You are on page 1of 45

Seismic Design of Structures:

International Practice and


Relevance to Nepal

Dr. Rajesh Dhakal


Professor, University of Canterbury
Christchurch, New Zealand
Earthquake Engineering

POLICY
4. Loss Related Decisions
ENGINEERING
(Structural Earthquake Engineering)
- People
- Government
- Business
- Planners 3 Controlling
(Planning, Preparation, Response, Recovery) Response
- Engineers

Site Surface
Rock
2b
Fault R
2a Ground Motions
- Seismologists

Magnitude M 1 Rupture SCIENCE (also


referred as Geotechnical
- Geologists Earthquake Engineering)
Challenges in Seismic Design
• Structural response depends on
– Input motion
– Structural properties
• Uncertainties in Input Motion
– When and where the next earthquake?
– On which fault?
– Of what magnitude (size)?
– Nature of ground shaking near source?
– Effect of travel path on shaking at a distance?
– Effect of local geology, topography and soil profile?
• Uncertainties in structural properties
– Natural periods/stiffness?
– Damping? Hence, several assumptions
– Soil-foundation interaction? and simplifications are made
in seismic design process
– Post-yield behavior?
Objectives of EQ Resistant Design

• Severe earthquakes are rather infrequent


– Low probability of strong shaking during life time of
the structure
• Should the structure be designed to withstand
strong shaking without sustaining any damage?
– Such a construction will be too expensive.
• It may be more logical to accept some damage in
case of strong but infrequent shaking.
• However, loss of life and contents in the structure
must be protected even in case of strong shaking.
Framework of Performance Based
Seismic Design
Current seismic design approaches in the world have a combination of
the following performance objectives:

• Immediate occupancy: No disruption of service after small


frequently occurring earthquakes
– No closure of building (some damage?)
• Reusability: Repairable damage in moderate-strong
earthquakes
– Damage and closure of buildings
• Life-safety: Collapse prevention in large and rare earthquakes
– Irreparable damage, building to be demolished
(Note: Design codes do not specify performance requirements in the
way they are specified above; e.g. MCE is not used in NZS1170.5)
Design Seismic Hazard Level

Hazard level used for compliance check in seismic design


depends on:
• Design working life of the structure and therefore the
likely exposure period
• The structure’s importance to the community
• The importance of the structure’s contents to the
community
• The importance of the structure and/or its contents to the
recovery period immediately after a severe earthquake
• These are accounted for by choosing the appropriate
importance level and assigning an appropriate
Importance factor, I (called return period factor in NZ).
Horizontal Elastic Hazard Spectrum

Typical expression for elastic demand


C(T) = Ch(T,S)ZI
where,
Ch(T,S) = acceleration amplification
factor for a given period and soil type
Z = seismic hazard coefficient
I = Importance factor
Other factors such as Near Fault Factor may
also be used
Background of Code Expression
amax a
Felastic  m  amax W   C (T )  W F=ma Time
g m

amax amax PGA PGA500


C (T )     V=F
g PGA PGA500 g
C (T )  Ch T , S   I  Z

Hence, the coefficient C(T) = Ch(T,S) Z I multiplied by the weight of the


structure gives the elastic seismic design force.
Felastic  C (T ) W
Reduction in Lieu of Inelastic Response
Seismic Design Coefficient Cd(T)
Cd(T) = C(T)/R Fdesign  Cd (T )  W
where
R = Response reduction factor
(accounts for structural ductility and overstrength)

Equal Energy Rule: For stiff structures Equal Displacement Rule: For flexible structures
Analysis Methods

• Equivalent static force method may be used if one of the


following is true:
– The height of the building is less than a critical value; or
– The largest translational period is less than a critical value; or
– The structure is not classified as irregular

• Modal response spectrum method may be used to all


structures; 3D analysis needed for torsionally sensitive
structures

• Numerical Integration Time History (NITH) method may


be used for all structures; 3-D analysis is required for
torsionally sensitive structures
Equivalent Static Method
This is a force based method commonly used in seismic codes worldwide.
It interprets seismic action with a set of lateral forces on the structure.
The procedure for SDOF System goes like this:

F=V
M
K
T1 = 2pM/K
ag V

Time
Horizontal Seismic Shear, V
V = Cd(T1) W

Elastic hazard spectrum Seismic design coefficient


C(T1) = Ch(T1,S) Z I Cd(T1) = C(T1)/R
Equivalent Static Method
 For multi-storey buildings:
• The effect of earthquake at the base of the building is
represented by a set of lateral forces acting at different stories
• This method assumes 1st mode dominates the structural
response.

