN 1998-4 : Part 4 : Silos, tanks and pipes

 NF EN 1998-4/NA : National Annex of the NF EN 1998-4 standard

 NF EN 1998-5 : Part 5 : Foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical

aspects
 NF EN 1998-5/NA : National Annex of the NF EN 1998-5 standard

 NF EN 1998-6 : Part 6 : Towers, masts and chimneys

 NF EN 1998-6/NA : National Annex of the NF EN 1998-6 standard

 BNCM/CNC2M-N0035 : Recommendations for the seismic design of non- or low-

dissipative steel and composite structures - 31/01/2013

The latter document is not strictly speaking a standard but is explicitly mentioned asa
reference document in NF EN 1998-1/NA of December 2013.
6.2.1.2 Guides and information documents
 "Guide for the seismic design of steel and concrete buildings according to
Eurocode 8" - The Institution of Structural Engineers (ISE) - Association
Française du génie Parasismique (AFPS) - October 2010

 "Designers' Guide to EN 1998-1 and EN1998-5" - M. Fardis, E. Carvalho, A. Elnashai,

E. Faccioli, P.Pinto, A. Plumier - Thomas Telford, 2005
  « Designers' Guide to Eurocode 8: Design od Bridges for Earthquake Resistance
- EN 1998-2 " - B. Kolias, M. Fardis, A. Pecker - Thomas Telford, 2012

 "Guide des dispositions constructives parasismiques des ouvrages en acier,

béton, bois et maçonnerie conforme aux Eurocodes" - Association Française du
génie Parasismique (AFPS) - Presse de l'Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées,
Edition 2011

 "Bridges in seismic zones - Design and sizing according to Eurocode 8" - Service d'
Etudes sur les transports, les routes et leurs aménagements (SETRA), Draft version,
February 2012

 "Seismic Devices for Bridges" - Draft Technical Guide - AFPS/SETRA, August

2011

 "Seismic design of non-structural elements of the built environment" - MEDDE,

July 2013

The given guides that fall under the normal risk must be applied with the special risk
hazard of the October 4, 2010 Order - Section II.

6.2.2 General principles

The seismic design rules are based on the following principles, which allow the design
forces to be limited and adequately transmitted to the ground while taking into account
differential displacements:

- Site selection: Wherever possible, select a site to minimize the potential risks of
failure, slope instability, liquefaction, and high susceptibility to densification
(settlement) in the event of an earthquake. The standard NF EN 1998-5 provides
requirements for the choice of the site;

- Regularity: Give the structures, as far as possible, regular shapes in plan and
elevation. If necessary, this can be achieved by dividing the structure, through joints,
into dynamically independent units. However, the presence of joints implies
differential displacements between the units;

- Flexibility: Prefer a "flexible" structure with a long period, so as to be beyond the

plateau of the spectrum. Greater flexibility reduces stresses but is accompanied
by greater differential displacements. In some cases, flexibility can be
implemented through the use of seismic isolation devices that concentrate seismic
displacements. Typically, these devices also have a beneficial damping effect on
the system

- Ductility: To confer a ductile behavior to the structure, which allows the structure
to deform in an inelastic way without significant loss of resistance, and thus to
dissipate considerably the seismic energy. This type of design requires the
implementation of particular constructive measures, in particular at the level of the
junctions and assemblies, and then allows the reduction of the dimensioning
forces by the use of a behavior coefficient;
 - Anchoring: Pay particular attention to the sizing of anchorages for equipment of
significant mass. In the case of equipment resting on a support structure, it is
advisable to take into account the amplification of the seismic movement by using
a transferred spectrum for example. The methods for sizing anchors are detailed in
the specific guide "Supporting structures";

- Appropriate choice of the foundation system: Prefer a homogeneous foundation

system for the same structure, in order to transmit to the ground the actions due
to the superstructure as uniformly as possible and to limit the effects of differential
displacements due to the spatial variability of the seismic movement by adding
stringers. This principle is not valid for bridges and for dynamically independent units;

- Effect of soil-structure interaction: Use the beneficial effect of soil-structure

interaction which generally reduces the frequency of the system and increases its
damping by taking into account the radiative damping of the soil.

6.2.3 Ductile design method

6.2.3.1 Dissipative zones and constructive provisions
The implementation of ductile behavior must be done by proper design of selected
areas or elements for this purpose.

Since the seismic resistance of a structure depends largely on the behavior of its
dissipative zones or elements, the constructional arrangements of the structure as a
whole and of these zones or elements in particular must be such that the capacity to
transmit forces and dissipate energy under seismic loading conditions is maintained.
To this end, the design of connections between structural elements, as well as areas
where nonlinear behavior is expected, should receive special attention in the design
and sizing.

As a reminder, the material and constructional requirements for these ductile and
dissipative areas or elements address:
 For concrete structures:
- The strength class of the concrete,
- The grade and ductility class of the steel for reinforced concrete,
- The percentage, spacing, overlap and anchorage of the longitudinal
reinforcement, and the percentage, diameter, spacing and shape of the
transverse reinforcement holding it,

 For metal structures:

- The class of the cross section for compressed or flexed dissipative elements,
- The yield strength, maximum effective yield strength, ultimate tensile
strength and toughness of structural steel,
- The toughness of the filler metal for the welds,
 - The use of pretensioned bolts with controlled tightening is mandatory in
bolted connections in dissipative zones of class 8.8 or 10.9 in category B for
ductility class DCM and in category C for ductility class DCH according to
the Guide des dispositions constructives parasismiques des ouvrages en acier,
béton, bois et maçonnerie conforme aux Eurocodes.

 For masonry :
- The dimensions, positions, connections and anchorages of the chains,
- Longitudinal reinforcement sections of the chains,
- The class of concrete for chain-linked masonry,
- Position and section of reinforcement for reinforced masonry.

The "AFPS Guide to seismic design provisions for steel, concrete, timber and masonry
structures conforming to the Eurocodes" presents the design provisions for a design in
accordance with the NF EN-1998 standards.
6.2.3.2 Location of dissipative zones
It is recommended that the dissipative zones chosen by the designer be easily
accessible, inspectable and possibly repairable after an earthquake. In a building, for
example, access to these zones should not be obstructed by non-removable elements.
6.2.3.3 Ductility classes
The NF EN 1998 standard divides structures into three ductility classes according to
the constructional provisions implemented:
- limited (DCL): low dissipative structure;
- medium (DCM): medium dissipative structure;
- high (DCH): highly dissipative structure.

The three levels of ductility allow, within their range of applicability, to ensure that the
structure resists the same regulatory design earthquake.

For each type of structure, the ductility classes are associated with behavior coefficient
values allowing to reduce the elastic design forces by taking into account the non-linear
behavior of the structure (see 6.2.3.5).

The design of a class DCL structure does not require any particular constructive provisions,
except from zone 3 onwards (see table below). The calculations can be done by a
usual dimensioning method, by reducing the elastic seismic forces by the force
reduction coefficient q=1,5 for concrete structures (Article 5.3.3 of NF EN 1998-1) and
q=1,5 or 2,00 on appropriate justifications for metallic structures (Article 6.1.2 and
Table 6.1 of NF EN 1998-1 and chapter 4 of the document CNC2M-N0035) which is not
a classical behavior coefficient but takes into account the over-resistances of the materials.
Within the framework of the "special risk" decree, the DCL class mainly concerns
support structures and anchors. The field of applicability of the DCL class is defined :
- For concrete structures: in clause 5.3.1 (1) of NF EN 1998-1 ;
- For steel structures: in document BNCM/CNC2M-N0035.
It is summarized below:

Scope of the DCL class for the application of the order of October 4, 2010
q = 1,5
Concrete structures Metal structures
Zone 1 Applicable Applicable
Zone 2 Applicable Applicable
Conditionally applicable Conditionally applicable
Zone 3
[cf. clause 5.3.1 (1) of NF EN 1998-1]. (see clause 3 (2) of CNC2M-
N0035)
Conditionally applicable
Zone 4 Not applicable
(see clause 3 (2) of CNC2M-
N0035)
Conditionally applicable
Zone 5 Not applicable
(see clause 3 (2) of CNC2M-
N0035)

As a reminder, for steel structures in ductility class DCL, it is possible to retain a

behavior coefficient q=1.0 by adopting an elastic response spectrum defined in 4.2.1.1
for the horizontal direction and in 4.2.1.2 for the vertical direction. These spectra are
defined for the values of the damping coefficient defined in Table 3 of Chapter 5 of
BNCM/CN2CM-N0035.

For the applicability of the ductility classes in relation to equipment, reference should be
made to the specific guides.

For the design of a Class DCM or DCH structure, the implementation of the appropriate
ductility level requires compliance with the special provisions for the structural
elements. The design of a Class DCM and DCH structure must be carried out by
capacity design (see 6.2.3.4). The values of the behaviour coefficient q applicable in
these cases are generally higher than 1.5. They depend on the ductility class and the type
of structure.

The following table summarizes the general requirements and assumptions for ductility
classes:

Seismic Maximum value of

Ductility
Sizing method constructional behavior
class
provisions coefficient
DCL Global elastic analysis Non-mandatory q=1.5 / 2*
DCM Capacity sizing Mandatory q>1.5
DCH Capacity sizing Mandatory q>1.5
*q=2 only for steel structures in seismicity zones 1 to 4 subject to appropriate
justifications
(see clause 6.1.2 (1) of NF EN 1998-1 and document n°CNC2M-N0035)

"For the record, the design of bridges follows a slightly different logic: a distinction is
made between ductile and limited ductility designs; each of these designs is subject to
specific constructional provisions of varying severity, and each can be used regardless of
the seismic zone or the type of material. »
6.2.3.4 Capacity sizing method
The capacity design method consists in ensuring an overall dissipative and ductile behavior,
by prioritizing the resistances of the different structural components and the failure modes.
This ensures an adequate plastic mechanism and avoids brittle failure modes or
premature formation of unstable mechanisms.

This type of design is required for the design of medium ductility class (MDC) or high
ductility class (HDC) structures.

Examples of capacity sizing:

 For a building or support structure braced by a column and beam system,
plasticization at the column-beam junction must appear first in the beams, and
the formation of a mechanism that can lead to collapse must be prevented.

 For a building or a steel frame support structure braced by a triangulated system,

the lamination of the triangulations must appear before the lamination of the other
elements and assemblies of the triangulated system.

 For flexible equipment where the inelastic deformation is concentrated in the anchor
bolts, it is necessary to design the bolts with a free portion that can elongate
plastically and to design the anchor in the civil engineering and the bolt and
equipment connections with over-capacity and a design of the supporting elements
such as, for example, the addition of chairs, that will allow bolt elongation without
brittle failure of the anchor or equipment. Examples of details for pressure vessels
are given in Process Equipment Design, Brownell and Young, J Wiley and Sons
editors, 1966. Details on the design of ductile anchors can be found in Powell, S.J.
and Bryant, A.H. Ductile anchor bolts for tall chimneys, Journal of Structural Division,
ASCE, Vol 109, No 9, 1983.

A comparable situation occurs for flexible equipment where the inelastic

deformation is concentrated in the supporting structure such as, for example, a
spherical tank on braced posts. The connections of the braces to the columns and
the connections of the columns to the sphere must be sized with overcapacity.
 The overcapacity values and the design of the supporting elements are
mentioned in NF EN 1993 or NF EN 1998-1, paragraph 6 or NF EN 1998-4
paragraph 3.5.2.3.

It is reminded that for a rigid equipment, it is not possible to reasonably mobilize

the ductility; it is necessary in this case to impose an overcapacity to the anchorages
and connections and not to consider any behavior coefficient.
6.2.3.5 Behavior coefficient
In the case of a ductile design, it is permissible to reduce the design seismic forces by
dividing them by a behavior coefficient q≥1.5, which depends on the ductility class,
representing the structure's ability to admit plastic deformations. This coefficient takes
into account over-resistances on the materials (classes DCL/DCM/DCH) and the energy
dissipation capacity of the structure (classes DCM/DCH).

The maximum values of the behaviour coefficient q, including the influence of viscous
damping different from 5 %, are given for various materials and structural systems,
according to various levels of ductility, in the relevant parts of EN 1998 and in the specific
application guides.

The values of the behavior coefficient q can be different in the two horizontal directions,
although the ductility class must be the same in all directions.

The behavior coefficient also depends on the requirement imposed on the structure.

6.2.4 Foundation systems

The principles and rules of seismic design of foundation systems are detailed in the
standard NF EN 1998-5. The following paragraphs give an overview.
6.2.4.1 Choice of foundation system
It is important to choose the right foundation system according to the type of soil and
the structure in question:
- Surface or buried foundations: footings, invert or caissons;
- Deep foundations: piles and shafts.

The foundation system chosen must be sized taking into account seismic actions. It is
important to ensure that the foundation system is homogeneous in terms of stiffness so
as not to generate significant differential displacements. Therefore, care must be taken
when mixed type foundations are used (e.g. the use of piles with shallow foundations).

When selecting and sizing the type of foundation, the following points should be
considered:

- The foundation must be sufficiently rigid to transmit the localized actions received
from the superstructure to the soil in a uniform manner, without substantial
permanent deformations;
 - The effects of horizontal differential displacements between two foundations of the
same building must be taken into account when the connections provided for in
the clause
5.4.1.2 (2) of standard NF EN 1998-5 are not considered. In the case of buildings, the
requirement of connection between supports is considered satisfied if the
foundations are arranged in the same horizontal plane and if adequate stringers or
paving are provided at the head of the footings or piles. However, these measures
are not necessary for class A soils, and for class B soils in case of low seismicity.
6.2.4.2 Design rules
The properties of site-improved or even substituted soils should be considered if the
improvement or substitution of the original soil is necessitated by its susceptibility to
liquefaction or its susceptibility to densification.

