December 2001 Volume 20 The Bulletin of the European ... · PDF fileDulácska, Technical...

December 2001 Volume 20

The Bu l l e t i n o f t h e Eu r o p e a n Asso c i a t i o n

f o r Ea r t h q u a k e Eng i n e e r i n g

Editor : Atilla M. Ansal, Secretary General of EAEE Address : Bogaziçi University, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquak e Research Institute,

Çengelköy, 80212, Istanbul, TURKEY Publisher : Turkish Earthquake Foundation, Istanbul Technical University, 80626, Istanbul, TURKEY Home Page : http://www.eaee.org

CONTENTS FOREWORD 3 FROM THE PRESIDENT 4 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 4

MINUTES OF THE F OURTH MEETING FOR THE 1998-2002 PERIOD 4 REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT 6 REPORT OF THE VICE -PRESIDENT PROF . AMR S . ELNASHAI 6 REPORT OF THE SECRETARY G ENERAL 8

STATUTES OF THE EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 8 BULLETIN OF EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING (BEAEE) 12 TWELFTH EUROPEAN CO NFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 13 20TH EUROPEAN REGIONAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING SEMINAR 13 NEWS ABOUT FUTURE MEETINGS 14

THIRD EUROPEAN WORKSHOP ON THE SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF IRREGULAR AND COMPLEX STRUCTURES 14 NEWS ABOUT PAST MEETINGS 15

SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR ON SEISMIC ISOLATION, PASSIVE ENERGY DISSIPATION AND ACTIVE CONTROL

15 F IFTH WORLD CONGRESS ON JOINTS, BEARINGS AND SEISMIC SYSTEMS FOR CONCRETE STRUCTURES 33

NEWS FROM MEMBER ASS OCIATIONS 34 F ROM AUSTRIAN ASSOCIATION FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 34 F ROM BULGARIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 35 F ROM ITALIAN NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 38 F ROM POLISH NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON EARTHQUAKE AND PARASEISMIC ENGINEERING 38 F ROM RUSSIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 39 F ROM SLOVAK ASSOCIATION FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 39 F ROM SOCIETY FOR EARTHQUAKE AND CIVIL ENGINEERING DYNAMICS 40 F ROM SPANISH ASSOCIATION FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEER ING 41

SOUTH ICELAND EARTHQUAKES 2000: DAMAGE AND STRONG -MOTION RECORDINGS 41 THEMATIC EU-NETWORK SAMCO (STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT MONITORING AND CONTROL) 47 ASSESSING THE SEISMIC VULNERABILITY OF EXISTING MOTORWAY BRIDGES (VAB) 48 LARGE-SCALE FACILITIES PROGRAMME EUROPEAN COMMUNITY 49 OBITUARY NOTICE 50

PROFESSOR DR. AYKUT BARKA 50 FORTHCOMING EVENTS 51

This issue is distributed by Istanbul Section of Chamber of Civil Engineers

The Bulletin of the European Association for Earthquake Engineering

2

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Philippe Bisch, President French Association for Earthquake Engineering, Sechaud et Metz, 28 rue de la Redoute, B.P. 86, 92263 Fontenay-aux-Roses, Cedex, FRANCE, Phone: +33-1 4660 8565, Fax: +33-1 4660 3416 , e-mail: [email protected] Rainer Flesch, Vice President Austrian Association for Earthquake Engineering, Arsenal Research, Faradaygasse 3, Object 221, 1030 Vienna, AUSTRIA, Phone: +43-50550 6319, Fax: +43 -50550 6599, e-mail: [email protected], http://www.arsenal.ac.at/ Amr Salah Elnashai, Vice President The Society for Earthquake and Civil Engineering Dynamics, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign, 205 North Mathews Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801-2397, USA, Tel. +1 217 2655497, Fax. +1 217 2658040, e-mail: [email protected] Atilla M.Ansal, Secretary General Turkish National Committee on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Civil Engineering, 80626 Maslak, Istanbul, TURKEY, Phone: +90-212 285 3702, Fax: +90-212 285 6006, e-mail: [email protected] Franco Braga, Secretary Italian National Association for Earthquake Engineering, Via Flaminia 259, 00196 Roma, ITALY, Phone: +39-6 322 4283, Panayotis Carydis, Ex.Com.Mem.of Greece Technical Chamber of Greece, National Technical University of Athens, Laboratory for Earthquake Engineering. Polytechnic Campus, Zografos 15700, Athens, GREECE, Phone: +30-1 772 1185, Fax: +30-1 772 1182, e -mail: [email protected] Carlos S. Oliveira, Ex.Com.Mem. of Portugal Portuguese Society for Earthquake Engineering, Instituto Superior Tecnico, Engenharia Civil, Av.Rovisco Pais,1049-001 Lisboa, PORTUGAL, Fax: +351-21 841 8200, e-mail: [email protected] Miha Tomazevic, Ex.Com.Mem. of Slovenia Slovenian Association for Earthquake Engineering, National Building and Civil Engineering Institute, Dimiceva 12, SI-1001 Ljubljana, SLOVENIA, Fax: +386-1 588 8484, e-mail: [email protected], http://www.zag.si/ Martin Koller, Ex.Com.Mem. of Switzerland Swiss Society for Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Resonance Ingenieurs-Conseils SA, Casse Postale 1571, CH -1227 Carouge (Geneva), SWITZERLAND, Fax: +41-2 2 301 0270, e-mail: [email protected] Nicholas Ambraseys, Honorary Member Department of Civil Engineering, Imperial College, Imperial College Road, London SW7 2BU, UK, Fax: +44-171 594 6053, e-mail: [email protected] Drazen Anicic, Honorary Member Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Osijek, 21, Crkvena, 31000 Osijek, CROATIA, e-mail: [email protected] Giuseppe Grandori, Honorary Member Politecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale, Piazza Leonarda da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, ITALY Ali Akbar Moinfar, Honorary Member #D2 Nowavar, 6th St. Farnaz St., Mohseni Sq., Mirdamad, Tehran, IRAN, e-mail: [email protected] Rifat Yarar, Honorary Member TUNCEE, Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Maslak 80626, Istanbul, TURKEY, Fax: +90-212-285 6656, e-mail: [email protected] Dario Slejko, Representative of ESC Osservatorio Geofisico Sperimentale, P. O. Box 2011, 34016 Trieste, Italy,Phone: +39-040-2140248, Fax +39-040-327307, e-mail: [email protected] A.Koridze, Observer of UNESCO UNESCO, Division of Technological Research and Higher Education, 7, Place de Fontenoy, 75700 Paris, FRANCE

OTHER MEMBER ASSOCIATIONS AND DELEGATES

Algerian Association for Earthquake Engineering, Mohamed Belazougui, c/o CGS rue Kaddour Rahim, B.P.252 Hussein Dey, ALGERIA, Fax:+213-2 776 656, e -mail: [email protected] Bulgarian National Committee for Earthquake Engineering, Ludmil Tzenov, Bulgarian .Academy of Science Central Lab. for Seismic Mechanics and Earthquake Engineering, Acad.G.Bonchev str., Bl.3, 1113 Sofia, BULGARIA, Fax: +359-2 971 2407, e-mail: [email protected] Croatian Society for Earthquake Engineering, Mihaela Zamolo , Civil Engineering Institute of Croatia, Janka Rakuse 1, 10000 Zagreb,CROATIA,Fax:+385-1533927, e-mail: [email protected] Cyprus Civil Engineers and Architects Association, Antonios Protopapas, P.O. Box 1825, Nicosia, CYPRUS Czech Society for Mechanics, Ondrej Fischer, Academy of Sciences, Prosecka 76, 19000 Praha 9, CZECH REPUBLIC, Fax:+420-288 4634, e -mail: [email protected] Danish Committee for Earthquake Engineering, Jakob Laigaard Jensen, COWI, Parallelvej 15,DK-2800 Lyngby, DENMARK, Fax:+45-45972212, e-mail: [email protected] Egyptian Society for Earthquake Engineering, Mohamed Sobaih, Cairo Uni., Faculty of Engineering, Giza, EGYPT, Fax: +202-572 3486, e -mail: [email protected] German Society for Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Stavros A.Savidis, Technische Universität Berlin, Grundbauinstitut Sekr.B7, Straße des 17.Juni 135, D-10623 Berlin,GERMANY, Fax: +49-30-3142-4492, e-mail: [email protected], http://www.dgeb.tu-berlin.de Hungarian National Committee for Earthquake Engineering, Endre Dulácska, Technical University of Budapest, Faculty of Architecture, XI.Müegyetem rakpart 3.K.II.42, H-1521 Budapest, HUNGARY, Fax: +36-1 463 1773 Icelandic National Society of Earthquake Engineering, Ragnar Sigbjornsson, Engineering Research Institute, University of Iceland, Hjardarhaga 2-6, 107 Reykjavik, ICELAND, Fax: +354-525 4913, e-mail: [email protected] Iranian Society for Earthquake Engineering, Ahmad Naderzadeh, P.O.Box 18735-514, Tehran, IRAN, Fax: +98-21 879 1869, e-mail: [email protected] Israeli Association for Earthquake Engineering, Avigdor Rutenberg, Technion, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Technion City, Haifa 32000, ISRAEL, Fax: 972-4 832 3433, e-mail: [email protected] Macedonian Society of Earthquake Engineering, Kosta Talaganov, Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology, Salvador Aljende 73, P.O.B.101 - Skopje 91000, REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA, Fax: +389-91 112 163, e-mail: [email protected] Norwegian Society for Earthquake Engineering, Farrokh Nadim, NGI, Sognsveien 72, PO Box 3930 Ullevaal Hageby, N-0806 Oslo,NORWAY, Fax: +47-2 223 0448, e-mail: [email protected] Polish National Committee on Earthquake and Paraseismic Engineering, Zbigniew Zembaty, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Opole, Ul. Katowicka 48, 45-951 Opole, POLAND, Fax: +48-77 565 084, e-mail: [email protected] Russian National Committee for Earthquake Engineering, Jacob M.Eisenberg, TsNIISK, 6, 2nd Institutskaya Str., 109428 Moscow,RUSSIA, Fax:+7-0951747064, e -mail : [email protected] Slovak Association for Earthquake Engineering, Emilia Juhasova, Institute of Construction and Architecture, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dubravska cesta 9, 842 20 Bratislava, SLOVAKIA, Fax: 421-7 372 494, e -mail: [email protected] Spanish Association for Earthquake Engineering, Rafael Blazquez, c/ Almagro 42; 28010 Madrid, SPAIN, Fax: +34 91 523 2685, e-mail: [email protected] Yugoslav Association for Earthquake Engineering, Bozidar Pavicevic, Civil Engineering Faculty, University of Montenegro, 81000 Podgovica, YUGOSLAVIA, Fax: +381-81 244 900, e-mail: [email protected] Romanian Association for Earthquake Engineering, Emil-Sever Georgescu, INCERC , Sos. Pantelimon 266, 79614 Bucharest, ROMANIA, Fax: +40-1 255 0062, e-mail: [email protected]


3

FOREWORD

Dear Colleagues,

The first year of the new century was not really very different from the previous years in the last century. Fortunately, we have not experienced any major earthquake disasters in our member countries. However, it was again a very busy year for us. We have worked on modifying our Statutes to improve the effectiveness and impact of EAEE. The Executive Committee had one meeting in Sion, Switzerland during the 20th Regional Seminar. We discussed in detail the Draft Statutes that was prepared by the President and Secretary General. In this issue you will find the latest version of the modified EAEE Statutes that will be forwarded to all Delegates of the Member Societies for postal balloting by February 2002. We are planning to conclude the postal balloting by the end of June 2002 and start a new page with our General Assembly that will take place on Wednesday evening, September 11, 2002.

The 20th Regional Seminar in Sion was organised very proficiently and we enjoyed the hospitality of our Swiss colleagues.

We had also considered publishing a technical journal to be distributed to all our members. We had meetings with Prof. Benedetti, the Editor of European Earthquake Engineering, which was our official journal since 1985, to implement some changes and to modify the journal to fit the expectations of EAEE. Unfortunately, we were unable to reach a mutual agreement. Thus Journal of European Earthquake Engineering became independent of EAEE as of 2001. We wish them success in their future efforts. Thus we started debating about the other possibilities for EAEE. Finally we have decided to convert our Bulletin of European Association of Earthquake Engineering to a technical journal that will be published as four issues per year by Kluwer starting as of 2003. We are looking forward to full support from all our members.

As you may have seen on the cover page, we have registered our home page in the internet with our initials and made the necessary forwarding agreement with the service provider. Thus all you have to do is just type www.eaee.org to get connected to our web page.

Toward the end of 2001, the EAEE Central Office has been relocated to its new place at Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute of Bogaziçi University at Çengelköy Campus. In our new office, we are planning to establish a permanent EAEE Library. We are trying to collect copies of all the EAEE proceedings from all the conferences and seminars. Therefore any contributions from everybody is welcomed. In the long run we will try to put everything in an ftp server so that the material will be available to everybody.

2002 is an important year for EAEE. We are going to have our Twelfth European Conference on

Earthquake Engineering in London. As I have written in the invitation message in the Third Circular;

It is my privilege and honour to invite you, on behalf of the European Association for Earthquake Engineering, to participate to the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. It will be exactly thirty years since EAEE had its 4th Conference (at that time called Symposium) in London. The 1972 London Symposium started a new era in EAEE history and we are certain that history will repeat itself. EAEE is getting ready for major changes in its structure to improve its effectiveness and impact in the field of European Earthquake Engineering.

Since 11th ECEE in Paris in 1998, we have experienced devastating earthquakes in Europe and abroad. We have witnessed the adverse effects of earthquakes on our structures as well as on our fellow human beings. We worked very hard to understand the reasons and to find ways to mitigate the earthquake risks. Now its time for all of us to get together and discuss these new findings and the results of our most recent investigations and research to improve the safety of our structures as well as to minimize the earthquake damage. Even though it has only been four years since the Paris Conference, there have been significant advances in the field of earthquake engineering.

Many prominent engineers and scientists from Europe and from all over the World will be with us to share their knowledge and experiences. We are looking forward to excellent lectures and lively discussions. The London Conference will surely make a big impact on our understanding of earthquake related phenomenon and on our approach to mitigate the earthquake risks. We believe that with the recent advances in earthquake engineering, we are starting to have the capabilities to minimise the adverse effects of earthquakes.

Of course there is still a long way to achieve fully earthquake proof human environments. But with your support and dedication, we are sure that in the not too distant future, we will be able to reach our goal. The London Conference may be the beginning for this new era in the field of earthquake engineering and in the EAEE history. Therefore you should be there to witness this remarkable change in our profession and in our Association. The Organising Committee has made all the efforts to create a perfect and stimulating atmosphere for the 12th ECEE. Besides, London offers endless cultural and tourist attractions, joyful pubs, and lovely restaurants for those of you who do not have the chance to visit this historic but modern city often.

We take this opportunity to invite you to register for the 12th ECEE, the first European Earthquake Engineering Conference in the new millennium, and looking forward to meeting you between 9th and 13th September 2002 at the Barbican Centre in London.

Atilla M. Ansal

Secretary General


4

FROM THE PRESIDENT

Once again, Turkey has had to face a strong earthquake a few weeks ago and once again, people have had to suffer deaths, injuries and loss of properties.

What is the situation now in Europe, as regards mitigation of the seismic risks? When looking at the results, we have the impression that the efforts that we all make in the different domains covered by earthquake engineering have little impact on real life. Nevertheless, we have to go on because we know that these efforts shall produce their effects in the long run. But these efforts are not sufficient and a political will is necessary to promote research and to aid in the upgrading of buildings. On this aspect, I do not feel that major progresses are obvious. Therefore, we have to push all those who take political and economical decisions to take into consideration the safety of citizens as regards earthquakes.

In practical terms, our European Association, with its working and task groups, with its periodic conferences and regional seminars, can federalise and support the efforts of the national associations to some extent. This is the spirit of the modifications of the statutes which are proposed to the national members. This change shall allow for a widening of membership to enhance the motivation to participate in the different activities. It shall also introduce the possibility of collecting funds to offer a financial support for research or educational projects proposed by our members. This can be a good opportunity to develop co-operation between our members in participating in common projects. This evolution can also make our Association more visible to the decision makers of the European Union.

