eurocode 8, part 3 and the romanian seismic code for … · ec8-3 section 2.1 ≡ en 1998:3-2005...

COUNCIL OF EUROPE/EUROPEAN CENTRE ON PREVENTION AND FORECASTING OF EARTHQUAKES (ECPFE)EARTHQUAKE PLANNING AND PROTECTION ORGANIZATION (EPPO)

WORKSHOP “IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EC 8-p.3:2005 - ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTIONS ON BUILDINGS IN EARTHQUAKE PRONE AREAS”

ATHENS, APRIL 12, 2013







EUROCODE 8, PART 3 AND THE ROMANIAN EUROCODE 8, PART 3 AND THE ROMANIAN

SEISMIC CODE FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF SEISMIC CODE FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF

EXISTING BUILDINGS, P100EXISTING BUILDINGS, P100--3:3:

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCESSIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

IOLANDA CRAIFALEANUIOLANDA CRAIFALEANU

European Center for Building RehabilitationEuropean Center for Building RehabilitationNational Institute for Research & Development in Construction, UNational Institute for Research & Development in Construction, Urban Planning &rban Planning &

Sustainable Spatial Development Sustainable Spatial Development ““URBANURBAN--INCERCINCERC””, INCERC Bucharest Branch, INCERC Bucharest Branch

Bucharest, RomaniaBucharest, Romania




22

EUROCODE 8, PART 3 AND THE ROMANIAN SEISMIC CODE FOR THE EUROCODE 8, PART 3 AND THE ROMANIAN SEISMIC CODE FOR THE

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS, P100ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS, P100--3:3:


�� About ECBRAbout ECBR

�� BackgroundBackground

–– Seismicity and seismic hazard in RomaniaSeismicity and seismic hazard in Romania

–– Vulnerability of existing buildingsVulnerability of existing buildings

–– Seismic assessment and rehabilitation programs: legal framework Seismic assessment and rehabilitation programs: legal framework and and

applicationapplication

�� Regulatory frameworkRegulatory framework

–– Past and present of Romanian regulatory framework concerning seiPast and present of Romanian regulatory framework concerning seismic smic

rehabilitation of existing buildingsrehabilitation of existing buildings

–– Implementation of EN 1998Implementation of EN 1998--3:20053:2005




33

EUROCODE 8, PART 3 AND THE ROMANIAN SEISMIC CODE FOR THE EUROCODE 8, PART 3 AND THE ROMANIAN SEISMIC CODE FOR THE

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS, P100ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS, P100--3/20083/2008


�� Comparison betweenComparison between EN 1998EN 1998--3:20053:2005 and the Romanian codeand the Romanian code

for the assessment of existing buildings,for the assessment of existing buildings, P100P100--3/20083/2008

plus:plus:

–– RomanianRomanian National National AnnexAnnex to EN 1998to EN 1998--3:20053:2005

–– ComparisonsComparisons withwith U.S. standardsU.S. standards

–– BenchmarkingBenchmarking studystudy

�� ConclusionsConclusions




44

ECBR ECBR -- European Center for Building RehabilitationEuropean Center for Building Rehabilitation

•• Technical activities devoted to:Technical activities devoted to:

•• Preparation of regulatory framework for building Preparation of regulatory framework for building

rehabilitation and risk mitigationrehabilitation and risk mitigation

•• Strengthening of building structures damaged by Strengthening of building structures damaged by

earthquakesearthquakes

•• Mitigation of effects of natural disasters, including Mitigation of effects of natural disasters, including

earthquake educationearthquake education

•• Rehabilitation of building envelope and building equipmentRehabilitation of building envelope and building equipment

•• Other activities related to hazard, vulnerability and risk Other activities related to hazard, vulnerability and risk

managementmanagement

•• ECBR benefits from the facilities of INCERC Bucharest Branch labECBR benefits from the facilities of INCERC Bucharest Branch laboratoriesoratories

•• Promotes partnership with specialized institutions, agencies andPromotes partnership with specialized institutions, agencies and authorities authorities

related to building design and building rehabilitation from Romarelated to building design and building rehabilitation from Romania, UE and nia, UE and

worldworld--widewide

•• The establishment of the Center was decided at the 10The establishment of the Center was decided at the 10thth Ministerial Session of Ministerial Session of

