Day 2a Introduction To EC8 and Background Insights To The Development of NA (Notes)

16/8/2021
DAY 2A
INTRODUCTION TO EC8 AND

BACKGROUND/INSIGHTS TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MS NA (2017)
Dr. Daniel LOOI

PhD (HKU) | MIEAust CPEng (Structural)
Senior Lecturer, Course Coordinator for Civil Engineering
Swinburne University of Technology (Sarawak campus)
dlooi@swinburne.edu.my
1
CONTENTS
1. Introduction to EC8
2. Recurrence modelling (local and distant earthquakes)
3. Ground motion modelling (local earthquakes)
4. Ground motion modelling (distant earthquakes)
5. Response Spectrum on Rock for Malaysia
6. Local site soil effects in the Malaysian EC8 NA
7. Conclusion
1
2
16/8/2021
INTRODUCTION TO EC8
BS EN 1998-1:2004 MS EN 1998-1:2015
MALAYSIAN EUROCODE 8 NATIONAL ANNEX (NA)
First public comments Published 2017

(Feb – April 2016)
*Note that
there are
significant
differences
2
4
16/8/2021
EC8 NATIONALLY DETERMINED PARAMETERS (NDP)
EC8 gave a list of NDP to be specified in the NA, e.g.:
CAN WE JUST BLINDLY USE THE EC8 RECOMMENDATION?
EC8 SG NA
EC8 – Type 1 NA - SS
EC8 – Type 2
3
6
16/8/2021
WHY CAN’T WE JUST USE EC8 TYPE 1 OR 2?
Europe is far away from subduction earthquakes (Pacific ring of fire)!
Diagram from Geology of Earthquakes by Yeats et al . 97
SWINBURNE INVOLVEMENT IN THE NA
4
8
16/8/2021
THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING BY LAYMEN AND AVERAGE

ENGINEERS
Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale of Seismic Intensity
Map by Leyu CH (2007)
QUESTIONS TO PONDER
• How much survey data Leyu (2007) has in terms of:

• Amount
• Coverage
• Reliability?
www.Vectorstock.com
• Whereas we know Malaysia is situated in an intraplate

region, having infrequent earthquake history.
5
10
16/8/2021
EARTHQUAKE INTENSITY
DEFINITION : A qualitative description

of the effects of the earthquake at a
particular location, as evidenced by
observed damage and human reactions
at that location
MMI has a scale of twelve grades,

identified as I through XII
11
APPROXIMATE COMPARISON OF MAGNITUDE AND MMI
6
12
16/8/2021
QUESTIONS TO PONDER
• How much convert Richter scale or Moment

scale to a peak ground acceleration?
• M and R are essential!

www.Vectorstock.com
13
DETERMINISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT
Example: Boore Joyner & Fumal (1997) for a deterministic scenario of M6 at R = 20 km distance
Vs
ln Y  b1  b2 M  6   b3 M  6   b5 ln r  bv ln
2
where r  rjb2  h 2
VA
Consider RSA value at 0.3s for average soil sites in which Vs  310m/s is assumed
Vs
ln Sa0.3s  0.803  0.769M  6   0.161M  6  0.893 ln r  0.401 ln
2
2133
M  6 rjb  20km h  5.94km Vs  310 for average soil
Vs 310
 r  20 2  5.94 2  21km   0.145
VA 2133
ln Sa0.3s  0.803  0.7696  6   0.1616  6   0.893 ln 21  0.401 ln 0.145
2
ln Sa0.3s  0.803  2.719  0.774  1.142

Sa0.3 s  0.32 g
7
14
16/8/2021
PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)
To carry out PSHA, we need

1. Source (do we know? Recall
Lecture Day 1)
2. Recurrence modelling (see
next)
3. Attenuation relationship for
ground motion modelling
(converting M-R to PGA, see
next)
4. Hazard level (500 or 2500
years RP? See next)
15
CONTENTS
7. Conclusion
8
16
16/8/2021
CONCEPT OF RETURN PERIOD
Earthquake occurrence is usually modelled as a Poisson process (i.e.

