TECHNICAL CHAMBER OF GREECE – HELLENIC CONCRETE SECTION

JAPAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS

“New developments in Technology and Standards for

Reinforced Concrete in Europe and Japan”

20th November 2009, ATHENS, GREECE

EN 1998: EUROCODE 8
DESIGN OF STRUCTURES
FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANCE
M.N. Fardis
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras, GR
 Part I:
The Eurocode context
The ECs in the European Economic
Community
25/3/57 10/3/79 12/7/86
Unique Act 1/11/93
Rome European
New EEC
Treaty Monetary
System Approach

The Construction
Public Products Directive Directive Directive
Procurement 89/106/CEE 92/50/CEE 93/37/CEE
Directive Essential requirements
71/305/CEE
1) Mechanical resistance
and stability
2) Safety in case of fire
3) Hygiene, health and
environment 1990 1991--1996
1991
1976 1980
Steering First 4) Safety in use Transfer to pre-
pre-
Committee Eurocodes 5) Protection against noise CEN Standards
TC250 ENVs
6) Energy economy and
heat retention
Interpretative Documents
(1994)
 The ECs in the European Union

1/11/93 EU

The Commission’s
Directive Recommendation
97/52/CE to Member States
03/C4639 /CEE:
Implementation and use of
1998 Eurocodes
2005
2002
«Conversion» 1) Adopt ECs
End of
First
of ENVs to ENs 2) Use ECs as basis of Specs «conversions» of
Standards EN in public sector and energy,
started water, transport & ENVs to ENs
telecommunication sectors
3) Member States competent
on safety and economy: NDPs
4) Compare, harmonise NDPs
 CONVERSION OF EUROCODES FROM ENV TO EN
• Subject: 56 ENs
• Period: 1998-2005
• Roles:
• Financing, Implementation & Control: European Commission, DG-Enterprise
• Institutional & Management: CEN
• Administration & overall Technical Coordination: CEN/TC250
• Technical responsibility for individual Eurocodes: TC250/SCs
• 1st Draft: Project Teams of nationally-nominated experts, working with SC
• Redrafting & Decisions:National Standards Bodies (NSB) via SC & Formal Vote
• Phases (for each EC part):
• 1st Draft by Project Team on the basis of national comments for ENV;
technical discussion, redrafting & decisions in SC: 2-3 yrs
• Examination of Draft by NSBs, redrafting, translation to French, German,
Formal Vote (weighted voting; qualified majority), publication by CEN ~2 yr
• National versions of EN, including National Annex with national choices: 2 yrs
• Parallel use of existing national provisions & EN-packages: 3yrs from last EN
• Withdrawal of conflicting national standards: 2010-11
 Objectives of Eurocodes
The Member States of the EU and EFTA recognise that Eurocodes
serve as reference documents for the following purposes :
→ as a means to prove compliance of building and civil engineering
works with the essential requirements of Council Directive
89/106/EEC, particularly Essential Requirement N°1 – Mechanical
resistance and stability – and Essential Requirement N°2 – Safety in
case of fire;
→ as a basis for specifying contracts for construction works and
related engineering services;
→ as a framework for drawing up harmonised technical specifications
for construction products (ENs and ETAs)
 Objectives of Eurocodes (cont’d)
In addition, the Eurocodes are expected to:

improve the functioning of the single market for products and

engineering services by removing obstacles arising from
different nationally codified practices for the assessment of
structural reliability;

improve the competitiveness of the European construction

industry and the professionals and industries connected to it,
in countries outside the European Union.
IMPORTANT FEATURES OF EUROCODE-SYSTEM
• Comprehensive & integrated system covering:
– all structural materials;
– practically all types of construction works;
• in a consistent, harmonised & user-friendly manner
(similar document structure, symbols, terminology,
verification criteria, analysis methods, etc.),
• with hierarchy & cross-referencing among different ECs &
EC-parts
• w/o overlapping & duplication.

• EC-system ideal for application in a large No. of countries

w/ different traditions, materials, environmental conditions,
etc., as it has built-in flexibility to accommodate such
differences.
 European Standards (ENs)

Design standards : The Eurocodes

Material standards (steel, ETAs: European Technical

concrete, etc.) and Product Approvals (FRPs,
standards (Structural bearings, Prestressing systems,
Isolation devices, etc.) Isolation/dissipation devices,
etc.)
Execution standards (e.g., standards for the execution of
concrete or steel structures)

Test standards
 THE EN-EUROCODES
EN 1990 Eurocode : Basis of structural design
EN 1991 Eurocode 1 : Actions on structures
EN 1992 Eurocode 2 : Design of concrete structures
EN 1993 Eurocode 3 : Design of steel structures
EN 1994 Eurocode 4 : Design of composite steel and
concrete structures
EN 1995 Eurocode 5 : Design of timber structures
EN 1996 Eurocode 6 : Design of masonry structures
EN 1997 Eurocode 7 : Geotechnical design
EN 1998 Eurocode 8 : Design of structures for earthquake
resistance
EN 1999 Eurocode 9 : Design of aluminium structures
INTERRELATION OF EUROCODES
Structural safety,
serviceability and
EN1990 durability

Actions on
EN1991 structures

EN1992 EN1993 EN1994

Design and
detailing
EN1995 EN1996 EN1999

Geotechnical
EN1997 EN1998
and seismic
design
Organisation of Eurocodes 2, 3, 4, 5, (8)

Part 1-1
General
rules and
rules for
buildings

Part 1-2
Structural fire
design (not
for EC8)

Part 2
Bridges
 EN 1990 – Eurocode : Basis of
structural design
Foreword
Section 1 : General
Section 2 : Requirements
Section 3 : Principles of limit states
Section 4 : Basic variables
Section 5 : Structural analysis & design assisted by testing
Section 6 : Verification by the partial factor method

Annex A1(N): Application for buildings

Annex A2 (N): Application for bridges
Annex B (I): Management of structural reliability for
construction works
Annex C (I): Basis for partial factor design & reliability analysis
Annex D (I): Design assisted by testing
 EN 1990 – Eurocode : Basis of
structural design
(future) ANNEXES
A3 (N): Application for towers, masts & chimneys
A4 (N): Application for silos and tanks
A5 (N): Application for cranes and machinery
E1 (I?): Structural bearings
E2 (I?): Expansion joints
E3 (I?): Pedestrian parapets
E4 (I?): Vehicle parapets
E5 (I?): Ropes and cables
 Eurocode 1 – Actions on structures
• GENERAL ACTIONS
– EN 1991-1-1: Densities, self-weight, imposed loads
on buildings
– EN 1991-1-2: Actions on structures exposed to fire
– EN 1991-1-3: Snow loads
– EN 1991-1-4: Wind actions
– EN 1991-1-5: Thermal actions
– EN 1991-1-6: Actions during execution
– EN 1991-1-7: Accidental actions
•EN 1991-2: Traffic loads on bridges
•EN 1991-3: Actions due to cranes and machinery
•EN 1991-4: Actions in silos and tanks
Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures

• EN1992-1-1: General rules and rules for buildings

• EN1992-1-2: Structural fire design
• EN1992-2: Reinforced and prestressed
concrete bridges
• EN1992-3: Liquid retaining and containing
structures
Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures
• EN1993-1-1: General rules and rules for buildings
• EN1993-1-2: Structural fire design
• EN1993-1-3: Cold-formed thin gauge members & sheeting
• EN1993-1-4: Stainless steels
• EN1993-1-5: Plated structural elements
EN1993-1-6: Strength and stability of shell structures
• EN1993-1-7: Strength and stability of planar plated
structures transversely loaded
• EN1993-1-8: Design of joints
• EN1993-1-9: Fatigue strength of steel structures
• EN1993-1-10: Selection of material for fracture toughness
and through thickness properties
• EN1993-1-11: Use of high-strength tensile elements
Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures
(cont’d)
• EN1993-2: Steel bridges
• EN1993-3-1: Towers and masts
• EN1993-3-2: Chimneys
• EN1993-4-1: Silos
• EN1993-4-2: Tanks
• EN1993-4-3: Pipelines
• EN1993-5: Piling
• EN1993-6: Crane supporting structures
 Eurocode 4 – Design of composite
steel and concrete structures
• EN1994-1-1: General rules and rules for buildings
• EN1994-1-2: Structural fire design
• EN1994-2: Composite bridges
Eurocode 5 – Design of timber structures

• EN1995-1-1: General rules and rules for buildings

• EN1995-1-2: Structural fire design
• EN1995-2: Timber bridges
Eurocode 6 – Design of masonry structures
• EN1996-1-1: Common rules for reinforced and
unreinforced masonry structures
• EN1996-1-2: Structural fire design
• EN1996-2: Design, selection of materials and
execution of masonry
 Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical design

• EN1997-1: General rules

• EN1997-2: Ground investigation and testing
 Eurocode 8 – Design of structures for
earthquake resistance
• EN1998-1: General rules, seismic actions and rules
for buildings
• EN1998-2: Bridges
• EN1998-3: Assesment and retrofitting of buildings
• EN1998-4: Silos, tanks and pipelines
• EN1998-5: Foundations, retaining structures and
geotechnical aspects
• EN1998-6: Towers, masts and chimneys
 Eurocode 9 – Design of aluminium
structures
• EN1999-1-1: General rules – Structures
• EN1999-1-2: General rules - Structural fire design
• EN1999-1-3: Additional rules for structures
susceptible to fatigue
• EN1999-1-4: Supplementary rules for trapezoidal
sheeting
• EN1999-1-5: Supplementary rules for shell structures
 FLEXIBILITY WITHIN EUROCODE FRAMEWORK
• Eurocodes (ECs) or National Annexes cannot allow design with rules
other than those in the ECs.
• National choice can be exercised through the National Annex, only
where the Eurocode itself explicitly allows:
1. Choosing a value for a parameter, for which a symbol or range of values is
given in the Eurocode;
2. Choosing among alternative classes or models detailed in the Eurocode;
3. Adopting an Informative Annex or referring to alternative national document.
• Items of national choice in 1-2: Nationally Determined Parameters NDPs
• National choice through NDPs:
– Wherever agreement on single choice cannot be reached;
– On issues controlling safety, durability & economy (national competence) &
where geographic or climatic differences exist (eg. Seismic Hazard)
• For cases 1 & 2, the Eurocode itself recommends (in a Note) a choice.
The European Commission will urge countries to adopt
recommendation(s), to minimize diversity within the EU.
• If a National Annex does not exercise national choice for a NDP,
designer will make the choice, depending on conditions of the project.
IMPLEMENTATION OF EUROCODES
 European Commission, Guidance Paper L:
“Application and use of Eurocodes”
CONSTRUCT 01/483 Rev.1, Brusells,
Brusells, 2001
• The determination of the levels of safety of buildings and civil engineering works and parts thereof,
including aspects of durability and economy, is .. within the competence of the Member States.
• Possible difference in geographical or climatic conditions (e.g. wind or snow), or in ways of life, as
well as different levels of protection that may prevail at national, regional or local level … will be
taken into account … by providing choices in the EN Eurocodes for identified values, classes, or
alternative methods, to be determined at the national level (named Nationally Determined
Parameters, NDPs). Thus allowing the Member States to choose the level of safety, including
aspects of durability and economy, applicable to works in their territory.
• When Member States lay down their NDPs, they should:
– choose from the classes included in the EN Eurocodes, or
– use the recommended value, or choose a value within the recommended range of values, for a
symbol where the EN Eurocodes make a recommendation, or
– when alternative methods are given, use the recommended method, where the EN Eurocodes
make a recommendation,
– take into account the need for coherence of the NDPs laid down for the different EN Eurocodes
and the various Parts thereof.
• Member States are encouraged to co-operate to minimize the number of cases where
recommendations for a value or method are not adopted for their nationally determined parameters.
• The NDPs laid down in a Member State should be made clearly known to the users of the EN
Eurocodes and other parties concerned, including manufacturers.
• When EN Eurocodes are used for the design of construction works, or parts thereof, the NDPs of
the Member State on whose territory the works are located shall be applied.
• Any reference to a EN Eurocode design should include the information on which set of NDPs was
used, whether or not the NDPs .. used correspond to the recommendations given in the EN
Eurocodes.
 European Commission, Guidance Paper L:
“Application and use of Eurocodes”
CONSTRUCT 01/483 Rev.1, Brusells,
Brusells, 2001
• National Provisions should avoid replacing any EN Eurocodes provisions, e.g. Application Rules,
by national rules (codes, standards, regulatory provisions, etc.).
• When, however, National Provisions do provide that the designer may – even after the end or the
coexistence period – deviate from or not apply the EN Eurocodes or certain provisions thereof
(e.g. Application Rules), then the design will not be called “a design according to EN Eurocodes”.
• When Eurocodes Parts are published as European standards, they will become part of the
application of the Public Procurement Directive (PPD).
• In all cases, technical specifications shall be formulated in public tender enquiries and public
contracts by referring to EN Eurocodes, in combination with the NDPs applicable to the works
concerned.
• However, the reference to EN Eurocodes is not necessarily the only possible reference allowed in
a Public contract. The PPD foresees the possibility for the procuring entity to accept other
proposals, if their equivalence to the EN Eurocodes can be demonstrated by the contractor.
• Consequently, the design of works proposed in response to a Public tender can be prepared
according to:
– EN Eurocodes (including NDPs) which give a presumption of conformity with all legal
European requirements concerning mechanical resistance and stability, fire resistance and
durability, in compliance with the technical specifications required in the contract for the works
concerned;
– Other provisions expressing the required technical specification in terms of performance. In
this case, the technical specification should be detailed enough to allow tenderers to know the
conditions on which the offer can be made and the owner to choose the preferred offer. This
applies, in particular, to the use of national codes, as long as Member States maintain their
use in parallel with EN Eurocodes (e.g. a Design Code provided by National Provisions), if
also specified to be acceptable as an alternative to an EN Eurocode Part by the Public tender.
 European Commission: “Commission Recommendation on the
implementation and use of Eurocodes for construction works &
structural construction products”.
Document No. C(2003)4639, Brussels (2003)
• Member States should adopt the Eurocodes as a suitable tool for designing construction
works, checking the mechanical resistance of components or checking the stability of
structures.
• The Eurocodes are to be used by contracting authorities in technical specifications relating to
the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts ... Technical
specifications are to be defined by the contracting authorities by reference to national
standards implementing European standards.
• Member States should take all necessary measures to ensure that structural construction
products calculated in accordance with the Eurocodes may be used, and should therefore
refer to the Eurocodes in their national regulations on design.
……….

