Helsinki University of Technology (HUT) SEMINAR Spring 2003

Bridge Engineering (BE) Rak-11.146 Sillanrakennuksen seminaari

Rak-11.163 Licentiate Seminar in B. E.
Risto Syrjä 030423 1 (15)

Eurocodes

SEISMIC LOADING, BRIDGES

Risto Syrjä

Presentation 22.04.2003 at 4 p.m., R9

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT 2
INTRODUCTION 2
1. BASIC REQUIREMENTS AND COMPLIANCE CRITERIA 3
2. GROUND CONDITIONS 5
3. SEISMIC ACTION 6
4. EXAMPLE 13
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 15
REFERENCES 15
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 2 (15)

ABSTRACT

This is the eight seminar presentation of the Seminar on Eurocodes. The course is arranged in
Laboratory of Bridge Engineering in the Helsinki University of Technology in spring 2003
and is for under- and postgraduate students.

Aim in this paper is Seismic Loading, Bridges and is mainly based on two parts of prEN 1998
Design of structures for earthquake resistance by European Committee for Standardization
(CEN):
˘ prEN 1998-1, General rules of structures for earthquake resistance [3],
˘ prEN 1998-2, Bridges [4].

Above-mentioned parts are presented in general level. Basic requirements and compliance
criteria, ground conditions and seismic actions are studied. A simple example is calculated.

INTRODUCTION

General rules of structures for earthquake resistance (prEN 1998-1) [3] consist of the
following main things:
˘ Performance Requirements and Compliance Criteria,
˘ Ground Conditions and Seismic Action,
˘ Design of Buildings,
˘ Specific Rules for Concrete, for Steel, for Steel-Concrete Composite, for Timber and
for Masonry Buildings and
˘ Base Isolation.

Bridges (prEN 1998-2) [4] consist of the following main chapters:

˘ Basic Requirements and Compliance Criteria,
˘ Seismic Action,
˘ Analysis,
˘ Strength Verification,
˘ Detailing and
˘ Bridges with Seismic Isolation.

Principles of earthquake analysis is presented in two chapter of book Structural Dynamics -

Theory and Applications [9]:
˘ Chapter 17 - Earthquakes and Earthquake Ground Motion and
˘ Chapter 18 - Earthquake Response of Structures.
Extract contents of these Chapters are presented in two Finnish seminar presentations [6, 8].

Earthquakes may damage structures in a variety of ways:

˘ inertial forces developed in a structure due to ground motion,
˘ landslides or other surficial movements,
˘ soil consolidation or liquefaction,
˘ sudden fault displacement in close proximity of structure,
˘ water waves, such as tsunamis and
˘ fires and explosions. [9]

Earthquake ground motion is a base excitation for the structure. It produce a response of the
structure, which can be
˘ action like displacement, velocity or acceleration or
˘ dynamic strength like reaction force or stress.
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 3 (15)

1. BASIC REQUIREMENTS AND COMPLIANCE CRITERIA

1.1 Design Seismic Event

Design seismic action is

AEd = γ I AEk (1)

where AEk is characteristic seismic action and

γI is importance factor, which may be set by National Annex. Recommended
values are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Importance factor.

Bridge importance Category Importance Factor γI

Greater than average 1,3
Average 1,0
Less than average 0,7

In general bridges on motorways and national roads as well as railroad bridges are considered
to belong to the category “average” importance.

To the category of “greater than average” importance belong bridges of critical importance for
maintaining communications, especially after a disaster, bridges whose failure is associated
with a large number of probable fatalities, and major bridges for which a design life greater
than normal is required.

To the category of “less than average” importance belong bridges which are not critical for
communications and for which the adoption of either the standard probability of exceedance
of the design seismic event or the normal bridge design life, is not economically justifiable.

1.2 Basic Requirements

The design shall aim to fulfil two basic requirements:

1. No-collapse requirement and
2. Damage limitation requirement.
In general the criteria while aiming explicitly at satisfying the non-collapse requirement,
implicitly cover the damage requirement as well.

