Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings to Eurocode 8 Instructor’s Manual

Answers of Questions (per Chapter)

Chapter 2
a(t)
amax

t1 2t1 t

Question 2.1 -amax

Consider the pulse-like excitation depicted in Fig. 2.35, with amax =0.1g and t1 = 0.15 s.

Calculate the Cumulative Absolute Velocity (CAV) and the Arias Intensity IA.

Answer of Question 2.1

CAV is given by Eq. (2.3); is simply equal to area under the acceleration time history:

CAV=2amaxt1 = 2×9.81×0.15 = 2.943 m/s

The Arias intensity is given by Eq. (2.4) and is equal to /2g times the area under the

acceleration time history squared

π 2
IA = 2amax t1 = 4.71m/s
2g

Question 2.2

Fig. 2.8 gives the annual probability of exceedance of peak ground acceleration (PGA) at a

given site, from several individual seismic sources. Calculate the annual probability that a

PGA of 0.1g will be exceeded for a building located at that site. For a building structure

designed for a lifetime of 50 years, what is the probability that a PGA of 0.1g will be

exceeded during the lifetime of the structure?

Answer of Question 2.2

For a PGA of 0.1g, all seismic sources contribute to the hazard: the annual probability of

exceedance of each source is respectively: 6.0×10-7, 1.5×10-6, 3.6×10-6, 4.7×10-6, 6.1×10-6,

2
Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings to Eurocode 8 Instructor’s Manual

7.1×10-6, 2.5×10-5, 2.7×10-5, 4.4×10-5, 7.2×10-5. According to Eq. (2.9), summing the

contribution of all sources gives an annual rate of exceedance of a PGA of 0.1g:

6.0×10-7+1.5×10-6+3.6×10-6+4.7×10-6+6.1×10-6+7.1×10-6+2.5×10-5+2.7×10-5+4.4×10-5

+7.2×10-5 = 1.92×10-4.

For the lifetime of the structure, this PGA will be exceeded with a probability of (see Eq.

(2.10)): 1 − exp ( −1.92 10 −4 x 50 ) = 9.7510 −3 ≈ 1%

(a) (b) (c)  

Fig. 2.36 Question 2.3

Question 2.3

What is the mode of failure or damage of the beams in Fig. 2.36? Would you characterise this

case as damage or as failure?

Answer of Question 2.3

All three: Flexural damage (not failure).

3
Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings to Eurocode 8 Instructor’s Manual

Question 2.4

What is the mode of failure or damage of the columns in Fig. 2.37? Would you characterise

this case as damage or as failure?

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(g) (h) (i)

4
Seismicc Design of Concrete
C Buildings to Eurrocode 8 Instructor’s Manual

(j) (k) (l)

Fig. 2.337 Questionn 2.4

Answerr of Questioon 2.4

(f), (g), (i), (j): Flexxure; all oth

hers: shear;

(b), (k):: damage; all

a others: faailure (possiible exceptio
on: (j), (i)).

Questioon 2.5

What iss the mode of

o failure orr damage off the concrete walls in Fig.
F 2.38? W
Would you

characteerise this caase as damage or as faillure?

(a) (b
b) (cz
(

5
Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings to Eurocode 8 Instructor’s Manual

(d) (e) (f)

Answer of Question 2.5

All: Shear.

All, except (f): Failure; (f): damage.

6
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.1 World seismicity between 1900 and 2012. (From United State Geological Survey – USGS.)

002x001.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

North American
Eurasian plate Eurasian
plate plate

Juan De Fuca
plate
Caribbean Arabian
Philippine plate plate
plate Indian
Cocos plate
plate
Equator

African
plate
Pacific Nazca
plate plate South American
Australian
plate
plate
Australian
plate

Scotia plate

Antarctic
plate

Figure 2.2  Plate boundaries.

002x002.eps
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

(a)

Slip
Time

(b)

Fa
ul
t
Figure 2.3 Elastic rebound theory: (a) slip as a function of time; (b) from left to right: initial stage, straining
before earthquake, after earthquake.

002x003.eps
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.4 Fence offset in Hollister, California.

002x004.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Strike-slip fault Normal fault

Tectonic stresses

Reverse fault
Figure 2.5 Fault types.

002x005.eps
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

8.5

M
s
8.0

7.5
Ms = 6.2
7.0 Mw = 6.2
6.5

6.0

5.5
M

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5
M
s
~
M

3.0
M
s
b
m

2.5
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Mw

Figure 2.6 Relationship between magnitude scales.

002x006.eps
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

(a) 0.20

0.10
Acceleration (g)

0.00

–0.10

–0.20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Time (s)
(b) 0.04

0.02
Acceleration (g)

0.00

–0.02

–0.04
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Time (s)
Records of the 1985 Michoacán Guerrero earthquake in Mexico City: (a) SCT (soft soil);
Figure 2.7 
(b) Tacubaya (rock).