During the last period, a very good progress has been made in the transposition of Eurocode 8, in which many mem bers are involved. Finally, this shall be a good tool for aseismic construction in Europe. It shall also be a framework for a complete field of research in earthquake engineering, as its future evolution shall require a lot of new results and scientific developments.

The preparation of the XIIth ECEE in London is now in its final stage and our British colleagues who bear the huge responsibility of its organisation now suffer the anxiousness which has invaded all those who have been in charge of such a big event. I am sure that this conference shall be of high interest as regards the various scientific themes which are scheduled and shall be a very good success for its organisation. I trust that this shall be an excellent occasion for friendly exchange and I am looking forward to meeting as many of you as possible during the conference.

Philippe Bisch

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Fourth Meeting for the 1998-2002 Period

September 4, 2001

Attendance : P. Bisch, President A. Ansal, Secretary General P. Carydis, Ex. Com. Mem. Greece M.Tomazevic, Ex. Com. Mem. Slovenia M. Koller, Ex. Com. Mem. Switzerland

Absentee : A. S. Elnashai, Vice President R. Flesch, Vice President F. Braga, Secretary C. S. Oliveira, Ex. Com. Mem. Portugal

Prologue : The Fourth Meeting of the Executive Committee of the European Association for Earthquake Engineering was held in Sion, Switzerland on Tuesday, September 4, 2001 between 9:00 am and 1:00 pm. The Executive Committee meeting was chaired by the President. Agenda : 1. Approval of the Agenda 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Third Ex.Com.

Meeting 3. Report of the President 4. Report of the Vice-President Prof. A.S.Elnashai 5. Report of the Secretary General 6. EAEE Statutes 7. 12th ECEE 8. Regional Seminars 9. Task and Working Groups 10. Next Meeting in London 11. Miscellaneous Item 1: The Agenda of the Meeting was approved by all

members present. Item 2: The minutes of the Third Executive Committee

Meeting were approved and signed by all the Executive Committee Members present in the meeting.

Item 3: The President expressed his thanks to the members of the Executive Committee that came for the meeting and to the organisers of the 20th Regional Seminar for all their efforts and for the efficient organisation of the seminar. He stressed the importance of the topic selected as the theme of the seminar and the importance of these seminars for the education of the young engineers and scientists in the field of earthquake engineering in the member countries.

He summarised the efforts made for finalising the draft proposal concerning the changes in the EAEE Statutes.

Item 4: The report prepared by the Vice-President Prof. Elnashai was read by the Secretary General


5

since it was not possible for Prof. Elnashai to attend the meeting. In his report, Vice-President summarised his activities concerning FIB Seismic Design Commission, and about the EU networks ECOLEADER, SAFERR and SPEAR and about the preparations concerning 12th ECEE. He briefly explained his activities concerning the International Rose School located at Pavia, Italy and the Journal of Earthquake Engineering. He expressed his thanks to all the members of the Executive Committee for their support. He asked the permission of the Executive Committee to be released from being President-designate from September 2002 since he is appointed as the Associate Director of the Mid-America Earthquake Center based at the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He was also appointed as Director of the Newmark Civil Engineering Laboratory and a professor of structural engineering at the same university. He expressed his desire to continue to serve as Vice-President until the European Conference in London.

The Executive Committee acknowledged the efforts of the Vice-President and decided that he should serve as the Vice-President until the end of his term.

Item 5: The Secretary General informed the Committee about the activities of the Central Office during January 2001-September 2001 concerning mainly; (1) the publication of the Bulletin; (2) organisation of the Seminar for Young and Local Engineers on “Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Microzonation” and about the Satellite Conference on Lessons Learned during Recent Strong Earthquakes held during 23-25 August 2001 in Istanbul; (3) supporting the organisation of the 20th ERSEE; (4) meeting and correspondence with the President P.Bisch concerning the EAEE Statutes; (5) meetings and correspondence with Professor D.Benedetti concerning EEE; (6) correspondence concerning the 12th ECEE; (7) correspondence with National Delegates, Task and Working Group Coordinators.

The Executive Committee discussed the possibilities concerning the publication of EAEE Journal that could be forwarded to the members of the EAEE and to all interested subscribers. It was agreed that the Secretary General should prepare a detailed report about such a Journal for the next Executive Committee Meeting.

Item 6: The Draft EAEE Statutes prepared by the President and Secretary General was discussed. It was decided that the Draft Statutes should be forwarded to all National Delegates with a cover letter explaining briefly the reasons behind the proposed changes. It was also decided to allow

the National Delegates to forward for their comments and suggestions until the end of 2001 so that the Executive Committee can finalise the draft proposal in its Fifth Meeting to be held in London during the first half of January. Depending on the outcome of the Executive Committee meeting, the draft EAEE Statutes will be opened for postal balloting during the first half of 2002.

It was also decided that Secretary General should prepare a draft proposal for “Guidelines for organising ECEE” to be discussed in the next Executive Committee Meeting.

Item 7: The Secretary General informed the Executive Committee about the developments concerning the 12th ECEE. He summarised the decision of the organising committee to devote one session on Wednesday afternoon to the reports of the EAEE Task Group Coordinators. The Secretary General will coordinate and will review the papers submitted by the Task Group Coordinators that will also be included in the Proceedings of the 12th ECEE.

Item 8: The Executive Committee expressed their gratitude and congratulations for the efficient organisation of the 20th EREES by the Swiss Society for Earthquake Engineering with special thanks to Dr.Lateltin for all his efforts. There was a general agreement that regional seminars are very important and EAEE should make an extra effort to have at least two regional seminars during the four year interval between the European conferences.

Item 9: Secretary General informed the Executive Committee about the activities of Task Groups and about the meeting organised or that will be organised in the near future:

a. TG6 on "Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering and Microzonation"; Coordinator: Prof. Atilla Ansal, Turkey

TG6 has organised a seminar for young and local engineers on “Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering and Microzonation” prior the Satellite Conference on “Lessons Learned from Recent Strong Earthquakes” held on the occasion of the 15th ICSMGE in Istanbul. TG6 will most likely organise a special session during the upcoming ESC General Assembly to be held in Genoa during 1-6 September 2002.

The proceedings of the EAEE-ESC Workshop on "Seismic Risk Maps and Scenarios: Protecting Tools Against Earthquakes" organised jointly by ESC Subcommission on Engineering Seismology and EAEE/TG6 on July 25, 1999 during XXII General Assembly of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG99), Birmingham, UK, 18-30.7.1999 was published as a special issue of the Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Volume 21, Number 5, in July 2001.


6

b. TG8 on "Seismic Behaviour of Irregular and Complex Structures"; Coordinator: Prof. Victor Rutenberg, Israel

Secretary General informed the Executive Committee about “The Third European Workshop on the Seismic Behaviour of Irregular and Complex Structures” that will be organised by TG8 during 16-17 September 2002 in Firenze, Italy.

c. TG9 on "Repair and Strengthening"; Coordinator: Prof. Alberto Castellani, Italy

Secretary General informed the Executive Committee about the “Workshop on Large Scale Interventions to Mitigate Seismic Risk” to be held in ISMES during November 23, 2001 that is being organised under the auspices of EAEE/TG9.

d. TG5 on "Seismic Isolation of Structures "; Coordinator: Prof. Alberto Martelli, Italy

Secretary General informed the Executive Committee about the “7th International Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation and Active Control of Vibrations of Structures” that will be held in Grand Hotel Assisi, Assisi (Perugia), Italy during October 2-5, 2001.

The Executive Committee acknowledged and approved all the forthcoming meetings and expressed their support for the organisations.

Item 10: The Executive Committee has decided to have its fifth meeting in London in the first part of January 2002 in order to have the opportunity to meet and discuss with the 12th ECEE Organising Committee. The dates will be finalised by the Secretary General in order to have full attendance of the Executive Committee and 12th ECEE Organising Committee.

Item 11: The meeting ended with the thanks of the President and all those present to Dr. Koller and Dr. Lateltin for their hospitality and for organising the Executive Committee meeting.

Secretary General

Report of the President

Dear Colleagues, It is a pleasure to be with you again for this new session of our Executive Committee at the occasion of the Regional Seminar organised by our Swiss colleagues.

It is all the more satisfying that this seminar has taken place, for it makes up for the disappointment that since our last ECEE, which was 3 years ago, we have not been able to organise such a seminar.

Moreover, the subject of the Seminar is of utmost importance for the mitigation of the seismic risk as regards the existing buildings of our cities. However, I shall not repeat here what I already developed in my introduction speech. I would just like to insist that the future Executive Committee, to be elected next year, receive more proposals from our members for the organisation of such seminars.

One of the main topics discussed during our last meeting was to improve the efficiency of our Association. We discussed the directions, which could be taken to change our Statutes in order not only to develop the involvement of our members in our activities but also the financing of such activities. Atilla Ansal and myself, using as a basis the conclusions of those discussions, drew up a project, which was sent to all of you. We hope that it will be possible to finalise the text today so that the project of our new Statutes be sent to all of our members plenty time in advance before the General Assembly. Such an evolution seems necessary if we wish to boost the functioning of our Association.

Our General Secretary shall discuss more in detail the work done by our Working and Task Groups. It should be possible during our next meeting, so that final decisions can be made in London, to prepare a final statement regarding the future of each of these groups and perhaps even the possibility, if the need should come about, of creating new task groups if there are volunteers willing to undertake such tasks.

I trust that the organising of our next ECEE in London is well under way and that we shall hear a report in that respect. Our next line of thought is the ECEE to be held in 2006, and it is probably a good idea if we start asking very shortly for proposals in order to ensure a good competition for next year.

I would like to thank all of you who have been able to attend this meeting and those who have taken an active part in this Seminar, which is most important for the education of young researchers and engineers and also for the promotion of our Association. Of course, in the name of our European Association of Earthquake Engineering, I also thank very much the Swiss Association to have undertaken the organisation of this Seminar, which is on the way to be a very good success, both as concerns the proposed activities and in the technical content.

Philippe Bisch

Report of the Vice-President Prof. Amr S. Elnashai

Below is a summary of activities undertaken by the Vice-President and related to the scope of interest of the European Association of Earthquake Engineering, its Working Groups and its Executive Committee. 1. On March 5-4, 2001, a meeting of the FIB Seismic

Design Commission (Commission 7) took place at EFPL, Lausanne, chaired by Professor P.Pinto, Convener, and Professors G.M.Calvi and M.N.Fardis, as editors of two state-of-the-art reports under preparation by the Commission. The meeting was hosted by Professor M.Badoux. The two reports, on Seismic Assessment and Retrofit of RC Buildings and Displacement-Based Design of RC Buildings, are due for completion in March 2002 and will be published and distributed by FIB. The


7

Vice-President is writing a chapter on each, one on repair and retrofitting techniques (in the Assessment report) and another on earthquake input motion (for the Design report). A follow-up meeting of the Commission has taken place in Seattle, USA, also attended by the Vice-President, hosted by Professor J.Moehle, UC Berkeley.

2. The Vice-President was appointed Associate Director of the Mid-America Earthquake Center, based at the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He was also appointed as Director of the Newmark Civil Engineering Laboratory and a professor of structural engineering at the same university. The appointments are effective 1 July 2001. Due to this, the Vice-President seeks the permission of the Executive Committee to be released from being President-designate from September 2002. He would be grateful if he were allowed to continue to serve as Vice-President until the European Conference in London. Thereafter, a new President should be selected to succeed Dr. P.Bisch, the current EAEE President.

3. The two European networks on earthquake engineering (ECOLEADER; a consortium of European large scale testing facilities coordinated by Professor R.Severn and SAFERR; a 13-strong earthquake engineering European research and training network coordinated by the Vice-President) continue to thrive and make significant advances. Meetings of the networks took place on 12-13 February in Rome, hosted by Professor P.Pinto and attended by all partners and their young researchers. This was the first meeting after the official launch of the network in July 2000 in London, with the third meeting scheduled to take place in Lyon on September 18-20, 2001, hosted by Professor J-M.Reynouard. ECOLEADER had their Round Table in Belgirate, Italy, also in February, and the meeting was attended by the Vice-President who made a presentation on educational needs in Europe with regard to earthquake risk reduction. The Vice-President also delivered a white paper on earthquake engineering networks in Europe and their role in advancing seismic risk mitigation. A short meeting of SAFERR also took place in Belgirate. The SAFERR meeting in Lyon will be followed by a Round Table of ECOLEADER partners.

4. Preparations for the European Conference in London in September 2002 are progressing very well. In total, the Technical Affairs Committee received about 800 abstracts. Approximately 10% were not accepted. Whereas all abstracts were reviewed by one international reviewer, the candidates for rejection were re-assessed by the Vice-President (as Chairman of the Technical

Affairs Committee) and Dr. Bommer, Deputy Chairman of the Committee, to insure fairness and rigor. The keynote lecturers have been contacted and sent the format of their papers, so were all authors with accepted papers. The division amongst oral and poster presentations will await the final paper submissions. Wednesday of the conference week has been set aside for EAEE meetings, special recent earthquakes sessions, European initiatives, EERI sessions and other earthquake engineering activities not included in the formal agenda.

5. A new research network has been approved by the European Commission (SPEAR Seismic Performance Assessment and Rehabilitation). This is a 1.1 million euros network comprising seven universities and a company. SPEAR is about to start and will continue for 3 years. The Vice-President will continue to be a partner in SPEAR through a visiting post at Imperial College, and also with the support of Professor N.Ambraseys at Imperial. The scope of work includes full scale testing of structures at JRC Ispra and co-operation with BRI - Tsukuba, Japan.

6. On earthquake education, the international ROSE school, based in Pavia, Italy, was launched in January 2002 with MSc and PhD programmes in earthquake engineering, and has had its first management committee meeting in May 2001. The Vice-President is a founding member (alongside a number of colleagues from Europe, in addition to an international constituency) of the school and will be teaching there in May 2002. Whilst this is a positive and welcome addition to earthquake engineering training of young engineers in Europe, it is with regret that the Vice-President reports the suspension of the MSc in Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics (recently re-launched as the MSc in Earthquake Engineering Risk Management) at Imperial College. The MSc was designed and launched by the Vice-President, with the support of Professor P.J. Dowling (then Head of Department) and Professor N.Ambraseys, in 1987. In its 14 years, the course was recognized as the most targeted education and training programme in the subject not only in Europe but worldwide. It has had students from 17 countries and as impressive alumni list of about 140 students or more.

7. The Journal of Earthquake Engineering, edited by the Vice-President and Professor Ambrasyes, continues to grow. It is now entering its fifth successful year, and has been accepted in the Science Citation Index and several other abstracting agencies. It will continue to be managed jointly by the two editors, supported by the three associate editors Professors B.Bolt, K.Kawashima and G.M.Calvi and the editorial board. The journal will be run from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The new


8

Administration Manager assisting the Vice-President is Helen Agans (e-mail: [email protected]) to whom all correspondence should be addressed. The journal will continue to maintain its international flavor, but also keep a keen eye on European development in earthquake engineering. The objective of having a geographical and a technical balance is to be pursued, as before. The Vice-President wishes to thank members of

the Executive Committee and in particular the President (Dr. P.Bisch), the ex-President (Professor R.Flesch) and the General Secretary (Professor A.Ansal) for their generous support, the trust vested in him and the lively discussions he has had with them regarding the future of EAEE. He pledges to continue to serve the European earthquake engineering community and support the work and initiatives of the Executive Committee.