random occurrence).
The Poisson model is the standard model for probabilistic seismic

hazard analyses.
17
POISSON DISTRIBUTION REVISIT
𝑣 𝑒
𝑃 𝑛 =
𝑛!
where 𝑣 = expected number of occurrence
n = exact number of occurrence
Example: The average number of an earthquake in your city is 2 per

year. What is the probability that exactly 3 earthquakes will hit your
city next year?
Solution: 𝑃 𝑛 = = = 0.180
! !
It has a 18% of probability that 3 earthquake events will hit your city
next year.
9
18
16/8/2021
POISSON DISTRIBUTION REVISIT
What about probability of having one or more earthquake with

magnitude M and over exposure time ∆t?
Probability of exceedance, P[M, ∆t] = 1−𝑃 0
=1− =1−𝑒
!
∆t
Introduce 𝑣 =
( )
∆t
Hence, P[M, ∆t] =1 − 𝑒 ∆t ( )
≈
( )
Because of 𝑒 = 1 + 𝑣 + + + ⋯ , if 𝑣<0.1
! !
If ∆t = 1 year, hence Annual Probability of Exceedance (PE) is
1
P[M, 1] ≈ ; Return period is therefore 𝑅𝑃 𝑀 =
19
RETURN PERIOD VS PE OF EARTHQUAKE
If RP = 500 years
Hence Annual PE(e) = 1/500 = 0.002 or 0.2% for an event ‘e’
What about over a longer exposure interval, say 50 years?
𝑃𝐸
= 1 − 1 − 𝑃𝐸 𝑒 ∆
∆𝑡
= 1 − 1 − 0.002
= 0.095 ≈ 0.1 or 10% in 50 years
10
20
16/8/2021
RETURN PERIOD VS PE50
Earthquake RP (years) PE50 (%)

event
Frequent 50 63%
Occasional 475 (or round off 500) 10%
Rare 2475 (or round off 2500) 2%
21
EARTHQUAKE RECURRENCE
log 10 N ( M ) Model of earthquake recurrence

a Gutenberg - Richter (1954) relation :
or Increasing Return Period
log 10 N ( M )  a  bM
Lower Probability of
 a 5  b ( M  5)
Exceedance
a5
b
1
0 5 MCE M
N(M) = no. of earthquakes with magnitude  M occurring in a fixed time

interval (e.g. 100 years) and source area (e.g. 100,000 km2)
= cumulative frequency of events with magnitude  M
MCE =
“Maximum Capable Earthquake” (seismologists)
or “Maximum Considered Earthquake” (engineers)
11
22
16/8/2021
GLOBAL EXAMPLE OF EARTHQUAKE OCCURRENCE
100
Western USA,
Greece
NUMBER >M PER YEAR (per 106 km2)

10
Philippines
Taiwan
1
Hong Kong
Japan
0.1
UK Eastern USA
0.01
4 5 6 7 8 9
MAGNITUDE
23
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
Table 1. Performance Criteria of Building Structures

Eurocode 8 part 1 Eurocode 8 part 3 SEAOC Descriptions
Vision 2000
1 Fully Operational Components that are sensitive to drift and/or acceleration
remains fully functional in a frequent event.
2 Damage Limitation Damage Limitation Operational No permanent drift and no loss of lateral strength or
(DL) Or stiffness of the building. The built facility remains to be fit
Immediate for continuous occupation in an occasional event.
Occupation
3 No Collapse Significant Damage Life Safe No part of the structure collapses and adequate residual
(NC) lateral resistant capacity remains in the structure after a
rare event to withstand strong aftershocks in order that
safety of the occupants can be secured but building may be
inhabitable and repair too costly.
4 Near Collapse Collapse Prevention Structure is able to sustain sufficient vertical load carrying
or Near Collapse capacity in a very rare earthquake event when the structure
is at the edge of wholesale collapse. Residual lateral
resistant capacity of the building might have been lost.
12
24
16/8/2021
AUSTRALIAN SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
25
RETURN PERIOD CONSIDERATION
When the intensity of a very rare event is only up to 1.5 x a rare event, as in the case of high
seismicity regions, it is reasonable to design for a return period of 500 years for ordinary (class II)
buildings.
However, the assumption is unsafe in low-to-moderate seismicity regions where the return period
should be much higher (>2.5).
13
26
16/8/2021
THE USE OF IMPORTANCE FACTOR
Eurocode Malaysia
recommendation decision
The PGA must be achieving 2500 years RP for Class IV structure, then
scale down.
Many researchers/engineers think that should anchor at 500 years

RP, then scale up – which is under-protecting the structure!
27
RECOMMENDATION FOR MALAYSIA (AND OTHER LOW-TO-

