-
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
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
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
-
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
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:
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCESSIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
�� 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
-
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
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
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCESSIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
�� 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
-
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
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)
-
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
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
-
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
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
-
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
77
Background: Vulnerability of existing buildingsBackground:
Vulnerability of existing buildings
-
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
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
-
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
99
Background: Vulnerability of existing buildingsBackground:
Vulnerability of existing buildings
•• 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
-
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
1010
Background: Vulnerability of existing buildingsBackground:
Vulnerability of existing buildings
•• 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
-
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
1111
Background: Vulnerability of existing buildingsBackground:
Vulnerability of existing buildings
Source: http://www.riscseismic.ro/
Seismically assessed Seismically assessed
buildings in Bucharest buildings in Bucharest
-
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
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
-
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
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))
-
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
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
-
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
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
-
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
1616
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
•• 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))
-
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
1717
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
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
-
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
1818
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
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
-
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
1919
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
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
-
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
2020
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
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
-
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
2121
Thank you for your attention!Thank you for your attention!