1.2.1 Non-Collapse (Ultimate Limit State)

After the occurrence of the design seismic event, the bridge shall retain its structural integrity
and adequate residual resistance, although at some parts of the bridge considerable damage
may occur.

The Bridge shall be damage-tolerant, i.e. those parts of the bridge susceptible to damage by
their contribution to energy dissipation during the design seismic event shall be designed in
such a manner as to ensure, that following seismic event, the structure can sustain the actions
from emergency traffic, and inspections and repair can performed easily.

To this end, flexural yielding of specific sections is allowed in the piers, and is in general
necessary, in regions of high seismicity, in order to reduce the design seismic action to a level
requiring reasonable additional construction costs.
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 4 (15)

1.2.2 Minimisation of Damage (Serviceability Limit State)

Earthquakes with high probability of occurrence during the design life of the bridge, should
cause only minor damage to secondary elements and those parts of the bridge intended to
contribute to energy dissipation. There should be no need to reduce traffic over the bridge nor
to carry out immediate repairs.

1.3 Compliance Criteria

The bridge shall be designed so that its behaviour under the design seismic action is either
ductile, or limited ductile/essentially elastic, depending on the seismicity of the site, whether
isolation technology is being adopted, or any other constraints which may prevail. This
intended seismic behaviour (ductile or limited ductile) is characterised by the global force-
displacement relationship of the structure.

Other compliance criteria for bridge are1

˘ Resistance verification,
˘ Capacity design,
˘ Provisions for ductility,
˘ Connections - Control of displacements - Detailing and
˘ Simplified criteria (in regions of low seismicity).

1.3.1 Ductile Behaviour

In regions of moderate to high seismicity it is usually preferable, both economic and safety
reasons, to design a bridge for ductile behaviour i.e. to provide it with reliable means to
dissipate a significant amount of the input energy under severe earthquakes. This is
accomplished by providing for the formation of an intended configuration of flexural plastic
hinges or by using isolating devices.

The bridge shall be designed so that a dependably stable plastic mechanism can form in the
structure through the formation of flexural plastic hinges, normally in the piers, which act as
the primary energy dissipating components. In general the bridge deck shall remain within the
elastic range.

1.3.2 Limited Ductile/Essentially Elastic Behaviour

No significant yield appears under the design earthquake. In terms of force- displacement
characteristics, the formation of a force plateau is not required, while deviation from the ideal
elastic behaviour provides some hysteric energy dissipation. Such a behaviour corresponds to
a behaviour factor2 q ≤ 1,5 and shall be referred to “limited ductile”.

For bridges where the seismic response may be dominated by higher mode effects or where
the detailing for ductility plastic hinges may not be reliable, it is preferable to select an elastic
behaviour (q = 1).

1.4 Conceptual Design

Conceptual design gives additional criteria and detailed rules to choose the suitable behaviour
case for bridge in low or moderate seismicity regions.3

1
prEN 1998-2 § 2.3.3˘2.3.7, p. 21˘27, [4].
2
See 3.3.5, p. 11.
3
prEN 1998-2 § 2.4, p. 27, 28, [4].
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 5 (15)

2. GROUND CONDITIONS

The construction site and the nature of the supporting ground should normally be free from
risks of ground rupture, slope instability and permanent settlements caused by liquefaction or
densification in the event of an earthquake.

The influence of local ground conditions on the seismic action shall generally be accounted
for by considering ground types given in Table 2.

Table 2. Ground types.

