Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
------IND- 2008 0352 RO- EN- ------ 20080915 --- --- PROJET
ORDER
No.
from
2008
For the approval of technical regulation Code for the seismic assessment of existing buildings, code P
100-3 : 2008
In accordance with the provisions of art.38 paragraph (2) of Law no. 10/1995 regarding
quality in constructions, with its subsequent modifications, the provisions of art. 2 paragraph (4) of the
Rules regarding the types of technical regulations and costs for regulatory activity in the field of
constructions, town planning, landscaping and habitat, approved by Government Decision no.
203/2003, with its subsequent modifications and supplementation, and the provisions of Government
Decision no. 1016/2004 regarding measures for organising and carrying out the exchange of
information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as well as the rules regarding
information society services between Romania and the EU Member States, and the European
Commission,
pursuant to art. 1 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) letter d), art. 4 paragraph (1) point 22 and
art. 10 paragraph (5) of Government Decision no. 361/2007 regarding the structure and operation of
the Ministry of Development, Public Works and Housing, with its subsequent modifications and
supplementation,
the Minister of Development, Public Works and Housing hereby issues the following:
ORDER
Art.1We hereby approve the Technical regulation "Code for the seismic assessment of
existing buildings"- code P 100-3:2008, drawn up by the Technical University of Civil Engineering
of Bucharest, stipulated in the annex that is an integrated part of the present order.
Art.2The present order shall be published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I *) and
shall come into force 12 days after its publication date.
Art.3On the date when the present order comes into force, art.2 letter b) of Order no. 1711/2006 of
the minister of transport, constructions and tourism regarding the approval of Technical regulation
Seismic design code-Part I-Design provisions for buildings, code P 100-1/2006, with its
subsequent modifications and supplementation, shall no longer be applicable.
MINISTER
*) The Order shall also be published in the Constructions Bulletin edited by the National Institute for Building Research
INCERC Bucharest, an institution that is coordinated by the Ministry of Development, Public Works and Housing.
The present technical regulation was adopted in accordance with notification procedure no.
. Code for the seismic assessment of existing buildings, code
P 100-3:2008 from the date of , stipulated by Directive 98/34/EC of the European
Parliament and Council, published in the Official Journal L204 from 21 July 1998, regarding the
procedure for the exchange of information in the field of technical standards and regulations,
amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and Council, published in the Official
Journal L217 from 05 August 1998.
Contents
1. GENERAL ASPECTS
1.1
1.2
SCOPE
NORMATIVE REFERENCES
1.2.1
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
BASIC HYPOTHESES
DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRINCIPLES AND RULES
SYMBOLS
S.I. UNITS
General aspects
Ultimate limit state (ULS)
Service limit state (SLS)
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.4
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
3
CRITERIA FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 3
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
3.1
3.2
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
3
4
4
6
6
6
8
8
8
9
9
10
11
11
12
Geometry
4.4.1.1 General construction plans
4.4.1.2 Construction blueprints
4.4.1.3 Visual examination
4.4.1.4 Surveying the construction
Details
4.4.2.1 Simulated design
4.4.2.2 Limited in-situ inspection
4.4.2.3 Extensive in-situ inspection
4.4.2.4 Comprehensive in-situ inspection
Materials
4.4.3.1 Destructive and non-destructive tests
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
4.4.4
4.5
CONFIDENCE FACTORS
4.6
IDENTIFYING THE LEVEL OF DEGRADATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION
5. QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
13
13
14
16
5.1
AIM OF THE QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
16
5.2
CONDITIONS REGARDING THE LOAD PATH
16
5.3
CONDITIONS REGARDING REDUNDANCY
16
5.4
CONDITIONS REGARDING THE BUILDING CONFIGURATION
16
5.5
CONDITIONS REGARDING INTERACTION OF THE STRUCTURE WITH OTHER
CONSTRUCTIONS OR ELEMENTS
18
5.5.1
5.5.2
5.5.3
18
18
18
5.6
SPECIFIC COMPOSITION REQUIREMENTS FOR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES
OF STRUCTURES
19
5.7
CONDITIONS FOR THE HORIZONTAL DIAPHRAGMS OF BUILDINGS
19
5.8
CONDITIONS REGARDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND FOUNDATION
GROUND
20
GENERAL ASPECTS
SEISMIC ACTION AND LOAD COMBINATIONS
MODELLING OF THE STRUCTURE
CALCULATION METHODS
STRUCTURAL ELEMENT VERIFICATIONS
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES
LEVEL 1 METHODOLOGY
6.7.1
6.7.2
6.8
LEVEL 2 METHODOLOGY
6.8.1
6.8.2
6.8.3
6.8.4
6.9
Field of application
Assessment through calculation
Field of application
Principle of the calculation method
Structural calculation
Verification relationships
LEVEL 3 METHODOLOGY
6.9.1
6.9.2
Field of application
Static non-linear calculation method
7. ASSESSMENT OF FOUNDATIONS
7.1
7.3
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
23
26
26
26
27
28
29
29
29
32
GENERAL ASPECTS
32
CALCULATION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND FOUNDATION SYSTEM 33
21
36
36
37
40
8.4
42
ANNEX A
A1
A2
A.3
A.4
A.5
ANNEX B
B.1
B.2
B.3
B.4
B.5
B.6
B.7
CONTENT (SCOPE)
IDENTIFICATION OF THE GEOMETRY OF THE STRUCTURE, COMPOSITIONAL
DETAILS AND MATERIALS USED FOR THE BUILDING
CRITERIA FOR QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT OF THE STATE OF DEGRADATION OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
ADMISSIBLE VALUES OF AVERAGE UNITARY STRESSES WHEN LEVEL 1
METHODOLOGY IS APPLIED
REDUCTION COEFFICIENTS FOR STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS IN LEVEL 2
METHODOLOGY
PLASTIC ROTATION CAPACITIES IN STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS WHEN LEVEL 3
METHODOLOGY IS APPLIED
ANNEX C
C.1
C.2
C.3
C.4
C.5
C.6
C.7
FIELD OF APPLICATION
IDENTIFICATION OF THE GEOMETRY OF THE STRUCTURE, COMPOSITIONAL
DETAILS AND MATERIALS USED FOR THE BUILDING
CRITERIA FOR QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT OF THE STATE OF DEGRADATION OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
ADMISSIBLE VALUES OF THE AVERAGE STRAINS WHEN LEVEL 1
METHODOLOGY IS APPLIED
REDUCTION COEFFICIENTS FOR STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS WHEN LEVEL 2
METHODOLOGY IS APPLIED
NON-ELASTIC DEFORMATION CAPACITIES IN STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS WHEN
LEVEL 3 METHODOLOGY IS APPLIED
ANNEX D
D.1.
D.2.
D.3.
ANNEX E
E.1.
E.2.
GENERAL INFORMATION
SEISMIC SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF NSC
1. GENERAL ASPECTS
1.1. Scope
(1)
The scope of code P100 is defined in P100 1/2006, 1.1, whilst the scope of the
present part of the code is defined in (2), (4) and (5) of this section. The other component
parts of P100 are indicated in P1001/2006, 1.1.3.
(2)
The aim of P100-3, Part I is to establish criteria for assessing the seismic performance
of existing structures, considered individually.
NOTE Seismic assessment refers to both constructions degraded by previous earthquake action, and
existing constructions that are seismically vulnerable, which have not yet been subjected to significant
seismic actions.
(3)
Reflecting the basic requirements established by P100 1/2006, P100-3:2008 deals
with the issues of existing constructions that are made of ordinary structural materials:
concrete, steel and masonry, as well as the non-structural components (NSC) of buildings.
NOTE Annexes B, C and D contain supplementary data for the assessment of constructions made of
reinforced concrete, steel and masonry, respectively. Annex E refers to the assessment of the nonstructural components (NSC) of buildings.
(4)
The provisions of the present code can also be applied to the seismic assessment of
historical monuments and buildings, provided that these do not contravene to the specific
concepts, approaches and procedures stipulated in regulatory documents in force in this field.
(5)
Recent constructions whose design and execution benefited from the application of
modern design and codes of practice do not require a seismic assessment, unless their owners
wish to improve their performance compared to the initial performance.
All constructions designed in accordance with Standard P100/92 and constructions designed
in accordance with P100/82, which are at least 5 storeys high, can be included in this
category regardless of the construction system that was used.
(6)
(i)
reflect the level of knowledge at the moment when the construction was built,
(ii)
(iii) may have suffered from previous earthquake actions and non-seismic actions with
unknown results,
structural assessment shall be carried out with a different degree of confidence than the one
associated with the design of new constructions. Therefore, different safety factor values are
necessary for materials and structures, depending on how complete the available information
is and its degree of certainty.
1.2
Normative references
(1)
The present code incorporates provisions from other regulatory documents. The
general regulatory documents are given in (1.2.1), whilst references to other documents are
given in the text below, where necessary.
Basic hypotheses
(1)
(2)
The provisions of the present code imply that the data is obtained and tests are carried
out by experienced personnel, and the assessing engineer has the experience required for the
type of structure assessed.
1.4
(1.4) Definitions
The definitions given in P10-1/2006, 1.5. are valid.
1.5
Symbols
(1)
(2)
The additional symbols used in the present code are defined in the text, where they
occur.
1.6
S.I. UNITS
(1)
Fundamental requirements
(1)
The seismic assessment of existing buildings aims to determine whether these meet,
with an adequate degree of confidence, the fundamental requirements (performance levels)
taken into consideration when designing new buildings, in accordance with P100-1/2006, 2.1.
(2)
The fundamental requirements, i.e. the life safety requirement and the degradation
limitation requirement, respectively, as well as the associated limit states (ultimate limit state
ULS and service limit state SLS), are defined in P100-1/2006, 2.1(1), which also indicates the
reference average recurrence intervals (ARI) of the seismic actions taken into consideration
for the two limit states when designing new constructions.
(3)
For existing constructions, these requirements can be met for a level of seismic action
that is lower than the one taken into consideration when designing new constructions and for
earthquakes with lower ARIs, respectively, depending on their importance class, earthquake
exposure and future period of operation. The minimum level of seismic safety assurance for
existing constructions of various categories, as well as the minimum level that must be
obtained by carrying out consolidation works, are given in 8.4.
(4)
The required safety for constructions belonging to various classes of importance and
earthquake exposure shall be differentiated using the importance factor I, in accordance with
P100-1/2006, 4.4.5.
(5)
For constructions of high importance or buildings with special functions, or when the
owner of the building wishes to, the investigation may also take into consideration other
performance levels and/or other values of the ARI for earthquakes at the site.
The main aspects for the assessment of constructions based on their seismic performance are
stipulated in Annex A of the present code.
2.2. Criteria for compliance with the performance requirements
2.2.1 General aspects
(1)
The requirements mentioned in 2.1 are met by adopting the seismic action
representation, models and calculation methods, verifications and detailing procedures
stipulated in this part of P100, specific to different materials in the field (reinforced concrete,
steel, masonry).
(2)
(4)
Upon verification of the structural elements, a distinction will be made between
ductile and fragile elements. The method for classification of the elements, as ductile or
fragile, is established in the annexes of the present code, corresponding to the different
materials used.
(5)
Ductile elements shall be checked as a function of the type of calculation method, in
terms of deformations or in terms of resistance. Fragile elements shall always be checked in
terms of resistance.
(6)
When calculating the resistance capacity of structural elements, the average values for
the properties of the materials used in the project, obtained following in-situ tests and from
other additional information sources, shall be used to assess the resistance design values, by
dividing them by the confidence factors defined in 3.5 and by taking into consideration the
level of knowledge available.
For ductile elements, the design resistances shall be obtained by dividing the average values,
reduced as shown above, by the partial safety factors of the materials.
For fragile elements, the design resistance values shall be obtained by dividing the
characteristic resistances by the partial safety factors of the material.
NOTE The values allocated to the partial safety factors for concrete, steel, masonry or other
materials are established by the specific design codes for the structures made of these materials.
(7)
For newly added materials (upon consolidation of structural elements), the design
values of their properties shall be used.
2.2.2 Ultimate limit state (ULS)
(1)
The requirements shall be determined based on the seismic action that is relevant for
this limit state (chapters 3 and 10 of P100-1/2006). The requirements for ductile elements and
fragile elements is obtained from the structural calculation, except for the situation in which a
linear calculation method is used, when the requirements for fragile elements shall be
determined as shown at 6.8.4(5).
(2)
The capacity of the elements shall be determined based on the deformations
acceptable for this limit state, if the verification is carried out in terms of displacement and
the resistances established in accordance with 2.2.1(6), if the verification is carried out in
terms of resistance.
The deformations shall be determined in accordance with the provisions given in the specific
annexes for structures made of different materials (annexes B, C and D). If a non-linear
structural calculation is used, the resistance of fragile elements shall be determined in
accordance with the instructions given in annexes B, C and D.
2.2.3 Service limit state (SLS)
(1)
The requirements shall be determined based on the seismic action that is relevant for
this limit state. For this purpose, the reduction factors for the requirements corresponding to
SLS, given in 4.5.4 of P100-1/2006, can be used.
(2)
The verification of structures and non-structural components at SLS consists of
comparing the requirement with the deformation capacity of the elements. Normally, the
verification is carried out in terms of relative level displacements.
7
If using non-linear calculation methods, the verifications can also refer to the admissible
plastic rotations for this limit state, in the critical areas of the structure.
NOTE For ordinary existing constructions, verification at the SLS is not compulsory, but is
always useful, as it highlights important seismic behaviour aspects that help to characterise the
construction from the point of view of its degree of compliance with the seismic composition
requirements (8.2(3)).
(4)
The seismic assessment of building structures shall be carried out based on the
general qualitative assessment criteria given in chapter 5.7, the models and the general
calculation methods given in chapter 6.
When applying these, the specific compositional aspects of the structures made of different
materials, which are stipulated in annex B for reinforced concrete structures, annex C for
steel structures and annex D for buildings with structural walls made of reinforced concrete,
should be taken into consideration. For masonry constructions, some models and calculation
procedures given in annex D take up forms which, although in compliance with the general
models and methods, are not in line with their detailed formulation.
NSC shall be assessed based on the procedures stipulated in annex E.
Based on the conclusions of its qualitative and quantitative assessment, the examined
construction shall be allocated to a risk class. The definition of the risk classes and the
classification criteria are given in 8.1 and 8.2.
(5)
Starting from the risk class that the construction belongs to and the main
characteristics determined by the qualitative assessment and assessment through calculation,
and taking into account the importance class of the building and the subsequent period of
operation stipulated for the construction, it will be determined whether consolidation is
necessary and the minimum safety level that must be obtained by applying the intervention
measures (8.4).
10
(3)
Depending on the quantity and quality of the information obtained, different values of
the confidence factors shall be adopted, as shown at 4.3.
The factors taken into consideration when establishing the level of knowledge are:
(i) Geometry of the structure: overall dimensions of the structure and structural elements, as
well as those of non-structural elements that affect the structural response (for example,
masonry load-bearing panels) or life safety (for example, major masonry elements fire
walls, gables).
(ii) Composition of the structural and non-structural elements, including the quantity and
details of the reinforcement in reinforced concrete elements, the details and joints of steel
elements, the connectors between the floors and the lateral force resisting structure, the
formation of mortar joints and the nature of elements in masonry constructions, the type and
materials of NSC and their joints, etc.
(iii) Materials used for the structure and NSC, and the mechanical properties of concrete,
steel, masonry or wood, respectively, as applicable.
NOTE Additional information specific to structures made of different materials and NSC is given in
the corresponding annexes.
(3)
The level of knowledge obtained determines the admissible calculation method and
the values of the confidence factors (CF). The way in which the necessary data is obtained is
indicated in 4.4.
The way in which the calculation methods and confidence factors are determined is stipulated
in table 4.1. The terms visual, full, limited, extended and comprehensive are
defined in 4.4.
12
KL2
KL3
Values
established
based on the
standards valid
during the
building period
and
from limited
in-situ tests
From the
original design
specifications
and limited insitu tests
or
from extended
in-situ testing
of the quality
of the materials
From original
reports
regarding the
quality of the
materials and
limited in-situ
tests
or
from
comprehensive
testing
CF
Detailed
composition
.
From
original
overall
plans and
random
visual insitu
inspection
or a full
survey of
the building
Calculation
Geometry
KL1
Materials
Level of
knowledge
LF-MRS
CF=1.35
Any method, in
accordance with
P100 - 1/ 2006
CF=1.20
Any method, in
accordance with
P100 - 1/ 2006
CF=1.0
(i) with regard to geometry: Overall configuration of the structure and the dimensions of the
structural elements are known, either (a) from surveys, or (b) from the original overall plans
and any potential modifications that may have occurred during the operation period. In case
(b), random inspection of the overall dimensions and dimensions of the elements is normally
13
sufficient; if any significant differences are found as compared to the provisions of the outline
construction drawings, a more extensive survey of the dimensions shall be drawn up.
(ii) with regard to the detailed composition: the execution plans for the structure of the
building are not available, and details are chosen starting from the standard practice from the
period of construction; samples will be taken from a few of the elements considered to be
critical and the extent to which the hypotheses adopted correspond to reality shall be
determined. If significant differences are found, the in-situ investigation shall also be
extended to other elements.
(iii) with regard to materials: no direct information about the characteristics of the building
materials is available, either from the project specifications or quality reports. Values shall be
chosen in accordance with the standards valid at the time the building was erected, associated
with limited in-situ testing of the elements considered to be critical (essential) for the
structure.
(2)
The information gathered must be sufficient in order to carry out local verifications of
the capacity of the elements and build a calculation model for the structure.
(3)
A KL1-based assessment of the structure can be carried out by performing a linear
calculation.
4.3.3 KL2 Normal knowledge
(1)
(i) with regard to geometry: the overall configuration of the structure and the dimensions of
the elements are known, either (a) from an extended survey, or (b) from the original overall
plans and any potential modifications that may have occurred during the period of operation.
In case (b), in-situ random inspection of the overall dimensions and the dimensions of the
elements is necessary; if significant differences are found when compared to the project
specifications, a more extensive survey shall be conducted.
(ii) with regard to the detailed composition: the details are known, either from an extended
in-situ inspection, or from an incomplete set of execution plans. In the latter case, limited insitu inspections of the elements considered to be the most important shall be required, to find
out whether the available information corresponds to reality.
(iii) with regard to materials: information about the mechanical characteristics of the
materials is obtained from either extended in-situ testing, or from the original design
specifications. In the latter case, limited in-situ tests shall be carried out.
(2)
The information gathered must be sufficient in order to carry out local verifications of
the capacity of the elements and build a calculation model for the structure.
(3)
KL2-based assessment of the structure can be carried out based on a linear or nonlinear calculation, either static or dynamic.