• Member States should inform the Commission of all national measures in accordance with the
Recommendation.
 European Commission: “Commission Recommendation on the
implementation and use of Eurocodes for construction works &
structural construction products”.
Document No. C(2003)4639, Brussels (2003)
……..
• For each Nationally Determined Parameter (NDP), the Eurocodes give a recommended value.
However, Member States may choose a different specific value as the NDP, if they consider it
necessary in order to ensure that building and civil engineering works are designed and
executed in a way that does not endanger the safety of persons, domestic animals or property
• Member States should use the recommended values provided by the Eurocodes when NDPs
have been identified in the Eurocodes. They should diverge from those recommended values
only where geographical, geological or climatic conditions or specific levels of protection make
the necessary. Member States should notify the Commission of the NDPs in force on their
territory within two years of the date on which the Eurocodes became available.
• In order to achieve a higher level of harmonization, a comparison of the various NDPs
implemented by the Member States should be undertaken and, where appropriate, they
should be aligned.
• Member States should, acting in coordination under the direction of the Commission, compare
the NDPs implemented by each Member State and assess their impact as regards the
technical differences for works or parts of works. Member States should, at the request of the
Commission, change their NDPs in order to reduce divergence from the recommended values
provided by the Eurocodes.
……..
• Member States should inform the Commission of all national measures in accordance with the
Recommendation.
 EN 1998-1:2004
General rules, seismic actions, rules for buildings
No. of NDPs
1. General _
2. Performance Requirements and Compliance Criteria 2
3. Ground Conditions and Seismic Action 8
4. Design of Buildings 7
5. Specific Rules for Concrete Buildings 11
6. Specific Rules for Steel Buildings 6
7. Specific Rules for Steel-Concrete Composite Buildings 4
8. Specific Rules for Timber Buildings 1
9. Specific Rules for Masonry Buildings 15
10. Base Isolation 1
Annex A (Informative): Elastic Displacement Response Spectrum 1
Annex B (Informative): Determination of the Target Displacement for Nonlinear 1
Static (Pushover) Analysis
Annex C (Normative): Design of the Slab of Steel-Concrete Composite Beams at _
Beam-Column Joints in Moment Resisting Frames
Total: 57
 EN 1998-5:2004
Foundations, retaining structures, geotechnical
aspects
No. of NDPs
1. General _
2. Seismic Action _
3. Ground Properties 1
4. Requirements for Siting and for Foundation Soils 1
5. Foundation System 1
6. Soil-Structure Interaction _
7. Earth Retaining Structures _
Annex A (Informative): Topographic Amplification Factors 1
Annex B (Normative): Empirical Charts for Simplified Liquefaction Analysis _
Annex C (Informative): Pile-Head Static Stiffnesses 1
Annex D (Informative): Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI). General Effects and 1
Significance
Annex E (Normative): Simplified Analysis for Retaining Structures _
Annex F (Informative): Seismic Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations 1
Total: 7
 EN 1998-3:2005
Assessment and Retrofitting of buildings
No. of NDPs
1. General _
2. Performance Requirements and Compliance Criteria 3
3. Information for Structural Assessment 2
4. Assessment 2
5. Decisions for Structural Intervention _
6. Design of Structural Intervention _
Annex A (Informative): Concrete Structures 1
Annex B (Informative): Steel or Composite Structures 1
Annex C (Informative): Masonry Buildings 1

Total: 10
• Normative part: General rules
• All material-specific aspects: In Informative (nonbinding) Annexes
 EN 1998-2:2005: Bridges No. of NDPs
1. Introduction _
2. Performance Requirements and Compliance Criteria 8
3. Seismic Action 4
4. Analysis 2
5. Strength Verification 3
6. Detailing 6
7. Bridges with Seismic Isolation 4
Annex A (Informative): Probabilities Related to the Reference Seismic Action. 1
Guidance for the Selection of Design Seismic Action during the
Construction Phase
Annex B (Informative): Relationship between Displacement Ductility and Curvature 1
Ductility Factors of Plastic Hinges in Concrete Piers
Annex C (Informative): Estimation of the Effective Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete 1
Ductile Members
Annex D (Informative): Spatial Variability of Earthquake Ground Motion: Model and 1
Methods of Analysis
Annex E (Informative): Probable Material Properties and Plastic Hinge Deformation 1
Capacities for Non-Linear Analyses
(Cont’d next page)
 (Cont’d) EN 1998-2:2005: Bridges
No. of NDPs
Annex E (Informative): Added Mass of Entrained Water for Immersed Piers 1
Annex F (Normative): Calculation of Capacity Design Effects _
Annex G (Informative): Static Nonlinear Analysis (Pushover) 1
Annex J (Normative): Variation of Design Properties of Seismic Isolator Units 2
Annex JJ (Informative): -Factors for Common Isolator Types 1
Annex K (Informative): Tests for Validation of Design Properties of Seismic Isolator 1
Units
Total: 38
 EN 1998-6:2005
Towers, Masts and Chimneys
No. of NDPs
1. General _
2. Performance Requirements and Compliance Criteria _
3. Seismic Action 2
4. Design of Earthquake Resistant Towers, Masts and Chimneys 4
5. Specific Rules for Reinforced Concrete Chimneys _
6. Special Rules for Steel Chimneys _
7. Special Rules for Steel Towers _
8. Special Rules for Guyed Masts _
Annex A (Informative): Linear Dynamic Analysis accounting for Rotational Components
of the Ground Motion 1
Annex B (Informative): Modal Damping in Modal Response Spectrum Analysis 1
Annex C (Informative): Soil-Structure Interaction 1
Annex D (Informative): Number of Degrees of Freedom and of Modes of Vibration 1
Annex E (Informative): Masonry Chimneys 1
Annex E (Informative): Electrical Transmission Towers 1
Total: 12
 EN 1998-4:2006
Silos, Tanks and Pipelines
No. of NDPs
1. General _
2. General Principles and Application Rules 6
3. Specific Principles and Application Rules for Silos 1
4. Specific Principles and Application Rules for Tanks 2
5. Specific Principles and Application Rules for Above-ground
Pipelines _
6. Specific Principles and Application Rules for Buried Pipelines _
Annex A (Informative): Seismic Analysis Procedures for Tanks 1
Annex B (Informative): Buried Pipelines 1

Total: 11
 EC8 Parts - Key dates
EC8 Part Title Approval by Availability National publication
formal vote from CEN - National Annexes
1: EN1998-1 General rules, seismic actions, rules for buildings Feb 04 Dec. 04 Dec. 06
2: EN1998-2 Bridges June 05 Nov. 05 Nov. 07
3: EN1998-3 Assessment and retrofitting of buildings Feb 05 June 05 June 07
4: EN1998-4 Silos, tanks, pipelines April 06 July 06 July 08
5: EN1998-5 Foundations, retaining structures, geotechnical Feb 04 Nov. 04 Nov. 06
aspects
6: EN1998-6 Towers, masts, chimneys March 05 June 05 June 07
 EUROCODE PACKAGES & EC8:
• Self-sufficient packages of ENs for design of each type of
construction works (building, bridge, etc.) with a
specific construction material.
• EC0 (Basis of design), EC1 (Actions), EC7 (Geotechnical)
& EC8:
Not basis of any EC-package; in all packages as service items.
• Withdrawal of all conflicting national standards:
5 years after publication by CEN of last EN in package.
• EC8 parts to be included in EC-packages:
•EN1998-1, -5 & -3: in packages for concrete, steel, composite,
etc., buildings
•EN1998-1, -5 & -2: in packages for concrete, steel etc. bridges
•EN1998-1, -5 & -4: in packages for Concrete liquid retaining
structures and for Steel silos, tanks, pipelines
•EN1998-1, -5 & -6: in package for Steel towers and masts
 EC7 EC8
EC-Package No. & subject Parts Part:
1 & 2: 1 2 3 4 5 6

2/1 Concrete buildings

3/1 Steel buildings
4/1 Composite (steel-concrete) buildings
5/1 Timber buildings
6/1 Masonry buildings
7 Aluminium structures
2/2 Concrete bridges
3/2 Steel bridges
4/2 Composite bridges
5/2 Timber bridges
2/3 Concrete liquid retaining and containment
structures
3/3 Steel silos, tanks and pipelines
3/4 Steel piling
3/5 Steel cranes
3/6 Steel towers and masts
 STRUCTURE OF EN 1998-1: 2004

1. General
2. Performance Requirements and Compliance Criteria
3. Ground Conditions and Seismic Action
4. Design of Buildings
5. Specific Rules for Concrete Buildings
6. Specific Rules for Steel Buildings
7. Specific Rules for Steel-Concrete Composite Buildings
8. Specific Rules for Timber Buildings
9. Specific Rules for Masonry Buildings
10. Base Isolation
 STRUCTURE OF EN 1998-1: 2004

1. General
2. Performance Requirements and Compliance Criteria
3. Ground Conditions and Seismic Action
4. Design of Buildings
5. Specific Rules for Concrete Buildings
6. Specific Rules for Steel Buildings
7. Specific Rules for Steel-Concrete Composite Buildings
8. Specific Rules for Timber Buildings
9. Specific Rules for Masonry Buildings
10. Base Isolation
 Part II:
Performance Requirements
and Seismic Actions in EC8
From EN1990 (Eurocode – Basis of structural design):
• Seismic design situation: G k , j " " P " " A Ed " " 2 ,i Q k ,i
j 1 i 1
Gk , j
j 1
: Permanent actions (characteristic or nominal values)

P : Prestressing
2 ,iQk ,i : Variable actions (quasi-permanent values)
AEd AEk : Design Seismic action
AEk : Characteristic Seismic action, : Importance factor of structure
From EN1990 & EN1998-1(Eurocode 8 – General):
AEk : «Reference Seismic action»:
Reference Probability of Exceedance, PR , in design life TL of structure
(or Reference Return Period, TR )
IMPORTANCE CLASSES - IMPORTANCE FACTORS
FOR BUILDINGS
Importance Building Recommended
class I value (NDP)
I Minor importance for public safety 0.8
II Ordinary 1.0 (by definition)
III Large consequences of collapse 1.2
(schools, assembly halls, cultural
institutions etc.)
IV Of vital importance for civil protection 1.4
(hospitals, fire stations, power plants,
etc.)
From EN1990 - Eurocode: Basis of structural design:
Design working life: the assumed period for which
a structure is to be used for its intended purpose
with anticipated maintenance but without major
repair being necessary.
For :
•Definition of design actions (e.g. wind, earthquake)
•Determination of material property deterioration (f.i. fatigue, creep)
•Life cycle costing
•Development of maintenance strategies

In EN1998-1 – Eurocode 8 – General:

•Presumed design working life TL : 50 years
•Different values can be considered through Importance
factor of the structure (reliability differentiation).
IN EUROPE, SINCE ’60s (also in seismic codes)
• Instead of “Performance Level”:
• “Limit State” (LS) = state of unfitness to (intended)
purpose:
– ULS (Ultimate LS): safety of people and/or structure;
– SLS (Serviceability LS): operation, damage to
property.
• LS concept:
– Adopted in 1985 CEB seismic Model Code;
– Continued & expanded in 1994 ENV (prestandard)
Eurocode 8;
– According to EN 1990 (Eurocode: Basis of structural
design): LS-design is the basis for all Eurocodes
(including EC8).
In EN1990 - Eurocode: Basis of structural design:
• Ultimate limit states concern:
– the safety of people
– the safety of the structure
• Serviceability limit states concern:
– the functioning of the structure
– the comfort of people
– the appearance of the structure
• loss of equilibrium of the structure or any part of
Limit it, considered as a rigid body;
• failure by excessive deformation, transformation
State of the structure or any part of it into a mechanism,
U.L.S. rupture, loss of stability of the structure or any part S.L.S.
of it, including supports and foundations;
• failure caused by fatigue or other time-
Design dependent effects.
Situation
Persistent
Transient
Accidental
Seismic
EN 1998: Adaptation of L.S. Design of new
buildings, towers, tanks, pipelines, chimneys or
silos to Performance-based concept:
Verify explicitly No-life-threatening-collapse
requirement ("Life Safety" performance level) for "rare"
Earthquake (recommended NDP-reference seismic
action for structures of ordinary importance: 475 years).
Limit damage through damage limitation check for
"frequent" Earthquake (recommended NDP-reference
EQ for structures of ordinary importance: 95 yrs).
Prevent collapse under any conceivable Earthquake
through "Capacity Design”
EN 1998: Design of foundations, bridges,
retaining structures, masts:

• Verify explicitly only No-(life-threatening)

collapse requirement under "rare" Earthquake
(recommended NDP-reference seismic action for
structures of ordinary importance: 475 years).

• No Serviceability or Damage Limitation checks

for "frequent" Earthquake

• For some types of structures: Prevent collapse

under any conceivable Earthquake through
"Capacity Design”
EN 1998-3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings:
EXPLICIT PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH:

Assessment & Retrofitting for different Limit

States under different Seismic Hazard levels
Limit States (Performance Levels)
Damage Limitation (: Immediate Occupancy)
Significant Damage (: Life Safety)
Near Collapse.
Flexibility for countries, owners, designers:
• How many & which Limit States will be met and for what Hazard Level:
– to be decided by country, or
– (if country doesn’t decide in National Annex) by owner/designer
• Hazard Levels: NDPs - No recommendation given
Noted that Basic Objective for ordinary new buildings is:
– Damage Limitation: Occasional EQ (225yrs)
– Significant Damage: Rare EQ (475yrs)
– Near Collapse: Very rare EQ (2475yrs)
• Safety-critical facilities: Enhanced Objective, via multiplication of
seismic action by importance factor I
 EN 1998: SEISMIC ACTION FOR DAMAGE
LIMITATION CHECKS
• Seismic action for “damage limitation”: NDP.
Recommended for ordinary structures: 10%/10yrs (95yr EQ);
~50% of “design seismic action” (475 yr seismic action).
• In buildings: Interstorey drift ratio calculated for “damage
limitation” action via “equal displacement rule” (elastic
response):
<0.005 for brittle nonstructural elements attached to structure;
<0.0075 for ductile nonstructural elements attached to structure;
< 0.01 for nonstructural elements not interfering w/ structural
response.
• Although the recommended ~50% of 475 yr (design) seismic
action is a low estimate of the 95 yr seismic action, in
concrete, steel or composite frame buildings damage
limitation checks control member sizes.
Conclusion: In EN1998-1: Eurocode 8 – General
The Design Seismic action is defined as the one for which the No-
(life-threatening-)collapse requirement is verified
The Reference Return Period of the Reference Seismic action
is a NDP, with a recommended value of 475 years
(corrresponding Reference Probability of Exceedance in the
structure’s design life of 50 years: 10%)

The Reference Seismic action is described (through the national

zonation maps) in terms of a single parameter:
the Reference Peak Ground Acceleration on Rock, agR.

