Previous | Next | Contents

ESDEP WG 17
SEISMIC DESIGN

Lecture 17.2: Introduction to Seismic

Design - Seismic Hazard and Seismic
Risk
OBJECTIVE/SCOPE
To give an introduction to seismicity, seismic hazard, seismic risk, and seismic measures.
PREREQUISITES
None.
RELATED LECTURES
None.
SUMMARY
The lecture introduces seismicity, explaining the origins of earthquakes and summarises their
characteristics in both general and engineering terms. The need for probabilistic assessments is
demonstrated and the concept of response spectra is introduced. The basic approaches for design
against earthquakes and Eurocode 8[1] are presented.

1. INTRODUCTION
Among the natural phenomena that have worried human kind, earthquakes are without doubt the
most distressing one. The fact that, so far, the occurrence of earthquakes has been unpredictable,
makes them especially feared by the common citizen, for he feels there is no way to assure an
effective preparedness.
The most feared effects of earthquakes are collapses of constructions, for they not only usually
imply human casualties but represent huge losses for individuals as well as for the community.
Thus, although other consequences of earthquakes may include landslides, soil liquefaction and
tsunamis, it is the aim in this lecture to study seismic motion from the point of view of the
natural hazard it poses to construction, and particularly to steel structures.

The fundamental goals of any structural design are safety, serviceability and economy.
Achieving these goals for design in seismic regions is especially important and difficult.
Uncertainty and unpredictability of when, where and how a seismic event will strike a
community increases the overall difficulty. In addition, lack of understanding and ability to
estimate the performance of constructed facilities makes it difficult to achieve the above
mentioned goals.
The future occurrence of earthquakes can be regarded as a seismic hazard, whose consequences
represent what can be defined as seismic risk. The separate study of these two concepts is
important. The first represents the action of nature and the second the effects on mankind and
man-made structures.

2. THE SEISMIC EVENT

2.1 General
The knowledge and study of past seismic events is an important way of predicting the potential
seismic hazard for the different zones of the earth. Earthquakes have been reported as far back as
during the Babylonian Empire or in 780 BC in China.
A region which has suffered large earthquakes (Figure 1) is the circum-Pacific belt including
New Zealand, the Tonga and New-Hebrides Archipelagos, the Philippines, Taiwan, Japan, the
Kurile and Aleutian Isles, Alaska, the western coasts of Canada and the United States, Mexico,
all the countries in Central America and the western coast of South America from Colombia to
Chile. Other regions of the world that also have been subject to devastating earthquakes in the
past are the northern and eastern zones of China, northern India, Iran, the south of the Arabian
Peninsula, Turkey, all the southern part of Europe including Greece, Yugoslavia, Italy and
Portugal, the north of Africa and some of the Caribbean countries.

Worldwide, the most devastating seismic event which has ever happened is believed to be the
1556, January 23rd earthquake in the Shaanxi Province of China. That earthquake may have
caused more than half a million casualties. More recently, two other Chinese provinces, the
Ningxia province in 1920 and the Hebei province in 1976, were hit by earthquakes that may have
caused several hundreds of thousands of dead.
In Europe, earthquakes are reported as far back as 373 BC in Helice, Greece. Other catastrophic
earthquakes in Europe occurred in 365, 1455 and 1626 in Naples, 1531 and 1755 in Portugal,
1693 in Sicily, 1783 in Calabria and 1908 in Messina. Each one of these earthquakes is believed
to have caused between 30000 and 60000 deaths. Even if these figures are not totally reliable,
they give a dimension of the consequences or the risk that may result from the seismic hazard in
some European countries.
These major earthquakes have each caused not only a large number of human casualties due to
the collapse of houses and other buildings, but also have caused huge economical losses which in
some cases took long periods to recover. The large losses, human and economic, that can be
expected from the occurrence of future earthquakes justify special attention being given to the
study of earthquake phenomena and the earthquake hazard.

