You are on page 1of 8

UK studies for the preparation of the UK National Annex to Eurocode 8

BOOTH, Edmund Edmund Booth Consulting Engineer (edmund@booth-seismic.co.uk)

Abstract
Although seismic design has been mandatory in the UK for high risk facilities for many years, preparation of the UK National Annexes to Eurocode 8 (EC8) forced a consideration of whether a more general application of seismic design was warranted. Accordingly, two studies were carried out to investigate UK seismic hazard and the needs for seismic design in the UK. The first study (the main topic of this paper) was entitled Establishing the need for seismic design in the UK. It proposed guidelines for establishing the need for explicit seismic design in the UK, and on appropriate measures. It drew on the second study EC8 seismic hazard zoning maps for the UK, performed by the British Geological Survey (BGS). The studies have provided a basis for the UK National Documents to EC8. They may also prove useful for any future review of seismic design requirements for the proposed new generation of UK nuclear power stations.

Introduction
Despite its very low seismicity, seismic design has been mandatory in the UK for high risk facilities for around 35 years, in particular for nuclear installations and, more recently, high risk petrochemical installations (such as LNG tanks) and important dams. However, the need to prepare UK National Annexes to Eurocode 8 (EN1998 [1], hereafter referred to as EC8) necessitated making decisions on whether a more general application of seismic design was warranted. The UK National Foreword to EC8 states (inter alia): There are generally no requirements in the UK to consider seismic loading, and the whole of the UK may be considered an area of very low seismicity in which the provisions of EN1998 need not apply. However, certain types of structure, by reason of their function, location or form, may warrant an explicit consideration of seismic actions. It is the intention in due course to publish separately background information on the circumstances in which this might apply in the UK. Designers of structures

(other than special structures such as nuclear power plant for which regulation, guidance and precedents exist) therefore require some guidance on the circumstances referred to in the Foreword when an explicit seismic design might be warranted. Accordingly, two studies were carried out to investigate UK seismic hazard and the needs for seismic design in the UK. Given the regulatory context and to achieve a broad consensus, over 17 seismologists and structural engineers with a relevant interest were consulted in the course of the studies. The first study Establishing the need for seismic design in the UK [2], was carried out by means of a literature search, some desk studies and interviews with engineers with relevant expertise. It reviewed the vulnerability of construction in the UK to earthquakes, and proposed guidelines for establishing whether new construction in the UK warrants an explicit seismic design, and if so, what measures are appropriate. Some of the main findings and recommendations of this study are summarised below. It drew on a second study EC8 seismic hazard zoning maps for the UK by the British Geological Survey [3], which developed seismic contour maps for return periods of 475 years and 2,500 years; this is also described, but more briefly. The views expressed are solely those of the author.

Design ground motions for the UK


The British Geological Survey (BGS) seismic hazard study [3]
Musson and Sargeant [3] provide a complete description of the study; a brief outline now follows. It used a new seismic source model, elaborated from that of Musson [4], itself a development of Chadwick et als model of 1996 [5]. The underlying earthquake catalogue was essentially that of Musson [6]. Two very recent ground motion equations were used, namely Campbell and Bozorgnia [7] and Bommer et al. [8]; each was given equal weight in the logic tree. A probabilistic approach was taken, similar in principle to the classic Cornell approach, but using a Monte Carlo methodology developed by Musson [9]. Unlike hazard assessments for the nuclear industry, which are required to be conservative, the maps aimed to provide a best estimate of UK seismic hazard. At the outset of the study, a meeting of leading experts of the UK seismic hazard community was convened, to discuss the key decisions influencing the construction of the hazard model. Consensus was achieved on all the major issues. This study can therefore be considered as meeting one of the requirements for Level 3 in the classification of seismic hazard studies proposed by the Senior Seismic Hazard Assessment Committee (SSHAC, Budnitz et al. [10]), by validating it against the general views of the informed community of experts, outside the immediate authorship of the study. However, it did not prove possible to arrange the further workshop meetings needed for a full Level 3 validation.