The design ground acceleration on rock, ag, is the reference PGA

times the importance factor: ag = IagR

In addition to the Reference Peak Ground Acceleration on Rock,

the Reference Seismic action is defined in terms of the Elastic
Response Spectrum for 5% damping.
 Definition of Elastic Spectra in Eurocode 8:
Spectral shape: Defined in National Annex as NDP as function of:
Ground type (surface layers, a few tens of m)
Earthquake Magnitude
(possibly) deep geology below surface deposits.
Spectral shape: consists of regions of:
Constant response spectral pseudo-acceleration
Constant response spectral pseudo-velocity
Constant response spectral displacement
• Recommended: Two types of horizontal spectra from S. European data:
Type 1: High & moderate seismicity regions (distant EQs, Ms> 5.5);
Type 2: Low seismicity; local EQs (Ms< 5.5).
(High amplification at low T; falls-off sooner with T).
Detailed ground classification (5 standard ground types defined on the
basis of shear-wave velocity in top 30m, plus 2 special ones)
 Standard Ground types
v s,30 (m/s) NSPT cu (kPa)
A Rock with ≤5m weaker surface material 800 _ _
B Very dense sand, gravel or very stiff clay, ≥ 360-800 50 250
several tens of m
C Dense or medium-dense sand, gravel or stiff 180-360 15-50 70-250
clay, several tens to many hundreds m
D Loose-to-medium cohesionless soil or soft- 180 15 70
to-firm cohesive soil
E 5 to 20m surface alluvium layer with v s of
type C or D, underlain by v s >800m/s material
S1 ≥10m thick soft clay/silt with PI 40 and 100 _ 10-20
high water content
S2 Liquefiable soils, sensitive clays, or any other
soil not of type A – E or S1
 Standard elastic response spectral shape
• Ranges of constant
spectral pseudo-
acceleration, pseudo-
velocity, displacement,
start at corner periods
T B, T C , TD .
• Uniform amplification
of spectrum by soil
factor S (incl. PGA at
soil surface, Sag).
• Damping correction
factor 10 / 5 0,5
• Constant spectral
acceleration = 2.5
times PGA at soil
surface for horizontal,
3 times for the vertical.
• TB, TC, TD, S: NDPs
 Recommended horizontal elastic spectra for the
standard ground types (5% damping, PGA on rock: 1g)
4 5
E
D Type 1 D Type 2
E
C 4
C
3

B B
3
A A

Se/ag
Se/ag

1
1

0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
T (s) T (s)
 EN vs. ENV: Elastic Spectrum for 5% damping
Elastic Spectrum Type 1, ag=1g Elastic Spectrum Type 2, ag=1g
Design Spectrum (: Elastic Spectrum divided by behaviour factor q) EN v. ENV for q=4
Design Spectrum Type 1, ag=1g, q=4 Design Spectrum Type 2, ag=1g, q=4
 Horizontal peak ground displacement &
(elastic) displacement spectrum
Peak ground displacement established on the
basis of assumed displacement amplification factor
of 2.5 in constant spectral displacement region:
dg 0.025a g STC TD
2
Up to T~4s, elastic T
S d (T ) S a (T )
displacement spectra are 2
derived from the
acceleration spectra
(European data).
Informative (non-binding)
Annex:
• Tail of displacement
spectra for T>4s, on the
basis of combination of
data from Europe & Kobe:
• New corner period TE
depends on ground type;
• TF=10s.
 Vertical elastic spectra
• Corner periods TB, TC, TD:
NDPs
• Recommended:
– Independent of ground type
(insufficient data)
– TB = 0.05s
– TC = 0.15s
– TD = 1.0s
– Peak vertical ground
acceleration:
• avg = 0.9ag, if Type 1 spectrum
appropriate;
• avg = 0.45ag, if Type 2 spectrum.
Elastic response spectra for the two special
ground types (S1 and S2)
• Through a special site-specific study.
• For S1: Establish dependence of response spectrum on
thickness and vs value of soft clay/silt layer and on its
stiffness contrast with the underlying materials (low
internal damping and abnormally long range of linear
behaviour, conducive to anomalous site amplification).
• For S2: Examine possibility of soil failure.
 Other special provisions for seismic
actions
Topographic amplification (at the top of ridges or isolated cliffs)
Near-source effects: No general provisions;
• site-specific spectra required, to take into account near-
source effects for bridges <10km from known active fault that
can produce Moment Magnitude >6.5
Spatial variability of seismic action for pipelines & bridges with
deck continuous over >2/3 of distance beyond which ground
motion considered uncorrelated (:NDP, depending on ground
type, recommended: from 600m for rock, to 300m for soft soil).
• Simplified method superimposes (to seismic action effects
that neglect motion spatial variability) static effects of
postulated relative displacements of supports (in the same or
opposite direction) that depend on:
– peak ground displacement and
– distance beyond which ground motion is considered
uncorrelated.
 Part III:
Design of new buildings for
earthquake resistance,
according to Eurocode 8-Part 1
(emphasis on concrete buildings)
 STRUCTURE OF EN 1998-1:2004

1 General
2 Performance Requirements and Compliance Criteria
3 Ground Conditions and Seismic Action
4 Design of Buildings
5 Specific Rules for Concrete Buildings
6 Specific Rules for Steel Buildings
7 Specific Rules for Steel-Concrete Composite Buildings
8 Specific Rules for Timber Buildings
9 Specific Rules for Masonry Buildings
10 Base Isolation
 EN1998-1: DESIGN CONCEPTS FOR SAFETY
UNDER DESIGN SEISMIC ACTION
1. Design for energy dissipation (normally through ductility): q>1.5
Global ductility:
Structure forced to remain straight in elevation through shear walls,
bracing system or strong columns ( MRc>1.3 MRb in frames):
Local ductility:
Plastic hinges detailed for ductility capacity derived from q-factor;
Brittle failures prevented by overdesign/capacity design
Capacity design of foundations & foundation elements:
On the basis of overstrength of ductile elements of superstructure.
(Or: Foundation elements - incl. piles - designed & detailed for ductility)
2. Design w/o energy dissipation & ductility: q 1.5 for overstrength;
design only according to EC2 - EC7 (Ductility Class “Low”– DCL)
Only:
for Low Seismicity (NDP; recommended: PGA on rock 0.08g)
for superstructure of base-isolated buildings.
 Force-based design for energy-dissipation & ductility, to
meet no-(life-threatening-)collapse requirement under
Design Seismic action:
• Structure allowed to develop significant inelastic deformations under
design seismic action, provided that integrity of members & of the
whole is not endangered.
• Basis of force-based design for ductility:
– inelastic response spectrum of SDoF system having elastic-perfectly
plastic F- curve, in monotonic loading.
• For given period, T, of elastic SDoF system, inelastic spectrum
relates:
– ratio q = Fel/Fy of peak force, Fel, that would develop if the SDoF system
was linear-elastic, to its yield force, Fy, (“behaviour factor”)
to
– maximum displacement demand of the inelastic SDOF system, max,
expressed as ratio to the yield displacement, y : displacement ductility
factor, = max/ y
Inelastic spectra (Vidic et al)
=q if T TC
adopted in Eurocode 8
TC
1 ( q 1) if T <TC
T

Inelastic spectra for TC=0.6s normalised to peak ground acceleration, PGA

 Trading-off ductility against strength in
earthquake-resistant design
(ductility as an alternative to strength)
TC
1 ( q 1) if T < TC
T
=q if T TC

• The higher the value of , the lower is the required strength

Control of inelastic seismic response: Soft-storey
collapse mechanism, to be avoided through proper
structural configuration:
Strong-column/weak beam frames, with beam-sway mechanisms,
involving:
plastic hinging at all beam ends, and
either plastic hinging at column bottoms, or
rotations at the foundation.
Wall-equivalent dual frames, with beam-sway mechanism, involving:
plastic hinging at all beam ends, and
either plastic hinging at wall & column bottoms, or
rotations at the foundation.
Soft-storey collapse
mechanism, to be
avoided through
proper structural
configuration:
 Control of inelastic seismic response
through capacity design
• Not all locations or parts in a structure are capable of ductile behaviour & energy
dissipation.
• “Capacity design” provides the necessary hierarchy of strengths between adjacent
structural members or regions & between different mechanisms of load transfer
within the same member, to ensure that inelastic deformations will take place only
in those members, regions and mechanisms capable of ductile behaviour & energy
dissipation; the rest stay in the elastic range.
• The regions of members entrusted for hysteretic energy dissipation are called in
Eurocode 8 “dissipative zones”; they are designed and detailed to provide the
required ductility & energy-dissipation capacity.
• Before their design & detailing for the required ductility & energy-dissipation
capacity, “dissipative zones” are dimensioned to provide a design value of ULS
force resistance, Rd, at least equal to the design value of the action effect due to
the seismic design situation, Ed, from the analysis:
Ed Rd
• Normally linear analysis is used for the design seismic action (by dividing the
elastic response spectrum by the behaviour factor, q)
 Criteria for the selection of elements where inelastic
deformations are allowed to take place, instead of being
capacity-designed to stay in the elastic range:
• “Ductility”: the inherent capacity of the element to develop large
inelastic deformations & dissipate energy under cyclic loading, without
substantial loss of its force-resistance.
• The importance of the element for the stability of other elements &
the integrity of the whole (greater importance of vertical elements
compared to the horizontal ones; importance increases from the top of
the building to its foundation).
• The accessibility of the element and the difficulty to inspect & repair
any damage.
 EC8-PART 1: FOR ALL MATERIALS:
For Dissipative Structures (except masonry):
Two Ductility Classes (DC):
DC H (High).
DC M (Medium).
• Differences in:
q-values (usually q > 4 for DCH, 1.5 <q <4 for DCM)
Local ductility requirements
(ductility of materials or section, member detailing, capacity
design against brittle failure modes)
 ANALYSIS METHODS
(& CORRESPONDING MEMBER VERIFICATION CRITERIA)
• Reference method:
Linear modal response spectrum procedure, with elastic spectrum
reduced by (behaviour-factor) q:
• Applicable in all cases, except in base-isolated structures w/ (strongly)
nonlinear isolation devices.
• If building heightwise regular & higher-modes unimportant (T<4Tc, T<2s):
(Linear) Lateral force procedure, emulating response-spectrum
method:
• T from mechanics; reduction of forces by 15% if >2 storeys & T<2Tc
• Nonlinear analysis, static (pushover) or dynamic (t-history), for:
• Evaluation of system overstrength factor in redundant systems;
• Performance evaluation of existing or retrofitted buildings;
• Design with direct check of deformations of ductile members, w/o q-factor.
• Member verification at the ULS (for “Life-Safety” EQ):
• In terms of forces (resistances), except:
• If nonlinear analysis ductile failure modes checked in terms of deformations
EC8-Part 1: REGULARITY OF BUILDINGS IN ELEVATION
(FOR APPLICABILITY OF LATERAL FORCE PROCEDURE
& FOR VALUE OF BEHAVIOUR FACTOR, q)
• Qualitative criteria, can be checked w/o calculations:
• Structural systems (walls, frames, bracing systems):
continuous to the top (of corresponding part).
• Storey K & m: constant or gradually decreasing to the top.
• Individual floor setbacks on each side: < 10% of underlying storey.
• Unsymmetric setbacks: < 30% of base in total.
• Single setback at lower 15% of building: < 50% of base.
• In frames (incl. infilled): smooth distribution of storey overstrength.