MODERATE SEISMICITY REGIONS)
• Whilst it is the norm to adopt a return period of 475 years for the
design of ordinary buildings (class II) in high seismicity regions, the
trend displayed on the previous slide suggests that similar
provisions can be grossly inadequate when adapted to regions of
low-to-moderate seismicity (because of the higher rate of increase in
ground motion intensity with increasing return period).
• A safe approach is to set the reference design seismic action (of a

rare event) to be always equal to 2/3 of that of a very rare event
(2475 years RP) in order that buildings are ensured safe from
collapse irrespective of the actual return period factor of the area.
• See next few slides for graphical explanations…
14
28
16/8/2021
GENERAL CONCEPT
1.5% 2.5%
drift drift
Conventional ULS (DL) No Collapse (NC) Near Collapse
S S 1.5  S
q
Check for strength
S  Seismic Action
29
ORDINARY BUILDINGS (IMPORTANCE CLASS II)
Individual dwellings or shops in low rise buildings
1.5% 2.5%
drift drift
S 2500 yrs S 2500 yrs S 2500 yrs

1 .5  q
 S reference
1.5
Check for strength
S reference  Reference Seismic Action

15
30
16/8/2021
BUILDINGS OF LARGE OCCUPANCIES (IMPORTANCE CLASS III)
condominiums, shopping centres, schools and public buildings
S 2500 yrs S 2500 yrs

1.2  1.2   1.2  S reference 1.2  1.5  S reference
1.5  q 1.5
31
LIFELINE BUILT FACILITIES (IMPORTANCE CLASS IV)
hospitals, emergency services, power plants and communication facilities

S 2500 yrs S 2500 yrs 1.5  S 2500 yrs
q
S 2500 yrs  Full Design Seismic Action
16
32
16/8/2021
CONTENTS
7. Conclusion
33
COMPANION PAPER
Looi, D.T.W.; Tsang, H.H.; Hee, M.C. and Lam, N.T.K. (2018). “Seismic Hazard and Response Spectrum
Modelling for Malaysia and Singapore”, Earthquakes and Structures, 15(1), pp. 67-79.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326507424_Seismic_Hazard_and_Response_Spectrum_Mo
delling_for_Malaysia_and_Singapore
17
34
16/8/2021
THE EARTHQUAKE CHARACTERISTIC OF MALAYSIA
Response spectral
displacement
(RSD)
(mm)
Local
1.25 s T (s) 1.25 s T (s) 1.25 s T (s)

Peninsular
SW Sabah
Malaysia CNE Sabah
Sarawak
Singapore
35
DIFFERENT FORMATS OF RESPONSE SPECTRA
RSDmax D
A V D
V A
T1 RSD = RSVmax x T/2p
RSVmax V
T2
D
T1 T2
(a) Tripartite Velocity Response Spectrum (b) Displacement Response Spectrum
A A V D A A
RSAmax RSAmax
2
RSV max
RSA 
RSD
A = Vmax x 2p/T V
Notice the difference of
this RSA compared to
our MDF lecture? D
T1 T2 RSDmax D
(c) Traditional Force-Based (d) Acceleration-Displacement
Acceleration Response Spectrum Response Spectrum
18
36
16/8/2021
QUESTION TO PONDER
For Malaysia, we know it can be earthquake

characteristic can be categorised into short period
(T<1.25 s) and longer period (T>1.25 s).
For longer period, dominated by regional and long

distance earthquakes, the historical data is rich and www.Vectorstock.com
hence the recurrence can be plotted.
What about the local earthquake which is so

infrequent?
37
RECURRENCE MODEL FOR REGIONAL EARTHQUAKES (T>1.25 S)
Pappin J.W., Yim P.H. and Koo C.H.R. (2011). An Approach for Seismic Design in
Malaysia following the Principles of Eurocode 8, JURUTERA, October issue, IEM.
http://myiem.org.my/download/downloadlink.aspx?fn=1223_Jurutera%20Oct%2011%20(low).zip&id=1223
19
38
16/8/2021
RECURRENCE MODEL FOR REGIONAL EARTHQUAKES (T>1.25 S)
Historical database
was collected by
Pappin et al. (2011)
and plotted for
Gutenberg-Richter
(1954) relationship.
39
FOR LOCAL EARTHQUAKES (T<1.25 S)
Lam, N.T.K., Tsang, H.H., Lumantarna, E. & Wilson, J.L. (2016),