The seismic design of the foundation system consists of checking:

- the structural strength of the foundation;
- non-slip ;
- tipping stability;
- the bearing capacity of the soil.

For the dimensioning of pile and shaft foundations, it is necessary to take into account,
in addition to the inertial forces coming from the superstructure, the forces of kinematic
origin resulting from the deformation of the surrounding ground when the seismic waves
pass under certain conditions (cf. paragraph 5.4.2 of standard NF EN 1998-5).

6.2.5 Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI)

6.2.5.1 Influence of the ISS on the seismic behavior
As a result of the dynamic soil-structure interaction, the seismic response of a structure
on flexible supports, i.e. a structure founded on deformable ground, differs in several
aspects from that of the same structure founded on rigid ground (fixed base), subjected
to an identical free-field loading, for the following reasons:
- the movement of the foundation of the flexibly supported structure is different
from the free field movement and may include a significant rotational component
of the fixed base structure about a horizontal axis;
- the fundamental period of vibration of the structure on flexible support is longer
than that of the structure with a fixed base;
- the natural periods, eigenmodes and modal participation factors of the flexible
support structure are different from those of the fixed base structure;
- the global damping of the structure on flexible support includes on the one hand
the radiative damping, on the other hand the internal damping generated at the soil-
foundation interface, in addition to the damping associated with the superstructure.
6.2.5.2 Consideration of ISS in the design
For the majority of common building structures, the effects of soil-structure interaction
tend to be beneficial, since they reduce bending moments and shear forces in the
various elements of the superstructure, but there are some cases where these effects can be
detrimental.
 In general, the deformability of the foundation soil should be considered in the model in
the following cases:
A) whenever it may have an overall adverse influence on the response of the
structure;
B) if it has a beneficial influence that one wishes to exploit to reduce the design
effort.

The NF EN 1998-5 standard requires that the effects of dynamic soil-structure

interaction be taken into account in the following cases:
- structures for which P-δ (2nd order) effects play a significant role;
- structures with massive or deep foundations such as bridge piers, offshore caissons
and silos;
- tall and slender structures, such as towers and chimneys, dealt with in EN 1998-
6:2004 ;
- structures supported by very soft soils, such as class S1 soils, with an average shear
wave propagation speed vs,max less than 100 m/s.
6.2.5.3 Modeling the ISS
Soil-structure interaction modeling methods must consider:
- the degree of embedding in the ground;
- the depth of a possible bedrock;
- soil stratification;
- the variability of soil moduli in each layer;
- the dependence of soil properties on deformation (shear modulus and
damping).

The hypothesis of horizontal stratification can be considered applicable in the absence of a

marked dip of the various strata.
6.2.5.4 Cumulative ISS and behavioral coefficient
One must be careful about the cumulation of the effects of the radiative damping taken
into account by the soil-structure interaction and of the material damping modeled by
the behavior coefficient q.

Thus, when a soil-structure interaction analysis is performed, one of the following methods
will be used:
Spectrum Behavior coefficient
Method 1: >5% depending on the radiative damping q≤1.5
Method 2: 5% q>1.5
6.2.5.5 Geotechnical data required
The soil data required for the seismic study with consideration of the soil-structure
interaction are the dynamic properties of the soil layers down to the bedrock:
- Shear wave velocity vs;
- or dynamic shear modulus Gdyn.
 Since the damping and shear modulus of each soil layer are deformation dependent,
their values should be consistent with the level of shear deformation expected to occur
during the seismic action under consideration.

Generally, the geotechnical studies carried out to establish the soil class at the site of
the structure (see Chapter 4) are sufficient to determine the dynamic characteristics of
the soil layers for the soil-structure interaction.

The table in Annex A of the standard NF EN 1997-2 can be referred to for a list of test
results of the geotechnical testing standards as well as to paragraph 7.2.4 of this guide.

6.2.6 Use of seismic isolation devices

The rules of dimensioning with seismic insulation system are the subject of a specific
paragraph of the standard NF EN 1998-1 for buildings and the standard NF EN 1998-2 for
bridges.
6.2.6.1 Role and application of devices
The use of seismic isolation devices under the main mass of a system reduces seismic
forces in the bracing structure through the following effects, either combined or not:
- Increase of the fundamental period of the seismically isolated structure, by
changing the shape of the fundamental mode. The isolation system then acts as
a filter that concentrates the seismic deformations;
- Increase in depreciation.

The isolation system can consist of springs and/or linear or non-linear dampers.

These devices are generally quite costly and heavy to install. They are therefore preferentially
used for structures or equipment located in moderate to strong seismic zones.

These devices can also be considered to maintain standardized designs of facilities or

components.
6.2.6.2 General design rules
The design of a seismically-isolated system must allow the superstructure to remain
elastic during seismic loading, with most of the deformation being absorbed by the
isolator.

Under certain conditions, EN 1998-1 allows the use of the simplified linear analysis
method, assuming that the superstructure is a rigid translational solid above the
insulation system.

Unless otherwise specified, the value of the behaviour coefficient should therefore be taken
as q = 1 for the superstructure elements, since no energy dissipation takes place there.
In buildings, it is possible to use a behaviour coefficient of 1.5 without justification; this value
of 1.5 is not associated with energy dissipation but reflects the mobilizable over-
resistances in the structure.
 Depending on the type of device considered, the ultimate limit state resistance of the
insulation units should be evaluated in terms of:
- forces, taking into account the maximum possible vertical and horizontal forces in the
design seismic situation, including overturning effects;
- total horizontal relative displacement and total relative rotation between the
bottom and top faces of the unit. Total horizontal displacement and total relative
rotation should include displacement and rotation due to design seismic action
and the effects of shrinkage, creep, temperature and post-tensioning (if the
superstructure is prestressed).

For seismicity zone 5, if the structure is located at a distance of less than 15 km from
the nearest potentially active fault, with a magnitude Ms ≥ 6.5, the low frequencies of the
spectrum should be corrected to account for source-related directivity effects as required
by NF EN 1998-1 (clause 10.6 (3)). Attention is drawn to the fact that under the current
state of the regulations, the Administration would not accept the resulting spectrum to
be lower than the spectra defined in Chapter 4 of this guide.

6.3 Application to specific structures and equipment

The examples presented hereafter concern HRAs (tanks, piping, ...) or parts of HRAs
(metallic or reinforced concrete structures, ...) or OPAs (chimneys, ...).

6.3.1 Equipment
Seismic design principles and rules for the following equipment and structures are covered
in the associated specific guides:
- "Atmospheric storage tanks
- "Pipes and fittings
- "Process equipment
- "Supporting Structures".

6.3.2 Steel structures

The seismic design rules for steel structures are given in section 6 of the standard NF EN
1998-1.
6.3.2.1 Ductility and behaviour coefficient
In zones of moderate (zone 3) to high (zone 5) seismicity, Eurocode 8 recommends that
steel structures be designed for dissipative structural behavior, implemented by a medium
(DCM) or high (DCH) ductile design.

In this context, it is then tolerated to reduce the design seismic forces by applying a
behavior coefficient q. The upper limit of the q value depends on the ductility class and
the type of structure. For portal frames, in which the resistance to horizontal forces is
provided mainly by bending, it is possible to use a behaviour coefficient q up to 4 for a
DCM class and 6.5 for a DCH class.

For the scope of applicability of the DCL to steel structures, reference may be made to
document No. CNC2M-N0035 of 31/03/2013, issued by the BNCM: "Recommendations for
the seismic design of non- or low-dissipative steel and composite structures".
 Depending on the ductility class, special requirements for one or more of the following
aspects must be met:
- The class of the cross-section of the profiles
- The yield strength, maximum effective yield strength, ultimate tensile
strength and toughness of the steel,
- The toughness of the weld filler metal,
- The quality class of high strength bolts.
6.3.2.2 Position of dissipative zones
Eurocode 8 allows the formation of dissipative zones in the running parts of members
or in connections. However, following the significant damage to steel portal frame
connections observed during the Northridge earthquake, the requirements for the execution
of connections in the vicinity of dissipative zones have been revised upwards. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established design provisions for
this purpose.

For a building or support structure braced by a column and beam system, plasticization
at the column-beam junction must appear first in the beams, and the formation of a
mechanism that could lead to collapse must be prevented.
For a building or support structure braced by a triangulated system, the lamination of
the triangulations must appear before the lamination of the other elements and
assemblies of the triangulated system.

When dissipative zones are located in structural members, non-dissipative parts and
connections shall have sufficient over-strength to ensure that cyclic plasticity occurs
and is maintained in dissipative zones.

6.3.3 Towers, masts and chimneys

The principles and rules of seismic design of towers, masts and chimneys are detailed in
the standard NF EN 1998-6. The following paragraphs give the main lines.
6.3.3.1 Consideration of the rotational component of the seismic action
In addition to the translational components of seismic motion, the rotational component
of ground motion should be considered for high-rise structures in areas of high
seismicity. Annex A of EN 1998-6 gives a possible method for defining the rotational
components of ground motion and provides recommendations for taking them into account
in the analysis.

When the rotational components of the ground motion are taken into account, they should
be considered to act simultaneously with the translational components.
6.3.3.2 Movements of long periods
Towers, masts and chimneys are often sensitive to the long-period content of ground
motion. Soft soils or soils with certain topographical features can lead to unusually high
amplifications of the ground motion components associated with these long periods.
This amplification must be accounted for appropriately.
6.3.3.3 Modeling
The structure's design should take into account:
- the stiffness of the foundation against rotation and translation (ISS);
- the stiffness of the cables and stays;
- relative displacements between equipment or machinery supports (e.g. interaction
between an insulating layer and the outer pipe of a chimney);
- interactions due to piping, connections to the external environment,
hydrodynamic actions.
6.3.3.4 Ductility and behaviour coefficient
The value of the behavior coefficient used in the design should be related to the
ductility and energy dissipation capacity of the structure.

For structures in seismicity zone 1 or 2, a dimensioning of the structure for a non-

dissipative behavior in the situation of seismic design can satisfy the basic
requirements, not taking into account the hysteretic energy dissipation and neglecting the
rules of NF EN 1998-6. In this case, the behavior coefficient should not be greater than
1.5, a value that takes into account the over-resistances.

If the structure is designed for dissipative behavior by applying the special rules given in
EN 1998-6 for the different types of structures, a behavior coefficient higher than 1.5 can
be used. The values of the applicable behavior coefficient and associated criteria are
specified in specific paragraphs of NF EN 1998-6 for the following structures:
- reinforced concrete chimneys ;
- metal chimneys ;
- steel towers ;
- guyed masts.

Masonry chimneys and power line towers are addressed in informative appendices.

6.3.4 Buildings
The principles and rules of seismic design of buildings are detailed in the standard NF EN
1998-1 and its national annex. The following paragraphs give the main lines.
6.3.4.1 General principles
The principles that guide the design of buildings with respect to seismic hazard are:
- the simplicity of the structure;
- uniformity, symmetry and hyperstaticity;
- strength and stiffness in both directions;
- strength and stiffness against torsion;
- the action of the diaphragms on the floors;
- appropriate foundations.

These principles are explained in section 4.2.1 of the NF EN 1998-1 standard.

6.3.4.2 Influence of the regularity of the building
For seismic design purposes, building structures are classified into regular and irregular
structures.
 This distinction has implications for the following aspects of seismic design:
- the structure model can be a simplified plane model, or a spatial model;
- the analysis method can be either a simplified spectral analysis (lateral force
method) or a modal analysis;
- the value of the behaviour coefficient q, which must be reduced for irregular
buildings in elevation

The criteria of regularity in plan and elevation are the subject of paragraph 4.2.3 of the
standard NF EN 1998-1.
6.3.4.3 Design criteria
The non-collapse requirement in the design seismic situation is considered satisfied if the
following conditions are met:
resistance (NF EN 1998-1 § 4.4.2.2);
- local and global ductility (NF EN 1998-1 § 4.4.2.3) ;
- Equilibrium (NF EN 1998-1 § 4.4.2.4);
- the stability of the foundations (NF EN 1998-1 § 4.4.2.6) ;
- width of seismic joints (NF EN 1998-1 § 4.4.2.7).

The NF EN 1998-1 § 2.1 recommends for buildings the verification of a requirement of

damage limitation for a seismic hazard corresponding to a fraction of that associated
with the requirement of non-collapse. In the context of the application of the decree, this
requirement does not have to be verified; however, each element part of the building,
including non-structural elements (eg partitions), which could act as a PAO on the
equipment at special risk must be verified, with the criteria associated with PAOs, for
the seismic hazard level of the order.

Requirements related to the operation of the structure or installation may impose more
stringent design conditions for the structure and the elements it contains than those
described above.

6.3.5 Reinforced concrete structures

The seismic design rules for reinforced concrete structures are given in section 5 of the
standard NF EN 1998-1 and its national annex.
6.3.5.1 Type of structures
Concrete structures shall be classified into one of the following structural types based
on their behavior under horizontal seismic actions:
- frame system ;
- mixed bracing system (equivalent to a framed or wall system) ;
- wall system (coupled or not) ;
- system of large walls in lightly reinforced concrete;
- inverted pendulum system;
- core system.
6.3.5.2 Ductility and behaviour coefficient
The design and dimensioning with a limited ductility class (LDC) for concrete structures
are applicable only in cases of low seismicity (zone 1 and 2) and subject to the respect
of particular requirements concerning the bracing structure in zones of moderate
seismicity (zone 3) (cf. Article 5.3.1(1) of NF EN 1998-1).