• Heightwise irregular buildings: q-factor reduced by

20%
 EC8-Part 1: REGULARITY OF BUILDINGS IN PLAN
(FOR ANALYSIS OF TWO SEPARATE PLANAR/2D MODELS)
Criteria can be checked before any analysis:
K & m ~ symmetric w.r.to two orthogonal axes.
Rigid floors.
Plan configuration compact, w/ aspect ratio 4;
any recess from convex polygonal envelope: < 5% of floor area.
In both horizontal directions:
r (torsional radius of struct. system) ls (radius of gyration of floor plan):
Translational fundamental T(s) > torsional.
eo (eccentricity between floor C.S. & C.M.) 0.3 r:
Conservative bound to satisfactory performance (element ductility
demands same as in torsionally balanced structure).
Alternative for buildings 10m tall:
In both horizontal directions: r2 ls2+ eo2
 EC8-PART 1: FOR ALL MATERIALS:
"Secondary seismic elements":
Their contribution to resistance & stiffness for seismic
actions neglected in design (& in linear analysis model,
too);
Required to remain elastic under deformations due to
design seismic action.
Designer free to assign elements to the class of
“secondary seismic elements”, provided that:
Their total contribution to lateral stiffness 15%;
Regularity classification does not change.
 LINEAR ANALYSIS FOR DESIGN SEISMIC ACTION –
ULS MEMBER VERIFICATION - COMPLIANCE CRITERIA FOR LIFE SAFETY
Reference approach:
Force-based design with linear analysis:
• Linear modal response spectrum analysis, with design response
spectrum (elastic spectrum reduced by behaviour-factor q):
– Applies always (except in seismic isolation with very nonlinear devices)
• If:
– building regular in elevation &
– higher modes unimportant
(fundamental T <4Tc & <2sec, TC : T at end of constat spectral acceleration
plateau):
(linear) Lateral force procedure emulating response-spectrum method:
– T from mechanics (Rayleigh quotient);
– Reduction of forces by 15% if >2 storeys & T<2Tc
– Member verification at the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) for
“Life-Safety” EQ in terms of forces (resistances)
 LINEAR ANALYSIS FOR DESIGN SEISMIC ACTION Cont’d
• Reference approach is modal response spectrum
analysis, with design spectrum:
– Number of modes taken into account:
• All those with modal mass ≥ 5% of total in one of the
directions of application of the seismic action;
• Sufficient to collectively account for ≥ 90% of total mass in
each direction of application of the seismic action.
– Combination of modal responses:
• CQC (Complete Quadratic Combination);
• SRSS (Square-Root-of-Sum-of-Squares) if ratio of
successive modal periods < 0.9 & > 1/0.9.
• Lateral force procedure:
– Static lateral forces on storey or nodal masses
proportional to the mass times its distance from the
base (inverted triangular heightwise distribution).
 ANALYSIS FOR ACCIDENTAL TORSION
• Accidental displacement of masses in the direction normal
to the horizontal seismic action component, by:
– ei= ±0.05Li (±0.1Li if there are irregular-in-plan masonry infills),
where Li : plan dimension normal to the horizontal seismic action
component and parallel to ei
• Taken into account by means of:
1. Linear static analysis under torques (w.r.to vertical axis) on storey
or nodal masses equal to the storey or nodal forces of the lateral
force procedure, times ei=0.05Li (same sign at all storeys or nodes)
2. Superposition of the action effects due to the analysis in 1, to the
seismic action effects due to the horizontal seismic action
components w/o the accidental eccentricity (from lateral force or
modal response spectrum procedure), with the same sign as the
seismic action effect due to the horizontal seismic action
component.
 2nd-ORDER (P-∆ ) EFFECTS IN ANALYSIS
• 2nd-order effects taken into account at the storey level (index: i)
through their ratio to the 1st-order effects of the seismic action (in
terms of storey moments): i=Ntot,i∆ i/ViHi
– Ntot,i= total vertical load at and above storey i in seismic design situation;
– ∆ i = interstorey drift at storey i in seismic design situation, equal to that
calculated from the linear analysis for the design spectrum, times the behaviour
factor q;
– Vi = storey shear in storey i in seismic design situation;
– Hi = height of storey i.
• If i≤0.1 at all storeys, 2nd-order effects may be neglected (this is
normally the case, as indirect consequence of interstorey drift
limitation under damage-limitation seismic action);
• If i>0.1 at any storey, 2nd-order effects are taken into account by
dividing all 1st-order effects from the linear analysis by (1- i);
• i>0.2 at any storey to be avoided (never the case, thanks interstorey
drift limitation under damage-limitation seismic action).
• In buildings designed for the seismic action, 2nd-order effects in the
persistent-and-transient design situation are always negligible.
NONLINEAR ANALYSIS FOR DESIGN SEISMIC ACTION –
ULS MEMBER VERIFICATION - COMPLIANCE CRITERIA FOR LIFE SAFETY
Allowed: Displacement-based design, w/o q-factor:
– Nonlinear analysis, static (pushover) or dynamic (t-history)
– Fairly detailed rules for calculation of deformation demands.
– For pushover analysis (N2 method):
• Target displacement from 5%-damped elastic spectrum (Vidic et al, ’94):
– equal displacement if T>TC =1+(q-1)Tc/T, if T<TC (TC: transition period)

– Member verification at the ULS (for “Life-Safety” EQ) in terms of:

– deformations in ductile members/mechanisms (no deformation limits given);
– forces (resistances) for brittle members/mechanisms
– Gap: Deformation capacities delegated to National Annexes
→Part 3 (Assessment & retrofit) fills the gap (National Annex may refer there).
 COMBINATION OF ACTION EFFECTS OF
INDIVIDUAL SEISMIC ACTION COMPONENTS
• For linear analysis, or nonlinear static (Pushover) analysis:
– Rigorous approach : SRSS-combination of seismic action effects
EX, EY, EZ of individual components X, Y, Z: E=±√(EX2+EY2+EZ2)
• Very convenient for modal response spectrum analysis (single analysis for
all components X, Y, Z and combination done simultaneously with that of
modal contributions).
– Approximation:
E=±max(│EX│+0.3│EY│+0.3│EZ│;
│EY│+0.3│EX│+0.3│EZ│;
│EZ│+0.3│EX│+0.3│EY│).
– In nonlinear static (Pushover) analysis, component Z is always
neglected and internal forces from above combinations cannot
exceed member force resistances
• For time-history nonlinear analysis:
– Seismic action components X, Y, Z applied simultaneously.
 CONCRETE & MASONRY BUILDINGS
Yield-point stiffness in analysis (50% of uncracked section EI):
Reduction in design seismic forces vis-a-vis use of full
section EI
Increase of displacements for drift-control & P- effects
(governs sizes of frame members).
 Implementation of Eurocode 8 seismic design
philosophy
1. Damage limitation (storey drift ratio < 0.5-1%) under the damage
limitation earthquake (~50% of “design seismic action”), using 50%
of uncracked gross section stiffness.
2. Member verification for the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) in bending
under the “design seismic action”, with elastic spectrum reduced by
the behaviour factor q.
3. In frames or frame-equivalent dual systems: Fulfilment of strong
column/weak beam capacity design rule, with overstrength factor of
1.3 on beam strengths.
4. Capacity design of members and joints in shear.
5. Detailing of plastic hinge regions, on the basis of the value of the
curvature ductility factor that corresponds to the q-factor value.
 EC8-PART 1: DAMAGE LIMITATION CHECK

• Seismic action for “damage limitation”: NDP.

Recommended for ordinary buildings: 10%/10yrs (95yr EQ);
~50% of “design seismic action” (475yr EQ).
• Interstorey drift ratio calculated for “damage limitation” action
via “equal displacement rule” (elastic response):
<0.5% for brittle nonstructural elements attached to structure;
<0.75% for ductile nonstructural elements attached to structure;
< 1% for nonstructural elements not present or not interfering w/
structural response (: damage limitation for structure).
• Concrete (& masonry):
Elastic stiffness = 50% of uncracked gross-section stiffness.
• In concrete, steel or composite frames:
damage limitation check governs member sizes.
Fulfilment
Fulfilment of strong column/weak beam capacity design rule, with
overstrength factor Rd on beam strengths:
M Rc Rd M Rb
• Eurocode 8: Rd = 1.3; strong column/weak beam capacity design required only in
frames or frame-equivalent dual systems (frames resist >50% of seismic base
shear) above two storeys (except at top storey joints).

Beam & column flexural capacities at a joint in Capacity Design rule

column 1 column 1

beam 1 beam 2 beam 1 beam 2

column 2 column 2
But:
Width of slab effective as tension flange of beams at the support to a
column: b c

c
b c

a
2hf 2hf hf 4hf 4hf hf

bc bc

b d
2hf 2hf
hf hf

Eurocode 8 (a, b: at exterior column; c, d: at interior column): small – is it

safe for capacity design?
NDP-partial factors for materials, in ULS
verifications:
• Except for timber buildings:
• Recommended: use same values as for persistent & transient
design situations (i.e. in concrete buildings: c=1.5, s=1.15);

• Timber buildings:
• In DC L (Low): Same values as for persistent & transient
design situations;
• In DC M (Medium), or H (High): Same values as for
accidental design situations.
 Seismic design of the foundation
• Objective: The ground and the foundation system should not reach its
ULS before the superstructure, i.e. remain elastic while inelasticity
develops in the superstructure.
• Means:
– The ground and the foundation system are designed for their ULS under seismic
action effects from the analysis derived for q=1.5, i.e. lower than the q-value
used for the design of the superstructure; or
– The ground and the foundation system are designed for their ULS under seismic
action effects from the analysis multiplied by Rd(Rdi/Edi) q, where Rdi force
capacityin the dissipative zone or element controlling the seismic action effect of
interest, Edi the seismic action effect there from the elastic analysis and Rd=1.2
• For individual spread footings of walls or columns of moment-resisting frames,
Rdi/Edi is the minimum value of MRd/MEd in the two orthogonal principal directions
at the lowest cross-section of the vertical element where a plastic hinge can form
in the seismic design situation;
• For individual spread footings of columns of concentric braced frames, Rdi/Edi is
the minimum value of Npl.Rd/NEd among all diagonals which are in tension in the
particular seismic design situation; for eccentric braced frames, Rdi/Edi is the
minimum value of V pl.Rd/VEd and Mpl.Rd/MEd among all seismic links of the frame;
• For common foundations of more than one elements, Rd(Rdi/Edi) =1.4.
 STRUCTURE OF EN1998-1:2004

1 General
2 Performance Requirements and Compliance Criteria
3 Ground Conditions and Seismic Action
4 Design of Buildings
5 Specific Rules for Concrete Buildings
6 Specific Rules for Steel Buildings
7 Specific Rules for Steel-Concrete Composite Buildings
8 Specific Rules for Timber Buildings
9 Specific Rules for Masonry Buildings
10 Base Isolation
 y
buildings
Eurocode 8 definitions:
- Frame system: Frames take > 65% of seismic base
shear, Vbase.
- Wall system: Walls take >65% of Vbase.
- Dual system: Walls and frames take between 35 % &
65% of Vbase each.
- Frame-equivalent dual system: Frames take between
50 % & 65% of Vbase.
- Wall-equivalent dual system: Walls take between 50
% & 65% of Vbase.

Eurocode 2 definition of wall: ≠ column in that cross-section is

l d (l /b 4)
 Seismic Design Philosophy for RC buildings
according to Eurocode 8
• Ductility Classes (DC)
– Design based on energy dissipation and ductility:
• DC (M) Medium q=3 x system overstrength factor ( 1.3).
• DC (H) High q= 4-4.5 x system overstrength factor ( 1.3).
• The aim of the design is to control the inelastic seismic response:
– Structural configuration & relative sizing of members to ensure a beam-sway
mechanism.
– Detailing of plastic hinge regions (beam ends, base of columns) to sustain
inelastic deformation demands.
• Plastic hinge regions are detailed for deformation demands related
to behaviour factor q:
– =q if > c
– =1+(q-1)Tc/T if ≤ c
 Material limitations for “primary
seismic elements”
Ductility Class DC L (Low) DC M DC H (High)
(Medium)
Concrete grade No limit ≥ C16/20 ≥ C16/20
Steel class per EN B or C B or C only C
1992-1-1, Table C1
longitudinal bars only ribbed only ribbed
Steel overstrength: No limit No limit fyk,0.95 ≤ 1.25fyk
 Basic value, qo, of behaviour factor for regular in
elevation concrete buildings in Eurocode 8
Lateral-load resisting structural system DC M DC H
Inverted pendulum system* 1.5 2
Torsionally flexible structural system** 2 3
Uncoupled wall system (> 65% of seismic base shear 3 4 u/ 1
resisted by walls; more than half by uncoupled walls) not
belonging in one of the categories above
Any structural system other than those above 3 u/ 1 4.5 u/ 1
* : at least 50% of total mass in upper-third of the height, or with energy dissipation at base of a
single element (except one-storey frames w/ all columns connected at the top via beams in
both horizontal directions in plan & with max. value of normalized axial load d in
combination(s) of the design seismic action with the concurrent gravity loads ≤ 0.3).
** : at any floor: radius of gyration of floor mass > torsional radius in one or both main horizontal
directions (sensitive to torsional response about vertical axis).

Buildings irregular in elevation: behaviour factor q = 0.8qo;

Wall or wall-equivalent dual systems: q multiplied (further) by (1+a )/3 ≤ 1,
(a : prevailing wall aspect ratio = Hi / lwi).
 u/ 1 in behaviour factor of buildings designed for ductility:
due to system redundancy & overstrength
Vb
Normally: Vb d
u
u & 1 from base shear - top displacement
1Vb d global plastic
curve from pushover analysis. mechanism
1st yielding
u: seismic action at development of global anywhere
mechanism;
st
1: seismic action at 1 flexural yielding
anywhere.
to p
• u/ 1≤ 1.5; V =design base shear
bd

• default values given between 1 to 1.3 for buildings regular in plan:

• = 1.0 for wall systems w/ just 2 uncoupled walls per horiz. direction;
• = 1.1 for:
one-storey frame or frame-equivalent dual systems, and
wall systems w/ > 2 uncoupled walls per direction;
• = 1.2 for:
one-bay multi-storey frame or frame-equivalent dual systems,
wall-equivalent dual systems & coupled wall systems;
• = 1.3 for:
multi-storey multi-bay frame or frame-equivalent dual systems.
• for buildings irregular in plan:
default value = average of default value of buildings regular in plan and 1.0
 Capacity design of members,
against pre-emptive shear failure
 I. Beams
Equilibrium of forces and moments on a beam
M2 M1 g+ q
V1 = Vg+ q,1+
V
1 V2
l cl
1 2

M1 M2 M
2
V2 = Vg+ q,2-
l cl M1
L

Capacity-design shear in a beam weaker than the columns:

M Rd ,b1 M Rd ,b 2
VCD,1=V g+ q,1+ Rd
lcl
M Rd ,b1 M Rd ,b 2
VCD,2=V g+ q,2+ Rd
lcl
Capacity-design shear in beams (weak or strong) - Eurocode 8

M Rd,c M Rd,c
Rd M Rd,bi min 1; M Rd,bj min 1;
M Rd,b M Rd,b
i j
max Vi,d ( x ) Vg q,o ( x )
lcl
M Rd,c M Rd,c
Rd M Rd,bi min 1; M Rd,bj min 1;
M Rd,b M Rd,b
i j
min Vi,d ( x ) Vg q,o ( x )
l cl
Eurocode 8:
• in DC M Rd=1.0,
min V i,d ( x i )
• in DC H Rd=1.2 & reversal of V accounted for, depending on: i
max V i,d ( x i )
 II. Columns
Capacity-design shear in column which is weaker than the beams:
_
MRd,c1 MRd,c2
M Rd,c1 M Rd,c2
VCD Rd
VCD Rd
hcl hcl
Capacity-design shear in (weak or strong)
columns - Eurocode 8:
M Rd, b M Rd, b
Rd M Rd, c1 min 1; M Rd, c2 min 1;
M Rd, c M Rd, c
1 2
VCD, c
h cl