Amr Elnashai

Report of the Secretary General

January 2001 -September 2001

General The activities of the Central Office during January 2001-September 2001 involved mainly with : 1. The publication of the Bulletin; 2. Organisation of the Seminar for Young and Local

Engineers on “Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Microzonation” held during 23-24 August 2001 in Istanbul;

3. Supporting the organisation of the 20th RSEE; 4. Meetings and correspondence with the president

on the EAEE Statutes; 5. Meetings and correspondence with Professor

D.Benedetti concerning EEE; 6. Correspondence concerning the 12th ECEE; 7. Correspondence with National Delegates; 8. Correspondence with Task and Working Group

Coordinators. The Central Office organised the fourth Executive

Committee meeting to be held in Sion, Switzerland, on September 4, 2001 upon the kind invitation of Dr. Lateltin from Swiss Association for Earthquake Engineering. The Secretary General and the President had a meeting in Paris, to work on the EAEE Statutes. The copy of the proposed draft of the statutes was forwarded to all the members of the Executive Committee. Task Group Activities TG8 is planning to organise their third workshop in the year of 2002. TG9 is planning to organise a workshop. TG6 has organised a seminar for young and local engineers prior the Satellite Conference on Lessons Learned from Recent Strong Earthquakes held on the occasion of the 15th ICSMGE in Istanbul. TG6 will most likely organise a special session during the

upcoming ESC General Assembly to be held in Genova during September 2002. 12th ECEE The organising committee of the 12th ECEE decided to have a Special session on Wednesday afternoon, to allow the coordinators of the Task Groups to make oral presentations as well as for submitting reports to be included in the proceedings. Secretary General agreed to coordinate this session as well as reviewing the submitted papers before the reproduction. European Seismological Commission The proceedings of the EAEE-ESC Workshop on "Seismic Risk Maps and Scenarios: Protecting Tools Against Earthquakes" organised jointly by ESC Subcommission on Engineering Seismology and EAEE/TG6 on July 25, 1999 during XXII General Assembly of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG99), Birmingham, UK, 18-30.7.1999 was published as a special issue of the Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. Journal of European Earthquake Engineering Following the first meeting of the Secretary General and Prof. Duilio Benedetti, the Editor of the Journal of European Earthquake Engineering, in Milan on November 29, 2000, the General Secretary had the second meeting with Prof. Benedetti and the publisher “Patrone Editore” on May 30, 2001. The outcome was not very favourable. Bulletin The Central Office published one issue of the EAEE Bulletin, Vol.19, No.1 (December 2000). This issue were printed as 1000 copies and were distributed to all Delegates, TG and WG Coordinators and Conveners, major earthquake related organisations abroad, all Delegates of the International Society for Earthquake Engineering and all Titular Members of the ESC.

The Bulletins have been prepared by the Secretary General with some financial support from the Turkish Earthquake Foundation and Turkish Chamber of Civil Engineers only for printing and postage expenses. The Bulletin is also available in the EAEE homepage. Internet - WEB The Internet-EAEE Homepages were updated continuously to contain all the published Bulletins as well as other related information forwarded to the Central Office.

Atilla Ansal

STATUTES OF THE EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION FOR EARTHQUAKE

ENGINEERING

Proposal opened for postal balloting

(The changes and modifications are underlined).

Art. 1. NAME

1-1 This Organisation shall be known as the “European Association for Earthquake Engineering” (hereinafter referred as “the


9

Association”). The initials EAEE may be used as the abbreviated name of the Association.

Art. 2. OBJECTS 2-1 The object of the Association shall be to

promote regional cooperation among scientists and engineers, to advance the research front in the field of earthquake engineering, to contribute and to support all related research and educational activities, to play an active role in organizing the research and educational activities in Europe in the field of earthquake engineering. To play an active role in all aspects of mitigation of the effects of earthquakes in Europe and set a model for other national, regional and international organisations to follow in earthquake risk mitigation.

2-2 The Association will accomplish its objects by: a) holding regular conferences in Europe, regional

seminars, and workshops , b) exchanging information, data and expertise for

establishing data banks, c) establishing and extending technical co-

operation and joint projects among Members, d) providing and introducing new publications,

research reports, and a technical journal in the field of Earthquake Engineering,

e) cooperating with the activities of international societies with which the Association is affiliated, and working together with suitable NGOs and non- profit organisations to improve and advance the science, social and educational aspects of earthquake engineering as well as for mitigating the earthquake risk in seismically active member countries, through joint projects,

f) mak ing all efforts to raise funds for research and for improving the capabilities of the Association, to become a non-profit and non-governmental organisation with well established financial plan and perspectives .

Art. 3. MEMBERSHIP 3-1 Members in the Association shall be by

National Committees or Associations or the equivalent thereof (hereinafter referred as “National Associations”) from any European and neighbouring country (North Africa, Middle East) interested in the subject of earthquake engineering. These Associations will be referred as “Member Associations”. Only one Association per country shall be Member Association. Each Member Association shall designate a Delegate and a Deputy Delegate to represent the Member Association in EAEE.

3-2 Membership shall also be open to organisations (hereinafter referred as “Organisation”) professionally engaged or otherwise actively interested in the field of earthquake engineering in Europe or neighbouring countries. These

Organisations shall be referred as “Member Organisations”.

3-3 Any person interested in the activities related to earthquake engineering in Europe, provided he/she possesses the requisite scientific and technical knowledge may be admitted as individual member to EAEE. These persons will be referred as “Individual Members”.

3-4 The Executive Committee of the EAEE shall be the final authority on the admission of the Member Associations, Member Organisations and Individual Members.

3-5 A member may resign from the Association by forwarding a resignation letter to the Secretary General of the Association, duly signed by the Delegate of the Member Association or by the Representative of the Member Organisation or by the Individual Member, depending on their membership status.

3-6 The Executive Committee of the Association may terminate the membership of any Member with due cause. The vote to terminate membership must be supported at least by two-thirds of the members of the Executive Committee. Before taking the vote on termination of a membership, the Member under consideration shall be given the opportunity to respond to the case.

Art. 4. SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES 4-1 In principle, a European Conference on

Earthquake Engineering (ECEE) shall be organised every four years. Each ECEE is organised by a Member Association in the related member state.

4-2 Members may organise Regional Seminars or Workshops for the education of young and local engineers and scientists and/or public officials and general public in accordance with the EAEE Guidelines for Organising the Regional Seminars .

4-3 The research activity of the Association will be carried out continuously by Working Groups and Task Groups, according to their respective fields. The organisation and activities of the Working Groups and Task Groups are set forth in the "Rules for the EAEE Working Groups" and in the "Rules for the EAEE Task Groups", respectively. In case of different organisations, EAEE should also take a strong role in all earthquake and Earthquake Engineering related research and projects in Europe.

Art. 5. ADMINISTRATION 5-1 The administrative authority of the EAEE shall

be exercised by:

a) the General Assembly of Delegates, b) the Executive Committee, c) the Officers.


10

Art. 6. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF DELEGATES 6-1 The General Assembly of Delegates shall be

composed of all Delegates representing Member Associations, the elected representatives of the Member Organisations and Individual Members affiliated with the EAEE. The Deputy Delegate shall represent the Member Association in the absence of the Delegate from sessions of the General Assembly.

6-2 There shall be at least one Delegate and with the maximum number of ten Delegates that will participate to the EAEE General Assembly representing the Individual Members . The Executive Committee will fix the voting procedure and determine the exact number of Delegates prior to voting (approximately 1 delegate for 50 individual members).

6-3 There shall be at least one Delegate and with the maximum number of ten Delegates that will participate to the EAEE General Assembly representing the Member Organisations. The Executive Committee will fix the voting procedure and determine the exact number of Delegates prior to voting (approximately 1 delegate for 10 member organisations).

6-4 The sessions of the General Assembly of Delegates shall be presided over by the President of the EAEE.

6-5 The functions of the General Assembly of Delegates shall be :

a) to elect the members of the Executive Committee and its officers,

b) to revise the Statutes, as may be needed, c) to approve the financial report of the previous

four years term , d) to approve the proposed budget for the coming

four years, e) to consider any matters concerning the EAEE, f) to settle any disputes that could not be settled

by the Executive Committee, brought to General Assembly by any Member concerning EAEE matters .

6-6 A session of the General Assembly of Delegates shall be held during each ECEE, every four years . If for any reason ECEE cannot be organised, the General Assembly will be held at the end of the four years period, unless other decision has been taken by the previous General Assembly. If for any reason General Assembly cannot have a meeting, resolutions shall be voted by postal balloting.

6-7 At the sessions of the General Assembly of Delegates, a majority vote of the Delegates present shall be required on all matters put to vote, except as required by 12-1. The decision shall be valid provided the number of Delegates present at the session of the General Assembly

shall not be less than half of the eligible votes. If the number of Delegates present is smaller than half of the eligible votes, the decision must be ratified by postal ballot.

6-8 For matters requiring interim action by the General Assembly of Delegates, decision shall be taken by postal ballot. This will require a majority vote for adoption (except as required by 12-1) provided the postal votes cast shall not be less than the half of the eligible votes.

Art. 7. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 7-1 The Executive Committee shall consist of :

- five members elected among EAEE Members on the occasion of each ECEE by the General Assembly of the EAEE,

- one additional member of the EAEE in whose country the next conference is to be held,

- one additional member of the EAEE in whose country the ECEE is being held,

- one additional member of the EAEE in whose country the last ECEE was held,

- one representative appointed by ESC. 7-2 The officers shall be the President, two

Vice-Presidents, the Secretary General, the Treasurer, and the Secretary .

7-3 The President, the First Vice-President and the Secretary General shall be elected by the General Assembly. The President and the First Vice-President shall not be eligible for re-election to the same post. The Secretary General shall be eligible for re-election without any limit. They are Members of the Executive Committee.

7-4 The member or representative of the country in which the next conference will be held shall automatically become the Second Vice-President, unless he/she is already holding one of the following posts: President or Secretary General.

7-5 The Secretary and the Treasurer shall be elected from the members of the Executive Committee by the Executive Committee in its first meeting.

7-6 The Executive Committee shall assume office at the closing of the ECEE at which they have been elected and remain in office until the closing of the next ECEE.

7-7 The President of the EAEE shall be the Chairman of the Executive Committee.

7-8 The functions of the Executive Committee shall be:

a) to implement the decisions and policies established by the General Assembly of Delegates,

b) to decide on admissions, terminations and withdrawals from the EAEE membership,

c) to assist the Member Associations in the host country in the planning of the next conference


11

in accordance with the Guidelines for Organising ECEE,

d) to make recommendations to the General Assembly of Delegates for its action either in sessions or by postal ballot,

e) to fill any vacancy in the officers that may occur between conferences,

f) to establish and to guide the Working Groups and Task Groups ,

g) to nominate the Coordinator or Co-Coordinator from EAEE and Co-Convenors of each Working or Task Group,

h) to decide the membership dues for each category of members,

i) to implement and manage the EAEE budget, j) to decide the financial matters within the

framework of the budget approved by the General Assembly.

7-9 The Executive Committee shall meet during each ECEE before and after the General Assembly.

7-10 During the interval between the ECEE, the Executive Committee shall function through meetings or through correspondence.

7-11 The provisions of 6-7 and 6-8 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the voting of the Executive Committee.

7-12 UNESCO, EU, IAEE and any earthquake engineering related NGO’s may appoint observers to the Executive Committee.

Art. 8. OFFICERS

8-1 The Officers of the Committee shall be : - The President, - Two Vice-Presidents, - The Secretary General, - The Secretary, - The Treasurer.

8-2 The functions of the President shall be :

a) to preside at meetings of the Executive Committee and at sessions of the General Assembly of Delegates,

b) to act on behalf of the EAEE in accordance with policies and procedures adopted by the General Assembly of Delegates and the Executive Committee,

c) to appoint Task and Working Group Coordinator or Co-Coordinator and Co-Convenors after the nomination by the Executive Committee.

8-3 The functions of the First Vice-Presidents shall be to assume the duties of the President when the President is unavailable. The function of the Second Vice-President shall be to report to the Executive Committee about the organisation of the upcoming ECEE.

8-4 The functions of the Secretary General shall be as follows:

a) to maintain the records of the EAEE during the period of his office,

b) to act as Secretary to the President and Vice-Presidents during the period of his office,

c) to coordinate and monitor the activities of EAEE,

d) to keep in trust the money contributed to the EAEE and provide an annual accounting of EAEE’s funds.

8-5 The functions of the Secretary shall be : a) to act as assistant to the Secretary General

during the period of his office, b) to conduct the correspondence necessary to

the affairs of the EAEE.

8-6 The functions of the Treasurer shall be: a) to assist the Executive Committee and the

Secretary General in the financial matters, b) to propose and organise the budget of the

EAEE, c) to manage the financial and accounting of the

Association.

Art. 9. HONORARY MEMBERS 9-1 Honorary Members shall be selected on the

basis of their distinguished service to earthquake engineering.

9-2 The Executive Committee shall nominate Honorary Members, to be confirmed by the General Assembly of Delegates.

9-3 Honorary members shall be consultative members of the Executive Committee without vote.

Art. 10. GENERAL FINANCES

10-1 All members of EAEE are obliged to pay the annual membership dues approved by the General Assembly.

10-2 Operating expenses of the central office of the EAEE shall be met by the Member Association in the country in which the central office is located and shall be supplemented from EAEE budget as decided by the Executive Committee.

10-3 Each Member Association, Member Organisation and Individual Member shall be responsible for meeting its, his or her own expenses.

10-4 Expenses of a conference shall be met by the host country.

10-5 The foregoing shall not preclude any Member from voluntarily contributing to the funds of the EAEE or to the organising expenses of a conference.


12

Art. 11. GENERAL

11-1 The Central Office of the EAEE shall be located in the country determined by the General Assembly of Delegates.

11-2 The working language of EAEE shall be English.

Art. 12. AMENDMENTS

12-1 Adoption of any amendment to the present Statutes shall require a two-third affirmative vote of the Delegates present at the session of the General Assembly (or two-thirds affirmative vote of the Delegates by postal ballot) provided the number of the Delegates present at the session of the General Assembly (or the postal votes cast) shall not be less than half of the eligible votes.

BULLETIN OF EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION FOR EARTHQUAKE

ENGINEERING (BEAEE)

as a Peer Reviewed Technical Journal

Aims and Scope

Recent earthquakes have demonstrated the need for more comprehensive and inter disciplinary applied research and investigations as well as dissemination of the advances and findings to the practicing engineers and scientists. In order to mitigate the earthquake risks, a comprehensive knowledge concerning the different issues in this multi disciplinary field appears essential. Europe and its near vicinity has their own characteristics that are sometimes different than the conditions elsewhere in the world, rising from the differences in levels of seismicity, architectural and engineering heritage, population densities, transportation and lifeline systems. Large numbers of research projects and post earthquake investigations have been and are being conducted in Europe and abroad in the recent years. The articles emerging from these studies related to engineering applications, design procedures, and observed responses are as important as purely research papers. There is an urgent need to close the gap between research and engineering practice and to inform the earthquake engineering community in Europe about the recent advances and observations in the field of applied earthquake engineering.

European Association for Earthquake Engineering has been an active association in Europe for 37 years and organised 11 European Conferences and 20 Regional Seminars. The Association has been publishing for the last 15 years the Bulletin of the European Association for Earthquake Engineering, mostly containing information concerning the activities

in the field of earthquake engineering in Europe and abroad. In the view of the limited number of international journals in the field of applied earthquake engineering, in its broadest definition, there is a need for a European Journal in the field of applied earthquake engineering. In the light of the recent political changes in Europe, it is expected that the Association could play more active role in earthquake risk mitigation. The Statutes of the Association is being revised to accelerate the activities and to be more effective. Thus it is believed that it would be timely to publish a Technical Journal that would emphasize applied earthquake engineering that could be available to all the individual members of the Association both as a hard copy as well as electronically. This would enhance the activities and the goals of the Association in the mitigation of earthquake risks in Europe and abroad and would also encourage the members to contribute and to be more productive.

Topics that fit within this objective include:

• Seismic hazard studies and methods for engineering applications and for mitigation of earthquake risks,

• Strong motion characterization and use for engineering applications, near and far field effects,

• Geological and geotechnical site conditions, effects of surface topography,

• Cyclic behaviour of soils, liquefaction, laboratory, in-situ and model testing,

• Earth structures and foundation design for seismic conditions,

• Microzonation methodologies, use of GIS methodologies,

• Earthquake scenarios, vulnerability assessment, • Earthquake codes and code improvements, • Structural response and design for seismic

conditions, • Earthquake damage, retrofit, and strengthening, • Damage assessment, rapid damage assessment

methodologies, • Transportation and lifeline systems in seismic

environments, • Seismic response of historical monuments and

structures, • Seismic isolation, passive energy dissipation and

active control of vibrations of structures , • Seismic hazard mitigation policies and

methodologies .

The editorial board will represent a cross section both geographically and area of expertise of EAEE membership with Task Group Coordinators, Executive Committee Members and National Delegates of the member associations.