In zones of moderate (zone 3) to high (zone 5) seismicity, Eurocode 8 recommends

that concrete structures be designed for dissipative structural behavior, implemented by
a medium (DCM) or high (DCH) ductile design.

The behaviour coefficients to be taken into account for a ductile design depend on the
type of structure and the ductility class. They are specified in table 5.1 of the standard NF
EN 1998-1. The maximum values vary between 1.5 and 3.9 for DCM structures and
between 2 and 5.8 for DCH structures.
6.3.5.3 Constructional provisions
The implementation of a ductile behavior requires the application of constructive
provisions allowing the development of plastic hinges in the critical zones. They are
therefore particularly constraining in the zones of potential plastic hinges.

For concrete structures, the role of seismic constructional provisions is multiple:

- For columns, maintain an integral confined concrete core to prevent collapse,
- For beams and columns:
- increase the strength and ductility of the confined concrete core by the confining
pressure exerted by the transverse reinforcement,
- Prevent buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement by the transverse reinforcement
holding it to keep the concrete core confined.

These seismic provisions specified in the standard NF EN 1998-1 lead to the

establishment of additional rules compared to the non-seismic provisions of the standard
NF EN 1992-1-1. For the record, the seismic provisions concern :
- The strength class of the concrete,
- The grade and ductility class of the steel for reinforced concrete,
- Percentage, spacing, overlap and anchorage of reinforcement
and the percentage, diameter, spacing and shape of the transverse reinforcements holding
them.

The "Guide des dispositions constructives parasismiques des ouvrages en acier, béton,
bois et mçonnerie conformes aux Eurocodes" of the AFPS presents these constructive
provisions.

6.3.6 Non-structural elements

6.3.6.1 Elements involved
Some non-structural elements must be checked for the seismic design situation or be
subject to constructive provisions to ensure their resistance as well as that of their
anchors.
 The non-structural elements concerned are those which, in the event of a rupture, can
cause injury to personnel or obstruction of the intervention routes (ineffective BPAP), or
damage to the FRC :
- building chimneys;
- curtain walls, partitions ;
- cabinets and shelves ;
- luminaires ;
- cable trays ;
- gas cylinders and fire extinguishers ;
- false ceiling ;
- etc...
6.3.6.2 Constructional provisions
Some of these elements can be made seismically resistant by simple constructional
measures:
- Slender metal cabinets (electrical cabinets, lockers,...): Fixing of the equipment to
the floor and to the wall by means of angle irons or plates anchored to the
support by plugs;
- Shelves: Fixing to the walls with dowels and installation of barriers to prevent the
fall of stored items;
- Luminaires: Bracing by inclined hangers serving as stays, fixed by pegs to the
ceiling;
- Cable trays, ventilation ducts and piping: Installation of a support structure with
brackets fixed with dowels to the ceiling or wall and ceiling;
- Gas cylinders and fire extinguishers: Vertical installation and flange by straps
fixed to the wall by pegs;
- Office objects: Installation of stops or fixing with straps;
- Carts: installation of a parking area with a blocking device.
- Door opening mechanisms: It is imperative that doors with automatic openings
that are to be used in an intervention are also equipped with a manual opening.

The guide of non-structural elements, published by the MEDDE (to be published) sets
the performance objectives to be met for the elements of the built environment.

6.3.6.3 Sizing rules

The design of non-structural elements whose stiffness and mass are likely to disturb
the behavior of the structure must be carried out by integrating them into the calculation
model. When there is no dynamic interaction (modification of the building response by
the presence of the element) between the structure and the non-structural element, the
calculation with transferred spectra or the simplified formula of paragraph 4.3.5.2 of NF EN
1998-1 is possible.

The application of a behavior coefficient q=2 is authorized for the dimensioning of certain
non-structural elements (see table 4.4 of NF EN 1998-1).
6.3.7 Bridges
A bridge located within or providing access to a site may be a BPO or part of a BPAP (for
emergency routing).

The principles and rules of seismic design of bridges are detailed in the standard NF EN
1998-2. The following paragraphs give the main lines.

The constructive provisions are specified in detail in section 9 of the standard NF EN

1998-2 as well as in the AFPS guide of constructive provisions.
6.3.7.1 General principles
The usual design of a bridge in a non-seismic zone consists in leaving the relative
movements of the deck and the piers free in the longitudinal direction, leaving only one
fixed support point in the vicinity of the central pier of the structure, in order to limit the
stresses in the deck.

This type of design is not suitable for a structure in a seismic zone. Indeed, when a
bridge is subjected to an earthquake, the seismic acceleration of the ground is
transmitted to the deck by the piers. The mass of the deck subjected to the acceleration
generates significant inertial forces. These seismic forces can only be transmitted at the
fixed supports. A single pier is generally not sufficient to take up the seismic forces of the
whole deck, so more fixed supports evenly distributed along the structure must be
used. Alternatively, systems can be used to tolerate displacements due to slow loads
such as thermal loads but block displacements for rapid movements. In general, bridges
with a continuous deck perform better under seismic conditions than bridges with many
expansion joints.

In moderate and high seismicity areas, structures should be designed to be ductile in an

earthquake or seismic isolation devices should be used to reduce the seismic forces
transmitted to piers.
6.3.7.2 Ductile design
Bridges with ductile behavior must be sized so that a stable plastic mechanism can
occur in the structure, through the formation of plastic flexural hinges. These hinges are
normally formed in the piers and act as the essential elements for energy dissipation. The
optimal post-elastic seismic behavior is obtained in the case where the plastic hinges
form almost simultaneously in as many piles as possible.

The maximum values of the behavior coefficient that can be used for the two horizontal
seismic components are given in Table 4.1 of EN 1998-2. They depend on the post-elastic
behavior of ductile elements, in which the main energy dissipation occurs.

Whenever possible, plastic spherical plain bearings should be located at points accessible
for inspection and repair.

The system should be designed to avoid plastic hinges in the bridge deck and
prestressed elements.
6.3.7.3 Bridges with seismic insulation
Insulation units are typically located under the deck and above the pier/truss head. They
are intended to reduce the response :
- by an increase in the fundamental period of the structure (effect of the shift in the
response spectrum), which reduces the forces but increases the displacements;
- by increasing damping, which reduces displacements and can reduce forces;
- (preferred solution) by a combination of these two effects.

Insulation units typically consist of:

- elastomeric support devices
- viscous fluid dampers;
- devices with frictional behavior.

In the case of piers equipped with support devices, the piers should be designed to
remain in the elastic domain (behavior coefficient q=1).

A design with flexible supports can lead to important relative displacements of the deck
on its supports and important distortions. The risks of the deck escaping from its
supports in the transverse and longitudinal directions must be controlled by the application
of special constructional provisions at the level of the headers and support systems.
7. Study of existing structures or equipment
The purpose of this chapter is to guide the user in the study of the demonstration of
conformity of an existing structure or equipment to the requirements of the decree of
October 4, 2010; the structures and equipment concerned by this chapter represent the
vast majority of the installations concerned by the decree.
First, the approach and the different strategies to adopt to treat an existing structure
are presented.
The different steps of the process are then detailed and guidelines are given regarding the
collection of input data, the diagnostic methods according to the available input data, the
tests or studies to be carried out to compensate for the lack of data, and finally, the
corrective measures to be implemented for the equipment or structures not meeting the
requirements.

7.1 Approach for the treatment of an existing structure or equipment

7.1.1 Approach and strategies
Before starting the actual seismic diagnostic process, the operator should orient his strategy
based on the elements in his possession at this particular moment of his approach.

In fact, there are 4 main areas of work to verify that an equipment meets the
requirements of the order of October 4, 2010:
 to justify the respect of the behavioral requirements of the equipment or structure
for the level of regulatory seism by a calculatory method or not;
 physically reinforce the facility or replace it (RHS or OAP);
 implement relevant barriers (BPAP) (physical barriers or instrumentation) or
reduce the risk at the source so that the equipment no longer generates
hazardous phenomena meeting the special risk criteria;
 ensure that the land concerned by the lethal impacts of the equipment in the event of
an earthquake is under control.
The barriers mentioned above are those which, by their existence, allow the lethal effects
in the event of an earthquake to be confined to the interior of the site, in other words to
"take" the equipment outside the perimeter of the study. These are the Prevention,
Mitigation and Protection Barriers (BPAP) as defined in § 3.1.2.a.

Of course, the operator will aim for the optimal strategy in terms of cost (investment
and maintenance) while ensuring, thanks to the collection of national guides of which
this guide is a part, the technical relevance of the envisaged solution.

It should be emphasized that most of the equipment of industrial sites has a good behavior
to earthquake even if they have not been specifically designed according to seismic
considerations. This observation is the reason why many equipments can be cleared
without specific calculations on the basis of experience feedback.

However, some families of equipment present damage in the event of an earthquake and
require additional checks or the implementation of special measures to comply with the
decree; this is the case, for example, for certain atmospheric tanks or electrical cabinets
and contactors and relays. Support structures, engineering structures or buildings
generally require significant reinforcement.
 7.1.2 Synthetic flow chart
The approach to be adopted for the diagnosis of each equipment is summarized in the following
flow chart:
List of HRAs/PLOs/PLOs

Step 0: Preliminary work

Collection of available input data (equipment, support structure and soil)
REX study available for each type of equipment
Preparation of the visit

Step 1: Site visit

Inspection of all HRAs/PAOs/PAPs on the site
Special attention to anchors, interactions and constructional arrangements
Classification of each equipment in one of the categories A, B or C

Category A Category B Category C

Seismic behaviour of The equipment has obvious shortcomings
Uncertainty on the seismic behavior of the equipment
equipment that can be easily evaluated

Step A2: Simplified Audit

REX
Step B2: Simplified calculations
Simplified tools Simple estimation of seismic forces and resistance capacity based on existing data
Seismic design notes Equipment not
Respect of the constructive provisions in accordance with the requirements

Step B3: In-depth analysis

Targeted visit
Acquisition of additional data (tests)
More or less sophisticated calculations or experimental qualification

Step C2:
Corrective measures
Equipment meeting the requirements Seismic treatment (reinforcements)
Protection by safety on seismic stress (BPAP of instrumentation t
Protection by physical BPAP (basin, ...)
Urban planning measure
Replacement
Moving
Compliance with the requirements
Non-compliance with requirements
or impossibility of carrying out the step due to lack of data
7.1.3 Description of the methodology
7.1.3.1 Step 0: Preliminary work
The methodology for diagnosing existing facilities and structures starts from the list in
the perimeter study that identified the HRAs and their PAOs and BPAPs. Preliminary work
must allow the operator to establish its strategy for dealing with each facility. This work
includes:

- The collection of available input data for each piece of equipment. These data
include soil data as well as data on the equipment and its supporting structure. The
information to be collected at this stage is detailed in paragraph 7.2 ;

- The identification, based on the definition of the scope of the study (cf. § 3.), of
the relevant existing barriers, the existing barriers that an upgrade would make
relevant, and even a list of new barriers that could be put in place.

- If it exists, the study of the feedback (REX) available for each type of
equipment. This may be post-seismic feedback, feedback from seismic studies of
similar equipment or feedback from equipment testing on a shaking table. The details
concerning the collection of feedback information are explained in paragraph 7.2;

- Preparation of the visit. Based on the input data and the feedback, the strategy
for the site visit, which is the crucial phase of the diagnosis, must be set up. This
step consists of listing the available data and missing information, identifying the
points to be looked at for each piece of equipment, and establishing for which
equipment it is necessary to spend the most time. This step is detailed in section
7.2.6.
7.1.3.2 Step 1: Site Visit
Paragraph 7.3 specifies the composition of the team to be put in place to carry out the
visit and details its procedure. The visit is based on the classification of equipment into
three categories as shown in the flow chart:

- Category A: equipment whose seismic behavior can be easily evaluated

This category includes equipment or structures for which it is possible to justify

compliance with the requirements without calculations, based on experience
feedback (REX), simple compliance with constructional provisions, diagnostic
tools, or seismic design notes (Step A2). The verification method is presented in
paragraph 7.1.3.3. It should be noted that the elements necessary for the
justification of a category A equipment depend on the seismic zone in which the
installation is located.

- Category B: uncertainty on the seismic behaviour of the equipment

This category includes equipment or structures for which it is necessary to carry

out a more detailed analysis to evaluate the seismic behavior and justify or not the
respect of the requirements (Steps B2 and possibly B3). It is the equipment for
which the diagnosis will require the most effort
 - Category C: the equipment has obvious deficiencies

Are classified in this category the equipments or structures for which the only visual
inspections and analysis of the input data reveal obvious insufficiencies with
respect to the level of requirement required for the regulatory level of earthquake. For
example, there is an obvious insufficiency of the equipment's anchorages, or a
strongly degraded state of the structure (corrosion...). These equipments will
necessarily have to be the object of corrective measures to bring them into
conformity with the decree (Step C2).
7.1.3.3 Step A2: Simplified Audit
This step concerns only the equipment classified in Category A at the end of the visit. It
consists in checking the compliance of these equipments with the requirements of the
regulatory earthquake. The diagnosis is made by a simplified verification.

The evaluation of the seismic behavior and the justification of an equipment by this
simplified method is based on the following elements:
- Feedback on the behavior of similar equipment (see 7.4.1);
- Compliance with the constructive provisions. (see 7.4.2);
- The application of simplified tools (see 7.4.3);
- The study of the seismic design notes of the equipment for installations in zone
4 and 5 (see 7.4.4).