4.3.4 KL3 Full knowledge
(1)
14
(i) with regard to geometry: the overall geometry of the structure and the dimensions of the
elements are known, either (a) from a comprehensive survey, or (b) from the original and
complete overall plans and any potential modifications that may have occurred during the
period of operation. In case (b), random inspection of the overall dimensions and dimensions
of the elements is necessary; if significant differences are found compared to the provisions
of the overall plans, a more extensive survey shall be conducted.
(ii) with regard to the detailed composition: the details are known, either from a
comprehensive in-situ inspection, or from a complete set of execution plans. In the latter
case, limited in-situ inspections of the elements considered to be the most important shall be
required, to find out whether the available information corresponds to reality.
(iii) with regard to materials: information about the mechanical characteristics of the
materials is obtained either from comprehensive in-situ testing, or from the original
documents regarding the quality of execution. In the latter case, limited in-situ tests shall also
be carried out.
(2)
(3)
structural components and main NSC, their dimensions, as well as the structural system
responsible for the absorption of vertical and lateral actions
4.4.5 Details
(1)
Methods can be used to obtain information about the execution details of structural
elements and joints between them, as follows:
4.4.5.1 Simulated design
(1)
Simulated design is a procedure that determines the quantity and position of
longitudinal and transversal reinforcements (or the composition of metallic elements) in the
elements that take part in the absorption of vertical and horizontal loads. The design is based
on the regulatory documents and practice in force in the period when the building was built.
4.4.2.2. Limited in-situ inspection
(1)
A limited in-situ inspection aims to check correspondence between structural details
and the execution details given in the project plans, or generated by simulated design, in
accordance with 4.4.2.1. This implies that all inspections shall be carried out in accordance
with 4.4.4(1). Details shall be identified by localised deroofing, pachometry, etc.
4.4.2.3 Extended in-situ inspection
(1)
An extended in-situ inspection shall be carried out when the original drawings
containing execution details are not available. This implies that all inspections shall be
carried out in accordance with 4.4.4(1).
4.4.2.4 Comprehensive in-situ inspection
(1)
A comprehensive in-situ inspection shall be carried out when the original drawings
containing execution details are not available and a higher level of knowledge is desired. This
implies that all inspections shall be carried out in accordance with 4.4.4(1).
4.4.3 Materials
4.4.3.1 Destructive and non-destructive tests
(1)
Non-destructive testing methods (such as sclerometric testing, ultrasound testing, etc.)
can be used, but only if accompanied by destructive tests carried out on concrete or masonry
cores, or fragments of metallic constructions.
(2)
The assessing engineer shall identify the areas where the material is degraded for
various reasons (execution defects, corrosion, physical degradation) and, depending on the
proportions of such degradation, determine the extent to which these affect the resistance of
structural elements and the extent to which the tests carried out on the material are significant
in characterising the resistance of the elements in their assembly.
In these conditions, the number of tests can be reduced, provided that an adequate increase in
the values of the safety factors and/or localised repairs of the degraded areas is ensured.
16
(3) One of the testing programmes indicated below (4.4.3.2, 4.4.3.3, 4.4.3.4) shall be adopted,
depending on the volume and credibility of the initial information regarding the quality of the
structural materials.
4.4.3.2 Limited in-situ tests
(1)
Limited in-situ testing programmes supplement the information about the properties
of the materials that was obtained from the standards at the time of construction, the
specifications of the original drawings or documents regarding the quality of execution. This
programme requires that the tests indicated in 4.4.4(1) are carried out. However, if the values
obtained by testing are lower than the values that would result from the other sources, an
extended in-situ testing programme is necessary.
4.4.3.3 Extensive in-situ tests
(1)
Extended in-situ testing programmes aim to obtain information when neither the
specifications of the initial drawings nor documents regarding the quality of the materials
used are available. It is necessary for the tests indicated in 4.4.4(1) to be carried out.
17
The assessment shall identify the causes for the degradation of the materials
- low quality of concrete and/or its physical degradation (for example, due to freeze-thaw) or
chemical degradation (for example, carbonation or corrosion caused by various chemical and
biological agents);
- areas with execution defects that affect the resistance of the materials and structural
elements (for example, the segregated concrete area, areas with pour joints made incorrectly,
joining by improper welding of steel elements, etc.);
- the presence and degree of corrosion of steel (reinforcements);
- the state of adherence between concrete and reinforcements;
- the significant remnant deformations and cracks present in the structural elements, with
various configurations and directions. Open cracks larger than 0.5 mm are of particular
interest. For structural walls, inclined cracks, especially x-shaped ones, will be examined as
a priority. For pillars and girders, the potential non-ductile yielding situations and the effects
of their interaction with the partition and closure walls shall be observed.
Examination of the state of the elements and materials shall be recorded in a detailed
degradation survey (in plane and elevation), in order to determine the effects on the overall
safety of the structure.
(4)
18
- rust, corrosion or other degradation of the steel (for example, fatigue cracks)
- remnant deformations due to post-elastic behaviour or loss of stability (buckling, fogging)
- condition of the joining elements: welds, screws, rivets.
(5)
For masonry constructions, the specific information needed for safety assessment are
detailed in Annex D.
(6)
19
5. QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
5.1 Aim of the qualitative assessment
(1)
Qualitative assessment aims to determine the extent to which the general conformity
rules for structures and the detailing rules for structural and non-structural elements are
complied with in the constructions analysed. The nature and extent of the compositional
deficiencies are essential criteria for deciding upon structural intervention and consolidation
solutions. The main qualitative assessment components concern the following categories of
conditions.
(2)
A comprehensive qualitative assessment of some of the composition requirements
also implies that determinations will be carried out, through calculation, for certain resistance
and rigidity characteristics of the structural elements. This means that a final qualitative
picture of the seismic response of the construction will take shape once the structural
calculation has been carried out.
5.2 Conditions regarding the load path
(1)
These conditions refer to the existence of a continuous structural system that is strong
enough to ensure an uninterrupted path, which is as short as possible, and in any direction, for
the seismic forces from any point in the structure to the foundation ground. The seismic
forces that appear in all elements of the building as mass forces must be sent, via the
horizontal diaphragms (floors), to the elements of the vertical structure (for example,
structural walls or frames) which, in turn, send them to the foundations and the ground.
When assessing the construction, potential discontinuities in this path must be identified. For
example, a large opening in the floor, the lack of collectors and suspending elements in the
floor, poor joining between the walls and the floor, insufficient anchoring and joining of
reinforcements to the reinforced concrete, poor welding to the metallic elements, etc.
Also, floors that are not sufficiently reinforced within their plane cannot, in many situations,
ensure that the horizontal forces are sent to the main elements of the lateral structure.
Such deficiencies can more often be found in old buildings in which changes have been
made.
In the case of non-structural components, the way in which their weight and the related
seismic forces (supporting, hanging) are sent to the elements of the structure shall be mainly
assessed, together with the capacity of structural elements and the respective joints to absorb
these forces.
5.3 Conditions regarding redundancy
(1)
The assessment shall determine the extent to which the following two conditions are
fulfilled:
- reaching the capable stress in one or a few of the elements of the structure does not expose
the structure to a loss of stability.
- under severe seismic actions, a plasticisation mechanism occurs that enables exploitation of
the resistance reserves of the structure and an advantageous dissipation of seismic energy.
5.4 Conditions regarding the building configuration
20
(1)
The assessment must identify deviations from the compactness, symmetry and
regularity requirements, which can have a negative effect on the seismic response. This way,
all discontinuities in the distribution of rigidity upon lateral displacement, as well as the
distribution of lateral resistance, geometry and masses shall be identified. Irregularities may
occur in either the vertical or the horizontal.
(2)
In the case of buildings whose floors have negligible rigidity in the horizontal plane,
the conditions given in (1) are meaningless (see annex D).
A. Vertical irregularities
(1)
Discontinuities in the distribution of lateral rigidities.
Any potential storeys with low rigidity shall be identified. A storey is considered to be
flexible if its lateral rigidity is at least 25% lower than that of the adjacent storeys. On these
storeys, second order effects are increased, and it is here that the conditions for structural
deformations must be verified as a priority.
The negative effects of rigidity discontinuities are concentrated on the flexible storeys of
constructions whose other storeys are rigid.
(2)
Discontinuities in the distribution of lateral resistance
The low resistance storeys, on which plastic deformations within the structure can
concentrate, shall be identified. A weak storey is a storey on which resistance to lateral forces
is 15% lower than that of the adjacent storeys. The possibility for the formation of a weak
storey mechanism shall be checked for each storey.
(3)
Conditions for geometrical regularity
Any situation in which the horizontal dimensions of the structural system that plays an active
role in absorbing the horizontal forces displays differences 30% larger than the dimensions
on the adjacent storeys shall be considered to be a significant geometrical discontinuity, for
example, by designing a large gap in the floors of theatre and conference halls, with localised
interruption of some of the lateral structure elements, or by retracting the structure on the
upper storeys towards the interior.
Larger differences are permitted on the last storey.
(4)
Conditions regarding mass distribution regularity
It is considered that mass distribution irregularities have a significant effect on the seismic
response of structures if the mass of a storey is at least 50% larger than those on the adjacent
storeys.
(5)
Discontinuities in the configuration of the structural system
Significant deviations from the monotony of the structural system, such as the interruption of
walls or pillars on certain storeys, changes in the dimensions of certain walls, or planar
deviation of certain elements from one storey to another, shall be identified. The assessment
must identify the effects of these discontinuities, such as stress increases within the pillars
that support interrupted walls, the stress status of the floor transfer diaphragm, etc.
B. Planar irregularities
21
(1)
Assessment of constructions shall aim to identify structures in which an imbalanced
distribution of the elements, structural sub-systems and/or masses produces unfavourable
overall torsional effects. In addition to determining torsional behaviour within the elastic
range, the seismic torsional response in the post-elastic range shall also be estimated, by
examining the relationship between the centre of mass and the centre of resistance of the
structure. In this context, the structures exposed to torsional instabilities shall be investigated.
5.5 Conditions regarding the interaction of the structure with other constructions or
elements
5.5.1 Conditions regarding the distance from neighbouring constructions
(1)
It shall be checked whether the distances between neighbouring buildings comply
with the conditions given in P100- /2006.
The possible effects of a collision between the two neighbouring buildings shall be
investigated. Thus:
- if the floors are offset, these can cause shocks by hitting the pillars of the neighbouring
construction,
- if the constructions differ in height, the lower and more rigid construction can act as a
support for the taller one; the possible effects are the application of an additional force on the
lower construction, whilst the taller construction will suffer a significant rigidity
discontinuity, which modifies its seismic response,
- when the constructions are of equal height and have similar structural systems, with the
floors on the same level, the effect of any collision is insignificant, and therefore joints of
different dimensions can be used, regardless of how small they are.
5.5.2 Conditions regarding split-levels
(1)
The references in this section refer to floors with a limited surface area that are
located in the interior, between the current storeys of the construction, which are usually
added to the initial construction at a later date. To ensure stability under lateral forces, two
solutions can be taken into consideration:
- building an intrinsic structure that ensures resistance to lateral forces;
- anchoring to the main structure, which must be able to absorb the forces given by the
intermediary floor.
The seismic assessment must determine whether the split-level is ensured against lateral
forces by one of the two types of solution mentioned above.
5.5.3 Conditions regarding non-structural components
(1)
The examination carried out as part of a qualitative assessment must determine the
relationship between the structure and non-structural components, as well as the type and
quality of the connections between them.
(2)
For structures with reinforced concrete or metallic frames, the following aspects shall
be mainly identified:
22
- the extent to which the distribution of non-load bearing walls with no structural role but
which, due to their actual structure, act as structural elements, affects the vertical regularity
(for example, by creating weak storeys) and the horizontal regularity (by creating a
significant eccentricity between the centre of mass and the centre of rigidity) of the
construction;
- any potential situations of uncontrolled interaction with non-load bearing walls or other
constructive elements (formation of short pillars, for example).
(3)
The specific aspects that qualitatively define the seismic behaviour of non-structural
constructive elements, equipment and installations inside buildings are given in Annex E.
5.6 Specific conditions for the composition of different categories of structures
(1)
The conditions refer to the correct composition rules for individual structures and
structural elements, and the connections between them, so that the expected seismic response
of the construction is favourable.
The conditions take into consideration an adequate hierarchy of structural resistance, in order
to ensure the development of favourable seismic energy dissipation mechanisms and provide
the critical areas with sufficient deformability in the post-elastic range.
During the assessment, any potential compositional deficiencies that could favour the
premature fragile rupturing of some elements, or instability phenomena, shall be identified.
These conditions, which depend on the type of structure and the nature of the structural
material, are detailed in the annexes of the present code, for reinforced concrete structures,
steel structures and masonry structures.
The conditions are presented in the form of lists of criteria for correct composition of the
elements, whose complexity depends on the type of assessment methodology given in the
annexes corresponding to the structures made of reinforced concrete, steel and masonry
(annexes B, C and D).
Some of these conditions refer to the resistance of sections, others are compositional
measures (constructive rules) for elements that are part of seismic structures. Although the
resistance conditions can also be approximated by qualitative assessment methods,
quantitative determinations can only be carried out through calculation.
5.7 Conditions for the horizontal diaphragms of buildings
(1)
The seismic assessment of buildings must determine the extent to which the floors
fulfil their structural role of safely distributing the horizontal seismic loads to the vertical
structural sub-systems (for example, structural walls and frames).
The behaviour of floors is optimum when they are built as rigid diaphragms that are resistant
to forces applied within their plane. These conditions are fulfilled to the maximum level by
floors made of monolithic reinforced concrete.
(2)
In the case of structures with walls, the floor must ensure lateral support of walls
when normal loads are applied to their surface.
(3)
The objectives of the assessment of horizontal concrete diaphragms are the specific
aspects that intervene in the building of wall girders, namely:
- absorption of flexural tensile stresses. During the assessment, it must be checked whether
the reinforcements located between the floor border elements (girdles and girders) and the
23
elements in the plates region are sufficient and if these reinforcements are continuous and
properly connected to the plate;
- transmitting reactions from the floor to its supports, walls or girders via reinforcements used
for adequate connection. These connections can also be used to anchor masonry walls when
normal forces are applied to their plane;
- collecting the forces distributed within the mass of the floors and transmitting them to the
elements of the vertical structure when the continuity of the connection between them and the
horizontal diaphragms is interrupted with gaps, or when the floor load is transferred to the
vertical structure via tensile stresses. Inertial forces shall be collected by steel reinforcements
with a sufficiently large cross-section, which are correctly anchored in the floor mass and
elements of the vertical structure;
- suspending the loads distributed within the floor mass by using adequate reinforcements,
when the stresses in the direction of action of the seismic force are tensile stresses;
- absorbing any stresses that may occur in the recessed corners of the floors by using suitably
anchored border reinforcements;
- absorbing any stresses around large gaps, by using reinforcements with dimensions that are
based on adequate calculation methods and are properly anchored in the floor mass.
(4)
In the case of steel floors, the functions of the diaphragm floors shall be verified, in
accordance with their detailed composition.
(5)
The assessment shall determine the effects that the discontinuities created by staircase
openings have on the behaviour of the structure, such as short element-type stressing of the
pillars, due to their interception by the staircase ramps and on levels other than the floors.
(6)
For buildings whose floors do not have a significant in-plane rigidity (floors made of
girders and wooden planks, floors made of metallic girders and brick arches, floors made of
small prefabricates without a concrete overlayer), the qualitative and quantitative seismic
assessment shall be carried out using specific criteria and procedures (for buildings with
masonry structural walls, see annex D).
5.8 Conditions regarding the infrastructure and foundation ground
(1)
The seismic assessment of constructions aims to determine, as one of the principal
components, the extent to which the foundation system fulfils its structural role. For this
purpose:
(i) the foundation system (and, if applicable, the infrastructure) shall be identified and the
extent to which this system possesses the required rigidity in order to transmit the actions of
the superstructure to the ground in a sufficiently uniform manner shall be assessed;
(ii) the nature of the ground and any potential differential settlement or remnant
deformations due to earthquake actions or other causes, as well as their effects, whether
manifest or potential, on the elements of the structures, including the foundations, shall be
identified.
(2)
During examination of the foundation (infrastructure) system, the composition
requirements stipulated in the Normative document for foundation design NP 112-04 shall
also be checked.
24
(3)
Assessment of foundations shall also take into consideration the potential presence of
water above the foundation level and its effects on the foundation and basement elements,
including from a durability point of view.
(4)
Assessment of the foundation system and the ground shall also determine the potential
effects of interaction with the buildings located in their immediate vicinity, especially if these
were built after the building being examined.
(5)
25
26
When using calculation methods in the elastic range, one shall take into consideration the
lateral force values obtained by reducing the elastic response forces by the behaviour factor.
(2)
- regular constructions with frames made of reinforced concrete, with or without masonry
non-load bearing walls, up to 3 storeys high, located in seismic areas with ag values 0.12 g;
- constructions with structural walls made of non-reinforced masonry or confined masonry,
with floors made of reinforced concrete or floors without significant rigidity in the horizontal
plane, under the conditions stipulated in annex D;
27
(3)
Type 1 assessment methodology can also be optionally used to analyse more complex
or important constructions, in order to obtain preliminary information.
(4)
(i) A qualitative assessment of the construction based on the criteria for design, composition
and detailing of constructions. The results of the qualitative examination are entered in a list
that will show if, and to what extent, the construction and its elements meet the criteria for
correct composition. The lists of conditions are given in the annexes specific to structures
made of different materials.
(ii) Verifications through calculation, rapid structural calculation methods and quick
verifications of the stress status (of the seismic action effects) in the essential elements of the
structure.
6.7.2 Assessment through calculation
(1) The effects of the design seismic action (stresses and deformations) shall be assessed
taking into consideration the structure loaded with the equivalent lateral force (see P1001/2006), and simplified calculation methods regarding the distribution of forces between the
vertical elements of the structure and for determining the stresses, intrinsic vibration periods,
etc. Verifications shall only refer to the ultimate limit state.
The value of the behaviour factor of the structure shall be taken as a function of the nature of
the structure and the material that this is made of, as follows:
28
Fb I Sd T1 m
where:
Sd(T1)
T1
m
I
(6.1)
(3)
The fundamental intrinsic vibration period of the building in the given direction T,
necessary in order to determine the spectral value Sd, can be calculated with the expression:
T kT H
where:
kT
(6.2)
coefficient with a value equal to 0.07 for structures with reinforced concrete
frames, and 0.045 for structures with reinforced concrete walls and masonry
walls
0.110 for steel structures with frames without wind bracing
29
0.075 for steel structures with frames with eccentric wind bracing
0.050 for steel structures with frames with centric wind bracing
height of the building (in m) above the base (of the section where embedding
of the structure is permitted)
For buildings with a structure made of reinforced concrete frames and up to 10 storeys above
the ground, the following relationship can alternatively be used to approximate the
fundamental period:
T = 0.1n
(6.3)
where n is the number of storeys above the base
(4)
The lateral force provided by relationship (6.1) shall be distributed based on the
approximate relationship.
mz
(6.4)
Fi Fb n i i
mi zi
1
where:
Fi
is the shear force on storey i;
Fb
equivalent static seismic force;
n
total number of storeys;
mi
mass of storey i;
zi
height of storey i from the base of the construction that is considered in the
calculation model
(5)
The average values of the normal unitary stresses created in the pillar and wall
sections by vertical loads shall be determined based on the corresponding floor areas, using
the values of the loads considered in the load group that includes the seismic action, in
accordance with CR 0-2005.