Editor: Atilla Ansal

Secretary General of EAEE


13

TWELFTH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINE ERING

9-13 September 2002 Barbican Centre, London , UK

The 12th ECEE will be held in London from 9th – 13th September 2002. With the papers now largely submitted and an excellent line up of speakers, special sessions and events we are looking forward with anticipation to a first class conference. Keynote Speakers

Our keynote speakers are drawn from the UK and across Europe. They are experts in their respective fields and are also fine presenters. Their lectures are programmed for the Monday and Wednesday mornings of the Conference and the Friday afternoon. Keynote speakers and the title of their lectures are as follows:

• Prof. Ambraseys, "Earthquake Hazard", • Joe Barr, "Bridge Safety", • Prof. Davis, "Disaster Mitigation", • Prof. Elnashai, "Testing Analysis & Observation", • Prof. Faccioli, "Site Effects", • Prof. Fajfar, "Structural Analysis", • Prof. Fardis, " Code Development", • Dr. Pappin, "Foundations & Lifelines", • Prof. Sucuoglu, "Repair & Strengthening".

Paper Topics: The Conference papers are being finalised and we are expecting the number to exceed 500. These have been subject to review at the abstract and paper submission stages leading to high standards on a broad range of earthquake topics. Drawing on feedback from previous conferences, we have sought to maximise the benefits of both the poster and oral presentations. Panel sessions will be used for the oral presentations. These will incorporate a Special Presentation, several Normal Presentations and time for discussion. Particular attention has been given to allowing sufficient time for useful oral presentations. Poster sessions will run most days between the morning and afternoon coffee breaks with plenty of time to view posters and discuss with presenters. As far as possible the panel and poster sessions will be arranged to have similar themes on the same day. The topics will be:

• Engineering Seismology. • Geotechnical Engineering. • Building Structures. • Special Structures. • Risk Assessment & Mitigation. • Earthquake Field Reports.

The Wednesday afternoon of the Conference has been reserved for Special Sessions. There will be a range of very interesting topics on offer including the Bhuj Earthquake, advances in European experimental studies and the EERI vulnerability encyclopaedia.

Other features of the Conference will be a Technical Exhibition, the SEISMOS Awards for earthquake documentaries and a Conference Dinner at the world famous Natural History Museum – see the Conference web site for further details.

Registration for the Conference has now opened through the Conference web site www.12ecee.org.uk with reduced rates for early bookings. Further details on matters such as accommodation are also available through the web site. We warmly commend the conference to you and look forward to your participation.

Dr. Robert May Chairman of the Conference Committee

Technical Exhibition at 12th ECEE London

A limited amount of space at discounted rates is available for the exhibition at next September's European earthquake engineering conference. The 40% discounted rate applies to educational establishments and learned societies; for details see the conference website (www.12ecee.org.uk) and follow links to the exhibition.

Edmund Booth

20TH EUROPEAN REGIONAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

SEMINAR ON SEISMIC ASSESSMENT AND UPGRADING OF EXISTING

STRUCTURES Organised by European Association for Earthquake Engineering & Swiss Society

for Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics September 3-7, 2001

Institut Universitaire Kurt Bösch, Sion, Switzerland

Seminar Objective

The majority of structures situated in seismic zones have not been designed and built for seismic loading. The recent earthquakes of El Salvador and India should remind us that engineering knowledge exists and there are seismic building codes that could prevent most buildings from collapse. Many seismically vulnerable buildings, bridges and other structures must be identified and upgraded. This task has tremendous socio-economic implications and constitutes a direct and worldwide challenge to the earthquake engineering community. Answering this challenge includes the need for research to improve available assessment methods and upgrading techniques.

The 20th regional seminar was mainly organised to inform young researchers, practising engineers and scientists about new developments in the field of seismic assessment and upgrading of existing structures. The seminar combined contributions from young researchers and engineers with keynote lectures


14

by leading earthquake engineers. The lectures presented state-of-the-art lectures on the seismic assessment and upgrading of buildings and bridges.

Participants

A highly motivated group of about 70 young researchers and practitioners attended the seminar. The participants represented a wide range of the EAEE member countries.

Technical Topics The program addressed the seven major topics indicated below and were conducted in a General Session. Two topics were addressed each day and included Keynote Speakers, contributions from young researchers or engineers and panel discussions.

1. Assessment criteria and acceptable vulnerability of structures .

2. Seismic screening and rapid assessment methods (building and infrastructures).

3. Detailed assessment methods. 4. Upgrading techniques for buildings and bridges . 5. Upgrading strategies and design. 6. Analyses of upgraded structures . 7. Case studies.

Contributions on the assessment and upgrading of a broad range of structures, including non-engineered and historic structures, lifelines and utilities, industrial structures, etc. were presented. In addition, a half-day technical field trip, an Ice Breaker reception at the beginning, five buffet lunches and an evening banquet were organized.

Keynote Speakers

Prof. Atilla M. ANSAL, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey, "Geotechnical aspects of seismic assessment and retrofit" Prof. Michael N. FARDIS, University of Patras, Greece, "Seismic as sessment procedures: a review" Prof. Hugo BACHMANN, Institute of Structural Engineering, ETH -Zürich, Switzerland, "Softening as upgrading strategy - a case study" Prof. Domenico GIARDINI, Swiss Seismological Service, Zürich, Switzerland, "Seismicity in Europe and hazard mapping" Philippe BISCH, President EAEE, Sechaud et Metz, France, "Role of buildings codes in seismic assessment" Dr. Rui PINHO, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom, "Assessment and upgrading of concrete buildings" Prof. Gian Michele CALVI, Università degli Studi di Pavia, Italy, "Seismic asses sment and retrofit of bridges"

Prof. Miha TOMAZEVIC, Building and Civil Engineering Institut, Slovenia, "Assessment and retrofit of masonry structures"

Invited Speakers

M. CAPRON, BG Consulting Engineers, Lausanne, "Seismic evaluation of lifeline buildings in Valais" Dr. M. G. KOLLER, Résonance Ingénieurs -Conseils SA, Genève, "Seismic upgrading strategies" E. KÖLZ, ETH Zürich/Risk&Safety AG, Switzerland, "Priorities in earthquake upgrading" K. LANG, Prof. Dr. H. BACHMANN, Institute of Structural Engineering, ETH-Zürich, "Seismic vulnerability of existing masonry building" Dr. O. LATE LTIN, Federal Office for Water and Geology, Biel, "The Swiss federal earthquake risk mitigation program" Dr. K. PETER, Prof. Dr. M. BADOUX, DGC-IBAP, EPF Lausanne, Switzerland, "Damage prediction for RC shear walls buildings" Dr. G. SCHWEGLER, Ph. GLAUS , PlüssMeyerPartner, StressHead, Lucerne , "Seismic upgrading of masonry building with fibre composites" Dr. M. WIELAND, S. MALLA , Electrowatt Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, "Seismic re-evaluation of two bridges in Zurich, Switzerland" P. F. ZWICKY , Basler & Hofmann, Zurich, Switzerland, "Ambient vibration measurements for the seismic assessment of a 15-story R.C. building"

Young Researchers and Other Contributions

A total of 20 presentations were provided by young researchers from Switzerland, France, Bulgaria, Greece, Egypt, Macedonia, Italy, Slovakia, Poland, Algeria, Iran, Yugoslavia and Turkey, see “Proceedings” for the details.

Proceedings A 155 pages volume with abstracts and keynote lectures was handed out to the participants. If you are interested in these proceedings, please contact Dr. O.Lateltin at the Federal Office for Water and Geology, Biel, Switzerland: [email protected].

Dr. Olivier Lateltin & Peter Zwicky

NEWS ABOUT FUTURE MEETINGS

Third European Workshop on the Seismic Behaviour of Irregular and

Complex Structures

Firenze, Italy, 16-17 September 2002 (Held under t he auspices of EAEE TG8)

The Workshop will focus particularly on nonlinear response and experimental results. Special attention will be given to studies related to seismic code provisions for irregular structures. Topics to be covered will be:

• Asymmetric single storey buildings,


15

• Asymmetric multistorey buildings (frames, walls, wall-frames),

• Vertically irregular structures , • Setback multistorey buildings, • Seismically isolated and controlled asymmetric

structures, • Particular cases of irregularity in structures.

Those interested in participating are invited to send (preferably by e-mail) until December 31, 2001, a tentative title and a short abstract (say 300 words) of their submission to: Professor Mario De Stefano Università di Firenze Dipartimento di Costruzioni Piazza Brunelleschi, 6 – 50121 Firenze ITALY, Phone: (+39) 0552757884, Fax: (+39) 055212083, e-mail: [email protected]

The organizers will then send further details of the Workshop, including instructions for preparation of manuscripts (a final copy of which will be due by June 30, 2002), along with the preliminary programme. Details of venue, accommodation, publication of Workshop Proceedings and other matters will be sent at a later date.

NEWS ABOUT PAST MEETINGS

Seventh International Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation and Active Control of

Vibrations of Structures Assisi, Italy, 2-5 October 2001

After the coordination of Task Group 5 on “Seismic Isolation of Structures” (TG5) has been entrusted to me in 2001, its activities mainly concerned the organization (jointly with the Italian Working Group on Seismic Isolation – GLIS – of the Italian National Association for Earthquake Engineering – ANIDIS) of the "7th International Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation and Active Control of Vibrations of Structures”, which was held at Assisi (Italy) on October 2 to 5, 2001. This Report is an overview and summary of such a Seminar. It only very slightly differs from the Preface which has been published in the Seminar Proceedings. The background, scope, attendance, main technical and organizational features and conclusions of the Seminar and the associated International Exhibition and technical meetings and visits are summarized in this Report. Some remarks are also reported on the foundation of the new world association on the innovative anti-seismic techniques (ASSISi – Anti-Seismic Systems International Soc iety), which was decided during the Seminar Closing Panel, and on the purposes, site and main features of the next event, the "8th World Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Energy Dissipation and Active Vibration Control of Structures", to be held at Yerevan, the Capital of Armenia, in 2003, which will be the first event to be organized in the framework of the ASSISi official events, as well. A summary of this Report has

been submitted for presentation at the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering as TG5 Report. 1. FOREWORD After the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the first reaction of the organizers of the Seminar had been to cancel it, as a token of mourning, since its beginning was scheduled less than three weeks after such events.

However, as stressed in the Final Announcement of the Seminar (installed in Internet at the address http://192.107.65.2/glis on September 24, 2001) and reminded in the information on the main results of the Seminar (installed in Internet at the same address on October 31, 2001), they later came to the conclusion that the Seminar had to be confirmed. The reasons for this decision were explained by the Seminar Chairman in a massage entitled “Assisi Seminar: we shall go on” that he widely distributed by e-mail on September 19, 2001 and was later attached to the Final Announcement and also kept in the aforesaid information on the Seminar results. Several experts from various countries immediately expressed their full agreement on this decision, none provided negative comments.

Before September 11, 2001, many experts from various countries had confirmed their participation in the Seminar, which stressed the great worldwide interest in the Seminar topics: as mentioned in the Announcements, at that time the organizers expected more than 300 participants. However, due to the aforesaid events, several experts obviously cancelled their participation in the last two weeks of September 2001.

Although the organizers very well understood the reasons of these colleagues, in the Final Announcement they expressed their hope that the Seminar could be still sufficiently correctly held, with the necessary international participation, according to its aims (contrary to those of terrorists) of contributing to the assessment of a better and safer world for everybody and reaffirming the willingness of our scientific community to strengthen international cooperation, by saying NO to terror and hate.

The decision of confirming the Seminar (while many other scientific events scheduled for the same period were cancelled) was repaid by an international participation which can be certainly judged as excellent (with regard to both the quality and quantity of attendance), taking into account the dramatic situation which characterized the Seminar period. In fact, only very few were the most renowned experts at the Seminar topics who did not attend and the Seminar was quite successful. 2. SITE, DATES AND ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORKS AND MAIN FEATURES OF THIS AND THE PREVIOUS SEMINARS According to the aforesaid decision, the 7th International Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation and Active Control of Vibrations of


16

Structures was held at Grand Hotel Assisi, located at Assisi, in the Perugia Province (Italy), on October 2-5, 2001, as planned. Grand Hotel Assisi is a modern very peaceful and fancy four stars hotel in the environs of the city of Assisi (about 30 minutes by foot from the center), with a marvellous view on the hills, provided with excellent conference rooms and spac es for the exhibition and poster presentations.

The Seminar duration was half day longer than for the previous events, as made necessary by the large number of oral presentations which had been planned. It is noted that the Seminar was held in particularly attractive dates: in fact, October 4 is the feast of San Francis, the Patron of Italy. However, for this reason, the Seminar period was very high season at Assisi, which required particular attention to the organizational aspects, in particular to hotel accommodation.

The Assisi Seminar was the seventh International Seminar (the third held in Italy) dealing with the innovative anti-seismic (IAS) techniques. The previous ones had taken place at:

• San Francisco (USA) in 1989; • Nara (Japan) in 1991; • Capri (Italy) in 1993; • Santiago (Chile) in 1995; • Taormina (Italy) in 1997; • Cheju (Korea) in 1999.

While the aforesaid previous six Seminars had been all organized in the framework of the technical events following the International Conferences on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT), the Assisi Seminar, as recommended at Cheju in 1999, was organized as an independent event. This decision was based on the great interest in holding the 7th Seminar, rather than in the USA (where the 2001 SMiRT Conference had been planned), in an Italian area like Umbria Region, which had suffered severe earthquake damage in 1997-98 and where new important applications of the IAS techniques had been just completed or were already in progress at the time of the Cheju Seminar. More precisely, very attractive was judged at Cheju the possibility of organizing the Seminar at Assisi, where the restoration of the worldwide famous “Basilica Superiore” of St. Francis was being completed by making use, for the first time in the world, of Shape Memory Alloy (SMA) devices, in addition to innovative shock transmitters (it is well known that the 1997 earthquake had severely damaged the Basilica, including famous frescos of Cimabue and Giotto). In addition, Assisi and its surroundings (like the entire Umbria Region) are very nice and historically quite interesting.

Although the Assisi Seminar was organized as an independent event, the week preceding that of the 5th World Congress on Joint, Bearings and Seismic Systems for Concrete Structures (Rome, October 7-11, 2001) was selected to hold it, in order to make it easier to interested experts to participate in both events,

which partly covered the same topics (in addition, Assisi is not too far from Rome).

It is worthwhile stressing that organizing the 7th Seminar as an independent event was possible thanks to the already very well assessed international relations at worldwide level and internationally fully agreed and suitably tested organizational approach through the organization of the previous Seminars. Thus, although the Seminar Chairman was able to confirm his availability to organize the Seminar only in January 2001 (when the indispensable funding was confirmed), then not much time was needed to establish the necessary International and National Committees and agree in such frameworks on the main features of the Seminar and its Program. Consequently, in March 2001 it was possible to prepare and widely distribute (especially by e-mail) the First Announcement of the Seminar, which contained the Call for Papers for the Poster Session, the preliminary Oral Program and all information necessary for attending the Seminar (also concerning hotel accommodation, how to reach the site, companion program, etc.). This information certainly reached most of the interested experts, thanks to the relations established when organizing the previous Seminars and the Support of the EAEE.

After a first revision, this updated Announcement was installed in Internet, at the already mentioned address, on April 10, 2001. There, it was updated three more times before the Seminar (on May 8, July 19 and September 24, 2001), by including more and more information, especially with regard to the detailed Seminar Program (information on each of these updates was again widely distributed by e-mail, but without any need for attaching the updated Announcement itself any more). The last update of September 24, 2001 was, as mentioned, the Final Announcement.

The Internet site of the Seminar was contacted more than 3,000 times, which confirms both the great interest in the Seminar topics and adequacy of the organizational approach. 3. ORGANIZERS Similar to the two previous events held in Italy, the Assisi Seminar was organized by the Italian Working Group on Seismic Isolation (GLIS) of the Italian National Association for Earthquake Engineering (ANIDIS), with the cooperation of “Ente per le Nuove tecnologie, l’Energia e l’Ambiente” (ENEA - Italian Agency for New Technology, Energy and the Environment), “Agenzia Nazionale per la Protezione dell’Ambiente” (ANPA - Italian National Agency for the Protection of the Environment) and several further Italian, foreign and international institutions, associations and companies. Furthermore, for this Seminar, Task Group 5 on Seismic Isolation of Structures (TG5) of the European Association for Earthquake Engineering (EAEE) joined GLIS as main organizer.