EUREUR--OPA Major Hazard Agreement (2003)OPA Major Hazard Agreement (2003)




55

Background: Seismicity and seismic hazard in RomaniaBackground: Seismicity and seismic hazard in Romania

VranceaVrancea zonezone –– located at located at

the Carpathian arc bendthe Carpathian arc bend

�� Strong earthquakes that Strong earthquakes that

affect affect Romania, Romania,

Moldova,Moldova, a large part ofa large part of

BulgariaBulgaria and southand south--

westernwestern UkraineUkraine

�� Total area influenced by Total area influenced by

Vrancea earthquakes:Vrancea earthquakes:

300 000 km300 000 km22

�� 25 million people25 million people in affected areas; in affected areas; 2 capitals2 capitals, , 2 2 NPPsNPPs

�� Other important seismogenic zones:Other important seismogenic zones: BanatBanat,, FagarasFagaras




66

Background: Seismicity and seismic hazard in RomaniaBackground: Seismicity and seismic hazard in Romania

www.belene.orgwww.belene.org

SvishtovSvishtov, Bulgaria, BulgariaBucharestBucharest March 4, 1977March 4, 1977

(M=7.2)(M=7.2)

SvishtovSvishtov, Bulgaria, Bulgaria

BucharestBucharest

Other strong Vrancea earthquakes that Other strong Vrancea earthquakes that

caused severe damage and live losses, in caused severe damage and live losses, in

Romania and in neighboring countries:Romania and in neighboring countries:

�� November 10, 1940 (M=7.4)November 10, 1940 (M=7.4)

�� August 30, 1986 (M=7.0)August 30, 1986 (M=7.0)

BucharestBucharest




77

Background: Vulnerability of existing buildingsBackground: Vulnerability of existing buildings




88

Background: Seismic assessment and rehabilitation programsBackground: Seismic assessment and rehabilitation programs

•• In the early 90s, the Romanian government In the early 90s, the Romanian government

initiated a program of seismic assessment of initiated a program of seismic assessment of

buildings at risk, entirely financed from public funds buildings at risk, entirely financed from public funds

(i.e. totally free for owners)(i.e. totally free for owners)

•• In case structural intervention would have been In case structural intervention would have been

necessary, owners would have had to pay onenecessary, owners would have had to pay one--third third

of the cost of seismic rehabilitation, the rest being of the cost of seismic rehabilitation, the rest being

supported by the government and the municipalitysupported by the government and the municipality




99


•• However, even though a very large number of However, even though a very large number of

buildings were seismically assessed, only few were buildings were seismically assessed, only few were

also retrofittedalso retrofitted

•• Among the main causes there were:Among the main causes there were:

•• intervention could be performed only with the intervention could be performed only with the

agreement of agreement of allall owners, which was very difficult owners, which was very difficult

to obtain in case of multito obtain in case of multi--apartment buildingsapartment buildings

•• the reluctance of most occupants to leave the the reluctance of most occupants to leave the

building during rehabilitation works, even if building during rehabilitation works, even if

temporary housing was provided by the temporary housing was provided by the

governmentgovernment

•• the concerns about mortgages associated with the concerns about mortgages associated with

loans on a 20loans on a 20--year term, which were needed to year term, which were needed to

cover the amount of rehabilitation cost paid by cover the amount of rehabilitation cost paid by

the ownersthe owners




1010


•• The Ministry of Public The Ministry of Public

Works and the Works and the

municipalities regularly municipalities regularly

publish the updated lists of publish the updated lists of

seismically assessed seismically assessed

buildings in Bucharest and buildings in Bucharest and

in all counties, with the in all counties, with the

corresponding risk classes corresponding risk classes




1111


Source: http://www.riscseismic.ro/

Seismically assessed Seismically assessed

buildings in Bucharest buildings in Bucharest




1212

Romanian regulatory framework for seismic design, Romanian regulatory framework for seismic design,

assessment & rehabilitation of buildingsassessment & rehabilitation of buildings

Romania: Seismic regulation timelineRomania: Seismic regulation timeline

•• 19411941 –– First provisional instructions for the seismic design of buildiFirst provisional instructions for the seismic design of buildingsngs

