STRUCTURAL PROJECT OF A BUILDING DESIGNED ACCORDING TO THE

EUROCODES EC1, EC2 AND EC8

Pedro Santos

Resume

Since 1975, several countries have made efforts to create common rules for the construction industry
in order to eliminate technical barriers. In result of these efforts emerged the Eurocodes, which result
from the sharing of knowledge between the various member countries of the European Committee for
Standardization (CEN) and research surveys conducted since.

The Eurocodes are regulations common to all member states of CEN, being accompanied in each
country by National Annexes which are developed by technical committees of each country and
designed to ensure the adequacy of regulation to each country characteristics.

The regulation consists of nine Eurocodes, and some of these are divided in several parts. To
implement the project of a reinforced concrete structure in a place where the seismic action is not
negligible is necessary to use five Eurocodes, namely: Eurocode 0: Basis of structural design -
covers general aspects, including the design working life for each type of structure, combinations of
actions and the safety factors.

Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Part 1-1: General actions – Densities, self-weight, imposed
loads for buildings.

Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings -
includes security checks, service checks and detailing of reinforced concrete structures.

Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 1: General Rules - deals with the soil structure
interaction, particularly in verifying the safety of foundations.

Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1: General rules, seismic
actions and rules for buildings - includes the definition of seismic action and check in service and
safety check of the structure. This document are provided indications for detailed elements, which are
complementary to those prescribed by EC2.

In this document is presented the application of new regulations in the design of a residential building
in reinforced concrete, including the EC0, EC1, EC2 and EC8. In comparison between the existing
regulations in Portugal, Regulamento de Estruturas de Betão Armado e Pré-esforçado (REBAP) e
Regulamento de Segurança e Acções para Estruturas de Edifícios e Pontes (RSA), and the new rules
(Eurocodes) notes that the main differences are in characterization of the seismic action and the detail
of elements in earthquake-resistant structures, so that this document emphasis will be given to the
requirements of EC8.

The standards developments, in particular EC8, due mainly to better characterize the seismic action
and behavior of structures. For this scientific work has contributed not only laboratory research but
also the observation of structures affected by high magnitude earthquakes.

1
The project elaboration should begin by defining general aspects, including the location, type of use
and design working life.

The structure in analysis is located in Faro, and is composed by two underground floors, for parking,
and seven storeys high for housing. Regarding to the structure objective it is classified as belonging to
category II, ordinary building, in terms of seismic action behaviour. Given the building characteristics
the structure was designed for the Ductility Class Medium (DCM) because it is expected that this
ductility class will be more frequently used in Portugal in the coming decades, since most of the
national territory is subject to a seismicity level that is not negligible and due to the complexity of
structure project in Hight Class Ductility (DCH) and the control level associated with implementing.

For design working life must be adopted prescriptions of EC0, in other words, a residential building
must belong to category S4 that corresponding to design working life of 50 years.

The definition of the structural materials is governed by specific rules. For concrete structures should
consult the following standards:

- EN 206-1 Betão – Parte 1: Especificações, desempenho, produção e conformidade;

- E 464 Betões – Metodologia prescritiva para uma vida útil de projecto de 50 e de 100 anos
face às acções ambientais.

After exposure classes characterization to various elements was determined the nominal cover and
specified the concrete strength class. In defining the exposure classes it was assumed that corrosion
was induced by carbonation, that is a plausible hypothesis for common structures that are not along
the coastline and are unaffected by the freeze / thaw attack. For the analysis, and assuming the use of
a CEM II / B - "Portland Cement Limestone," cement type concludes that the minimum allowable
strength class is C30/37, and the minimum nominal cover is 25 mm, 35 mm and 40 mm for structural
elements subject to exposure class XC1 (Pt), XC2 (Pt) and XC4 (Pt) respectively. It is specified the
A500 NR SD Class C steel, that is a high ductility steel, because is expected the reinforcement
plasticization in critical areas of structural elements.

For structure design were used the combinations of actions prescribed by the EC0 and adopted the
partial coefficients defined in Annex A of EC0 (γG = 1,35 e γQ = 1,50).

The permanent loads existing on structure were grouped in the two sets of actions. The first
composed by the structure self weight which depends only on the volumetric elements. The second
set of actions is designated by other permanent loads, and is composed by non-structure materials,
including masonry and finishes.

Table 1 shows the other permanent loads considered in model:

2
Inner wall 2,8 kN/m
Exterior wall 7,4 kN/m
2
Roof 2,0 kN/m
2
Floor 1,5 kN/m
2
Garage 1,5 kN/m
Table 1 – Other permanent loads considered in model.

