craifaleanu romania athensworkshoppresentation 09 1

7/27/2019 Craifaleanu Romania AthensWorkshopPresentation 09 1

1/21

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 ANDINTERVENTIONS ON BUILDINGS IN EARTHQUAKE PRONE AREAS

ATHENS, APRIL 12, 2013







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

SEISMIC CODE FOR THE ASSESSMENT OFSEISMIC 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 DevelopmentSustainable Spatial DevelopmentURBANURBAN--INCERCINCERC, INCERC Bucharest Branch, INCERC Bucharest Branch

Bucharest, RomaniaBucharest, Romania


2/21




22

EUROCODE 8, PART 3 AND THE ROMANIAN SEISMIC CODE FOR THEEUROCODE 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 frameworkSeismic assessment and rehabilitation programs: legal frameworkandand

applicationapplication

Regulatory frameworkRegulatory framework Past and present of Romanian regulatory framework concerning seiPast and present of Romanian regulatory framework concerning seismicsmic

rehabilitation of existing buildingsrehabilitation of existing buildings

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


3/21




33

EUROCODE 8, PART 3 AND THE ROMANIAN SEISMIC CODE FOR THEEUROCODE 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 NationalNationalAnnexAnnex to EN 1998to EN 1998--3:20053:2005

ComparisonsComparisons withwith U.S. standardsU.S. standards

BenchmarkingBenchmarking studystudy

ConclusionsConclusions


4/21




44

ECBRECBR-- European Center for Building RehabilitationEuropean Center for Building Rehabilitation

Technical activities devoted to:Technical activities devoted to:

Preparation of regulatory framework for buildingPreparation of regulatory framework for building

rehabilitation and risk mitigationrehabilitation and risk mitigation

Strengthening of building structures damaged byStrengthening of building structures damaged by

earthquakesearthquakes

Mitigation of effects of natural disasters, includingMitigation 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 riskOther 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 authoritiesauthoritiesrelated to building design and building rehabilitation from Romarelated to building design and building rehabilitation from Romania, UE andnia, 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 ofMinisterial Session of

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


5/21




55

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

VranceaVrancea zonezone located atlocated at

the Carpathian arc bendthe Carpathian arc bend Strong earthquakes thatStrong earthquakes that

affectaffect Romania,Romania,

Moldova,Moldova, a large part ofa large part of

BulgariaBulgaria and southand south--

westernwestern UkraineUkraine

Total area influenced byTotal 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,, 22 NPPsNPPs

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


6/21




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 thatOther strong Vrancea earthquakes thatcaused severe damage and live losses, incaused 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


7/21




77

Background: Vulnerability of existing buildingsBackground: Vulnerability of existing buildings


8/21




88

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

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

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

buildings at risk, entirely financed from public fundsbuildings 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 beenIn case structural intervention would have been

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

of the cost of seismic rehabilitation, the rest beingof the cost of seismic rehabilitation, the rest beingsupported by the government and the municipalitysupported by the government and the municipality


9/21




99


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

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

also retrofittedalso retrofittedAmong the main causes there were:Among the main causes there were:

intervention could be performed only with theintervention could be performed only with the

agreement ofagreement ofallall owners, which was very difficultowners, 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 thethe reluctance of most occupants to leave the

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

temporary housing was provided by thetemporary housing was provided by the

governmentgovernment

the concerns about mortgages associated withthe concerns about mortgages associated with

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

cover the amount of rehabilitation cost paid bycover the amount of rehabilitation cost paid bythe ownersthe owners


10/21




1010


The Ministry of PublicThe Ministry of Public

Works and theWorks and the

municipalities regularlymunicipalities regularly

publish the updated lists ofpublish the updated lists of

seismically assessedseismically assessed

buildings in Bucharest andbuildings in Bucharest and

in all counties, with thein all counties, with thecorresponding risk classescorresponding risk classes


11/21




1111


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

Seismically assessedSeismically assessed

buildings in Bucharestbuildings in Bucharest

COUNCIL OF EUROPE/EUROPEAN CENTRE ON PREVENTION AND FORECASTING OF EARTHQUAKES (ECPFE)