Two maps were provided, with return periods of 475 years and 2,500 years. The maps were primarily intended to demonstrate the variation of seismicity within the UK, rather than to provide ground motion values for the seismic design of specific projects, for which site specific studies were recommended. The maps are reproduced as Figure 1; they are the first UK national seismic hazard maps to be issued specifically in connection with an earthquake building code.

a) 475 year return period b) 2,500 year return period The areas shaded pink exceed 4%g The areas shaded pink exceed 6%g Figure 1: Peak ground acceleration (PGA) contours on rock from Musson and Sargeant [3] Figure 1(a) indicates that out of the whole United Kingdom, ground motion in only two small areas of Wales exceeds the EC8 recommended definition of very low seismicity, namely 4%g PGA on rock for a 475 year return period. In no area does it exceed the low seismicity threshold, 8%g. (The area where EC8s second definition for very low seismicity - 6%g on soil - is exceeded may however be somewhat greater). This supports the statement in the UK National Foreword, quoted previously, that the whole of the UK may be considered an area of very low seismicity. Figure 1(b) indicates that in a rather more extensive area 6%g is exceeded for a 2,500 year period, a threshold which is part of the recommended procedure for establishing the need for seismic design, which is discussed in more detail later.

Return periods appropriate for seismic design in the UK EC8 Part 1 recommends a return period of 475 years as the reference return period for the ultimate limit state, for which a reference PGA on rock agR applies. The design PGA on rock, ag, is then obtained from ag = I.agR , where I is the importance factor; by definition I = 1 for normal importance structures (i.e. those of consequence category CC2). 475 years is currently adopted as the return period for design ground motions by a number of seismic codes, and was originally used in the USA, which however now bases its seismic hazard zoning on much longer return periods. The next paragraph argues that a return period of 475 years is much too low for areas of low or very low seismicity. The annual risk of failure due to earthquakes in a particular structure depends on both the nature of the structure itself (i.e. its seismic vulnerability) and on the ground motions to which it may be subjected during the year (i.e. the local seismic hazard). To estimate the annual risk, the contribution of earthquakes with a range of annual probabilities must be considered and the total risk integrated. Thus, larger earthquakes with a very low probability will pose a greater threat to structures than smaller, more frequent ones, but the overall risk comes from the product of probability of occurrence and structural consequence. As shown by Booth and Baker [11], the relative contribution to risk of low probability (long return period) earthquakes is much greater in areas of low seismicity than in areas of high seismicity, so design for 475 year motions in the UK would be expected to result in a lower integrated risk of seismic failure than would be the case for a high seismicity area such as Greece; Booth and Baker suggest a period of around 2,000 years is needed. In simple terms, the maximum credible event is much more likely to occur during any given time period at Athens than it is at London. For these reasons, the values recommended by EC8 for design return periods are not suitable for use in the UK. Two alternatives are provided in the UK National Annexes to EC8, which as explained later apply only to high consequence category (CC3) structures (CC2 structures being exempt from seismic design). The first is simple but conservative; the reference return period should be taken as 2,500 years (hence the value in Figure 1b) but the importance factor I should be remain as 1, even though CC3 structures are involved. The alternative is to proceed on a project specific basis; an appropriate return period for the design earthquake at the ultimate limit state should be established, on the basis of the total level of risk appropriate to the project, and accounting for any regulatory requirements. Site specific ground motions should then be derived for this return period, usually in the form of a site response spectrum. This is the required procedure in the UK National Annex to EC8 Part 4 for high risk petrochemical installations. Note that nuclear power plants (and other nuclear installations) are specifically excluded from EC8; in the UK, these are currently designed for ground motions with a 10,000 year return period, derived on a site specific basis.

