Machine Translated by Google

People's Democratic Republic of Algeria

People's Democratic Republic of Algeria
Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research
Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research
Ziane Achour University of Djelfa Jelfa Ashour Zan University

Faculty of Science and Technology Technology and science

Civil Engineering Department Department of Science and Technology

Reference: FST/DGC/M2/2015/2016

End of studies dissertation

Presented at
Department: Technological Sciences
Field: Civil Engineering

Sector: Civil Engineering

Specialty: Earthquake Engineering

Realized by

M. Fekhit Ahmed
M. Hani Mustapha

For graduation from

ACADEMIC MASTERS

Entitled

Comparative study relating to the consideration of

local site conditions in the spectra of
RPA, Eurocode and UBC answers

Mr.Brahimi Mohamed Univ. Djelfa President

Mr.Dif Hamza Univ. Djelfa Framer
Mr.Attia Ahmed Univ. Djelfa Examiner

PROMOTION : 2015-2016
Machine Translated by Google

THANKS

Above all, we thank God for givingwhome the strength to

will finish this humble work.

We would like to express our gratitude to our promoter

H.difM. , for the confidence he placed in us, for his advice which
enlightened

the progress of our work and which helped us in my periods of doubt,

for

the nectars he made us discover, for his availability, his help, his

serenity that he

my contribution and finally his communicative good humor.

Our thanks also go to the members of the jury who made us

the honor of agreeing to judge our work.

Our sincere gratitude to my teachers in the department: Science

Technical sector Civil Engineering "Djelfa"

Finally, my thanks also go to those who have contributed directly or

from far to

the elaboration of this modest work, find here the expression of our profound

gratitude and

respects
Machine Translated by Google

DEDICACES

To my very dear mother and to my dear father , in testimony and in

gratitude for their dedication, their permanent support during all my years of
study, their unlimited sacrifices, their moral comfort, those who have made so
much effort for my education, my instruction and to see me achieve this goal , for
all this and for what cannot be said, my limitless assignments.

To those who are the source of my inspiration and my courage, to whom I owe
love and gratitude:

To my dear sisters and to my dear brother

To all my family

A mes Amis (es) : Ilyes, Tahar, Mazoz, Chaarani, Walid, Mohamed,

Abdelkader, M'barek

All my friends

To all my teachers and colleagues from the University of Djelfa

To all the class of 2016 To all of

you, a big thank you.

Fekhit Ahmed
Hani Mustapha
Machine Translated by Google

Résumé

The lessons learned from the violent earthquakes of the past, in Mexico in 1985, and
the El-Asnam earthquake in 1980, have shown the importance of the effect of the site on
the aggravation of the damage, and prove that the geotechnical conditions and Local
topographic conditions have an influence on the seismic movement on the surface, by the
amplification of the seismic waves which often aggravates the risk. In order to reduce this
risk, the various regulatory codes take these effects into account using different
approaches. The objective of this work is to carry out a comparative study relating to the
consideration of local site conditions in the RPA, Eurocode and UBC response spectra,
and to deduce conclusions, improving the consideration of the effects of site.

Keywords
Local conditions – Site effects – Regulatory codes – Response spectra

Abstract

Lessons learned from past earthquakes in Mexico in 1985 and the earthquake in El
Asnam in 1980, showed the importance of the effect of the site from further damage and
prove that the geotechnical conditions and local topographical influence seismic motion at
the surface, by the amplification of seismic waves which often increases risk.

To reduce this risk the various regulatory codes take into account these effects following
different approaches. The objective of this work is to conduct a comparative study on the
integration of local site conditions in response spectra RPA, Eurocode and UBC, and to
deduce conclusions, improving the recognition of the effects site.

Key words
local conditions -Effects site - Regulatory Codes - response spectra.

Summary

Lessons from the past earthquakes in Mexico in 1985 and the Asnam earthquake in 1980, show the

importance of the impact of the site on further damage and prove that the geotechnical and topographic
on
the surface earthquake, from Do not amplify the
ÿ me conditions of the local movement have the effect of
waves
Machine Translated by Google

ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿ The end of this seismic regulatory

at R.seismic
Most ofline
us are
takes
Yazidis
into account
ÿ these

influences following different approaches.

The aim of this work is to conduct a comparative study on the incorporation of local site conditions into the
ÿ
ÿ Walk with America ÿ response of the Algerian seismic resistance spectra, the European code, and to

conclude the results and to improve the recognition of site effects.

Keywords

Local conditions - site effects - regulatory codes - response spectra.

Machine Translated by Google

summary

Page

general introduction………………………………………………..…....1

CHAPTER 01 Bibliographical summary

1.1. Introduction………………………………………..………….…...3

1.2. Presentation of paraseismic codes……………..…………….... 3

1.2.1. Algerian paraseismic rules (RPA 99 VERSION 2003)…3
1.2.2.Eurocode8…………………………………….……….…...6

1.2.3.Uniform Building Code (UBC97)………………..….…….9

1.3. Conclusion…………………………………………….………....11

CHAPTER 02 Site Effects Overview

2.1. Introduction……………………………………………………....12
2.2. General information on site effects……………………..………..…..12
2.3. Evidence of the site effect……………………………………......15

2.4. Effect of geological conditions…………………………….…....15

2.5. Topographic site effect………………………….………...…16
2.6. Methods for assessing site effects………………………....17

2.6.1.Experimental methods for assessing site effects..18

2.6.2.Numerical methods…………………….………….…....19
2.7. Conclusion……………………………………………………......21

CHAPTER 03 Response spectra

3.1. Introduction……………………………………………………. ..22

3.2. Response spectra…………………………………..……....22 3.3.

Response spectrum of RPA 99 VERSION 2003…………………23
3.4. Eurocode8 response spectrum.………………………………..26 3.5.
Response spectrum of UBC97……………………………………29
3.6. Classification of sites………………………………………...….32
3.7. Conclusion……………………………………………………..... 34
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with

RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8
4.1. Introduction……………………………………………………....35

4.2. Comparison of site classifications…..................................35

4.3. Elastic and inelastic response and design spectra ….36
4.4. Eurocode8 topographic amplification factors…………....40
4.5. Establishment of response spectra relating to regulations
(RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag=0.1, ag=0.2, ag=0.3, ag=0.4,
ag=0.5….............. .................................................. .41
4.6. Comparison between acceleration response spectra (RPA,
EC8 and UBC) for the reference periods 0.02s, 0.2s and 3s…55
4.7. Estimation of the variation average ratios of acceleration
spectra for the different sites and PGAs…………………….…58
4.8. Conclusion………………………………………………….…….61

General conclusion................................................ ........................…....62

Machine Translated by Google

List of paintings

Number Entitled Page

Table 3.1 Values of T1 and T 2 ………………………….........24

Table 3.2 Penalty values Pq….…………………………25

Table 3.3 Zone A Acceleration Coefficient ………………25

Table 3.4 value of the parameters describing the spectrum

elastic response…………………………………28

Table 3.5 Elastic Spectrum Horizontal Spectrum…………….28

Table 3.6 Seismic zone …………………………………..29

Table 3.7 Site coefficient Fa……………………………….31

Table 3.8 Site coefficient Fv……………………………….31

Table 3.9 Classification de site RPA99 V2003…………..........32

Table 3.10 Eurocode 8 Site Classification…………………...33

Table 3.11 UBC 97 Site Classification………………………33

Table 4.1 Soil types defined in EC8, UBC97

and RPA 99/2003 ……………………………… ......... 35

Table 4.2 Coordinates of elastic and inelastic spectra

for EC8, RPA 99/2003 and UBC97 ………………..38

Table 4.3 Different factors of RPA Rules 99/2003, EC8 and

UBC97…………………………………………………………39

Table 4.4 Acceleration values in periods

0.02s, 0.2s and 3s for a rocky site and ag = 0.1…...41

Table 4.5 Acceleration values in periods

0.02s, 0.2s and 3s for a firm site and ag = 0.1……..42
Machine Translated by Google

Table 4.6 Acceleration values in periods 0.02s, 0.2s

and 3s for a loose site and ag = 0.1……...43
Table 4.7 Acceleration values in periods 0.02s, 0.2s
and 3s for a very loose site and ag = 0.1...43