2
The values adopted for imposed loads on floors, roofs, garages, stairs and balconies were defined
according to Section 6 of EC1. In Table 2 is indicated the imposed loads on structure as well as the
combination coefficients (ψ0, ψ1 and ψ2), which were defined in Annex A of the EC0.

Imposed loads kN/m2 Ψ0 Ψ1 Ψ2

Floor 2,0 0,7 0,5 0,3
Stair 3,0 0,7 0,5 0,3
Balconies 4,0 0,7 0,5 0,3
Garage 2,5 0,7 0,7 0,6
Roof 0,4 0 0 0
Table 2 – Imposed loads and combination coefficients.

Once quantified the actions due to permanent and impose loads we can proceed to the seismic action
analysis.

Inherent to the design philosophy prescribed by EC8 are three basic principles that should be ensured
in case of earthquake, namely:

Human lives are protected;

Damage is limited;

Important structures for civil protection must remain operational.

To ensure that these objectives are achieved the EC8 defines two levels of seismic verification, the
"design seismic action" and the seismic action to be taken into account for the “damage limitation
requirement”.

The seismic action to be taken into account for the “damage limitation requirement” aims to ensure
that the structure remains functional after the seismic event. The probability of exceedance is 10% in
10 years, ie an action with a return period of 95 years.

Structures shall be dimensioned to resist the design seismic action without local or global collapse,
maintaining its structural integrity and a residual load capacity after the occurrence of an earthquake. It
is assumed that structural damage can be quite significant to the point of recovery of the structure is
not possible. In Portugal the probability of exceedance is 10% in 50 years, which corresponds to a
return period of 475 years.

In EC8 are defined two types of seismic action designated by Type 1 and Type 2. The National Annex
require the consideration of two types of seismic action for the structure design in Portugal
Continental, but only requires the consideration of the Type 1 for Madeira and the consideration of
Type 2 for Azores.

Type 1 is associated with the failure that separates the European and African tectonic plates. Rather,
Type 2 is associated with earthquakes with an epicenter within European mainland or in the Azorean
archipelago.

3
Because there are two types of seismic action, Type 1 and Type 2, the EC8 established two zoning
based on the soil acceleration expected in each county. Figure 1 shows the zonation maps for
Portugal Continental defined by national annex.

Figure 1 – Zonation map for Portugal Continental. Seismic Type 1 (left) and Type 2 (right).

Madeira is classified as zone 1.6 and in the Azores islands, Santa Maria and Graciosa are classified
as 2.2, the islands of Flores and Corvo as 2.4 and the other islands as 2.1.

In seismic analysis carried out was used modal analysis by response spectrum, using a linear-elastic
model to simulate the structure and a response spectrum given by EC8. It was assumed a damping
coefficient of 5%, that is a reference value for concrete buildings.

The seismic action was modeled by two orthogonal components, assuming they are independent and
represented by the same response spectrum. The effects combination due to seismic action in each
direction was made by applying the following expressions:

EEdx “+” 0,30 EEdy and 0,30 EEdx “+” EEdy

Where there is "+" implies "to be combined with” and EEdi represents the action effects due to the
application of seismic action along the horizontal axis I of the structure.

In seismic analysis were taken into account all significant vibration modes for the overall structure
behavior. Therefore, it was found that the sum of the total effective mass taken into account in the
modal analysis was greater than or equal to 90% of the total structure mass and that all vibration
modes with an effective mass greater than 5% of the total mass were taken into account. The modal
responses combination resorted to Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC) once the response in two
vibration modes can´t be taken as independent of each other.

The building location is Faro, being the soil classification of type C according to the classification in
EC8 Section 1. Using the national territory seismic zoning, we can imply that the structure is in the 1.2
zone to Seismic Action Type 1 and in 2.3 Zone for the Seismic Action Type 2.

4
It is necessary to define the behaviour factor (q) to quantify the response spectrum. Theoretically the
behaviour factor is defined as the ratio between the force that develops in the elastic phase and the
real force developed in the structure if it passes through the yield point in the diagram
force / displacement. In practice it is difficult to do so due to the complexity of nonlinear models and
the behaviour factor is determined roughly by EC8 taking into account the structural system and the
structure ductility class.