2.2 Origins of Earthquakes

Earthquakes have their origin in the sudden release of accumulated energy in some zones of the
earth's crust and the resulting propagation of seismic waves.
Wegener introduced the concept of continental drift to explain the origin of the continents, and
why the earth's crust is divided into interacting plates. The zones of the earth where most
earthquakes are generated are at the boundaries of the plates. Earthquakes occur in some cases
due to subduction movements between two plates, as is the case of the Pacific plate which moves
underneath the South American continent, and in other cases due to sliding movements between
the two plates, as is the case of San Andreas fault in California. In Southern Europe the boundary
between the African and the Euroasiatic plates is responsible for some very large earthquakes, as
for example the 1755 earthquake that destroyed most of the city of Lisbon.
Other zones where earthquakes occur are at the faults in the intraplate regions, due to the
accumulation of strains caused by the pressures in the plate's boundaries. Most of the Chinese
earthquakes are generated in the intraplate region. In Europe a similar region is involved for most
of the southern part of the continent but also for some other central and northern areas.
The point or the zone at which the earthquake slip first occurs is commonly designated as the
focus or hypocentre. The earthquake focus is usually at a certain depth, known as the focal depth.
The intersection of a vertical line through the focus with the ground surface is known as the
epicentre (Figure 2). Obviously the most affected zones are the ones closer to the focus, showing
that distance to the epicentre (or hypocentre) is a significant factor of seismic hazard.

The sudden release of energy at the focus generates seismic waves that propagate through the
rock and soil layers. There are three basic types of seismic waves; P waves, S waves and surface
waves which include the Love and Rayleigh waves. The difference of velocity between the P and
the S waves allows, by means of the difference in the arrival time, the determination of the
hypocentral distance. Typical velocities of P and S waves vary from 100m/sec for S waves in
unconsolidated soils (300m/sec for P waves) to 4000m/sec for S waves in igneous rocks
(7500m/sec for P waves).

2.3 Earthquake Characteristic

The "size" of the earthquake or what could be seen as a seismic scale is a very important factor
for a correct characterization of its potential hazard. Intensity and magnitude are two different
means of "measuring" an earthquake which are often confused by the media.
The concept of magnitude which was first introduced by Richter and which still carries his name,
represents a measure of the earthquake that is supposed to be independent of the location at
which the measurement is obtained. It is related to the amplitude of the seismic waves corrected
with respect to distance. It represents a universal measure of the size of the earthquake,

independently of its effects. Although there is no maximum value for the magnitude of an
earthquake, the two largest magnitudes ever observed correspond to the 1906 earthquake off the
coast of Ecuador and the 1933 earthquake off the Sanriku coast in Japan with magnitudes of 8,9.
The 1755 earthquake, off the coast of Portugal, is believed to have been the largest earthquake in
Europe with a magnitude of 8,6.
The magnitude of an earthquake can be related to other physical measures of earthquakes such as
the total released energy, the length of the fault rupture, the fault rupture area and the fault
slippage or relative displacement suffered between the two sides of the fault. Several
relationships have been proposed by different authors. The ones presented here are merely an
indication of the types of relationships. More accurate expressions can probably be presented for
different seismic zones. Approximate relationships between magnitude (M), total energy (E in
ergs), fault rupture length (L in meters), fault rupture area (A in Km2) and fault slippage
displacement (D in meters) are:
Log E = 9,9 + 1,9 M - 0,024 M2
M = 1,61 + 1,182 log L
M = 4,15 + log A
M = 6,75 + 1,197 log D
The relationship between energy and magnitude shows that an earthquake of magnitude 8
releases as much as about 37 times the energy released by a magnitude 7 earthquake. The same
observation can be made for the relationships between magnitude and measures of the fault,
showing that an increase of one degree in the Richter scale corresponds to a considerable
increase in terms of seismic hazard.
A different way of measuring an earthquake, has been adopted, based on a scale initially
proposed by Mercalli and later modified, known as the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI).
According to this scale (Table 1), which varies between I and XII, the intensity of an earthquake
is dependent on the observed effects on landscape, structures and people at a given site. Thus, the
intensity is variable from place to place and relies on a subjective appreciation of the earthquake
consequences. An approximate correspondence between MMI and ground acceleration, a
parameter which will be further discussed, is presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale

Peak ground acceleration

(m sec-2)

Not felt by people.