The items required for this simplified verification method are dependent on the
seismic zone in which the facility is located and the type of equipment. Some specific
guides provide a list of required elements specific to certain types of equipment. In the
general case or in the absence of such a list, the following table specifies the elements
required according to the seismicity zone:

Minimum elements required to justify Category A equipment

Sizing notes
REX Constructional provisions Simplified tools seismic

Zone 1 X X (X) (X)

Zone 2 X X X (X)
Zone 3 X X X (X)
Zone 4 X X (X) X
Zone 5 X X (X) X

Note: Items marked "X" are required; items marked "(X)" are optional. Thus, they are
"and" and not "or" between the columns.

At the end of this step:

- If compliance with the requirements is justified, the equipment is deemed to meet the
requirements of the order;
- If the method concludes that the requirements are not met or cannot be concluded,
the operator has two options:
 Implement simplified calculations (Step B2) and then, if necessary, an in-depth
analysis (Step B3) to attempt to justify the equipment if it believes that more
sophisticated analysis methods may identify capacity margins not identifiable
by the simplified method ;
  Qualify the equipment as noncompliant with the requirements of the order
and implement corrective action if it believes that further study will not
justify the equipment as is.
7.1.3.4 Step B2: Simplified calculation
This step applies:
- to all Category B equipment
- Category A equipment that could not be justified by the simplified verification method
(Step A2) and for which the operator believes there may be margins by performing a
calculation.

The simplified calculation is based on the data available at this stage.

This step consists in evaluating the seismic forces for the regulatory earthquake level by
simple "manual" calculations (see 7.5). It is not necessary at this stage to use finite
element models.

At the end of this step:

- If the requirements are met, the equipment is qualified as complying with the
requirements of the order;
- If the method concludes that the requirements are not met or cannot be concluded,
the operator has two options:
 Implement an in-depth analysis (Step B3) to attempt to justify the
equipment if it believes that more sophisticated analysis methods or
experimental qualifications may identify capacity margins not identifiable by
the simplified method ;
 Qualify the equipment as noncompliant with the requirements of the order
and implement corrective action if it believes that further study will not
justify the equipment.
7.1.3.5 Step B3: In-depth analysis
This step applies to Category A and B equipment that could not be justified by the
simplified calculation method (Step B2) and for which the operator believes there may be
margins by using a more sophisticated justification method, or to equipment for which the
input data is insufficient.

The in-depth analysis may require additional data to be obtained by a targeted visit,
surveys, geotechnical tests, or other tests (see 7.6.1). Once sufficient information is
available, the diagnosis can be carried out by a more or less complex computational
method (see 7.6.2) or by experimental qualification (see 7.6.3).

At the end of this step:

- If the requirements are met, the equipment is qualified as complying with the
requirements of the order;
- If the method concludes that the requirements are not met or cannot be concluded,
the operator has exhausted its ability to justify the equipment. The equipment or
structure is then classified as non-compliant with the requirements of the order
and the operator must implement corrective measures to bring it into compliance.
7.1.3.6 Step C3: Corrective Action
This step applies:
- to all Category C equipment;
- Category A and B equipment that could not be justified by the more or less
complex verification methods ("Simplified verification", "Simplified calculation" or
"In-depth analysis").

This step consists of implementing corrective measures to bring the equipment or structure
into compliance with the requirements of the decree. Depending on his strategy, the
operator has several solutions to make an equipment or a structure compliant:

- The treatment by reinforcements or seismic devices dimensioned for the regulatory

earthquake level (see 7.7.1) ;
- Replacement with equipment that has demonstrated compliance with the
regulatory seismic level requirements for new equipment;
- A protection strategy through safeguards (BPAP of the instrumentation type) (see
7.7.2.1);
- A physical barrier protection strategy (see 7.7.2.2);
- Urban planning measures through the acquisition or control of land affected by the
lethal impacts of the equipment in the event of an earthquake (see 7.7.2.3);
- Relocation of the equipment to a location that reduces the lethal impacts induced in
the event of an earthquake and allows the equipment to be moved outside the
perimeter of the order.

The cost of a seismic treatment can be estimated by an approximate costing of a

reconstruction or a replacement of the elements that are visibly too "weak"
(anchorages, support, devices, ...). The operator may then consider the creation of new
BPAPs as an alternative, especially if these come from existing equipment that a
"simple" upgrade would make relevant in the event of an earthquake, or else consider
carrying out urban planning measures (cf. § 3.1.4.b). Figures in order of magnitude (-30% /
30%) should enable it to eliminate clearly unfavorable opportunities and thus focus its
efforts on the path to optimal solutions.

7.2 Preliminary work (Step 0)

In order to perform a seismic diagnosis of an existing facility, it is necessary to have
data on the equipment, the civil engineering of the structure supporting or housing the
equipment, the foundations and the geotechnical characteristics.

The available input data will condition the diagnostic methods that can be implemented.
Generally, the more complex the method implemented is at the computational level, the
more input data it requires in terms of soil and material characteristics. Diagnostic
methods without calculation require a good knowledge of the experience feedback of the
seismic behavior of the equipment.

7.2.1 Equipment data collection

7.2.1.1 Minimum data requirements
For the equipment subject to the diagnosis, the following information should be
gathered as a minimum:
 General data of the equipment: constitution, stored product
  Limitations of the equipment and nature of the interfaces with neighboring
equipment in the case of equipment integrated into a system.
 Geometric characteristics of the equipment: dimensions, thickness, mass... ;
 Positioning of the equipment: on the ground, in a structure (height, installation plan,
…) ;

In general, and especially for thicknesses that vary over time as a result of corrosion,
the data must be guaranteed over time by the operator; this guarantee of thickness can
be provided from manufacturer's data, monitoring of the equipment, calculation of the
corrosion rate, etc.
7.2.1.2 Additional data required for a "Simplified Audit (A2)
In order to implement the simplified verification diagnostic method (Step A2), the
following additional data are required:
 Date of construction of the equipment
 Feedback on the behavior of similar equipment: post-seismic feedback from
seismic studies or tests;
 Seismic design notes for Zone 4 or 5 facilities.
7.2.1.3 Additional data required for a calculation (B2 or B3)
In order to implement the computational diagnostic method (Step B2 or B3), the
following additional data are required:
 Material characteristics: modulus of elasticity, yield strength, elongation at break...
 Operating data in normal service (and possibly in test): stored or transported
product, pressure, temperature,...
7.2.1.4 Example of documentation
As part of the input data collection, the operator may refer to the following list of
documents to obtain the information listed above. This is a non-exhaustive list provided
for information purposes.
 Original boiler making plans;
 Modification plans if applicable;
 Equipment operating data sheets (pressure, service levels) ;
 Observations, photographs and recent measurements showing the current state
of the equipment (corrosion,...).
 Iso plans ;
 Calculation notes of the equipment dimensioning (pressure, thermal loading,
wind, snow, earthquake etc.).
 Standards used in design and in service (CODAP, CODRES, tests or possible
standards for the transport of fragile equipment...) ;
 Constituent parts of the realization contract

7.2.2 Data collection on the support structure

7.2.2.1 Minimum data requirements
At a minimum, the following data on the structure supporting the equipment should be
known:
 Date and type of construction;
 Overall dimensions;
  Constructive provisions;
 Anchoring of the equipment on the structure: nature and quantity of the support points.
 Mass of the equipment
7.2.2.2 Additional data required for a calculation (B2 or B3)
In order to implement the computational diagnostic method (Step B2 or B3), the following
additional data are required:
 Mechanical characteristics: reinforcement, type of profiles, concrete resistance,
steel grade,...
7.2.2.3 Example of documentation
As part of the input data collection, the operator may refer to the following list of
documents to obtain the information listed above. This is a non-exhaustive list provided
for information purposes.
 Construction drawings (preferably in TQC version): formwork and reinforcement
for concrete structures, structural drawings for steel structures;
 Modification plans if applicable;
 Construction drawings: formwork and reinforcement for concrete structures;
 Modification plans if applicable;
 Dimensional design notes. If possible, wind or preferably earthquake design
calculations;
 Possible seismic design data (soil or floor spectra...) ;
 Standards and codes used in design (BAEL, CM66, Eurocode,...).
 Constituent parts of the realization contract

In the absence of available information, it is recommended that the tests or surveys described
in paragraph 7.6.1.3 be carried out. However, as a first approximation, reference can be made to
the rules of the art in force at the date of construction.

7.2.3 Collection of foundation data

7.2.3.1 Minimum data requirements
Foundations are usually the most difficult to obtain input data for. Often, operators no
longer have the original plans and have no knowledge of the nature of the foundations of
the equipment in their facility. However, within the framework of a seismic diagnosis, the
foundation mode is an essential element. It is therefore essential to know at least the
following information:
 Nature : footings, piles, common invert...
 Quantity and position : depth, distribution in plan, ...
7.2.3.2 Additional data for a calculation
In order to implement the computational diagnostic method (Step B2 or B3), the following additional
data are required:
 Geometrical characteristics: plan dimensions and height for footings, length and
section for piles,...
 Mechanical characteristics: concrete strength, steel grade, reinforcement,...
7.2.3.3 Example of documentation
As part of the input data collection, the operator may refer to the following list of
documents to obtain the information listed above:
 Foundation plans
  Dimensional design notes
 Documents related to the construction: photographs, drawings, contract award,...
7.2.3.4 Options in case of lack of information
If no information is available to determine the nature of the foundations, it will be
necessary to implement procedures such as stabilized and sealed excavations to
uncover the foundations.

However, these processes should be implemented with care. They must be supervised
by a specialist engineer who will ensure that the functionality of the structure is not affected
by the work.

7.2.4 Soil data collection

7.2.4.1 Parameters needed to establish the soil class
In order to determine the regulatory spectrum for seismic diagnosis, it is imperative to
establish the soil class in the sense of Eurocode 8 (see § 4.1.2), defined from vs30, the
average speed of shear waves on the 30 meters of surface layers of the ground

It is therefore necessary in theory to know the stratigraphy on the 30 meters of

superficial layers of the ground in the vicinity of the studied equipment, i.e. the height
and the nature of the layers of ground (rock, sands, silts, clays,...). or at least the
stratigraphy up to the rock if that is located at less than 30m of depth

Strictly speaking, in order to establish the soil class, it is necessary to know the
dynamic properties for each soil layer in the stratigraphy:
- Shear wave velocity vs;
- Or dynamic shear modulus Gdyn.

If vs.30 is not known, the following parameters can be used, with the help of a
geotechnician, to characterize each soil layer:
- NSPT penetration test value for sandy soils;
- cu cohesion for clay soils.

For stable sites in the sense of EN 1998-1, the velocity vs. propagation profile of the
shear waves in the ground should be considered as the most reliable evaluation parameter
for the determination of the site-dependent seismic action characteristics.

The velocity profile is determined in situ by geophysical tests (cross-hole, downhole,

MASW, ...). In regions of moderate to strong seismicity (zones 3 to 5), especially for class
D, S1, or S2 sites, these geophysical measurements are strongly recommended.

For zones of very low to moderate seismicity (zones 1 to 3) it is possible to estimate

the profile vs. by empirical correlations, using in situ penetration resistance or other
geotechnical properties, taking into account the dispersion of such correlations. These
estimates must be based on the expertise of a geotechnician.
 The table below summarizes the parameters required to establish the soil class according
to the seismic zone:
Soil parameters required to establish the soil class
Dynamic properties (vs, Gdyn) Resistance to in situ penetration
Zone 1 Optional Sufficient
Zone 2 Optional Sufficient
Zone 3 Recommended Acceptable
Zone 4 Indispensable -
Zone 5 Indispensable -
7.2.4.2 Parameters required for foundation verification
The verification of the seismic stability of the foundations requires the knowledge of the
mechanical characteristics and resistance of the soils on the depth concerned by the
foundation (from 1 to 2 times the width of the foundation):
- undrained cohesion cu ;
- or internal friction angle φ;
- or limit pressure pl ;
- or NSPT or NCPT penetration resistance.
It is also necessary to know the level of the water table.
7.2.4.3 Type of tests and associated soil characteristics
The industrialist can refer to the table in Annex A of the NF EN 1997-2 standard for a
list of the test results of the geotechnical test standards.

The table below lists the typical geotechnical investigations performed and the soil
characteristics derived from them:
Tests
Geological surveys and
hydrogeological
Core drilling
Laboratory identification tests
based on core sampling (grain
size, Atterberg limits, water
content,
density), triaxial tests
Standard Penetration Test
(SPT)
Cone penetration test (CPT),
Pressuremeter tests
Cross-Hole, Down-hole or
MASW tests
This table can be used as a guide for the operator in collecting soil data.
Soil characteristic
- Stratigraphy
- Position of the water table
- Stratigraphy
- Position of the water table
- Nature of the material
- Strength characteristics: Angle
of friction φ, Cohesion cu
- Penetration resistance NSPT
- NCPT penetration resistance
- Pressuremeter module EM
- Pressure limit pl
Dynamic features :
- Shear wave velocity
vs.
- Shear modulus
dynamic Gdyn
Framework for the use of
parameters
- Soil characterization
- Soil characterization
- Bearing capacity study
(stability of foundations)
- Identification of the soil
class (zone 1 to 3)
- Liquefaction study
- Identification of the soil
class (zone 1 to 3)
- Liquefaction study
- Bearing capacity
study (stability of
foundations)
- Load-bearing capacity
study (stability of
foundations)
- Identification of the soil
class
- Study of the soil-
structure interaction
7.2.4.4 Collection of soil data and geotechnical services
In the soil data collection phase, the operator will ensure that as many soil survey reports
as possible are collected that may contain the information outlined above.