Eurocode 8:
• in DC M Rd=1.1,
• in DC H Rd=1.3
 III. Walls
Eurocode 8:
Over-design in shear, by multiplying shear forces from the analysis for
the design seismic action, V’Ed, by factor :
DC M walls:
V Ed
'
1 .5
V Ed
DC H squat walls (hw/l w ≤ 2):
Over-design for flexural overstrength of base w.r.to analysis
MEdo: design moment at base section (from analysis),
MRdo: design flexural resistance at base section,
Rd =1.2 V Ed M Rdo
' Rd q
DC H slender walls (hw/lw > 2):
V Ed M Edo
Over-design for flexural overstrength of base w.r.to
analysis & for increased inelastic shears
Se(T): ordinate of elastic response spectrum
TC: upper limit T of const. spectral acc. region
T1: fundamental period. 2 2
VEd M Rdo S T
' Rd 0.1 q e C q
VEd M Edo Se T1
Design shear forces in “ductile wall” of dual structural
systems per Eurocode 8
V wall, top>V wall, base/2

magnified
shear
2
design diagram h
3 w
envelope

shear diagram 1h
from analysis 3 w

V wall, base

To account for increase in upper storey shears due to higher mode

inelastic response (after plastic hinging at the base)
 DETAILING OF DISSIPATIVE ZONES (FLEXURAL PLASTIC HINGES)
FOR CURVATURE DUCTILITY FACTOR CONSISTENT w/ q-FACTOR
• =2qo-1 if T1 Tc
• =1+2(qo-1)Tc/T1 if T1<Tc
– T1: fundamental period of building,
– Tc: T at upper limit of constant spectral acceleration region,
– qo : q-factor unreduced for irregularity in elevation
(multiplied w/ M Ed/M Rd at wall base).
• Derivation:
– Relation between & Lpl/Ls (Lpl: plastic hinge length, Ls: shear span) &
(: top displacement ductility factor) in buildings staying straight due to
walls or strong columns: =1+3( -1)Lpl/Ls(1-0.5Lpl/Ls);
– Relation q- -T :
= q if T1 Tc, = 1+(q-1)Tc/T1 if T1<Tc;
– Relation of Lpl & Ls for typical RC beams, columns & walls
(for EC2 confinement model: *cu=0.0035+0.1 w):
Lpl 0,3Ls & for (safety) factor 2: Lpl=0,15Ls . Then: 2 -1
• For steel B ( u: 5-7.5%, ft/fy: 1.08-1.15) increase -demand by 50%
MEANS TO ACHIEVE IN PLASTIC HINGES
• Members w/ axial load & symmetric reinforcement, = ’
(columns, ductile walls):
– Confining reinforcement (for walls: in boundary elements) with
(effective) mechanical volumetric ratio:
wd =30 ( d+ ) ydbc/bo-0.035
• d=Nd/bchfcd; yd=fyd/Es;
• bc: width of compression zone; bo: width of confined core;
• : mechanical ratio of longitudinal web reinforcement = fyd,v/fcd
– Columns meeting strong-column/weak-beam rule ( MRc>1.3 MRb),
provided w/ full confining reinforcement only at (building) base;
– DC H strong columns ( MRc>1.3 MRb) also provided w/ confining
reinforcement for 2/3 of in all end regions above base;
• Members w/o axial load & w/ unsymmetric reinforcement
(beams):
– Max. mechanical ratio of tension steel:
’+0.0018/ yd
 EC8 - SPECIAL FEATURE:
TWO TYPES OF DISSIPATIVE CONCRETE WALLS
• Ductile wall:
Fixed at base, to prevent rotation there w.r.to rest of structural
system.
Designed & detailed to dissipate energy only in flexural plastic
hinge just above the base.

• Large lightly-reinforced wall (only for DC M):

Wall with horizontal dimension lw 4m, expected to develop
during design EQ limited cracking or inelastic behaviour, but to
transform seismic energy to potential energy (uplift of masses)
& energy dissipated in the soil by rigid-body rocking, etc.
Due to its dimensions, or lack-of-fixity at base, or connectivity
with transverse walls preventing pl. hinge rotation at base, wall
cannot be designed for energy dissipation in pl. hinge at base.
Strong column/weak beam capacity design not required
in wall or wall-equivalent dual systems (i.e. in those
where walls resist >50% of seismic base shear)
But:
design of ductile
walls in flexure, to
ensure that plastic
hinge develops only
at the base:

Typical moment diagram in a concrete wall from the analysis & linear
envelope for its (over-)design in flexure according Eurocode 8
 DESIGN & DETAILING OF DUCTILE WALLS
• Inelastic action limited to plastic hinge at base,
so that cantilever relation between q & can apply:
• Wall provided with flexural overstrength above plastic hinge
region (linear moment envelope with shift rule);
• Design in shear for V from analysis, times:
1.5 for DC M
[(1.2 M Rd/M Ed)2+0.1(qS e(Tc)/Se(T1))2]1/2 < q for DC H
• MEd: design moment at base (from analysis),
• MRd: design flexural resistance at base,
• Se(T): ordinate of elastic response spectrum,
• Tc: upper limit T of const. spectral acc. region
• T1 fundamental period.
• In plastic hinge zone: boundary elements w/ confining
reinforcement of effective mechanical volumetric ratio:
wd=30 ( d+ ) ydbc/bo-0.035
over part of compression zone depth: xu=( d+ )lw ydbc/bo
where strain between: *cu=0.0035+0.1 w & cu=0.0035
 Foundation problem for ductile walls
• To form plastic hinge at wall base → Need fixity there:
– Very large & heavy footing; adds own weight to N & does not
uplift; or
– Fixity of wall in a “box type” foundation system:
1. Wall-like deep foundation beams along entire (ME) (V E)
perimeter of foundation (possibly supplemented
w/ interior ones across full length of foundation
system) = main foundation elements
transferring seismic action effects to ground.
In buildings w/ basement: perimeter foundation
beams may double as basement walls.
2. Slab designed to act as rigid diaphragm, at the
level of top flange of perimeter foundation
beams (e.g. basement roof).
3. Foundation slab, or two-way tie-beams or
foundation beams, at level of bottom of
perimeter foundation beams. Basement

Fixity of interior walls provided by couple of horizontal forces between 2 & 3 →

High reverse shear in part of the wall within the basement
 The problem of the foundation of a large wall
• Large lw(=h) →
– large moment at base
– (for given axial load) low normalized axial force =N/(bhfc)~0.05.
• Footing of usual size w/ tie-beams of usual size: insufficient:
– Max normalized moment =M/(bh2fcd) that can be transferred to ground:
– ~0.5 , i.e. ~wall cracking moment! →
Impossible to form plastic hinge at wall base. Wall will uplift & rock
as rigid body.

Htot
W ELEVATION
~Rigid large walls on large footing:
Rocking → radiation damping in the soil.
Rotation of rocking wall:
~Sv2/ g << =arctan(B/Htot) →
Very stable nonlinear-elastic behaviour; but hard to address in design
 Geometric effects in large walls, due to rocking or
plastic hinging
• Rotation of uplifting/rocking wall takes place about a point close to
the toe of its footing.
• Rotation at wall plastic hinge at base takes place about a neutral axis
close to edge of wall section.
• In both cases centroid of wall section is raised at every rotation:
– Centre of Gravity (CG) of masses supported by wall raised too →
(temporary) harmless increase in potential energy, instead of damaging
deformation energy;
– Ends of beams framing into wall move upwards →
Plan view: beams
beam moments & shears: stabilizing for the wall. framing into wall

beams
• Wall responds as a “stack” of rigid blocks,
CG
uplifting at the base & at hor. sections that crack
& yield (storey bottom). The favourable effects
are indirectly taken into account in design → q-
neutral
factor beams
axis
EXAMPLES OF LARGE
WALLS
 LARGE LIGHTLY REINFORCED CONCRETE WALLS
• Wall system classified as one of large lightly reinforced walls if,
in horizontal direction of interest:
– at least 2 walls with lw>4 m, supporting together >20% of gravity load above
(: sufficient no. of walls / floor area & significant uplift of masses); if just one wall, q=2
– fundamental period T1<0.5 s for fixity at base against rotation (: wall aspect ratio
low)
• Systems of large lightly reinforced walls:
only DC M (q=3);
special (less demanding) dimensioning & detailing.
• Rationale: For large walls, minimum reinforcement of ductile walls implies:
• very high cost;
• flexural overstrength that cannot be transmitted to ground.
On the other hand, large lightly reinforced walls:
• preclude (collapse due to) storey mechanism,
• minimize nonstructural damage,
• have shown satisfactory performance in strong EQs.

• If structural system does not qualify as one of large lightly

reinforced walls, all its walls designed & detailed as ductile walls.
 DESIGN & DETAILING OF LARGE LIGHTLY
REINFORCED WALLS
• Vertical steel tailored to demands due to M & N from
analysis
– Little excess (minimum) reinforcement, to minimise flexural
overstrength.

• Shear verification for V from analysis times (1+q)/2 ~2:

– If so-amplified shear demand is less than (design) shear
resistance w/o shear reinforcement:
No (minimum) horizontal reinforcement. Reason:
• Inclined cracking prevented (horizontal cracking & yielding due to
flexure mainly at construction joints);
• If inclined cracking occurs, crack width limited by deformation-
controlled nature of response (vs. force-controlled non-seismic
actions covered in EC2), even w/o min horizontal steel.
BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS IN DC H FRAMES
 Shear forces in joints
max possible joint shear force & stress

If MRb < MRc:

1 1 Lb
shear forces V jh Asb 1 Asb 2 f y VC M Rb
zb h st Lbn
within joint
zb Lb
Asb 1 Asb 2 f y 1
h st Lbn
V jh
vj
b j h jc
If bc > bw → b j min bc ; bw 0 .5hc If bc ≤ bw → b j min bw ; bc 0 . 5 hc
 Shear failures of exterior beam-column joints -
Left & right: reinforced joints; centre: unreinforced joint
 Principal stress approach for joint shear strength

Diagonal cracking of unreinforced joint if principal tensile stress due to:

• joint shear stress, vj &
• mean vertical compressive stress from column above, topfc,
exceeds concrete tensile strength, fct.
top fc
vj v cr f ct 1
f ct
Eurocode 8: Diagonal cracking of reinforced joint if principal tensile
stress due to:
• joint shear stress, vj &
• mean vertical compressive stress from column above, topfc, and
• horizontal confining stress due to horiz. joint reinforcement, - jhfyw:
exceeds concrete tensile strength, fct. v 2j
jh f yw f ct
f ct top fc
Joint ultimate shear stress vju : if nfc (n: reduction due to transverse tensile
strain) reached in principal stress direction:
top
vj v ju nf c 1
n
Alternative approach in EC 8 for joint reinforcement

Diagonal strut
Truss of:
horizontal & vertical bars &
diagonal compressive field.

6
Interior joints: Ash f yw Asb1 Asb 2 f y 1
5
6
Exterior joints: Ash f yw Asb 2 f y 1
5
 Detailing & dimensioning of primary seismic beams (secondary as in DCL)
DCH DCM DCL
“critical region” length 1.5hw hw
Longitudinal bars (L):
min , tension side 0.5fctm/fyk 0.26fctm/fyk, 0.13%(0)
(1) (1)
max, critical regions ’+0.0018fcd/( sy,dfyd) 0.04
As,min, top & bottom 2 14 (308mm2) -
As,min, top-span As,top-supports /4 -
As,min, critical regions bottom 0.5As,top(2) -
As,min, supports bottom As,bottom-span/4(0)
6 .25(1 0.8 d ) f ctm 7.5(1 0.8 d ) f ctm
dbL/h c - bar crossing interior joint(3) ' f ' f -
(1 0.75 ) yd (1 0.5 ) yd
max max
f f
dbL/hc - bar anchored at exterior joint(3) 6.25(1 0.8 d ) ctm 7.5(1 0.8 d ) ctm -
f yd f yd
Transverse bars (w):
(i) outside critical regions
spacing s w 0.75d
w 0.08(fck(MPa)) 1/2 /fyk(MPa)(0)
(ii) in critical regions:
dbw 6mm
spacing s w 6dbL, hw , 24dbw, 175mm 8dbL, hw , 24dbw, 225mm -
4 4
Shear design:
M Rb (4) M Rb (4) From the analysis for the
VEd, seismic(4) 1.2 V o, g 2q
Vo , g 2q
lcl l cl “seismic design situation”
VRd,max seismic (5) As in EC2: VRd,max=0.3(1-fck( MPa)/250)bwozfcdsin2 (5), with 1 cot 2.5
VRd,s , outside critical regions (5) As in EC2: VRd,s =bwz wfywdcot (5), with 1 cot 2.5
VRd,s , critical regions(5) VRd,s =bwz wfywd ( =45o) As in EC2: VRd,s =bwz wfywdcot , with 1 cot 2.5
If VEmax/(2+ )fctdbwd>1:
If VEmin/VEmax(6) <-0.5: inclined bars at angle
As =0.5VEmax/fydsin -
to beam axis, with cross-section As/direction
& stirrups for 0.5VEmax
Footnotes to Table on detailing & dimensioning primary seismic beams (previous page)