17

The main co-organizers of the Seminar which supported GLIS and EAEE-TG5 were, more precisely, the following 11 (9 Italian and 2 international) institutions and 2 international associations: • ENEA – Italy; • ANPA – Italy; • “Facoltà di Architettura dell’Università degli Studi di

Ferrara” (Faculty of Architecture of the University of Ferrara) – Italy;

• “Facoltà di Ingegneria dell’Università degli Studi di Perugia” (Faculty of Engineering of the University of Perugia) – Italy;

• International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); • International and European Associations for the

Control of Structures (IASC & EACS); • Joint Research Center at Ispra (JRC) of the European

Commission (EC); • “Ordini degli Architetti e degli Ingegneri delle

Province di Perugia e Terni” (Orders of Architects and Engineers of Perugia and Terni Provinces) – Italy;

• “Servizio Sismico Nazionale” (SSN – Italian National Seismic Survey) – Italy.

Furthermore, the other co-organizers were the following 42 Institutions, associations and companies of 23 countries, which are listed below in alphabetical order for each country: • American University of Armenia – Armenia; • University of Applied Sciences at Vienna – Austria; • “Université Libre de Bruxelles” (Free University of

Brussels) – Belgium; • “Universidad de Chile” (University of Chile) at

Santiago – Chile; • National Taiwan University – Taiwan; • Stevenson and Associates – Czech Republic; • “Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique” (CEA– French

Agency for Atomic Energy), Research Center of Saclay – France;

• Maurer Söhne – Germany; • University of Patras and University of Thessaloniki

– Greece; • Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) – India; • International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and

Seismology (IIEES) – Iran; • ANSALDO, “Associazione Costruttori Italiani

Dispositivi di Vincolo Strutturale” (ACEDIS – Association of Italian Manufacturers of Structural Restraint Devices), ENEL.HYDRO-ISMES, “Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra dell’Università di Trieste” (Department of Earth Sciences of the University of Trieste), “Università degli Studi di Pavia” (University of Pavia) and “Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza” (University of Rome “La Sapienza”) – Italy;

• Institute of Industrial Science of Tokyo University, Japan Society of Seismic Isolation (JSSI), Japan Panel on Structural Response Control, Science University of Tokyo, Tokyo Institute of Technology and Waseda University – Japan;

• Korea Earthquake Engineering Research Center (KEERC), Korea Panel on Structural Control and Monitoring & Seoul National University – Korea;

• National University of Mexico – Mexico; • Robinson Seismic Limited – New Zealand; • “Instituto Superior Técnico” (IST – High Technical

Institute) at Lisbon – Portugal; • Guangzhou University – P.R. China; • Center of Capital Construction, Ost-Seism and

Earthquake Engineering Research Center of the Ministry of Construction (EERC) – Russia;

• Technical University of Catalonia at Barcelona – Spain;

• Mimar Sinan University at Istanbul – Turkey; • Tun Abdul Razak Research Centre (TARRC) and

Rubber Consultants – United Kingdom; • American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME),

Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), The State University of New York at Buffalo, University of California at Berkeley (UBC), U.S. Panel on Structural Control Research and University of Southern California at Los Angeles – USA.

It is noted that the number of co-organizing partners was rather larger than for the previous Seminar and that they represented almost all countries that are presently involved in the development and application of the IAS techniques: according to the information provided above, represented in the International Committees were altogether 23 countries, 2 international Institutions, as well as 3 international, 1 US and 2 national associations. 4. SPONSORSHIPS AND FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS Sponsorships or financial contributions were provided to the Assisi Seminar by the 17 Institutions or companies from 4 countries (Germany, Italy, Japan and Turkey) which are listed below in alphabetical order: • ENEA – Italy; • ANPA – Italy; • ACEDIS – Italy; • Astaldi Turkish Branch – Turkey; • Bridgstone Corporation – Japan; • Banca dell’Umbria – Italy; • Colussi Perugia company – Italy; • ENEL.HYDRO company – Italy; • fischerwerke Artur Fischer Gmbh & Co. KG

– Germany; • “Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Perugia”

(Foundation “Cassa di Risparmio” of Perugia) – Italy;

• Grifo Insurance Brokers, Perugia – Italy; • “Impresa Generale di Restauro Pouchain” (Pouchain

General Restoration Com pany), Rome – Italy;

• “Impresa Lunghi” (Lunghi Building Company), Assisi – Italy;

• “Istituto Edilizia Residenziale Pubblica (IERP) di Perugia” (Institute for Public Residential Building of Perugia Province) – Italy;


18

• Maurer Söhne manufacturing company – Germany; • NUOVA V.M. company – Italy; • “Regione dell’Umbria” (Umbria Region) – Italy. 5. OTHER PATRONAGES The Assisi Seminar was held under the auspices of the EC.

Furthermore, in addition to ENEA, ANPA and Umbria Region, patronage without financial contribution was also provided to the Assisi Seminar by the following further 7 Italian Institutions:

• “Ministero dell’Ambiente” (Italian Ministry for the Environment);

• “Regione Emilia-Romagna” (Emilia-Romagna Region);

• “Comune di Assisi” (City of Assisi); • “Provincia di Perugia” (Province of Perugia); • “Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali, Architettonici,

Artistici e Storici (B.AA.AA.AA.SS)” dell’Umbria (Superintendence for Cultural Heritage of Umbria Region);

• “Sacro Convento di San Francesco in Assisi” (Holy Monastery of St. Francis at Assisi);

• IERP of Terni Province. 6. BACKGROUND Nowadays, most innovative techniques for the passive control of seismic vibrations - namely base and floor seismic isolation (SI), passive energy dissipation (ED) and provisional hydraulic coupling (HC) by means of shock transmitters - are considered to be already fully mature technologies of providing a mitigation of seismic damage for civil structures and equipment and have proven to be reliable and cost-effective for many structures such as bridges and viaducts, civil buildings, cultural heritage and critical facilities. With regard to the ED systems, several types of devices were recently developed and optimized, like viscous, elastic-plastic, viscoelastic and electromagnetic systems, as well as systems using SMAs and other smart materials.

There are already approximately two thousands applications of SI, ED and HC in various countries, which concern not only new constructions but also several retrofits of existing important structures, inc luding cultural heritage, as initially judged necessary especially after the Loma Prieta (1989), Northridge (1994) and Kobe (1995) earthquakes and more recently, after those which struck Italy in 1997-98 and Greece, Taiwan, Turkey, Central America and India in 1999-2000.

It is worthwhile stressing that, as shown at Cheju, the IAS techniques are of great interest not only for highly seismic countries, but also for areas characterized by low or moderate seismicity.

The design and behavioural experience concerning the large civil buildings and bridges and viaducts provided with SI, ED and HC devices (for which the applications of such IAS systems are the most numerous) is extremely important for widely extending the use of these techniques to other extremely important application fields, like the cultural heritage,

ordinary apartment buildings and industrial facilities, including the nuclear plants and other high risk facilities (e.g. some chemical plants). In fact, the applications in these fields are not very numerous yet, although some of them to high risk facilities are quite important and several new projects are in a rather advanced development stage.

In addition, the progress of active, hybrid and especially, semi-active vibration control techniques, for which important projects are now in progress in various countries, has already led to some promising results, not only for the control of wind-induced vibrations, but also for seismic protection.

The only remarkable still remaining problems for the passive IAS techniques which were identified at Cheju concerned the design rules for structures provided with such systems. In fact, although design rules or guidelines were already available in most countries, they were still different in the different countries, frequently still penalized the use of the IAS systems with respect to the conventional design and their application still required heavy approval processes. For the non-passive control systems the problems were even worse; in fact, these techniques were not considered by design rules.

International cooperation and detailed exchange of information and experience in both civil field (including cultural heritage) and the industrial (nuclear and non-nuclear) field are extremely important for the correct development and application of all the above-mentioned IAS techniques. To this aim, at San Francisco in 1989, Italian, Japanese and US experts started organizing an International Seminar on the IAS techniques. This first Seminar mainly dealt with SI of the nuclear reactors. Since then, this Seminar has been held every two years, as already mentioned at Nara (Japan) in 1991, Capri (Italy) in 1993, Santiago (Chile) in 1995, Taormina (Italy) in 1997 and Cheju (Korea) in 1999. The Seminar objectives were gradually extended from the nuclear reactors to the other types of structures and from SI to the other vibration control techniques. More and more experts from more and more countries and International Institutions (the EC and the IAEA) joined the International Organizing Committee.

The aim of the Assisi Seminar was the further strengthening of the already established good basis for international collaboration for research, transfer of technology and information, and implementation in practice of SI, ED, HC and SMAs, as well as dissemination of information among the population in seismic prone countries to promote implementation of the IAS techniques in retrofitting or new construction of housing. 7. SCOPE OF THE SEMINAR AND ITS ACHIEVEMENT The 7th Seminar was organized based on the increasing success of the previous ones and according to the recommendations made by participants in the Closing Panel of the last Seminar at Cheju in 1999. It


19

provided again an opportunity for the exchange of updated, detailed information concerning the state-of-the-art on the development and applications of the IAS techniques.

Similar to the previous events, topics covered by the Assisi Seminar were SI, ED, provisional HC and systems formed by SMA devices. In addition, as at Cheju, the development and applications of active, semi-active and hybrid control of seismic and non-seismic vibrations and the critical issues concerning the application of IAS techniques in low and moderate seismic areas were dealt with.

With regard to the passive control techniques, particular attention was devoted to the following issues, the importance of which had been identified at Cheju:

• Extension of retrofit using the IAS techniques; • Improvement of studies concerning IAS systems

applicable to cultural heritage; • Improvement of knowledge and development of

systems for vertical SI; • Promotion of more applications to hospitals and

chemical plants and components; • Wide extension of application from strategic to

apartment buildings; • Performance of adequate monitoring; • Improvement of knowledge on seismic input, in

particular for near-field earthquakes (how correct is this point was confirmed by the 1999 earthquake in Turkey);

• Improvement of studies concerning some reliability and uncertainty issues which had not been yet fully analyzed (including scale effects for qualification tests, the behaviour of the IAS devices at earthquake levels exceeding the design value and failure modes, at extremely violent beyond design earthquakes, of structures provided with the IAS systems);

• Consideration of other sources of vibrations which may damage or weaken structures, for instance, traffic;

• Comparison of design rules and guidelines applicable in the different countries;

• Issues related to the applications in the low and moderate seismicity areas.

To this aim, as recommended at Cheju, differently from previous Seminars, after the Sessions containing general lectures on state-of-the-art on application and R&D, specific Oral Sessions were devoted to lectures on the different kinds of struc tures of interest for application of the IAS techniques, namely: • bridges and viaducts; • strategic and important buildings such as hospitals,

emergency management centers and schools; • ordinary apartment buildings; • cultural heritage; • high risk nuclear; • other industrial plants, chemical high risk plants.

The main new ongoing R&D projects were also presented in the Oral Sessions, while more specific but important topics concerning R&D and single

applications were presented in the Poster Session. As suggested at Cheju, invited lectures and contributed papers on applications contained sufficiently detailed reference to seismic input, the codes used and problems faced in using them, as well as cost evaluations.

In addition, the proposal made at Cheju, to develop international design guidelines for structures provided with the IAS systems (which also explain such systems correctly and leave official codes out of consideration) was taken into consideration and as a first action towards such a development, again as suggested at Cheju, English translations of the related national design rules and guidelines were collected by the organizers of the Seminar and made available to the participants; they are being collected into a volume to be published in 2002, in co-operation with SSN as editor (see Sect. 10.5).

Finally, it is worthwhile stressing that the collaborations established for the organization of the Seminar with the Regional Government of Umbria, the City of Assisi, the Province of Perugia, the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage of Umbria and the local Orders of Architects and Engineers ensured a more significant participation of governmental officials and designers, with respect to previous Seminars, as augured at Cheju. 8. HONOR, TECHNICAL, SCIENTIFIC AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITTEES The organization of the Seminar was carried out by the GLIS and EAEE-TG5 Organizing Committee, which took advantage of the collaboration of the further following four Committees:

• The International Coordination Committee, formed by 1 member for each country or geographic area and international institution or association supposed to participate in the Seminar, as well as the Chairperson of the Rome Congress, who supported the Seminar Chairman for coordinating the organization of the Seminar and Exhibition at an international level as far as the technical issues and attendance were concerned;

• The International Technical-Scientific Committee, formed by the members of the previous Committee and 1 or more members belonging to each foreign or main Italian institution, association or company that collaborated to the organization of the Seminar as regards the technical issues;

• The Italian Organizing and Technical-Scientific Committee, formed by the Italian members of the previous Committees, the members of the GLIS Board and further experts (frequently associated to GLIS) belonging to the institutions, associations and companies located in Italy that collaborated to the organization of the Seminar as regards the technical, logistic and financial issues;

• The Honor Committee, formed by high level representatives of institutions that had granted their sponsorship or patronage to the Seminar.


20

The members of all these Committees have been listed in the first pages of the Seminar Proceedings. 9. COUNTRIES REPRESENTED IN THE SEMINAR AND PARTICIPANTS The Assisi Seminar was attended by 237 experts from 25 countries, 2 international institutions and 1 European association, in addition to 10 non-technical members of the Secretariat (Table 1). Furthermore, as shown by Table 2, the invited speakers who attended the Seminar belonged to 19 countries or international institutions: the represented countries or international institutions were 24 by taking into account the co-authors of the given invited lectures, 31 by also considering the authors and co-authors of papers presented in the Poster Session and 33 by including the invited speakers of Iran and New Zealand, who (in spite of their absence) provided their lectures and papers for publication in the Proceedings. The aforesaid number of participants included 16 selected students from countries (Chile, Germany, Italy, Korea and New Zealand/Peru), who were exempted from payment of the Seminar registration fee.

Among those expected, only three countries (Bangladesh, Iran and Portugal) were not represented by participants in the Seminar, in the first two cases due to last minute visa problems. It has been estimated that no shows due to the tragic events of September 11, 2001 concerned from 50 to 80 participants, mostly from non-European countries (especially from Japan and other Asiatic countries).

However, mainly thanks to the more than doubled number of Italians, the participation in the 7th Seminar at Assisi remained much larger than that in previous events: for ins tance, the number of participants in the 3rd Seminar at Capri and the 5th Seminar at Taormina had been 136 and 138, respectively, including the non-technical members of the Secretariat and that in the 6th Seminar at Cheju had been 130 (see Table 1). Furthermore, with respect to the Taormina Seminar, the number of participants from other United Europe (UE) countries increased by 50%, participants from European countries not belonging to the UE were more numerous and also the number of non-European participants slightly increased, even as far as US and Japanese experts are concerned. These data stress the still increasing great worldwide interest in the IAS techniques.

For a matter of comparison, Table 1 also includes the number of experts from the various countries who attended the 5th World Congress on Joints, Bearings and Seismic Systems for Concrete Structures at Rome the week after that of the Seminar. This comparison shows that the events of September 11, 2001 even more severely affected the attendance in this Congress: in fact, in spite of the larger number of topics covered by the Congress, the overall number of participants (204) was only half that expected prior to such events (approximately 400) and attendance was very low especially for quite seismic Asiatic countries such as

Japan (4 participants, against the 28 participants in the Assisi Seminar).

Approximately 100 participants in the Assisi Seminar were accommodated at Grand Hotel Assisi, where the organizers had pre-booked such a number of rooms; in addition, C.S.C., on behalf of the organizers, had pre-booked several rooms at two further hotels near Assisi, as necessary due to the very high season period of the Seminar. Bus transportation between these hotels and Grand Hotel Assisi was ensured by the organizers. Bus transportation was also ensured by the organizers for the technical visits, to reach the site of the characteristic dinner and for the companion program (the latter and the characteristic dinner were organized by C.S.C. on behalf of the organizers). 10. SEMINAR PROGRAM AND WORKS 10.1 General Features

The Seminar lasted three and a half days, starting in the afternoon of Tuesday, October 2, 2001 at 3:30 p.m. It was preceded, as usual, by a preparation meeting of the Session Chairpersons and Panellists.

It is noted that the IAEA, which had participated in the organization of the previous Seminars of Taormina and Cheju jointly with its Research Coordinated Programs (CRPs) on seismic issues, confirmed its continued interest in the topic of the Seminar by joining the main organizing team of that of Assisi, as well. In particular, the IAEA confirmed its agreement for informal discussions, at Assisi, between its representative (Mr. A.Rinejskii) and those of the countries participating in the CRP on “Intercomparison of Analysis Methods for Predicting the Behaviour of Seismically Isolated Nuclear Structures”, concerning the Final Report of such a CRP.