The component of the indirect axial force from the lateral force shall only be taken into
consideration for marginal pillars. Its value shall be determined based on the shear forces
within the adjacent girders, estimated at the extremities of the girders.
(6)
The average values of the tangential unitary stresses, vm in the vertical elements of the
structure, pillars or walls, shall be determined with the approximate relationship:
F
m b
(6.5a)
Ac
where Ac is the sum of the areas of the walls positioned in the calculation direction or the
sum of the areas of the sections of the pillars of the frames oriented in the calculation
direction. For steel pillars, only the area of the section walls oriented in the calculation
direction shall be considered.
(7)
The average values of the normal strains in the diagonals of vertical wind braces shall
be determined with the approximate relationship:
Fb
m
(6.5b)
A c cos
where Accos is the sum of the horizontal projections of the areas of the diagonals of the
wind braces positioned in the calculation direction.
30
(8)
The values of the normal unitary stresses within pillars and the tangential unitary
stresses within all of the vertical structural elements of the construction shall be compared
with values considered to be admissible for structures made of various materials. The
admissible values are given in the list of conditions that the construction must fulfil (see
annexes B, C, D).
(9)
If the resistance verifications are not satisfied, it is advisable to apply a higher level
methodology, if this will make it possible for the construction to be included in a lower risk
class. Generally, if intervention measures are required, they are not based on the results
provided by level 1 methodology. An exception is the constructions indicated at 6.7.1(2).
6.8 Level 2 methodology
6.8.1 Field of application
(1)
Level 2 assessment methodology shall apply to all buildings to which level 1
methodology cannot be applied.
(2)
Level 2 methodology involves: (i) a qualitative assessment, which consists of
checking the structural composition list (more detailed than for level 1 methodology) given in
the annexes corresponding to structures made of various materials and (ii) a quantitative
assessment based on elastic structural calculation and behaviour factors differentiated for
each type of element.
6.8.2 Principle of the calculation method
(1)
Earthquake effects are approximated using a set of conventional forces applied to the
construction. The size of the lateral forces is set so that the displacements (deformations)
obtained following a linear calculation of the structure under these forces shall approximate
the deformations of the structure due to seismic forces.
NOTE Due to the fact that, for most earthquakes, the elastic response displacements are at the
upper limit for non-linear seismic displacements (real displacements), the lateral forces applied to
the structure are those corresponding to the assessed elastic seismic response based on the
response spectrum that was not reduced by q factors. The equal displacement rule (fig. 6.1) shall
be valid as long as the period of the construction is larger than the T c value of the spectrum. In the
situations in which this condition is not fulfilled, the real displacements are superior to those
corresponding to the elastic response, and corrections must be applied in order to assess them.
Thus, in the case of Vrancea earthquakes registered in the Romanian Plain (Campia Romana) for
which Tc = 1/6 sec., most buildings are within the 0 Tc range. For this reason, when
displacements at the ULS are assessed, the correction is applied using the c factors given in
6.8.4(2).
(2)
Under the action of the design earthquake, the construction will exceed the elastic
threshold and the stresses formed in the elements of the structure due to the application of a
conventional lateral force will exceed the stresses corresponding to the actual resistances.
The verification relationship depends on the type of yielding, whether ductile or fragile, of
the given structural element under various types of stress (M, V, N).
31
In the case of ductile yielding, the verification shall be carried out by comparing the stress
registered under the action of lateral and gravitational forces, divided by a reduction factor
whose value is specific to the nature of the rupture of the element under the given type of
stress, with the capable stress. The latter shall be determined by dividing the average
resistance of the materials by the confidence factors and the partial safety factors.
NOTE The reduction factors are different from one element to another, depending on the potential
type of rupture. The individual reduction factor corresponds to a behaviour factor which, in turn,
corresponds to a hypothetical structure that mobilises the potential ductility of the given element.
The reduction factors correlate the elastic force with the inelastic force that causes the same
deformations of the element.
More significant information than the information provided by the methodology stipulated in
P100/92(96), which is based on a reduction factor that is unique for each structure and is mainly
determined in an arbitrary way, shall be obtained by carrying out comparisons between stresses
and capacities for each structural element.
Elastic response
Behaviour in accordance with the equal
displacement rule
(3)
In the case of non-ductile yielding (fragile yielding), the verification consists of
comparing the stress resulting under the action of lateral and gravitational forces associated
with the plasticisation of the ductile structural elements of the structure, with the value of the
capable stress calculated with the minimum material strength values (with the characteristic
values divided by CF and the partial safety factors). In other words, the fragile
elements/mechanisms are verified at stress values calculated from the conditions of
equilibrium, based on the stresses transmitted to the non-ductile elements by the ductile
elements.
32
(4)
The q values corresponding to the properties of various types of structures made of
reinforced concrete, steel or masonry are given in the annexes of the present code for
structures made of such materials.
where:
T
Tc
T
2
Tc
(3)
Carrying out resistance verifications at the ULS depends on the ductile or fragile
yielding of the structural element under the action of the given stress (action effect).
The character of the element yielding is defined in the annexes for structures made of various
materials.
33
(4)
The sectional stresses in elements with inelastic behaviour shall be assessed using the
principle relationship:
1
(6.6)
E d E *E E g
q
where:
Ed
total calculation stress
E *E
34
35
used, defined as a function of the period and resistance of the equivalent system with a single
degree of freedom.
In order to assess the displacement stress , expression (6.8) can also be used, which is based
on the "equal displacement" rule
T
cS e
where:
Se
c
(6.8)
(iv) The displacement stress at the top of the structure shall be obtained using the inverse
equating relationships defined in point (ii) and the spectral value determined in point (iii).
(v) The structure shall be pushed until the displacement stress determined in point (iv) is
reached, and then the following shall be checked:
- relative storey displacements;
- resistance of the elements with fragile yield;
- deformation capacity of the elements with ductile yield.
Deformation of the structure, until a peak displacement equal to 150% of the value
determined in point (iv) is reached, is recommended, in order to identify any potential rupture
mechanisms and structural deficiencies.
Each individual element shall be verified in terms of the rotation in the plastic joints, for
ductile elements, and in terms of resistance, for elements with fragile yield.
The capable values of the plastic rotations as a function of the actual composition of the
elements are given in the annexes for structures made of various materials. These values
contain the safety coefficients.
Non-ductile elements (with potential rupture under shear forces) shall be checked in
accordance with the provisions given in 6.8.2(3).
(vi) The base shear force lateral displacement curve also enables overall verifications of the
structure at the ULS:
a) in terms of displacement, by comparing the displacement stress determined in (iv) with
the capable displacement, which is approximately defined as the lateral displacement at the
top of the structure where the rupture (exceeding the rotation capacity or rupture under shear
forces, where applicable) occurs in the first vertical element that is essential for the stability
of the building.
b) In terms of resistance, by comparing the maximum value of the base shear force recorded
with the value of the design seismic force, multiplied by a factor that quantifies the superresistance of the structure. This factor can be taken as being equal to the product of the ratio
between the average values and the design values of the materials, with the factor that
expresses the redundancy specific for the type of structure analysed. For structures made of
reinforced concrete and steel, the super-resistance factor can be taken as being 1.25 u ,
1
36
37
7. FOUNDATION ASSESSMENT
7.1 General aspects
(1)
The present section includes a series of specifications regarding specific aspects for
the assessment of the foundation system of the building.
NOTE The foundation system and the infrastructure of the building, when it exists, are an essential
component of the construction as a whole, which largely influence its seismic response. Since, in
current design practice, the seismic analysis of the foundation of a construction is sometimes dealt with
superficially and by using inadequate means, we considered it to be useful, as an exception to the
general way in which the subject matter of the code is organised, to point out some specific issues for
this structural component here.
(2)
The quantitative and qualitative assessment of the foundations must identify the
extent to which their role within the structural assembly is fulfilled, as well as the situations
in which the foundations (and, when applicable, the infrastructure) act as the weakest link in
the path of the loads applied to the structure by the foundation ground.
NOTE Such situations occur relatively frequently due to the fact that, for most buildings designed
before the appearance of the modern generation of seismic codes, the seismic actions for infrastructure
and foundation system was not calculated.
(3)
To obtain realistic results, a suitable calculation model (7.3) and correct values for the
resistance and deformability characteristics of the foundation ground shall be used during the
assessment of the infrastructure by calculation.
(4)
For this purpose, it is recommended that ground tests using geotechnical research
methods are carried out. Such tests are compulsory whenever it is decided that works should
be carried out in order to consolidate the foundations or foundation ground, even if the
construction plans containing data about the ground are available.
It is recommended that several values of the ground deformation characteristics are used from
a probable variation range, given the sensitivity of the calculation for the ground-structure
interaction in relation to the rigidity characteristics of the model.
(5)
Seismic assessment of the foundation system for certain constructions which, during
the design stage, were not dimensioned so that they can absorb lateral seismic forces, shall
identify deficiencies such as:
- an insufficient support base, with the risk of excessive rotation and overturning
- exceeding the acceptable pressures on the ground
- inability to absorb tensile stresses (lifting tendencies), both by the direct shallow
foundations and by deep foundations (piles, bars).
The indicators for fulfilment of the seismic requirements that are defined in chapter 8 shall be
established based on the weighting of various deficiency categories and their effect on the
quality of the seismic response of the assembly.
7.2 Tests for determining the characteristics of the ground
(1)
Foundation ground testing shall be carried out using geotechnical research methods
such as:
- the plate test
38
Figure 7.1
Upon application of the method for ranking the resistance capacity of the structural elements,
the connecting forces applied to the foundation correspond to the development of a structure
plasticisation mechanism, with plastic areas at the base of the vertical elements.
(3)
For constructions with infrastructures (basements), several types of models with
different levels of complexity can be chosen. If simplified models are adopted, the results
shall be interpreted by taking into consideration the limitations of the model.
One of the following models can be used to assess structures with basements:
39
(b)
(a)
(d)
(c)
Figure 7.2
(a)
The structure shall be considered to be embedded at basement level, whilst the
reactions at base level shall be used to calculate the infrastructure (fig. 7.2.(a)).
In the more refined versions, the connecting forces applied to the foundation correspond to
the plasticisation mechanism.
(b)
The structure shall be considered to be embedded at ground level. The model enables
the mass forces at infrastructure level to be also considered in the value of the overturning
moment. The deformability of the ground shall be neglected. (fig. 7.2(b)).
(c)
Compared to the model given in (b), the model is improved by taking into
consideration the deformability of the ground under the foundation, by introducing calibrated
springs on the supporting interface, depending on the properties of the ground (fig. 7.2(c)).
(d)
A superior modelling process is that which takes into consideration the fixing of the
basement within the ground that it is buried in (fig. 7.2(d)). The model given in (c) shall be
40
supplemented with horizontal springs that simulate the resistance and rigidity of the
surrounding ground.
The ground pressures and stresses in the structural elements are in reality higher than those
given by the design seismic forces, due to the super-resistance of the structure.
The model can be improved so that it takes into account the super-resistance of the
construction, by amplifying the values of the seismic horizontal forces by a factor that is
suitable for the type of structure examined.
(5)
The calculation under seismic action must consider the ground rigidity values that are
adequate for the conditions of a short action and high earthquake load speed.
These values shall be supplied by the geotechnical engineer.
(6)
The ground-structure interaction generally reduces the movement input transmitted to
the structure. Mat foundations and thick floor plates also have a favourable effect, since they
unify the movement peaks on the surface of the construction. These effects are generally
neglected in the calculation.
41
(i)
the collection of information about the existing construction relating to the history and
function of the building, its structural characteristics and the characteristics of the foundation
ground, as well as those of the non-structural elements, finishings, installations and
equipment inside it;
(ii)
establishing, with an adequate degree of confidence, the mechanical properties of the
materials;
(iii)
(iv)
establishing, together with the beneficiary of the project, the performance objectives
to be fulfilled and, based on these, the limit states and seismic requirements derived;
(v)
establishing the assessment methodology, in correlation with the information
available and the selected limit states;
(vi)
(vii) drawing up the assessment report, formulating the conclusions and specification of the
necessary measures.
(3)
(4)
The vulnerability of the construction as a whole and of its component parts shall be
determined based on the results of the qualitative assessment and assessment through
42
calculation, in relation to the design earthquake-seismic risk, as an indicator for the potential
effects of site-characteristic earthquakes on the construction analysed.
(5)
Practically, the seismic risk for a given construction shall be determined by including
the construction in one of the following 4 classes of risk:
Class Rs I, which includes constructions with a high risk of collapsing during the design
earthquake corresponding to the ultimate limit state.
Class Rs II, which includes constructions that, under the effect of a design earthquake, may
suffer major structural degradations, but are unlikely to loose their stability.
Class Rs III, which includes constructions that, under the effect of a design earthquake, may
suffer structural degradations that do not significantly affect their structural safety, but whose
non-structural degradations can be important.
Class Rs IV, includes constructions for which the expected seismic response is similar to the
response obtained for constructions designed in accordance with the prescriptions in force.
(6) The criteria for allocating buildings to a certain class of seismic risk are presented in 8.2.
8.2 Establishing the risk class of constructions
(1)
The results of the verifications stipulated in 8.1(3) are the essential elements on which
the final assessment of the state of safety against seismic actions shall be based. This is
globally defined by the vulnerability of the construction, and the assessment report shall
allocate the examined construction to a vulnerability class associated with the design
earthquake (risk class).
NOTE: Within the present code, in order to use sufficiently simple methods for current design,
vulnerability, which is essentially a probabilistic notion, shall be defined in a conventional manner. For
this purpose, deterministic qualitative and quantitative criteria shall be used, together with engineering
reasoning and evaluations claiming professional knowledge and experience in the field.
(2)
The seismic safety assessment and grouping into classes of seismic risk shall be
carried out based on 3 categories of conditions that are the subject of the investigations and
analyses performed during the assessment. To help guide the final decision regarding the
safety of the structure (including allocating the construction to a certain risk class) and the
necessary intervention measures, the extent to which the 3 categories of conditions are
fulfilled shall be quantified using 3 indicators. These are:
the extent to which the conditions for structural conformity and composition of the
structural elements, as well as the constructive rules for structures that absorb the effect of a
seismic action, are fulfilled. This shall be noted with R1 and referred to, in short, as the
degree of fulfilment of the seismic composition requirements;
the degree of structural damage, noted with R2, which expresses the proportion of
structural degradation due to seismic action and other causes;
the degree of structural seismic assurance, noted with R3, represents the ratio between
the structural seismic capacity and stress, expressed in terms of resistance if using the level 1
43
I
< 30
(4)
The R2 indicator takes values based on the score allocated to the various categories of
structural and non-structural degradation given in the specific list for the type of construction
analysed, from the annex corresponding to the structural material that is used.
In the case of this indicator, 4 intervals are also established for the score achieved by the
analysed construction, associated with the 4 classes of seismic risk, within the limit of a
maximum score R2,max = 100 corresponding to a construction whose integrity is not affected
by degradation.
The 4 different intervals for the R2 values are given in table 8.2.
I
< 40
(5)
The R3 indicator demonstrates the resistance and deformability capacity of the
structure in relation to the seismic stresses.
The assessment of the degree of seismic assurance depends on the assessment methodology,
as follows:
(a)
Level 1 methodology
The R3 ratio shall be estimated in terms of resistance, by the relationships:
R3
adm
q med
(8.1a)
for the vertical elements of frame constructions and constructions with structural walls
R3
adm
qFb
(8.1b)
44
med
Fadm
Fb
q
elements. The value adm is given in annexes B, C and D for elements made of
reinforced concrete, steel and masonry, respectively
the average tangential unitary stress, calculated in accordance with 6.7.2(6)
the horizontal projection of the capable axial stress in the vertical bracing bars
the equivalent static seismic force, calculated in accordance with 6.7.2.(2)
the reduction factor corresponding to the structure, in accordance with table 8.1
(b)
Level 2 methodology
The individual R3j values shall be determined for each of the structural elements, in
accordance with the instructions given at 6.8.4 and relationship 6.7.
The weighting of the structural elements with fragile yield, especially the vertical elements in
this situation, and the ratio between the resistance of vertical elements and the resistance of
horizontal elements, as well as the possible structural mechanism for the dissipation of
seismic energy, shall be determined based on the values obtained.
This information represents an essential element in determining the seismic safety of the
structure and including the construction in a certain risk class.
At the level of the structure, the R3 indicator shall be approximated using the relationship:
VRd j
R3
(8.2)
*
VEd j q j
where:
VRd j is the capable shear force of the vertical element j, (or the horizontal projection of the
axial stress, in diagonal wind braces). The values VRd j entered in relationship (8.2)
*
VEd
j
are those corresponding to the yielding mechanism of the element (bending or shear
force, as applicable)
is the shear force in element j, obtained on the basis of the values in the non-reduced
response spectrum
is the reduction factor allocated to the element on the basis of its potential rupture
mechanism (the value is given in annexes B, C, D for structures made of reinforced
concrete, steel and masonry, respectively).
*
/ q j shall be replaced with the value resulting from the
For elements with fragile yield, VEdj
equilibrium on the plasticisation mechanism (see 6.8.2(3)).
qj
(c)
Level 3 methodology
In this case, the R3 indicator shall be determined in terms of displacement, using the
expression:
d
R3 u
(8.3)
ds
ds
lateral displacement of the structure caused by the design earthquake, for the ultimate
limit state, at the chosen storey, usually at the top of the construction
du
the ultimate (capable) lateral displacement of the structure on the same storey.
45
For buildings with structural masonry walls, in all levels of methodologies, coefficient R3
shall be determined in accordance with the procedures given in annex D.
For guidance, the construction shall be included in certain risk classes based on the R 3 values
(expressed in percentages, by multiplying the values obtained using (7.2) or (7.3) by 100), in
accordance with the following table:
I
< 35
NOTE: The values of the 3 indicators, which measure the expected seismic performance of the
construction, must only be regarded as scores intended to provide guidance in making the decision to
include the construction in a certain class of seismic risk. The fact that a certain indicator (supposing
that it is the critical criteria, out of all 3, for the construction considered) is within a given range of
values that is associated with a certain risk class, does not automatically mean that the building shall be
included in the respective class.