< 2,5 x 10-3

II

Felt only be a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings.

2,5 x 10-3 - 0,005

III

Felt indoors by many people. Feels like the vibration of a light truck passing by. Hanging objects swing. May not
be recognised as an earthquake.

IV

Felt indoors by most people and outdoors by a few. Feels like the vibration of a heavy truck passing by. Hanging
objects swing noticeably. Standing automobiles rock. Windows, dishes, and doors rattle; glasses and crockery

clink. Some wood walls and frames creak.

V

0,005 - 0,010

Felt by most people indoors and outdoors; sleepers awaken. Liquids disturbed, with some spillage. Small objects
displaced or upset; some dishes and glassware broken. Doors swing; pendulum clocks may stop. Trees and poles
may shake.

0,010 - 0,025

0,025 - 0,05
VI

Felt by everyone. Many people are frightened; some run outdoors. People move unsteadily. Dishes, glassware, and
some windows break. Small objects fall off shelves; pictures fall off walls. Furniture may move. Weak plaster and
masonry D cracks. Church and school bells ring. Trees and bushes shake visibly.

0,05 - 0,10

VII

People are frightened; it is difficult to stand. Automobile drivers notice the shaking. Hanging objects quiver.
Furniture breaks. Weak chimneys break. Loose bricks, stones, tiles, corners, unbraced parapets, and architectural
ornaments fall from buildings. Damage to masonry D; some cracks in masonry C. Waves seen on ponds. Small
slides along sand or gravel banks. Large bells ring. Concrete irrigation ditches damaged.

0,10 - 0,25

VIII

General fright; signs of panic. Steering of vehicles is affected. Stucco falls; some masonry walls fall. Some
twisting and falling of chimneys, factory stacks, monuments, towers, and elevated tanks. Frame houses move on
foundations if not bolted down. Heavy damage to masonry D; damage and partial collapse on masonry C. Some
damage to masonry B, none to masonry A. Decayed piles break off. Branches break from trees. Flow or
temperature of water in springs and wells may change. Cracks appear in wet ground and on steep slopes.

0,25 - 0,5

IX

General panic. Damage to well-built structures; much interior damage. Frame structures are racked and, if not
bolted down, shift off foundations. Masonry D destroyed; heavy damage to masonry C, sometime with complete
collapse; masonry B seriously damaged. Damage to foundations, serious damage to reservoirs; underground pipes
broken. Conspicuous cracks in the ground. In alluvial soil, sand and mud is ejected; earthquake fountains occur and
sand craters are formed.

0,5 - 1,0

Most masonry and frame structures destroyed with their foundations. Some well-built wooden structures and
bridges destroyed. Serous damage to dams, dikes, and embankments. Large landslides. Water is thrown on banks
of canals, rivers, and lakes. Sand and mud are shifted horizontally on beaches and flat land. Rails bent slightly.

1,0 - 2,5

XI

Most masonry and wood structures collapse. Some bridges destroyed. Large fissures appear in the ground.
Underground pipelines completely out of service. Rails badly bent.

2,5 - 5,0

XII

Damage is total. Large rock masses are displaced. Waves are seen on the surface of the ground. Lines of sight and
level are distorted. Objects are thrown into the air.

5,0 - 10,0

1.
2.
3.