an
mn
mn-1

Mode
Fi shape
m2
m1
ag V=∑Fi
Time
Equivalent Static Method
1/ Estimate the fundamental period, T1 using Rayleigh’s method

Empirical equations can also be used; for example, for RC frames


T1 = 0.06H0.75 (H in height in m) OR T1 ~ 0. 1n (n is number of storey)
Equivalent Static Method
2/ Calculate the design base shear, V for the estimated
period using the design equations
V = Cd(T1) W W = ∑Wi
Cd(T1) = C(T1)/R

C(T1) = Ch(T1,S)ZI

NZS1170.5 Spectra V
Depends on:
Building importance
Design ductility
Soil type
Location
Equivalent Static Method

3/ Distribute the base shear over the height of the building

Storey forces depend on the


seismic weights and height of
Fi different storeys

V=∑Fi

4/ Analyse the structure using the design lateral forces to find the
demand on different members and design the members
accordingly
Design Response Spectrum
in NBC 105
Source: NBC 105: 1994 Cd = CZIK
Main Issues with Current NBC
Code
 Inconsistent format
◦ Design spectra should be in terms of spectral acceleration (not coefficient)
◦ Z factor should represent absolute seismic hazard (ideally 500 yr return period
bedrock PGA)
◦ Elastic demand should also be specified (Reduction for ductility should be a
reward)
 Design seismic forces are not consistent with the seismic hazard studies
 Seismic hazard is obviously too low (e.g. seismic design force for a
building in Kathmandu is less than half of that in Christchurch and less
than 1/3rd of that in Japan, disproportionate to the relative seismicity)
 Design spectra does not capture the amplification at long period in soft
soil sites (e.g. Kathmandu) and vice versa
Soil mapping of Ktm Valley

Source:
Poudyal et
al. (2012),
(2013)
Soil mapping of Ktm valley

Source:
Poudyal et
al. (2012),
(2013)
Response Spectra of 2015 Gorkha
Earthquake (Main Shock)
Response Spectra of 2015 Gorkha
Earthquake(Main Shock)
Fourier Spectra of 2015 Gorkha
Earthquake(Main Shock)
Fourier Spectra of 2015 Gorkha
Earthquake(Main Shock)
Ground Motion Studies in
Nepal
 Few initiatives in the past
◦ UNDP(1994), JICA(2002), KVERMP(1998)
◦ Focused in the seismic hazard scenarios

 Poudyal et al. (2012, 2013)


◦ Seismic microzonation initiative
◦ Estimation of dominant period
◦ Local amplification effect of soil layers on ground motion
◦ Estimation of basin thickness
Ground Motion Studies in
Nepal
 Gautam, Chamlagain (2016)
◦ Ground response analysis of Kathmandu Valley
◦ Amplification Ratio Estimation (1.9-7.8)
◦ Predominant Period Estimation (0.27-0.61)

 Rajaure et al. (2016)


◦ Analyzed the main shock and after shock recordings
◦ High amplification in the longer periods at soft soil
recording station
◦ Attenuation in the longer periods at rock-outcrop station
◦ Higher deamplification observed in main shock
indicating non-linear site response.
Ground Motion Studies in
Nepal
 Common
observation
in all studies

 The soft soil


acts as filter
modifying
frequency
content,
amplitude,
and duration

Source: Rezaeian (2010)


Status of Seismic Hazard
Assessment in Nepal
Source: Beca
Worley
International
(1994)
Status of Seismic Hazard
Assessment in Nepal

Source: Parajuli
et al. (2010)
Status of Seismic Hazard
Assessment in Nepal

Source: Thapa, Wang (2013) 10% Probability of exceedance in 50 years


Status of Seismic Hazard
Assessment in Nepal

Source: Chaulagain et al. 10% Probability of exceedance in 50 years


(2015)
Status of Seismic Hazard
Assessment in Nepal
Potential Design Response
Spectrum for NBC-105
Spectral
Acceleration Acceleration

PGA

Time
PGA
(ZPA:: Natural
Zero Period0 Period
Acceleration)

Estimated at bed rock


through seismic hazard
assessment
Potential Design Response
Spectrum for NBC-105
Design response
 Design Base Shear VB acceleration parameter
Combination of zone

VB  Cd T1   W 
S a T1 
W
factor and
amplification factors

R
Importance factor of
  Reduction to account
the structure I for ductility and
overstrength

where
Cd(T1) = Horizontal design seismic coefficient
W = Seismic weight
Consistent Ground Motion
Characteristics

Average pseudo-acceleration spectra for different site conditions (Seed et al.)