There are several possible scenarios:

(1) the operator has conclusive soil surveys in the area concerned. These input
documents are sufficient for the studies;
(2) the operator has soil studies on his site but not in the area concerned. It is then
necessary to ask the question of the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the soil on
the site to define if the existing studies are sufficient and can be used;
(3) the company does not have soil studies or has insufficient soil studies. It is then
imperative to carry out a geotechnical service before the visit in order to know the
type of stratigraphy and to identify the class of ground.

For the establishment of the soil class, the geotechnical services to be performed depend
on the seismic zone:

Geotechnical service to be carried out in the absence of soil studies for the establishment
of the
soil class
Zone 1 Cone penetration tests (CPT)
Zone 2 Cone penetration tests (CPT)
Zone 3 Cone penetration tests (CPT)
Zone 4 Cross-Hole, Down-hole or MASW tests
Zone 5 Cross-Hole, Down-hole or MASW tests

For the other services, the industrialist can refer to the Annex B of the standard NF EN
1997- 2 "Programming of geotechnical investigations".

Sufficient geotechnical or geological data for the site should be identified to allow
determination of an average soil profile necessary to establish the soil class and
assess potential liquefaction hazards.

The soil investigation including in situ and/or laboratory tests must be carried out in the
vicinity of the structure and must allow the characterization of the surface layers of the
ground to a sufficient depth to evaluate the stability and the seismic response of the
structure. This study should determine the static and dynamic properties of the soil layers.

It may be advantageous to include cone penetration tests (CPT), possibly with pore
pressure measurements, in soil investigations whenever feasible, as these tests provide a
continuous record of soil mechanical characteristics as a function of depth.

The tests and the presentation of the geotechnical reports must be carried out
according to the requirements of the standard NF EN 1997-2.

7.2.5 Collection of feedback data

In the context of equipment justification by the simplified verification method (Step A2),
it is necessary to obtain feedback data on the seismic behavior of similar equipment.
 Reference should be made to sections 5.3.2.1, 5.3.2.2 and 5.3.2.3 which present the
framework for the use, the SQUG database and the databases in France.

7.2.6 Preparation of the visit

The list of equipment (ERS, OAP and BPAP) and their behavioral requirements should be
known before the visit.

Prior to the reconnaissance visit, a systematic review of the documentation for the identified
equipment and a feedback database, if available, should have been conducted by the team
(see 7.3.1).

A description and schedule of the tasks to be performed during the visit should be
prepared. The team's route should be carefully planned and optimized.

After an initial assessment based on the available documentation, the visit should be
organized in order to verify whether the studied equipment is represented in the
feedback database and, consequently, whether the simplified diagnostic procedure can
be applied to the equipment in question.

7.3 Site visit and classification of equipment (Step 1)

The site visit is one of the most critical tasks in the seismic evaluation of existing
facilities. It allows the collection of data on the "as-built" equipment and a first approach
to the evaluation of its seismic performance.

It is essential to organize and conduct the visit in a very methodical manner. The
objectives and methodology to be implemented are detailed in the following
paragraphs.

7.3.1 Composition of the reconnaissance team

A reconnaissance team usually includes the following skills (the composition should be adapted
to the size and complexity of the installation)
- earthquake engineering;
- process safety and control of industrial risks;
- instrumentation;
- operation and maintenance of the process.

Earthquake engineers must have at least a few years of experience in the field,
preferably in industrial facilities.
The level of expertise of the earthquake engineer depends on the complexity of the installation
and the seismic zone.

The process safety engineer is essential for the review of HRAs, PAOs, BPAPs and their
failure modes.
7.3.2 Objectives of the visit
7.3.2.1 Overall observations
Review facilities previously identified as HRA, PAO or BPAP to:
- Confirm the list of equipment, their required functions, their possible failure modes;
- Identify any other HRA, PAO or BAP equipment that should be included in the list;
- Determine the location of each piece of equipment in the facility;
- Grouping of equipment integrated or based on other equipment;
- Identify the simple constructive provisions to be implemented independently of any
analysis;
- Confirm that the feedback database is appropriate for the equipment being
studied.
7.3.2.2 Analysis and classification of each equipment
At the level of each facility more specifically, the main objectives of the visit are to
assess the following:
- Equipment characteristics and inherent earthquake resistance capacity;
- Determination of the seismic force path from the equipment to the foundation;
- Anchoring the equipment;
- Mechanical, thermal or other interaction with other equipment;
- Current condition of the equipment, especially in comparison with the construction
plans (especially when the evaluation is done by calculations based on the
construction documents) ;

Based on this visual examination, each piece of equipment shall be classified into one
of the three categories A, B or C as described in paragraph 7.1.3.2.

Ranking will be based on available input documents and REX as well as visual inspection of
the equipment. This ranking is primarily based on judgment. Thus, it is essential that the
reconnaissance team has experience in seismic design and, if available, knowledge of
the feedback on the seismic behavior of this equipment (see 7.3.1).
 This table summarizes the classification of the equipment according to the observations
during the visit and the available data:

Guide for the classification of equipment during the visit

Category A Category B Category C
Definition equipment whose seismic uncertainty the equipment has
behavior can be easily about the obvious shortcomings
evaluated seismic
behavior of
the equipment
Observatio Adapted constructive No obvious Insufficient
ns during measures: anchoring... deficiencies for the bracing
the visit (see specific guides) seismic force path or
+ of Insufficient
Reasonable state of damage equipment to the anchoring
+ foundations or
Compatibility of + State
the equipment with REX data State very advanced
(geometry, material, mass, of controlled damage damage
qualification level...) or
+ Other deficiency (see
Lack of interactions specific guide)

Available Relevant REX Existing data

data + (additional data
Diagnostic tools (Zones 2 collection may be
and 3) necessary depending
+ on the methods
Seismic design notes used)
(Zones 4 and 5)
+
Method of foundation
+
Stratigraphy

7.3.3 Specific points during the visit

7.3.3.1 Documentation
The visit must be properly documented (notes, photographs, diagrams, etc.).
7.3.3.2 Frequently observed deficiencies
The experience of the site visits shows that it is frequently noted, without the list below
being exhaustive, that there are deficiencies in the following elements
 Anchoring of electrical cabinets and some mechanical equipment;
 Unreinforced masonry walls;
 Electrical Distribution System Insulators;
 Foundations and constructive provisions of civil engineering structures;
 Short sections of piping.
Particular attention should therefore be paid to these elements.
7.3.3.3 Identification of interactions between equipment
The on-site visit to the facility is the key tool for identifying spatial interactions that can
potentially affect the performance of the equipment in an earthquake. These
interactions can be of several types:
 falling from one piece of equipment onto another;
 fall of an equipment that can hinder the access of the rescue services or an area that
must remain accessible in the framework of a withdrawal strategy requiring a human
intervention;
 too close to equipment that could lead to a physical impact in the event of an
earthquake.

In all these cases, the OAP is the aggressor equipment or work.

Good practice is to minimize potential interactions in the event of an earthquake.

Identifying and evaluating potential interactions requires good judgment by the

reconnaissance team. Only those conditions that truly represent a serious interaction
hazard should be identified or will require modification.
7.3.3.3.1 Fall
The fall of a non-critical element resulting in its loss of stability can lead to the impact
and damage of a critical equipment of type ERS or BPAP. When the impact energy is
significant and the critical equipment vulnerable, such an interaction can lead to
difficulty in demonstrating compliance with the behavioral requirements assigned to the
critical equipment.

For example, a falling light fixture may not be a critical interaction for a 100 mm
diameter piping line, but it may be critical for an open electrical cabinet.

Unreinforced masonry walls are the most common source of fall interactions. Masonry walls
are usually close enough to critical equipment that their failure can damage the
equipment. Walls that can damage the equipment they house and block access should
be reinforced.
If the wall is close to electrical or control cabinets, the falling wall could cause damage
to the cabinets and their contents.

In particular, the risk of chimneys or flares falling in a seismic situation should be

examined and, when the risk is proven, the influence of the fall of this equipment on the
behavior of critical elements likely to be impacted should be examined.
7.3.3.3.2 Proximity
Proximity interaction is defined as a condition in which two elements are close enough
that their seismic displacements result in a physical impact. Impacts on fragile targets such
as electrical relays, instruments, or valve actuators are of greatest concern.
7.4 Diagnosis by simplified verification (Step A2)
The "Simplified Verification" method, which applies to equipment classified as Category
A at the end of the inspection, makes it possible to justify compliance with the behavioral
requirements of the equipment by a non-calculative approach. Although it saves the
calculation work, the implementation of this method requires a solid documentation and
a good knowledge of the seismic behavior of this type of equipment.

The evaluation of the seismic behavior and the justification of an equipment by this
simplified method is based on the following elements:
- Feedback (REX) of seismic behavior;
- Compliance with constructive provisions;
- The application of simplified tools;
- The study of the seismic design notes of the equipment ;

It is recalled that the elements required for the application of this simplified verification
method are a function of the seismic zone in which the facility is located, as described
in the table in paragraph 7.1.3.3.

The implementation of each element of this method is detailed in the following paragraphs.

7.4.1 Use of feedback

To justify a piece of equipment by the simplified method without calculation, it is
required for all the seismicity zones to have a positive feedback on the seismic
behavior of this type of equipment under seismic conditions at least as important. This can
be post-seismic feedback, feedback from previous seismic studies or feedback from
equipment testing on a vibration table.

In order to use the feedback as an element of justification of an equipment with respect

to the regulatory seismic level, the operator shall demonstrate the relevance of this
feedback for his equipment from the input data on the equipment and from the visual
examination during the visit. Section 5.3.2.1 specifies the conditions for applying
feedback data to a given piece of equipment (similarities in terms of geometry, materials,
mass, level of qualification).

7.4.2 Respect of the constructive provisions

Within the framework of earthquake-resistant construction, there are specific
constructional provisions that must be respected to ensure good seismic behavior of
the equipment or structure.

For example, it can be :

- the good connection between elements for a framework made of prefabricated
concrete elements;
- the presence of lateral stops on racks and pipe supports.
 These provisions are specific to each type of equipment or support structure. They are
specified in the specific application guides.

To justify a piece of equipment by the simplified method without calculation, it is

required for all seismic zones to demonstrate from the input data and visual
examination that the equipment or structure complies with these constructive
provisions.

7.4.3 Diagnostic tools

Diagnostic tools have been developed by design offices to allow the rapid diagnosis of
certain equipment. They are generally Excel spreadsheets (e.g. vertical cylindrical tanks
diagnostic sheet, piping diagnostic sheet...). Some of the available tools are specified in the
equipment-specific guides. The operator can also develop new tools according to his
needs.

To justify a facility's equipment in seismicity zones 2 and 3 by the simplified method

without calculation, the demonstration of compliance with the behavioral requirements
using one of these diagnostic tools is required.

7.4.4 Analysis of earthquake design notes

For facilities in medium and high seismicity zones (4 and 5), to apply the verification
method without calculation, it is required to demonstrate that the equipment or structure has
been designed for the earthquake from the design notes. It is also necessary to verify
by examining these notes that the level of seismic design is envelope of the
regulatory level of the order of October 4, 2010.

7.5 Diagnosis by simplified calculation (Step B2)

The simplified calculation diagnostic method is applied:
- to all Category B equipment;
- Category A equipment that could not be justified by the simplified verification method
(Step A2) and for which the operator believes there may be margins if a
calculation is made.

The simplified calculation is performed based on the data available at this stage. If there
is insufficient data to perform a simplified calculation, then proceed directly to an in-
depth analysis (Step B3).

To validate the diagnosis by simplified calculation, it is necessary to be able to

demonstrate, thanks to these simple calculations, the respect of the behavioral
requirements of the equipment or the structure.

Simplified evaluation methods, using simple analytical calculation approaches, are not
developed in this guide. Such methods rely on the knowledge of the engineer. These
methods based on the strength of materials and structural dynamics are among the
useful tools for preliminary evaluations and research of preliminary orientations of the
seismic diagnosis of the equipment.
 The seismic forces can be evaluated simply for the regulatory earthquake level by
"manual" calculations from the mass and natural frequency of the system, from the input
documents. For some equipment, it is also possible to use simplified formulas proposed in
the associated methodological guides.

There are then many ways to demonstrate compliance with the equipment behavior
requirements based on the available data. For example:
- If design basis notes or other calculation notes are available (earthquake, wind,...),
the forces induced by the regulatory earthquake can be compared with the design
forces;
- It is possible to estimate the resistance capacity of structural elements from input
data such as drawings or design notes, or from observations during the visit.

7.6 In-depth analysis (Step B3)

This step applies to equipment or structures initially classified as Category A or B for which
the diagnosis by simplified verification methods or simplified calculation was not
conclusive or could not be performed due to lack of input data.

The diagnosis of this equipment requires the implementation of one or more of these
measures:
- Additional data collection;
- Diagnosis by a more or less sophisticated calculation;
- Diagnosis by test.

The operator will need to judge the measures to be applied based on the reasons for
implementing a thorough analysis for that equipment. It only makes sense to implement
this method in the following cases:
(1) The input data are insufficient to establish a diagnosis by one of the two
simplified methods;
(2) The diagnosis established by one of the two simplified methods is negative but
there are a priori margins likely to allow the justification of the equipment by a
more sophisticated method such as finite element calculation or testing.