•• 19451945, , 19581958 –– Instructions and tentative standard for seismic designInstructions and tentative standard for seismic design

•• 19631963 –– First seismic design code; revised in First seismic design code; revised in 19701970 ((P13P13--6363, , P13P13--7070))

•• 19781978 –– Major revision of seismic design code and macrozonation map aftMajor revision of seismic design code and macrozonation map after the er the

MMww=7.4 Vrancea earthquake (=7.4 Vrancea earthquake (P100P100--7878))

•• 19921992 –– Major revision of seismic code and macrozonation map, incorporaMajor revision of seismic code and macrozonation map, incorporating ting

conclusions after the conclusions after the 19861986 (M(Mww=7.1) and =7.1) and 19901990 (M(Mww=6.9 and M=6.9 and Mww=6.4) Vrancea =6.4) Vrancea

earthquakes (earthquakes (P100P100--9292); additions in ); additions in 19961996

�� 2 chapters dedicated to seismic assessment and rehabilitation2 chapters dedicated to seismic assessment and rehabilitation

�� quantitative assessment based on the seismic safety factor quantitative assessment based on the seismic safety factor ““RR””

�� decision of structural intervention decision of structural intervention –– depending on R valuedepending on R value




1313

Romanian regulatory framework for seismic design, Romanian regulatory framework for seismic design,

assessment & rehabilitation of buildingsassessment & rehabilitation of buildings

Romania: Seismic regulation timeline (continued)Romania: Seismic regulation timeline (continued)

•• 20062006 –– First Romanian seismic code harmonized with EN 1998First Romanian seismic code harmonized with EN 1998--1:2004 (1:2004 (P100P100--

1/20061/2006))

•• ~ 2004~ 2004……2010 2010 –– Translation and adoption of Translation and adoption of EurocodesEurocodes as National Standards as National Standards

((SR ENSR EN); enforcement of National Annexes); enforcement of National Annexes

•• 20092009 –– Enforcement of the Romanian code for the seismic assessment of Enforcement of the Romanian code for the seismic assessment of existing existing

buildings (buildings (P100P100--3/20083/2008))

•• 20132013 –– Commentary and examples for Commentary and examples for P100P100--3/20083/2008

•• January January 20142014 –– Estimated date for the enforcement of the new edition of the Estimated date for the enforcement of the new edition of the

Romanian seismic design code (Romanian seismic design code (P100P100--1/20121/2012))




1414

Comparative analysis of Romanian, EU and US codesComparative analysis of Romanian, EU and US codes

for the seismic assessment of existing buildingsfor the seismic assessment of existing buildings

Synthetic TableSynthetic Table

Features EN 1998:3-2005

SR EN 1998:3-2005

& NA for Romania

P100-3/2008 - Evaluation ASCE/SEI 31-03 IEBC 2009

Performance-based assessment

YES � State of damage in

the structure - defined based on limit states

� Seismic hazard levels - defined based on the mean recurrence interval (MRI) and on the corresponding probabilities of exceedance

EC8-3 Section 2.1

≡ EN 1998:3-2005

YES � Performance objectives � 3 performance levels for

specified seismic hazard levels

YES YES

Limit states 1. Near Collapse (NC) 2. Significant Damage

(SD) 3. Damage Limitation

(DL)

NA: choice of limit states to be checked: 1. Life Safety

(≡SD renamed)

2. Damage Limitation (DL)

Chosen for similar significance with LS for new buildings

1. Ultimate limit state, ULS (Life safety requirement)

2. Serviceability limit state, SLS (Damage limitation requirement)

Note: For ordinary buildings, check for SLS is not compulsory

1. Life Safety, 3-C 2. Immediate Occupancy,

1-B

1. Life Safety 2. Immediate

Occupancy 3. Collapse Prevention

Distinction between ductile and fragile structural elements

YES + Primary seismic and secondary seismic elements, according to EN 1998-1:2004 EC8-3 clause 2.2.1.6(P)