At intensity I there may be effects from very large earthquakes at considerable distance in the form of long-period motion. These effects
include disturbed birds and animals, swaying of hanging objects, and slow swinging of doors, although people will not feel the shaking and will
not recognize the effects as being caused by an earthquake.
Each earthquake effect is listed in the table at the level of intensity at which it appears frequently. It may be found less frequently or less
strongly at the preceding (lower) level and more frequently and more strongly at higher levels.
The quality of masonry or brick construction was categorized by Richter (1956) as follows:

Masonry A Good workmanship, mortar, and design; reinforced, especially laterally, and bound together by using steel, concrete, etc: designed to resist
lateral forces.
Masonry B Good workmanship and mortar; reinforced, but not designed in detail to resist lateral forces.
Masonry C Ordinary workmanship and mortar; no extreme weaknesses like failing to tie in at corners, but neither reinforced nor designed against
horizontal forces.
Masonry D Weak materials, such as adobe; poor mortar; low standards of workmanship; weak horizontally.

Figure 3 represents a map of the maximum observed intensities in Europe, which is based on the
recollection of the effects of past earthquakes, and thus can already be looked at as a measure of
seismic risk.

The duration of ground motion is another parameter of great interest when assessing the seismic
hazard for a given seismic environment. Although there is no single definition for the duration of
an earthquake, all the most commonly used definitions agree as a rule that the duration of an
earthquake at a given site increases with the magnitude, epicentral distance, and the depth of the
soil above bed-rock. The duration of an earthquake is a very important parameter especially

when assessing the non-linear response of structures. The accumulation of structural damage,
which is related to the non-linear behaviour of the structure and may lead to structural failure,
can be highly affected by the total time a structure is subjected to strong ground motion. An
earthquake with a given magnitude may represent a smaller hazard than an earthquake with a
smaller magnitude but larger duration or even than a series of smaller magnitude earthquakes.
All the possible measures of an earthquake that have been presented so far, are of limited interest
from the engineering point of view. The relationships that have been established between the
different parameters are not deterministic and involve a great amount of uncertainty and
variability. On the other hand, they relate more to the physical aspects of the seismic source and,
except for the Mercalli Intensity which is determined based on subjective judgement, do not take
into account the site characteristics and the hypocentral or epicentral distance.
The need for an engineering characterization of the seismic motion, justifies the use of
alternative parameters, such as the maximum ground acceleration or peak ground acceleration
(ag) observed during the ground motion at a given site. The maximum acceleration has been
observed to be statistically dependent on the magnitude of the earthquake. Hence it is dependent
on the severity of the seismic source, and is also highly dependent on the distance to the
epicentre and on the soil characteristics and other local site conditions. Figure 4 shows the type
of relationship that exists between ag and distance for different earthquake magnitudes.

Approximate relationships exist between the Richter Magnitude, the Modified Mercalli Intensity
and ag observed in the epicentral zone. However these relationships are very dependent on
several other parameters such as the local soil conditions and even on the type of seismic source.
Instruments are available that measure the movements of the ground due to earthquakes. Some
instruments measure the ground displacements and are called seismographs. To measure the
ground accelerations, other type of device exist, called accelerographs. The accelerographs
register the accelerations of the soil and the record obtained is called an accelerogram. A typical
accelerogram is represented in Figure 5, showing the peak ground acceleration (a g).

Knowing, for a given earthquake and site, the accelerations in three orthogonal directions, it is
possible to evaluate the response of a structure when subjected to that specific earthquake.
But for a given site, there may be more than one potential seismic source and from a given
source earthquakes with different magnitudes, durations and peak ground accelerations may
occur. In addition, even for the same earthquake, accelerograms obtained in different locations
may vary substantially, depending on the local site conditions. The geometry and properties of
the soil have been shown in past earthquakes to have a large influence on the characteristics of
the accelerogams obtained. Thus, the accelerograms obtained from past earthquakes have to be
used with special care. They may not correctly represent the ground accelerations of future
events.
The knowledge of the seismic ground motion is an essential aspect of the characterization of the
seismic hazard. Access to accelerograms from different earthquakes, in different seismic
environments, for several magnitudes and epicentral distances, in different soil conditions gives a
unique basis for characterizing the ground motion and determining its most influential parameter.
Arrays of strong ground motion accelerographs have been used in the last decade allowing a
more reliable estimate of the earthquake motion. Thus a probabilistic assessment of the
earthquake input is obtained for use in engineering applications.