7.6.1 Collection of additional information

7.6.1.1 Targeted visit
Since the preliminary visit covered all the equipment to be treated on the site, it may be
necessary to repeat a targeted visit to the equipment concerned by the in-depth
analysis to carry out a more detailed inspection.
7.6.1.2 Additional geotechnical tests
Additional geotechnical testing may be required in several cases:
- if the soil studies collected during the preliminary work phase are insufficient to
carry out a diagnosis of the equipment (verification of the stability of the
foundations for example);
- if it is desirable to determine additional soil characteristics within the framework of a
study with consideration of the soil-structure interaction for example.
The tests to be performed in this case are those mentioned in paragraph 7.2.4.
7.6.1.3 Mechanical tests or surveys
In the absence of structural plans or information on the supporting structure, there are
survey or test procedures depending on the building materials:
- For steel structures, a survey of the dimensions of the structural elements,
anchors and connections is possible;
- For concrete, non-destructive procedures for measuring surface hardness
resistance and sound wave propagation velocity make it possible to determine a
range of variation in their resistance, and destructive procedures make it possible
to determine their resistance on core samples in the laboratory;
- For the reinforcement, non-destructive processes of detection of the
reinforcement ("Ferroscan") make it possible to determine their diameter, spacing
and depth, and, destructive processes make it possible to measure them directly
after clearing the concrete with a chipping hammer.
7.6.1.4 Other tests
Depending on the information required and the type of equipment, other tests may be
relevant to estimate the seismic behavior of the structure.

For a rather monomodal equipment, or for an equipment supported on a steel structure

(racks for example), the natural frequency of the system can for example be estimated
by frequency tests. This involves instrumenting the structure and estimating its dynamic
behavior by measuring its response to vibrations. The sources of vibration can be
various (ambient vibrations (noise), fall of a mass in the vicinity,...).

Care must be taken when using this type of result since the measured frequency
represents the real system with its non-structural elements. This frequency is not
necessarily representative of the structural model applicable to the seismic situation.

7.6.2 Computational evaluation methods

7.6.2.1 Principles of capacity margins
When a structure is earthquake rated according to current codes and standards, the
principle of the design rules is that the structure has capacity margins from :
- coefficients applied to materials and loads;
- the safety values of the materials taken into account and the associated criteria;
- analysis methods, generally linear.
However, the margins are, in general, neither quantified nor uniform for the different
structures and within the same structure. When the behavior of an existing structure is
evaluated, it is necessary to identify the additional margins to allow the justification of
the respect of the requirements.

In addition, most of the structures or equipment studied have not been designed for
earthquakes, or may have been designed for an earthquake level lower than the regulatory
level defined by the decree. Thus, it is very likely that these structures have a non-
linear behavior for an earthquake of regulatory level.
 Post-elastic behavior leads to the dissipation of part of the energy in the formation of
plastic zones. In this case, evaluating the seismic forces relative to the regulatory
earthquake using an elastic calculation leads to overestimate sometimes significantly these
forces, which generally exceed the ultimate capacity of the structure. Consequently, the
application of an elastic design approach to a structure may not allow to conclude to a
positive seismic diagnosis.

Depending on the level of behaviour required, it is accepted in the context of seismic

diagnosis to call upon the ductility of the structure, i.e. its capacity to deform beyond its elastic
limit, if justified by adequate constructional provisions. If a post-elastic behavior is
possible, the energy dissipation linked to the formation of plastic zones allows to reduce
the seismic forces in the structure compared to an elastic calculation. The forces calculated
according to this non-linear approach are said to be anelastic.

The call for ductility therefore allows a certain margin of capacity to be released in a
structure that was not initially designed for such a level of seismic aggression. The
diagnostic approach consists of evaluating this capacity margin and estimating if it is
sufficient for the level of anelastic seismic demand.
7.6.2.2 Evaluation of capacity margins
These capacity margins can therefore be taken into account in several ways.
Depending on the margin required to justify the work, it may be useful to implement
one or more of these principles:
- use realistic values of the mechanical characteristics of the materials (concrete
strength, soil properties and associated verification criteria;
- taking into account the non-linear behavior of the equipment or structure by
estimating the displacements of the component rather than the forces;
- integration of the soil-structure interaction with possibly taking into account a non-
linear behavior of the soil.

Taking these principles into account can provide significant capacity margins to justify a
piece of equipment or structure but may require a significant amount of input data.

For example, a static calculation with non-linear soil-structure interaction can allow to
justify structures whose foundation stability cannot be demonstrated by a linear
approach, but it requires to know a significant number of soil parameters, and will
certainly require complementary geotechnical studies.

7.6.2.3 Types of calculations

After the possible collection of additional input data, the evaluation of the seismic
behavior of the equipment or structure can be carried out by more or less sophisticated
calculations generally using a finite element model. These calculations can be more or
less sophisticated depending on the level of dimensioning and the margins required to
clear the equipment or structure.

The types of calculations that can be performed are:

- Linear dynamic calculation (modal-spectral) ;
- Linear dynamic calculation with behavior coefficients q ;
- Equivalent static calculation;
 - Linear static calculation with soil-structure interaction ;
- Non-linear static calculation (pushover) ;
- Non-linear static calculation with non-linear soil-structure interaction ;
- Linear transient calculation;
- Linear transient computation with soil-structure interaction;
- Non-linear transient computation.

Some of these methods are described in the appendix of this document.

7.6.3 Evaluation methods by test

Finally, it is possible to qualify an equipment by tests showing that it satisfies, under the
conditions of its use, the requirements associated with vibrations simulating a seismic
movement at least equal to that corresponding to the transferred regulatory spectrum.

The accelerograms to be used for these tests shall be selected according to the
requirements described in Chapter 4. In the absence of adequate seismic test
equipment, sine scan or white noise tests may be performed.

In the case of equipment resting on a supporting structure, the transferred spectrum

and not the soil spectrum should of course be considered as the reference seismic
action.

The anchorages and the strength of the support structure will have to be the subject of
particular verifications.

7.7 Corrective Action (Step C2)

This step applies to all equipment that has been identified as not meeting the
requirements of the Order of October 4, 2010, i.e. :
- all Category C equipment;
- Category A and B equipment that could not be justified by the more or less
complex verification methods ("Simplified verification", "Simplified calculation" or
"In-depth analysis").

If a piece of equipment or structure is non-compliant, there are several options for

bringing the equipment into compliance:

 the first strategy consists in intervening on the equipment or the structure itself, by
a seismic treatment or even its replacement:
 the seismic treatment involves reinforcing the equipment or structure at
identified weak points, or installing seismic devices (see 7.7.1);
 the replacement of the equipment by a compliant equipment is a radical
solution which will generally apply to equipment in a very advanced state of
aging. In this case, the regulatory spectrum for new equipment should be
considered to justify the compliance of the new equipment. Please refer to
chapter 5 for the sizing methods applicable in this case.
  the second option is to implement a protection strategy to limit the effects induced
by the equipment. These strategies can include:
 une mise en safety l’installation on seismic loading by
instrumentation or human operation (BPAP) (see 7.7.2.1);
 the implementation of relevant physical barriers (BPAP) (see 7.7.2.2);
 the acquisition of land control of the lands concerned by the lethal impacts
induced by the equipment in case of earthquake (cf. 7.7.2.3).

7.7.1 Seismic treatment of equipment or structure

7.7.1.1 Equipment and structures to be treated
At the end of the diagnosis, the list of the equipment and structures not justified to the
earthquake shall be established. This list should include the degree of non-compliance.
This information will make it possible to establish, in conjunction with site safety and
economic considerations, the equipment to be treated as a priority. The necessary
measures should be ranked according to their degree of priority.
7.7.1.2 Reinforcements
The sizing of the reinforcements must be done in accordance with the standards in
application for the equipment or structure studied for the regulatory earthquake level set by
the order.

Reinforcements shall, at a minimum, meet the verifications for the standards applied for
the original design.

It is recommended that reinforcements be designed with some margin to the regulatory

earthquake level.

Reinforcements will generally involve anchors, support structure or foundations. The

reinforcements commonly implemented in the framework of a seismic treatment are the
following:
- Addition of bracing by tie rods or metal profiles;
- Reinforcement of the connections between elements by metal plates or angles;
- Reinforcement of structural elements with composite fabrics to increase strength
or deformation capacity;
- Adding anchor bolts;
- Installation of stops to prevent the escape of support;
- Widening of footings;
-…
7.7.1.3 Seismic devices
For certain equipment or structures, it may be necessary to install seismic devices such
as dampers or isolators. These measures can be heavy to install and will generally be
reserved for important equipment or structures in facilities located in medium to high
seismicity zones.
 The assessment of the seismic behaviour and the justification of the compliance of the
equipment or structure taking into account seismic devices shall be carried out according to
the principles set out in Chapter 5.

7.7.2 Protection strategies

7.7.2.1 Safety of the installation on seismic stress
The implementation of this protection strategy is the subject of a specific guide
"Securing an installation against seismic stress".

The decision to install such equipment is the responsibility of the operator based on the
results of a site-specific risk assessment.

This strategy consists of limiting the consequences by actions taken at the time of the
earthquake, i.e:

 by an action of sectorization of the substances. The sectorization is carried out at the

time of the occurrence of the earthquake by manual action or by automatic action
by using the movement generated by the earthquake as a trigger for the action.
This sectorization aims :
- or to release only limited quantities of toxic products contained in the area;
- or to act on these inventories in order to apply a particular treatment such
as emptying, neutralization,... or to delay, dilute, regulate the release.

 by acting on risk factors that could be triggered by the earthquake:

- prevention of fire, explosion for example by automatic spraying;
- opening of traps in case of fear of accumulation of hydrogen or other
explosive materials not necessarily toxic but whose explosion could lead - by
destruction of the process - to the release of toxic products;
- fluid isolation (gas, hydrocarbon...).
7.7.2.2 Physical barrier
In some cases, the only or most strategic option for the operator to bring a piece of
equipment into compliance is to consider a physical barrier containing the effects
induced by the non-leakage of the HRA.

In this case, it must be demonstrated that this BPAP is sized in accordance with the
regulatory seismic level set by the order following the requirements of the guides.

The concept of a barrier is extensively developed in Chapter 3 of this guide, particularly

in Appendix B.
7.7.2.3 Urban planning measure
One solution to obtain compliance of the equipment with the decree is to acquire land
control of the land affected by the lethal impacts induced by the equipment in the event of
an earthquake, in order to ensure that these areas remain "without permanent human
occupation" within the meaning of the decree of October 4, 2010.
DT 106 - General Methodology

A NNEXES

105-
ANNEX REGULATORY TEXTS

Texts on seismic zoning

 Decree no. 2010-1254 of October 22, 2010 on the prevention of seismic risk

 Decree n° 2010-1255 of October 22, 2010 on the delimitation of the seismic zones
of the French territory

Texts on special risk

 Order of October 4, 2010 relating to the prevention of accidental risks in facilities

classified for environmental protection subject to authorization Section II:
Provisions relating to earthquake-resistant rules applicable to certain facilities

 Order of January 24, 2011 establishing the earthquake-resistant rules applicable

to certain classified facilities (amending the order of October 4, 2010)

 Order of September 13, 2013 amending the order of October 4, 2010 on the
prevention of accidental risks in facilities classified for environmental protection
subject to authorization.

 Order of March 5, 2014 defining the terms and conditions for the application of
Chapter V of Title V of Book V of the Environmental Code and regulating the safety of
pipelines for the transport of natural gas or similar, hydrocarbons and chemical
products.

Texts on normal risk

 Order of October 22, 2010 on the classification and seismic construction rules
applicable to buildings in the "normal risk" class

 Order of July 19, 2011 amending the order of October 22, 2010 on the
classification and seismic construction rules applicable to buildings in the "normal risk"
class

 Draft "equipment" order for the "normal risk" class

 Order of October 26, 2011 on the classification and seismic construction rules
applicable to bridges in the "normal risk" class
APPENDIX B - CALCULATION OF EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS /
EXAMPLES OF EARTHQUAKE SCENARIOS BY TYPE OF

EQUIPMENT AND ASSOCIATED BARRIERS

B.1 Methods of calculation
The following paragraphs give the practical conditions for the calculation of the effects of the
scenarios in case of an earthquake.

In general, the technical assumptions necessary for the calculation of the effects will be
taken in accordance with the circular of May 10, 2010 and the thresholds of effects in
accordance with the ministerial order of September 29, 2005.

This concerns in particular meteorological conditions such as, for example, atmospheric
conditions to be considered for dispersion calculations (§ D.3. of the circular) or solar
radiation conditions for puddle evaporation (§ E.2.1. of the circular).

B.1.1 Flow
The calculation of the effects must take into account all the flows emitted in the event of
loss of containment of the equipment:
 Immediate release of the entire equipment inventory, taking into account possible
changes in condition (e.g. flash to decompression),
 flows induced by the adjacent elements (supply of the equipment after the possible
emptying of the in-process and return of the downstream equipment). Concerning the
adjacent flows and the return of downstream equipment, it should be remembered
that a mobile container or a vehicle for transporting products connected to the
equipment studied participates in the calculation of the effects by maintaining its
integrity (see § 3.1.2.d). This means that the consequences that the mobile
equipment induces indirectly may have to be taken into account when assessing
the effects.
In the absence of a protection barrier, the hazardous phenomenon should be considered as
foreseen by the hazard study for the dimensioning of external emergency plans (PPI in
particular).