12/21




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 inFirst 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 theer 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, incorporatingting

conclusions after theconclusions 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) Vranceaearthquakes (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 factorquantitative assessment based on the seismic safety factorRR

decision of structural interventiondecision of structural intervention depending on R valuedepending on R value



13/21




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~ 200420102010 Translation and adoption ofTranslation and adoption ofEurocodesEurocodes as National Standardsas National Standards

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

20092009 Enforcement of the Romanian code for the seismic assessment ofEnforcement of the Romanian code for the seismic assessment ofexistingexisting

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

20132013 Commentary and examples forCommentary and examples for P100P100--3/20083/2008 JanuaryJanuary 20142014 Estimated date for the enforcement of the new edition of theEstimated date for the enforcement of the new edition of the

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



14/21




1414

Comparative analysis of Romanian, EU and US codesComparative analysis of Romanian, EU and US codesfor 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 forRomania

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

Performance-basedassessment

YES State of damage in

the structure -defined based onlimit states

Seismic hazard levels- defined based on

the mean recurrenceinterval (MRI) and onthe correspondingprobabilities ofexceedance

EC8-3 Section 2.1

EN1998:3-2005

YES Performance objectives

3 performance levels forspecified seismic hazardlevels

YES YES

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

(SD)3. Damage Limitation

(DL)

NA: choice oflimit states tobe checked:1.Life Safety

(SD

renamed)2.Damage

Limitation(DL)

Chosen forsimilarsignificancewith LS for newbuildings

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

2.Serviceability limit state,SLS (Damage limitationrequirement)

Note: For ordinary buildings,check for SLS is notcompulsory

1. Life Safety, 3-C2. Immediate Occupancy,

1-B

1. Life Safety2. Immediate

Occupancy3. Collapse Prevention

Distinction betweenductile and fragilestructural elements

YES+ Primary seismicandsecondary seismicelements, according toEN 1998-1:2004EC8-3 clause 2.2.1.6(P)

EN1998:3-2005

YES YESDeformation/Force-controlled elements("ductile" / "brittle")+ Primary seismicandsecondary seismicelements

ASCE/SEI 31-03 &41-06



15/21




1515

Comparative and benchmarking studies for theComparative and benchmarking studies for theevaluation of the Romanian code for seismicevaluation 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 multistoryrise 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 degreesComparative assessment of seismic safety degrees

or of equivalent criteria, according to the consideredor of equivalent criteria, according to the consideredcodescodes

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

suggestions for potential future improvement of thesuggestions for potential future improvement of theRomanian codeRomanian code



16/21




1616



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

elastic incursions in most structural elements, damageelastic 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 levellevel

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

safety of min. 0.52safety of min. 0.520.58 (0.58 (RsIIRsII))



17/21




1717



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

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

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

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

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

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

results, without modifying general conclusions onresults, without modifying general conclusions onbuilding statebuilding state

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

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

rotation, results less severe than P100rotation, results less severe than P100--3 were3 wereobtained; however, differences were smallobtained; however, differences were small



18/21

/ Q ( )EARTHQUAKE PLANNING AND PROTECTION ORGANIZATION (EPPO)



1818



ASCE/SEI 31ASCE/SEI 31--0303

Less severe or qualitatively similar results asLess 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 verificationSignificant differences concerning verification

criteriacriteria qualitative comparisonsqualitative comparisons



19/21

EARTHQUAKE PLANNING AND PROTECTION ORGANIZATION (EPPO)



1919



ASCE/SEI 41ASCE/SEI 41--0606

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

those corresponding to EN & P100those corresponding to EN & P100

Displacement demands for nonlinear analysis areDisplacement demands for nonlinear analysis are

smaller, as compared to EN & P100smaller, as compared to EN & P100 differentdifferent

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

US standard, for theUS standard, for the analysedanalysed casecase



20/21




2020



Conclusions of the studyConclusions of the study

Quantitative differences between evaluations performedQuantitative differences between evaluations performed

according to considered codesaccording to considered codes

General conclusions concerning building stateGeneral conclusions concerning building state quitequite

similarsimilar

Largest differencesLargest differences those among Romanian &those among Romanian &

European codes, on one part, and U.S. codes, on theEuropean codes, on one part, and U.S. codes, on theother partother part



21/21




2121

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

craifaleanu romania athensworkshoppresentation 09 1

Documents