The minimum behaviour factor for DCM structures is obtained from an inverted pendulum system
(q0 = 1.5) or a torsionally flexible system (q0 = 2.0). Rather, the behaviour factor takes maximum value
for frame system and frame-equivalent dual system with multistory and multi-bay frames (q0 = 3.9).
Equally high is the behaviour factor for coupled wall system and wall-equivalente dual, where
behaviour factor takes the maximum value of 3.6.

The difference recorded at the level of the behavior factor relates to the ability of energy dissipation of
each structural system, which is directly related to the plastic hinges formation ability in structures. The
ability of a dissipative element depends mainly on the ductility of the same, namely the capacity to
deform after reaching the yield point without losing the ability to load. As the seismic action is
comparable to a cyclic loading, by reversing the load direction, power dissipation is called hysteresis.
In concrete structures the element ductility is achieved primarily through a concrete section effective
confinement and using high ductile steel.

Due to the numerous occurrences throughout the world it was found that structures with certain
characteristics have a more appropriate performance against imposed accelerations. The most
relevant features for good behavior are: structural simplicity, uniformity, symmetry, redundancy, bi-
directional resistance and stifness, torsional resistance and stiffness, diaphragmatic behaviour at
storey level and adequate foundations.

The concrete structure is composed by flat slabs with 0.20 m thickness supported by beams, which
discharge into walls and columns. The existence of walls away from the gravity center prevents the
existence of fundamental torsional modes. Due to the building architecture the vertical elements
position is highly conditioner. Highlight the fact that flat slab frame used as primary seismic elements
is not fully covered by EC8, without however prevent their use. Therefore, was chosen to put beams
on the structure periphery and between the walls and elevator core. This allows to increase,
significantly, the capacity of energy dissipation. Figure 2 shows used structural modelation.

5
 Figure 2 – Structural Modelation.

Interior columns were classified as secondary elements, so they are not responsible for resisting
seismic action. However, such elements and their connections should be designed to maintain the
ability to support vertical forces when subjected to displacements caused by seismic action.

In design it is assumed that ground has good features, so it resorts to direct foundations.

The structure modeling was made with SAP2000 ® program. In models were taken several factors into
account, namely the loss of stiffness due to element cracking, the uncertainties at the imposed loads
level and the response spectrum associated with each analysis (ELU and ELS).

After modeling and structural analysis was attributed the classification of uncoupled wall system
because most actions were balanced in horizontal and vertical direction by walls. Consequently it was
adopted a behaviour factor (q) of 3.

Once determined the behaviour factor it was defined the design spectrum of the seismic action to be
taken into account for the damage limitation requirement, which are represented graphically in the
following figure.

6
 Figure 3 – Design spectrum and the seismic action to be taken into account for the damage limitation requirement.

Finally it is noted that although the seismic action is characterized by horizontal and vertical
accelerations the EC8 Section 4 only requires taking into account the vertical component of seismic
action when dealing with one of the following situations:

- for horizontal or nearly horizontal structural members spanning 20m or more;

- for horizontal or nearly horizontal cantilever components longer than 5m;

- for horizontal or nearly horizontal pre-stressed components;

- for beams supporting columns;

- for base-isolated structures.

Once the structure does not fit the described characteristics, it is only take into account the horizontal
component of seismic action for the structure design.

The EC2 sets limits for the strucutre members deformation to avoid bad functioning or appearance.
Thus the maximum beam deflection, slab or cantilever subjected to quasi-permanent loads is limited
to L/250 and deflection after construction is limited to L/500 for the same action combination.

To determine the conditioning displacement in the pavement it was first quantified the slab
displacement due to elastic behavior. Then Global Coefficients Method was applied to determine the
cracking and creep effect.

7
 Figure 4 - Slab Deformation.

The EC8 sets a damage limitation requirement that is considered to be satisfied, if, under seismic
action the interstorey drift are limited. For checking the damage limitation requirement it is necessary
to create two model calculations and to assess the structure behavior with and without masonry infill
panels. The masonry modeling causes the increased of the structure stiffness and the displacements
decreasing. In checking it is possible to say that is legitimate take into account the increased stiffness
due to masonry because it is expected that for this seismicity level the masonry infill panel do not
suffer significant damage. Masonry modelling was done according to studies conducted by Al-Chaar.
The masonry infill panel was represented by an equivalent diagonal strut as shown in figure 5.

Figure 5 – Equivalent diagonal strut.