Among the aspects that are investigated with arrays of ground motion accelerographs are the
influence of the type of seismic action, hypocentral distance, wave propagation path, orientation
of the site with respect to the fault line, local soil conditions and local topography.
During the lifetime of a structure there is a certain probability that it may be subjected to one or
more earthquakes. The probability depends on the seismic environment and on the period for
which the structure is to function. The probability that an earthquake with a large magnitude, and
consequently with large ag values, occurs during the lifetime of a structure, is smaller than the
probability of occurrence of smaller earthquakes. The number of earthquakes (N) having a
magnitude (M) or greater per year, can be estimated by means of recurrence formulae of the
type.
log N = a - b M
where a and b are parameters depending on local conditions.
For each seismic zone, and based on past seismic events, recurrence formulae can be obtained,
giving the annual probability of occurrence of earthquakes with a certain magnitude, or the
return period of occurrence of an earthquake with a given magnitude. As the magnitude can be
related with ag, these types of relationship give the return period of occurrence of a certain level
of ground acceleration. According to the time period to be adopted, which depends on the level
of risk to be accepted, the corresponding ag value can be determined. This ag value, is the peak
ground acceleration that will be exceeded with a given probability, necessarily very small, and
thus assuming a certain level of seismic risk.
Differences between past and future ground accelerations will exist not only in terms of the
maximum observed values (ag) but also in terms of the frequency content. Thus, another aspect
that has to be examined in any study of seismic hazard, is the frequency content of the
earthquake records. The fourier transform, the spectral density function or power spectrum and
the response spectrum are different ways to characterize an accelerogram in the frequency
domain. It should be noted that Eurocode 8 recommendations allow the use of accelerograms,
power spectra or response spectra to define the seismic motion for structural analysis purposes.
The last approach will be discussed here because it is the simplest approach of those available
which have direct application to structural analysis.

2.4 Response Spectrum

The response spectrum of a given earthquake record is the representation of some maximum
response quantity of a damped, linear, single degree of freedom system as a function of the
natural frequency of that system.

For example, for the system shown in Figure 6, with mass m, stiffness k, (velocity dependent)
damping c, ground displacement dg, and displacement of the mass relative to the ground d r, the
equation of motion can be written in the form
m (dg'' + dr'') + cdr'' + kdr = 0
or
mdr'' + cdr' + kdr = - mdg''
This equation of relative displacement is the same as that for a mass with fixed base subjected to
a horizontal force -mdg''. Introduction of the natural frequency of the undamped system =
, the natural period of the undamped system T = 2/, and the damping ratio = c/2m,
gives
dr'' + 2 dr' + 2 dr = -dg''
with the solution

dr = -exp (-p,t)/D

di = exp (- D t)/D

dg''() exp [ D (t - )] sin D (t - ) d ,

dg () exp [ D (t - )] sin D (t - ) d ,

where
D = (1 - 2) is the natural frequency of the damped system.

 =1 corresponds to the critical damping ccr = 2

For a given accelerogram, i.e. given dg'', the maximum of dr, for a given value of , can be
determined for each D. Usually the value = 0,05 is used as a reference value and a correction
factor for damping ratios different from 5% is introduced.
A typical acceleration response spectrum for three damping ratio values is shown in Figure 7.

The two parameters that most influence the shape of the response spectrum, or its frequency
content, are the type of earthquake and the local soil conditions. The influence of these two
parameters on the shape of the spectrum arises from the phenomenon of resonance. In reality the
fact that a certain earthquake has a predominance of energy centred in a given frequency range
will cause the response spectrum to have larger amplitudes in that same frequency range. Two
aspects that may lead to different spectra are the distance of the site to the seismic source and the
characteristics of the local soil. Large hypocentral distances tend to diminish the high frequency
components of the local ground motion. Soft soils also tend to amplify the low frequency
components of the ground motion, whereas for hard soils the high frequency components are
amplified.
In the past, it has been observed that similar structures subjected to the same earthquakes show a
quite different seismic behaviour because of the local soil conditions. In the 1967 Caracas,
Venezuela earthquake, it was observed that damage to buildings was not uniform throughout the
city. Tall buildings with foundations on soft thick soil layers showed much more damage than
the same type of building with foundations on stiffer soils. The opposite was observed for lowrise buildings; they showed more damage for foundations on the stiffer soils. This observation
showed that the same earthquake motion can be filtered in a different way by two distinct soils.