Table 4.8 Acceleration values in periods 0.02s, 0.2s

and 3s for a rocky site and ag = 0.2…….44

Table 4.9 Acceleration values in periods 0.02s, 0.2s

and 3s for a firm site and ag = 0.2……….45

Table 4.10 Acceleration values in periods 0.02s,

0.2s and 3s for soft site and ag = 0.2…….45

Table 4.11 Acceleration values in periods 0.02s,

0.2s and 3s for a very loose site and
ag = 0.2 ……………………………………………..46

Table 4.12 Acceleration values in periods 0.02s,

0.2s and 3s for a rocky site and ag = 0.3…….. 47

Table 4.13 Acceleration values in periods 0.02s, 0.2s

and 3s for firm site and ag = 0.3……….47

Table 4.14 Acceleration values in periods 0.02s, 0.2s

and 3s for soft site and ag = 0.3……..48

Table 4.15 Acceleration values in periods 0.02s, 0.2s

and 3s for a very soft site and ag = 0.3
……………………………………………..49

Table 4.16 Acceleration values in periods 0.02s,

0.2s and 3s for a rocky site and ag = 0.4……...49

Table 4.17 Acceleration values in periods 0.02s,

0.2s and 3s for a firm site and ag = 0.4………...50

Table 4.18 Acceleration values in periods 0.02s, 0.2s

and 3s for soft site and ag = 0.4………51
Machine Translated by Google

Table 4.19 Acceleration values in periods 0.02s, 0.2s

and 3s for a very loose site and ag = 0.4….51

Table 4.20 Acceleration values in periods 0.02s, 0.2s

and 3s for a rocky site and ag = 0.5………52

Table 4.21 Acceleration values in periods 0.02s, 0.2s

and 3s for a firm site and ag = 0.5………...53

Table 4.22 Acceleration values in periods 0.02s, 0.2s

and 3s for soft site and ag = 0.5……….53

Table 4.23 Acceleration values in periods 0.02s, 0.2s

and 3s for a very loose site and ag =
0.5………………………………………......... ...54

Table 4.24 the comparison for ag = 0.1 and a rocky site……...55

Table 4.25 comparison for ag = 0.1 and a firm site………...55

Table 4.26 comparison for ag = 0.1 and a loose site………55

Table 4.27 the comparison for ag = 0.1 and a very loose site…..55

Table 4.28 the comparison for ag = 0.2 and a rocky site……..55

Table 4.29 comparison for ag = 0.2 and a firm site………..56

Table 4.30 comparison for ag = 0.2 and a loose site……...56

Table 4.31 comparison for ag = 0.2 and a very loose site…56

Table 4.32 the comparison for ag = 0.3 and a rocky site………..56

Table 4.33 comparison for ag = 0.3 and a firm site…….....56

Table 4.34 comparison for ag = 0.3 and a loose site……...56

Table 4.35 comparison for ag = 0.3 and a very loose site…56

Table 4.36 the comparison for ag = 0.4 and a rocky site…….57

Table 4.37 comparison for ag = 0.4 and a firm site……….57

Machine Translated by Google

Table 4.38 the comparison for ag = 0.4 and a loose site …..57

Table 4.39 comparison for ag = 0.4 and a very loose site…57

Table 4.40 the comparison for ag = 0.5 and a rocky site…......57

Table 4.41 comparison for ag = 0.5 and a firm site………..57

Table 4.42 comparison for ag = 0.5 and a loose site……...57

Table 4.43 comparison for ag = 0.5 and a very loose site…58

Table 4.44 The average variation of acceleration for

each site and ag=0.1 ………………………………....58

Table 4.45 The average variation of acceleration for

each site and ag=0.2 …………………………………58

Table 4.46 The average variation of acceleration for

each site and ag=0.3 ………………………………....58

Table 4.47 The average variation of acceleration for

each site and ag=0.4 ………………………………....59

Table 4.48 The average variation of acceleration for

each site and ag=0.5 ………………………………....59
Machine Translated by Google

List of Figures

Number Entitled Page

Figure 2.1 Definition of site effect….................................. .13

Figure 2.2 Different configurations of site effects…………..14

Figure 2.3 Amplification function of two different sites

…………………………………………….….16

Figure 3.1 Standard shape of the RPA99/2003 response spectrum........24

Figure 3.2 Regulatory elastic response spectra used

in this study RPA99/2003…………..............................26

Figure 3.3 standard shape of the Eurocode8 response spectrum……...27

Figure 3.4 Regulatory elastic response spectra used

in this Eurocode8 study…………..................................29

Figure 3.5 Standard shape of the UBC97 response spectrum ………...31

Figure 3.6 Regulatory elastic response spectra used

in this study UBC 97...…………..................................32

Figure 4.1 The response spectra for each of the regulations (RPA,
EC8 and UBC) for ag = 0.1 and a rocky
site………………………………………...41

Figure 4.2 The response spectra for each of the regulations (RPA,
EC8 and UBC) for ag = 0.1 and a firm
site…………………………………………...42

Figure 4.3 The response spectra for each of the regulations (RPA,
EC8 and UBC) for ag = 0.1 and a loose
site..………………………………………...42
Machine Translated by Google

Figure 4.4 The response spectra for each of the

regulations (RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag =
0.1 and a very loose site…………………………………..43

Figure 4.5 The response spectra for each of the

regulations (RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag =
0.2 and a rocky site……………………………………….…44

Figure 4.6 The response spectra for each of the

regulations (RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag =
0.2 and a firm site……………………………………………44

Figure 4.7 The response spectra for each of the

regulations (RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag =
0.2 and a rocky site………………………………………….45

Figure 4.8 The response spectra for each of the

regulations (RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag =
0.2 and a very soft site …………………………………….46

Figure 4.9 The response spectra for each of the

regulations (RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag =
0.3 and a rocky site………………………………………….46

Figure 4.10 The response spectra for each of the

regulations (RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag =
0.3 and a firm site ..................................................47

Figure 4.11 The response spectra for each of the

regulations (RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag =
0.3 and a loose site ………………………………48

Figure 4.12 The response spectra for each of the

regulations (RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag =
0.3 and a very soft site ……………………………………..48

Figure 4.13 The response spectra for each of the

regulations (RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag =
0.4 and a rocky site………………………………………….49
Machine Translated by Google

Figure 4.14 The response spectra for each of the

regulations (RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag =
0.4 and a firm site ............................................50

Figure 4.15 The response spectra for each of the

regulations (RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag =
0.4 and a soft site ………………………………………….50

Figure 4.16 The response spectra for each of the

regulations (RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag =
0.4 and a very soft site ……………………………………..51

Figure 4.17 The response spectra for each of the

regulations (RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag =
0.5 and a rocky site………………………………………….52

Figure 4.18 The response spectra for each of the

regulations (RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag =
0.5 and a firm site ..................................................52

Figure 4.19 The response spectra for each of the

regulations (RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag =
0.5 and a soft site ………………………………………….53

Figure 4.20 The response spectra for each of the

regulations (RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag =
0.5 and a very loose site ……………………………………..54

Figure 4.21 the average change in acceleration for each

site relative to (EC8/RPA) ……………………………..59

Figure 4.22 the average change in acceleration for each

site relative to (EC8/UBC) …………………………….60

Figure 4.23 the average change in acceleration for each

site vs. (RPA/UBC) ……………………………………60
Machine Translated by Google

General Introduction

General Introduction
Lessons learned from historical earthquakes such as the cases of destructive earthquakes

(Mw= 6.8) of Boumerdes which took place in Algeria on May 21, 2003, the earthquake of El

Asnam in 1980 and the Caracas earthquake in Venezuela in 1960, and the Mexican earthquake

in 1985, show that local site conditions of a geotechnical nature and

topographic have a very important role on the response of the structures, account

given the importance of their influence on seismic movements on the surface,

by the amplification of seismic waves. What often aggravates the damage

structures and therefore the seismic risk.

These site effects can be taken into account using several methods.

experimental and digital or regulatory. The different seismic codes

regulations take site effects into account by introducing factors

amplifications for different categories of sites. The objective of this work

is to carry out a comparative study relating to the taking into account of the conditions

of local sites in the response spectra, the Algerian paraseismic regulations

(RPA), European code (Eurocode) and the USA Uniform Building Code

(UBC). And to deduce conclusions, improving the consideration of the effects of

site.To achieve the objective of this work, this thesis is organized in

four chapters as follows:

ÿ The first chapter intended for a bibliographic review and deals with the history of

seismic codes RPA, Euro code and UBC.

ÿ The second chapter presents a general overview of site effects and their
estimation methods.

ÿ The third chapter is devoted to the response spectra in the three codes

earthquakes and their characteristics and different parameters.

1
Machine Translated by Google

General Introduction

ÿ The fourth chapter deals with a comparison between the response spectra in
depending on certain reference periods chosen, from the point of view
spectral acceleration, and this for several seismic movements and in
different local site conditions.

2
Machine Translated by Google
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 01 Bibliographic review

1.1 Introduction

With the significant progress in the current era and the large number of
buildings and works erected throughout the cities of the world, and the increase in
risk in the face of destructive earthquakes and seismic damage such as

Chlef earthquakes in 1981 and Mexico City 1985. A growing need for rules

earthquakes which limit the vulnerability of buildings to earthquakes and increase

their resistance emerged.
This chapter is devoted to a bibliographical review of the regulations:
Algerian paraseismic regulations (RPA), European code (Eurocode) and the Code of
uniform building USA (UBC).

1.2 Presentation of seismic codes

1.2.1 Algerian seismic rules (RPA 99 VERSION 2003)

The first application of Algerian national law on the design of the

resistance of buildings to earthquakes dates back to 1983, following the

1980 El Asnam earthquake with a magnitude of 7.3 on the scale of

Richter. Before this date, in Algeria the French building code was applied, and
which did not provide for a seismic design of the buildings in the face of
earthquake. In 1980 it was passed a law, which subsequently was
revised in 1988, 1999 and 2003 following the devastating earthquake of
Boumerdes.

History of Algerian paraseismic rules (RPA):

• 1978: Preliminary version of the Algerian paraseismic code

- inspired by the American code (UBC 73/76).
- Seismic forces are calculated using the static method
equivalent.

3
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 01 Bibliographic review

• 1981: Edition of the first version of the Algerian paraseismic code (RPA 81)

after

the El Asnam earthquake (M 7.2 / October 10, 1980) and implementation by decree

in parallel with the “PS-69 + complements”

• 1983: RPA–81 (83 version) exclusively

• 1984: Evaluation of the RPA –81 (version 83) following the results of the studies of

Chlef microzoning

• 1988: Revision of RPA – 81 (version 83) Revamping of the document

• 1999: Second revision of the code

- Modifications in the equivalent static method

- Better explanation of the dynamic method: (modal method

spectral)

- Individualized “Materials” and “Foundations” chapters

- More complete and better readable version

ÿ 2003: Third revision following the Boumerdes earthquake (M 6.8 / May 21

2003), with the definition of a New seismic zoning as follows: Zone 0

for Negligible Seismicity, Zone I for Low Seismicity , Zones II a and II

b for medium seismicity and finally Zone III for high seismicity.

a) OBJECTIVES of RPA 99 VERSION 2003

It is a regulatory technical document which sets the design rules and

calculation of constructions in seismic zones, which aim to ensure protection

acceptable human lives and constructions with respect to the effects of actions

seismic by appropriate design and sizing. For some

current works, the objectives are to provide the structure with:

ÿ of sufficient rigidity and strength to limit undue damage

structural damage and avoid structural damage through behavior

4
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 01 Bibliographic review

essentially elastic of the structure in the face of a moderate earthquake, relatively

frequent.
ÿ Of adequate ductility and energy dissipation capacity to
allow the structure to undergo inelastic displacements with
limited damage and without collapse or loss of stability in the face of an earthquake
major, rarer.

For certain major structures, the protection sought is even more stringent
since the structure must be able to remain operational immediately after
a major earthquake.

• DOMAINE D’APPLICATION

The rules are applicable to all common constructions. On the other hand,
they are not directly applicable to constructions such as:

ÿ constructions and installations for which the consequences of damage

even light can be exceptionally serious: nuclear power plants,
LNG facilities, product manufacturing and storage facilities
flammable, explosive, toxic, or pollutants.
ÿ Works of art (dams, maritime structures, bridges, tunnels, etc.). ÿ

Underground networks and structures.

For these types of constructions, the rules propose the reference to

specific recommendations. Furthermore, the provisions of the regulations
do not apply in zones of negligible seismicity of the classification of zones
seismic.

• CONDITIONS D’APPLICATION

The constructions to which the rules apply must satisfy

concomitantly with the applicable design, calculation and execution rules

5
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 01 Bibliographic review

Furthermore, in the event that the stresses resulting from a calculation for the effects of the wind are

most unfavourable, it is the latter that should be taken into consideration

for checking the strength and stability of the structure, but at the same time
time, the constructive provisions of the RPA rules must be respected [01].

1.2.2 EuroCode8

Eurocodes are a new set of European design codes

structure for construction and civil engineering works designed and developed in
over the past 30 years, with the combined expertise of the Member States of
the European Union, they are among the most advanced structural codes in the
world.