UK design spectra The previous paragraph described how the design PGA on rock, ag, could be established, but this needs to be associated with a spectral shape. Booth and Skipp [2] investigated various shapes which might be suitable for the UK, as detailed in Table 1, for a range of soil types. The results are shown in Figure 2(a) for rock sites and Figure 2(b) for soft soil sites. A full description is not provided here for reasons of space; it is given in the report of the study [2]. Table 1: Details of the spectral shapes shown in Figure 2. Spectrum name EC8 [1] PML [12] ASCE [13] : 18%g ASCE [13] : 7%g Campbell and Borzognia [7]: PGA=18%g Campbell and Borzognia [7]: PGA=7%g Bommer et al [8]: PGA=18%g Bommer et al [8]: PGA=7%g Soil types A (hard) to D (soft) Hard, medium, soft B (hard) to E (soft) Vs = 1000 m/s (hard) = 500 m/s (medium) = 200 m/s (soft) Other parameters Type 2 earthquakes EC8 recommended values Ss = 69%g, S1= 16.5%g Ss = 27%g, S1= 6.4%g Mw= 5.5 Other faulting RJB = 1km RRUP =8km ZTOR = 5, Z2.5 = 2, = 90o Mw= 4.7 Other faulting RJB = 3km RRUP =10km ZTOR = 5, Z2.5 = 2, = 90o Mw= 5.5 Other faulting RJB = 1km Mw= 4.7 Other faulting RJB = 3km

Rock, medium, soft

It can be see that while the EC8 Type 2 spectra agrees quite well with the PML spectra of 1981 [12] (widely used within the UK nuclear industry), US practice as represented by ASCE/SEI 7-05 [13] differs significantly for soft soils. This is partly because ASCE, unlike EC8, takes the amplification by the soils of the rock motion as amplitude dependent. The spectral shapes from the two ground motion studies (Campbell and Borzognia [7] and Bommer et al. [8]) are markedly lower than all of these. Overall, the enormous scatter for soft soils is rather disturbing. Based on these findings, it was considered that the shapes recommended by EC8 for Type 2 earthquakes (where magnitudes of 5 or less dominate the hazard) were a suitably conservative basis for design of CC3 structures in the UK when anchored to the 2,500 year PGA given in figure 2b, and this is the provision given in the UK National Annexes. The exceptions, noted previously, are for high risk petrochemical installations, where a site specific study is required, and facilities outside the scope of EC8 (particularly nuclear facilities), where other regulatory conditions govern.

5
(5% damped SA) / a PML - hard
g

EC8 Type 2- soil D PML - soft ASCE 7 - soil E - 18%g ASCE 7 - soil E - 7%g Bommer - soft - 18%g - M=5.5 Bommer - soft - 7%g - M=4.7 C&B - Vs=200 - 18%g - M=5.5 C&B - Vs=200 - 7%g - M=4.7

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1

EC8 Type 2 - Soil A ASCE 7 - Soil B Bommer - rock - 18%g - M=5.5 Bommer - rock - 7%g - M=4.7 C&B - Vs=1000 - 18%g - M=5.5 C&B - Vs=1000 - 7%g - M=4.7

(5% damped SA) / a

1
0.5 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Structural period (secs)

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1


Structural period (secs)

a) Hard sites

b) Soft sites

Figure 2: comparison of spectral shapes for low seismicity conditions

Establishing the need for seismic design in the UK


A background paper on EC8, PD6698 [14], has been prepared in draft by BSI, with the final version expected to be published by the end of 2008. In Eurocode terminology, it is classified as providing non-conflicting complementary information to EC8. PD6698 advises that (in the absence of a regulatory requirement) seismic design is not required for CC1 (low importance) and CC2 (normal importance) buildings. This is because CC1 and CC2 buildings designed to incorporate the lateral strength and robustness requirements required under gravity and wind loads are considered to have sufficient seismic resistance to reduce the risk associated with earthquake damage to an acceptable level. CC3 buildings may also sometimes be adequate, but PD6698 refers to a procedure by Booth & Skipp [2] to establish whether or not a seismic design is actually needed. This procedure addresses the three circumstances which govern whether seismic design need be considered, namely the function, location or form of the structure; this definition comes from the UK National Foreword quoted earlier. The function is already addressed by limiting the review to CC3 buildings. Location is addressed by considering the 2,500 year rock PGA at the site, ag,2500, and the type of soil which underlies it. Function is addressed by considering if unfavourable structural forms are present. Above average UK seismicity is defined (somewhat arbitrarily) as locations (from Figure 1(b)) where ag,2500 is at

