Abstract

The article scrutinizes the pressing issues of regulation in the domain of seismic construction. The existing code of rules SNIP II-7-81* “Construction in seismic areas” provides that earthquake resistance calculation be performed on two levels of impact: basic safety earthquake (BSE) and maximum considered earthquake (MCE). However, the very nature of such calculation cannot be deemed well-founded and contradicts the fundamental standards of foreign countries. The authors of the article have identified the main problems of the conceptual foundation underlying the current regulation. The first and foremost step intended to overcome the discrepancy in question is renunciation of the K 1 damage tolerance factor when calculating the BSE. The second measure to be taken is implementing the response spectrum method of calculation, but the β spectral curve of the dynamic response factor must be replaced by a spectrum of worst-case accelerograms for this particular structure or a spectrum of simulated accelerograms obtained for the specific construction site. Application of the response spectrum method when calculating the MCE impact level makes it possible to proceed into the frequency domain and to eventually obtain spectra of the accelerograms. As a result we get to know the response of the building to some extent, i.e. forces, the required reinforcement, and it can be checked whether the conditions of the ultimate limit state apply. Then, the elements under the most intense load are excluded from the design model the way it is done in case of progressive collapse calculations, because the assumption is that these elements are destroyed locally by seismic load. This procedure is based on the already existing design practices of progressive collapse calculation.

Highlights

  • About a quarter of Russian territory is located in seismic areas

  • The extent of anti-seismic reinforcement is determined based on calculations of seismic resistance under the spectrum theory mandated by regulations

  • The engineering analysis of exposure to strong earthquakes that occurred during the validity period of SNIP P-7-81* is indicative of the fact that the regulations in force do not always ensure seismic stability of buildings and structures built in full compliance with the initial design

Read more

Summary

Introduction

About a quarter of Russian territory is located in seismic areas. Considerable funds are allocated annually for seismic safety measures. Ensure the level of seismic capacity required for intense earthquakes. This is corroborated by the implications of the Spitak (1988) and Neftegorsk (1995) earthquakes where the buildings were almost completely destroyed. Over the past few decades, publications, reports and forum speeches produced by various scientists have stated the idea of replacing one-stage calculation with the two-stage method This idea is based on acknowledgement of the probabilistic nature of earthquakes, whose intensity depends on their frequency (recurrence) for physical reasons. Relatively weak earthquakes which occur more frequently do not dictate assumptions of considerable destruction, and the other way around, in case of intense but rare earthquakes it makes sense to plan local damage and non-elastic deformations and to assume such kind of damage albeit with no major life- and health-threatening collapse

Two-level design calculation for seismic resistant structures
Basic safety earthquake
Maximum considered earthquake
MCE impact calculation
Conclusions
Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance – Part 1
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call