2017 Mexico Earthquake: GM
amplification in Zone I (Hard Rock)

Mean max amplification ~ 2.85


Peak amplification at ~ 0.4s
Period range (Sa/PGA>2): 0.15-0.75s
Amplification factor, Sa/PGA
2017 Mexico Earthquake: GM
amplification in Zone II (Transition)

Mean max amplification ~ 2.95


Peak amplification at ~ 0.7s
Period range (Sa/PGA>2): 0.3-1.4s
Amplification factor, Sa/PGA
2017 Mexico Earthquake: GM
amplification in Zone IIIa (Soft Soil)

Mean max amplification ~ 2.95


Peak amplification at ~ 1.2s
Period range (Sa/PGA>2): 0.7-1.7s
Amplification factor, Sa/PGA
2017 Mexico Earthquake: GM
amplification in Zone IIIb (Softer Soil)

Mean max amplification ~ 3.3


Peak amplification at ~ 1.8s
Period range (Sa/PGA>2): 0.5-2.4s
Amplification factor, Sa/PGA
2017 Mexico Earthquake: GM
amplification in Zone IIIc (Softer Soil)

Mean max amplification ~ 3.2


Peak amplification at ~ 2.4s
Period range (Sa/PGA>2): 0.5-2.8s
Amplification factor, Sa/PGA
2017 Mexico Earthquake: GM
amplification in Zone IIId (Softest Soil)

Mean max amplification ~ 2.5


Peak amplification at ~ 1.4s
Period range (Sa/PGA>2): 0.5-2.2s
Amplification factor, Sa/PGA
Design Spectra in Mexican Code for
Different Zones
Potential Design Response
Spectrum for NBC-105
Soil Ta Tc
Spectral Acceleration
Type (sec) (sec)
Hard 0 0.5
Medium 0.2 0.8
Soft Soil Very Soft Soil Soft 0.4 1.0
PGA Medium Soil Very 0.5 5.0
Rock or Soft
Hard Soil
0
Ta Tc
Natural Period T
Similar nature shown
by the recent ground
motion records of
Gorkha Earthquake
Challenges ahead

• Soil characteristic of different cities/villages in Nepal is unknown


• Seismic hazard studies are normally based on coarse zonation and may
not capture localized variations in all cities.
• Seismic hazard maps have not been validated (due to lack of ground
motion database)
• Some aspects of design will be drastically changed, which may shock
design engineers and delay proper implementation. This will also raise
questions on adequacy of existing structures.
• Education of design engineers, peer reviewers and government
(DUDBC?) engineers responsible for approval of designs.
References
• Chaulagain, H., Rodrigues, H., Silva, V., Spacone, E., & Varum, H. (2015). Seismic risk assessment
and hazard mapping in Nepal. Natural Hazards, 78(1), 583–602. doi:10.1007/s11069-015-1734-6
• Gautam, D., & Chamlagain, D. (2016). Preliminary assessment of seismic site effects in the fluvio-
lacustrine sediments of Kathmandu valley, Nepal. Natural Hazards, 81(3), 1745–1769.
doi:10.1007/s11069-016-2154-y
• Parajuli, H. R., Kiyono, J., Taniguchi, H., Toki, K., & Maskey, P. N. (2010). Probabilistic seismic
hazard assessment for Nepal. Risk Analysis VII. doi:10.2495/risk100351
• Paudyal, Y. R., Bhandary, N. P., & Yatabe, R. (2012). Seismic Microzonation of Densely Populated
Area of Kathmandu Valley of Nepal using Microtremor Observations. Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, 16(8), 1208–1229. doi:10.1080/13632469.2012.693242
• Paudyal, Y. R., Yatabe, R., Bhandary, N. P., & Dahal, R. K. (2012). A study of local amplification
effect of soil layers on ground motion in the Kathmandu Valley using microtremor analysis.
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 11(2), 257–268. doi:10.1007/s11803-012-0115-3
• Paudyal, Y. R., Yatabe, R., Bhandary, N. P., & Dahal, R. K. (2013). Basement topography of the
Kathmandu
• Basin using microtremor observation. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 62, 627–
637.doi:10.1016/j.jseaes.2012.11.011
• Rajaure, S., Asimaki, D., Thompson, E. M., Hough, S., Martin, S., Ampuero, J. P., … Paudel, L.
(2017). Characterizing the Kathmandu Valley sediment response through strong motion recordings of
the 2015 Gorkha earthquake sequence. Tectonophysics, 714-715, 146–157.
doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2016.09.030
• Ram, T. D., & Wang, G. (2013). Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis in Nepal. Earthquake
Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 12(4), 577–586. doi:10.1007/s11803-013-0191-z
Thank you

You might also like