The Eurocodes are intended to be mandatory for European public works

and likely to become the de facto standard for the private sector - both in
Europe and worldwide.

The Eurocodes form a common European set of design codes

structure for civil engineering works. They will eventually replace the codes
published by national standards bodies (eg BS 5950) after a period of co-existence.
Currently some Eurocodes are
still in a trial phase, until they are officially adopted. In
In addition, each country may have a national appendix to the Eurocodes which must
referencing for a particular country (e.g. UK National
Annex).

As with other European standards, Eurocodes will be used in

procurement specifications and evaluate brand products
THIS.

6
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 01 Bibliographic review

a) The objectives of EuroCode8:

• The “Structural Eurocodes” constitute a set of standards concerning the

structural and geotechnical design of buildings and engineering works

civil.

• They deal with execution and control only insofar as it is

necessary to indicate the quality of construction products and the level of

quality of implementation, necessary to ensure compatibility with the

design rules.

• As long as a harmonized set of technical product specifications and

performance analysis methods is not available, a number

of structural Eurocodes will deal with some of these aspects in annexes

informative.

Context of the Eurocodes program:

• The Commission of the European Communities (CEC) has undertaken to establish a

set of harmonized technical rules concerning the design of

buildings and civil engineering works, in order to provide an alternative solution to the

different rules in force in the Member States and,

ultimately to replace them.

These technical rules are usually known as "Eurocodes

structural”.

• In 1990, after consultation with the various Member States, the CEC instructed the

CEN to ensure the development, publication and updating of Eurocodes

and the EFTA Secretariat agreed to support CEN in its work.

• Technical Committee CEN/TC 250 is responsible for all

Structural Eurocodes.

Eurocodes program:

7
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 01 Bibliographic review

• Work on the following structural Eurocodes is in progress,

each generally being made up of a certain number of Parts:

ENV 1991 Eurocode 1: Basis of calculation and actions on structures.

ENV 1992 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures.

ENV 1993 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures.

ENV 1994 Eurocode 4: Calculation of composite steel-concrete structures.

ENV 1995 Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures.

ENV 1996 Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures.

ENV 1997 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical calculation.

ENV 1998 Eurocode 8: Design and dimensioning of structures for their

earthquake resistance.

ENV 1999 Eurocode 9: Design of aluminum alloy structures.

• Separate sub-committees, responsible for the various Eurocodes listed above,

were established by CEN/TC 250.

• This part of ENV 1998 has been published as the prestandard

European Union for an initial lifespan of three years.

• This European pre-standard is intended for experimental application

and a compendium of observations.

• In about two years, CEN members will be invited to formalize their

observations in order to take them into account to determine the actions

future to undertake.

• In the meantime, reactions and observations regarding

this European prestandard to the CEN/TC 250 secretariat. or to your organization

national standardization.

National Application Documents (NAD)

8
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 01 Bibliographic review

• Given the responsibilities of Member State authorities with regard to

safety, health, and other aspects covered by the essential requirements of

the Construction Products Directive (CPD), indicative values have been

assigned to certain security elements, identified by the acronym. It is up to the

authorities of each Member State to assign definitive values to these

security elements.

• Some of the harmonized companion standards may not be

available when this prestandard is published. This is why it is planned

than the National Application Document (DAN), giving the values

definitions of the security elements, referring to the standards

supporting documents that are compatible with and specifying the national directives

application of this European pre-standard, is published by each country

member or by its national standards body.

• It is intended that this European pre-standard will be used in conjunction with the

DAN valid in the country where the building or civil engineering work is located.

Problems specific to this European prestandard.

• The definition of the seismic action is one of the fundamental points of this

prenorm. Given the significant differences in terms of seismic hazard and

characteristics of seismogenic sources existing between the Member States,

the seismic action is defined by a sufficiently large number of

parameters whose numeric values are framed; so the authorities of

each member country can adapt the seismic action to their situation

particular. Nevertheless, the use of a common base model to represent

Entering the seismic action constitutes an important step taken by this prestandard in
for the harmonization of the Codes. [02]

1.2.3 Uniform Building Code (UBC97)

The UBC was published in 1927 by the International Council of Sports Officials.

construction, which was based in Whittier, California. It was intended to promote the

9
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 01 Bibliographic review

public safety and provided standardized requirements for construction

safety which does not vary from city to city as had been the case before.

a) Histoire de Uniform Building Code (UBC)

ICBO continued to release updated versions of the env code. after all
three years until 1997, which was set back as the final version after which in
2000 UBC was replaced by IBC (International Building Code), but IBC is mostly used in
the United States of America and a few other countries. Most
developing countries still use UBC (uniform building code).

As already mentioned at the beginning that standards play a very

important in measuring the level of precision and optimism in the quality and
the degree of performance is to be maintained and enhanced. Standards vary from
place to place like the standards we have for America might not

not be usable in Asian countries like China etc. The reason for this
variation in the standard is the variability in the availability of the type of materials
available, the quality of the material. For example, the soil of America is very
different collectively than that of China or any other country.

This variation is also present in the country. The seismic zones are
different. This variation can be easily observed in civil engineering as
each project has different sets of characteristics despite the fact that, even if
materials and requirements are considered the same.

The code is Uniform Building Code having a short form of UBC.

International Council of Construction Officials headquartered in

California first published this code way back in 1927.
ICBO was intended to promote public safety by providing standards and
requirements to ensure safe construction. [03]

The Uniform Building Code (UBC) has recognized the importance of building conditions
local site or site effects, through a "soil factor" that has been added to the

lateral solicitation of buildings in the 1976 editions of UBC, and after

10
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 01 Bibliographic review

many changes have been made to the definition of factors and ground and
soil types, the latest version defines six soil types.

1.3 Conclusion

This chapter has been intended for a bibliographical and historical review for
identify the reasons that led to the adoption of seismic standards in
Algeria Algerian earthquake regulations (RPA), in Europe European code
(Eurocode) and in America the Uniform Building Code USA (UBC), and
the efforts made to issue these rules and make them adapted to the effects

of the site, and in particular the historic earthquake in Mexico City in 1985, which

led to an in-depth study of these rules in order to take into account the
effects of seismic geological and topographical features affecting the

earthquakes.

11
Machine Translated by Google
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 02 Site Effects Overview

2.1 Introduction

In this chapter devoted to a general overview of site effects of various kinds

and lithological and topographical, we describe the different methods
experimental and numerical evaluation of site effects which are essential
in the determination of the local hazard

In the experimental methods we describe the ratio method

spectral functions, the receptive function method and Nakamura's method. And in the
numerical methods methods with one-dimensional modeling,
two-dimensional modeling and three-dimensional modeling.

2.2 General information on site effects

During a seismic event, the waves are emitted from the focus and
propagate to the surface through various media. The movement of a site
given during an earthquake is generally influenced by three factors
the main ones: the source, the route traveled by the seismic waves and the conditions
local geology. The first two factors are commonly analyzed at
at the regional scale, they determine the regional hazard. The last factor, related to
local conditions, determines the local hazard.
The existence and considerable influence of this last factor have been observed in
reality.

In fact, records of a few recent earthquakes have shown that the

ground movement in some areas has been greatly amplified so
unexpected compared to other areas. It is also frequently observed
after a destructive earthquake a concentration of serious damage, sometimes dramatic,
in a certain area while damage in other areas in the vicinity
are much less important.
It is found that damage distribution was generally well correlated with
the geotechnical and topographic surface conditions of the area under consideration.

12
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 02 Site Effects Overview

One calls site effect the modifications of the seismic movement on the surface due
to the local geotechnical and topographical conditions of a given site in relation to
to the movement observed on a 'neighboring' site corresponding to the conditions of
reference (rock outcrop following a horizontal surface in the vicinity of the
study site). [05]

Figure 2.1 : Definition of site effect [10]

The ratios of Fourier spectra from different sites (at the top of the
hill and inside the sedimentary basin) are shown in figure (1.1)
In figure (1.2) are represented four typical configurations for which
different forms of site effects can manifest themselves. Cases (a), (b) and (c)
are characterized by the contrast in stiffness (or impedance) between a rock and a
relatively soft ground. The influence of the lateral variation of the adjacent bedrock
is also presented in case (c). Case (d) corresponds to the site effect due to the
surface topography.

13
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 02 Site Effects Overview

Case (a) is encountered very frequently in areas dedicated to

urbanization and industrial development. This is the simplest case because it can

lend themselves to one-dimensional modeling for propagating waves

vertical. In this case, precise knowledge of the geometric characteristics and

mechanics of the different layers of terrain is quite easily obtained,

since it requires only limited geotechnical reconnaissance. By

elsewhere, the hypothesis of an incident wave field with vertical propagation constitutes

a usual assumption for the definition of seismic motion. Case (a) is

thus the case most studied and applied in practice.

Related to complex geotechnical structures, cases (b), (c) and (d) involve

two- or three-dimensional models. The evaluation of the seismic response of the

site in these cases becomes very complicated compared to that of case (a).

Figure 2.2 : different configurations of site effects. (a) horizontal stratigraphy,

(b) underground relief basin, sedimentary valley, (c) lateral discontinuity, (d)
topography: hill, valley, slope [10]

14
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 02 Site Effects Overview

2.3 Evidence of site effect

The causes of site effects are quite numerous. They can be grouped into

two main categories. The first category concerns ground failure

such as landslide or liquefaction. These phenomena attract
much attention from engineers and scientists, because their consequences
are, of course, very significant. The second category is related to

wave propagation phenomena in the ground (or bedrock). Those

phenomena are very frequently observed in reality, they constitute
major causes of site effects and therefore have a significant impact on
the design of constructions and works. In this work, we do not deal

than this second category. [05]

2.4 Effect of geological conditions

In situ observation shows us that the structure of a soil influences the

soil dynamic behavior.

Consider for example a layer of soil 10 m thick, with a shear rate of 100 ms-1
, and a second layer, of the same thickness, but with
a shear rate of 300 ms-1 .

These two media each have a proper period which is equal to:

Ts = 4H / VS

where H is the thickness of the layer. Thus, during the excitation of these two mediums
by the same earthquake, which is in fact composed of a superposition of harmonics
of different periods, certain frequencies will be amplified by a site, and not
by the other.

The figure below (1.3) shows the amplification functions of the two sites. [05]

15
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 02 Site Effects Overview

Figure 2.3: Amplification function of two different sites [10]

2.5 Topographic site effect

The significant amplification of the seismic movement due to the effect

topography is a well-identified phenomenon. The macroseismic observation of the

distribution of significant damage and instrumental recording of movements

Field strengths from a few recent earthquakes have affirmed the significance of this effect.