The decision to include the building in a certain risk class must be the result of a complex analysis of a
set of conditions of varying nature. The investigations carried out aim to identify the weakest links in
the structural system and the significant deficiencies of the non-structural elements. Once identified,
these deficiencies must be ranked based on the potential effects of a powerful earthquake on the
stability of the structure, as well as the risk of the loss of human life, injuries and material damage.
In these evaluations, the expert must firstly assess the elements that are vital for seismic structural
safety that present major deficiencies and an insufficient capacity to handle stresses of various types,
specify their weighting within the overall structure and determine the margin of insecurity.
Knowing the potential yielding mechanism of a structure is essential for the correct determination of
the potential seismic response of the construction, as well as for choosing the correct intervention
solution.
Identification of the rupture mechanism, even if approximate, is only possible in very few cases in old
constructions, which are also the most vulnerable. The reasons can differ: the absence of a well defined
structure to absorb the lateral forces, lack of data that would enable the behaviour of the structure in the
post-elastic range (for example, for buildings made of reinforced concrete, data regarding the
anchorage and joining lengths of reinforcements, upon transversal reinforcement in critical areas) to be
assessed, the uncontrollable risk of fragile ruptures under the action of a shear force, etc. For this
reason, the correct assessment of the potential performance of the construction must be based on a
comprehensive analysis and engineering reasoning of all composition requirements and the correlation
between their effects, which requires a high level of competence and a large amount of experience.
46
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
If applicable, the degradations caused by other actions shall also be highlighted, such as
those caused by climatic and technological actions, differential settlements or due to a
lack of maintenance of the building.
The results of various types of investigations carried out in order to determine the
resistance of materials (the designed values, achieved values and actual values up until
the present).
Determining the resistance values on the basis of which the verifications shall be carried
out, based on the level of knowledge acquired following investigations (by applying the
confidence factors, CF).
Indicating the performance objectives selected for the assessment of the construction.
In special situations or at the beneficiarys request, other objectives in addition to those
that are compulsory can be taken into consideration, in accordance with 2.1.
Choosing the assessment methodology (or methodologies) and its specific calculation
methods.
Carrying out the assessment process, which includes the groups of operations indicated in
8.1(3). Drawing up the list of conditions regarding the overall and detailed composition,
as well as the list regarding the state of integrity of the construction. Structural seismic
calculation and safety verifications. Determining the R1, R2 and R3 indicators.
Assessment summary and conclusions. Allocating the construction to a class of seismic
risk.
Suggestions of intervention solutions. Their founding by a sufficiently detailed structural
calculation, taking into account the criteria given in 2.1 of P100-3, part II.
The assessment process can be represented concisely by the block diagram of the operations,
given in fig. 8.1.
8.4 The need for structural intervention
(1)
The need for structural intervention on the existing constructions that have been
degraded by earthquake action or are seismically vulnerable shall be established based on
criteria such as:
- ensuring a rational level of safety,
- size of the financial, material and human resources for reducing the seismic risk of
constructions from the existing building population, in relation to the dimensions of this
population,
- the expected period of operation, which is shorter for the existing buildings than newly built
ones.
(2)
Such conditions that exist at national level lead to the buildings meeting the
requirements associated with the performance objective life safety for earthquakes with an
average recurrence interval ARI = 40 years to be considered to have a sufficient safety level
under seismic action. Practically, the constructions included in class III of seismic risk meet
this requirement, whilst constructions included in classes I and II do not. In real terms, this
means that, if the structure of the building does not meet the requirements of the verification
at the ULS, for an acceleration of:
- 0.65ag for the Vrancea subcrustal seismic source, and
- 0.75 ag for the Banat crustal seismic source,
where ag is the ground acceleration for an earthquake with ARI = 100 years, structural
intervention is necessary in order to raise its level of assurance.
47
In other words, structural intervention is necessary if the value of the degree of seismic
assurance is:
R3 < 0.65, for the Vrancea seismic source, and
R3 < 0.75, for the Banat seismic source.
(3)
Safety shall be differentiated for buildings belonging to various classes of importance
and earthquake exposure by using the differentiated values for factor , in accordance with
P100-1: 2006, 4.4.5 (see 2.1(4)), which amplify the ag values.
(4)
The level of intervention shall be at least that corresponding to the values R 3 = 0.65
and R3 = 0.75, respectively, for the two seismic sources.
The owner of the building can also set higher assurance levels and more specific verification
requirements, taking into consideration higher performance objectives (performance levels
and hazard levels), in accordance with the procedures stipulated in annex A of the code.
48
49
Figure 8.1
50
51
ANNEX A
SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS BASED ON THEIR
PERFORMANCE
A.1 Performance objectives. Definitions
The level of seismic hazard is characterised by the average recurrence interval, in years, of
the peak horizontal ground acceleration (associated with the probability that the peak ground
acceleration will be exceeded in 50 years).
The performance levels of the building describe its expected seismic performance by
describing the degradations, economic losses and discontinuance of its operation.
It is recommended that three performance levels for the building are considered, namely:
1. Performance level for limiting degradation, associated with the service limit state
(SLS)
2. Life safety performance level, associated with the ultimate limit state (ULS)
3. Collapse prevention performance level, associated with the pre-collapse limit state
(PP).
The performance objective shall be obtained by associating the performance level of the
building, expressed by the requirements of the limit states considered, with the level of
seismic hazard, expressed by the average recurrence interval, ARI, Figure A.1.
Nivelul de
performan al
cladirii
SLS
ULS
PP
Obiectiv de
performan
OP
40 ani
Nivelul hazardului
seismic exprimat
prin IMR
100 ani
475 ani
52
Obiectiv de performan
Nivelul de performan al cldirii
Nivelul hazardului seismic exprimat prin IMR
40 ani
100 ani
475 ani
Performance objective
Performance level of the building
Level of seismic hazard expressed by ARI
40 years
100 years
475 years
The basic level of seismic hazard is the one corresponding to the life safety performance level
stipulated in code P100-1/2006; for the basic level of seismic hazard during assessment of
existing constructions, the peak horizontal ground acceleration is defined with an average
recurrence interval of 40 years (70% probability of being exceeded in 50 years).
Table A.2 gives approximate values for the coefficients of conversion of the peak ground
acceleration with an average recurrence interval of 100 years (corresponding to code P1001/2006) to the peak ground acceleration with an average recurrence interval of 40 years and
475 years, respectively.
Table A.2 Coefficients of conversion of the peak ground acceleration for various levels of
seismic hazard (guiding values)
Type of seismic
source
ag (40years)/
ag
(100years)
Vrancea, subcrustal
Crustal
0.65
0.70
ag
(475years)/
ag
(100years)
1.50
1.40
53
The seismic action for the performance-based seismic assessment shall be determined in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 4 of the present Code (and in accordance with
chapters 3 and 4 of Code P100-1/2006), by taking into consideration the importance factor I.
When determining the seismic action, the peak horizontal ground acceleration shall be
considered to have the average recurrence interval associated with the performance level of
the building in order to obtain the selected performance objective.
54
The seismic performance of the building is directly related to the extent of its degradation.
The performance of the building is given by the performance of its structural and nonstructural elements. The meaning and main characteristics of the structural and non-structural
performance levels taken into consideration are given below.
Structural conditions
Only limited structural degradation will occur after the earthquake. The structural system
that absorbs the vertical loads, as well as the system that absorbs the lateral loads shall
almost entirely maintain the initial rigidity and resistance. The risk of loss of human life
or injuries is very low. Minor structural repairs may be necessary.
Non-structural conditions
Only limited non-structural damages will occur. The access ways and life safety systems,
such as doors, stairs, lifts, pressurised pipe systems shall remain operational, providing
that the general power supply system is operational.
The occupants of the building can safely remain inside the building, although clean-up
operations may be required. Power, water and gas supply, as well as communication lines
may be temporarily unavailable. The risk of the loss of human life loss or injuries due to
non-structural degradation is very low.
(b) Life safety performance level
Structural conditions
This performance level refers to the post-earthquake state of a structure that suffered
significant degradation, but which retains a margin of safety against partial or total
collapse. Some structural elements are severely damaged, but this does not endanger the
lives of the occupants of the building through the falling of its damaged parts.
Although some people may be injured, the general risk of the loss of human life remains
low. The construction is repairable, but sometimes repairing the building may not be
advisable, due to economic reasons. The damaged building remains stable. As an
additional precaution, emergency supports and structural repairs may be carried out.
Non-structural conditions
Significant and expensive degradations of non-structural elements may occur, but these
are not dislocated and do not threaten human life, due to their falling, either inside or
outside of the buildings.
The access routes are not fully blocked, but traffic may be affected. Installations may be
damaged, which can lead to local flooding and even some of them being out of action.
Although the occupants of the building may suffer serious injuries due to the falling of
fragments of the elements, the global risk of human life loss due to this cause remains
very low.
Repair of the non-structural elements requires significant expense and effort.
55
Structural conditions
The structure is on the verge of partial or total collapse. Substantial damages occur, which
are accompanied by significant degradation of the rigidity and resistance to seismic
forces, important remnant deformations and limited degradation of the resistance to
vertical loads, so that the structure can support vertical loads. The risk of injuries is
significant.
Practically, the structure cannot be repaired and does not allow its re-population, due to
the fact that potential seismic replicas may lead to its collapse. Constructions that reach
this level completely loose their economic and operational value.
Non-structural conditions
At this performance level, the non-structural elements are completely damaged and pose a
real threat to human life.
56
ANNEX B
STRUCTURES MADE OF REINFORCED CONCRETE
Identification of the vertical and lateral structure of the building, in both directions;
(ii)
The way in which the plates are put down, in one, two or several directions;
(iii)
The way in which the stairs are put down on the vertical elements of the structure;
(iv)
Identification of large dimension openings in floors (including staircase openings) and
walls;
(v)
(vi)
(vii) Identification of the shape of structural walls (lamellar, with bulbs at each end, Lshaped, T-shaped or box-shaped);
(viii) Determining the length of the support provided by horizontal elements (especially for
girders and prefabricated plates);
(ix)
Identification of the potential eccentricity between the axes of girders and pillars, the
vertical offsetting of pillars, etc.
57
(ii)
The amount of transversal reinforcement against shear forces in girders, pillars, walls
and nodes;
(iii) The amount and way in which the confinement reinforcement is distributed in the
critical areas of girders and pillars, and at the extremities of the cross-section of walls, in their
critical areas;
(iv)
The ratio between the upper and lower longitudinal reinforcements in the crosssections at the extremities of girders;
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
B.2.4 Materials
(1)
The data gathered shall determine:
(i)
Resistance of concrete;
(ii)
B.3
B.3.1 List of conditions for the composition of concrete structures in seismic areas
(1)
List for level 1 methodology
The conditions that must be fulfilled are those given in table B.1
Table B.1. List of conditions for structures made of reinforced concrete when applying the
level 1 methodology
The
The criteria is not fulfilled
criteria is
Criteria
Moderate
Major nonfulfilled non-fulfilment
fulfilment
Conditions regarding configuration of the
Maximum score:
50 points
structure
50
30 50
0 29
58
Maximum score:
10 points
10
5 10
04
Maximum score:
30 points
30
20 30
0 19
30
20 30
0 19
59
Maximum score:
10
5 10
10 points
04
(1)
List for level 2 and 3 methodologies
The conditions relating to the configuration of the structural system (i) and those relating to
the interactions of the structure (ii) are identical to those given in table B.1 for the level 1
methodology. For this reason, these are not presented in detail in table B.2, which contains
the list of conditions when level 2 and 3 assessment methodologies are applied.
The table only gives details of the list of conditions regarding the composition and
reinforcement of reinforced concrete structures and floors, respectively, which are much
more precise and detailed for level 2 and 3 methodologies.
Some of the conditions refer to the resistance of structural elements and nature of the
potential rupture of structural elements, so that drawing up of the list must be preceded by an
assessment of the resistance of the structural elements under different stresses.
Table B.2. List of conditions for reinforced concrete structures when applying the level 2 and
3 methodologies
Criteria
(i) Conditions regarding the configuration of
the structure
The criteria
is fulfilled
50
Maximum score:
10
30 50
5 10
Maximum score:
30
20 30
0 29
10 points
05
30 points
0 19
60
30
20 30
0 19
61
Maximum score:
69
10
R1 =
10 points
05
points
NOTE: If the actual investigation conditions do not allow a sufficiently detailed determination of
conditions (iii) and (iv), the extent to which these have been fulfilled shall be estimated based on the
practice at the time of construction, reducing the score accordingly. Depending on the degree of
confidence of the established data, the score shall be reduced by multiplying it with the factors that
have values between 0.50 and 1.
62
B.4
(1)
The degradation state of structural elements shall be assessed based on the score given
in table B.3 for the various types of degradation identified
Table B.3. The degradation state of structural elements
Criteria
(i) Degradations caused by earthquake action
Remnant cracks and deformations in the
critical areas (plastic areas) of the pillars,
walls and girders
Remnant inclined fissures and fractures
caused by shear forces in girders
Open longitudinal cracks and fractures
caused by compressive stresses in pillars
and/or walls
Inclined cracks or fractures caused by the
shear force in pillars and/or walls
Shear cracks caused by sliding of the
reinforcements in the nodes
Yielding of braces and joints of
reinforcement bars
Advance yielding or cracking of the floors
Yielding of the foundations or foundation
ground
Total score achieved
(ii) Degradation caused by vertical loads
Cracks and degradation in girders and floor
plates
Cracks and degradation in pillars and walls
Total score achieved
(iii) Degradation caused by a deformation load
(settlement
of
supports,
contractions,
temperature action, slow flow of concrete)
Total score achieved
(iv) Degradation caused by bad execution
(segregated concrete, incorrect working joints,
etc.)
Total score achieved
(v) Degradation caused by environmental
The criteria
is fulfilled
50
26 49
Maximum score:
20
11 19
Maximum score:
10
69
Maximum score:
10
69
Maximum score:
0 25
20 points
0 10
10 points
15
10 points
15
10 points
63
69
10
15
R2 =
points
NOTE: 1. The score distribution presented in table B.2 for each category of degradations is for
guidance only. The assessing engineer may correct this distribution whenever he considers that this
would help establish a more realistic assessment of the effects of the various types of degradations on
the structural safety of the construction examined. For example, when the degradations caused by
earthquake action are very important and have an essential effect on the safety of the construction, and
there are no significant effects of the other possible degradation causes, the expert will be able to
increase the score for the conditions given in (1) according to the in-situ situation.
2. If the degradation state thus found significantly affects the integrity of structural elements
and of the joints between them, the calculation model shall be modified so that it represents the
probable behaviour of the structure as faithfully as possible.
B.5
Admissible values of average unitary stresses when level 1 methodology is
applied
When applying the simplified calculation methods described in 6.7.2, the admissible values
of the average tangential unitary stresses in the cross-sections of reinforced concrete walls
and pillars shall be considered to be:
a 1,2f td
where ftd is the design tensile resistance of concrete.
For frames with masonry non-load bearing walls in contact with the pillars and girders of the
reinforced concrete structure, the verification shall be carried out similarly to the verification
of confined masonry walls.
The admissible value of the normalized axial compressive force ( N / bhf cd ) is
Girders
Ductile behaviour1)
(p-p)/pmax2) 0;
VEd 0.7bd h f td
64
(p-p)/pmax2) 0;
VEd 2.0bd h f td
(p-p)/pmax2) 0.5;
VEd 0.7bd h f td
0.5;
VEd 2.0bd h f td
(p-p)/pmax2)
Non-ductile behaviour
2,5
Pillars
Ductile behaviour1)
3) 0.20
3) 0.45
Non-ductile behaviour
3) 0.20
3) 0.45
Structural walls
Ductile behaviour1)
4) 0.15
4) 0.40
Non-ductile behaviour
4) 0.15
4) 0.40
2.0
Coupling girders
1)
Ductile behaviour1)
Non-ductile behaviour
Ductile behaviour means that the girder, pillar and structural wall meet the conditions for
the composition and detailing of the reinforcement that are stipulated in the design standards
for new constructions, specific to these types of structures. Interpolation of the q values
corresponding to the ductile and non-ductile behaviour, respectively, shall be admitted,
provided that the conditions stipulated in the design standards for new structures are partially
fulfilled.
2)
65
4)
(2)
The elements that display fragile rupture are those elements that break under shear
forces before reaching the bending resistance, or break under bending without reaching the
tensile flow deformation in the reinforcement. The elements displaying fragile rupture shall
be verified under stresses associated with the plasticisation mechanism. For example,
verification of the girders at shear forces shall be carried out at the value obtained in the
diagram for the shape of plastic hinges at the extremities.
B.7
pl
um
'
0,3
0, 2
c
L
V
h
0 , 35
25
f yw
fc
(B.1)
where:
h
Lv = M/V
N
bhf c
' ,
fc and fyw
s x A s x
bo, ho
bi
is a coefficient with a value 0.01 for pillars and girders, and 0.007 for walls
is the height of the cross-section
is the shear arm in the end section
(width of the compressed area of the element, N the axial force considered to
be positive upon compression)
reinforcement coefficients for the compressed and stretched area, respectively,
including the core reinforcement; if the and values are smaller than 0.01,
the value 0.01 shall be entered in expression (B.1)
the compression resistance of the concrete and resistance of the steel in ties
(MPa), determined by dividing the average values by the confidence factors
corresponding to the level of knowledge reached during the investigations
b w s h the coefficient for transversal reinforcement parallel with the direction x (sh
= the distance between ties)
sh
sh bi
1
1
1
determined
with
the
relationship
(B.2)
are the dimensions of the confined core measured at the tie axis
inter-axial distance between the longitudinal reinforcements located in the
corner of a tie or cramp, along the perimeter of the section.
The expression is valid for the situation in which the reinforcement bars are profiled, there
are no joints in the critical area, and the reinforcement is carried out in compliance with the
composition rules for seismic areas.
66
If these conditions are not fulfilled when the value um given by the relationship (B.1) is
calculated, the corrections indicated in (2), (3) and (4) shall be applied.
(2)
In the elements for which the rules for transversal reinforcement of the critical areas
are not applied, the values obtained by applying the relationship (B.1) shall be multiplied by
0.8.
(3)
If joining by overlapping the longitudinal reinforcements is also carried out in the
critical area, in the relationship (B.1) the reinforcement coefficients shall be multiplied by
2. If the effective overlapping length lo is smaller than the minimum overlapping length
stipulated by STAS 10107/0-90 for severe stress conditions, lo,min, the value of the plastic
rotation capacity given by (B.1) shall be reduced in the lo/lo,min ratio.
(4)
If using smooth bars without joining in the critical areas, the values um given by the
relationship (B.1) shall be multiplied by 0.5.
If the longitudinal bars are joined in the critical area and are equipped with hooks, the
following corrections shall be made when calculating the capable plastic rotation using the
relationship (B.1):
- the value of the shear arm Lv = M/V shall be reduced by the joining length lo
pl
- the value um
shall be obtained by multiplying the value given by the relationship (B.1) by
0.40.