In addition, taking advantage of the presence, at Assisi, of most experts working at the IAS techniques, some technical meetings concerning the development of European design rules for IAS systems and ongoing EC-funded Projects of the development of such systems took place there in conjunction with the Seminar (Sect. 12). Support to their organization was provided by the Seminar organizers. Meetings of European consortia preparing proposals for two new EC-funded Projects (IN-DEPTH and VAT-IMAGE) were also held during the Seminar.

Similar to the two previous events of Taormina and Cheju and according to the features and purposes of the Seminar, also that at Assisi consisted of:

• Oral Sessions (where only invited lectures were given), preceded by Welcome Addresses and followed by a Closing Panel and Closing Remarks;

• Poster Presentations of both invited and contributed papers;

• an International Exhibition.

In addition, the Assisi Seminar was preceded and followed by technical visits, which were offered by the organizers and some sponsors (see Sect. 12).


21

Table 1. Participants (S = on-site secretariat members) Country / International Ins t.

Capri (1993) 3rd Seminar

Taormina (1997) 5th Seminar

Cheju (1999) 6th Seminar

Assisi (2001) 7th Seminar

Rome (2001) 5th Congress

Armenia - - - 1 - Australia - - - - 5 Austria - 1 1 5 2 Belgium - - - 3 2 Brazil 1 - - - 3 Bulgaria 1 - - - - Byelorussia - - - - 3 Canada 2 1 1 - 8 Chile 2 3 2 2 - Colombia - - - - 1 Croatia - - - - 4 Czech Republic - - - 1 - Denmark - - - - 1 EACS / IASC - - 1 1 - EC 2 2 1 5 - Finland - - - - 1 France 5 8 - 4 11 Germ any 6 2 2 6 8 Ghana - - - - 1 Greece 1 1 - 7 7 Holland - - - - 2 IAEA 1 1 1 1 - India 2 1 2 1 3 Indonesia - 2 - - - Italy 60 59 11 129 (+ 10 S) 84 Japan 31 21 32 28 4 Korea 3 4 46 6 11 Kyrgyz Republic - - - 1 - Lebanon - - - - 1 Malaysia - - 1 - 2 Mexico 1 - 2 2 1 New Zealand 1 2 2 1 (also for Peru) - Norway - - - - 1 Peru - - - (1 – see NZ) - Poland - - - - 1 Portugal 2 3 - - 3 P. R. China 3 6 6 4 - Romania - - - 1 - Russian Federation 1 4 2 3 - Singapore - - 1 - - Slovenia - - - - 1 South Africa 1 - - - - Spain - 1 - 1 5 Switzerland - - - 2 4 Syria - 1 - - - Thailand - - 1 - - Taiwan - - 3 2 - Turkey - - - 5 - UNIDO - 1 - - - United Kingdom 1 3 2 2 7 USA 11 9 10 13 17

Non-Italian UE exp. 17 21 7 34 48 non-UE Europeans 2 4 3 12 13 Non-Europeans 59 52 109 62 59 Total numbers 138 (with S) 136 (with S) 130 237 (+ 10 S) 204


22

Table 2. Numbers of lectures, papers, contributions on design guidelines, chairpersons, panelists and exhibitors (© co-organizing –*only oral –**only written – ?=difference – r=received – e=expected)

Invited lectures for the Oral Sessions

Papers for the Poster Session

Planned Presented (?) Planned Presented (?)

Country / or international institution P

arti

cip

ants

1st a

uth

or

Co

-aut

hors

1st a

uth

or

Co

-aut

hors

1st a

uth

or

Co

-aut

hors

1st a

uth

or

Co

-au

thor

s

Des

ign

guid

es

Cha

irpe

rson

s

Pan

elis

ts

Exh

ibit

ors

Armenia © 1 1 - 1 - - - - - 1r - 1 - Argentina - - - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - Austria © 5 2 1 1+1* 1 - - - - - - - - Belgium © 3 1 - 1* - - - - - - 1 - - Chile © 2 3 - 2 - - - - - 1r 1 1 - Czech Republic © 1 - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - - EACS / IASC © 1 2 - 2 - - - - - - 1 - - EC © 5 1 - 1 - 2 2 2 2 - 2 - 1 Egypt - - 1 - 1 - - - - - - - - France © 4 1 1 1 1 - 1 - 1 1e - - - Germany © 6 1 - 1 - - - - - - - - 2 Greece © 7 - - - - 1 - 1** - - 1 1 - IAEA © 1 1 - 1 - - - - - - - - - India © 1 2 1 1 1 - - - - - 1 1 - Iran © - 1 - 1** - 1 - 1** - - - - -

Italy © 129 16+1* 5 14+3* 5 31 4 25+5** (-3+1 +1**)

4 1r 11 2 11

Japan © 28 10 1 10 1 9 - 6+2** - 2r 4 1 2 Korea © 6 4 2 3 2 1 - 1** - 1e 1 1 - Kyrgyz Republic 1 - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - - Mexico © 2 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1r - 1 - N. Zealand © / Peru 1 1 - 1** - 1 - 1 - - - - - Portugal © - - 1 - 1 - - - - - - - - PR China © 4 6 - 3+2** - 2 - 2 - 1r 1 1 - Romania 1 - - - - 1 - 1** - - - - - Russia © 3 2 1 2 1 - - - - 1r - 1 - Singapore - - - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - Spain © 1 - 3 - 3 1 - 1 - - - - - Sweden - - 1 - 1 - - - - - - - - Switzer-land 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - Taiwan © 2 3 - 2 - - - - - 1e 1 1 - Turkey © 5 1 - 1 - - 1 - - - - 1 1 UK © 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 1 - -

USA © 13 10 3 9+3*

(-1+ 3*) 2+1* 2 2 2 1 1r 4 1 2

Totals 237 70+1* 23 56+8* +4**

22+1* 55 14 42+11** 12 9r+ 3e

30 14 19

Finally, on the evening of October 3, a feature film

on the development and application of the IAS techniques, with pictures taken from the motion-picture “Le Forme della Memoria” (The Shapes of Memory), produced by Giotto Film company in the framework of the Project MUSICA (“Multimediale per lo sviluppo di Sistemi Innovativi per Costruzioni Antisismiche”, namely “Multimedia for the development of innovative systems for anti-seismic constructions”) of GLIS and ENEA was shown to the Seminar

participants. The films’ director, Enrico Bellani, had previously directed, among others, the motion-picture “Il Cantiere dell’Utopia” (The Yard of Utopia) on the restoration of the “Basilica Superiore” of St. Francis at Assisi, where, as mentioned, use was made of IAS systems such as SMA and innovative HC devices developed in the framework of EC-funded projects illustrated at Cheju (ISTECH and REEDS).

The working lunches during the Seminar took place at Grand Hotel Assisi; such lunchs, the welcome


23

cocktail of October 2, coffee breaks and characteristic dinner of October 4 were offered by the organizers to the participants. The welcome cocktail and characteristic dinner were also opened to companions.

A complete Abstract Volume, containing the summaries of all invited lectures and papers for the Poster Session the presentation of which was scheduled in the Final Program, was distributed to the participants at the Seminar, together with photocopies of all available full lectures’ and papers’ texts. Moreover, the already available contributions to the volume on design rules were displayed and names of experts interested in getting them collected (see Sect. 10.5).

With regard to the lectures and papers for the Poster Session which had been scheduled in the Final Program, it is noted that some of them were not presented at the Seminar (Table 2) because the concerned speakers or authors had been unable to attend due to the events of September 11, 2001. In addition, a few speakers and authors of poster presentations did not provide their full papers’ manuscripts to the Technical Secretariat prior or at the Seminar.

However, as far as the Proceedings are concerned, according to the Seminar purpose of assessing the state-of-the-art on the IAS techniques as completely as possible, it was decided that, possibly, they had to also include lectures and papers that were not presented, in addition to those for which the full texts were not made available at the Seminar. Thus, all invited lectures (60) and papers invited or accepted for presentation in the Poster Session (53), the texts of which were made available in their final form to the organizers by January 18, 2002 (see Table 2), were published in the Proceedings, with the exception of the English translations of design guidelines, which will be collected in a specific volume, to be separately published later in 2002. For lectures and papers which were not received within the aforesaid date, only the abstracts were included in the Proceedings.

The Seminar official language was English. However, simultaneous translation into Italian and when necessary (for welcome addresses, discussion, etc.), from Italian into English, was available. All lectures and papers had to be written in English and made available to the Seminar Technical Secretariat as electronic files, as explained in the Seminar Announcements. Oral presentations were given in English (with the exception of only one lecture and part of the presentations of the isolated buildings at Città di Castello – see Sect. 10.3.4 – which were given in Italian, but simultaneously translated into English).

The feature film projected on October 3 was also simultaneously translated into English for its parts spoken in Italian and into Italian for its parts spoken in English.

10.2 Opening Session The Opening Session consisted in welcomes addressed to the participants by the Seminar Chairman and representatives of some main co-organizing institutions, as well as an introduction to the Seminar and the International Exhibition. It was chaired by the Seminar Chairman and the main Local Co-organizer (Prof. A.Parducci, Member of GLIS Board, University of Purugia).

The Seminar Chairman welcomed the participants also on behalf of Prof. A.Ansal (Secretary General of EAEE), Prof. C.Rubbia (Chairman of ENEA), Prof. R.A.Ricci (Governmental Commissary of ANPA) and Mr. R.DeMarco (Director of SSN), who were unable to attend the Seminar, as well as Prof. F.Casciati (Chairman of IASC and EACS) and Prof. F.Braga (Chairman of ANIDIS), who both joined the Seminar later. The other welcomes were addressed by:

• Mr. R.Tortoli, Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Environment (through a written message read by the Chairman);

• Dr. M.Yeroyanni, as the representative of the EC; • Mr. Riommi, Councillor for Reconstruction of Umbria

Region, representing Mrs. M.R.Lorenzetti, Chairperson of the Regional Government;

• Mr. L.Tortoioli, Director for Territorial Politics, Environment and Infra-Structures of Umbria Region;

• Mr. L.Marchetti, Superintendent for Cultural Heritage of Umbria Region;

• Prof. C.Corradini, Dean of the Fac ulty of Engineering of the University of Perugia, representing Prof. F.Bistoni, the Chancellor of the University;

• Prof. C.Alessandri, representing Prof. G.Trippa, Dean of the Faculty of Architecture of the University of Ferrara;

• Mr. M.Mariani, Chairman of the Order of Engineers of Perugia Province, representing all Umbrian Orders of Architects and Engineers.

The main features of the Seminar and International Exhibition were introduced by the Session Chairpersons. 10.3 Oral Sessions Similar to the previous Seminars, the Oral Program consisted of invited lectures presented or co-authored by experts from the countries and International Institutions that are the most involved in the development and applications of the new techniques.

It is noted that the assessment of the detailed Seminar Program had been completed at the beginning of September 2001. Only 2 lectures, among the 72 that were previously planned, had been cancelled at that date. However, as obviously expected, mainly due to the extremely difficult international situation which followed the tragic events of September 11, 2001, some last minute cancellations of oral presentations unfortunately occurred. More precisely, presentation of the following 10 more oral lectures by non-European speakers was cancelled at the last minute (Table 2):


24

• Lecture Nr. (13) of New Zealand; • Lecture Nr. (23) of India; • Lecture Nr. (25) of Iran; • Lecture Nr. (29) of the USA; • Lecture Nr. (30) of Taiwan; • Lectures Nr. (34), (47) and (60) of P.R. China; • Lecture Nr. (48) of Korea; • Lecture Nr. (56) of Chile.

It is noted that no last minute cancellation had occurred at Taormina in 1997, and only 1 at Capri in 1993 and Cheju in 1999. This confirms that the reasons for such cancellations at Assisi have been correctly identified.

However, the full texts of lectures Nr. (13), (25), (47) and (60) were received after the Seminar. Thus, for the reasons mentioned in Sect. 10.1, they were also published in the Proceedings.

The absence of the aforesaid presentations was partly balances by 3 additional oral presentations, which had not been scheduled, given by:

• Prof. J.M.Kelly (University of California at Berkeley, USA), who extended his first presentation Nr. (03) to a second speech;

• Prof. M.Çelebi (United States Geological Survey, USA), who spoke about issues related to seismic monitoring;

• Mr. A.Mokha (Earthquake Protection System, USA) who illustrated the applications of the friction pendulum IAS system.

Finally, it is noted that the title of Lecture Nr. (46) was slightly modified and that presentation of 4 lectures – Nr. (11), Nr. (26), Nr. (37) and Nr. (44) – was only oral; thus, only the abstracts of such lectures have been published in the Proceedings. Consequently, the latter contain the already mentioned overall number of 60 full text invi ted lectures.

Also some chairpersons cancelled their participation at the last minute. Both facts led to an on-site rearrangement of the oral program as reported below, where, among others, the presentation of some lectures had to be advanced to preceding sessions, with respect to the most suitable ones where they had been scheduled.

The resulting Oral Program remained subdivided in the 14 Oral Sessions, each being chaired by two renowned experts at the topics addressed, representing some of the most active countries or international institutions on the development of the IAS techniques (Table 2). As mentioned in Sect. 9, the presented 60 lectures were authored or co-authored by experts from 24 countries or international institutions or associations (Table 2).

Schematically, the actual program of the works, including the Oral Sessions, was as the following:

10.3.1 October 2, 2001 (Tuesday)

• Registration of the participants.

• Welcome addresses and Introduction to the Seminar and International Exhibition (see Sec t. 10.2).

• Session 01 – The Seismic Protection of Structures: Main Requirements and Benefits of Using the Innovative Anti-Seismic Techniques, chaired by Prof. G.Croci (University of Rome “La Sapienza” & GLIS, Italy) and M.Yeroyanni (Environment and Sustainable Development Programme, Directorate General for Research, EC, Brussels): presentation of lectures Nr. (01), (02), (04) – (08) and (03a).

• Visit to the posters and international exhibition halls. • Welcome cocktail offered by the organizers.

10.3.2 October 3, 2001 (Wednesday)

• Registration of the participants. • Session 02 – Remarks on the Definition of Seismic

Input, Architectural Design and Financial Aspects, chaired by Prof. A.Baratta (University of Naples “Federico II”, Italy) and Prof. O.Moroni (University of Chile at Santiago, Chile): presentation of lectures Nr. (09) – (11).

• Session 03 – State-of-the-Art on Application, R&D and Design Rules for Seismic Isolation and Passive Energy Dissipation for Civil and Industrial Structures (I), chaired by Prof. F.Braga (University of Rome “La Sapienza” & GLIS, Italy) and Prof. J.M.Kelly (University of California at Berkeley, USA): presentation of lectures Nr. (12), (53) and (14).

• Coffee break. • Session 04 – State-of-the-Art on Application, R&D

and Design Rules for Seismic Isolation and Passive Energy Dissipation for Civil and Industrial Structures (II), chaired by Prof. M.Çelebi (United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, USA) and Prof. T.Fujita (Institute of Industrial Science, University of Tokyo, Japan): presentation of lectures Nr. (3b), (16) and (17).

• Lunch offered by the organizers to the participants. • Session 05 – State-of-the-Art on Application, R&D

and Design Rules for Seismic Isolation and Passive Energy Dissipation for Civil and Industrial Structures (III), chaired by Mr. T. Sanò (ANPA & GLIS, Rome, Italy) and Prof. F.L.Zhou (University of Guangzhou, P.R. China): presentation of lectures Nr. (18) – (21).

• Coffee break. • Session 06 – State-of-the-Art on Application, R&D

and Design Rules for Seismic Isolation and Passive Energy Dissipation for Civil and Industrial Structures (IV), chaired by Mr. L.Marchetti (Order of Architects, Province of Terni, Italy ) and Mr. V.Renda (JRC Ispra & GLIS, EC): presentation of lectures Nr. (22) and (24) and additional oral speech of Mr. Mokha.

• Visit to the posters and international exhibition halls. • Projection of a feature film with pictures taken from

the film “Le Forme della Memoria” (The Shapes of Memory) of the film Director Enrico Bellani, produced by Giotto Film, on the development and application


25

of the IAS techniques (MUSICA Project of GLIS and ENEA).

• Dinner with music at the Grand Hotel Assisi. 10.3.3 October 4, 2001 (Thursday) • Registration of the participants. • Session 07 – State-of-the-Art on Application and

R&D for Active, Semi-Active and Hybrid Vibration Control Techniques , chaired by Prof. F.Casciati (IASC, EACS and University of Pavia, Italy) and Prof. K.-C.Chang (National Taiwan University, Taiwan): presentation of lectures Nr. (26) – (28) and (31).