“Minimum loading requirements for areas of low seismicity”,
Earthquake and Structures 11(4), 539-561.
Utilise a broad source zone model, Gutenberg-Richter parameters

were determined using global average
20
40
16/8/2021
CONCEPT OF BROAD SOURCE ZONE MODEL
41
RECURRENCE FOR LOCAL EARTHQUAKES (T<1.25 S)
log10 N (M)  a  b M
Where
N(M) = the expected number of earthquakes ≥ M occurring within an area of
1,000,000 km2 over a 50-year period
KD = 1 refers to 5 events and KD = 2 refers to 10 events
KD = 1; a = 5.2, b = 0.9
KD = 2; a = 5.5, b = 0.9
21
42
16/8/2021
WORLD GEOLOGIC PROVINCES –

CRATONIC AND NON-CRATONIC
Rock (non- Hard rock (cratonic)

cratonic) Low seismicity
High seismicity (e.g. New York)
(e.g. California) NGA-East Rock (non-cratonic)
models Low seismicity (Malaysia,
NGA-West2
Singapore)
models
NGA-East? or
NGA-West2
models????
43
ATTENUATION EQUATIONS FOR LOCAL EARTHQUAKES
They are very well established, commonly available in US

Eastern North America (ENA) models
PEER NGA-West2 models
https://peer.berkeley.edu/research/nga-west-2
22
44
16/8/2021
P. MALAYSIA, SINGAPORE, SARAWAK, SW SABAH (RSA AT 0.3 S)
ENA models (cratonic) overlaid

on NGA-West2 models for log N = 5.5 – 0.9 M
45
P. MALAYSIA, SINGAPORE, SARAWAK, SW SABAH (RSA AT 0.3 S)
Selected ENA models (non-cratonic) overlaid

on NGA-West2 models for log N = 5.5 – 0.9 M
23
46
16/8/2021
CENTRAL NORTH-EASTERN (CNE) SABAH
compound S.R = 1.4, hence 0.32g x 1.4 = 0.45g
47
SUMMARY OF PGA IN SHORT PERIOD (T<1.25 S) BY LOCAL

EARTHQUAKE MODELLING
Peninsular
Malaysia
SW Sabah
CNE Sabah
Sarawak
Singapore
RSAmax = 0.25g RSAmax = 0.45g

PGA2500 = 0.25/2.5 = 0.1 g PGA2500 = 0.45/2.5 = 0.18 g
PGA475 = 0.1/1.5 = 0.07 g PGA475 = 0.1/1.5 = 0.12 g
24
48
16/8/2021
CONTENTS
7. Conclusion
49
THE CHALLENGE FOR ATTENUATION EQUATIONS IN

SUBDUCTION EARTHQUAKES
9.5
Design Earthquake
9
Rare Earthquake Events
Moment Magniude
8.5
M
Mentawi Strait 2007
8 scope of application Bengkulu 2000
of existing
Bengkulu 2007
attenuation model
Nias 2005
from regression
7.5 analysis Aceh 2004
Design Earthquake
7
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Site-Source Distance (km)
R (km)
25
50
16/8/2021
SUPPORTING PAPERS FOR SUBDUCTION EARTHQUAKE - 2002
51
26
52
16/8/2021
53
LAM ET AL. (2009) IN ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
M9.3 Aceh Earthquake Dec 2004

10
Response spectral velocity (mm/s)
1
5% damping
0.1
Recorded N-S Component
Recorded E-W Component
Simulations without upper crustal amp
Simulations with crustal effects
0.01
0.1 1 10
Natural Period (s )
Simulation of Long Distance Earthquakes Based on Stochastic Simulations

of the Seismological Model
using Program GENQKE (first developed by Lam 1996)
27
54
16/8/2021
M8.6 Nias Earthquake March 2005

100
Response spectral velocity (mm/s) 10
5% damping
1
0.1 Simulations with crustal effects

0.01
0.1 1 10
Natural Period (s)

55
M8.4 Bengkulu Earthquake Sept 2007

100
5% damping
10
0.1

0.01
0.1 1 10
Natural Period (s )

28
56
16/8/2021
M7.9 Bengkulu Earthquake June 2000

10

1
5% damping
0.1
0.01
0.1 1 10
Natural Period (s)