002x007.eps
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

EG1a, Beznau and PGA mean hazard by source – largest contributors

10–1
E3A
E3B
F3A
10–2 E3AF2F
E2F
F2F
F3AF2F
E2S
10–3 F2D
Annual P (exceedence)

F2E

10–4

10–5

10–6

10–7
10–1 100 101
Peak ground acceleration (g)
Figure 2.8 Hazard curves: each curve corresponds to a given seismic source.

002x008.eps
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

(a) (b) (c)

δ δ θ θ θ
θ θ θ

θ θ θ
θ θ θ

θ θ θ
θ
θ θ θ

Hlot
θ θ θ
θ θ θ
Hst θst

(d) (e)
δ θ θ
θ θ
θ θ
θ θ
θ θ
θ
θ θ
Hlot

θ θ
θ θ

Figure 2.9 Side-sway plastic mechanisms in concrete buildings: (a) soft-storey mechanism in weak column–
strong beam frame; (b), (c) beam-sway mechanisms in strong column/weak beam frames; (d), (e)
beam-sway mechanisms in wall-frame systems.

002x009.eps
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.10 (a) Collapse of open ground storey building; (b) collapsed building shown at the background;
similar building at the foreground is still standing with large ground storey drift.

002x010.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.11 Typical collapses of frame buildings with open ground storey; ‘pancake’ type of collapse shown
on the right.

002x011.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.12 Role of walls in preventing pancake collapse of otherwise condemned buildings.

002x012.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.13 Collapse of Alto Rio wall building in Concepción, Chile; February 2010 earthquake (structural
walls are shown in black in the framing plan).

002x013.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.14 Typical concentration of failures or damage in ground storey (a), (b) with role and damage to
infills shown in (c).

002x014.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.15 Collapse of top floors in Mexico City (1985) or of an intermediate one in Kobe (1995).

002x015.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.16 Collapse of flexible sides in torsionally imbalanced building with stiffness concentrated near
one corner.

002x016.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.17 Shear failure of short columns on stiff side (inside rectangle) causes collapse of flexible side as
well.

002x017.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.18 Flexural damage (a) or failure (b, c) at column ends.

002x018.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.19 Shear failure of columns, (a)–(e), including a captive one between the basement perimeter wall
and the beam (c) and short columns due to mid-storey constraint by a stair (d) or a landing (e)
supported on the column. 

002x019.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.20 Despite complete failure of columns across the ground storey, their residual axial load capacity
still supports gravity loads.

002x020.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.21 Shear failure of beam–column joints.

002x021.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.22 Typical features of beam behaviour: (a) pullout of beam bars from narrow corner column, due
to short straight anchorage there; (b) wide crack in slab at right angles to the beam at the con-
nection with the columns shows the large participation of the slab as effective flange width in
tension; (c) failure, with concrete crushing and bar buckling at bottom flange next to the column.

002x022.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.23 Typical failures of concrete walls: (a) flexural, with damage in shear; (b) in shear; (c) by sliding shear.

002x023.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.24 Illustration of wave trapping in sedimentary basins.

002x024.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

0.60

Acceleration on soft soil sites (g) 0.50

0.40 Calculations Idriss (1990)

0.30 Loma Prieta (1989)

0.20

0.10

Mexico (1985)
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Acceleration at rock outcrop (g)
Figure 2.25 Relationship between PGA on rock and PGA at ground surface.

002x025.eps
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.26 Lateral spreading (El Asnam, 1980).

002x026.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.27 Liquefaction-induced settlement in Marina district (Loma Prieta earthquake, 1989).

002x027.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.28 Bearing capacity failure due to liquefaction (Hyogo-ken Nambu earthquake, 1995).

002x028.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.29 Slope failure on State Highway 17, California (Loma Prieta earthquake, 1989).

002x029.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.30 Bearing capacity failure in Mexico City (Michoacán Guerrero earthquake, 1985).

002x030.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.31 Earthquake-induced foundation settlement (Michoacán Guerrero earthquake, 1985).

002x031.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.32 Settlement of a poorly compacted backfill (Moss Landing, Loma Prieta earthquake, 1989).

002x032.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.33 Settlement of a pipeline trench adjacent to a building (Mexico, 1985).

002x033.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

90

80
Number of empty reservoirs
70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
<1 1–2 2–6 >6
Hours after the earthquake
Figure 2.34 Loss of reservoirs after the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nambu earthquake. (Modified from O’Rourke,
T.D. 1996. Lessons learned for lifeline engineering from major urban earthquakes. Paper no.
2172. Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Acapulco, Mexico.)

002x034.eps
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

a(t)
amax

t1 2t1 t

–amax

Figure 2.35  Ground acceleration for Question 2.1.

002x035.eps
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.36  (a–c) Beams of Question 2.3.

002x036.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.37  (a–l) Columns of Question 2.4.

002x037.tif
 Courtesy of CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group

Figure 2.38  (a–f) Walls of Question 2.5.

002x038.tif