B.1.2 Pools of liquids

It will be possible to consider that the expansion of the liquid slick is limited by a retention
structure if the latter can be considered as a relevant barrier in case of an earthquake,
the conditions that this structure must then satisfy being set out in the relevant technical
guides.

In the absence of such a barrier, the following may be considered:

 the geometry of the land,
 the presence of obstacles to the flow or means to channelize the flow (gutters,
pipeways).
These elements will be considered unaffected by the earthquake.
B.1.3 Inflammation of products
The following approach should be kept in mind:

1st case: for flammable liquids used or stored at a temperature below their flash point:
 if the flash point is lower than 23°C: it is necessary to consider the phenomena of
fire and UVCE;
 if the flash point is between 23°C and 55°C: it is necessary to consider the fire
phenomena;
 if the flash point is higher than 55°C: fire and UVCE phenomena are not to be taken
into account.

2nd case: for flammable liquids used or stored at a temperature above their flash point:
It is necessary to consider the phenomena of fire and UVCE.

The ignition of the flammable gaseous releases generated must be systematically

considered, except if the release occurs in an area free of any ignition source (e.g.
release at height).

B.2 General conditions taken into account following an earthquake

B.2.1 Command control

Potentially initiated by an earthquake Situation not taken into
account
Loss of control / command Malfunction of the emergency
Emergency stop by the operator or by loss of power stop function with positive
Putting the actuators in the folding position safety (the triggering of an
emergency stop by manual
action
falls under paragraph B.2.2)

If a control is identified as part of a prevention, mitigation, or protection barrier, it shallbe

designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of the "Seismic Retreat"
technical guide.

B.2.2 Operator action

Potentially initiated by an earthquake Situation not taken into
account
Unavailability of the control room
Difficult access to facilities

If human intervention is necessary for seismic protection, provisions must be made to

protect the operators (seismic-resistant building).
See the chapter on human barriers (Chapter 0).
B.2.3 Intervention of an on-call team to carry out safety actions
Potentially initiated by an earthquake Situation not taken into
account
No access to the site
If the intervention of an on-call team is necessary, a specific study must be carried out.

B.2.4 Utilities
Potentially initiated by an earthquake Situation not taken into
account
Loss of utilities essential to safety functions Partial loss
necessary for compliance with this regulation

If a utility is identified as part of a prevention, mitigation, or protection barrier, it shall be

seismically retrofitted.

For the utilities required for control, the "fail-safe" design allows the affected facilities to
be made safe in the event of loss of electrical power and/or instrumentation air.

B.2.5 Leak detection systems

Potentially initiated by an earthquake Situation not taken into
account
Non functioning of the detection

If a leak detection system is identified as part of a prevention, mitigation, or protection

barrier, it shall be designed and constructed in accordance with state-of-the-art
requirements.

B.2.6 Isolation system (manual or automatic)

Potentially initiated by an earthquake Situation not taken into
account
Non-operating valves requiring a power source Non-operating organe
Impossibility of a manual action d'isolement à sécurité positive
Non (or untimelyorgane
d'isolement à sécurité positive
Non ) operation
mouvement of a manual valve
Non functioning of a check
valve
if they meet the criteria of
resistance to earthquake.

If an isolating device is identified as part of a prevention, mitigation or protection barrier, it

must be designed and built according to the requirements of the "piping and valves"
technical guide for its mechanical part. The control and command part, if any, shall be
designed and built according to the requirements of the "instrumentation" technical
guide.

If an isolation device identified as a prevention, mitigation, or protection barrier requires

energy or utilities, those energies or utilities shall be seismically qualified.

If human intervention is required, specific provisions must be made. See the chapter on
human barriers (chapter B.5.3).
B.2.7 Fire protection
Potentially initiated by an earthquake Situation not taken into
account
Loss of fire protection (fire scenarios
identified with lack of fire protection)
Inoperative subcavity strategy

If fire protection is required to mitigate the effects of an earthquake, it should be subject to

seismic measures.

B.3 Equipment by equipment analysis

B.3.1 Flammable liquid storage tanks (vertical cylindrical overhead) and tanks
(storage at ambient temperature)
Potential
Associated
Potentially initiated by an barriers to Not taken
hazardous
earthquake mitigation or into
phenomena
of protection account
Leakage in the pit via associated Flashfire pit Tank insulation Internal
pipes light for the Bowl explosion of
Basin leakage via bottom or dress most volatile tanks Tank
breach products fire of
Tipping of the tank Tearing of a UVCE products with
fixed roof due to an internal wave Inflammation high flash
Catastrophic failure: ripple effect of the Fire protection point (above
Floating roof tank light or floating overflow 55°C)
screen (low flash point product) Overfilling /
overflowing
…
Boil over
Tank light
for fixed
roof tank

Reminder: See paragraph B 1.3 for the hazardous phenomena to be studied according to
the flash points of flammable liquids.

The seismic performance of the tank is not required if the tank and piping remain intact
(or if the tank remains intact and the tank piping can be isolated).

The pan is never a special hazard equipment but it can be possibly considered as a
seismic protection (if the integrity of the tank is not sought).

Catastrophic rupture: to be judged according to the REX (see Reservoir Guide - Part A).
This type of rupture is rarely initiated by an earthquake.
 The protection can be based on both the tray (stability) and the bowl (integrity).

B.3.2 Flammable liquid storage tanks (other types)

Potential barriers
Associated
Potentially initiated by an to mitigation or Not taken
hazardous
earthquake protection into
phenomena
account
Leakage in the pit via Flashfire for the Tank insulation Internal tank
associated pipes most volatile Bowl explosion
Leakage in the bowl via a tear products Fire protection Overfilling
in the envelope UVCE / overflow
Tipping of the tank …
High flashpoint
product bowl
fire (above
55°C)

The seismic performance of the tank is not required if the tank and piping remain intact
(or if the tank remains intact and the tank piping can be isolated).

B.3.3 Storage of liquefied flammable gases under pressure (GIL)

Potential barriers
Associated
Potentially initiated by an to mitigation or Not taken into
hazardous
earthquake protection account
phenomena
GIL leakage via Jet fire Tank insulation Valves not
associated piping Flashfire Cooling Fireproof working
GIL leakage via wick in UVCE Overfilling
the envelope Pit Fire / overflow
Tipping of the tank …
BLEVE (except
specific
protection)

It should be noted that it is quite easy to demonstrate the resistance of the envelope to
seismic stresses, especially for spheres. From experience, it is known that the seismic
treatment is solved by strengthening the bracing.

Special case of BLEVE

BLEVE (hot) is not to be considered if the GIL capacity is thermally protected and the
thermal protection (e.g. embankment) is resistant to seismic accelerations.

The BLEVE (cold) is not to be taken into account if the envelope resists seismic stresses.
B.3.4 Toxic liquid storage tanks (vertical cylindrical overhead and other types) and
tanks
Potential
Associated
Potentially initiated by an barriers to Not taken
hazardous
earthquake mitigation or into
phenomena
of protection account
Leakage in the pit via Toxic Tank isolation
associated pipes dispersion Cuvette
Tank leakage via bottom or
jacket breach (vertical cylinders)
or jacket tear (others) Tank
overturning (depending on
geometry)
Tearing of a fixed roof due to a
internal wave

B.3.5 Storage of powdered products in silos

Potential barriers
Associated
Potentially initiated by an to mitigation or Not taken
hazardous
earthquake protection into
phenomena
account
Perte de containment via Explosion of Silo isolation Basin
associated piping dust or
Loss of containment via envelope explosive
tear powder and
Reversals (depending on EMI reached
geometry)

B.3.6 Storage of liquefied toxic gases under pressure

Potential barriers
Associated
Potentially initiated by an to mitigation or Not taken
hazardous
earthquake protection into
phenomena
account
associated Fuite de gaz Toxic Tank isolation
piping systems dispersion
Gas leakage via wick in the
envelope
Tipping of the tank
B.3.7 Storage of liquefied air gases

Potentially initiated by Hazardous Potential barriers to Not taken

an earthquake phenomena mitigation or into
associates protection account
Fuite en bowlvia Dispersion Tank insulation Bowl Valves not
associated piping working
Pit leakage via bottom or Wall Overfilling /
top breach overflowing ...
dress (vertical cylinders)
or
Tear of the envelope
(others)
Tipping of the tank
(according to
geometry)

B.3.8 Pumping stations and associated piping

Potentially initiated by an Potential barriers Not taken into
earthquake mitigation or account
protection
Leakage Isolation No
Cuvette operation
organs
d'isolement if
they
répondent at
clothing criteria
to the earthquake.
The associated hazardous phenomena are related to the dangerousness of the product

B.3.9 Product transfer piping

Potentially initiated by an Potential barriers to Not taken
earthquake mitigation or into
protection account
Leakage Isolation Non functioning
of the organs of
isolation 'they
meets the
requirements of
the
to the earthquake.

B.3.10 Refining / petrochemical / "hot" chemical units

These are mainly units with furnace or boiler, where a fluid is conveyed at a
temperature higher than its auto-ignition temperature; in these conditions, the
possibility of ignition must be taken into account.
This type of behavior will be associated with the case of gases of very low EMI,
including hydrogen, for which the release, even below the TAI, will be considered as
being able to ignite.
 Potentially initiated by an Associated Potential Not taken into
earthquake hazardous barriers to account
phenomena mitigation
or protection
Leakage Systematic Isolation Fuite no
generalized inflamed
fire (so no
of toxic effect)

Collapse of equipment Possible jet fire Major UVCE

because of
immediate
ignition from
multiple sources
of inflammation

B.3.11 Refining / petrochemical / "cold" chemical units

These are units using a product at a temperature between the flash point and the TAI.
Under these conditions, the IME or engineered barriers can be taken into account to justify
the absence of ignition of the release in case of an earthquake.
Potentially initiated by an Associated Potential Not taken into
earthquake hazardous barriers to account
phenomena mitigation or
of protection
Leak (toxic and/or flammable) Dispersion Isolation No
Collapse of equipment toxic operation
Slick fire organs
on invert d'isolement if
they
UVCE répondent at
Jet fire clothing criteria
Fire to the
earthquake.

B.3.12 Bulk loading/unloading stations

Potentially initiated by an Associated Potential Not taken into
earthquake hazardous barriers to account
phenomena mitigation
or protection
Leaks at the loading/unloading Depending on Retention Vehicle rollover
arms (toxic (see Ch.3 the la Isolation -> considered a
§3.1.3) et/ou inflammable (cf. nature of leaky load
§B.1.3)) the products / unloading
Toxic Loss of
Collapse of structure -> same as dispersion (see containment
leakage Ch.3 directly on the le
§3.1.3) vehicle
Slick fire on (n'est not a
invert equipment)
UVCE
Jet fire Fire
Parked vehicles (empty or full) are not equipment, so they do not have to be taken into
account directly (see § B.1.1).
B.3.13 Warehouses / storage of mobile containers
Potentially initiated by an Associated Potential barriers Not taken
earthquake hazardous to mitigation or into
phenomena protection account

Spillage of mobile containers Depending on According to

(potential loss of containment) the nature of the possible
Collapse of shelving and fall of the products: resistance of
mobile containers (potential loss Toxic some
of containment) dispersion packages, the
Slick fire in the fall can be
UVCE building ne not
Fire cause loss
of
containment
Collapse of the building Same as above
resulting in loss of containment
of the containers
mobile

B.3.14 Industrial buildings, under-building units

Potentially initiated by an Associated Potential barriers Not taken
earthquake hazardous to mitigation or into
phenomena protection account

Collapse Depending on
Containment losses associated the la
with contained equipment nature of
the products:
Toxic
dispersion
Slick fire in the
UVCE
building
Fire

B.4 Other equipment that can be a source of aggression

The list of equipment that could be a source of aggression is not exhaustive. It is given
as an indication.

B.4.1 Chimneys / Elevated structures / Flare drums

Potentially initiated by an Potential barriers to Not taken into
earthquake mitigation or account
protection
Collapse
Attacks on other facilities located in
proximity (1 x height from flue)

These are not special risk equipment, but sources of aggression to be treated under the
seismic protection.
B.4.2 Cranes / work equipment
They are not equipment. Moreover, the simultaneity of events is not retained.

B.5 Barriers
Barriers are typically of 3 types:
- Passive barriers (retention,...),
- Active barriers, particularly those based on automation (instrumentation),
- Human barriers (manual action).

It is possible to have a combination of the last two types in a barrier (manually triggered
emergency stop).

In general, it will be considered that the barriers that comply with the criteria set out in the
various technical guides, or whose effectiveness in the event of an earthquake is
demonstrated by ad hoc reasoning by the industry, are functioning. The malfunctioning
of such a barrier will never be considered in the "reduced" scenarios.

B.5.1 Passive barriers

The passive barriers necessary for seismic protection must be studied as part of the
seismic study and accordingto the behavioral requirements selected (see Chapter 5).

B.5.2 Active barriers

The active barriers necessary for seismic protection must be studied within the framework of
the seismic study and according to the behavioral requirements retained which, in this
specific case, is operability (see Chapter 5).
As far as isolation devices are concerned, there is no need to add any particular delay to
their implementation in case of earthquake.
The loss of utilities (electrical power and/or air instrumentation) must be considered in
the event of an earthquake, unless special provisions are made.
Otherwise, the existence of equipment allowing the automatic withdrawal of the
equipment due to lack of use can be considered as a barrier, insofar as the operation of
this equipment in the event of an earthquake is demonstrated (see seismic instrumentation
guide).