• Coffee break. • Session 08 – Large ongoing R&D Projects on the

Innovative Techniques for the Control of Seismic and Non-Seismic Vibrations (I), chaired by Prof. S.Anagnostopoulos (University of Patras, Greece) and Mr. A.Vergoni (Order of Architects, Province of Perugia, Italy): presentation of lectures Nr. (32), (33), (54) and (35) – (37).

• Lunch offered by the organizers to the participants. • Session 09 – Large ongoing R&D Projects on the

Innovative Techniques for the Control of Seismic and Non-Seismic Vibrations (II), chaired by Prof. M.Dolce (University of Basilicata & GLIS, Potenza, Italy) and Prof. A.Preumont (Free University of Bruxelles, Belgium): presentation of lectures Nr. (38) – (41).

• Coffee break. • Session 10 – Remarkable Design Examples

Concerning Recent Application of the Innovative Anti-Seismic Techniques to New and Existing Bridges and Viaducts, with Remarks on the Used Regulations and Costs, chaired by Dr. G.Benzoni (University of California at San Diego, USA) and Prof. K.Kawashima (Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan): presentation of lectures Nr. (42) – (46), (49) and (50).

• Visit to the posters and international exhibition halls. • Characteristic dinner offered by the organizers. 10.3.4 October 5, 2001 (Friday) • Registration of the participants. • Session 11 – Remarkable Design Examples

Concerning Recent Application of the Innovative Anti-Seismic Techniques to New and Existing Strategic, Public and Ordinary Apartment Buildings, with Remarks on the Used Regulations and Costs, chaired by Mr. G.Bonacina (ENEL.HYDRO-ISMES & GLIS, Seriate, BG, Italy) and Dr. K.N.G.Fuller (TARRC/Rubber Consultants, UK): presentation of lectures Nr. (51), (52), (55) and (15) and oral presentation by Mr. G.Lavorgna, Mr. A.Pacchiarotti and Mr. L.Federici (IERP, Perugia, Italy) of the isolated apartment buildings being erected at Città di Castello to be visited on October 6.

• Coffee break. • Session 12 – Recent Application and Ongoing

Studies Concerning the Use of Innovative Techniques for the Seismic Protection of Cultural Heritage, chaired by Prof. A.Vulcano (University of

Calabria, Rende, Cosenza & GLIS, Italy) and Prof. A.Wada (Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan): presentation of lectures Nr. (57) – (59), additional speech of Prof. M.Çelebi and presentation of lecture Nr. (61).

• Lunch offered by the organizers to the participants. • Session 13 – Ongoing and Planned New Application

of the Innovative Anti-Seismic Techniques to the Nuclear Plants, with Remarks on the Used Regulations , chaired by Prof. H.S.Kushwaha (BARC, Mumbai, India) and Dr. M.Morishita (Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute, Narita, Japan): presentation of lectures Nr. (62) – (67).

• Session 14 – Remarkable Design Examples Concerning Recent Application of the Innovative Anti-Seismic Techniques to New and Existing Non-Nuclear Plants, in Particular High Risk Chemical Plants, with Remarks on the Used Regulations, chaired by Prof. H.M.Koh (Korea Panel on Structural Control and Monitoring & Seoul National University, Korea) and Dr. H.H.Chung (ASME, USA): presentation of lectures Nr. (68) – (70).

• Coffee break. • Session 15 – Closing Panel on Technology Transfer

and Future Directions (see Sect. 10.6). • Closing Remarks and Proposals /Decisions for the

Next Seminar (see Sect. 10.6). 10.4 Poster Presentations of Technical Papers Poster Presentations concerned invited and selected contributed technical papers dealing with specific items of particular interest for the Seminar, such as new R&D on specific topics and single important applications. The presentation of 55 papers, authored or co-authored by experts from 19 countries or international institutions (although mostly Italian and Japanese – see Table 2), had been scheduled at the Poster Session of the Assisi Seminar prior to the events of September 11, 2001. This number was more than twice those of the poster presentations in the previous two Seminars: in fact, they had been 25 at both Taormina in 1997 (where the Poster Session was organized for the first time) and Cheju in 1999.

However, while at both Taormina and Cheju only 3 papers had not been presented in the Poster Session and although 2 more papers – (P56) and (P57) – were added at Assisi at the last minute, there the number of poster presentations was 42 (namely, 13 less than planned). More precisely, paper (P15) was cancelled and the 13 papers (P1), (P5), (P23), (P25), (P28), (P30), (P35), (P40), (P42), (P48), (P49), (P55) and (P57) were not presented. (some papers’ titles or authors or co-authors were also modified at the last minute).

Anyway, the number of papers presented at the Assisi Poster Session remained almost twice that presented in the previous two Seminars, by confirming the great interest in the Seminar once again.


26

Each paper was illustrated at the Poster Session by 1 poster. The best poster was awarded a prize (a characteristic porcelain vase manufactured by STEDAV, which also participated in the Exhibition): such a best poster was judged to be that of paper Nr. (P39).

Finally, it is noted that the full texts of 11 among the 13 non-presented papers were received by the Seminar Secretariat after the Seminar: in fact, only the full texts of papers (P35) and (P42) were not received, in addition to those of papers (P15), which, as mentioned, was cancelled, and (P47). The latter is the only presented paper for which the full text was not made available. For the reasons mentioned in Sect. 10.1, the aforesaid 11 papers have also been published in the Proceedings. 10.5 Contributions to the Document on Design

Guidelines The following contributions from 11 countries (2 from Japan – see Table 2), concerning English translations of national design guidelines, rules or proposals for them for structures provided with IAS systems were made available to the Seminar Organizers or (based on information received by the concerned experts) should be soon made available: • Armenia (Draft of the Design Code for Seismically-

Isolated Structures in Armenia, by Dr. K.N.G.Fuller, Tun Abdul Razak Research Centre, Brickendonbury, Hertford, UK, and Prof. M.G.Melkumyan, Engineering Research Center of the American University of Armenia, Yerevan, Armenia);

• Chile (Code Proposal for Analysis and Design of Seismic Isolated Buildings in Chile, Translated by M.O.Moroni, University of Chile at Santiago, Chile);

• France (French rules, being translated by Profs. P.Bisch, EAEE Chairman, and P. Sollogoub, CEA, CE Saclay, France);

• Italy (Guidelines for the Design, Construction and Check of Structures with Seismic Isolation, Translated by Prof. M.Dolce, University of Basilicata, Potenza, Italy);

• Japan (Outline of Brand-New Structural Calculation Procedure for Seismically Isolated Buildings – Summary of the Procedure Using Response Spectrum Analysis, by Dr. N.Kani, JSSI Executive Director, Tokyo, Japan, for buildings; Seismic Isolation Design Code for Highway Bridges, by Prof. K.Kawashima, Department of Civil Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan, for bridges and viaducts);

• Korea (Korean rules, being translated by Prof. Y.M.Koh, KEERC and Seoul National University, Korea);

• Mexico (Preliminary Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings with Energy Dissipating Devices in Mexico City - Devices with Energy Dissipation Independent of Velocity and Excitation Frequency, by Dr. Sonia E.Ruiz, Institute of

Engineering, National University of Mexico, Coyoacan, Mexico, D.F.);

• P.R. China (Technical Rule for Seismic Isolation, P.R. China, CECS 2001, Beijing, P.R. China, 2001, English editors: Prof. F.L.Zhou, Guangzhou University, and Profs. Z.G.Xu, P.Tan, X.Y.Huang and C.Y.Shen);

• Russian Federation (Design and Construction Recommendations for Adaptive Building Seismoisolation with Reserve Disengaging Elements , by Prof. J.M.Eisenberg, EERC, Moscow);

• Taiwan (Taiwan rules, being translated by Prof. K.C.Chang, National Taiwan University);

• USA (various documentation provided by Dr. G.Benzoni, University of California at San Diego, and Mr. A.Dusi, consultant, Italy).

The contributions of Armenia, Chile, Italy, Japan, Mexico and Russian Federation had already been provided to the organizers prior to the Seminar. That of the USA was made available at the Seminar. That of the P.R. China was supplied in December 2001. Those of the other 3 countries (France, Korea and Taiwan) should be soon made available, based on the confirmation of the engagements of the related responsible experts.

The Italian SSN confirmed its interest in editing a volume containing the aforesaid rules and guidelines in 2002. 10.6 Closing Panel on Technology Transfer and

Future Directions and Closing Remarks The Closing Panel on October 5, 2001 was chaired by the Seminar Chairman and by Mr. L.Serva, representative of ANPA and Italy. Since also some panellists had cancelled their participation at the last minute, some on-site rearrangement of the Panel composition was also necessary. Anyway, the panellists remained some of the most renowned experts on the IAS techniques, representing 12 among the most seismic areas and the low/moderate seismicity areas (Table 2). More precisely, panellists at Assisi were, in addition to the two chairpersons:

• Prof. S.Anagnostopoulos (University of Patras, Greece);

• Prof. K.-C.Chang (National Taiwan University, Taiwan);

• Prof. J.M.Eisenberg (EERC, Russian Federation) (written remarks read by Prof. L.Beliaeva);

• Prof. S.Ruiz (National University of Mexico, Mexico); • Prof. T.Fujita (Institute of Industrial Science,

University of Tokyo, Japan); • Prof. J.M.Kelly (UBC, California, USA); • Prof. H.M.Koh (KEERC, Korea Panel on Structural

Control and Monitoring & National Seoul University, Korea);

• Prof. H.S.Kushwaha (BARC, India); • Prof. M.Melkumyan (American University of Armenia,

Armenia); • Prof. S.Ökten (Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul,

Turkey);


27

• Prof. M.Sarrazin (University of Chile at Santiago, Chile);

• Prof. F.L.Zhou (University of Guangzhou, P.R. China).

Closing remarks were made by the Seminar Chairman and Prof. M.Melkumyan. The Seminar works were closed at 7:45 p.m. 11. INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION The International Exhibition was held at the Grand Hotel Assisi, together with the Poster Session, during the whole period of the Seminar. Displayed were the general activities and products of research centers, industrial companies and other institutions. In each booth, in addition to objects and documentation, exhibitors displayed up to 4 posters in each booth, similar to those used in the Poster Session. The International Exhibition was opened to the public, on Friday, October 5.

The following 19 institutions and companies from 6 countries or international institutions participated in the international exhibition (Table 2):

• ACAI-ACEDIS members (namely ALGA, FIP Industriale and TIS), Italy;

• Advanced System Co., LTD, Japan; • Astaldi Turkish Branch, Turkey; • Banca dell’Umbria, Italy; • Bridgstone Corporation, Japan; • Dynamic Isolation System, USA; • ENEA, Italy; • ENEL-HYDRO-ISMES, Italy; • Earthquake Protection System, USA; • fischerwerke Artur Fischer Gmbh & Co. KG,

Germany; • GLIS, Italy; • IERP of Perugia Province and Impresa Lunghi,

Assisi, Italy; • JRC Ispra, EC; • Maurer Söhne, Germany; • Nuova V.M., Italy; • STEDAV, Italy.

Among the companies or institutions that were expected to participate in the exhibition, only one was absent. The number of exhibitors was considerably larger than that at Cheju and Taormina (12 companies from 6 countries in both cases). 12. PRE- AND POST-SEMINAR TECHNICAL EVENTS Reported below are the meetings that took place at Grand Hotel Assisi in conjunction with the Seminar and the technical visits were organized before and after it. All visits were also opened to companions and some experts who only participated in meetings of EC-funded projec ts. 12.1 October 1, 2001 (Monday) • Midterm Meeting of the EC-funded SPACE Project,

restricted to the SPACE partners and chaired by Dr. R.Medeot (Consultant and GLIS, Selvazzano, Italy), as the SPACE coordinator.

12.2 October 2, 2001 (Tuesday) • Meeting of Technical Committee (TC) 340 on Anti-

Seismic Devices of the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), restricted to the members of CEN TC 340 and chaired by Dr. R.Medeot, as the CEN-TC 340 chairman.

• Pre-Seminar Technical Visits to the “Basilica Superiore” of St. Francis at Assisi, guided by Mr. R.Paggetta (Superintendence for Cultural Heritage of Umbria Region, Perugia, Italy), Prof. G.Croci (University of Rome “La Sapienza” & GLIS, Italy), Prof. A.Viskovic (University of Chieti “Gabriele D’Annunzio”, Italy) and Mr. M.Indirli and Mr. A.Poggianti (ENEA & GLIS, Bologna, Italy), with the cooperation of the Holy Monastery of St. Francis. Such visits lasted approximately 1 hour. Visitors were subdivided into groups of 20-25 persons, in order to also allow for their access to parts of the Basilica which can host only a limited number of people (bell tower, space above the vaults where special reinforcement and anti-seismic systems have been installed, etc.).

12.3 October 5, 2001 (Friday) • Kickoff Meeting of the EC-Funded SAMCO

Network, restricted to the SAMCO partners and chaired by Prof. H.Wenzel (Vienna Consulting Engineers, Vienna, Austria), as the SAMCO coordinator.

12.4 October 6, 2001 (Saturday) • Post-Seminar Technical Visits to the “Basilica

Superiore” of St. Francis at Assisi, guided again by Mr. R.Paggetta and Mr. M.Indirli and Mr. A.Poggianti, again with the cooperation of the Holy Monastery of St. Francis and with the same features as for the previous visits.

• Post-Seminar Technical Visit to a Seimically Isolated Apartment Buildings at Città di Castello, sponsored by IERP Perugia (Italy) and guided by its Technical Director, Mr. A.Pacchirotti, by Mr. A.Marioni (ALGA & GLIS, Milan, Italy) and by Mr. A.Poggianti (ENEA & GLIS, Italy). This visit lasted approximately 3 hours (including travels).

• Meeting of the Foundation Committee of the Anti-Seismic Systems International Society (ASSISi), chaired the Seminar Chairman and opened to all participants (see Sect. 14).

13. SUMMARY OF THE SEMINAR, REMARKS AND CONCLUSIONS 13.1 Applications 13.1.1 General remarks The invited lectures and contributed papers presented at the Assisi Seminar and the extensive discussion following their presentation confirmed that both SI and ED are now fully accepted techniques in the scientific communities all over the world: there are no more doubts that a suitable system of one of these kinds can always be identified for each type of structure, both to be erected or to be retrofitted, and that this system will be able to considerably improve the structure


28

seismic safety, by also protecting the non-structural members and other valuable contents, thus ensuring the structure operability after the earthquake.

The present availability of design rules or guidelines for structures provided with IAS systems in several countries, which was stressed at the Seminar, is now more helping in convincing designers and builders to adopt these techniques. However, such guidelines and the approval process for the structures under consideration still remain rather different in the different countries; the result is that in some countries, like for instance Japan, the P.R. China and (after the codes modifications following the 1999 earthquake) Taiwan, the number of structures provided with IAS techniques is still or is now rapidly increasing, while in others (for instance in the USA and Italy) the number of new applications is more limited.

Among others, the differences concerning design rules lead to rather different costs of the structures provided with the IAS systems. For instance, in the P.R. China the use of such systems leads to cheaper constructions, which allowed this country to increase the number of building applications of SI from 160 in August 1999 to 450 in October 2001, to largely adopt SI for ordinary apartment buildings, to design new important high-rise buildings with ED devices and also, to retrofit existing buildings using the Tuned-Mass-Damper (TMD) system by adding 1 or 2 stories at the top of them. The same occurred in Armenia, as well. On the contrary, construction costs remain larger in the USA for structures provided with the IAS systems with respect to the conventionally founded ones. Thus, attention is being devoted there to the development of cheaper isolators, for instance with fiber reinforcement, which reduces the weight (and consequently, costs) and makes it possible to manufacture rectangular isolators in form of long strips: the latter will allow for retrofitting buildings with structural walls without any more need for adding wall beams (as necessary to carry the wall from isolator to isolator, if their shape is that used at present, round or square).