Thus the seismic input into a structure may vary according to the local soil conditions. The
interaction between the ground motion and the structural characteristics is thus of great
importance in the evaluation of the seismic response of structures and the associated seismic risk.

3. EARTHQUAKE INPUT FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN

The fact that, for a given earthquake source and site, there have been no observed earthquakes
with a magnitude, intensity, or peak ground acceleration larger than certain values, does not
mean that larger values will not be observed in future. Thus, the maximum possible or probable
values have to be derived using a probabilistic approach. Furthermore, if one derives
probabilistic maximum values for earthquakes that may occur during a certain future period of
time, the values will differ from the ones relating to a different period of time. The return period
of an earthquake with given characteristics, can be defined as the inverse of the annual
probability of occurrence of that event. The larger the seismic event, the larger the corresponding
return period as shown by the recurrence formulae already presented.
If the earthquake for which the structure has to be designed and its return period are known, and
if the period for which the structure is designed is also known, the probability of the structure
being subjected to the earthquake during its lifetime can be determined. Evaluating this
probability is a matter of assessing a parameter of seismic risk. To evaluate the global seismic
risk, one should combine this type of information with the information regarding the single
probability of collapse or malfunctioning of the structure if designed according to certain levels
and standards of resistance and ductility.
Different earthquakes lead to dissimilar response spectra. Not only different maximum values of
the ground acceleration (ag) lead to different maximum spectrum values, but also different
accelerograms will result in dissimilar shapes of spectra even with the same ag. So, the use of
response spectra to characterize a certain potential seismic event, has to take into account the
influence of important aspects such as the nature and distance of the seismic source and the
characteristics of the soil.
For these reasons, the evaluation of response spectra for design purposes must include a
probabilistic study of the seismic occurrences. The study will define the maximum ground
acceleration and the shape of the spectra to be considered, for each seismic source and each
different kind of soil. This definition is usually obtained by statistical means. The spectra used
for design purposes, and the spectra presented in regulations are usually the smoothed graphs of
the maximum credible values of the corresponding spectra, for a certain level of risk acceptance,
in terms of seismic origin and local soil conditions, obtained for different earthquakes.
The different levels of risk acceptance are also related to the importance of the structure to be
designed. The catastrophic consequences arising as a result of collapse or malfunctioning of
important buildings and other structures, such as hospitals, fire stations, power plants, schools,
dams, main bridges, etc. requires design to a lower level of risk than for normal structures. This
lower level is achieved by designing these structures to a larger earthquake return period and
consequently to higher values of seismic input. This approach corresponds to designing them to a
lower probability of damage and collapse in the event of future earthquakes.