B.5.3 Human barriers

The implementation of human barriers for seismic protection is possible provided the
following criteria are met:
- The main points of sheet 7 (chapter 1.1.7) of the circular of May 10, 2010 must be
applied, particularly the aspects of availability, intervention kinetics and maintenance
of the human barrier over time;
- A specific analysis must be carried out to verify that the availability and kinetic
aspects are not affected by the earthquake. This may imply in particular an
earthquake resistance of the premises where the personnel, the means of
intervention are located, etc... with a seismic solicitation based on the special risk.
These points will have to be carefully studied and exposed in the earthquake study.
The specific guide "Folding in the event of seismic stress" specifies the conditions for
the application of human barriers.
APPENDIX GLOSSARY

C.1 Acronyms
AFD French Association of Earthquake Engineering
AS Authorization with Easement
ASN Nuclear Safety Authority
ATEX ATmosphere EXplosive
BAEL Reinforced concrete at limit states (old standard)
BLEVE Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion
BPAP Prevention, Mitigation or Protection Barrier
CPT Cone Penetration Test
CSEM Euro-Mediterranean Seismological Centre
CST Scientific and Technical Committee
DCH High Class Ductility
DCL Limited Class Ductility
DCM Middle Class Ductility
DOE Department of Energy (USA)
ESD Hazard Study
ELS Serviceability
ELU Ultimate Limit State
EMI Minimum Energy of Inflammation
ENS Non-Structural Element
ERC Central Dreaded Event
ERP Establishment Receiving the Public
ERS Special Risk Equipment
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GIL Liquefied Flammable Gas
GIP Generic Implementation Procedure
IBC Large Bulk Containers
ICPE Installation Classified for the Protection of the Environment
ISS Soil-Structure Interaction
MASW Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves
NGA Next Generation Attenuation
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
OAP Structure Potential aggressor
PEER Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research center
PLU Local Urbanism Plan
PPRT Technological Risk Prevention Plan
REX Return of Experience
RN Risk Normal
RS Special Risk
SETRA Service d'Etudes sur les Transports, les Routes et leurs Aménagements
SNCT National Union of Boilermaking and Piping & Industrial Maintenance
SPT Standard Penetration Test
SQUG Seismic Qualification Utility Group
TAI Auto-ignition temperature
TFC Carbon fiber fabric (registered trademark)
TQC As Built
UVCE Unconfined Vapour Cloud Explosion

C.2 Definitions
Lack of interaction Behavioral requirement that aims to avoid the impact
between components of the installation close to each
other. It translates into a requirement to limit the
movements of these components according to their
distance
of separation from each other.
Accelerogram Signal giving acceleration of motion due to an earthquake
as a function of time for a given direction
Action Cause of the forces applied or deformations imposed on a
work
Soil radiative damping Phenomenon of energy dissipation due to waves transmitted in
the ground by the vibrations of the foundations of a
structure
Prevention, Mitigation or Structures or equipment whose loss of functionality
Protection Barrier (PMPB) would indirectly induce a dangerous phenomenon
leading to lethal effects on areas with permanent human
occupation (e.g. damage to the control room or injuries to
operators of an FRC preventing the implementation of
safety procedures, loss of means
intervention or extinction). BPAP does not
must be part of a classified installation.
Soil class Category defining the nature of the soil in the NF EN
1998-1 standard according to the dynamic properties of the
soil layers over the first 30 meters. The soil class is
necessary to define the seismic action of calculation (soil
spectrum
regulation). Classes range from A ("hard" soil) to E ("soft" soil).
Behavior coefficient A coefficient used for design purposes that reduces the
forces obtained from a linear analysis to account for the
nonlinear response of a structure. This coefficient is
related to the material, the structural system and the
sizing methods.
Containment Behavioral requirement that aims to maintain the passive
sealing function, allowing the maintenance of a
product (gas, liquid, solid) in a defined space.
Diaphragm A horizontal bracing system that transfers lateral forces to
vertical bracing systems by in-plane shear. The role of
diaphragm is generally played by the floors and/or roof in a
building and by the
deck in a bridge.
Constructional provisions Technical provisions on the scale of structural elements that
contribute to the desired strength of a structure (e.g.: local
arrangement of reinforcement for reinforced concrete,
adaptation of the assemblies of structural elements
metallic...)
Ductility
Strong phase duration
Earthquake directivity effect
P-δ effect
Inertial forces
Non-structural element
Equipment
Special Risk Equipment (SRE)
Intercorrelation function
Existing installation
New installation
Soil-structure interaction
Seismic insulation
Magnitude
Magnitude of moment Mw
Magnitude of surface waves Ms Magnitude based on measurement of maximum surface
wave amplitude at a period of 20 s. Used in the simplified
liquefaction study method in Appendix B
of the standard EN NF 1998-5.
Capacity of a structural element to deform in the
post-elastic domain of the materials without loss of its
resistant capacity
Time interval during which the percentage of Arias
intensity changes from 5% to 95% of its total value.
Increase of the amplitude of the ground motion at low
frequency in the direction perpendicular to the direction of
seismic rupture.
Second order effect on the moment due to the action of
a vertical force on a structure deflected by the action of
horizontal forces. These effects concern structures or
elements
slender.
Efforts due to the acceleration of the masses of a structure
An architectural, mechanical or electrical element, system or
component which, because of its lack of strength or
because of the way it is connected to the structure, is not
considered a force-transferring element in seismic
design.
All the equipment and accessories associated with the
exercise of the activity covered by the nomenclature concerned
(manufacturing or fluid transfer machines, process
equipment, storage tanks, piping, accessories for
piping, networks, etc...)
Equipment that directly generates, in the event of an
earthquake, a scenario leading to a dangerous
phenomenon whose consequences fall under the special
risk defined by the decree.
Function to establish the correlation between two
accelerograms and to establish their statistical
independence.
Non-new facility
Facility authorized after January 1, 2013
Modification of the behavior of a structure linkedto the
deformability of the ground on which it is founded.
Design principle consisting of decoupling the response of
the superstructure from that of the infrastructure by
means of devices that deform significantly under the
effect of the earthquake. The use of such devices
reduces the seismic forces but considerably increases
the
travel.
Measure of the energy released by an earthquake. A
magnitude can be associated with a seismic zone for a
period of
return given.
Magnitude calculated from the ruptured fault surface and
the slip distance produced on the fault. Data used for
liquefaction risk studies.
Capacity sizing method A design method in which certain elements of the
structural system are appropriately selected, designed and
detailed to ensure dissipation
of energy under the effect of large deformations, while all
other structural elements are sufficiently resistant so
that the provisions chosen to dissipate
energy can be ensured.
Operability Behavioral requirement corresponding to the
maintenance of the performance of the function
associated with the structure or
the equipment
Potential Aggressor Work (PAW) Structures or equipment that can be a source of external
physical aggression (of sufficient kinetic energy) for a HRA
or a BPAP (e.g.: fall of a chimney inducing
damage to a reservoir). The OAP does not
must be part of a classified installation.
Normal risk Everything that is not a special risk
Special risk Who falls within the scope of the October 4, 2010 order -
Section II
Website Perimeter of the industrial platform (see sheet 1 B of
the circular of 10 May 2010)
Response spectrum Curve corresponding to the maximum amplitude as a function
of the frequency of the response of simple oscillators for a
given damping when they are solicited by the
seismic motion
Soil spectrum Response spectrum representing seismic motion at ground
level. The regulatory spectra are ground spectra. They
depend on the soil class and the seismicity zone.
Transferred spectrum (or floor A spectrum representing the seismic motion at a given point
spectrum) of a structure when subjected to the seismic motion
defined by a soil spectrum. These spectra are used for the
dimensioning of equipment on structures
supports or non-structural elements.
Overall stability Behavioral requirement assigned to the main system of
bracing which aims at not collapsing or tilting

Local stability Behavioral requirement that aims at the non-collapse

Dissipative structure
Support
Dynamically independent unit
of one or more elements
Structure capable of dissipating energy by ductile
hysteretic behavior and/or other mechanisms.
Behavioral requirement that expresses the fact that the
condition of the structural element supporting equipment
is compatible with meeting the requirements assigned to
that equipment. This requirement implies the stability of the
element
structural concerned.
A structure or portion of a structure that is directly
subjected to ground motion and whose response is not
influenced by the response of adjacent units or structures.
Seismicity zone Geographical zone associated with a regulatory seismic
ground acceleration set by the decree of October 4, 2010 -
Section II for the special risk. The distribution of the
French territory in five zones of increasing seismicity
according to the probability of occurrence of earthquakes is
defined by the decree n°2010-1255 of October 22, 2010 :
- Seismicity zone 1: very low
- Seismicity zone 2: low
- Seismicity zone 3: moderate
- Seismicity zone 4: medium
- Seismicity zone 5: strong
Dissipative zones Predefined parts of a dissipative structure where is
mainly localized the ability of the structure to dissipate
energy (also called critical zones).
APPENDIX ANNEXES TO CHAPTER 7

Methods of calculation

D.1 Static non-linear push-over method

Non-linear static calculation methods of the "push-over" or "progressive push" type can
be useful in the case where the linear type approaches prove to be too enveloping,
especially from the point of view of seismic forces.

When performing a calculation taking into account material non-linearities, the forces in the
elements and connections are then capped, and it is then more relevant to adopt a
displacement or deformation approach than a force or stress approach. The purpose of
the displacement method is to determine the deformations induced by the regulatory
earthquake level and to compare them with the deformation limits. This analysis in
progressive loads also allows to locate the successive points of plasticization and the
local potential weaknesses of the equipment or the structure for these loads. An
example is the static analysis in progressive push-over.

However, the displacement analysis method is generally difficult to implement because

engineering practices and tools (e.g., standards, criteria, and design codes) are oriented
toward stress analysis.

D.2 Equivalent non-linear static method by using a behavior coefficient

A simplified method to estimate the anelastic forces in the structure is to reduce the
forces obtained by an elastic calculation by a behavior coefficient q. The elastic
calculation is usually a spectral modal calculation or an equivalent static calculation.

The values of the behaviour coefficient q, including the influence of viscous damping
different from 5 %, are given for various materials and structural systems, according to
various levels of ductility, in the relevant parts of EN 1998 and in the specific application
guides.

The values of the behavior coefficient q can be different in the two horizontal directions,
although the ductility class must be the same in all directions.

The strength and energy dissipation capacity to be given to the structure depend on the
way its non-linear behavior is used. In practice, such a trade-off between strength and
energy dissipation capacity is characterized by the values of the behavior coefficient q and
the associated ductility classes, given in the relevant parts of EN 1998. In the limiting case of
low-dissipative structures, no hysteretic energy dissipation is taken into account for the
design and dimensioning, and the behavior coefficient cannot, in general, be taken
higher than the value 1.5, considered to account for over-resistances. For steel or mixed
steel-concrete buildings, the corresponding limit value of the coefficient q can be taken
between 1.5 and 2.

The engineer must always justify the use of a behavior coefficient by demonstrating the
ductile character of the structure studied by studying the following parameters
 Proper constructive arrangements of reinforcement in concrete;
 Ductile nature of connections for metal structures;
  Over-strength of welding materials compared to those of the welded elements;
 Fragilization of tank sheets;
 Fragile anchors;
 Any other element influencing the ductility of the system.
In the context of the diagnosis, the engineer may use a larger behavior coefficient, but
the value must be properly justified by demonstrating the particularly ductile character
of the system.

D.3 Transient calculation methods

Transient calculation methods, linear or non-linear, can be applied to obtain a better
estimate of the forces and to allow the clearance of equipment that cannot be cleared
by more simplified methods.

The linear transient method uses a model whose components (wires, surfaces or
volumes) have linear elastic characteristics. This method can be sufficient to perform the
seismic evaluation of existing structures or equipment whose original design ensures a
satisfactory dimensioning with respect to the elastic seismic stresses derived from the
seismic hazard used in diagnosis.

The seismic solicitations, obtained with the help of the finite element model of linear elastic
mechanical characteristics, allow to compare the capacities of resistance or deformation of
the existing structural elements to the theoretical demands of efforts, or deformations
called by the elastic seismic calculation. The verifications are to be carried out for the
whole of the structural elements by taking into account the specific functioning of these
elements, in compression, traction, shearing, bending and torsion.

The verifications of the sections can be made according to the specific rules. Some
examples: with the criteria of the BAEL rules, NF EN 1998-3 for reinforced concrete
structures, with the criteria of the CM66 or EC3 type rules for steel structures.

The linear transient method can be used for quantitative diagnostics. The main
disadvantage of this type of method, well adapted to the design of new structures or
equipment, is that it only allows to find an envelope approximation of the real seismic
forces. This overestimation of the forces is due to the fact that the linear elastic seismic
calculation generally neglects the real non-linear behaviors which exist for all types of
materials.

The non-linear transient calculation method can be useful in the case where previous
analyses (for example linear or non-linear push-over type) have highlighted non-linear
behaviors related to contact phenomena or related to localized non-linearities requiring
a specific demonstration need with respect to the objectives assigned to the equipment
or the structure

This method, applied to simplified models of behavior can be useful for demonstrations,
or for sensitivity studies, with respect to specific nonlinear problems. The application to
too complex models can become prohibitive because of the computational volumes
generated by the nonlinear temporal approaches. These volumes are also conditioned by
the use of a number of uncorrelated accelerograms (at least 5 accelerograms, this point
appears for example in the ASN/GUIDE/2/01 guide) and by the needs of post-processing
of these non-linear temporal responses.
Transitional methods are sophisticated methods that are cumbersome to implement.
They should be considered only as a last resort if simplified methods of assessing
capacity margins fail to justify the structure but the verification criteria are exceeded
only moderately.