B.7.2 The analytical model
(1)
In order to assess the capable plastic rotation, expression (B.3) based on simplifying
hypotheses for the distribution of rupture curves can alternatively be used.
0.5L pl
1
(B.3)
pl
u y L pl 1
um
el
L v
where:
u
is the ultimate curvature in the end section
y
is the flow curvature in the same section
el
Safety coefficient that takes into account the variability of the physicomechanical properties; el = 1.5 for pillars and girders and 1.8 for walls
The value of the length Lpl of the plastic area depends on the way in which the gain in
resistance and deformation capacity is determined, as an effect of confinement in the
calculation of the ultimate curvature u.
(2)
The following model, specific to cyclic stress, can be used to assess the ultimate
curvature u:
(a)
The ultimate deformation of the longitudinal reinforcement, su, shall be taken to be
equal to 0.10.
(b)
sx f y w
f cc f c 1 3.7
(B.4)
f c
67
The specific deformation for which fcc is reached, in relation to the specific
deformation c2 of non-confined concrete, shall be determined with the relationship:
(B.5)
cc c 2 1 5 cc 1
f
c
and the ultimate specific deformation at the extreme fibre of the compressed area shall
be obtained with:
sx f y w
cu 0,004 0,5
(B.6)
f cc
where:
, fyw and sx are defined in A.6.1.
c2
is the ultimate deformed shape of non-confined compressed concrete, in
accordance with STAS 10107/0-90. For ordinary concrete (< C32/40); c 2 =
0.0035.
The length of the plastic area for elements without joints in this area shall be determined with
the relationship:
d bl f y (MPa)
L
(B.7)
L pl v 0,2h 0,15
30
f c (MPa)
where:
dbl
is the (average) diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement
Note: The first term in relationship B.7 shall take into consideration the bending contribution, the
second term takes into consideration the shear force contribution, and the third term takes into account
sliding of the reinforcements.
(3)
In situations when joining by overlapping takes place in the plastic area, or the
pl
reinforcements are smooth and equipped with hooks, the value um
, calculated with
relationship (B.3), shall be corrected as shown in B.6.2.1. (3) and (4).
B.7.3 Calculation of the resistance of the elements to shear forces
(1)
When using non-linear calculation methods, the value of the resistance to shear forces
shall be determined with the expressions given in STAS 10107/0-90, using the average
resistances of concrete and steel, and dividing the resulting value by a global safety factor el
= 1.5.
68
ANNEX C
STEEL STRUCTURES
C.1 Field of application
(1)
The present annex contains specific information for the assessment of constructions
with a resistance structure made of steel, in the condition it is found at the time of the assessment.
C.2 Identification of the geometry of the structure, compositional details and materials used
for the building
C.2.1 General elements
(1)
The following aspects shall be carefully examined:
(i)
General physical condition of the steel and retaining systems (welding, screws) that
include the presence of any potential deformations;
(ii)
General physical condition of the principal and secondary elements that absorb the
earthquake, highlighting any potential degradation.
C.2.2 Geometry
(1)
(i)
Identification of the systems responsible for absorbing the horizontal forces (in both
directions);
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
The geometrical characteristics of the cross-section of the elements (cross-section area,
type of resistance, moment of inertia, twisting moment of inertia) in the critical sections of the
existing elements,
C.2.3
(1)
(i)
Compositional details
The data collected must include the following aspects:
Dimensions of the constructive elements (gussets, braces, straps, counter-braces);
(ii)
Composition and quality of continuity joints and joints between various elements, as
they are in real life.
C.2.4 Materials
(1)
(i)
The values of the flow limit, rupture resistance, and rupture elongation.
69
(2)
For inspection, the areas with reduced strains (extremities of the feet at the ends of
compressed and bent bars, and the outer floor edges) shall be chosen.
(3)
Samples taken from the section core shall be used to determine the physico-mechanical
properties of the structural elements used as dissipative areas (bars).
(4)
Samples taken from the section feet shall be used to determine the physico-mechanical
properties of the non-dissipative elements or joining areas.
(5)
Where access is limited, as well as for composite elements, the inspection shall be
carried out using gammagraphy, ultrasound testing and inspection through access holes pierced
through the architectural elements.
(6) The quality of the main material and addition material shall be certified using chemical and
metallurgical tests.
(7) To prove that the material in the area of thermal (welding) influence and in its immediate
vicinity has appropriate resistance to fragile ruptures, bend rupture tests shall be carried out by
applying a shock to Charpy V-notch specimens.
(8) Destructive and/or non-destructive tests (penetrating fluids, magnetic powder) and methods
using ultrasounds or tomography can be used.
C.3
C.3.1 List of conditions for the composition of steel structures in seismic areas
(1)
List for level 1 methodology
The conditions that must be fulfilled are those given in table C.1
Table C.1. List of conditions for steel structures, for when level 1 methodology is applied.
70
Criteria
(i) Conditions regarding the configuration of the
structure
The load path is continuous
The system is redundant. (The system has sufficient
connections to have lateral stability, and sufficient
potential plastic areas)
There are no weak levels in terms of resistance
There are no flexible levels
There are no important modifications of the planar
dimensions of the structural system from one storey
to another
There are no vertical discontinuities (all vertical
elements are continuous all the way down to the
foundation)
There are no differences between storey masses
larger than 50 %
The overall torsional effects are moderate
The connection between the infrastructure and the
suprastructure is able to ensure transmission of the
stresses
The infrastructure (foundations) is able to transmit
the vertical and horizontal forces to the ground and
ensure stability of the construction against
overturning.
The
The criteria is not fulfilled
criteria is Moderate nonMajor nonfulfilled
fulfilment
fulfilment
Maximum score:
50 points
50
30-50
0-29
Maximum score:
10 points
10
5 - 10
0-4
71
30 points
0 19
30
20 - 30
0 - 19
30
20- 30
0 - 19
2,0 e
- The frame girder has lateral connections to both
flanges at the place where the V-shaped
diagonals are fixed
Total score achieved
(c) Frame structures with eccentric wind bracing
- The girder-pillar fixings are rigid
- The section of the dissipative bar belongs to
72
section class 1
- The core of the dissipative bar does not have
any holes and is not reinforced with doubling
plates
- Lateral connections are fitted at the ends of the
dissipative bar, at both of its feet, to prevent the
loss of overall stability
- Transversal braces are fitted at the ends of the
dissipative bar, on both sides of its core
- The diagonals have sections belonging to
section class 2. Their slenderness is
E
1,5
1,5 e
fy
Total score achieved
Total score achieved Maximum score:
10
5 10
(iv) Conditions regarding floors
Due to the plate thickness and small
dimensions of the openings, the floor can also
10
5 - 10
be regarded as a rigid horizontal diaphragm
10 points
04
0-4
(1)
List for level 2 and 3 methodologies
The conditions regarding the configuration of the structural system (i) and those regarding the
interactions of the structure (ii) are identical to those given in table C.1 for the level 1
methodology. For this reason, these are not given in detail in table C.2, which contains the list of
conditions for when the level 2 and 3 assessment methodologies are applied.
Table C.2. List of conditions for steel structures when applying level 2 and 3 methodologies
The
The criteria is not fulfilled
criteria is Moderate nonCriteria
Major nonfulfilled
fulfilment
fulfilment
(i) Conditions regarding the configuration of the
Maximum score:
50 points
structure
50
30 50
0 29
In accordance with criteria (i) from Table C.1
Total score achieved
73
Maximum score:
10
5 10
10 points
04
Maximum score:
30
20 30
30 points
0 19
74
30
20 30
0 19
30
20 - 30
0 - 19
1,3 e 2,0 e
- The V-shaped diagonals have the slenderness
2,0 e
- The frame girder has lateral connections to both
flanges at the place where the V-shaped
diagonals are fixed
- The slenderness of the pillars in the wind
braced plane is
E
1,3
1,3 e
fy
Total score achieved
(c) Frame structures with eccentric wind bracing
- Ranking the capable stresses of structural
elements ensures that a favourable seismic
energy dissipation mechanism is developed, so
that the dissipative bars located in the structure
are able to dissipate the energy by forming
plastic mechanisms for shearing, bending or
shearing and bending
- The girder-pillar fixings are rigid, so that the
frames, either with or without wind braces, can
absorb at least 25% of the seismic action,
assuming that the wind braces are no longer
operational
- The section of the dissipative bar belongs to
section class 1
- The core of the dissipative bar does not have
any holes and is not reinforced with doubling
plates
75
Maximum score:
10 points
69
10
R1 =
05
points
76
C.4
(1)
The degradation state of structural elements shall be assessed based on the score given in
table C.3 for the various types of degradation identified
Criteria
(i) Degradations caused by earthquake action
Girders: extended deformations, fogging of the
section walls
formation of plastic hinges, partial cracks
and ruptures
Dissipative bars (links): severe plastic
deformations,
partial cracks and ruptures
Pillars: moderate deformations, fogging of the
feet,
incursions in the plastic range (for some
pillars)
Girder/dissipative bars pillar fixing:
pronounced deformations, rupture of the
means of fixing that reduces the capable
resistance
(without affecting the means of fixing
that transmit the shear force)
Frame node: pronounced deformations,
fogging
in the plastic range, partial cracks and ruptures
of the
welds
Continuity fixings of the pillars and
girders: incursions in the plastic range, without
ruptures of the continuity elements or
means of fixing
Vertical wind braces: buckling, plastic
deformations, yielding of fixings
Pillar bases: plastic deformations of the base
plate, cross-bars, plastic deformations / rupture
of
the screws for fixing in the foundation
The
The criteria is not fulfilled
criteria is Moderate nonMajor nonfulfilled
fulfilment
fulfilment
Maximum score:
50 points
50
26-49
0-25
77
Horizontal diaphragms:
- metallic: pronounced deformations, buckling of
wind bracing bars. rupture of the means of fixing
of the wind bracing bar and/or metallic panels for
the resistance structure
- made of reinforced concrete: cracking or
rupturing of the floors. Destruction of the
reinforced concrete plate fixing of the metallic
structure (pulling out from the connectors /
breaking of the connectors)
Total score achieved
(ii) Degradation caused by vertical loads
Cracks and degradation in the floor plates.
Loss of the local stability of the pillars and
girders
Total score achieved
(iii) Degradation caused by a deformation load
(settlement of supports, contractions, temperature
action, slow flow of concrete)
Total score achieved
(iv) Degradations due to bad execution
(offsetting of the pillars and wind braces, defects
in the welded joints, defects in the screwed
joints)
Total score achieved
(v) Degradation caused by environmental factors:
biological or chemical corrosive agents, etc., on:
- steel (corrosion, exfoliation)
Total score achieved
Total score
for all of the conditions
Maximum score:
11 19
20
Maximum score:
20 points
0 10
10 points
69
10
Maximum score:
15
10 points
69
10
Maximum score:
15
10 points
69
10
R2 =
15
points
NOTE: 1. Only the types of degradations caused by seismic action are taken into consideration in table C.3.
If, following an examination of the structure, it is found that the structure displays degradations due to other
causes, such as corrosion or fire-induced material degradations or degradations caused by displacement
loading, such as in differential support settlement or temperature variation, their effect on structural safety
shall be taken into consideration by an additional decrease of the R 2 score, depending on the nature and
structural effect of these degradations.
2. The score distribution presented in table C.3 for each category of degradations is for guidance only. The
assessing engineer may correct this distribution whenever he considers it would help establish a more
realistic assessment of the effects of the various types of degradations on structural safety.
C.5 Admissible values of the average strains when level 1 methodology is applied
When the simplified calculation methods described in 4.3.7.2 are applied, the admissible values
of the average strains in the pillar and vertical wind brace sections shall be considered to be:
ma 0,25 f y - in pillar cores
78
C.6
Reduction coefficients for structural elements when level 2 methodology is applied
The values for the reduction coefficients depending on the potential mode of rupture are given in
table C.4.
Table C.4. Values of the behaviour coefficient q
Structural element
Girders:
-- Ductile behaviour 1)
section class 1
section class 2
-- Non-ductile behaviour
section class 3
1.5
Dissipative bars:
-- Ductile behaviour
section class 1
section class 2
-- Non-ductile behaviour
section class 3
Pillars:
-- Ductile behaviour
section class 1
section class 2
-- Non-ductile behaviour
section class 3
6
4
section class 2
-- Non-ductile behaviour
section class 3
Vertical wind braces with diagonals positioned in the
shape of a V:
-- Ductile behaviour
79
section class 1
section class 2
-- Non-ductile behaviour
section class 3
1)
Ductile behaviour means that the girder, pillar, dissipative bar, wind brace and fixings fulfil all
of the composition and detailing conditions stipulated in the design standards for new
constructions, specific to these types of structures. All of the conditions regarding the formation
of a favourable energy dissipation mechanism by the most stable hysteretic behaviour possible
must also be fulfilled. Interpolation of the q values corresponding to the ductile and non-ductile
behaviour, respectively, shall be admitted, provided that the conditions stipulated in the design
standards for new structures are partially fulfilled.
C.7
Inelastic deformation capacities in structural elements when level 3 methodology is
applied
C.7.1 The inelastic deformation capacity of structural elements shall be calculated taking into
account the type of stress and sensitivity to the loss of local stability of the element, as follows:
(1)
Wp
fy
Wp fy b
6 EIb
for girders
Wp fy c
1 N
6 EIc Np
80
b , c
Ib , Ic
N
Np = A fy
The maximum inelastic rotation u of the girder-pillar fixings that can be relied upon during
verifications at the ULS is:
u = 0.050 rad.
(2)
Nc
AE
Nc = A fy the capable buckling force of the compressed bar (fy has the meaning given in
C.7.1(1)
: theoretical length of the diagonal
The maximum inelastic deformation of the stretched diagonal, t,u, that can be relied upon during
verifications at the ULS, shall be expressed as a function of its axial deformation under the tensile
force that causes the flow, t, as a multiple of this deformation:
t,u = 9 t for class 1 and class 2 sections
where:
Nt
AE
Nt = A fy
the capable tensile force of the bar (fy has the meaning given in
C.7.1(1)
: theoretical length of the bar
The inelastic deformation of the stretched girders or pillars, t,,u, that can be relied upon during
verifications at the ULS, shall be expressed as a function of the axial deformation caused by the
tensile force, t, as a multiple of this deformation:
t,u = 5.0 t for class 1 and class 2 sections
where:
81
Nt
AE
Nt = A fy
the capable tensile force of the bar (fy has the meaning given in
C.7.1(1)
: theoretical length of the bar
Note:
None of the relationships in the present paragraph shall be applied to frames with eccentric wind bracing
(3)
u = 0.08 rad.
u = 0.02 rad.
0.08 rad. u < 0.02 rad. For intermediate dissipative bars (shall be determined by
linear interpolation between the values given above)
82
ANNEX D
MASONRY BUILDINGS
D.1. Object of the provisions
(1) The present annex contains the information required in order to assess the seismic safety
level available at the time of the investigation for buildings with masonry structural walls.
(2) With specifications corresponding to the type of composition, the provisions refer to
buildings with structural walls made of non-reinforced masonry and confined masonry, with
floors without significant rigidity in the horizontal plane and floors that are rigid in the
horizontal plane.
D.2 Specific information required in order to assess the safety of masonry constructions
D.2.1 General data about the construction
(1) The general information regarding masonry constructions refers to:
-
(2) The information given in (1) shall be collected from the documents available and/or by
visual examination.
D.2.2 Data regarding the physical condition of the construction
(1) The following aspects related to the physical condition of masonry buildings, which are
relevant for the assessment of the earthquake safety for such buildings, shall be investigated:
-
83
(2) The information given in (1) shall be collected by visual examination and will be recorded
in the form of drawings, photos, and texts in the damage/degradation survey that is an
integrated part of the assessment report.
D.2.3 Data regarding the geometry of masonry structures
(1) The main data regarding the geometry of masonry structures refers to:
-
the positioning in plan view of structural walls, and the dimensions of structural walls;
the vertical continuity of structural walls;
the positioning and dimensions, both in plan view and in elevation view, of the openings
(doors, windows) and wall areas with reduced thickness (niches);
the positioning, both in plan view and in elevation view, of the structural masonry
elements that generate thrusts (arches, vaults, domes), indicating their typology and main
dimensions (shape, thickness), as well as the positioning of the elements that are able to
absorb these trusts (abutments, tie-rods);
the planar positioning and dimensions of the main elements of the wooden or metallic
floors, thickness of the concrete plates; partial floors or floors with large openings;
the positions and dimensions of the confinement elements (small pillars and girdles), the
lintels and tie-rods.
(2) For all levels of knowledge, the specific data regarding the geometry of the structures
shall be obtained from the documents described in 3.4.1, with the following observations:
-
Visual examination. The visual examination results shall be presented in the form of
drawings that are suitably dimensioned for each storey of the building and represent: the
walls with significant resistance to shear forces (planar positioning, the main geometrical
dimensions), the masonry elements that generate thrusts (arches, vaults, domes), the
support directions of floors and their composition (in significant areas, such as rooms
with large openings).
Surveying the construction. The survey of the construction shall contain fully
dimensioned drawings for each storey, representing: all of the masonry elements
(structural ones, including confinement elements, and non-structural ones), the masonry
elements that give thrusts (arches, vaults, domes), including a description of their
typology (shape and thickness) and the typology of the fillings on top of them, as well as
the supports for all floors.
the type and quality of the connections between walls in the corners, ramifications and
junctions;
the type and quality of the connections between floors and walls; the presence/absence of
girdles at floor level; the presence/absence of braces and tie-rods;
the absence/presence/composition of lintels with a significant bending resistance;
the composition of structural elements that give thrusts and elements that are able to
absorb/limit these thrusts (abutments, pilasters, tie-rods);
84
the existence of masonry areas weakened by the presence of niches, stacks, slotted holes,
etc.
details regarding interventions, over time, on the construction:
- modification of the position of the openings in structural walls: modification of the
aperture and/or height, total/partial abolishment of lintels or arches, etc.;
- creation of new openings;
- abolishment of openings: masonry fillers/other materials with/without bonding;
- breaking of horizontal and vertical slotted holes for installations;
composition of structural/non-structural elements with high vulnerability:
- major masonry elements located on the top storey (attic/garret), whether anchored
and/or not anchored: gables, tympanums, fire walls;
- minor masonry elements located on the facades (parapets, decorative elements) or on
the roof (attics, stacks and air shafts);
composition of floors:
- materials and the geometry of the floor (orientation of the main floor elements,
distances between them);
- dimensions of the main elements and identification of the species of wood (for
wooden floors);
- constructive details of the supports/fixings onto structural walls;
composition of the infrastructure and foundations:
- presence/absence of a basement, partial/general basement;
- basement wall materials: stone, masonry, plain concrete, reinforced concrete;
- composition of the floor over the basement: straight floor (metallic girders and small
brick vaults/girders and wooden/reinforced concrete flooring, masonry vaults;
- foundation depth;
- materials that the foundations are made of: stone, masonry, plain concrete, reinforced
concrete, mixed solutions;
- presence/absence of vertical/horizontal hydro insulations;
ground conditions:
- site topography: flat ground, sloping ground (stability of the flank), floodable ground;
- nature of the foundation ground: normal, with sensitivities, aggressive to building
materials;
- underground water level;
- presence / absence of urban networks (water/sewage) with water losses.