least 6%g; this applies to about 10% of Great Britain. Unfavourable soil and unfavourable structural forms are defined as those listed in Table 2. Where at least 2 out of these 3 conditions apply, explicit seismic design is recommended. Using this procedure, for ag,2500 =15%g, a building on firm ground and a regular structural configuration would be judged as not needing seismic design. However, if it was both on soft soil and had structural irregularity, the recommendation would be to carry out a seismic design, even if ag,2500 <6%g. Where seismic design is indicated, PD6698 [14] recommends use of the EC8 simplified methods for low seismicity regions, which involve a seismic analysis with low q (behaviour) factors, but no special seismic detailing measures. These procedures will be kept under review and may need modification following feedback from use in practice. Table 2 : Seismically unfavourable soil profiles and structural features Soil profiles 3-10m of sand, silt or clay over rock 10-30m of sand with SPT<15 overlaying rock 10-30m of clay with cu < 100kPa overlaying rock Structural features More than 50% of the mass is concentrated in the upper third of the height of the structure. Formation of a yielding mechanism under lateral forces by means of a single plastic hinge at the base of not more than one of the building elements. Design horizontal strength under lateral loading of any storey is less than 65% of that of the storey above. Allow for strength contribution of cladding elements. Centres of stiffness and mass at any level differ by more than 15% of the total plan dimension of the building First translational mode of vibration in either principal direction has a lower period than first torsional mode.

Concluding remarks
The need to publish UK National Annexes to EC8 has led to preparation of the first UK seismic hazard contour map produced for a seismic code and to recommended procedures covering a much wider range of structures than was previously available. In fact, the regulatory situation in the UK has not changed, since seismic design has for some time been mandatory for nuclear facilities, high risk petrochemical installations and major dams; for most other high risk facilities, the use of EC8 remains discretionary. However, by providing clear guidance for the first time for non-nuclear buildings and some other types of structure, the publication of the National Annexes and the associated background paper, PD6698 [14], is considered a significant milestone in seismic design practice for the UK. It will be interesting to see how widely the procedures are

adopted and whether they influence seismic design for future UK nuclear power facilities.

References
[1] EN1998 (2004 - 2006). Design of structures for earthquake resistance. European Commission for Standardisation (CEN), Brussels. [2] Booth, E.D. and Skipp, B.O. (2008). Establishing the need for seismic design in the UK. Institution of Civil Engineers, London. [3] Musson, R.M.W. and Sargeant, S.L. (2008). Eurocode 8 seismic hazard zoning maps for the UK. BGS Technical Report, R/07/125. British Geological Survey, Edinburgh. [4] Musson, R.M.W. (2004). An intensity hazard map for the UK. Abstracts of the ESC XXIX General Assembly, Potsdam, 155. [5]. Chadwick, R.A., Pharaoh, T.C., Williamson, J.P. and Musson, R.M.W., (1996). Seismotectonics of the UK. BGS Technical Report, WA/96/3C. [6]. Musson, R.M.W., (1994). A catalogue of British earthquakes. British Geological Survey Global Seismology Report, WL/94/04. [7] Campbell, K.W., and Bozorgnia, Y. (2006). Campbell-Bozorgnia NGA empirical ground motion model. Interim Report for USGS Review. [8] Bommer, J.J., Stafford, P.J., Alarcn, J.E., and Akkar, S. (2007). The influence of magnitude range on empirical ground-motion prediction. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 97, 2152-2170. [9] Musson, R.M.W., (1998). On the use of Monte Carlo simulations for seismic hazard assessment, in Proc. 6th US Nat. Conf. on Eq. Eng., Seattle. [10] Budnitz, R.J. et al (1997). Recommendations for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: guidance on uncertainty and use of experts. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6372. [11] Booth, E.D. and Baker, M.J. (1990). Code provisions for engineered building structures in areas of low seismicity. 9ECEE, Moscow. [12] PML (1981). Seismic ground motion for UK design. Report for Central Electricity Generating Board and BNFL. Principia Mechanica Ltd. [13] ASCE/SEI 7-05 (2005). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston VA. [14] PD 6698:2008 (2008). Background paper to the UK National Annexes to BS EN 1998-1, -2, -4, -5 and -6. British Standards Institution (BSI), Chiswick.

You might also like