Parameters
Ground
Description of stratigraphic profile Vs,30 NSPT I cuII
type [m/s] [blows/ [kN/
30 cm] m2]
Rock or other rock-like geological formation, including at
A > 800 – –
most 5 meter of weaker material at the surface
Deposits of very dense sand, gravel, or very stiff clay, at
360...
B least several tens of meters in thickness, characterised by > 50 >250
800
a gradual increase of mechanical properties with depth
Deep deposits of dense or medium-dense sand, gravel or
180... 70...
C stiff clay with thickness from several tens to many 15...50
360 250
hundreds of meters
Deposits of loose-to-medium cohesionless soil (with or
D without some soft cohesive layers), or of predominantly < 180 < 15 < 70
soft-to-firm cohesive soil
A soil profile consisting of a surface alluvium layer with
Vs,30 values of type C or D and thickness varying between
E
about 5 and 20 meters, underlain by stiffer material with
Vs,30 > 800 m/s
Deposits consisting – or containing a layer at least 10 m
thick – of soft clays/silts with high plasticity index (PI < 100 10...
S1 –
(indicative) 20
> 40) and high water content
Deposits of liquefiable soils, of sensitive clays, or any
S2
other soil profile not included in types A–E or S1
I) Standard Penetration Test blow-count.
II) Undrained shear strength of soil.

The average shear wave velocity is

h0
Vs,30 = (2)
N h
∑ i
i =1Vi

where hi and Vi denote the thickness and shear-wave velocity of the i:th formation or layer, in
a total of N, existing in the top h0 = 30 m. The site will be classified according to the value of
Vs,30 if this is available, otherwise the value of NSPT will be used.

If the value of the importance factor γI is less than 1,0, ground investigations additional to
those necessary for the design for non-seismic actions may be omitted. In this case and in the
absence of more accurate information on soil conditions, the seismic action may be
determined assuming ground conditions according to ground type B.
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 6 (15)

3. SEISMIC ACTION

3.1 Seismic Zones

For the purpose of EN 1998, national territories shall be subdivided by the National
Authorities into seismic zones, depending on the local hazard. By definition, the hazard
within each zone is assumed to be constant. Global seismic hazard map is shown in front
cover figure [7].

For most of the applications of EN 1998, the hazard is described in terms of a single
parameter, i.e. the value of the reference ground acceleration on type A ground, k·agR, where
agR is the reference peak ground acceleration on type A ground and k is a modification factor
to account for special regional situations. The value to be ascribed to k for use in a Country
may be found in its National Annex. The recommended value is k = 1. The reference peak
ground acceleration on type A ground, agR, or the reference ground acceleration on type A
ground, k·agR, may be derived from zonation maps in the National Annex.

The reference peak ground acceleration, chosen by the National Authorities for each seismic
zone, corresponds to the reference return period of the reference seismic action for the no-
collapse requirement TNCR (or equivalently the reference probability of exceedance in 50
years, PNCR) chosen by National Authorities. To this reference return period an importance
factor γI equal to 1,0 is assigned. For return periods other than the reference, the design
ground acceleration on type A ground is

a g = γ I k ⋅ a gR (3)

In cases of low seismicity4, reduced or simplified seismic design procedures for certain types
or categories of structures may be used.

In cases of very low seismicity5, the provisions of EN 1998 need not be observed.

3.2 Components

In general only the three translational components of the seismic action are taken into
account. When the Response Spectrum is applied the bridge may be analysed separately for
shaking in the longitudinal, transverse and vertical directions.

When linear time domain analysis is performed or when the six component model6 or the
spatial variability of the seismic motion is taken into account, the bridge shall be analysed
under the simultaneous action of the different components.

Each components of the earthquake motion shall be quantified in terms of

˘ a response spectrum or
˘ a power spectrum or
˘ a time history representation.

4
Recommendation: agS ≤ 0,1 g.
5
Recommendation: agS ≤ 0,05 g. In Finland ag ≤ 0,03 g.
6
The six component model of earthquake motion at a point shall be developed from the probable
contribution of the Primary, Secondary, Raylaight and Love waves to the total earthquake vibration.
prEN 1998-2 § 3.2.3, p. 32, [4].
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 7 (15)

For structures with special characteristics such that the assumption of the same excitation at
all support points cannot be reasonably made, spatial models of the seismic action shall be
used. Such spatial models shall be consistent with the elastic response spectra used for the
basic definition of the horizontal and vertical seismic action.

For bridges the spatial variability shall be considered when

˘ there are geological discontinuities,
˘ marked topographical features are present and
˘ the length of the bridge is greater than 600 m, even if there are no geological
discontinuities or marked topographical features.