(0) NDP (Nationally Determined Parameter) according to EC2. The Table gives the value
recommended in EC2.
(1) is the value of the curvature ductility factor that corresponds to the basic value, qo, of the
behaviour factor used in the design
(2) The minimum area of bottom steel, As,min, is in addition to any compression steel that may be
needed for the verification of the end section for the ULS in bending under the (absolutely)
maximum negative (hogging) moment from the analysis for the “seismic design situation”,
M Ed.
(3) hc is the column depth in the direction of the bar, d = NEd/Acfcd is the column axial load ratio, for
the algebraically minimum value of the axial load in the “seismic design situation”, with
compression taken as positive.
(4) At a member end where the moment capacities around the joint satisfy: M Rb> M Rc, M Rb is
replaced in the calculation of the design shear force, VEd, by M Rb( M Rc/ M Rb)
(5) z is the internal lever arm, taken equal to 0.9d or to the distance between the tension and the
compression reinforcement, d-d1.
(6) VEmax, VE,minare the algebraically maximum and minimum values of VEd resulting from the sign;
VEmaxis the absolutely largest of the two values, and is taken positive in the calculation of ;
the sign of VEmin is determined according to whether it is the same as that of VEmax or not.
Detailing & dimensioning of primary seismic columns (secondary as in DCL)
DCH DCM DCL
0.25m;
Cross-section sides, hc, bc -
hv/10 if =P /Vh>0.1(1)
(1)
“critical region” length 1.5max(hc,b c), 0.6m, lc /5 max( hc,bc), 0.6m, lc/5 -
Longitudinal bars (L):
min 1% 0.1N d/A cfyd, 0.2% (0)
max 4% 4% (0)
dbL 8mm
bars per side 3 2
Spacing between restrained bars 150mm 200mm -
distance of unrestrained to nearest
150mm
restrained bar
Transverse bars (w):
Outs ide critical regions:
dbw 6mm, dbL/4
Spacing s w 20dbL, min(hc, bc), 400mmm
s w in splices 12dbL, 0.6min(hc, bc), 240mm
Within critical regions :(2)
dbw (3) 6mm, 0.4(fyd/fywd) 1/2dbL 6mm, dbL/4
s w (3),(4) 6dbL, bo/3, 125mm 8dbL, bo/2, 175mm -
(5)
wd 0.08 -
(4),(5),(6) ,(7)
wd 30 * d sy,dbc/bo-0.035 -
In critical region at column base:
wd 0.12 0.08 -
(4),(5),(6) ,(8),(9)
wd 30 d sy,dbc/b o-0.035 -
(10) 1.3 M Rb M Rc
Capacity design check at beam-column joints: -
No moment in transverse direction of column
Verification for M x-M y-N: Truly biaxial, or uniaxial with (M z/0.7, N), (M y/0.7, N)
Axial load ratio d=NEd/A cfcd 0.55 0.65 -
Shear design:
ends ends
M Rc M Rc From the analysis for the
VEd seismic(11) 1.3 (11)
1 .1 (11)
l cl lcl “seis mic design situation”
As in EC2:
VRd,max seismic (12), (13) VRd,max=0.3(1-fck( MPa)/250)min[1.25; (1+ d); 2.5(1- d)]bwozfcdsin2 ,
with 1 cot 2.5
(12), (13), (14)
VRd,s seismic As in EC2: VRd,s =bw z wfywdcot +N Ed(h-x)/lcl(13) with 1 cot 2.5
Footnotes to Table of detailing & dimensioning primary seismic columns (previous page)
(0) NDP (Nationally Determined Parameter) according to EC2. The Table gives the value recommended in EC2.
(1) hv is the distance of the inflection point to the column end further away, for bending within a plane parallel to the side of interest; lc is
the column clear length.
(2) For DCM: f a value of q not greater than 2 is used for the design, the transverse reinforcement in critical regions of columns with axial
load ratio d not greater than 0.2 may just follow the rules applying to DCL columns.
(3) For DCH: In the two lower storeys of the building, the requirements on dbw, s w apply over a distance from the end section not less than
1.5 times the critical region length.
(4) Index c denotes the full concrete section and index o the confined core to the centreline of the hoops; bois the smaller side of this core.
(5) wd is the ratio of the volume of confining hoops to that of the confined core to the centreline of the hoops, times fyd/fcd.
(6) is the “confinement effectiveness” factor, computed as = s n; where: s = (1-s/2bo)(1-s/2ho) for hoops and s = (1-s/2bo) for
spirals; n = 1 for circular hoops and n=1-{bo/[(nh-1)ho]+ho/[(nb-1)bo]}/3 for rectangular hoops with nb legs parallel to the side of
the core with length bo and nh legs parallel to the one with length ho.
(7) For DCH: at column ends protected from plastic hinging through the capacity design check at beam-column joints, *is the value of
the curvature ductility factor that corresponds to 2/3 of the basic value, qo, of the behaviour factor used in the design; at the ends
of columns where plastic hinging is not prevented because of the exemptions listed in Note (10) below, * is taken equal to
defined in Note (1) of the Table for the beams (see also Note (9) below); sy,d= fyd/ s .
(8) Note (1) of the Table for the beams applies.
(9) For DCH: The requirement applies also in the critical regions at the ends of columns where plastic hinging is not prevented, because of
the exceptions listed in Note (10) below.
(10) The capacity design check does not need to be fulfilled at beam-column joints: (a) of the top floor, (b) of the ground storey in two-
storey buildings with axial load ratio d not greater than 0.3 in all columns, (c) if shear walls resist at least 50% of the base shear
parallel to the plane of the frame (wall buildings or wall-equivalent dual buildings), and (d) in one-out-of-four columns of plane
frames with columns of similar size.
(11) At a member end where the moment capacities around the joint satisfy: M Rb< M Rc, M Rc is replaced by M Rc( M Rb/ M Rc).
(12) z is the internal lever arm, taken equal to 0.9d or to the distance between the tension and the compression reinforcement, d-d1.
(13) The axial load, NEd, and its normalized value, d, are taken with their most unfavourable value in the seismic design situation for the
shear verification (considering both the demand, VEd, and the capacity, VRd).
(14) x is the compression zone depth at the end section in the ULS of bending with axial load.
 Detailing & dimensioning of ductile walls (cont’d next page)
DCH DCM DCL
Web thickness, bwo max(150mm, hstorey/20) -
max(lw, Hw /6) (1)
critical region length, hcr
min(2lw, hstorey) if wall 6 storeys -
min(2lw, 2 hstorey) if wall > 6 storeys
Boundary elements:
a) in critical region:
- length lc from edge 0.15lw, 1.5bw , length over which c> 0.0035 where L>2%
200mm, h st/15, if lc max(2bw , lw /5),
- thickness bw over lc -
200mm, hst/10, if lc>max(2bw, lw/5)
- vertical reinforcement:
min over A c =lcb w 0.5% 0.2% (0)
(0)
max over A c 4%
- confining hoops (w) (2) :
dbw 8mm if Lover Ac =lcbw >2%:apply 6mm, dbL/4
spacing s w ( 3) min(25dbh, 250mm) DCL rule for L>2% min(20dbL, bwo 400mm) ( 0)
(2)
wd 0.12 0.08 -
( 3),( 4)
wd 30 ( d+ ) sy,d bw/b o-0.035 -
as is critical region, but with required 0.5% wherever c>0.2%;
v
b) storey above critical region
wd, wd reduced by 50% elsewhere v 0.2%
c) over the rest of the wall: No boundary elements. v 0.5% wherever c>0.2%; elsewhere v 0.2% -
Web:
- vertical bars (v):
v,min 0.2% 0.2% (0)
v,max 4%
db 8mm -
dbv bwo/8 -
spacing s v min(25dbv, 250mm) Min(3bwo, 400mm)
- horizontal bars:
hmin 0.2% max(0.1%, 0.25 v) (0)
dbh 8mm -
dbh bwo/8 -
spacing s h min(25dbh, 250mm) 400mm
axial load ratio d= N Ed/Ac fcd 0.35 0.4 -
If Hw /lw 2, design moments from linear envelope of maximum moments
From analysis for “seismic
Design moments MEd: M Ed from analysis for the “seismic design situation”, shifted up by the
design situation”
“tension shift” al
 Detailing & dimensioning of ductile walls (cont’d from previous page)
DCH DCM DCL
Shear design:
Multiplicative factor on the if H /l 2 (5): =1.2M Rdo/M Edo q
w w
shear force V’Ed from the if H /l >2(5), (6):
w w
analysis for “seismic design
2 2 =1.5 =1.0
situation”: M S T
1.2 Rdo 0.1 q e C q
M Edo Se T1

Design shear force in walls of 0.75z 1 1.5 z H From analysis for “seismic
dual systems with Hw /lw>2, for VEd ( z ) VEd ( 0) 1.5 VEd w
Hw 4 Hw 3 design situation”
z between Hw /3 and Hw: (7)
VRd,max outside critical region As in EC2: VRd,max=0.3(1-fck( MPa)/250)bwo(0.8lw)fcdsin2 , with 1 cot 2.5
VRd,max in critical region 40% of EC2 value As in EC2
VRd,s outside critical region As in EC2: VRd,s =bwo(0.8lw ) h fywdcot with 1 cot 2.5
VRd,s in critical region; web
reinforcement ratios. h,
(i) if s =M Ed/VEdlw 2 :
As in EC2: VRd,s =bwo(0.8lw ) h fywdcot with 1 cot 2.5
= v,min, h from VRd,s:
(8)
(ii) if s<2: h from VRd,s : VRd,s=VRd,c+bwo s (0.75lw ) hfyhd
(9) As in EC2: VRd,s=bwo(0.8lw) h fywdcot with 1 cot 2.5
v from: fyvd hfyhd-N Ed/(0.8lwbwo)
Resistance to sliding shear: via VRd,s =Asifydcos +
bars with total area Asi at angle Asvmin(0.25fyd, 1.3(fydfcd) 1/2)+
to the horizontal (10) 0.3(1-fck( MPa)/250)bwoxfcd
N Ed
1.3 f ctd
v,min Ac -
at construction joints (9),(11) 0.0025,
f yd 1.5 f cd f yd
 Footnotes to Table on detailing & dimensioning ductile walls (previous pages)
(0) NDP (Nationally Determined Parameter) according to EC2. The Table gives the value recommended in EC2.
(1) lw is the long side of the rectangular wall section or rectangular part thereof; Hw is the total height of the wall; hstorey is the storey height.
(2) For DC M: If for the maximum value of axial force in the wall from the analysis for the “seismic design situation” the wall axial load
ratio d= N Ed/Acfcd satisfies d 0.15, the DCL rules may be applied for the confining reinforcement of boundary elements; the
waiver applies also if this value of the wall axial load ratio is d 0.2 but the value of q used in the design of the building is not
greater than 85% of the q-value allowed when the DC M confining reinforcement is used in boundary elements.
(3) Notes (4), (5), (6) of the Table for columns apply for the confined core of boundary elements.
(4) is the value of the curvature ductility factor that corresponds to the product of the basic value qo of the behaviour factor times the
value of the ratio M Edo/M Rdo at the base of the wall (see Note (5)); sy,d= fyd/ s , d is the mechanical ratio of the vertical web
reinforcement.
(5) M Edois the moment at the wall base from the analysis for the “seismic design situation”; M Rdo is the design value of the flexural capacity
at the wall base for the axial force NEd from the analysis for the same “seismic design situation”.
(6) Se(T1) is the value of the elastic spectral acceleration at the period of the fundamental mode in the horizontal direction (closest to that)
of the wall shear force multiplied by ; Se(Tc) is the spectral acceleration at the corner period TC of the elastic spectrum.
(7) A dual structural system is one in which walls resist between 35 and 65% of the seismic base shear in the direction of the wall shear
force considered; z is distance from the base of wall.
(8) For bw and d in m, fck in MPa, L denoting the tensile reinforcement ratio, N d in kN, VRd,c (in kN) is given by:
180 0. 2 1 / 6 0.2 1/ 3 N
V Rd ,c min 100 L 1 / 3 , 35 1 f 1 f ck 0.15 Ed bw d
c d ck d Ac
N Ed is positive for compression and its minimum value from the analysis for the “seismic design situation” is used; if the
minimum value is negative (tension), VRd,c=0.
(9) The minimum value of the axial force from the analysis for the “seismic design situation” is used as N Ed (positive for compression).
(10) Asv is the total area of web vertical bars and of any additional vertical bars placed in boundary elements against shear sliding; x is the
depth of the compression zone.
(11) fctd=fct ,0.05/ c is the design value of the (5%-fractile of) tensile strength of concrete.
 Overall effect of masonry infills
• Field experience & numerical/experimental research show
that:
– masonry infills attached to the structural frame, in general have a
beneficial effect on seismic performance, especially if the building
structure has little engineered earthquake resistance.
• If effectively confined by the surrounding frame, regularly
distributed infill panels:
– reduce, through their in-plane shear stiffness, storey drift demands
& deformations in structural members
– increase, via their in-plane shear strength, storey lateral force
resistance,
– contribute, through their hysteresis, to the global energy
dissipation.
• In buildings designed for earthquake resistance, non-
structural masonry infills may be a 2nd line of defence & a
source of significant overstrength.
 Current position of EC8 on masonry infills
• Eurocode 8 does not encourage designers to profit from
the beneficial effects of masonry infills by reducing the
seismic action effects for which the structure is designed.
• Eurocode 8 warns against the adverse effects of infills &
requires prevention measures for them.
• If there is structural connection between the masonry infill
& the surrounding frame (by shear connectors, or other
ties, belts or posts), the building is considered/designed as
a confined masonry building, instead of a concrete
structure with masonry infills.
 Possible adverse effects of masonry infills
• Infills that are too strong & stiff relative to the concrete
structure itself
→ may override its seismic design, including the efforts of
the designer & intent of codes to control inelastic response
by spreading inelastic deformation demands throughout
structure
(e.g. when ground storey infills fail → soft storey).
• Infills non-uniformly distributed in plan or in elevation:
→ concentration of inelastic deformation demands in part
of the structure.
• Adverse local effects on structural frame
→ pre-emptive brittle failures.
 Possible adverse effects of masonry infills (cont’d)
• Best way to protect concrete building from adverse effects
of irregular masonry infilling:
shear walls sufficiently strong/stiff to overshadow infilling.
• Eurocode 8:
– Shear walls that resist at least 50% of the seismic base
shear: sufficient for waiving special requirements for
buildings with infills.
 Possible adverse effects of masonry infills (cont’d)
Worst possible effect: Open ground storey → soft-storey
(c)

2-storey frame: Protection of elements in infilled storey from large moments &
deformations - overloading of ground storey columns:
(a) bending moments & deformation in frame w/o infills;
(b) , (c) bending moments & deformation in frame w/ stiff infills in 2nd storey.
 Open ground storey

(b)

(a)
Collapse of ground storey due to reduction of infills:
(a) Olive View Hospital, San Fernando, Ca, 1971; (b) Aegio (GR) 1995
 EC8 design for infill heightwise irregularity
• Eurocode 8: design columns of storey where infills are
reduced relative to overlying storey, to remain elastic till
infills in storey above reach their ultimate force resistance:
– Deficit in infill shear strength in a storey is compensated by
increase in resistance of the frame (vertical) members there:
– In DC H frame or frame-equivalent dual buildings, seismic internal
forces in the columns from the analysis for the design seismic
action are multiplied by:

1 V Rw / V Ed q
– VRw : total reduction of resistance of masonry walls in storey
concerned w.r.to storey above,
– VEd : sum of seismic shear forces in all vertical primary
seismic members of storey (storey design shear force).
– If < 1.1, magnification of seismic action effects may be omitted.
 Asymmetry of infills in plan
• Asymmetric distribution of infills in plan → torsional
response to translational horizontal components of seismic
action:
– Members on side with fewer infills (“flexible” side) have larger
deformation demands & fail first.
• The increase in global lateral strength & stiffness due to the
infills makes up for an uneven distribution of interstorey drift
demands in plan:
– Maximum member deformation demands for planwise irregular
infilling do not exceed peak demands anywhere in plan, in a similar
structure w/o infills.
 EC8 design against infill planwise asymmetry
• Eurocode 8: doubles accidental eccentricity (from 5 to
10%) in the analysis, if infills are planwise irregular.
• Doubling of accidental eccentricity: is not enough for
“severely irregular” arrangement of infills in plan →
– analysis of 3D structural model explicitly including the infills,
– sensitivity analysis of the effect of stiffness & position of infills
(disregarding one out of 3-4 infill panels per planar frame,
especially on flexible sides).
• But:
– No guidance is given for in-plane modelling of infills.
– Simplest modelling of solid panel (without openings):
• two diagonal struts.
– Effect of openings?
 Adverse local effects on structural frame

Shear failure of weak columns due to interaction with strong infills

 EC8 design against local effect of strong infills
Shear loading of column by infill strut force:
• Eurocode 8: verify in shear the length lc = winf/cos , at top & bottom of
column where diagonal strut force of infill may be applied, for the
smaller of the two design shear forces:
– Horizontal component of infill strut force, equal to the horizontal shear strength of
the panel (shear strength of bed joints times horizontal cross-sectional area of
panel); or
– Capacity design shear: 2x(design value of column flexural capacity, MRd,c) divided
by contact length, lc

Width of strut:
0 .175 Lbn
w inf
cos H 0 .4 1
E w bw sin 2 4

4Ec Ic H n
Eurocode 8: fraction (~15%) of panel diagonal, Lbn/cos
Adverse local effects on structural frame (cont’d)
Shear failures of short (captive) columns
 EC8 design of squat “captive” columns

• Capacity-design calculation of design shear force, w/:

– clear length of column, lcl = length of column not in contact to the
infills &
– plastic hinging assumed to take place at column section at the
termination of the contact with the infill wall.
• Transverse reinforcement required to resist the design
shear force is placed not just along clear length of column,
lcl; also into the column part which is in contact to the infills
(over length equal to column depth, hc, within plane of
infill).
• Entire length of column taken as critical region, with
stirrups as in “critical” regions.
 Part IV:
Seismic assessment and
retrofitting of existing buildings,
according to Eurocode 8- Part 3
(emphasis on concrete buildings)
In seismic regions, existing substandard buildings:
Largest threat to human life & property.