(2) The information given in (1) shall be obtained in accordance with 3.4.2., with the
following observations:
-
Limited in-situ inspection: shall be carried out only by visual examination, usually after
the plaster has been taken off. The following elements shall be examined, for at least
15% of the total number of walls:
- the surface and in-depth characteristics of the masonry;
- the connections between intersecting walls;
- the general composition of the floors and their fixing to the walls.
Note. The details about the connections between intersecting walls and the connections
between floors and walls can also be assessed by taking into consideration the
constructive typology (similar buildings) and the current practice for the construction
stages.
Extensive and comprehensive in-situ inspections: shall also be carried out by visual
examination, for each storey of the building, and shall consist of at least:
- taking the plaster off (for sufficiently large surfaces, for guidance > 1,0 m2) ;
85
Limited in-situ inspections: shall be carried out by the visual examination of the bonding
of the masonry and its component elements. At least one examination must be carried out
for each type of masonry in the building and each storey of the building; experimental
data is not required.
Extensive in-situ tests: aim to obtain quantitative information, of a general nature, about
the resistances of the masonry. For this, at least one test of the ones mentioned in point iv
of paragraph (1) shall be carried out on each storey, for each type of material present in
the structure (with the same elements and/or mortars), in addition to the visual
examinations from the limited inspection. The non-destructive tests mentioned in point iii
of paragraph (1) are complementary to those mentioned in point iv, and cannot replace
them.
Comprehensive in-situ tests: aim to provide a more accurate assessment of the resistance
of the materials and/or masonry. In order to obtain significant results, at least three tests
shall be carried out for each type of material present in the project and for each storey of
the building.
For important constructions, the following are also recommended:
86
(3) If a significant typological correspondence is found for the materials, as well as for the
shape and dimensions of the elements and constructive details, the results of tests carried out
for similar buildings erected in the same area and approximately in the same period can be
used instead of testing the respective construction.
(4) For the constructions designed and erected after 1950, if there are plans and/or written
documents available that indicate the quality of the masonry elements and of the mortar, and
if the visual inspection carried out in accordance with D.2.4 and D.2.5 does not show the
presence of any major manufacturing defects, the resistances of the masonry can be taken
from the standards in force at the date of design/execution (starting with STAS 1031-50,
1031-56, 1031-71). In this case, the confidence factor shall be taken as CF=1.20 without
carrying out any in-situ tests.
For buildings erected between the two world wars, the reference values of the resistances of
the masonry can be considered to be those given in the specialised literature, supplemented
with the investigations requested in table 3.1. for allocation to the KL1KL3 knowledge
levels, as applicable.
D.3. Seismic safety assessment
D.3.1. General information
(1) The seismic safety assessment of buildings with masonry structural walls shall be carried
out by corroborating the results obtained by using two categories of methods:
-
qualitative assessment;
assessment through calculation.
(3) The assessment through calculation of the seismic safety of masonry buildings under
vertical (permanent and net) loads involves two categories of verifications:
-
verification of the assembly of the structure and structural walls for a seismic action in the
plane of the walls;
verification of the walls for a seismic action that is perpendicular to their plane.
(4) The methods of assessment through calculation have two levels of complexity:
-
preliminary overall assessment, for a seismic action in the plane of the walls;
detailed assessment, for a seismic action in the plane of the walls and perpendicular to the
plane.
(5) A detailed assessment through calculation for the effects of a seismic action in the plane
of the walls has several levels of complexity, depending on the calculation model and
method:
-
The conditions for using these calculation models and methods are defined in D.3.4.1.6 and
D.3.4.1.7.
(6) For seismic forces that are in the plane of the wall and perpendicular to the plane of the
wall, and act simultaneously on the structural walls and the non-load bearing panels, the
verifications stipulated in (3) will relate to compliance with the stability and resistance
requirements.
(7) Normally, a verification of the rigidity requirement for the seismic stress in the plane of
the wall and perpendicular to the plane of the wall is not necessary for buildings with a
masonry structure, except for buildings for which, at the service limit state, damage to the
finishing or special installations is not acceptable.
D.3.2. Assessment methodologies for masonry buildings
(1) This annex gives three seismic safety assessment methodologies for masonry buildings:
-
Level 1 methodology
Level 2 methodology
Level 3 methodology
(2) The level 1 methodology shall apply to the following categories of buildings with
masonry structural walls:
-
confined masonry buildings, which display regularity both in plan view and in elevation
view, with floors made of monolith reinforced concrete and the height:
- P+2E in seismic areas with ag = 0,16g;
- P+4E in seismic areas with ag 0,12g;
non-reinforced masonry buildings, which display regularity both in plan view and in
elevation view, with floors made of monolith reinforced concrete and the height:
- P+2E in seismic areas with ag = 0,12g;
- P+4E in seismic areas with ag = 0,08g.
all buildings with structural walls made of non-reinforced masonry and confined
masonry, with floors without significant rigidity in the horizontal plane, regardless of the
seismic area and the height regime;
buildings with structural walls made of non-reinforced masonry and confined masonry,
and floors that are rigid in the horizontal plan, which fulfil the conditions stipulated in
D.3.4.1.6. regarding the use of elastic linear calculation methods, but do not fulfil the
conditions stipulated in (2) regarding use of the level 1 methodology;
88
buildings that fulfil the conditions stipulated in (2) regarding use of the level 1
methodology, if a more accurate determination of the level of safety available is desired
(recommended for buildings belonging to importance classes I and II).
(6) The level 3 methodology shall apply to constructions that do not fulfil the conditions
given in D.3.4.1.6. regarding use of the level 2 methodology, as well as to important and
complex constructions, if a more accurate assessment of their seismic performance is desired.
(7) The level 3 methodology consists of:
-
assessment through calculation using non-linear methods, for seismic actions in the plane;
assessment through calculation for a seismic action that is perpendicular to the plane of
the walls.
(2) The general characteristics taken into consideration for the preliminary qualitative
assessment are:
1. Height regime:
1.1 P+2E; 1.2 > P+2E
2. Rigidity of the floors in the horizontal plane:
2.1 rigid ; 2.2 without any significant rigidity
3. Geometrical and structural regularity:
3.1 with regularity in both plan view and elevation view; 3.2 without any regularity in
either plan view or elevation view; 3.3 without any regularity in both plan view and
elevation view.
(3) The value of the R1 coefficient that quantifies, from a qualitative point of view, the
composition of the building, shall be determined based on these general characteristics.
R1 coefficient for non-reinforced masonry
Table D.1a
Floor
Height
Regularity conditions
89
rigidity
2.1
2.2
regime
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
3.1
100
85
75
55
3.2
85
70
55
40
3.3
70
60
40
20
Height
regime
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
3.1
100
90
85
70
Regularity conditions
3.2
100
85
70
55
3.3
85
75
60
35
(4) For the preliminary qualitative assessment, the general state of damage to the building
shall be noted depending on the type and gravity of the damages, using the scores given in
table D.2
Calculation of the R2 coefficient for preliminary qualitative assessment
Table D.2.
Type of Vertical
Horizontal
damage
elements
elements
(Av)
(Ah)
Insignificant 70
30
Moderate
60
20
Severe
45
15
Very severe 25
10
Note. The horizontal elements include: floors, vaults, domes, framework.
(5) The R2 coefficient, which defines the degree of seismic damage of the building, shall be
determined with the relationship:
R2 = Ah + Av
(D.1)
(6) The characteristic damages to the masonry walls that are taken into consideration for the
preliminary qualitative assessment are:
i.
ii.
Vertical cracks in parapets, lintels and arches, above the door/window openings.
Inclined and/or X-shaped cracks in parapets, lintels and arches, above the door/window
openings.
iii. Inclined and/or X-shaped cracks in the louvers located between two neighbouring
openings.
iv. Crushing of the masonry caused by the local concentration of the compressive stresses,
potentially with expulsion of the material.
v. Horizontal cracks at the extremities of louvers.
vi. Damage to the junctions of the exterior/interior walls, with a tendency for detachment.
vii. Vertical fissures/cracks at the connections between perpendicular walls.
viii. Local expulsion of the masonry from the horizontal elements on which the floors are
supported.
(7) The guiding characterisation for the severity of the damages to the vertical structural
elements, defined in (6), for use in table D.2, is as follows:
a. Insignificant damage.
Examples:
90
structural walls:
- very thin horizontal cracks in the joints at the base;
- possible diagonal cracks and minor detachments at the base;
louvers in between openings:
- very thin cracks / crushed mortar in the horizontal joints at the extremities; very thin
discontinuous cracks / crushed mortar in the horizontal and vertical joints (without
displacement); no cracks in the bricks / thin diagonal cracks in the bricks in < 5% of
the layers.
b. Moderate damage.
Examples:
- structural walls:
- horizontal cracks/mortar detached at the base and close to it; displacements (< 56
mm) in the plane of the cracking;
- possible inclined cracks that start from the base and extend along a few rows of
bricks;
- possible inclined cracks in the upper areas (including through the bricks);
- louvers in between openings
- very thin cracks / crushed mortar in the horizontal joints at the extremities and,
sometimes, in other joints close to the extremities;
- horizontal cracks and crushing of the mortar, with planar displacement along the
crack and opening of the vertical joints (< 56 mm); stair-shaped rupture with <5% of
the layers displaying cracks in the bricks;
- diagonal cracks (<56mm), most of them through the bricks that reach the corners or
in their vicinity, but without causing crushing of the masonry.
c. Severe damages.
Examples:
- structural walls:
- cracks in the horizontal joint, at the base, < 1012 mm;
- inclined cracks extended over several layers;
- possible inclined cracks with openings < 1012 mm at the upper part;
- louvers in between openings:
- thin cracks / crushed mortar in the horizontal joints at the extremities;
- sometimes thin cracks/crushed mortar and in other horizontal joints close to the
extremities, as well;
- possibly, out of plane or planar (up/down) displacements;
- bricks crushed at the corners;
- horizontal cracks and crushing of the mortar, with planar displacement along the crack
and opening of the vertical joints (< 1012mm); stair-shaped rupture with >5% of the
layers displaying cracks in the bricks;
- diagonal cracks (>6mm), most of them through the bricks; a few areas that are
crushed at the corners and/or small displacements along or perpendicular to the plane
of the cracking.
The structure is considered to have suffered severe damage if one of the following conditions
is fulfilled:
A. The sum of the resistance capacity of the walls that suffered severe damage is more than
2025% of the total resistance capacity of the structure in one of the main directions on
one storey.
91
or
B. The number of louvers that suffered severe damage is more than 2025% of the total
number of louvers in one of the main directions on one storey.
d. Very severe damage:
Examples:
- structural walls:
- risk of loosing the load-bearing capacity for vertical loads;
- important stair-shaped displacements, some bricks have slipped off the ones they were
cemented to;
- the section at the base of the wall has started to disintegrate at the extremities;
- large lateral displacements (in some edge areas, the masonry has started to collapse).
- louvers in between openings:
- risk of loosing the load-bearing capacity for vertical loads;
- significant displacements in the plane and/or perpendicular to the plane;
- extended crushing of the bricks, at the corners;
-
large stair-shaped displacements (some of the bricks have fallen off the ones
underneath);
- vertical rupture of the bricks in the majority of the layers;
- large lateral displacements, at the edge areas the masonry has started to collapse;
- important displacements and rotations along the plane of the cracking.
The structure is considered to have suffered very severe damage if one of the following
conditions is fulfilled:
A. The sum of the resistance capacity of the walls that suffered very severe damage is more
than 1015% of the total resistance capacity of the structure in one of the main directions on
one storey.
or
B. The number of louvers that suffered very severe damage is more than 1015% of the total
number of louvers in one of the main directions on one storey.
(8) For buildings with very severe damages that require immediate intervention in order to
ensure temporary safety of the building and prohibit the access of all people, a preliminary
assessment is no longer necessary and one shall proceed directly to a detailed qualitative
assessment, in accordance with D.3.3.2.
(9) The guiding characterisation for the severity of the damages to the horizontal structural
elements, for use in table D.2, is as follows:
Damage to the floors with wooden girders:
-
Damage to the floors with metallic girders and small brick vaults:
-
Insignificant damage: Isolated cracks in the small vaults, parallel to the girders.
92
Moderate damage: Numerous cracks in the small vaults, parallel with the girders,
accompanied by isolated transversal cracks.
Severe damage: Cracks with an opening of over 1 mm in the small vaults, parallel to the
girders and accompanied by many transversal cracks.
Very severe damage: Partial separation of the girders from the masonry of the small
vaults. Crushing of the masonry of the vertical elements in the support areas of the
metallic girders. Falling of the small vaults.
(2) The detailed qualitative assessment shall be carried out by scoring, according to the
following criteria:
1. Quality of the structural system:
- assessment criteria: efficiency of the spatial cooperation between the elements of the
structure that depend on the nature and quality of the connections between the walls in
the orthogonal directions and the walls and floors, the existence of masonry areas that
are approximately equal in the two directions;
- the guiding criteria for maximum scores: the provisions of CR 6-2006.
2. Quality of the masonry:
- assessment criteria: quality of the elements, homogeneity of the bonding, regularity of
the joints, degree of mortar filling, presence of weakened areas with slotted holes
and/or niches, etc.;
- the guiding criteria for maximum scores: quality of the materials and execution, in
accordance with the regulations in force.
3. Floor type:
- assessment criteria: horizontal rigidity of the floors and the efficiency of their
connections with the walls (ability to ensure compatibility of the structural wall
deformations and prevention of the walls from collapsing under seismic forces that
are perpendicular to their plane);
93
the guiding criteria for maximum scores: full floors made of monolith reinforced
concrete on all storeys, without openings that would significantly weaken their
resistance and rigidity in the horizontal plane.
criteria is fulfilled
minor non-fulfilment
moderate non-fulfilment
major non-fulfilment
10 (maximum score)
810
48
04
94
(3) The result of the detailed qualitative assessment in relation to the composition criteria
shall be quantified with the coefficient
R1 = pi
(D.2)
(5) The R2 coefficient for the detailed qualitative assessment shall be calculated using
relationship (D.1.).
Example:
vertical elements: very severe damage to 40% of the surface
horizontal elements: severe damage to 25% of the surface
Av = 25
Ah = 20
R2 = 25 + 20 = 45
95
correction of the behaviour factors q given in table 4.1. with the super-resistance factors
u/1 given in P 100-1/2006, 8.3.4.(3) shall only be carried out for buildings with
confined masonry walls and floors that are rigid in the horizontal plane, which fulfil the
conditions of regularity, in both plan view and elevation view, given in P 100-1/2006,
4.4.3.; this correction does not apply to the preliminary assessment though
calculation for the entire building (level 1 methodology);
- the elastic response spectrum shall be corrected, in accordance with Annex A of 1001/2006, art. A.7, by multiplying it by the coefficient = 0.88, determined by considering
that the fraction of the critical damping is 8%.
(2) The elastic linear calculation with the equivalent static lateral force can be carried out
under the following conditions:
-
the building satisfies the conditions for regularity in both plan view and elevation view, in
accordance with P 100-1/2006, 4.4.3.;
the floors have the same upper elevation for the entire storey; offsets for the upper side of
the floor can be accepted, provided that these are smaller than the height of the girdles
(1520 cm);
the floors have sufficient horizontal rigidity and are sufficiently well linked to the
perimetric walls so that it can be accepted that the distribution of inertial forces is ensured
through the compatibility of lateral deformations (as it is the case for floors made of
reinforced concrete or wood/metal with a concrete overlayer 50 mm and with
connectors);
for each main direction, only those walls shall be entered in the calculation model, whose
lateral rigidity is at least 30% of the rigidity of the most rigid wall in the respective
direction, taking into account the weaknesses given by the door and window openings;
horizontal masonry infills can be included in the calculation model only if they are made
of elements that are bound to the neighbouring masonry or are equipped with
braces/reinforcements that link them to it.
(3) The modal calculation based on the response spectrum can be carried out if the conditions
for the static calculation method with the equivalent static lateral force are fulfilled, and
in the following situations, additional to those stipulated in (2):
-
96
D.3.4.1.3. Calculation of the resistance capacity for a seismic action in the plane of the
walls
D.3.4.1.3.1. Design resistance of the masonry
(1) For calculation in the elastic linear range, where the behaviour factor q (reduced
spectrum) is considered, the design resistances of the masonry for the assessment of the
capacity for resistance to bending with axial forces and shearing, shall be taken as follows:
1. The value of the design compression resistance for walls that are stressed upon bending
with an axial force (fd) shall be taken to be equal to the average resistance to compressive
rupture of the masonry (fd) divided by the confidence factor CF, determined in
accordance with table 3.1.
In the absence of data obtained through testing of the respective project, the average
compression resistance of the masonry can be taken as:
- fm = 1.3 fk , where fk is the characteristics compression resistance of the masonry,
determined in accordance with CR 6-2006;
- the design standards based on calculation at the rupture stage (STAS 1031-50, 103156, 1031-1071) using the average resistance of bricks and mortar, determined through
testing of the respective project.
2. The value of the design resistance for walls that are stressed by shear forces shall be
determined depending on the rupture mechanism:
97
f vm
M CF
(D.3)
where fvm is the average rupture resistance to shearing in a horizontal joint, and M is
taken in accordance with (2).
In the absence of data obtained through testing of the respective project, the average
rupture resistance to shearing in a horizontal joint (fvm) can be taken to be equal to:
- fvm = 1.3 fvk where fvk is the characteristic rupture resistance determined in
accordance with CR 6-2006;
- For old masonry with full bricks and lime mortar, fvk shall be calculated with
relationships (4.3a) and (4.3b) given in CR 6-2006, where the initial characteristic
unitary resistance to shearing of the masonry shall be taken as fvk0 = 0.045 N/mm2
For stair-shaped ruptures under the effect of the main tensile stresses (ftd):
f td
0.04f m
M CF
(D.4)
M = 3.0 for old masonry with manually made bricks and lime mortar (approximately
prior to 1900);
M = 2.75 for old masonry with pressed bricks and lime-cement/cement-lime mortar
(approximately between 19001950);
M = 2.5 for recent masonry (approximately after 1950).
(3) For confined masonry and/or masonry reinforced at the joints, the average values of the
resistances of concrete and steel, determined in accordance with STAS 10107/0-90, 3.1.7,
shall be used to calculate the resistance capacity.