≡ EN 1998:3-2005

YES YES Deformation/Force-controlled elements ("ductile" / "brittle") + Primary seismic and secondary seismic elements

≡ ASCE/SEI 31-03 & 41-06




1515

Comparative and benchmarking studies for the Comparative and benchmarking studies for the

evaluation of the Romanian code for seismic evaluation of the Romanian code for seismic

assessment of existing buildingsassessment of existing buildings

•• Analysis on two R/C mediumAnalysis on two R/C medium--rise multistory rise multistory

buildingsbuildings

1.1. framesframes

2.2. shear wallsshear walls

•• P100P100--3/2008, EN 19983/2008, EN 1998--3:2005 & NA,3:2005 & NA,

ASCE 31ASCE 31--03, ASCE 4103, ASCE 41--0606

•• Comparative assessment of seismic safety degrees Comparative assessment of seismic safety degrees

or of equivalent criteria, according to the considered or of equivalent criteria, according to the considered

codescodes

•• Objective: evaluation of code performance, Objective: evaluation of code performance,

suggestions for potential future improvement of the suggestions for potential future improvement of the

Romanian codeRomanian code




1616




•• Buildings chosen for poor seismic performance: postBuildings chosen for poor seismic performance: post--

elastic incursions in most structural elements, damage elastic incursions in most structural elements, damage

in 1in 1stst floor columns, story mechanisms in upper levelsfloor columns, story mechanisms in upper levels

P100P100--3:20083:2008•• The assessment by the 1The assessment by the 1stst, 2, 2ndnd and 3and 3rdrd level level

methods resulted in a degree of seismic structural methods resulted in a degree of seismic structural

safety of min. 0.52safety of min. 0.52……0.58 (0.58 (RsIIRsII))




1717




EN 1998EN 1998--3:2005 & NA3:2005 & NA

•• Overall verification in terms of displacement, based Overall verification in terms of displacement, based

on nonlinear static analysis: results close to those on nonlinear static analysis: results close to those

obtained acc. to P100obtained acc. to P100--3/20083/2008

•• Overall verificationOverall verification in terms of displacement, based in terms of displacement, based

on nonlinear static analysis: slightly more severe on nonlinear static analysis: slightly more severe

results, without modifying general conclusions on results, without modifying general conclusions on

building statebuilding state

•• Verification based on nonlinear dynamic analysis: due Verification based on nonlinear dynamic analysis: due

to the different formulas used to evaluate plastic to the different formulas used to evaluate plastic

rotation, results less severe than P100rotation, results less severe than P100--3 were 3 were

obtained; however, differences were smallobtained; however, differences were small




1818




ASCE/SEI 31ASCE/SEI 31--0303

•• Less severe or qualitatively similar results as Less severe or qualitatively similar results as

compared to EN & P100compared to EN & P100

•• Inelastic displacements smaller than for EN & P100Inelastic displacements smaller than for EN & P100

•• Significant differences concerning verification Significant differences concerning verification

criteria criteria –– qualitative comparisonsqualitative comparisons




1919




ASCE/SEI 41ASCE/SEI 41--0606

•• Strength demands for linear analysis are greater than Strength demands for linear analysis are greater than

those corresponding to EN & P100those corresponding to EN & P100

•• Displacement demands for nonlinear analysis are Displacement demands for nonlinear analysis are

smaller, as compared to EN & P100 smaller, as compared to EN & P100 –– different different

calibration of displacement amplification factors in the calibration of displacement amplification factors in the

US standard, for the US standard, for the analysedanalysed casecase




2020




Conclusions of the studyConclusions of the study

•• Quantitative differences between evaluations performed Quantitative differences between evaluations performed

according to considered codesaccording to considered codes

•• General conclusions concerning building state General conclusions concerning building state –– quite quite

similarsimilar

•• Largest differences Largest differences –– those among Romanian & those among Romanian &

European codes, on one part, and U.S. codes, on the European codes, on one part, and U.S. codes, on the

other partother part




2121

Thank you for your attention!Thank you for your attention!

eurocode 8, part 3 and the romanian seismic code for … · ec8-3 section 2.1 ≡ en 1998:3-2005...

Documents