57
29
58
16/8/2021
MODIFYING THE UNIFORM RSA, RESULTS OF PSHA FOR

DISTANT EARTHQUAKES (LONGER PERIOD)
Looi, D.T.W.; Hee, M.C.; Tsang, H.H. and Lam, N.T.K. (2013). “Earthquake loading model
in the proposed National Annex to Eurocode 8 for Peninsular Malaysia” Proceedings of
presentation IStructE Conference on Structural Engineering in Hazard Mitigation 2013, Oct
28-31, Tsinghua University Beijing and Tongji University Shanghai, China.
59
QUESTION TO PONDER
Why EC8 Singapore NA has so low PGA? www.Vectorstock.com
Ground Type C Ground Type D

PGA = 0.03g PGA = 0.045g
The SG NA did not consider local earthquakes!
30
60
16/8/2021
CONTENTS
7. Conclusion
61
THE RS MODEL PROPOSED FOR THE DRAFT MALAYSIAN EC8 NA

(2016) FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS
RS for Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore
T ≤ 0.3: SDe(T) = 16 T2 / (0.3 x 1.25)

0.3 ≤ T ≤ 1.25: SDe(T) = 16 T / 1.25
T ≥ 1.25: SDe(T) = 16 + 6.7 (T - 1.25)
31
62
16/8/2021

RS for Sarawak, SW Sabah
T ≤ 0.3: SDe(T) = 16 T2 / (0.3 x 1.25)

0.3 ≤ T ≤ 1.25: SDe(T) = 16 T / 1.25
T ≥ 1.25: SDe(T) = 16
63

RS for NW Sabah
T ≤ 0.3: SDe(T) = 28 T2 / (0.3 x 1.25)
0.3 ≤ T ≤ 1.25: SDe(T) = 28 T / 1.25
T ≥ 1.25: SDe(T) = 28 + 40 (T - 1.25)
32
64
16/8/2021
COMPROMISING TO THE EC8 FORMAT
1. The response spectrum models discussed above were originally

formulated in displacement format (NA-2016, draft Malaysia NA to
EC8 in the first public ballot in April 2016) and can be conveniently
converted into acceleration format by following fundamental
principle.
2. The 2016 version was “attacked” by many stakeholders in the code

committee for being too simple (Peninsular, Sarawak and Sabah
region), and not following EC8 format.
(*Most likely was the lower/out-dated level of understanding of seismic modelling

and many concepts in earthquake engineering!)
Hence, alternative expression strictly based on the rigid framework of

EC8 can be compromised.
65
MS NA STRICTLY TO EC8 FORMAT
33
66
16/8/2021
COMPARISON OF THE RS IN THE DRAFT NA-2016 VS PUBLISHED NA-2017
www.Vectorstock.com
But what was

not captured
in this
model?
67
CONTENTS
7. Conclusion
34
68
16/8/2021
COMPANION BOOK CHAPTER
Looi, D.T.W.; Tsang, H.H.; Lam, N.T.K. and Hee, M.C. (2018). Chapter 12.2: “Site
classification scheme and response spectrum models for Malaysia”, in Lam &
Chan (Eds.), Guideline on Design of Buildings and Structures in Low-to-
moderate Seismicity Countries. Professional Guide: PG-002, Chinese National
Engineering Research Centre for Steel Construction (Hong Kong branch, The
Hong Kong Polytechnic University).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325619322_Site_Classification_Sche
me_and_Response_Spectrum_Models_for_Malaysia
69
SOIL RESONANCE EFFECTS
Site Natural Period : TS = 4 HS / VS
t1 t2 t3 t4
VS
Energy loss HS Soil
(Soil damping)
Seismic
Impedance
Energy loss =V.r
(Radiation damping)
Rock (VR)
Incident
Wave
35
70
16/8/2021
NON-LINEAR SITE EFFECTS
5:1 3:1
2:1
Approximate relationship between peak ground acceleration (PGA)

on rock and soft soil sites (after Idriss, 1990).
71
CASE STUDY
Recorded Acceleration Response Spectra

1989 Earthquake at Loma Prieta, California, U.S.
12
1989 Earthquake at Loma Prieta ,California, U.S.
10
Spectral Acceleration (m/s/s)
8
Oakland Outer Harbour rock site
Oakland Outer Harbour Soil Site
6
2 ?
0
0 1 2 3 4
Period (s)
36
72
16/8/2021
CASE STUDY
Recorded Displacement Response Spectra