From cost-benefit point of view:

Unless triggered by earthquake, change in use, etc.,
seismic retrofitting normally is not worthwhile.

Obstacle to upgrading, in addition to economic factors:

lack of standards & guidelines;
technical difficulty of design of retrofitting;
long disruption of occupancy and use of facility

Problem technically more challenging in RC than in

masonry buildings:
Diversity due to wider typology & continuous evolution
of codes;
short history of exposure to seismic hazard
 EN 1998-3:2005
Assessment and Retrofitting of buildings
No. of NDPs
1. General _
2. Performance Requirements and Compliance Criteria 3
3. Information for Structural Assessment 2
4. Assessment 2
5. Decisions for Structural Intervention _
6. Design of Structural Intervention _
Annex A (Informative): Concrete Structures 1
Annex B (Informative): Steel or Composite Structures 1
Annex C (Informative): Masonry Buildings 1

Total: 10
 Part 3 of EC8:
Assessment and retrofitting of buildings

• The only part in the whole set of 58 EN-Eurocodes that

deals w/ existing structures
• 1st standard in Europe on seismic assessment and
retrofitting of buildings – No experience in European
practice w/ codified seismic assessment and retrofitting.

Part 3 of EC8 is an experiment. Not known yet whether

and how it will work in practice.
 STRUCTURE OF EN 1998-3
• Normative part: General rules on:
– Performance requirements & criteria (LSs),
– Analysis methods & applicability conditions,
– Format of verifications,
– Information for assessment & implications, etc.

• All material-specific aspects:

In 3 Informative (nonbinding) Annexes:
– Concrete structures
– Steel or composite structures
– Masonry buildings
EC8-PART 3, PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH:
Assessment & Retrofitting for different Performance Levels
(“Limit States”) under different Seismic Hazard levels
“Limit States” (Performance Levels)
Damage Limitation (: Immediate Occupancy)
Significant Damage (: Life Safety)
Near Collapse
Flexibility for countries, owners, designers:
• How many & which Limit States will be met and for what Hazard Level:
– to be decided by country, or
– (if country doesn’t decide in National Annex) by owner/designer
• Hazard Levels: NDPs - No recommendation given
Noted that Basic Objective for ordinary new buildings is:
– Damage Limitation: Occasional EQ (225yrs)
– Significant Damage: Rare EQ (475yrs)
– Near Collapse: Very rare EQ (2475yrs)
• Safety-critical facilities: Enhanced Objective, via multiplication of
seismic action by importance factor I
EN 1998-3 “Assessment & retrofitting”
Fully displacement-based approach:
– Capacity-demand-comparisons for verification of
ductile elements (existing, retrofitted or new): in terms
of deformations.
– Main deformation measure:
Chord rotations at member ends
Retrofit aims at reducing deformation demands on
existing members below their capacities
(global stiffening by addition of new elements easier
than local modification of existing members to increase
their deformation capacities).
End result:
More cost-effective assessment & retrofitting
 Seismic Assessment
according to EC8-Part 3
 EC8: Detailed seismic assessment of
individual buildings:
• Necessary first step for design of the retrofitting.
• Identifies deficiencies to be corrected.
• Assessment criterion in ENV EC8 for strengthening
& repair (ENV1998-1-4:1996):
Compliance with EC8 for new structures.
• Existing structures do not comply with detailing,
configuration, regularity, etc. rules of modern codes:
according to that criterion, all members need to be
retrofitted.
 Information for the Assessment
1. “limited knowledge”:
• Only for linear analysis;
• “Confidence factor”, equal to 1.35, corrects mean material
strengths from in-situ tests etc. (division or multiplication,
whatever is less favorable).
2. “normal knowledge”:
• For linear or nonlinear analysis;
• “Confidence factor”, equal to 1.2, corrects mean material
strengths from in-situ tests etc. (as above).
3. “full knowledge”:
• For linear or nonlinear analysis;
• Mean material strengths from in-situ tests etc. used w/o
“confidence factor”.
1. “limited knowledge”:
Information for the assessment (cont’d)
• Structural geometry from:
original drawings & in-situ spot checks; or
full campaign of in-situ measurements, if original drawings not available.
• Default assumptions for materials, verified with 1 sample /floor /type of member.
• Reinforcement from simulation of original design (with checks in ~20% of members /
type of member).
2. “normal knowledge”:
• Structural geometry & reinforcement from:
original drawings & in-situ checks in ~20% of members / type of member; or
full in-situ measurements & reinforcement exposure in 50% of members / type of
member, if drawings not available.
• Materials from:
original specifications, verified in-situ w/ 1 sample /floor / type of member; or
2 samples / floor / type of member.
3. “full knowledge”:
• Structural geometry & reinforcement from:
original drawings & in-situ checks in 20% of members / type of member; or
full in-situ measurements & reinf. exposure in 80% of members / type of member
• Materials from:
original test reports, verified in-situ w/ 1 sample /floor / type of member; or
3 samples / floor / type of member.
 “Ductile” vs. “Brittle” elements
• Ductile elements (in RC: columns, beams, walls in
bending):
Verification on the basis of deformations
(regardless of analysis procedure).

• Brittle elements (in RC: columns, beams, walls,

joints in shear):
Verification on the basis of forces.
“Primary” & “Secondary” seismic elements

• Engineer may designate elements as “primary” or

“secondary”, depending on which ones he relies
upon for lateral stiffness & resistance:
– lateral stiffness & strength of “secondary” elements
neglected in model, or included as degrading w/ cyclic
deformations;
– criteria on their EQ-induced deformations are less
strict than for primary elements.
 EC8-PART 3: ANALYSIS METHODS FOR
DEFORMATION DEMANDS IN DUCTILE ELEMENTS
• 4 types of analysis for deformation demands, all w/ seismic
action defined by 5%-damped elastic spectrum:
1. Linear static (equivalent lateral forces);
2. Linear dynamic (modal response spectrum);
3. Nonlinear static (“pushover”) – Reference method;
4. Nonlinear dynamic (time-histories: 3, 7 for mean results).
For 1 & 2: Equal displacement rule, w/o correction coefficients.
For 3: N2-method (target displacement: Equal displacement rule w/
correction due to short-T only).
For 3: If higher-modes important (T>4Tc, or T>2sec):
“Modal pushover” or nonlinear dynamic analysis.
For 3 & 4: Simple nonlinear member models encouraged;
• More important than sophistication of model: ability to represent
effective stiffness up to yielding, to capture dominant periods.
 Nonlinear static analysis (pushover)
Basis: Fajfar’s N2 method:
– Lateral forces on masses mi follow postulated pattern of horizontal
displacements, i, with n=1 at the “control node”: Fi mi i
– Use a “uniform pattern” i=1 and a (fundamental) “modal pattern” i
– Equivalent Single-Degree-of-Freedom System: m*
* * Fb * dn
m mi i F d
mi i2
– Target displacement from 5%-damped elastic spectrum
• equal displacement if T>TC =1+(q-1)Tc/T, if T<TC (TC: transition period)
EC8-PART 3: APPLICABILITY OF LINEAR ANALYSIS
Under seismic action (hazard level) of interest:
• Uniform distribution of inelasticity:
DCR: Ratio of (elastic) moment demand to capacity (~member
displacement ductility ratio).
Criterion:
Ratio of Max. to Min. value of DCR over all ductile members that go
inelastic (ends of strong elements framing into joint excluded)
< limit value, between 2 and 3 (NDP; recommended value: 2.5).
(Fairly restrictive; linear analysis only for buildings w/ fairly uniform
distribution of overstrengths).
If
(a) criterion above is satisfied,
(b) building is heightwise regular &
(c) higher-modes are unimportant (T<4Tc, T<2sec), then:
• Linear static analysis w/ triangular distribution of lateral forces
REGULARITY IN ELEVATION IN EN1998-1 (applies to Part 3)
(FOR APPLICABILITY OF LATERAL FORCE PROCEDURE)

Qualitative criteria, can be checked w/o calculations:

• Structural systems (walls, frames, bracing systems):
continuous to the top (of corresponding part).
• Storey K & m: constant or gradually decreasing to the top.
• Individual floor setbacks on each side: < 10% of underlying storey.
• Unsymmetric setbacks: < 30% of base in total.
• Single setback at lower 15% of building: < 50% of base.
• In frames (incl. infilled): smooth distribution of storey overstrength.
 Effective elastic stiffness, EI
(in linear or nonlinear analysis)
Part 1of EC8 (for design of new buildings):
EI = secant stiffness at yielding;
RC: EI = 50% of uncracked gross-section stiffness.
50% of uncracked gross-section stiffness:
- OK in force-based design of new buildings (conservative
for force demands);
- Not OK in displacement-based assessment
(unconservative for displacement demands).
More realistic, esp. in damage limitation check, E y:
EI = MyLs/3 y : secant stiffness at yielding of both ends in
antisymmetric bending
 Annex A: RC member verification criteria
Limit State (LS): Damage Significant Near Collapse (NC)
Limitation Damage (SD)
linear analysis nonlinear analysis
Member:
ductile primary E 0.75 u,m- E u,m-
E y
ductile secondary E 0.75 um E um

Check only if NC LS not V E,CD VRd,EC2, VE V Rd,EC2,

brittle primary
checked. Then use NC criteria VRd,EC8/1.15 VRd,EC8/1.15
w/ VE (or VE,CD for SD LS w/ VE,CD V Rm,EC2, VE VRm,EC2,
brittle secondary
linear analysis) V Rm,EC8 VRm,EC8

E, VE: chord-rotation & shear force demand from analysis; VE,CD : from capacity design;

y: chord-rotation at yielding; um: expected value of ultimate chord rotation;

: mean-minus-sigma ult. chord rotation = pl /1.8;
u,m- um /1.5, or = y+ um

VRd, VRm: shear resistance, w/ or w/o material safety & confidence factors;
VR,EC2: shear resistance in mon. loading; VR,EC8: shear resistance in cyclic loading after flex. yielding.
 If analysis is linear: Shear force VE,CD from
equilibrium, under end moments consistent
with plastic hinging there or (in beams or
columns) around joint
Walls:
M Rw
VSd VE (MRW, MEW : at the base)
M EW Columns:
M Rb
M i,d M Rc ,i min(1, )
M Rc
M Rc
Beams: M i,d M Rb,i min(1, )
M Rb
 Annex A: Chord-rotation at RC member yielding
Ls z h db f y
Beams, rect. columns: y y 0.0013 1 1.5 0 . 13 y
3 Ls fc
Ls z Ls db f y
Walls: y y 0 .002 1 max[1, ] 0 .13 y
3 8h fc
• y: yield curvature (via 1st principles, adapted to median My);
• Ls = M/V: shear span at member end (~L/2);
• z~0.9d: tension shift (= 0 if member not diagonally cracked by
shear at flexural yielding: My/Ls);
• h: section depth (diameter D for circular piers);
• fy, fc: MPa;
• db: bar diameter;
• Last term: Due to bar slip from anchorage zone beyond member end
(omitted if such slippage not possible)
 ANNEX A: S eismically-detailed RC members w/ rect. web
Expected value of ultimate chord rotation (20% drop f yw
in resistance)
0 . 225 0 . 35
3awall max 0 .01 , ' Ls sx
fc
um st 1 0.3 fc 25 1 . 25 100 d
8 max 0 .01 , h
or: 0 .3 0 . 35 sx
f yw
max 0 . 01 , ' Ls fc
um y st , pl 1 0.4a wall 0.25 f c 0 .2 25 1 .275 100 d
max 0 . 01 , h
st: 0.016 for hot-rolled ductile steel or heat-treated (tempcore);
0.01 for brittle cold-worked steel;
st,pl: 0.0145 for hot-rolled ductile steel or heat-treated (tempcore);
0.0075 for brittle cold-worked steel;
wall: 1 for shear walls;
, ': mechanical ratio of tension (including web) & compression steel;
: N/bhfc (b: width of compression zone; N>0 for compression);
Ls/h : M/Vh: shear span ratio; sh sh bi2
: confinement effectiveness factor : 1 1 1
2b c 2h c 6b c h c
sx: Ash/bwsh: transverse steel ratio // direction (x) of loading;
d: ratio of diagonal reinforcement.