The first conclusion after analyzing the interstorey drift is that the verification is carried out successfully
for both models. Through the displacements analysis we can conclude that interstorey drift is higher
by 10% in the model without simulated masonry infill panel and so the masonry contribution is
negligible. The marginal stiffness increase caused by the masonry infill panel modulation is explained
by the high rigidity of the wall system. However, for more flexible structural systems, eg on frame
structures, adding stiffness due to masonry infill panel is not negligible and can allow the damage
limitation requirement checking.

Due to the wall system high rigidity the second-order effects need not to be taken into account in
structure design since the interstorey drift is controlled at a low level. This is one advantage of this
structural system type.

8
In Ultimate Limit States (ULS) verifications and detailing was conducted a survey of major aspects.
For example, EC8 Section 5 requires that hoops used as transverse reinforcement in beams, columns
or walls, have closed stirrups with 135º hooks and 10dbw length, as illustrated in Figure 6.

Figure 6 – Hoops detail.

In general, reinforced concrete elements have shear fragile behaviour. The EC8 application leads to
avoid the collapse by shear before the development of plastic hinges.

Through the analysis it was found that the EC8 introduces new demands on the elements detail,
particularly in critical regions of primary seismic elements. For example, EC8 do not allow lap-slipicing
by welding within the structural elements critical regions.

The EC8 imposes limitations on the longitudinal reinforcement ratio of primary seismic beams and
columns. The minimum and maximum are, respectively, 1% and 4% of concrete section area for
columns and 0,3% and 4% of concrete section area for beams.

To prevent bond failure the beam longitudinal bars diameter passing through beam-column joints is
limited. To ensure the requirements of ductility in beams, the hoops spacing is highly limited in critical
regions. In design were used spacing of 0.10 m between hoops in critical regions.

In columns classified as primary seismic elements, with symmetrical cross-sections, should be

provided symmetrical reinforcement and at least one intermediate bar shall be provided between
corner bars along each column side. Every longitudinal bar or bundle of bars placed in a corner should
be held by transverse reinforcement. No bar within a compression zone should be further than 150mm
of a restrained bar (EC2 Section 9). The distance between consecutive longitudinal bars engaged by
hoops or cross-ties can not exceed 200mm (EC8 Section 5).

In addition to the distance from the beam-column join, the entire length of column should be
considered as a critical region and be reinforced with the amount and pattern of stirrups required for
critical regions if: the infills height is smaller than the clear lenght of the adjacent columns; the infills
extend to the entire clear lenght of the adjacent columns, and there are masonry walls on only in one
side of the colunm (e.g. corner columns); and columns of the ground floor.

The loss of resistance due to concrete spalling is mitigated by confining the section concrete core. As
already be mentioned the confinement of the beams sections is done by limiting the spacing between
stirrups. In walls and columns confinement is achieved by the ratio between volume of confining hoops

9
and volume of concrete core. Also in columns and walls, beyond the section confinement, axial stress
are limited to ensure the necessary ductility level.

On walls, due to their greater rigidity, it is common occur high magnitude design bending moments.
The EC8 allows you to reduce the stiffness of these elements since they have ductility. Regarding the
level of stresses redistribution between elements, the standard limit for seismic stress distribution, is
30% between primary seismic walls.

On walls the most efficient way to distribute the reinforcing bars is to concentrate them along the
edges. In these elements the minimum area of longitudinal reinforcement is 0.5% of the area of
concrete. Among the edges was placed the minimum reinforcing bars, 0.2% of the cross-section.

The detailed rules for the longitudinal reinforcement in walls are the same rules already indicated to
columns.

After design it appears that the amount of reinforced bars (longitudinal and transverse) placed on the
upper floors is constrained by EC8.

The structural elements classified as secondary seismic elements should be designed and detailed to
have resistant capacity to gravity loads in the seismic design situation occurring in the maximum
deformation. In the design under consideration was decided to use the design spectrum and ensuring
the ductility of the elements.

In foundations it is not expected to occur energy dissipation in seismic design situation, so stresses
should be determined on the basis of actual capacity. However, it isn’t necessary that these stresses
exceed those corresponding to the structure response in the seismic design situation in case of elastic
behavior (q = 1.0).

The slab modeling was done with shell elements. In flat slabs must be regarded interaction slab /
column to prevent punching shear. In this structure was garanteed the safety without using punching
shear reinforcement.

The join slab / column is a sore point with flat slabs structures, especially in structures subjected to
seismic action. Since there are no concrete rules on how to deal with this type of structure connection
subjected to seismic action is suggested the placement of reinforcement suspension bars in the slab
to prevent its fall during the earthquake.

10