1989 Earthquake at Loma Prieta, California, U.S.
0.3
1989 Loma Prieta,
Response Spectral Displacement (m)
0.25 California Earthquake
0.2
0.15 Largest
Amplification
0.1
0.05
~TS Oakland Outer Harbour rock site
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Period T (s)
73
REPORTED BY
H.B. Seed et al. (1976, BSSA)

“Site-Dependent Spectra for Earthquake-Resistant Design”
Recorded Normalised Spectral Acceleration for Soft to Medium Stiff Clay
37
74
16/8/2021
SITE CLASSIFICATION IN CURRENT EC8 (ALSO IBC & NBCC)
The average shear wave velocity (SWV) of the top 30m

of the site profile:
n
d i
Vs ,30  i 1
n
Notes: The same equation applies to
di the computation of the values of

i 1 Vs ,i
SPT-N and undrained shear strength.
WHERE:
di = thickness of layer i between 0 and 30 m.
= shear wave velocity in Layer i in m/s.
75
CURRENT EC8 GROUND TYPE CLASSIFICATIONS
38
76
16/8/2021
CURRENT EC8 TYPE 2 RS
Type 2 elastic response spectrum model

– for regions of lower seismicity
Se
Se,max =
2.5*S*ag
1
S*ag 1 T2
T
TC TD  1.2 s
77
NOTE THAT THE PARAMETERS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE
 EC8, Part 1: Cl 3.2.2.2 (2)P
39
78
16/8/2021
SINGAPORE NATIONAL ANNEX & BC3: 2013
79
DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN CODE MODELS FOR A PARTICULAR

FLEXIBLE SOIL SITE
T1 ~ 300% difference
S ~ 2.5 – 5.9
S ~ 1.9 – 8.4
40
80
16/8/2021
COMPARISON WITH HIGHER-TIER SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS RESULTS
HS (m) VS (m/s) TS (s) 4H S

Typical TS   site natural period
30 222 0.54 VS
depth
EC8-1
EC8-1
EC8-2
EC8-2
81

Deep TS   site natural period
58 222 1.0 VS
site
EC8-1
EC8-1
EC8-2
EC8-2
41
82
16/8/2021
MODEL A AND MODEL B IN THE MS EC8 NA
MODEL A MODEL B
Looi, D.T.W.; Tsang, H.H.; Lam, N.T.K. and Hee, M.C. (2018).
Chapter 12.2: “Site classification scheme and response
spectrum models for Malaysia”, Lam & Chan (Eds.), Guideline
on Design of Buildings and Structures in Low-to-moderate
Seismicity Countries. Professional Guide: PG-002, Chinese
National Engineering Research Centre for Steel Construction
(Hong Kong branch, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University).
83
MODEL A
for Soil Depth
< 30 m ONLY
MODEL B
for Any
Soil Depth
42
84
16/8/2021
CURRENT EC8 SITE CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
(Model A for soil

depth < 30 m)
Class A Class D Class E

Soil < 5m
Loose & Soil
Soft 5 - 20m
5 - 30m
rock rock rock
85
CURRENT EC8 SITE CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
MODEL A IS INCOMPLETE !!
What if vs,30 is between

180 and 800 m/s ??
(which is very common)
Ground types B and C

in Model A are not
applicable!!
43
86
16/8/2021
THE IMPROVEMENT DONE FOR MODEL B
SITE CLASSIFICATION SCHEME WITH

SITE PERIOD PARAMETERISATION
(MODEL B)
Annex A in MS EN 1998-1:2015 (NA:2017)
For Any Soil Depth (including Depth > 30 m)
incl. HS < 5 m
incl. 5 m < HS < 30 m
HS > 30 m
HS > 30 m
incl. HS > 30 m
87
THE IMPROVEMENT DONE FOR MODEL B
MODEL B IS COMPLETE !! Current EC8 Type 2 model

MS EN 1998-1:2015 (NA:2017) – for regions of lower seismicity
Response spectral Acceleration
Class B - E
ROCK Class A
TB TC TD
Natural Period of Vibration
44
88
16/8/2021
MODEL B HAS STRONG THEORETICAL BASIS
Generic Site Amplification Model Covering Any Soil Depth

(including Depth > 30 m)
89
MODEL B – THEORETICAL BASIS
0.3
Published in
Displacement (RSD)
1989 Loma Prieta,