Indeed, after destructive earthquakes it is often reported that buildings

located on top of cliffs, hills or mountains are subjected to

much more intense damage than those located at the base. For example, the earthquake

Tokachi (Japan) 1968 caused considerable damage to buildings near the

edge of a cliff and very low damage to buildings located at a certain

distance from edge. A recent earthquake in 1995 in Kozani in northern Greece brought

evidence of severe damage in villages built on hills. By

elsewhere, instrumental recordings have also shown that the topography

significantly affects the amplitude and frequency content of motion of the

ground. For example, the accelerograph at the Pacoima dam in southern

California recorded maximum horizontal acceleration of approximately 1.25g in

the two horizontal directions during the San Fernando earthquake (USA)

1970 of magnitude M = 6.4 (This value, which was considerably larger

than expected for an earthquake of this magnitude, resulted from the configuration of the site

of the dam (hollowed-in valley) and the position of the recording device at the top

16
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 02 Site Effects Overview

of one of the supports without this topographic amplification, the acceleration would not have been

than 0.73g. Another well-known (and misunderstood) example is recording

motion at Tarzana station during the Northridge earthquake (California, US).
United) in 1994 in which the spectral amplification coefficient reached a
value of 5 in a narrow frequency band around 3 Hz.
Once site effects are highlighted, extensive studies on
these effects become vital. Indeed, most urban and industrial areas,
especially the largest cities in the world, are located above the
sedimentary basins. Major earthquakes in the past have caused in these
areas of human and economic loss. Regarding the effect
topography, there are two concerns. On the one hand, the most stressed areas
by earthquakes are frequently mountainous and, for safety reasons,
many towns and villages were built on hills or mountains.
On the other hand, this effect is closely related to the landslide phenomenon,
observed often during strong earthquakes, which caused damage and
extremely severe destruction. Consequently, taking into account the effects
of site in the paraseismic codes is essential. However, at this time
only the site effect is incorporated in some modern codes, the basin effect and
the topographical effect are not yet effectively taken into account in
these codes, these site effects therefore require in-depth studies for a
Better comprehension. [05]

2.6 Methods for assessing site effects

The importance of site effects on the aggravation of the seismic risk to conduit
the development of methods to measure them and models to
characterize.

17
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 02 Site Effects Overview

2.6.1 Experimental methods for assessing site effects

They are grouped into three categories: the method of spectral ratios,
that of the receptor functions and that of Nakamura. The last two do
also part of the class of those called H/V.

ÿ Method of spectral ratios

Introduced by Borcherdt in 1970, it consists of evaluating the function of

surface displacement transfer by calculating the ratio of the response spectrum
measured at a point of the filling on that measured at a point of the rock

outcrop (reference station) from recording of seismic events.

This amounts to calculating the amplification at point A with respect to point B produced
by the layer.

Experience has shown that the spectral ratio method is reliable, both
both for the amplification level and for the corresponding frequency values
but the deployment and maintenance of permanent stations is costly.

ÿ Receptive functions method

This method is based on the assumption that the vertical component of the
displacement is little affected by the local amplification, it then to replace the
response of the reference station by the vertical displacement measured at the same
station on site. as before, the site transfer function is then

assimilated to the ratio of the spectra of the horizontal and vertical displacements
measured at the same station, from recordings of seismic events. a
large number of events is also required.

This method is not always reliable, it gives good results for a

relatively simple geology, but does not seem really valid for a
more complex geology.

18
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 02 Site Effects Overview

ÿ Nakamura method

Also called H/V Background noise, it consists, like that of the functions

receivers, to calculate the ratio between the horizontal and vertical spectra of the
surface motion measured at the same station on site. But unlike the

previous method, the spectra used come from the noise recording
background.

This method was first introduced by Nogoshi and supplemented

later by Nakamura in 1989. It is relatively light and easy to put on

work, since it only requires a mobile station. The recording lasts in

generally 20 to 30 minutes. Certain environmental conditions must

however, be respected in order to rule out all parasitic sources (traffic

automotive, wind, etc.).

Practice shows, however, that it is quite effective in evaluating the

fundamental frequency of site effects

2.6.2 Numerical methods

Modeling structural site effects

Site effects analysis often requires infill modeling

sedimentary in order to study the preponderant phenomena. This can be done from

analytical way. For more complex soil configurations or laws of

more elaborate behavior, the use of numerical models turns out to be

necessary. These are more or less simplified representations of the environments

and items studied. These simplifications limit the field of validity of the

method employed. Models fall into three categories, as appropriate

studied.

ÿ One-dimensional modeling

One-dimensional models use a stratigraphic representation of the

basement, 1D, and given their simplicity of implementation and application, they are very

19
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 02 Site Effects Overview

used in earthquake engineering. Some software (SHAKE, Cyberquake) allows

to integrate equivalent linear or non-linear behavior laws in

the different soil layers. One-dimensional analysis is also the basis

seismic standards to take into account the influence of heterogeneity

vertical from the ground to the surface seismic movement.

This 1D approximation shows its limits when the influence of

lateral heterogeneities of the subsoil on the seismic response is no longer negligible

ÿ Two-dimensional modeling

The two-dimensional numerical models allow a detailed evaluation of the

seismic response for relatively complex basin configurations and

soil behavior types developed. But their use is penalized by the

relative ignorance of the subsoil and of the seismological parameters characterizing

The source. The main two-dimensional modeling methods are:

• The method of finite elements or differences

• So-called pseudo-spectral methods or using wavenumbers

discreet

• Integral equation and boundary element methods

• Generalized optical methods.

ÿ Three-dimensional modeling

These are very expensive in computational volumes. Work using models

3D for the assessment of site effects are still quite rare, they allow to

go beyond the often simplifying assumption of a 2D geometry. In certain

situations, the 3D character of the problem must be taken into account. However,

various studies show that there are fewer differences, in terms of increased

amplification, in the transition from 2D to 3D than in that from 1D to 2D.

20
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 02 Site Effects Overview

2.7 Conclusion

This chapter was intended to give a general overview of site effects, and their
various geological and topographical types and we have described the different
experimental and numerical methods for evaluating site effects. In the
experimental methods we have described the method of spectral ratios,
the method of receiving functions and that of Nakamura and in the methods
numerical we have described one-dimensional modeling methods,
two-dimensional and three-dimensional.

21
Machine Translated by Google
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 03 Response spectra

3.1 Introduction

The need for research on the relationship between the action of an earthquake and the

structure of a building, or in other words the building's response to a

given earthquake is justified by the damage observed during major

historical earthquakes. The analysis of the geographical variability of the intensities and

observation of the damage caused during these major historic earthquakes

formed the basis of the awareness of the influence of soils and led to

their attributions of the effects on the distribution of damages. Different types of

soil subjected to the same seismic stress have different responses, which

explains the variability of building damage and intensities. The effects

of site have consequences on the aggravation of the seismic risk, as it was the

case during the Michoacan earthquake, in Mexico City in 1985 or during the Kobe earthquake

1995. For prevention purposes, it is necessary to quantify these site effects,

to better prevent seismic risks. In this context The regulations

paraseismic consist in taking into account the effect of geological site in

multiplying the expected spectral acceleration of the ground by a coefficient depending on

the nature of the soils.

In this chapter we present the response spectra representing

the seismic action for a given site, according to the three RPA 99 VERSION codes

2003, Eurocode 8 and UBC 1997.

3.2 Response spectra

The response spectra derive their origin and their interest from the assimilation, in

first approximation, from the seismic behavior of a building to the response

of a simple oscillator with one degree of freedom.

The response spectrum representation aims to provide direct access to the

movements undergone by the center of gravity of the structure.

22
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 03 Response spectra

The graphical representation of a response spectrum is constructed point by point

by varying the frequency of an oscillator by one degree of freedom and reporting

this frequency on the abscissa and the temporal maximum of the response to a

seismic stress on the ordinate. We thus obtain a response spectrum for a

fixed depreciation.

Elastic response spectra are widely used in earthquake engineering because,

to a first approximation, simple structures can be likened to a

oscillator with one degree of freedom whose eigenfrequency and damping are at

almost known. Movements at the center of gravity can then be

reasonably estimated when it is assumed that the structure behaves

linear elastic way.

3.3 Response spectrum of RPA 99 VERSION 2003

a) Calculation response spectrum

The seismic action is represented by the following calculation spectrum:

23
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 03 Response spectra

A: zone acceleration coefficient (table 3 .3)

ÿ: damping correction factor (when the damping is different from

5% .

ÿ: critical damping percentage.

R: behavior coefficient of the structure.

T1, T2: characteristic periods associated with the site category (table 3.1).

Q: quality factor. [01]

)2

0.2

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

T1 T2 period T(s)
T3

Figure 3.1: standard shape of the RPA99/2003 response spectrum

Table 3.1: Values of T1 and T 2 [01]

Site S4

T1 (sec) S1 0.15 S2 0.15 S3 0.15 0.15

T2 (sec) 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.70

Q: quality factor

The quality factor of the structure is a function of:

- the redundancy and the geometry of the elements that constitute it

- regularity in plan and elevation

- the quality of construction control

24
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 03 Response spectra

The value of Q is determined by the formula

"
Pq : is the penalty to retain depending on whether the quality criterion q is satisfied or

non".[01]

Its value is given in the table:

Table 3.2: Pq penalty values [01]

Pq

q criterion Observed N/ observed

1. Minimum requirements on queues 0 0.05

brace

2. In-plane redundancy 0 0.05

3. Regularity in plan 0 0.05

4. Regularity in elevation 0 0.05

5. Material quality control 0 0.05

6. Execution quality control 0 0.10

Table 3.3: Zone A Acceleration Coefficient [01]

Zone

Group I IIa IIb III

1A 0.15 0.25 0.30 0.40
1B 0.12 0.20 0.25 0.30
2 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
3 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.18

25
Machine Translated by Google

)2
CHAPTER 03 Response spectra

0.2

rocky farm

0.15
furniture

Very loose
0.1

acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s

0.05

0
0 1 2 3 period T(s) 4 5

Figure 3.2: Regulatory elastic response spectra used in this study

RPA99/2003

3.4 Eurocode 8 response spectrum

a) Elastic response spectrum

(1) P The elastic response spectrum S.

(T) for the reference return period is defined by the expressions

Following:

Or :

Se(T) or datum of the elastic response spectrum.

T period of vibration of a single degree linear system of

26
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 03 Response spectra

Freedom.

Ag calculation acceleration at ground level for the return period of

reference .

bo amplification factor of the spectral acceleration for a

5% viscous damping.

TB,TC spectral acceleration step limits.

TD value defining the beginning of the branch with spectral displacement

Constant.

k1,k2 exponents that influence the shape of the spectrum

for a period of vibration greater than TC and TD

respectively.