D.3.4.1.3.2 The resistance capacity of structural walls for planar forces
(1) The shear force associated with yielding via eccentric compression of a non-reinforced
masonry wall stressed by the design axial force Nd shall be calculated with the relationship:
Vf 1
Nd
d (1 1.15d )
cp p
(D.5)
where
-
Hp
lw
with
- Hp wall height;
- lw wall length;
- cp - coefficient that depends on the fixing conditions at the extremities of the wall:
- cp = 2.0 for a support wall (stanchion);
- cp = 1.0 for a double wall embedded at the ends (louver);
98
Nd
- the average unitary compressive stress corresponding to the design axial force
tlw
Nd.
where
- t wall thickness
-
0
fd
(D.6)
(D.7)
tlw f td
1 0
b
f td
(D.8)
where
- the coefficient b shall be taken as 1.00 b = p 1.5;
- ftd design resistance of the masonry under main tensile stresses (D.4) .
(3) the resistance capacity of a non-reinforced masonry wall is equal to the eccentric
compression resistance, if the value of the shear force Vf1, given by relationship (D.5), is
smaller than the value of the shear force Vf2, given by relationship (D.6).
(4) Walls that fulfil the condition given in (3) are defined as being walls with ductile
behaviour
(ductile walls)
(5) The resistance of a non-reinforced masonry wall is equal to the resistance to shear forces,
if the value of the shear force Vf2, given by relationship (D.6), is smaller than the value of the
shear force Vf1, given by relationship (D.5).
(6) Walls that fulfil the condition given in (5) are defined as being walls with fragile
behaviour
(fragile walls).
(7) To calculate the shear forces Vf1 and Vf2 for confined masonry walls, the contribution of
the confinement elements, determined in accordance with CR 6-2006, shall also be taken into
consideration. The resistance of the concrete and the reinforcement shall be taken in
accordance with D.3.4.1.3.1.(2).
99
D.3.4.1.4. Preliminary verification through calculation of the resistance capacity for the
entire building (level 1 methodology)
(1) Within the level 1 methodology, the preliminary assessment by calculation consists in
determining the capacity for resistance to shear forces of the building based on simplifying
hypotheses and comparing it with the basic shear force. The resistance capacity shall be
calculated in the section at the base of the structural walls (the embedding section defined in
CR 6-2006).
(2) The hypotheses for the simplified assessment of the unitary compressive and shearing
stresses in the structural walls are as follows:
-
the connections between the walls in the two directions, as well as between the walls and
the floors, ensure their cooperation in the absorption of the vertical and seismic loads;
the floors act as diaphragms that are rigid in the horizontal plane; in buildings with nniv
3, the last floor can be made of wood, in the case of confined masonry and masonry
without small pillars, provided that the conditions given in CR 6-2006, 7.1.2.1. are
fulfilled.
the building displays regularity in both plan view and elevation view;
the wall distribution, including the distribution of the openings, is identical on all storeys
(the walls are continuous all the way down to the foundations);
rupture of the walls occurs due to shear forces, by diagonal cracking (stair-shaped
rupture mechanism).
Note. In most cases, these simplifying hypotheses are not fulfilled by buildings designed before the
technical regulations specific to masonry buildings appeared.
(2) In the hypotheses given in (2), the unitary compressive stress ((0 in t/m2) in the structural
walls shall be calculated with the relationship:
0
(D.9)
A zx A zy
where:
- nniv number of storeys of the building above the embedding section
- qetaj total vertical load on the storey, considered to be uniformly distributed on the
floor surface (t/m2)
- Aetaj - area of the storey, including the balconies and bow windows (m2)
- Azx and Azy areas of masonry in the two main directions of the building (m2)
(3) The equivalent load qetaj shall be calculated with the relationship:
q etaj q zid ,etaj q planseu
zid A zx A zy h etaj
A etaj
q planseu
(D.10)
where zid (volumetric weight of the masonry) and qplaneu are taken as a function of the
composition of the masonry and floors of the building. For masonry with full fired clay
bricks, the value zid = 2.0 t/m3 (including the plaster) can be considered to be sufficiently
accurate. Apart from the permanent loads, the value qplaneu also includes the fraction of the
net load that is established in CR 0-2005.
(4) The capable shear force for the entire building shall be calculated for the direction in
which the masonry area is minimum Az,min = min (Azx,Azy), using the relationship:
100
Scap A z, mink 1
2 0
3 k
(D.11)
where
- k the reference (lump) value of the shearing resistance of the masonry, which is used
for masonry with fired clay elements in the absence of more accurate data: u:
- k = 0.06 N/mm2 (6 t/m2) for masonry with lime mortar;
- k = 0.12 N/mm2 (12 t/m2) for masonry with cement mortar;
Note. The k value refers to the masonry of non-damaged walls; for the masonry of damaged walls, the
expert shall estimate the level of reduction required. For guidance, the k value shall be reduced by 2530%
for masonry that has suffered important damage, and by 5060% in the case of severe damage.
For lime-cement or cement-lime mortars, it is recommended that linear interpolation between the above
values is used, depending on the ratio between the two binders (cement/lime).
(5) The R3 coefficient, which expresses the resistance capacity of the building, shall be
determined with the relationship:
R3
Scap
(D.12)
Fb
where Fb (basic shear force) shall be determined in accordance with D.3.4.1.1. (1).
D.3.4.1.5. Verification of resistance capacity for buildings with floors without significant
horizontal rigidity (level 2 methodology)
(1) The resistance capacity shall be calculated separately, in both of the main directions, for
each of the walls positioned with their major axis in the direction of action of the seismic
force. The resistance capacity shall be approximated in accordance with (8) for the building
as a whole.
(2) For each wall, the following shall be determined on each storey (j):
-
(3) In the section at the base of the wall, the following shall be determined for each wall:
-
the axial force (G0i), by adding up the corresponding storey weights (Gij)
G 0i G ij
A zi
A zi
where Azi is the area of the masonry section at the base of the wall.
(4) For each wall, the minimum capable shear force and the probable mode of rupture Vfd (for
ductile rupture) or Vff (for fragile rupture) in the section at the base shall be determined using
the methodology indicated in D.3.4.1.3.2.
(5) The basic shear force for the building (Fb) shall be determined in accordance with
D.3.4.1.1. (1).
(6) The basic shear force (Fb,i) for each wall shall be determined by distributing force Fb
proportionally with weight Gi corresponding to the corresponding floor area for the
respective wall.
101
Fb,i
Gi
Fb
G i
(D.13)
Scap,i
(D.14)
Fb,i
where Scap,i is the capable shear force of the wall "i" (expressed by Vfd or Vff, as applicable).
(8) The R3 coefficient for the entire building, in each direction, shall be calculated with the
relationship
R3
Vfd Vff
jd
kf
Fb
(D.15)
where
-
Vfd is the sum of the resistance capacities of the walls with ductile rupture (j walls)
jd
Vff
is the sum of the resistance capacities of the walls with fragile rupture (k walls).
kf
In the respective sums, the resistance capacities of the walls shall be introduced with the
values:
- Vfd,i (Vff,i) = 0 if R3i < 0.5;
- Vfd,i (Vff,i) 1.5 Snec,i.
D.3.4.1.6. Verification through elastic linear calculation of resistance capacity for
buildings with rigid floors in the horizontal plane (level 2 methodology)
(1) For safety verification, the effects of the seismic action determined by elastic linear
calculation with the reduced elastic spectrum (with an equivalent static force or modal
analysis with response spectra) shall be taken as follows:
- for ductile walls: with the values obtained from the structure calculation;
- for fragile walls: with the values obtained from the structure calculation multiplied by the
2.0/1.5 ratio, if the value q = 2.0 was used for the design spectrum, in accordance with
table 4.1 (for confined masonry).
(2) The seismic safety of the walls shall be determined in terms of forces. For each limit state,
the sectional design stresses for each wall (N,V,M) resulting from the elastic linear
calculation of the structure with the design spectrum and corrected, if applicable, in
accordance with (1), shall be compared with the resistance capacity of the wall, calculated
using the resistances of the materials determined in accordance with D.3.4.1.3.1.
(3) For walls with openings, which have coupling struts made of reinforced concrete, the
sectional design stresses in the stanchions/louvers shall be determined for the situation in
which plastic hinges are formed in the struts on all of the storeys. This calculation scheme
shall only be applied if the masonry can absorb the local stresses corresponding to
plasticisation of the struts.
102
(4) For the entire building, the R3 coefficient for each direction shall be calculated with the
relationship (D.15). Only the resistance capacities of the walls (i) for which R3i 0.30 shall
be introduced in the sums at the numerator.
D.3.4.1.7. Verification of safety through non-linear static calculation for the effects of the
seismic action in the plane of the walls (level 3 methodology)
(1) The adequate calculation model for the non-linear static calculation implies the following
schematisations:
-
the elasto-plastic calculation with increasing forces, on a frame model with bars with rigid
ends;
calculation using finite element type models for which adequate laws for elasto-plastic
behaviour shall be defined (the calculation is more accurate but, due to its complexity, use
of the method in the current practice is not justified).
D.3.4.2. Safety against seismic action perpendicular to the plane of the walls
(1) Damage of a wall under the effect of loads perpendicular to the plane can occur via one of
the following mechanisms:
-
- the wall connections with the floors and/or perpendicular walls yield;
cracking/rupturing, if the masonrys resistance to eccentric compression is exceeded; in
this case, the rupture plane is, usually, parallel to the horizontal joints, in the middle of the
distance between the connections with the floors or, potentially, in a section that is
weakened by openings or horizontal slotted holes.
Note. In certain special situations (walls weakened by vertical slotted holes), yielding of the perpendicular
wall can occur in a section that is relatively distant from the junction.
(2) The calculation methods used to identify the effects of the seismic action that is
perpendicular to the plane of the wall shall be established, for each mechanism for the
damage of the wall panel, depending on the constructive characteristics of the building:
A. As a function of the connection between the wall and the floors:
1. Wall bordered, at the upper and lower ends, by the girdles of reinforced concrete
floors.
2. Wall with articulated fixings at floor level (as is the case for floors with
metallic/wooden girders supported on the wall, with or without anchors).
3. Wall not connected to the floors (continuous masonry, without any link to the floor
as is the case for floors with metallic/wooden girders positioned parallel to the wall).
B. As a function of the connection between the wall and perpendicular walls:
1. Presence or absence of perpendicular walls, at both extremities or at a
single extremity.
2. Geometry of the wall: ratio between the length (distance between the perpendicular
walls) and height (distance between the floors).
3. Efficiency of the link with the perpendicular walls: bonded or non-bonded masonry,
presence of reinforcements.
(3) The verification by calculation of the stability and resistance of walls under a seismic
action perpendicular to the plane shall be carried out for an equivalent static force determined
in accordance with P 100-1/2006, chapter 10, relationship (10.1) considering that:
-
(4) Verification of the resistance of the connections of a wall with the perpendicular walls
shall consider all stresses that occur in the junction:
-
shear forces and bending moments caused by seismic action perpendicular to the wall;
vertical sliding forces resulting from bending of the perpendicular wall under the effect of
the seismic forces acting in its plane.
(5) Verification of the wall upon collapsing involves the following stages:
i. Identification of the possible mechanisms of collapse (the entire wall on all storeys or on
only one storey, one area of the wall only);
ii. For each of the possible mechanisms of collapse, for the area of the wall that is engaged
by the respective mechanism, the following shall be determined:
- the vertical static loads (the load combinations stipulated in CR 0-2005, which
include the effects of the seismic action) and the eccentricities of their application;
104
the potential horizontal static forces (thrusts in the vaults, arches, framings, etc.);
the horizontal seismic force, calculated in accordance with (3);
the design resistance of the connections that can prevent the displacement of the wall
both ways in the direction of the fixing, calculated in accordance with (6);
iii. For each of the mechanisms of collapse, with the forces and eccentricities determined in
ii, the following shall be calculated:
- the moment of collapse (Mr);
- the stability moment (Mst).
To calculate the stability moment, the connection forces due to friction shall not be taken into
consideration, and the favourable effect of the permanent loads shall be reduced by 10%.
The ratio between the stability moment and the moment of collapse defines the degree of
assurance of the wall at stability.
R 3,st
M st
Mr
(D.16)
(7) For the ultimate limit state (ULS), the capable moment of the cross-section of the wall to
rupture due to eccentric compression perpendicular to the plane can be calculated by
accepting the rectangular diagram for compressive stresses, with the design value equal to
0.85 fd (neglecting the tensile resistance of the masonry). This equilibrium situation prevents
the acceptance of an advanced state of cracking of the wall.
(8) To assess the capacity of a wall under seismic action perpendicular to the plane at the
ultimate limit state (ULS), the formation of rupture lines along paths that are compatible with
the geometry and contour fixing conditions of the wall can be taken into consideration.
(9) The ratio between the capable moment of the cross-section of the wall and the maximum
bending moment produced by the seismic force perpendicular to the plane defines the
resistance capacity of the wall
R 3,rez
M cap
M max,perp
(D.15)
D.3.4.3. Grouping buildings with structural masonry walls into classes of seismic risk
(1) Structural masonry walls for which, under seismic action perpendicular to the plane, the
R3,st factor, calculated using relationship (D.14), is smaller than 1.3 shall be considered to be
unsafe. For these walls, intervention works to ensure stability are compulsory regardless of
the risk class for the seismic action in the plane of the walls determined in accordance with
(3).
(2) For structural walls that have R3,st 1.3, their grouping into risk classes in relation to the
seismic action perpendicular to the plane shall be carried out based on the R 3,rez coefficient,
calculated with relationship (D.15), using table 5.3.
(3) Buildings with structural masonry walls shall be grouped into risk classes in relation to
the seismic action in the plane of the walls and in accordance with the general principles
105
stipulated in Chapter 5.2, tables 5.1. 5.3., using the R1R3 coefficients, calculated in
accordance with the provisions of the present annex.
106
ANNEX E
NON-STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS
E.1. General information
E.1.1. Objectives of the seismic assessment
(1) The seismic safety assessment shall be carried out for the non-structural components subsystem defined in accordance with P100-1/2006, 10.1.2.(2), with the specifications given in
E.1.2.
(2) The seismic safety assessment aims to identify the NSC that require works to reduce the
seismic risk. In order to determine the level of complexity of such interventions, the seismic
safety assessment of NSC in existing buildings shall be carried out in accordance with:
- the provisions of the technical regulations in force (compulsory, lower limits);
- the performance objective of the investor, defined through the design theme, which:
- cannot be inferior to the provisions of the technical regulations regarding the life
safety requirement (basic performance objective);
- can be inferior to the provisions of the technical regulations regarding the degradation
limitation requirement, if adopting this solution is justified by an economic
calculation (low performance objective, which can be adopted if the period of
operation envisaged after the intervention is short).
(3) In terms of the seismic behaviour of NSC, the degradation limitation requirement for the
building can have two stages, depending on the operational facilities available after an
earthquake with an intensity corresponding to this performance objective:
- Fully functional building: if only very slight deterioration of the NSC occurred, so
that all categories of NSC in the building are capable to fulfil the functions they used to
fulfil before the earthquake.
- Building that can be immediately occupied: if slight deteriorations of the NSC have
occurred, but the integrity and operability of the access routes and vital systems are
ensured. The other categories of installations can be discontinued or can operate under
their normal parameters. The life safety risk due to non-structural damage is very low.
(4) For existing buildings belonging to the importance and exposure classes I and II, due to
the diversity and complexity of the non-structural components, the seismic safety assessment
shall be carried out by mixed teams of experts certified in accordance to the legislation in
force (structural engineers, installation engineers, architects).
E.1.2. NSC that are subjected to seismic assessment
E.1.2.1. Criteria for determining the NSC to be subjected to seismic assessment
(1) The NSC shall be subjected to a seismic safety assessment as a function of:
- the seismic performance objectives set for the building in accordance with E.1.1.;
- the design ground acceleration (ag), determined in accordance with P 100-1/2006;
- the potential vulnerability level of the component;
- the categories of seismic risk (expected losses) due to damage of the component.
(2) The seismic assessment of NSC shall only be carried out for elements that display the
following categories of seismic risk:
- life safety threat (LS);
107
(3) The life safety risk due to the partial/full collapse of the NSC is differentiated based on
their position within the building:
- towards spaces where the gathering of human crowds is possible (towards the street, in
school playgrounds, in atria, gyms or theatre halls, etc.);
- towards/on the exit routes (inside/outside of the building);
- in rooms fulfilling essential functions, of buildings belonging to importance and exposure
class I;
- in halls where large crowds gather, which belong to importance and exposure class II;
- in spaces/rooms with everyday functions;
- in spaces that are not normally accessible to people (inner yards, warehouses, etc.).
(4) In order to carry out the assessment, the NCS whose damage may lead to an interruption
of the normal operation of certain buildings with vital functions shall be
identified/determined by the specialised staff of the respective institutions.
(5) The identification of the NSC whose damage may cause important material and cultural
losses shall be established by:
- the respective investors/users, only if material losses (based on damage scenarios
proposed by the structural engineers) are likely to occur;
- specialists in the valuation of cultural assets that cannot be quantified by price.
Risk levels for NSC as a function of the design ground acceleration (ag).
Architectural components (constructive elements)
Table E.1a
Type of element
Masonry partition walls
(on the access routes)
Light partition walls
(on the access routes)
Suspended ceilings
(on the access routes)
Suspended light fittings
Safety lighting
Main access doors
Stairs
Parapets, cornices, attics,
exterior ornaments
ag
0.08g
0.120.16g
0.20g
0.08g
0.120.16g
0.20g
0.08g
0.120.16g
0.20g
0.08g
0.120.16g
0.20g
0.08g
0.120.16g
0.20g
0.08g
0.120.16g
0.20g
0.08g
0.120.16g
0.20g
0.08g
0.120.16g
0.20g
LS
L (L)
H (H)
H (H)
L (L)
M (H)
M (H)
L (L)
M (H)
H (H)
L
H
H
L
M
H
L
L
M
L
H
H
M
H
H
LV
L (L)
H (M)
H (M)
L (L)
M (M)
H (M)
L (L)
M (M)
H (M)
L
L
M
L
L
M
L
L
M
L
M
M
M
H
H
IO
L (L)
H (L)
H (L)
L (L)
H (L)
H (L)
L (L)
M (L)
H (L)
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
H
L
L
L
0.08g
108
Glass facades
Surrounding fences
0.120.16g
0.20g
0.08g
0.120.16g
0.20g
M
H
L
L
H
M
M
L
L
H
L
M
L
L
M
ag
0.08g
Backup power generator
0.120.16g
0.20g
0.08g
Electrical transformer
0.120.16g
0.20g
0.08g
Sprinklers
0.120.16g
0.20g
0.08g
Hot and cold water supply
0.120.16g
networks
0.20g
0.08g
Lift components
0.120.16g
(cables, tracks, counterweight)
0.20g
0.08g
Escalators
0.120.16g
0.20g
0.08g
Boilers and pressure vessels 0.120.16g
in dwellings
0.20g
0.08g
Air conditioning units
0.120.16g
mounted on the roof
0.20g
0.08g
Boilers and air conditioning 0.120.16g
units mounted in rooms
0.20g
Stacks and air shafts in
0.08g
dwellings
0.120.16g
0.20g
L low risk, M moderate risk, H high risk
LS
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
M
L
M
M
L
H
H
L
L
L
L
M
M
L
L
M
L
H
H
L
M
H
IO
L
M
H
L
L
M
M
M
H
L
M
M
L
M
M
L
M
M
L
H
H
M
M
H
L
M
M
L
M
M
LV
M
H
H
L
L
M
M
M
H
L
M
M
L
M
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
M
109
(5) For buildings for which higher performance objectives (HPO) are set for degradation
limitation, the verification through calculation, using design accelerations enhanced in
accordance with Annex A, shall only be carried for:
- NSC in the spaces allocated to basic functions, whose continuity must be ensured (the
actual spaces and the spaces for the corresponding services);
- NSC located on the access/exit routes and those inside the building (towards spaces that
are accessible to the public).