(m)
0.25 California Earthquake January 2017

Soil RSDmax = SDR(b TS)×S
SpectralDisplacement
T1
0.2 Tailor-made Models
Developed for Malaysia,
0.15
S Australia & Hong Kong,
Spectral
respectively
0.1 T2
Response
Rock SDR(b TS)

Response
0.05
Oakland Outer Harbour rock site
0 T2  b TS
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T1  1.2 TS Period T (s) 45
90
16/8/2021
APPLICATION EXAMPLE ONE
HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

SEISMIC DESIGN GUIDELINES
- RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL (~1.2M UNITS)
PUBLIC HOUSINGS, >3M POPULATIONS
- 30+ STORIES
- IRREGULAR PLAN
- SHEAR WALLS
91
APPLICATION EXAMPLE TWO
Revision of Australian Standard AS1170.4
Published in March 2017
Site Class Description Site Period TS (s) (mm) T1 (s) T2 (s)

A&B Rock TS < 0.15 26 0.3 1.5
C Stiff Soil 0.15 ≤ TS < 0.6 33 0.6 0.75
D Flexible Soil 0.6 ≤ TS < 0.9 61 0.8 1.0
E Very Flexible Soil 0.9 ≤ TS ≤ 1.2 92 1.2 1.5
S# Special Soil TS > 1.2 92 0.8 1.5
* Values of RSDmax are based on Melbourne conditions (Z=0.08).

# the envelope of response spectrum models for all site classes shall be
taken, or dynamic site response analyses should be undertaken.
46
92
16/8/2021

Typical TS   site natural period
30 222 0.54 VS
depth
EC8-1
EC8-1
EC8-2
EC8-2
93

Deep TS   site natural period
58 222 1.0 VS
site
47
94
16/8/2021
SITE NATURAL PERIOD (TS)
MODEL B IS
SIMPLE,
COMPLETE &
RATIONAL
For Any Soil Depth
(incl. depth > 30 m)
Simple calculation
of site period
95
CALCULATIONS OF SITE NATURAL PERIOD (TS)
Empirical conversion from SPT (N) to SWV (Vsi)

using Imai & Tonouchi (1982), Vsi = 97 N0.314
48
96
16/8/2021
SELECTION OF BOREHOLES
MODEL B
Annex A in MS EN 1998-1:2015 (NA:2017)
For Any Soil Depth
97
COMPARISON OF MODEL A VS MODEL B (TS < 0.15 S)
TS < 0.15 S (GROUND TYPE A)
Peninsular Malaysia (KL) PGA = 0.07g
49
98
16/8/2021
Sabah (KK) PGA = 0.12g
MODEL B
MODEL A type A
MODEL A
MODEL B
99
Sarawak (Kuching) PGA = 0.07g
MODEL A
MODEL B
50
100
16/8/2021
COMPARISON OF MODEL A VS MODEL B (0.15 S < TS < 0.5 S)
0.15 S < TS < 0.5 S (GROUND TYPE B)
101

MODEL A type E
MODEL B
MODEL A
MODEL B
51
102
16/8/2021

103
0.5 S < TS < 0.7 S (GROUND TYPE C)
52
104
16/8/2021

MODEL A type D
MODEL B
MODEL A
MODEL B
105
53
106
16/8/2021
0.7 S < TS < 1.0 S (GROUND TYPE D)
107
MODEL B
Type D
54
108
16/8/2021
109
COMPARISON OF MODEL A VS MODEL B (TS > 1.0 S)
TS > 1.0 S (GROUND TYPE E)
55
110
16/8/2021
MODEL B
Type E
111
56
112
16/8/2021
ENDORSEMENT BY INTERNATIONAL EXPERTS
IEM WORKSHOP 12 APRIL 2017

MODEL B ENDORSED BY
President of EAEE (2018-2022)
PROFESSOR K. PITILAKIS Coordinator, EAEE Working Group 6:
– LEAD DRAFTER OF EC8 Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering
• Professor Pitilakis spoke in
favour of Model B.
• Next edition of EC8 to be revised
with site natural period
parameterisation as for Model B
113
RECENT PAPER BY PROFESSOR K. PITILAKIS
Pitilakis K, Riga E, Anastasiadis A, Fotopoulou S and Karafagka S (2018) Towards the revision of
EC8: Proposal for an alternative site classification scheme and associated intensity dependent spectral
amplification factors, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 126,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.03.03
57
114
16/8/2021
115
CONTENTS
7. Conclusion
58
116
16/8/2021
CONCLUSIONS
1.Basic concept of seismic hazard modelling is introduced –