S soil parameter.

g damping correction coefficient with the value of

reference g=1 for 5% viscous damping. [02]

)2

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15
acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Tb Tc Td period T(s)

Figure 3.3: Standard form of the Eurocode 8 response spectrum

27
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 03 Response spectra

Table 3.4: value of the parameters describing the elastic response spectrum [02]

sun class
b0 k1 K2
foundation
A [2.5] [1.0] [2.0]
B [2.5] [1.0] [2.0]
C [2.5] [1.0] [2.0]
D [2.5] [1.0] [2.0]

These strongly magnitude-dependent spectra are impractical for a

sizing optimization. Therefore, it was defined at the level of

the French administration, national spectra depending on the class of soil and

of the seismicity zone and covering French territory (decree of 20/10/2010). Those

spectra are shown in the table below.

Table 3.5: horizontal spectrum of elastic spectrum[08]

Class of For seismic zones 1 to 4 For seismic zones 5

sun S Tb(s) Tc(s) TD(s) S Tb(s) Tc(s) TD(s)
A 1.00 0.03 0.20 2.50 1.00 0.15 0.40 2.00
B 1.35 0.05 0.25 2.50 1.20 0.15 0.50 2.00
C 1.50 0.06 0.40 2.00 1.15 0.20 0.60 2.00
D 1.60 0.10 0.60 1.50 1.35 0.20 0.80 2.00
AND 1.80 0.08 0.45 1.25 1.40 0.15 0.50 2.00

a) Regulatory zoning

The parameter used to describe the seismic hazard at the national level is a

acceleration a , acceleration from ground “to rock” (rocky ground is taken as

reference).

The regulatory zoning defines five zones of increasing seismicity based on a

communal division.

Zone 5, comprising the Caribbean islands, corresponds to the highest level of hazard

high in the national territory. [07]

28
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 03 Response spectra

Table 3.6: Seismic zone [07]

Seismic zone Hazard level Agr (m/s2)

Zone 1 Very weak 0.4
Zone 2 Weak 0.7
Zone 3 Moderate 1.1

Zone 4 Medium 1.6

)2 Zone 5 Fort 3

0.5
rocky
0.4 closed
furniture
0.3 Very loose

acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s

0.2

0.1

0
0 1 2 3 period T(s) 4 5

Figure 3.4: Regulatory elastic response spectra used in this study

Eurocode8

3.5 UBC97 Response Spectrum

Response spectrum design. If a design response spectrum is

required by this standard and specific ground movement procedures

at the site are not used, the design response spectrum curve should be

developed as shown in Fig. and as follows:

29
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 03 Response spectra

On a:

Tav= SD1/SDS Ta = 0.2 * Tav

TVD= SMS=Fa *Ss

SM1 = Fv * S1 SDS= SMS

SD1= SM1

Or :

MCE mapped ss , 5 percent damped, parameter response spectrum

acceleration spectrum response to short periods.

S1 mapped MCE, 5 percent damped, parameter spectral response

of acceleration at a period of 1 s.

SDS design, 5 percent damped, parameter spectral response

deceleration at short periods.

SD1 design, 5 percent damped, spectral response parameter

one-period deceleration.

SMSMCE, 5 percent damped, acceleration spectral response to

short periods adjusted for site class effects.

SM1MCE, 5 percent damped, acceleration spectral response at a

period of 1 s adjusted for site class effects.

Fa short period site coefficient (at 0.2 s-period).

Fv long-period site coefficient (at 1.0 s-period). [06]

TVD The period is based on the inverse of the corner fc frequency . [09]

30
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 03 Response spectra

)2
0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Per Tav period T(s) Tvd

Figure 3.5: Standard shape of the UBC97 response spectrum

Table 3.7: Site coefficient Fa [06]

class of

site SSÿ0.25 SS=0.5 SS=0.75 SS=1.0 SSÿ1.25

A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0

D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0

AND 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9

Table 3.8: site coefficient Fv [06]

class of

site S1ÿ0.1 S1=0.2 S1=0.3 S1=0.4 S1>0.5

A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

C 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3

D 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5

AND 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4

31
Machine Translated by Google
)2
CHAPTER 03 Response spectra

0.5
rocky
0.4 closed
furniture
0.3 very loose

acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s

0.2

0.1

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

period T(s)

Figure 3.6: Regulatory elastic response spectra used in this study

UBC 97

3.6 Classification of sites

Eurocode 8 recommendations classify soils on the basis of value

mean of the shear wave propagation velocity V30 if it

available or the value of the number of blows per standardized penetration test

NSPT, Based on one of these values, Eurocode8 classifies soils in Sept (07)

categories. However, RPA99/v2003 only adopts four categories. He is at

noted here that Eurocode8 gives much more detail in the classification of the

sun.

Table 3.9: RPA99 V2003 [01] site classification

category site Vs (m/s) (g)

S1 rocky site vsÿ 800
S2 Closed website 400 ÿvsÿ 800
S3 Furniture site 200 ÿvsÿ 400
S4 Very loose site 100 ÿvsÿ 200

32
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 03 Response spectra

Table 3.10: Eurocode 8 site classification [04]

category Site Vs (m/s) (g)

A Rocky site vs> 800
B Closed website 360 <vs< 800
C Deep site of moderately dense sand and 180 <vs< 360
medium-stiff gravel or clay
D Cohesive soil site of low density to vs< 180
mean
-
AND
Soil site with a superficial layer
of alluvium rests on a stiffer material
S1 Site composed of or containing a clay layer vs< 100
more than 10 m thick (indicative value)
S2 Liquefiable soil site of sensitive clays or
-

other ground not previously included

Table 3.11: UBC 97 [04] site classification

category Site Vs (m/s) (g)

A roche Solid, the American sites of the East vs> 1500

only

B Roche 760 <vs< 1500

C Very dense soil and soft rock 360 <vs< 760

D sol Stiff 180 <vs< 360

AND
Soft ground, pro fi with > 3 m of soft clay vs< 180

defined as soil with plasticity index

PI>20, moisture content w>40%

F Soils requiring site assessments -

special

33
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 03 Response spectra

3.7 Conclusion

This chapter was intended for the description of the response spectra of the codes

RPA and Eurocode and UBC regulations . Appeared in this chapter, the difference

in the equations that were considered in the calculation of each

spectrum of each code area , also disagreements between the periods separating the

different segments of the response spectrum and the amplification factors associated with

site effect, so the difference in the ranking point of view of the different

soil categories.

34
Machine Translated by Google
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

4.1 Introduction

This chapter is intended for a comparison between the response spectra of the

seismic rules for each of the codes, RPA and EUROCODE and UBC, from the point of

view classification of sites and ordinates of elastic and inelastic spectra in

depending on their different factors and also taking into account the site effect

topographic. A comparison is also made from the point of view of acceleration

spectrum as a function of certain chosen reference periods, for several

seismic movement gradually increasing and ranging from one movement

moderate to very high PGA=0.1g and 0.2g 0.3g 0.4g 0.5g, depending on the different

site categories rocky, loose firm and very loose ground.

4.2 Comparison of site classifications

Table 4.1: Soil types defined in EC8, UBC97 and RPA 99/2003

RPA 99/2003 EC8 UBC97

Sol type 1 : Sol type A : Sol type A :
vsÿ 800 m/s vs> 800 vs> 1500
Sol type 2 : Sol type B : Sol type B :
400 ÿvsÿ 800 m/s 360 <vs< 800 760 <vs< 1500
Sol type 3 : Sol type C : Sol type C :
200 ÿvsÿ 400 m/s 180 <vs< 360 360 <vs< 760
Sol type 4 : Sol type D : Sol type D :
100 ÿvsÿ 200 m/s vs< 180 180 <vs< 360
Sol type E Sol type E :
-
vs< 180
Sol type F
-

As seen from Table 4.1, the shear wave velocities

for EC8 and UBC97 are taken for a depth of 30m, while for

the RPA, the depth is 10 to 20 meters first.

35
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

soil UBC types used in this study are BCDE because these sites
are characterized by shear wave velocities close to those of APR
(S1-S2-S3-S4) et EC8 (ABCD).

4.3 Elastic and inelastic response and design spectra

The response spectrum is an important parameter in the seismic code. Floor

of the earthquake induced unrest is usually represented as
shape of response spectra or displacement acceleration response
spectra. Earthquake parameters, such as ground condition, distance
epicentral, the magnitude, duration and characteristics of the source influence the shape

and the magnitudes of the response spectra. Although the effects of some
parameters can be studied independently, the influences of several
factors are interrelated and cannot be discussed individually.
Ambraseys et al. (1996), Acevedo et Bommer (2004)

presented and discussed the effects of earthquake magnitude,

distance from source to site, classification of sites, and style of faults on the
strong shaking accelerograms and hence response spectra.
As is known, the damping factor and the vibration period
Structural are other parameters affecting response spectra.

In all current seismic codes, the actions of the earthquake are

represented as an absolute acceleration spectrum.

UBC 97 tried to introduce a new understanding of amplification

ground motion and considers near-source effects,
near source were introduced (Na and Nv) for long and short periods,
respectively, in seismic zone 4, this change is intended to recognize the
amplification of ground motion that occurs at distances close to the
source. This is justified by the fact that the recording of strong movements in
recent powerful earthquakes such as Northridge in 1994 and Kobe in

36
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

1995, showed that ground motion is significantly significant near

the source of the earthquake.

EC8 defines two types of spectra: Type 1 for the far field and type 2

for the near field. If the earthquakes that contribute the most to

the seismic hazard defined for the site for the purpose of probabilistic risk assessment

have a surface wave amplitude, Ms not greater than 5.5, it is recommended

Type 2 spectrum is adopted, otherwise Type 1 is recommended.

RPA 99/2003 defines only one type of spectra according to the seismic zone and others

factors depending on the building.

The coordinates of the Se and Sd elastic design spectra for EC8, UBC97

and RPA 99/2003 are given by their expressions in Table 3.2.

In Table 3.2, ÿ shows the lower bounding factor for the spectrum of

horizontal design, the recommended value for ÿ is 2.5.

The spectral elastic periods of the three design codes depend on the type

Sun.

Seismic risk is expressed in EC8 by a reference parameter, namely

the maximum ground acceleration agR at the rock surface for a reference return period. The

recommended reference return period for the level

of non-collapse performance is 475 years, corresponding to 10% of

probability of exceedance in 50 years.