3.3 Response Spectrum

Earthquake motion at a given point of the surface is represented by an elastic ground

acceleration response spectrum, henceforth called “elastic response spectrum”. The shape of
the elastic response spectrum is taken the same for the no-collapse requirement (Ultimate
limit state – design seismic action) and for the damage limitation requirement.

The horizontal seismic action is described by two orthogonal components considered as

independent and represented by the same response spectrum. For the three components of the
seismic action one or more alternative shapes of response spectra may be adopted, depending
on the seismic sources and the earthquake magnitudes generated from them.

For important structures (γI >1,0) topographic amplification effects should be taken into
account.7

3.3.1 Horizontal Elastic Response Spectrum

Figure 1. Shape of elastic response spectrum.

7
Informative Annex A of EN 1998-5 provides information for topographic amplification effects.
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 8 (15)

For the horizontal components of the seismic action, the elastic response spectrum is (Figure
1)

 T 
1 + (2,5η − 1) a g S , T = [0, TB ]
 TB 
2,5ηa S , T = [T , T ]
 g B C
se (T ) =  T (4)
2,5η C a g S , T = [TC , TD ]
 T
 TC TD
2,5η a g S , T = [TD , T0 ]
 T2

where T is vibration period of a linear single-degree of freedom system,

ag is design ground acceleration on type A ground,
TB and TC are limits of the constant spectral acceleration branch,
TD is value defining the beginning of the constant displacement response range of
the spectrum,
T0 is 4 seconds,
S is soil factor,
and damping correction factor is (Figure 2)

 10
 , ξ ≤ ξ0
η =  5 + 100ξ (5)
0,55 ; ξ ≥ ξ
 0

where ξ is viscous damping ratio of the structure and

ξ0 = 0,281 (a)

Reference value η = 1 is for 5% viscous damping.

1,5 η
1,0
0,5 ξ
0,0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0

Figure 2. Damping correction factor (η) as function of viscous damping ratio (ξ).

The values of the periods TB, TC and TD and of the soil factor S describing the shape of the
elastic response spectrum depend on ground type. The values to be ascribed to TB, TC, TD and
S for each ground type and type (shape) of spectrum to be used in a Country may be found in
its National Annex. The recommended choice is the use of two types of spectra: Type 1 and
Type 2. If the earthquakes that contribute most to the seismic hazard defined for the site for
the purpose of probabilistic hazard assessment has a surface-wave magnitude, Ms, not greater
than 5,5, it is recommended that the Type 2 spectrum is adopted. For the five ground types A,
B, C, D and E the recommended values of the parameters S, TB, TC and TD are given in Table
3 for the Type 1 Spectrum and in Table 4 for the Type 2 Spectrum. Figure 3 and Figure 4
show the shapes of the recommended Type 1 and Type 2 spectra, respectively, for 5%
damping and normalised by ag.
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 9 (15)

Table 3. Values of the parameters describing the recommended Type 1 elastic response
spectrum.

Ground type S TB [s] TC [s] TD [s]

A 1,00 0,15 0,4
B 1,20 0,15 0,5
C 1,15 0,20 0,6 2,0
D 1,35 0,20 0,8
E 1,40 0,15 0,5

4 S e /a g [-] Order is same as right end of curves:

D
3 E
C
2 B
A
1

0 T [s]
0 1 2 3

Figure 3. Recommended Type 1 elastic response spectrum (5% damping).

Table 4. Values of the parameters describing the recommended Type 2 elastic response
spectrum.

Ground type S TB [s] TC [s] TD [s]

A 1,00 0,05 0,25
B 1,35 0,05 0,25
C 1,50 0,10 0,25 1,2
D 1,80 0,10 0,30
E 1,60 0,05 0,25

5 S e /a g [-] Order is same as right end of curves:

D
4 E
3 C
B
2 A

0 T [s]
0 1 2 3

Figure 4. Recommended Type 2 elastic response spectrum (5% damping).

HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 10 (15)

The elastic displacement response spectrum, SDe(T), shall be obtained by direct transformation
of the elastic acceleration response spectrum, Se(T):

2
T 
S De (T ) = Se (T )  (6)
 2π 

This expression should normally be applied for vibration periods not exceeding 4,0 s.

3.3.2 Vertical Elastic Response Spectrum

The vertical component of the seismic action shall be represented by an elastic response
spectrum:

 T 
1 + (3η − 1)avg , T = [0, TB ]
 TB 
3ηa , T = [T , T ]
 vg B C
sve (T ) =  T (7)
3η C avg , T = [TC , TD ]
 T
 TC TD
3η avg , T = [TD , T0 ]
 T2

where avg is design ground acceleration in the vertical direction.

The values to be ascribed to TB, TC, TD and S for each type (shape) of vertical spectrum to be
used in a Country may be found in its National Annex. The recommended choice is the use of
two types of vertical spectra: Type 1 and Type 2. As for the spectra defining the horizontal
components of the seismic action, if the earthquakes that contribute most to the seismic
hazard defined for the site for the purpose of probabilistic hazard assessment has a surface-
wave magnitude, Ms, not greater than 5,5, it is recommended that the Type 2 spectrum is
adopted. For the five ground types A, B, C, D and E the recommended values of the
parameters describing the vertical spectra are given in Table 5. These recommended values do
not apply for special ground types S1 and S2.

Table 5. Recommended values of parameters describing the vertical response spectrum.

Spectrum avg/ag TB [s] TC [s] TD [s]

Type 1 0,09
0,05 0,15 1,0
Type 2 0,45

3.3.3 Site Averaged Response Spectrum

In the case of bridges, whose abutments and piers are supported on soils having significantly
different soil properties but which do not require the use of a spatial variability model for the
seismic action, the site average response spectrum shall be defined by combining, through a
validated scientific method, the spectra corresponding to the differing soil conditions of the
supports. The site averaged response spectrum may be defined as a weighted average of the
appropriate site dependent response spectra:

ri
Sa (T ) = ∑ S i (T ) (8)
i ∑ rj
j
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 11 (15)

where ri is the reaction force on the base of pier i when deck is subjected to a unit
displacement while the base is kept immobile; Si is the site dependent response spectrum
appropriate to the soil conditions at the foundation of pier i.

3.3.4 Design Ground Displacement

Unless special studies based on the available information indicate otherwise, the design
ground displacement may be estimated to be

d g = 0,025a g STC TD (9)

3.3.5 Design Spectrum for Elastic Analysis

Design spectrum is used in the equivalent linear method.8 The capacity of structural systems
to resist seismic actions in the non-linear range generally permits their design for forces
smaller than those corresponding to a linear elastic response. To avoid explicit inelastic
structural analysis in design, the capacity of the structure to dissipate energy, through mainly
ductile behaviour of its elements and/or other mechanisms, is taken into account by
performing an elastic analysis based on a response spectrum reduced with respect to the
elastic one, henceforth called ''design spectrum''. This reduction is accomplished by
introducing the behaviour factor q.

The behaviour factor q is an approximation of the ratio of the seismic forces, that the structure
would experience if its response was completely elastic with 5% viscous damping, to the
minimum seismic forces that may be used in design - with a conventional elastic analysis
model - still ensuring a satisfactory response of the structure. The value of the behaviour
factor q, which also accounts for the influence of the viscous damping being different from
5%, are given for the various materials and structural systems and according to the relevant
ductility classes in the various Parts of EN 1998. The value of the behaviour factor q may be
different in different horizontal directions of the structure, although the ductility classification
must be the same in all directions.