DSHA and PSHA
2.Recurrence modelling was explained using the Malaysian EC8

NA.
3.Ground motion modelling for Malaysia (short and long

period) was explained using the Malaysian EC8 NA.
4.Site model unique for Malaysia (Model B) was introduced.
117
END OF DAY 2A
INTRODUCTION TO EC8 AND

BACKGROUND/INSIGHTS TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MS NA (2017)
Dr. Daniel LOOI

PhD (HKU) | MIEAust CPEng (Structural)
Senior Lecturer, Course Coordinator for Civil Engineering
Swinburne University of Technology (Sarawak campus)
dlooi@swinburne.edu.my
59
118

Day 2a Introduction To EC8 and Background Insights To The Development of NA (Notes)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Day 2a Introduction To EC8 and Background Insights To The Development of NA (Notes)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

16/8/2021

INTRODUCTION TO EC8 AND

Dr. Daniel LOOI

MALAYSIAN EUROCODE 8 NATIONAL ANNEX (NA)

First public comments Published 2017

EC8 NATIONALLY DETERMINED PARAMETERS (NDP)

EC8 gave a list of NDP to be specified in the NA, e.g.:

CAN WE JUST BLINDLY USE THE EC8 RECOMMENDATION?

WHY CAN’T WE JUST USE EC8 TYPE 1 OR 2?

Europe is far away from subduction earthquakes (Pacific ring of fire)!

Diagram from Geology of Earthquakes by Yeats et al . 97

SWINBURNE INVOLVEMENT IN THE NA

THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING BY LAYMEN AND AVERAGE

Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale of Seismic Intensity

Map by Leyu CH (2007)

• How much survey data Leyu (2007) has in terms of:

• Whereas we know Malaysia is situated in an intraplate

DEFINITION : A qualitative description

MMI has a scale of twelve grades,

APPROXIMATE COMPARISON OF MAGNITUDE AND MMI

• How much convert Richter scale or Moment

• M and R are essential!

DETERMINISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT

ln Sa0.3s  0.803  2.719  0.774  1.142

PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT (PSHA)

To carry out PSHA, we need

CONCEPT OF RETURN PERIOD

Earthquake occurrence is usually modelled as a Poisson process (i.e.

The Poisson model is the standard model for probabilistic seismic

POISSON DISTRIBUTION REVISIT

Example: The average number of an earthquake in your city is 2 per

POISSON DISTRIBUTION REVISIT

What about probability of having one or more earthquake with

RETURN PERIOD VS PE OF EARTHQUAKE

RETURN PERIOD VS PE50

Earthquake RP (years) PE50 (%)

log 10 N ( M ) Model of earthquake recurrence

N(M) = no. of earthquakes with magnitude  M occurring in a fixed time

GLOBAL EXAMPLE OF EARTHQUAKE OCCURRENCE

NUMBER >M PER YEAR (per 106 km2)

Table 1. Performance Criteria of Building Structures

AUSTRALIAN SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

RETURN PERIOD CONSIDERATION

THE USE OF IMPORTANCE FACTOR

Many researchers/engineers think that should anchor at 500 years

RECOMMENDATION FOR MALAYSIA (AND OTHER LOW-TO-

• A safe approach is to set the reference design seismic action (of a

• See next few slides for graphical explanations…

Conventional ULS (DL) No Collapse (NC) Near Collapse

ORDINARY BUILDINGS (IMPORTANCE CLASS II)

Individual dwellings or shops in low rise buildings

Conventional ULS (DL) No Collapse (NC) Near Collapse

S 2500 yrs S 2500 yrs S 2500 yrs

S reference  Reference Seismic Action

BUILDINGS OF LARGE OCCUPANCIES (IMPORTANCE CLASS III)

condominiums, shopping centres, schools and public buildings

Conventional ULS (DL) No Collapse (NC) Near Collapse

S 2500 yrs S 2500 yrs

LIFELINE BUILT FACILITIES (IMPORTANCE CLASS IV)

hospitals, emergency services, power plants and communication facilities

Conventional ULS (DL) No Collapse (NC) Near Collapse

S 2500 yrs  Full Design Seismic Action

THE EARTHQUAKE CHARACTERISTIC OF MALAYSIA