Similarly, different levels of probability of occurrence of earthquakes can also be used for
different design philosophies. For regular structures, the choice of an earthquake level with a
very low probability of being exceeded is usually associated with a design aimed at avoiding
structural collapse, and thus human casualties, even if the structure undergoes major damage and
has to be rebuilt. For earthquake levels with higher probability of occurrence, and that may thus
occur more often during the lifetime of the structure, the design goal is not to avoid collapse but
rather to guarantee that no substantial damage occurs and that the structure maintains its
serviceability.
Usually, the response spectra are presented in normalized form, as is the case of the normalized
elastic response spectrum of Eurocode 8. It is normalized to the peak ground acceleration (a g),
i.e. it is independent of ag and so can be used for different values of the maximum expected
acceleration for the site. This approach allows for the use of the same spectra for different
conditions of severity of the ground motion. In other words, it enables the consideration of
earthquakes corresponding to different return periods and thus to different acceptance of seismic
risk.
According to Eurocode 8 and other national regulations, the elastic response spectrum to be used
for design purposes depends on several parameters such as the seismic zone, the type of seismic
action, the local soil conditions and the viscous damping ratio of the structure.
The seismic zone can be characterized by means of the severity of the seismic action. This
characterization is accomplished by normalizing the response spectra to a certain level of a g.
Usually, the response spectrum for the vertical motion is defined as a percentage of the response
spectrum for the two orthogonal horizontal directions. In Eurocode 8 the suggested percentage is
70%.
The maximum acceleration to be used in each region in Europe is defined according to
microzonation studies for each zone, depending on the local seismic hazard parameters. It is the
responsibility of the National Authorities.
The normalized elastic response spectrum e (T) (Figure 8) is defined by means of four
parameters, o, T1 T2 and k, according to the following expressions:
0 < T < T1 e (T) = 1 + T/T1 ( o - 1)
T1 < T < T2 e (T) = o
T2 < T e (T) = (T2/T)k o
where
T is the natural vibration period of the structure, or the inverse of the natural frequency (Hz)
o is the maximum value of the normalised spectral value assumed constant for periods between
T1 and T2

k is an exponent which influences the shape of the response spectrum for vibration periods larger
than T2.
The values of the transition periods T1 and T2, also known as the inverses of the corner
frequencies, depend essentially on the magnitude of the earthquake and on the ratios between the
maximum ground acceleration, ground velocity and ground displacement.

The basic values presented in Eurocode 8 [1] apply to the ground motion at bedrock or in firm
soil conditions. If the soil characteristics differ from the ones considered, other values for the
parameters can be chosen in such a way that the shape of the response spectrum is modified
accordingly. Eurocode 8 considers three different soil profiles (A, B and C). For each soil profile
different parameters ( o, T1 T2 and k) apply. The local response spectrum, s (T), can be
obtained, correcting the elastic response spectrum by a soil parameter S, which is also dependent
on the soil profile.
s (T) = S e (T)
Although the basic form of the response spectrum is uniform, and is common to the designers in
every European Community country, the parameters that define the response spectrum are also
the responsibility of each National Authority. The parameters can vary from region to region

even in a single country. This variation is due to the fact that each European region has different
seismicity.
The o value is the maximum spectral amplification. It is dependent on the selected probability
of being exceeded for the considered peak ground acceleration, on the damping ratio, on the
duration of the ground motion, and on its frequency content. According to Eurocode 8, for a 20
to 30 second earthquake and 5% damping, the value of o = 2,5 corresponds to a probability of
not being exceeded of between 70 and 80% [1].
The exponent k is dependent on the frequency content and the selected probability of being
exceeded. It describes the shape of the response spectrum for the higher periods (lower
frequencies).
The use of the elastic response spectrum, simultaneously with linear elastic design, does not take
into account the capability of a structure to resist seismic actions beyond the elastic limit. If it
can be assumed that the structure will behave linearly for small earthquakes, for larger
earthquakes it would be almost impossible and non-economical to design structures based on the
assumption of linear behaviour. For larger earthquakes it should be assumed that the structure
has a certain capacity to dissipate the energy input by the earthquake by means of non-linear
behaviour, even if that implies the existence of structural damage although guaranteeing that
collapse is avoided.
Thus, for design purposes, and to avoid the necessity of performing non-linear analysis, the
concept of structural behaviour factor (q) is introduced, to correct the results obtained by linear
analysis and obtain an estimate of the non-linear response. These behaviour factors, which will
be presented in more detail in other lectures, take into account the energy dissipation capacity
through ductile behaviour. Thus they are dependent on the materials, type and characteristics of
the structural system and the assumed ductility levels. Eurocode 8 defines the q values to be
adopted in the case of steel structures according to criteria that will be presented in later lectures.
Based on the q factors, it is possible to define the linear analysis design response spectra that can
be used for design purposes by means of linear analysis.
The linear analysis design response spectra is defined in Eurocode 8 as follows:
0 < T < T1 (T) = S [1 + T/T1 ( o/q - 1)]
T1 < T < T2 (T) = S o/q
T2 < T (T) = (T2/T)k S o/q
where
T, o, T1, T2 and k have the same meaning as above.
is the ratio of the peak ground acceleration to the acceleration of gravity.