For the horizontal components of the seismic action the design spectrum is

> 0,1α

 1 + T  2,5 − 1 a S , T = [0, T ]
  T  q  g B
   B   
  2,5
  q a g S , T = [TB , TC ]
 
  2,5 TC 2,5 TC
  a g S, S≥β
Sd (T )  q T q T (10)
=  , T = [TC , TD ]

  βa g , 2,5 T C S<β
  q T
 
  2,5 TC TD a S , 2,5 TC TD S ≥ β
  q T 2 g q T2
  , T = [TD , T0 ]
  βa , 2,5 TC TD S < β
  g q T2
 

8
See prEN 1998-2 § 3.2.2.5, p. 32, § 4.2.2.1, p. 42, [4].
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 12 (15)

where α is ratio of the design ground acceleration to the acceleration of gravity and
β is lower bound factor for the horizontal design spectrum. The value to be
ascribed to β for use in a Country may be found in its National Annex. The
recommended value is β = 0,2.

For the vertical component of the seismic action the design spectrum is given by Equation 10,
with the design ground acceleration in the vertical direction, avg replacing ag and S taken equal
to 1,0. For the vertical component of the seismic action a behaviour factor q equal to 1,5
should normally be adopted for all materials and structural systems. The adoption of q-values
greater than 1,5 in the vertical direction must be justified through an appropriate analysis. The
design spectrum as defined above is not sufficient for the design of structures with base-
isolation or energy-dissipation systems.

3.4 Site Depended Power Spectrum

The earthquake action can be described by a stochastic stationary gaussian process defined by
a power spectrum and considered with a duration limited to given time interval. This
description of the motion shall be consistent with the site dependent response spectrum.

3.5 Time - History Representation

Depending on the nature of the application and the information actually available, the
description of the seismic motion may be made by using
˘ artificial accelerograms and
˘ recorded or simulated accelerograms.

3.6 Combinations of the Seismic Action with Other Actions

Combinations of actions in limit state design (partial factor method) for seismic design
situation are written in Basis of structural design (prEN 1990) [1] (presented in the first
seminar presentation [5]). The inertial effects of the design action shall be evaluated by taking
into account the presence of the masses associated to all gravity loads appearing combination
of action: design value of effect of actions is

E d = ∑ Gk , j "+" ∑ψ E , i Qk , i (11)

where Gk,j is characteristic value of a permanent action j,

Qk,i is characteristic value of a variable action i and
ψE,i is combination coefficient for variable action i. Values of ψE,i for buildings
and other types of structures are given in the relevant Parts of EN 1998.

The combination coefficients ψE,i take into account the likelihood of the loads ψ2,1Qk,i being
not present over the entire structure during the occurrence of the earthquake. These
coefficients may also account for a reduced participation of masses in the motion of the
structure due to the non-rigid connection between them.

For bridges with intense traffic the values of ψ2,1 may be set in the National Annex. These
values shall be applied to the uniform load Model 19. Recommended value for road bridges is
ψ2,1 = 0,2 and for railway bridges ψ2,1 = 0,3.

9
In clause 4.1.2(4)P of prEN 1991-8, p. 34, [4] is referred to EN 1991-3; it should be EN 1991-2,
where LM1 is presented in § 4.3.2, p. 35˘38, [2].
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 13 (15)

4. EXAMPLE

A simplified double span bridge model, shown in Figure 5, has one column, which is assumed
to be fixed at its ends. The bridge is subjected to horizontal seismic ground motion (design
ground acceleration ag). Viscous damping ratio (including the influence of the friction at the
end bearings) is assumed to be

ξ = 0,05 (b)

Bending stiffness of the superstructure (Dd) is assumed to be infinite and mass is

m = 0,200·106 kg (c)

Bending stiffness of the column is

Dc = 3 500 MNm2 (d)

Mmax
Dd = ∞ m ξ

h Dc

ag

Figure 5. Double span bridge.

Equivalent spring constant (stiffness) of the system (one column) is

12 Dc
k= (12)10
3
h

where h is height of the column.

Natural period of vibration is

m
T = 2π (13)11
k

The maximum bending moment at the top of the column is

6 Dc S De
M max = (14)12
2
h

where SDe is obtained from Equation 613, where Se is from Equation 4.