The Algerian seismic code subdivides the territory into five seismicity zones

increasing as:

Zone 0: neglected seismicity, Zone I: low seismicity, zones IIa and IIb: seismicity

moderate, Zone III: strong seismicity. It defines an acceleration coefficient of the

zone "A", according to the seismic zone and using the group of the building. [04]

37
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

Table 4.2: Coordinates of elastic and inelastic spectra for EC8, RPA 99/2003 and
UBC97

RPA 99/2003 EC8 UBC97

The seismic parameters of UBC97: Ca and Cv are determined from the area

Z-factor seismic which defines the seismic zone, the UBC97 named five zones

seismic I, IIa, IIb, 3 and 4.

In Table 3.2, S is the soil factor defined in EC8 according to soil types and

ÿ is the damping correction factor with a reference value ÿ = 1 to

5% viscous damping.

38
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

Table 4.3 Different factors of RPA Rules 99/2003, EC8 and UBC97

RPA 99/2003 EC8 UBC97

A : zone Se(T) : or data of the elastic Ss : MCE mapped, 5 percent
acceleration coefficient response spectrum. damped, response spectrum
T : period of vibration of a linear acceleration parameter response
ÿ: damping correction
factor system with a single degree of spectrum at short periods.
freedom.
(when damping is different
Ag : calculation acceleration at S1 : MCE mapped, 5 percent
from 5%)
ground level for the reference damped, acceleration parameter
.

return period. spectral response to a period

ÿ: critical the spectral

amplification
acceleration
factor of
forBo
a : of 1 s.
damping SDS : design, 5 percent
viscous damping of 5%.
percentage. damped, deceleration parameter
R: behavior spectral response at short
TB, TC : limits of the level of
coefficient of the periods.
the spectral acceleration.
structure. SD1 : design, 5 percent
TD value defining the start:
damped, one-period deceleration
T1, T2 : of the Constant spectral
parameter spectral response.
characteristic displacement branch. k1, k2 :
periods associated with exponents which exert an influence SMS : MCE, 5 percent
the site category. on the shape of the spectrum for
damped, accelerating
Q : quality factor. a period of vibration higher than spectral response to short
TC and TD respectively. periods adjusted for site
class effects.
S : soil parameter. g : SM1 : MCE, 5 percent
damping correction coefficient damped, acceleration
with the reference value g=1 for spectral response at a
5% viscous damping. period of 1 s adjusted for site
class effects.
Fa : short period site coefficient
(at 0.2 s-period).
Fv : long-period site
coefficient (at 1.0 s-period).

39
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

4.4 Eurocode8 Topographic Amplification Factors

A.1 In this appendix some simplified amplification factors of

seismic action, used in slope verifications. These factors are
assimilated to the soil profile characterization parameter S, and must be
preferably applied when slopes are part of irregularities
two-dimensional topographic features, such as the ridges and long slopes of
height greater than [30] m.

A .2 For average inclinations of sloping ground, less than approximately

[15°] topographical effects can be neglected, whereas a specific study
is recommended in the case of a highly irregular local topography. For
greater inclinations, the following indications can be followed:
a) slopes and isolated slopes. A value Sÿ [1.2] should be used for sites
located near the ridge.

b) mounds whose crest width is significantly less than the width at the
base. A value Sÿ [1.4] should be used near the crest of slopes
whose mean angle of inclination is > [30°], and an S value ÿ [1.2] for
lower corners.

c) presence of a looser layer on the surface. In the case of a layer more

loose at the surface and thicker than [5] m the lowest value of
S, given in (a) and (b), must be increased by at least [20%].

d) spatial variation of the amplification factor. We can assume that the value
of S decreases linearly, depending on the height above the base of the
slope, up to one at the base.

40
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

A.3 In general, the seismic amplification decreases rapidly on penetrating

inside the mound. This is why the topographical effects to be considered

for stability analyzes are more important and remain superficial along the

mound ridges; they are much lower in the case of landslides

deep terrain with fracture surfaces passing close to the base. Yes

in the latter case the method of pseudostatic analysis is used, the effects

topographic can be neglected.

4.5 Establishment of response spectra relating to regulations

)2
(RPA, EC8 et UBC) pour ag = 0.1, ag = 0.2, ag = 0.3, ag = 0.4, ag = 0.5

0.25

rocky site (RPA)

0.2 rocky site (EC8)
rocky site (UBC)
0.15

acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s

0.1

0.05

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

period T(s)

Figure 4.1: Response spectra for each of the regulations

(RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag = 0.1 and a rocky site

Table 4.4: Acceleration values in 0.02s, 0.2s and 3s periods for

a rocky site and ag = 0.1
Period T(s) 0.02s 0.2s 3s
Acceleration RPA 0.1333 0.1875 0.0404
Sa (m/s2) EC8 0.2 0.25 0.01736
UBC 0.09167 0.1667 0.02222

41
Machine Translated by Google
)2
CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

0.4

firm site (RPA)

firm site (EC8)

0.3
firm site (UBC)

acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s
0.2

0.1

0
0 1 2 3 period T(s) 4 5

Figure 4.2: The response spectra for each of the regulations (RPA, EC8 and
UBC) for ag = 0.1 and a firm site

Table 4.5: Acceleration values in 0.02s, 0.2s and 3s periods for

a firm site and ag = 0.1
Period T(s) 0.02s 0.2s 3s
Acceleration RPA 0.1333 0.1875 0.04894

Sa (m/s2) EC8 0.216 0.3375 0.02344

UBC 0.1012 0.2 0.03782
)2

0.4

movable site (RPA)

loose site (EC8)

0.3
movable site (UBC)

acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s
0.2

0.1

0
0 1 2 3 period T(s) 4 5

Figure 4.3: Response spectra for each of the regulations

(RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag = 0.1 and a loose site

42
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

Table 4.6: Acceleration values in 0.02s, 0.2s and 3s periods for

a loose site and ag = 0.1
Period T(s) 0.02s 0.2s 3s
Acceleration RPA 0.1333 0.1875 0.05679

Sa (m/s2) EC8 0.225 0.375 0.03333

UBC 0.1333 0.2667 0.05333
)2

0.5

very loose site (RPA)

0.4 very loose site (EC8)

very loose site (UBC)

0.3

acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s

0.2

0.1

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

period T(s)

Figure 4.4: Response spectra for each of the regulations

(RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag = 0.1 and a very loose site

Table 4.7: Acceleration values in 0.02s, 0.2s and 3s periods for

a very loose site and ag = 0.1
Period T(s) 0.02s 0.2s 3s
Acceleration RPA 0.1333 0.1875 0.07106

Sa (m/s2) EC8 0.208 0.4 0.04

UBC 0.2113 0.4167 0.07778

43
Machine Translated by Google
)2
CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

0.5

rocky site (RPA)

0.4 rocky site (EC8)
rocky site (UBC)
0.3

acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s

0.2

0.1

0
0 1 2 3 period T(s) 4 5

Figure 4.5: Response spectra for each of the regulations

(RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag = 0.2 and a rocky site

Table 4.8: Acceleration values in 0.02s, 0.2s and 3s periods for

a rocky site and ag = 0.2
Period T(s) 0.02s 0.2s 3s
Acceleration RPA 0.2667 0.375 0.08079

Sa (m/s2) EC8 0.4 0.5 0.04444

)2
UBC 0.1833 0.3333 0.02222

0.8

firm site (RPA)

firm site (EC8)

0.6
firm site (UBC)

acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s
0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

period T(s)

Figure 4.6: Response spectra for each of the regulations

(RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag = 0.2 and a firm site

44
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

Table 4.9: Acceleration values in 0.02s, 0.2s and 3s periods for

a firm site and ag = 0.2
Period T(s) 0.02s 0.2s 3s
Acceleration RPA 0.2667 0.375 0.09789

Sa (m/s2) EC8 0.432 0.675 0.04688

)2
UBC 0. 205 0.4 0.07103

0.8

movable site (RPA)

loose site (EC8)
0.6
movable site (UBC)

0.4
acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 period T(s) 4 5

Figure 4.7: Response spectra for each of the regulations

(RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag = 0.2 and a loose site

Table 4.10: Acceleration values in 0.02s, 0.2s and 3s periods for

a loose site and ag = 0.2
Period T(s) 0.02s 0.2s 3s
Acceleration RPA 0.2667 0.375 0.1136

Sa (m/s2) EC8 0.45 0.75 0.06667

UBC 0. 2357 0.4667 0.08885

45
Machine Translated by Google
)2
CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

very loose site (RPA)

0.8 very loose site (EC8)
very loose site (UBC)
0.6

acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 period T(s) 4 5

Figure 4.8: Response spectra for each of the regulations

(RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag = 0.2 and a very loose site

Table 4.11: Acceleration values in 0.02s, 0.2s and 3s periods for

a very loose site and ag = 0.2
Period T(s) 0.02s 0.2s 3s
Acceleration RPA 0.2667 0.375 0.1421

Sa (m/s2) EC8 0.416 0.8 0.08

)2
UBC 0. 2718 0.5667 0.1421

0.8

rocky site (RPA)

rocky site (EC8)
0.6
rocky site (UBC)

acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s
0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

period T(s)

Figure 4.9: Response spectra for each of the regulations

(RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag = 0.3 and a rocky site

46
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

Table 4.12: Acceleration values in 0.02s, 0.2s and 3s periods for

a rocky site and ag = 0.3
Period T(s) 0.02s 0.2s 3s
Acceleration RPA 0.4 0.5625 0.1212

Sa (m/s2) EC8 0.6 0.75 0.05208

)2 UBC 0. 275 0.5 0.06667

1.5

firm site (RPA)

firm site (EC8)

1
firm site (UBC)

acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

period T(s)

Figure 4.10: Response spectra for each of the regulations

(RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag = 0.3 and a firm site

Table 4.13: Acceleration values in 0.02s, 0.2s and 3s periods for

a firm site and ag = 0.3
Period T(s) 0.02s 0.2s 3s
Acceleration RPA 0.4 0.5625 0.1468

Sa (m/s2) EC8 0.648 1.013 0.07031

UBC 0. 2805 0.55 0.1002

47
Machine Translated by Google

)2
CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

1.5

movable site (RPA)

loose site (EC8)

1
movable site (UBC)

0.5
acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s

0
0 1 2 3 period T(s) 4 5

Figure 4.11: Response spectra for each of the regulations

(RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag = 0.3 and a loose site

Table 4.14: Acceleration values in 0.02s, 0.2s and 3s periods for

a loose site and ag = 0.3
Period T(s) 0.02s 0.2s 3s
Acceleration RPA 0.4 0.5625 0.1704

Sa (m/s2) EC8 0.675 1.125 0.1

UBC 0. 3 0.6 0.12

)2
1.4

very loose site (RPA)

1.2 very loose site (EC8)

very loose site (UBC)

0.8

0.6
acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 period T(s) 4 5

Figure 4.12: Response spectra for each of the regulations

(RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag = 0.3 and a very loose site