 is a conservative factor for damping ratios different from 5%.

q is the behaviour factor which can depend on T.
The influence of the structural damping ratio is obtained by means of:
= (5 / ); > 0,70
where is the value of viscous damping ratio as a percentage.
According to Eurocode 8, if there is a possibility of two earthquake sources affecting a given
site, the use of two different response spectra may be necessary to quantify the seismic input and
response [1]. This possibility may arise for sites that may be affected by very large magnitude
earthquakes with large epicentral distances and simultaneously by smaller but nearby
earthquakes. In that case, although the ag or o values may be quite similar, the shapes of the two
corresponding spectra may vary substantially (Figure 9). As a result, some structures may be
more affected by one of the earthquakes, whereas other structures may be more affected by the
other one.

If a more sophisticated approach is required, and non-linear analysis is to be performed, or if

alternative design is to be made, the use of earthquake time-histories, or records of ground
acceleration, is necessary. When insufficient previously recorded earthquake accelerograms are
available or when they do not belong to the same seismic environment, artificially generated

earthquakes may be used. There are several alternative methodologies for generating artificial
earthquakes. The only constraint is that the generated histories shall be consistent with the
response spectrum corresponding to the case under study. The same applies to the use of power
spectra to represent the seismic action.
As a final observation on the characterization of the seismic motion, the effects of the spatial
variability of the seismic motion should be considered. The seismic input may be different from
support to support. The differences are due to several factors such as the overall dimensions of
the structure, the large distances between two supports of the same structure, or the fact that a
structure may have different foundation conditions, both in terms of soil or foundation types. In
this case a spatial model of the seismic action has to be used, taking into account a model of the
wave propagation.

4. FINAL REMARKS
The social consequences of earthquakes, in terms of human casualties and injuries and direct and
indirect economic losses justify the need to be prepared for earthquakes. Earthquakes are still
difficult to predict and, even if they could become predictable, would pose a threat to buildings
and other structures. Thus, being prepared for earthquakes consists mainly in proper structural
design procedures for seismic loading. To achieve a correct design procedure and thus diminish
the seismic risk, it is necessary in the first place, to have a correct knowledge of the seismic
input, or the seismic hazard. Simultaneously with the study of the behaviour of structures when
subject to seismic loading it is thus fundamental to study the seismic motion, its origin, and the
parameters that most influence the characteristics of the motion.

5. CONCLUDING SUMMARY

Earthquakes are natural phenomena that have caused tremendous losses of lives and
goods worldwide including in some large areas of Europe.
To design structures that can resist earthquakes requires an understanding of the seismic
hazard.
"Measuring" the earthquake can be achieved by means of different parameters such as
magnitude, intensity, peak ground acceleration, power spectrum and response spectrum.
Parameters that influence the characteristics of the earthquake motion and its response
spectrum are the duration and frequency content of the motion and the local soil
conditions.
The response spectrum approach presented in Eurocode 8 which can be used for
structural design takes into account a probabilistic approach of the definition of the
seismic motion [1].

6. REFERENCES
[1] Eurocode 8: "Structures in Seismic Regions - design", Commission of the European
Communities, Report EUR 12266, 1989.

7. ADDITIONAL READING
1. Clough, R. W. and Penzien, J., Dynamics of Structures,
McGraw-Hill - International Student Edition, 1975.
2. Gere, J. M. and Shah, H. C., Terra Non Firma - Understanding and preparing for
earthquakes, Stanford Alumni Association, Stanford, USA, 1984.
3. Catalogue of European earthquakes with intensities higher than 4,
Commission of the European Communities, Report EUR 13406, 1991.
4. Dowrick, D. J., Earthquake Resistant Design, Wiley and Sons, 1987.
Previous | Next | Contents