Design values of maximum bending moment as a function of column height for ground types
A to E in the case of recommended spectra Type 1 (parameters of Equation 4 are from Table

10
Structural Dynamics: Table 3.1 case 22, p. 62 [9].
11
Structural Dynamics: Equations 2.10, p. 17, and 3.33, p. 49 [9].
12
Structural Dynamics: Equation 18.26, p. 627 [9].
13
In this example Tmax = 1,2 s < 4 s (see clause mentioned after Equation 6).
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 14 (15)

3) are shown in Figure 6 and in the case of recommended spectra Type 2 (parameters from
Table 4) in Figure 7. Used design ground acceleration is

ag = 0,3 g (e)14

where acceleration due to gravity is

g = 9,81 m/s2 (f)

20 M max Order is same as right end of curves:

[MNm] D
15
E
10 C
B
5
A
0
h [m]
0 5 10 15 20

Figure 6. Maximum bending moment in the case of recommended spectra Type 1.

12 M max Order is same as right end of curves:

10 [MNm] D
8 E
6 C
4 B
2 A
0
h [m]
0 5 10 15 20

Figure 7. Maximum bending moment in the case of recommended spectra Type 2.

Relation between maximum bending moment and ground acceleration is linear. Relation for
ground types A to E in the case of recommended spectra Type 1 is shown in Figure 8, when
column height is

h=5m (g)

15 M max [MNm] Order is same as right end of curves:

E
10
B
5 D
2
a g [m/s ] A
0 C
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0

Figure 8. Maximum bending moment as a function of ground acceleration.

14
Intensitet VIII; (Richter) magnitude 6.
HUT/BE/S Risto Syrjä 15 (15)

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Site depended ground motion is determined in practice by using national seismic zones and
ground condition types. Three important characteristics of ground motion are
1. peak ground motion, primarily peak ground acceleration,
2. duration of strong ground motion and
3. frequency content (comparison between the base frequency to the natural frequencies
of the structure).

To determine earthquake ground motion and response of the structure the following analysis
may be used:
˘ stochastic model (use conception of probability), in EN: Power spectrum
˘ deterministic model (calculation based on implicit situation)
a) dynamic analysis
˘ time-history analysis
˘ response spectrum analysis
b) equivalent static force procedure (empirical formulas).

The seismic design shall aim to fulfil two fundamental requirements:

1. No-collapse requirement (ultimate limit state) and
2. Damage limitation requirement (serviceability limit state).
In order to satisfy the basic requirements, the design must comply with the specified criteria.

REFERENCES

[1] European Committee for Standardization (CEN): prEN 1990. Basis of

structural design. Final draft. Brussels 2001. 89 p.
[2] European Committee for Standardization (CEN): prEN 1991-2. Actions on
structures ˘ Traffic loads on bridges. Brussels 2002. 162 p.
[3] European Committee for Standardization (CEN): prEN 1998-1, Design of
structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: General rules of structures for
earthquake resistance. Draft No 5. Brussels 2002. 197 p.
[4] European Committee for Standardization (CEN): prEN 1998-2, Design of
structures for earthquake resistance, Part 2: Bridges. Draft No 2. Brussels
2000. 128 p.
[5] Junnonen, J.: Loading, Buildings - Seminar Presentation 13.3.2003. Seminar in
Bridge Engineering, Spring 2003. Eurocodes. Helsinki University of
Technology. 15 p.
[6] Marjamäki, P.: Maanjäristyksen vaste - Seminaariesitelmä 23.5.2002.
Licentiate seminar in Bridge Engineering, Spring 2002. Structural Dynamics
(Chapter 18.4 - 18.8). Helsinki University of Technology. 10 p.
[7] Swiss Seismological Service: Homepage http://seismo.ethz.ch/GSHAP/. Global
Seismic Hazard Assessment Program.
[8] Syrjä, R.: Maanjäristys - Seminaariesitelmä 21.5.2002. Licentiate seminar in
Bridge Engineering, Spring 2002. Structural Dynamics (Chapters 17, 18.1 -
18.3). Helsinki University of Technology. 15 p.
[9] Tedesco J. W., McDougal W. G., Ross C. A.: Structural Dynamics - Theory
and Applications. Addison-Wesley. 1999. 826 s. ISBN 0-673-98052-9.