48
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

Table 4.15: Acceleration values in 0.02s, 0.2s and 3s periods for

a very loose site and ag = 0.3
Period T(s) 0.02s 0.2s 3s
Acceleration RPA 0.4 0.5625 0.1132

Sa (m/s2) EC8 0.624 1.2 0.12

UBC 0. 2786 0.6 0.1865
)2

rocky site (RPA)

0.8 rocky site (EC8)
rocky site (UBC)
0.6

acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 period T(s) 4 5

Figure 4.13: Response spectra for each of the regulations

(RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag = 0.4 and a rocky site

Table 4.16: Acceleration values in 0.02s, 0.2s and 3s periods for

a rocky site and ag = 0.4
Period T(s) 0.02s 0.2s 3s
Acceleration RPA 0.5333 0.75 0.1616

Sa (m/s2) EC8 0.8 1 0.12

UBC 0. 3667 0.6667 0.08889

49
Machine Translated by Google

)2
CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

1.5

firm site (RPA)

firm site (EC8)

1
firm site (UBC)

0.5
acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s

0
0 1 2 3 period T(s) 4 5

Figure 4.14: Response spectra for each of the regulations

(RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag = 0.4 and a firm site

Table 4.17: Acceleration values in 0.02s, 0.2s and 3s periods for

a firm site and ag = 0.4
Period T(s) 0.02s 0.2s 3s
Acceleration RPA 0.5333 0.75 0.1957

Sa (m/s2) EC8 0.864 1.35 0.09375

)2 UBC 0. 3381 0.6667 0.07467

movable site (RPA)

loose site (EC8)

1.5
movable site (UBC)

acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

period T(s)

Figure 4.15: Response spectra for each of the regulations

(RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag = 0.4 and a loose site

50
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

Table 4.18: Acceleration values in 0.02s, 0.2s and 3s periods for

a loose site and ag = 0.4

Period T(s) 0.02s 0.2s 3s
Acceleration RPA 0.5333 0.75 0.2271

Sa (m/s2) EC8 0.9 1.5 0.1333

)2 UBC 0. 369 0.7333 0.1421

very loose site (RPA)

very loose site (EC8)

1.5
very loose site (UBC)

acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 period T(s) 4 5

Figure 4.16: Response spectra for each of the regulations

(RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag = 0.4 and a very loose site

Table 4.19: Acceleration values in 0.02s, 0.2s and 3s periods for

a very loose site and ag = 0.4

Period T(s) 0.02s 0.2s 3s
Acceleration RPA 0.5333 0.75 0.2843

Sa (m/s2) EC8 0.832 1.6 0.16

UBC 0. 2737 0.5775 0.2136

51
Machine Translated by Google

)2
CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

1.5

rocky site (RPA)

rocky site (EC8)

1
rocky site (UBC)

0.5
acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s

0
0 1 2 3 period T(s) 4 5

Figure 4.17: Response spectra for each of the regulations

(RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag = 0.5 and a rocky site

Table 4.20: Acceleration values in 0.02s, 0.2s and 3s periods for

a rocky site and ag = 0.5
Period T(s) 0.02s 0.2s 3s
Acceleration RPA 0.6667 0.9375 0.202

Sa (m/s2) EC8 1 1.25 0.08681

)2 UBC 0. 4583 0.8333 0.1111

firm site (RPA)

firm site (EC8)

1.5
firm site (UBC)

acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

period T(s)

Figure 4.18: Response spectra for each of the regulations

(RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag = 0.5 and a firm site

52
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

Table 4.21: Acceleration values in 0.02s, 0.2s and 3s periods for

a firm site and ag = 0.5
Period T(s) 0.02s 0.2s 3s
Acceleration RPA 0.6667 0.9375 0.2447

Sa (m/s2) EC8 1.08 1.688 0.1172

)2
UBC 0. 4295 0.8333 0.1444

movable site (RPA)

loose site (EC8)

1.5
movable site (UBC)

1
acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 period T(s) 4 5

Figure 4.19: Response spectra for each of the regulations

(RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag = 0.5 and a loose site

Table 4.22: Acceleration values in 0.02s, 0.2s and 3s periods for

a loose site and ag = 0.5
Period T(s) 0.02s 0.2s 3s
Acceleration RPA 0.6667 0.9375 0.2839

Sa (m/s2) EC8 1.125 1.875 0.1667

UBC 0. 4167 0.8333 0.1667

53
Machine Translated by Google
)2
CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

very loose site (RPA)

very loose site (EC8)

1.5
very loose site (UBC)

1
acceleration
spectral
(m/
Sa
s

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 period T(s) 4 5

Figure 4.20: Response spectra for each of the regulations

(RPA, EC8 and UBC) for ag = 0.5 and a very loose site

Table 4.23: Acceleration values in 0.02s, 0.2s and 3s periods for

a very loose site and ag = 0.5
Period T(s) 0.02s 0.2s 3s
Acceleration RPA 0.6667 0.9375 0.3553

Sa (m/s2) EC8 1.04 2 0.2

UBC 0. 3422 0.7219 0.267

After examining the results obtained from the response spectra which

represent the spectral acceleration as a function of the periods proper to the level of the

selected reference periods: (0.02s, 0.3s and 3s). We can conclude that the

acceleration value observed for the EC8 spectrum is always greater than

for the other RPA and UBC spectra in the periods between 0 and 0.3s.

for periods between 0.3s and 5s, the value of the acceleration observed

for the RPA spectrum is often larger than those of EC8 and UBC, and this for

all types of sites.

54
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

4.6 Comparison between acceleration response spectra

(RPA, EC8 and UBC) for reference periods 0.02s, 0.2s
and 3s

To make a comparison and appreciate the difference between the acceleration

response spectra (RPA, EC8 and UBC) for reference periods 0.02s,
0.2s and 3s, we used ratios s between the values obtained for each
code at the level of the predefined reference periods, the reports obtained are
present in the following tables:

Table 4.24: comparison for ag = 0.1 and a rocky site

Period T(s) R 0.02s 0.2s 3s
EC8 / UBC 2,18 1,50 0,78
comparison EC8 / RPA 1,50 1,33 0,43
RPA/UBC 1,45 1,12 1,82

Table 4.25: comparison for ag = 0.1 and a firm site

Period T(s) R 0.02s 0.2s 3s
EC8 / UBC 2,13 1,69 0,62
comparison EC8 / RPA 1,62 1,80 0,48
RPA/UBC 1,32 0,94 1,29

Table 4.26: comparison for ag = 0.1 and a loose site

Period T(s) R 0.02s 0.2s 3s
EC8 / UBC 1,69 1,41 0,62
comparison EC8 / RPA 1,69 2,00 0,59
RPA/UBC 1,00 0,70 1,06

Table 4.27: comparison for ag = 0.1 and a very loose site

Period T(s) R 0.02s 0.2s 3s
EC8 / UBC 0,98 0,96 0,51
comparison EC8 / RPA 1,56 2,13 0,56
RPA/UBC 0,63 0,45 0,91

Table 4.28: comparison for ag = 0.2 and a rocky site

Period T(s) R 0.02s 0.2s 3s
EC8 / UBC 2,18 1,50 2,00
comparison EC8 / RPA 1,50 1,33 0,55
RPA/UBC 1,45 1,13 3,64

55
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

Table 4.29: comparison for ag = 0.2 and a firm site

Period T(s) R 0.02s 0.2s 3s
EC8 / UBC 2,11 1,69 0,66
comparison EC8 / RPA 1,62 1,80 0,48
RPA/UBC 1,30 0,94 1,38

Table 4.30: comparison for ag = 0.2 and a loose site

Period T(s) R 0.02s 0.2s 3s
EC8 / UBC 1,91 1,61 0,75
comparison EC8 / RPA 1,69 2,00 0,59
RPA/UBC 1,13 0,80 1,28

Table 4.31: comparison for ag = 0.2 and a very loose site

Period T(s) R 0.02s 0.2s 3s
EC8 / UBC 1,53 0,56 1,41
comparison EC8 / RPA 1,56 0,56 2,13
RPA/UBC 0,98 1,00 0,66

Table 4.32: comparison for ag = 0.3 and a rocky site

Period T(s) R 0.02s 0.2s 3s
EC8 / UBC 2,18 1,50 0,78
comparison EC8 / RPA 1,50 1,33 0,43
RPA/UBC 1,45 1,13 1,82

Table 4.33: comparison for ag = 0.3 and a firm site

Period T(s) R 0.02s 0.2s 3s
EC8 / UBC 2,31 1,84 0,70
comparison EC8 / RPA 1,62 1,80 0,48
RPA/UBC 1,43 1,02 1,47

Table 4.34: comparison for ag = 0.3 and a loose site

Period T(s) R 0.02s 0.2s 3s
EC8 / UBC 2,25 1,88 0,83
comparison EC8 / RPA 1,69 2,00 0,59
RPA/UBC 1,33 0,94 1,42

Table 4.35: comparison for ag = 0.3 and a very loose site

Period T(s) R 0.02s 0.2s 3s
EC8 / UBC 2,23977 2,00000 0,64343
comparison EC8 / RPA 1,56000 2,13333 1,06007
RPA/UBC 1,43575 0,93750 0,60697

56
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

Table 4.36: comparison for ag = 0.4 and a rocky site

Period T(s) R 0.02s 0.2s 3s
EC8 / UBC 2,18 1,50 1,35

comparison EC8 / RPA 1,50 1,33 0,74

RPA/UBC 1,45 1,12 1,82

Table 4.37: comparison for ag = 0.4 and a firm site

Period T(s) R 0.02s 0.2s 3s
EC8 / UBC 2,56 2,02 1,26

comparison EC8 / RPA 1,62 1,80 0,48

RPA/UBC 1,58 1,12 2,62

Table 4.38: comparison for ag = 0.4 and a loose site

Period T(s) R 0.02s 0.2s 3s
EC8 / UBC 2,44 2,05 0,94

comparison EC8 / RPA 1,69 2,00 0,59

RPA/UBC 1,45 1,02 1,60

Table 4.39: comparison for ag = 0.4 and a very loose site

Period T(s) R 0.02s 0.2s 3s
EC8 / UBC 3,04 2,77 0,75

comparison EC8 / RPA 1,56 2,13 0,56

RPA/UBC 1,95 1,30 1,33

Table 4.40: comparison for ag = 0.5 and a rocky site

Period T(s) R 0.02s 0.2s 3s
EC8 / UBC 2,18 1,50 0,78

comparison EC8 / RPA 1,50 1,33 0,43

RPA/UBC 1,45 1,13 1,82

Table 4.41: comparison for ag = 0.5 and a firm site

Period T(s) R 0.02s 0.2s 3s
EC8 / UBC 2,51 2,03 0,81

comparison EC8 / RPA 1,62 1,80 0,48

RPA/UBC 1,55 1,13 1,69

Table 4.42: comparison for ag = 0.5 and a loose site

Period T(s) R 0.02s 0.2s 3s
EC8 / UBC 2,70 2,25 1,00

comparison EC8 / RPA 1,69 2,00 0,59

RPA/UBC 1,60 1,13 1,70

57
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

Table 4.43: comparison for ag = 0.5 and a very loose site

Period T(s) R 0.02s 0.2s 3s
EC8 / UBC 3,04 2,77 0,75
comparison EC8 / RPA 1,56 2,13 0,56
RPA/UBC 1,95 1,30 1,33