For the other spaces in the building, the seismic safety assessment of NSC shall be carried
out by considering the degradation limitation to be the basic performance objective (BPO).
(6) For the basic performance objective (BPO) life safety, the safety assessment shall only be
carried out for the elements of the NSC sub-system given in tables E.2a and E.2b, depending
on the design ground acceleration value.
E.1.3. Seismic performance levels for NSC
(1) The seismic performance levels of NSC shall be defined in a differentiated manner,
depending on the basic performance objectives (BPO) for the building as a whole:
- life safety (LS);
- degradation limitation (DL).
(2) The performance levels for the NSC described below are conditioned by fulfilment of the
corresponding performance levels for the structure of the building.
NSC safety assessment as a function of design ground acceleration (ag)
Architectural components (constructive elements)
Table E.2a
ag0.16g ag0.12
g
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
110
(3) The seismic performance levels of the NSC associated with the two stages of the
degradation limitation objective for the buildings that were described in E.1.1.(3) , as
follows:
Fully functional building, with very slight deterioration of the NSC:
- minor cracks in the facades, partition walls and ceilings; operation of the building is
not conditional to the remedy of these cracks, which can be done whenever the user
chooses;
- all systems that are important for the normal operation of the building (lighting,
sanitary installations, air conditioning, computer systems) remain functional,
potentially being supplied by backup sources.
- Building that can be immediately occupied, with slight deterioration of the NSC:
- minor cracks in the facades (including breaking of some of the windows);
- minor cracks and detachment of some of the plywood/panels of the partition walls and
ceilings in rooms with auxiliary functions;
- fire protection, warning, and safety lighting systems, and other similar systems remain
operational;
- non-essential installations, equipment and goods inside the building are, generally,
safe, but may not be operating/may not be usable due to minor mechanical damage or
lack of utilities;
- the lifts and escalators are not damaged (can be used after being serviced).
(4) The seismic performance level of the NSC, corresponding to the life safety objective for
the building, shall be defined by moderate-extensive damage of the NSC.
111
The occurrence of a large amount of damage of the NSC, with different degrees of severity,
is acceptable; sometimes, it is possible that the repairs required are not acceptable in terms of
cost and/or technical difficulties.
In some cases, human injuries may occur inside and/or outside of the building, due to the
falling of NSC or NSC fragments during the earthquake but, generally, the risk of human life
losses due to this is very low.
The risk of a partial collapse of the NSC in the event of replicas with an intensity comparable
to that of the main shock is relatively high.
The state of damage of the main categories of NSC can approximately be described as
follows:
- the walls do not exit their plane and/or the major overhanging elements (parapets, attics,
heavy ornaments, fire walls, gables) do not collapse;
- large stained glass facades suffer important damage (including expulsion/falling of some
frames-panels and/or the glass only);
- there is extensive damage to partition walls, suspended ceilings, light fittings, etc., but the
risk of these falling is low;
- it is difficult to use the exit routes due to finishings/plywood falling or some objects
overturning;
- the essential installations (alarm and fire extinguishing installations, safety lighting) are
partially/completely non-operational;
- most current installation systems and equipment are damaged and can no longer be used
(in some cases, water leaks/flooding may occur, which implies additional damage due to
destruction of the finishings and/or goods inside the building).
(5) The seismic performance level of the NSC, corresponding to the collapse prevention
objective for the building, shall be defined by severe-generalised damages of the NSC.
The damage to the NSC shall consist of the falling of certain minor elements and/or subassemblies, but the major components with large dimensions and masses remain
stable/assured against falling (especially those positioned towards spaces that are accessible
to a large number of people). The following can no longer be used due to the damages
incurred: exit routes, alarm and fire extinguishing installations and, practically, all vital
systems.
There is a significant life safety risk, mainly due to the collapse of minor elements and major
elements which, in most cases, are at the equilibrium limit.
The risk of total collapse in the event of any low intensity replicas is high.
The state of damage of the main categories of NSC can approximately be described as
follows:
- in most cases, the exit routes are blocked;
- the non-load bearing walls and parapets that have not been properly assured have fallen or
are in unstable equilibrium; the furniture inside the rooms is in the same situation;
- there is extensive damage to all installations and equipment (including vital ones).
E.2. Seismic safety assessment of NSC
(1) The seismic safety assessment of NSC shall be carried out by two methods:
- qualitative analysis;
- calculation methods with various degrees of complexity.
(2) The two methods shall be used in a differentiated manner, depending on the design
ground acceleration value (ag), the performance objective, the potential seismic vulnerability
of the component and the risks posed by its seismic damage. To perform a seismic safety
112
assessment of the NSC, the two methods can be used separately (for example, including them
in the unsafe components category on the basis of a qualitative analysis only, see E.2.2.), or
their results must be corroborated (for example, the components which have been included in
the safe category following a qualitative analysis, but require verification through calculation,
in accordance with E.2.2.(5)).
E.2.1. Criteria for qualitative assessment of NSC
(1) The qualitative seismic safety assessment of NSC shall take the following assessment
criteria into consideration:
i. The composition of the NSC and its connections to the structure or other NSC that ensure
its stability.
ii. The state of degradation of the NSC and its fixings at the time of the examination.
iii. Possible interactions of the NSC with the structure or other NSC.
(2) The main types of damage to the NSC that are taken into consideration in order to define
the state of degradation are the following (the list is not limiting):
- Architectural components (constructive elements):
- masonries and faade panels: fissures, cracks, falling of the plaster, damage to the
panels and fixings, breaking of the windows, falling of the plywood, collapsing of the
walls;
- decorations, ornaments: fissures, cracks, dislocations and other damage that may
cause some massive, heavy parts to fall;
- curtain facades: cracking of the windows, damage to seals, deformation of the frame,
deformation/breaking of structural fixings, falling of stained glass panels;
- masonry partition walls: fissures, cracks, dislocations, detachment of the plaster,
collapsing of the parapets and walls with partial height;
- light partition walls (with wooden/metallic frame and plaster or plaster-cardboard
panels): detachment of the finishings and panels, deformation of the frame, collapse;
- light suspended ceilings: panels falling out of their frames, contour damage due to the
frame colliding with the walls, breaking up of the load-bearing frame (separation of
the secondary struts from the main ones, yielding of some retaining elements);
- heavy plaster (anhydrous plaster) ceilings: fissures, cracks, local detachment,
partial/total collapse.
- Installations:
- pipes, mains: detachment of the joints, breaking, loss of fluid/steam;
- elements embedded in suspended ceilings (light fittings, vents, sprinklers): falling
suspended ceiling parts, breaking of the edges or water pipes;
- boilers: sliding, breaking of supply pipes (gas or diesel), breaking or deformation of
pipes, blocking of breakdown valves;
- air conditioning units: sliding, overturning, loss of refrigerant;
- emergency (backup) electrical generators: damage to vibration isolator, breaking of
supply lines (diesel, power, control lines), blocking of mechanical elements, breaking
of power lines;
- fire water pumps: breaking of anchor bolts, displacement of the pump in relation to
the engine, rupture of the pipes;
- local tanks: damage to the vessel, rupture of the mains/pipes;
- communication equipment: sliding, overturning, twisting that cause them to become
non-operational;
- main transformers: sliding, overturning, loss of oil, breaking/damage to insulators;
113
main electrical panels: sliding or overturning, breaking or damage to the pipes or busbars.
Equipment:
- lifts (with traction): counterweight comes off the tracks, cabin collides with the
counterweight, cables come off the pulley, the equipment is dislocated;
- other fixed equipment: sliding or overturning, damage to the neighbouring equipment
and the connection to them.
114
(5) The elements that fulfil the qualitative conditions given in (4) shall then be assessed
through calculation, in compliance with the provisions of E.1.2.2.(4)(6). The stability,
resistance and rigidity requirements shall be verified, as applicable, in accordance with E.2.3.
Checklist for the seismic risk of NSC
Table E.3 (informative)
Type of element
Yes
No
115
(6) The results of the qualitative analysis can also be accepted if it is found that the provisions
of well-known specific regulations (international and national standards, product standards),
which include explicit measures for sizing and constructive composition with regard to
seismic protection, are complied with for the following categories of NSC:
- curtain walls;
- glass partition walls;
- suspended ceilings;
- heating and ventilation equipment;
- pipe systems for fire fighting;
- pipe systems for dangerous substances;
- light fittings;
- raised floors;
- lifts and escalators.
E.2.3. Criteria for assessment through calculation of NSC
(1) The verification of NSC through calculation shall be carried out in a differentiated
manner, depending on their degree of sensitivity to the two effects of an earthquake, defined
in accordance with P 100-1/2006, 10.1.1.(4):
I. The direct effect of the inertial forces corresponding to the product between the mass of
the NSC and the acceleration it receives during the earthquake (elements that are
sensitive to the acceleration produced by the earthquake at fixing level).
II. The indirect effect resulting from the deformations caused to the NSC by the relative
lateral displacements of the points of fixing/contact with the main structure (elements that
are sensitive to the deformations caused to the component by the earthquake).
(2) The type of verification is given in table E.4 for the main categories of NSC.
Type of seismic verification for NSC
Table E.4
Category of non-structural component
Architectural components
Type of
verification
Direct Indirect
effect
effect
116
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
B1B4
C1C2
D1D3
Notations:
V1 basic verification
V2 additional verification
V2
V1
V1
----
V2
V1
V2
V1
V1
V2
V1
V1
V1
V1
V1
......
V1
V2
----V2
V2
----
(3) When assessing safety, the fact that the relative intensity of the two effects on the NSC
also depends on the extent of the incursions of the structure in the post-elastic range shall also
be taken into consideration:
a. For structures designed with high values of the behaviour factor q, the storey acceleration
value is lower than the one corresponding to structures with quasi-elastic response and,
for this reason, NSC that are sensitive to the direct action of the earthquake are stressed
less.
b. In the same case, NSC that are sensitive to the indirect action of the earthquake must be
able to absorb higher relative displacements of the fixing points than those produced in
structures with a quasi-elastic response.
E.2.3.1. Verification through calculation of NSC for the direct effect of a seismic action
E.2.3.1.1. Design seismic forces
(1) In order to assess the safety of NSC under the direct effect of a seismic action, for the
degradation limitation performance level, the horizontal design seismic force shall be
calculated with relationship (10.1) of P 100-1/2006, with the limitations given by (10.2) and
(10.3).
The calculation coefficients CNS, CNS, qCNS and Kz shall be taken in accordance with P 1001/2006, 10.3.1.3., for the non-structural components in new buildings.
(2) Under the conditions given in (1), the vertical design seismic force shall be calculated
with relationship (10.1) of P 100-1/2006, with the design value for the vertical component
acceleration avg = 0.7ag, in accordance with P 100-1/2006, relationship (3.16).
(3) In order to verify the safety of NSC under the direct effect of a seismic action, for the life
safety performance level, the horizontal design seismic force shall be calculated with the
relationship
117
FCNS = 4 CNSagmCNS
(E.1)
where the importance coefficient CNS shall be taken in accordance with P 100-1/2006,
10.3.1.3.1.
(4) Under the conditions given in (3), the vertical design seismic force shall be calculated
with relationship (E.1) with the design value for the vertical component acceleration avg =
0.7ag.
(5) The statically-equivalent seismic forces determined in (1) (4) shall be applied to the
main directions of the NSC, in its centre of gravity, or shall be proportionally distributed with
the intrinsic mass of the respective component.
(6) The effects of the horizontal and vertical design seismic forces determined in (1), (2) and
(3), (4), respectively, shall be combined according to the rules established for new buildings,
in accordance with P 100-1/2006, 4.5.3.6.
(7) To assess safety, the effects of the seismic forces shall be combined with the effects of the
other loads, in accordance with the provisions of CR 0-2005.
E.2.3.1.2. Acceptance criteria
(1) The stability requirement for NSC stressed by a direct seismic action shall be considered
to be fulfilled if, under the effect of the design seismic force determined with relationship
(E.1) or relationship (10.1) of P 100-1/2006, the overturning moment multiplied by the factor
1.5 is less or at most equal to the stability moment ensured by its intrinsic weight, taking into
account the connections that are capable of absorbing both tensile forces and compressive
forces. When calculating the stability moment, the favourable effect of the intrinsic weight
shall be reduced by 10% and the effect of the frictional forces shall be neglected.
(2) The resistance condition for NSC shall be considered to be fulfilled if the following two
conditions are fulfilled:
- for the design seismic forces determined with relationship (E.1) or with relationship
(10.1) of P 100-1/2006, the sectional stresses developed in the NSC and its fixings are
lower or at most equal to the capable stresses calculated with the resistances given in (5);
- the capable stresses of the fixings with anchors embedded in concrete or masonry are
30% higher than the capable stresses of the component that they are fixing.
(3) For fixings that ensure the stability of the NSC attached to the envelope of the building, as
well as for the boilers and pressure vessels, the condition (10.7) of P 100-1/2006 shall be
fulfilled.
(4) To check safety in accordance with the provisions in (3), the stresses in the fixings,
determined with the design forces given in (1), shall be increased by 30% in accordance with
P 100-1/2006, 10.4.1.2.(1).
(5) The capable stresses of the non-structural components shall be calculated using the
resistances of the respective materials, as follows:
i. For fragile materials, the average resistances divided by the safety coefficient for the
material (M) and by the confidence factor (CF) determined from table 3.1.
ii. For ductile materials, the average resistances divided by the confidence factor.
(6) The capable stresses of the fixings shall be determined using the resistances given in (5),
and the fragile/ductile nature shall be determined as a function of the properties of the anchor
material and of the materials in which it is fixed. The fixings with anchors fixed in masonry
or concrete shall be considered to be fragile fixings.
118
E.2.3.2. Verification through calculation for the indirect effect of the seismic action
E.2.3.2.1. Design lateral displacements
(1) To verify the safety of a NSC under the indirect effect of a seismic action, in relation to
the degradation limitation and life safety performance levels, the relative design
displacements shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of P 100-1/2006, 10.3.2.,
for NSC in new buildings.
(2) The design relative displacements mentioned in (1) shall be calculated for the design
acceleration corresponding to the respective performance objectives. In the case of the
degradation limitation performance objective, the seismic acceleration shall be taken in
accordance with the provisions of P 100-1/2006, 4.6.3.2., with the exceptions stipulated in
10.3.2.(4).
(3) The relative displacements caused by the seismic action shall be added to the
displacements caused by other categories of loads and/or other actions (foundation yielding,
displacements and/or deformation caused by slow flow, temperature, etc.).
E.2.3.2.2. Acceptance criteria
(1) The safety of NSC against the indirect effect of the design seismic action, determined in
accordance with E.2.3.2.1., shall be considered to be fulfilled if:
I. For NSC positioned vertically (fixed to two floors at different elevations), such as
partition walls, light or heavy curtain facades, etc., the relative displacement of the fixing
points, calculated in accordance with P 100-1/2006, 10.3.2., is lower or at most equal to
the displacement limit resulting from the calculation of the NSC or given in the technical
chart of the respective component/material.
II. For installation systems whose components are not rigidly fixed to prevent
overturning/lateral displacement (equipment supported on vibration isolators), their
relative displacement is lower or at most equal to the displacement that can be absorbed
by the elements that connect them to other NSC.
E.2.3.3. Other provisions regarding verification through calculation
(1) In justified cases, other scientifically-recognised methods can be used to determine the
seismic acceleration of the building at the fixing points of the NSC (storey spectra method,
for example) and the relative displacements between the fixing points.
E.2.4. Including NSC in vulnerability categories
(1) The vulnerability of each category/type of NSC shall be assessed in relation to the
qualitative and quantitative acceptance criteria given in E.2.2 and E.2.3.
Based on these criteria, using engineering reasoning and depending on the calculation results,
the NSC shall be included in one of the following vulnerability categories:
a.
High seismic vulnerability: The component is not anchored or the quality of the
fixings is unsuitable (are insufficient, incorrectly made or highly degraded), and for this
reason there is a high probability of falling due to the direct or indirect seismic action of an
earthquake with an intensity corresponding to the performance objective set.
119
NSC that do not display major anchoring defects, but for which one of the following
limitations is present, can be included in the same category:
- The capable force of the NSC and/or its fixings is lower than of the design force
given by relationship (E.1) or
- the relative displacement between the fixing points that can be absorbed by the NSC
is lower than of the relative displacement calculated in accordance with P1001/2006, 10.3.2.
b.
Moderate seismic vulnerability: The component is anchored, but the fixings have a
low degree of safety, so that there is a risk of falling, which cannot be neglected, during an
earthquake with an intensity corresponding to the performance objective set.
NSC that do not display major anchoring defects, but for which one of the following
limitations is present, can be included in the same category:
- the capable force of the NSC and/or its fixings is between of the design force
given by relationship (E.1), or
- the relative displacement between the fixing points that can be absorbed by the NSC
is between of the relative displacement calculated in accordance with P1001/2006, 10.3.2.
c.
Low seismic vulnerability: The component is correctly anchored (under conditions
comparable with those required for new buildings, in accordance with P 100-1/2006, 10.4.1)
and the fixings display a sufficient degree of safety, so that there is a negligible risk of falling
during an earthquake with an intensity corresponding to the performance objective set.
If the component is located on/towards spaces where crowds gather or on the exit routes,
it must also satisfy the following conditions in order to be included in this category:
- the capable force of the NSC and/or its fixings is higher than of the design force
given by relationship (E.1), and
- the relative displacement between the fixing points that can be absorbed by the NSC
is higher than of the relative displacement calculated in accordance with P1001/2006, 10.3.2.
120