Non-seismically detailed members w/o lap splices - cyclic loading

• Plastic part, plum= um- y, of ultimate chord rotation is multiplied by 0.825.
Seismically detailed RC beams, columns, walls w/
rect. web in cyclic loading:
Expected value of ultimate chord rotation (Alternative)
pl 0.5 L pl
u y u y ( u y ) L pl 1
Ls
• y: yield curvature (from 1st principles);
cu ,c su
• u min , , with: cu ,c 0.004 0.5 s f yw / f cc
cu ,c d c (1 su ) d

where s: stirrup ratio, index c: confined

Ls db f y
• L pl 0.02h 0.11
30 fc
• Ls = M/V: shear span at member end;
• h: section depth;
• fy, fc: MPa;
• d b: bar diameter.
 RC members w/ or w/o seismic detailing, w/ ribbed bars
lap-spliced over lo in plastic hinge region
• Compression reinforcement counts as double.

• For yield properties My, y, y: fy of tension steel multiplied x lo/loy,min if

lo<loy,min=(0.3fy/√fc)db

• For ultimate chord rotation um= y+ plum: plum x lo/lou,min if

lo<lou,min=dbfy/[(1.05+14.5 rs sx)√fc],
– fy, fc in MPa, sx= sxfyw/fc: mech. transverse steel ratio // loading,
– rs=(1-sh/2bo)(1-sh/2bo)nrestr/ntot (nrestr/ntot restrained-to-total lap-
spliced bars).
 Cyclic shear resistance of RC members
(reduction w/ cyclic displacements)
• Shear resistance after flexural yielding, as controlled by stirrups
(linear degradation of both Vc and Vw with displacement ductility demand pl=( - y) / y)

h x pl Ls
VR min N , 0.55 Ac f c 1 0.05 min 5, 0.16 max( 0.5, 100 tot ) 1 0.16 min 5, f c Ac V w
2 Ls h
Vw: contribution of web reinf. = wbwzfyw (bw: web width, z: internal lever arm; w: web reinf. ratio)
tot: total longitudinal reinforcement ratio
h: section depth
x : depth of compression zone
Ac= bwd
• Shear resistance as controlled by web crushing (diagonal compression)
Walls, before flexural yielding ( pl = 0), or after flexural yielding (cyclic pl > 0):
pl N Ls
VR 0 .85 1 0 .06 min 5, 1 1 .8 min 0 .15, 1 0.25 max( 1 .75, 100 tot ) 1 0 .2 min 2 , f c bw z
Ac f c h

Squat columns (Ls/h ≤ 2) after flexural yielding (cyclic pl > 0):

4 pl N
VR 1 0.02 min 5, 1 1.35 1 0.45 100 tot min f c , 40 bw z sin 2
7 Ac f c
: angle between axis and diagonal of column (tan =h/2Ls)
Conclusion: EC8-Assessment approach for RC
• Estimation of displacement/deformation demands independent from
deformation capacities: deformation demands and capacities
estimated and compared at the member level (chord rotations).
• Analysis for the estimation of displacement/deformation demands
may be simple (even linear, if inelasticity is uniformly distributed
within structure);
– the basis for estimation of displacement/deformation demands is the
equal displacement rule (except in nonlinear dynamic analysis);
– simple member models are encouraged;
– more important than the sophistication of the model is the ability to
reproduce the effective stiffness to yielding, in order to capture the
dominant periods of vibration.
• Simple, yet fairly accurate semi-empirical models given for estimation
of member deformation capacities, as controlled by flexure, shear or
lap-splicing.
• Approach simple, but practical.
 Major gap for assessment & retrofitting
existing buildings
• Although effect of infills on seismic performance is largest, if the
structural frame has little engineered earthquake resistance:
– Lack of specific rules for modelling, verification & retrofitting
masonry infills (possibly into semi-structural components).

Infill resistance

Residual resistance

Ultimate deformation
Seismic Retrofitting (EC8-Part 3,
Annex A)
 General rules:
• Detailed assessment should guide selection of retrofit
strategy & extent of intervention:
– Deficiencies in few scattered elements:
local modification of elements
– Deficiencies in one part of the structure:
possible irregularity (weak storey, unbalanced structure, etc.)
to be removed (by adding new elements, strengthening or
even weakening existing members, etc.)
– Generalized deficiency:
add new elements (walls or bracings) to increase stiffness &
reduce deformation demands;
or upgrade most (if not all) elements (costly, inconvenient)
Concrete Jackets
Concrete Jackets (continued/anchored in joint) EN1998-3
Calculation assumptions:
• Full composite action of jacket & old concrete assumed (jacketed member:
monolithic”), even for minimal shear connection at interface (roughened interface,
steel dowels epoxied into old concrete: useful but not essential);
• fc of “monolithic member”= that of the jacket (avoid large differences in old & new fc)
• Axial load considered to act on full, composite section;
• Longitudinal reinforcement of jacketed column: mainly that of the jacket. Vertical
bars of old column considered at actual location between tension & compression
bars of composite member (~ “web” longitudinal reinforcement), with its own fy;
• Only the transverse reinforcement of the jacket considered for confinement;
• For shear resistance, the old transverse reinforcement taken into account only in
walls, if anchored in the (new) boundary elements.
Then:
MR & My of jacketed member: ~100% of
y of jacketed member for pre-yield (elastic) stiffness:
if roughening of interface ~105%,
if no roughening ~120% of
Shear resistance of jacketed member: ~90% of
Flexure-controlled ultimate deformation u: ~100% of
those of “monolithic member” calculated w/ assumptions above.
Concrete Jackets w/ bars not continued/anchored in joint:
Jacket considered only to confine the full old section.
Steel Jackets
Steel Jackets (not continued/anchored in joint): EN1998-3
Jacket stops ahead of joint (several mm gap to joint face)
• Flexural resistance, pre-yield (elastic) stiffness & flexure-
controlled ultimate deformation of RC member : not
enhanced by jacket (flexural deformation capacity ~same
as in “old” member inside jacket, w/o effect of
confinement);
• 50% of shear resistance of steel jacket, V j=Ajfyjh, can be
relied upon for shear resistance of retrofitted member
(suppression of shear failure before or after flexural
yielding);
• Lap-splice clamping effected via friction mechanism at
jacket-member interface, if jacket extends to ~1.5 times
splice length and is bolt-anchored to member at end of
splice region & ~1/3 its height from joint face (anchor bolts
at third-point of side)
FRP Jackets
 FRP Jackets (not continued/anchored in joint): EN1998-3
Rectangular X-section w/ continuous longitudinal bars (no lap
splices):
• MR & My, pre-yield (elastic) stiffness EIeff of RC member:
not significantly enhanced by FRP jacket (increase neglected);
• Flexure-controlled ultimate deformation, u: confinement factor due to
stirrups enhanced due to FRP confinement by fff,e/fc
– f=2tf/bw : FRP ratio;
f
– ff,e: FRP effective strength: f f,e min f u, f , u, f E f 1 0.7 min f u, f , u, f Ef
fc
where:
fu,f, Ef : FRP tensile strength & Modulus;
u,f: FRP limit strain; CFRP, AFRP: u,f=0.015; GFRP: u,f=0.02; polyacetal FRP: u,f=
0.032;
2
h 2R b 2R 2
– confinement effectiveness: 1 b, h: sides of X-section;
3bh
R: radius at corner
FRP Jackets (not continued/anchored in joint): EN1998-3
Rectangular X-section w/ longit. bars lap-spliced over lo in plastic hinge:
• Compression reinforcement counts as double.
• For yield properties My, y , y: fy of tension steel multiplied x lo/loy,min if
lo<loy,min=(0.2fy/√fc)db
• For ultimate chord rotation um= y+ plum: plum calculated on the basis o
confinement by the stirrups alone, multiplied x lo/lou,min if
lo<lou,min=dbfy/[(1.05+14.5 rs f ff,e/fc)√fc],
– fc in MPa, f=2tf/bw: FRP ratio, ff,e: effective FRP strength in MPa,
– rs=4/ntot (ntot : total lap-spliced bars, only the 4 corner ones
restrained).
 FRP Jackets – EN 1998-3/Annex A (cont’d)
• Shear resistance of FRP-jacketed member:
h x pl Ls
VR min N , 0.55 Ac f c 1 0.05 min 5, 0.16 max( 0.5, 100 tot ) 1 0.16 min 5, f c Ac V w Vf
2 Ls h
Vf= min( u,fEu,f, fu,f) f bwz/2
contributes to member shear resistance as controlled by diagonal tension
– f :FRP ratio, f = 2tf/bw;
– fu,f:FRP tensile strength;
– z : internal lever arm.

• Total shear resistance of retrofitted member as controlled by diagonal

tension, should not exceed shear resistance of old RC member as
controlled by web crushing.
SPEAR building assessment & retrofitting
PRE-TEST NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF TORSIONALLY
UNBALANCED 3-STOREY FULL-SCALE BUILDING,
PsD-TESTED AT JRC-ISPRA UNDER BIDIRECTIONAL MOTION.

MODELLING, MEMBER STIFFNESS, RESISTANCE & ULTIMATE

DEFORMATIONS ACCORDING TO EC8-PART 3 (by UPatras,
Structures Lab)

STRUCTURE TESTED BEFORE RETROFITTING (Jan. 2004) & AFTER

REPAIR & RETROFITTING (Sept. 2004, March 2005)
 TORSIONALLY UNBALANCED 3-STOREY SPEAR TEST BUILDING
• Representative of buildings of the 60’s in Greece w/o engineered EQ-resistance
– eccentric beam-column connections
– smooth/hooked bars lap-spliced at floor levels
3.0 5.0 1.0
1.70

5.5
6.0

5.0 4.0
 Analysis of frame response & assessment of its
performance w/ models accepted/proposed by EN 1998-3
• Nonlinear dynamic analysis:
– columns fixed at foundation level
– finite size of beam-column joints
– P-∆ effects in columns
– Members:
1. Point-hinge model;
2. (simplified) Takeda model (bilinear envelope, no strength degradation);
3. Elastic stiffness EI = MyLs/3 y: secant at yielding in antisymmetric bending;
4. Flexure-controlled ultimate chord rotation (mean capacity);
5. Shear resistance as reduced by post-yield cyclic deformations.
3.-5. w/ modifications due to:
poor detailing of unretrofitted columns (including splicing of smooth/hooked bars);
FRP-wrapping or RC jacketing of columns.

• Performance evaluated in terms of chord rotation demand-to-

capacity (damage) ratio:
– At “ultimate deformation” of the member (: resistance becomes <
80% of peak resistance) Demand-to-capacity (damage) ratio = 1.
 PsD
test at
0.15g
Unretrofitted frame, 0.15g: t-histories of hor. displacements & twist at
CM, floors 2 & 3 (continuous line: pre-test calculations; dotted line: test)
: initial T overestimated by secant-to-yield stiffness :post-ultimate strength degradation → real T ↑

X-displacement

Y-displacement

Twist (rad)
Column & beam demand-to-capacity (damage) ratio:
 FRP-retrofitting of frame: Analysis of response &
performance evaluation according to EC8-Part 3
• Ends of all 0.25m-square columns in all 3 storeys wrapped
with 2 layers of uni-directional GFRP over 0.6m from face
of joint, for confinement.
• Full-height wrapping of large (0.25x0.75 m) column with 2
layers of bi-directional Glass FRP for confinement & shear
strengthening.
• 2 layers of bi-directional Glass FRP applied on (two)
exterior faces of corner joints for shear strengthening (also
over end of adjacent beams); no continuity w/ FRP
wrapping of member ends.
• Retrofitted frame re-tested (at PGA of 0.2g or 0.3g).
• Pre-test analysis of response to 0.2g bidirectional motions,
with modelling assumptions & evaluation criteria (including
the FRP-wrapped members) according to EC8-Part 3.
FRP-retrofitting of frame
 PsD
test w/
FRPs
at 0.2g
FRP-retrofitted frame, 0.2g: t-histories of hor. displacements & twist at
CM, floors 2 & 3 (continuous line: pre-test calculations; dotted line: test)
:post-ultimate strength degradation → real T:post-ultimate
↑ strength degradation → real T ↑

X-displacement

Y-displacement
Y-displacement

Twist (rad)
FRP-retrofitted
frame, 0.2g:
Predicted
column &
beam demand-
to-capacity
(damage) ratio
 Concrete-jacket retrofitting of frame: Analysis of
response & performance evaluation per EN1998-3
• RC jacketing of the
central columns on
two adjacent flexible
sides from 250mm- to
400mm-square, w/ 3
16mm bars along
each side & a 10mm
perimeter tie @
100mm centres.
• FRP wrapping of all
columns removed.
• Retrofitted frame
retested at PGA of
0.2g or 0.3g.
• Pre-test analysis of
response to 0.2g
bidirectional motion w/
the modeling
assumptions &
evaluation criteria
(including the RC-
jackets) in EN1998-3.
Concrete-jacketed frame, 0.2g: t-histories of hor. displacement & twist
at CM, floors 2 & 3 (continuous line: pre-test prediction; dotted line: test)
:post-ultimate strength degradation → real T ↑

X-displacement

Y-displacement

Twist (rad)
Concrete-jacketed frame, 0.2g: member demand-to-capacity (damage) ratio
Conclusions of Case Study on SPEAR test frame
• With the very simple RC member models and deformation
properties given in Annex A of EC8-Part 3, displacement
response history in 3D and extent & location of damage in
unretrofitted, FRP-retrofitted and RC-jacketed test frame
was predicted fairly well until ultimate deformation of most
distressed member(s), despite complexities of the problem:
– poor member detailing:
• eccentric beam-column connections
• lap- splicing of smooth/hooked bars;
– bi-directional motion with evolutionary frequency content
• (low-amplitude long-period component appeared in input at
~12sec, causing resonance);
– strongly torsional response.
• 6-storey Athens building – Wing collapsed in 1999
earthquake
• Nonlinear dynamic analysis w/ “most likely” ground
motions at site, to find collapse mechanism (by UPatras,
Structures Lab)
• Eccentricities
between Centre of
Mass (CM) & Centres
of Rigidity (CR) or
Strength (CV) or Twist
(CT) in various
storeys, induce
torsional response.
Higher modes are
important.
Due to flexible
diaphragms, elevator
shaft & penthouse
vibrate out of phase
w.r.to the rest of the
building
• 6-story building:
• 6-story building: Penthouse critical in flexure.
• 6-story building: Penthouse and upper stories’ columns of right wing
critical in shear, triggering collapse
 SEISMIC ASSESSEMENT & RETROFITTING OF
“KEFALOS” THEATRE IN CEPHALONIA
ACCORDING TO E C 8 (by UPatras, Structures Lab)
 Framing plan: Roof level
(b)

a)

Expansion joint separates building to two independent parts

(“Stage” & “Theatre”), both very irregular in plan and elevation