4.7 Estimation of the variation average ratios of acceleration

spectra for the different sites and PGA
Table 4.44: The variation of the average ratios of acceleration for different
sites and ag=0.1
rocky closed furniture very loose
values Report values Report values Report values Report
Limits Moy Limits Moy Limits Moy Limits Moy
[2,18-1,5] 1,84 [2,13-1,69] 1,91 [1,69-1,41] 1,55 [0,98-0,96] 0,97
[1,5-1,33] 1,42 [1,62-1,80] 1,71 [1,69-2,00] 1,84 [1,56-2,13] 1,85

[1,45-1,12] 1,29 [1,31-0,93] 1,13 [1,00-0,70] 0,85 [0,63-0,45] 0,54

Table 4.45: The variation of the average acceleration ratios for different
sites and ag=0.2
rocky closed furniture very loose
values Report values Report values Report values Report
Limits Moy Limits Moy Limits Moy Limits Moy
[2,18-1,5] 1,84 [2,13-1,69] 1,91 [1,69-1,41] 1,55 [0,98-0,96] 0,97
[1,5-1,33] 1,42 [1,62-1,80] 1,71 [1,69-2,00] 1,84 [1,56-2,13] 1,85

[1,45-1,12] 1,29 [1,31-0,93] 1,13 [1,00-0,70] 0,85 [0,63-0,45] 0,54

Table 4.46: The variation of the average acceleration ratios for different
sites and ag=0.3
rocky closed furniture very loose
values Report values Report values Report values Report
limited Moy Limits Moy Limits Moy Limits Moy
[2,18-1,50] 1,84 [2,31-1,84] 2,08 [2,25-1,87] 2,06 [2,24-2,00] 2,12

[1,50-1,33] 1,42 [1,62-1,80] 1,71 [1,69-2,00] 1,84 [1,56-2,13] 1,85

[1,45-1,12] 1,29 [1,43-1,02] 1,22 [1,33-0,94] 1,14 [1,43-0,94] 1,19

58
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

Table 4.47: The variation of the average acceleration ratios for different
sites and ag=0.4
rocky closed furniture very loose
values Report values Report values Report values Report
Limits Moy Limits Moy Limits Moy Limits Moy
[2,18-1,50] 1,84 [2,55-2,02] 2,29 [2,44-2,04] 2,24 [3,04-2,77] 2,91

[1,50-1,33] 1,42 [1,62-1,80] 1,71 [1,69-2,00] 1,84 [1,56-2,13] 1,85

[1,45-1,12] 1,29 [1,58-1,12] 1,35 [1,44-1,02] 1,23 [1,95-1,30] 1,62

Table 4.48: The variation of the average acceleration ratios for different
sites and ag=0.5
rocky closed furniture very loose
values Report values Report values Report values Report
Limits Moy Limits Moy Limits Moy Limits Moy
[2,18-1,50] 1,84 [2,51-2,02] 2,27 [2,70-2,25] 2,47 [3,04-2,77] 2,90

[1,50-1,33] 1,42 [1,62-1,80] 1,71 [1,69-2,00] 1,84 [1,56-2,13] 1,85

[1,45-1,12] 1,29 [1,55-1,12] 1,34 [1,60-1,12] 1,36 [1,95-1,30] 1,62

Variation of average ratios between acceleration (EC8/RPA)

3,200
3,000 rocky site
2,800
2,600 firm site
2,400
2,200 furniture website
2,000
1,800 very loose site
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
0,800
0,600
0,400
0,200
0,000
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
PGA (g)

Figure 4.21: the variation of the average acceleration ratios (EC8/RPA) for
different websites

Figure 4.21 shows that the ratio between the values of the spectral acceleration

(EC8/RPA) is constant for the rocky site depending on the PGA. This report

increases linearly for firm and loose sites, and for very loose site

linearly increases PGA 0.1g and 0.4g to stabilize at a fixed value

(step) between PGA 0.4g and 0.5g.

59
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

Variation of average ratios between EC8/UBC acceleration

2,000
rocky site
1,800
1,600 firm site
1,400
furniture website
1,200
1,000 very loose site
0,800
0,600
0,400
0,200
-

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

PGA (g)

Figure 4.22: The variation of mean ratios of acceleration (EC8/UBC) for

different sites

Figure 4.22 shows that the ratio between the values of the spectral acceleration
(EC8/UBC) is constant for each site category.

Variation of average ratios between RPA/UBC acceleration

2,000
rocky site

1,500 firm site

1,000 furniture website

very loose site

0,500

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

PGA (g)

Figure 4.23: The variation in average ratios of acceleration (RPA/UBC) for

different sites
Figure 4.23 shows that the ratio between the values of the spectral acceleration
(RPA/UBC), increases linearly between PGA 0.1g and 0.3g to stabilize at a fixed
value (level) between PGA 0.4g and 0 .5g.

60
Machine Translated by Google

CHAPTER 04 Comparison of response spectra with RPA992003, UBC97 and Eurocode8

4.8 Conclusion

This chapter was intended for a comparison between the response spectra of the

seismic rules for each of the codes, RPA and EUROCODE and UBC, from the point of

view classification of sites and ordinates of elastic and inelastic spectra in

depending on their different factors and also taking into account the site effect

topographic.

We also proceeded to a comparison from the point of view of spectral acceleration in

depending on certain chosen reference periods, for different PGAs and

following and site categories.

The results obtained show that the value of the acceleration noted for the spectrum

EC8 is always greater than for the other RPA and UBC spectra in the

periods between 0 and 0.3s. For periods between 0.3s and 5s, the

acceleration value observed for the RPA spectrum is often greater than

those of EC8 and UBC, for all types of sites.

From the point of view of variation of the average ratios of acceleration for different

sites and PGA, we found that:

• the ratio between the values of the spectral acceleration (EC8/RPA) is

constant for the rocky site depending on the PGA. This report increases

linearly for firm and loose sites, and for very loose sites

linearly increases PGA 0.1g and 0.4g to stabilize at a fixed value

(step) between PGA 0.4g and 0.5g.

• the ratio between the values of the spectral acceleration (EC8/UBC) is

constant for each category of site.

• the ratio between the values of the spectral acceleration (RPA/UBC), increases
linearly between PGA 0.1g and 0.3g to stabilize at a fixed value

(step) between PGA 0.4g and 0.5g.

61
Machine Translated by Google

General conclusion

General conclusion

The objective of this work is to carry out a comparative study relating to

the consideration of local site conditions in the response spectra, the
Algerian seismic regulations (RPA), European code (Eurocode) and the Code
of the USA uniform building (UBC). This allowed us to familiarize ourselves
with the EC and UBC codes, particularly from the point of view of taking into account the

site effects by introducing different categories of sites. The building code

uniform (UBC) recognized the importance of site effects and introduced the
concept of a "soil factor" which has been integrated into the lateral loads and
in its 1976 UBC edition, and after many modifications were
made to the definition of factors and soil types of soil, leading to
definitely six soil types.
Eurocode 8 defines five main soil types and two special types
with a soil "S" factor for each type, whereas RPA 99/2003 considers
four types S1, S2, S3 and S4 without ground factor. The system site of
classification is based on definitions of the average wave velocity of
shear.

The design spectra showed that the acceleration values of

RPA99/2003 have the same peak values for all soil types, while
as, EC8 type 1 and type 2 and UBC97 specified peak values
different depending on the type of soil.
The results obtained in the present work show many discrepancies.
sometimes considerable values of the spectral acceleration for the three codes
RPA), Eurocode and UBC. It is essentially noted for this purpose that the value of
the acceleration obtained for the EC8 spectrum is always greater than for the
other RPA and UBC spectra in periods between 0 and 0.3s. For the
periods between 0.3s and 5s, the value of the acceleration noted for the

62
Machine Translated by Google

General conclusion

RPA spectrum is often larger than those of EC8 and UBC, and this for
all types of sites.
Average ratios between the values of the spectral acceleration
(EC8/RPA) and (EC8/UBC) and (RPA/UBC) depending on the PGA and for
different sites have been determined, with the aim of illustrating the differences between

the 3 seismic codes.

Moreover, the EC8 differs from the RPA and UBC by a
proposal to take into account the effect of topographic site, and for what
is nonlinear behavior of soils only the UBC code, takes into account
of this behavior by the variation of the amplification factors according to
the increase in level of seismic excitation.

63
Machine Translated by Google

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
[01]. anti-seismic regulations Algeria "RPA 99/ version 2003" (2004)
National Center for Applied Research in Earthquake Engineering.

[02]. EC 8 (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for their resistance to

earthquakes Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings,
European standard. European Committee for Standardization, European
Committee for Standardization Secretariat Central, rue de Stassart 36,
B-1050 Brussels.

[03]. UBC (1997) Uniform Building Code, International Conference of

Building Officials. Whittier, California, USA.

Amina CHEBIHI AND Nasser LAOUAMI COMPARATIVE

SEISMIC
BETWEEN
STUDY [04].
,

ALGERIAN CODE (RPA 99), EUROPEAN CODE (EC8) AND AMERICAN

CODE (UBC 97), 2014.

[05]. Bensekirifa Hamza, Evaluation of the influence of the site effect on

the response spectra of structures, Magister in Civil Engineering Option:
Structure and Materials, 2009.

[06]. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE
7-05, American Society of Civil Engineer.

[07]. The new SEISMIC REGULATION applicable to buildings, 2011.

Hervé YAMKOUDOUGOU teaching establishment

, Eurocodein
8 Strasbourg
applied to a [08].
(Comparison of the main principles with the PS92), Support project:
construction of an engineering school ECAM, Strasbourg-EUROPE in
Schiltigheim.

[09]. WB Joyner and DM Boore, The measurement and prediction

characterization of strong ground motions. In Proc. of Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics II, pages 43-102, Park City, Utah, June
1988. New York: Geotechnical Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

[10]. Nguyen Khoa Van, Study of site effects due to topographic and
geotechnical conditions using a hybrid finite element/boundary element
method. Printing of the ENPC, 2005