Anyway, in all developed seismic countries, as well as in Armenia (although it is still a developing country), the number of applications of the IAS techniques significantly increased in the last two years, for many types of structures, namely, not only for bridges, viaducts and important strategic and public buildings, but also for ordinary apartment buildings. In Japan only, there are already more than 800 isolated buildings. 13.1.2 Bridges and viaducts As far as bridges and viaducts are concerned, the number of applications of the IAS systems to both new constructions and retrofits considerably increased in all countries, including, for instance:

• Chile, where a significant bridge rehabilitation program has been carried out;

• Italy, where several freeway bridges in the South are being retrofitted using the IAS systems and some

new bridges and viaducts provided with them have and are being erected (which consolidates the leadership of this country with regard to both the number and importance of applications of the IAS systems to bridges and viaducts);

• countries with moderate seismicity like Korea, where there are already 20 applications;

• the P.R. China, where the first 9 isolated bridges were constructed;

• Syria, where several hundreds of rubber isolators manufactured in Armenia are being installed;

• Taiwan, where an extensive use of the IAS systems recently began, as a consequence of the 1999 earthquake;

• the USA, where there was a considerable increase of the number of applications because bridge codes are not so uselessly conservative as for buildings;

• Venezuela, where a large number of ED devices was under installation, at the time of the Seminar, in the Caracas-Tuy Medio Railway.

13.1.3 Strategic and public buildings With regard to buildings, in general, not only the engineers, but also the architects are beginning to understand the great potential of the IAS techniques and especially SI, namely that they leave the architect much freer in the definition of the structure architectural features and that, should the adoption of these techniques be already considered at the time of the architectural design, there are advantages also for the construction costs.

Among the numerous new applications to strategic buildings, the first to be stressed are those to hospitals, for which full integrity in an earthquake and full operability after it are essential requirements: examples of new seismically isolated hospitals are the Medical Center of San Carlos de Apoquindo at Santiago, which is the second isolated building in Chile, and the new hospital under construction at Frosinone (Lazio), which is the first actual hospital being isolated in Italy (it was preceded by a building used for medical purposes at the Navy Base of Augusta, erected at the beginning of the years ‘90s). Then, also the new applications to schools, including seismic retrofits of those existing, are quite important, even from the social and psychological points of view: as regards Italy, we remind the recent retrofits of two schools at Potenza (Basilicata), using elastic-plastic devices, and that of a third school at Fabriano (Ancona Province, Marche) using visco-elastic devices. 13.1.4 Ordinary apartment buildings As far as the ordinary apartment buildings are concerned, the number of new applications of the IAS techniques, especially SI, is particularly large in Japan and the P.R. China and (taking into account the limited population) Armenia, but is not negligible in Italy, where until recently such techniques had been used in only 5 houses erected in Southern Italy at the beginning of the ‘90s: 4 at the Navy Base of Augusta (Siracusa Province, Sicily) and 1 at Squillace Marina (Catanzaro


29

Province, Calabria). In fact, after the Cheju Seminar, 1 new base isolated house has already been completed at Rapolla (Potenza Province, Basilicata), 3 are in advanced construction at Città di Castello (those visited during the Seminar) and especially, the design of a set of 36 more isolated houses (which will probably become 55 in the near future) is already in progress in Calabria. In addition, the first retrofit of an Italian apartment building at Fabriano (Ancona Province, Marche) with SI and cut of the foundation piles is waiting for the approval of the Ministry of Constructions and for the first time, a novel restoration method for masonry buildings (“Active Sewing Method” – CAM) was used to seismically improve an apartment building at Sigillo (Perugia Province, Umbria).

It is worthwhile stressing that the increase of applications of the IAS techniques to the construction or retrofit of ordinary apartment buildings is extremely important for the assertion of the IAS techniques, because this is the largest potential market. On the other hand, design studies performed in various countries (including Italy) have shown that retrofit of apartment houses using SI (in the presence of sufficiently large lateral joints) or ED systems may be economically convenient in many cases, even for small (3-stories) buildings (like that previously mentioned at Fabriano) and in countries where the design rules are still penalizing the use of these techniques.

One important problem to be solved to further and more rapidly increase the number of applications in this field is the continuing lack of adequate information to designers, public official and also, the ordinary public. To contribute to solve this information problem, GLIS and ENEA are developing the already mentioned MUSICA Project, but certainly, this kind of activity must be considerably extended to achieve its purpose.

In addition, financial incentives to adopt the IAS techniques for ordinary apartment houses are necessary. On the other hand, such incentive s are really possible, especially as far as insurance premiums and loan interests are concerned, which may be lower for structures equipped with IAS systems or their owners, to account for the lower probability of earthquake damage. These items were stressed by Dr. R.Ortolani, Director General of Banca dell’Umbria, who clarified that financial politics aiming at supporting adequate seismic designs are being developed in Italy, similar to other countries. 13.1.5 Chemical plants The number of the IAS techniques luckily slightly increased in two further quite important fields, as well: the high risk plants and components, such as the chemical ones, and cultural heritage. For the first, to be cited are new applications of SI, including retrofits, to Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) tanks, for instance, in France, Korea and Turkey (but no application to chemical plants was reported for Japan).

As for the ordinary apartment houses, a large extension of applications of the IAS techniques to the

high risk plants, especially the chemical ones, is extremely important to better protect human life, because such plants are very frequently located in highly seismic areas and are rather vulnerable to the seismic vibrations. The adoption of the IAS systems has the advantage of minimizing the impact of seismic protection on the plant lay -out (and thus, the costs) and improving the overall plant reliability, in addition to seismic safety. Due to the large number of such plants existing all over the world, even in highly seismic areas, this is also a very important market for the IAS techniques. 13.1.6 Cultural heritage For cultural heritage, there were not only new important applications in Italy (“Basilica Superiore” of St. Francis at Assisi, St. Feliciano Cathedral at Foligno, Bell Tower of the St. Giorgio Church at Trignano, Cathedral of Santa Maria di Collemaggio at L’Aquila), but also new applications and designs in other countries, for instance in Egypt (in collaboration with Italy, towards the seismic retrofit of the Memnon Colossi at Luxor), Korea, Portugal, P.R. China and (to less ancient but still historical buildings, like, for instance, the San Francisco City Hall and Asian Art Museum and the Berkeley Civic Center) in the USA.

For the application of the IAS system to cultural heritage, however, there are some problems to solve. The first hard problem is that the IAS systems must be compatible with the conservation requirements (namely, low invasivity and full reversibility). Then, ancient structures are frequently not well known and each of them is different from the others. This makes it necessary to develop specific systems for each intervention of restoration. Moreover, the conservation requirements make it necessary to build a sub-foundation to allow for the use of SI: however, as shown by the first studies performed in Italy, for two churches in Perugia Province, severely damaged by the Marche and Umbria earthquakes of 1997-98 (Santa Lucia Church at Aggi and St. Giovanni Battista at Apagni), this is feasible and is the only way to avoid that the same damage reappears in the next earthquake, as already occurred in these churches and other ancient structures in Marche and Umbria in 1997 with regard to the damages repaired after the 1979 Valnerina earthquake.

Moreover, to be reminded about cultural heritage, is that SI also allows for on site reconstruction of ancient buildings severely damaged by earthquakes, using the original masonry material (as shown, for instance, by the feasibility study in progress in Italy for the village of Mevale di Visso in the Marche Region, fully destroyed by the 1997-98 earthquakes), and for the seismic protection of single masterpieces in existing conventionally constructed museums. About the latter (after the applications made in the past, for instance to precious objects in the Paul Getty Museum at Santa Monica in the USA and to the Bronzes of Riace at the Museum of Reggio Calabria and a bronze


30

statue of Germanicus Emperor at the Museum of Perugia in Italy), it is worthwhile citing the new ongoing applications to precious objects displayed in museums in the P.R. China and to a wooden Roman ship at Ercolano, in Italy. 13.1.7 Extension of the number of countries

interested in the IAS techniques Finally, with regard to the interest in the IAS techniques, to be stressed is that it is now extending to new countries, like, for instance, Turkey (where the first applications concern the Istanbul airport, LNG tanks and viaducts and a bridge near Bolu on the Istanbul-Ankara freeway), Iran and India. Some other countries are beginning to follow the excellent example of Armenia (where there are already 13 isolated buildings, which should become 24 in the near future, and where seismic isolators are locally manufactured also for foreign markets, like Syria); this is shown, for instance, by the great interest in the IAS techniques expressed at Assisi by the Czech Republic, Kyrgyz Republic and Romania. 13.2 Research and Development 13.2.1 Test laboratories and on-site tests Detailed information was provided at Assisi on the large experimental laboratories which are now available in numerous countries for testing the IAS devices using special equipment, as well as small- and large-scale structure mock-ups provided with such devices, by means of shake tables (dynamic method) and/or reaction walls (pseudo-dynamic method). Nowadays, large test equipment (such as, for instance that CALTRANS installed at the University of California at San Diego, USA) are fully operating and allow for testing the full scale IAS devices up to large deformations, thus ensuring their reliable qualification.

Very interesting on-site tests of isolated structures were also reported, for instance to:

• an existing bank building at Irkutsk-City in Russia, retrofitted by applying the technology invented by Prof. M.Melkumyan in Armenia and using high damping rubber bearings (HDRBs) manufactured in the P.R. China, which was tested both before and after retrofit;

• the previously mentioned apartment building at Rapolla in the South of Italy, which was subjected to snap-back tests to 180 mm lateral displacement with two different SI systems (HDRBs and HDRBs + sliding devices).

These tests were similar to those which had been performed by ISMES, ENEL and ENEA in 1990, by laterally moving to 110 mm then suddenly releasing (through the use of explosive bolts) one of the five 8-stories isolated buildings of the Italian Telephone Company TELECOM-Italia (former SIP) at Ancona, owned by SEAT (we remind that these buildings, designed by Dr. Gian Carlo Giuliani, Milan, were the first application of base SI in Italy).

With regard to on-site tests of real buildings, to be stressed is their great importance to convince public officials and public opinion on the large benefits of the IAS techniques. 13.2.2 New studies on engineering aspects

concerning non-nuclear structures The lectures and papers presented at the Seminar also stressed that, since most of the work necessary for the development and optimization of the passive IAS systems was already completed prior to the Cheju Seminar, R&D concerning the engineering aspects is now mainly focusing on the development of active, hybrid and especially, semi-active control (SAC) systems of seismic and non-seismic vibrations or new materials such as SMAs for anti-seismic devices. With regard to SAC, particular attention is being devoted to the magneto-rheological (MR) fluids (see, for instance, the EC-funded CASCO and SPACE Projects, which were both presented at the Seminar by Prof. H.Wenzel and Dr. R.Medeot, respectively). With regard to SMA devices, development is in progress not only in Italy, but also in other countries, like the USA, Spain and Chile. In Chile, where large copper quantities are available, ED devices based on copper-based SMA bars have been developed.

Further ongoing engineering R&D work is aimed at solving the specific issues concerning the three aforesaid types of structures which require (and are suitable for) a wide extension of the application of the IAS techniques, namely: • ordinary apartment buildings , by developing low cost

IAS devices and systems, such as, for instance, the damper-cable system developed in the framework of the EC-funded SPIDER Project (which was also presented at the Seminar by Mr. M.Behloul of Bouygues, France) and isolators with fiber reinforcement, being studied in some countries (for instance in the USA, as presented by Prof. J.M.Kelly, and Iran, as mentioned by Dr. M.Ziyaeifar of IIESS, Tehran);

• chemical plants and components, by developing IAS devices and systems compatible with the frequently adverse environmental conditions characterizing such structures, need for withstanding fire and chemical attacks and need for limiting displacement to values consistent with those allowed by piping (see, for instance, the ISI Project in progress in Italy, which was presented at this Seminar by Prof. V.Ciampi of the University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Italy, and the lectures given by Prof. L.Dorfmann of the University of Applied Sciences of Vienna, Austria, and Dr. P.Summers of MMI Engineering, Houston, Texas, USA);

• cultural heritage, by developing new IAS systems compatible with the conservation requirements and suitable retrofit techniques (see, for instance, the PROSEESM Project presented by Prof. Parducci and the lecture given by Mr. Indirli).


31

In addition to the aforesaid research projects, the importance of international networks (such as the new SAMCO Network) was stressed at the Seminar, since they allow for largely enhancing collaboration through an optimized exchange of information among several partners. 13.2.3 New studies on engineering aspects

concerning nuclear reactors For the other structure types to be cited are the studies performed for the nuclear reactors, for which it was confirmed at Assisi that SI is very beneficial, both because it enhances reactor safety and because it reduces construction costs. These benefits are particularly evident for the fast reactors, where components are relatively flexible and thin-walled due to low internal pressure and high thermal stresses.

These conclusions were stressed in all lectures on nuclear applications that were presented at the Seminar, namely, in addition to that concerning the already mentioned CRP of the IAEA, in those concerning the studies in progress for SI of: • the future Indian, Japanese and Russian reactors,

with the development of three-dimensional isolators (since also vertical isolation is important for this structure type);

• the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER);

• the Generation 4 Reactors in the USA; • the Accelerator Driven System (ADS) in Italy,

together with studies in progress for; • a new type of Floating Power Reactor being studied

in Russia. 13.2.4 New studies on seismological aspects

concerning nuclear reactors Besides the R&D on the engineering aspects, new seismological studies of great interest for the application of the IAS techniques and in particular, SI, have also been performed. As explained by Prof. G.Panza (Department of Earth Sciences, University of Trieste, Italy), they concern the evaluation of near field earthquakes, site effects and long period waves, which could cause serious problems of isolators’ failure or impacts against adjacent structures to the isolated structures, if not adequately taken into account in the design, because of the induced large displacement demand.

Furthermore, Prof. P.Pinto (University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Italy) stressed the need for an adequate evaluation of differential motions among the piers of bridges and viaducts caused by different soil conditions, which shall be adequately taken into account when using all IAS devices in such structures. 13.3 Open Issues As far as the Seminar topics are concerned, even prior to the Assisi Seminar it had been stressed that two key issues have to be better addressed in the near future: • Design rules (this was the reason why, as a first

step, translation of the design rules or guidelines

applicable in the different countries were collected at Assisi).

• Seismic input. On the latter topic, already in 2000 Prof. Panza

had been asked to organize a special session (by involving 3 further internationally well known experts at seismology from the Chile, Japan and the USA), with the aim of getting joint recommendations on seismic input by this team to the engineers using the IAS techniques (especially SI). However, since time was too short for this team to agree on common recommendations before the Assisi Seminar, it was decided to postpone this action to 2003 and Prof. Panza was the only seismologist who was invited as a speaker at Assisi to remind the important of seismological issues to the engineers.

As far as the other aspects of the Seminar program are concerned, contrary to Cheju, there was no particular request to change its features in 2003: thus, the 8th Seminar should keep sessions on the state-of-the-art on R&D and applications for each main country, followed by sessions on the main R&D Projects, then (as strongly recommended at Cheju) by sessions on the application issues to the various kinds of structures (including nuclear and non-nuclear plants) and finally, by sessions on progress of non-passive vibration control techniques. 13.4 Decisions Taken in the Closing Panel In the Closing Panel the great success of the Seminar, in spite of the very difficult international situation, was stressed by all panellists. There was a general consensus of opinion that the Seminar shall go on in the future and (according to the excellent results obtained at Assisi) that it shall be organized again as an independent event. Therefore, the option of connecting the Seminar again to the SMiRT Conference to be held at Prague in 2003 was not taken into consideration. On the other hand, during the 2001 SMiRT Conference, the next SMiRT organizers had not expressed much interest in the Seminar topics to the Assisi Seminar Chairman.

With regard to the selection of the site of the 2003 8th Seminar, the possibility of holding it at Yerevan (the capital of Armenia) was positively evaluated, based on the proposal of the American University of Armenia which had been submitted by Prof. M.Melkumyan some months before the Assisi Seminar and which was confirmed by him during its Closing Panel, as well.

However, the Armenian proposal was not the only one for 2003; in fact, some interest in organizing the 8th Seminar was also expressed by Japanese experts (in particular, by Prof. T.Fujita of the University of Tokyo) and by Chinese experts. Thus, it was agreed in the Closing Panel the final decision on its site and exact dates to be taken at a later date, by comparing the Armenian proposal to the possible aforesaid further proposals.


32

Finally, in order to enhance international cooperation on the IAS techniques, the foundation of an international association on the IAS techniques, which had been recommended at the 6th Seminar of Cheju in 1999, was confirmed. Detailed agreements on the actions to be undertaken to enable such a foundation were postponed to the already mentioned specific meeting to be held the day after. 14. FOUNDATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ASSISi At the meeting of October 6, 2001, which was attended by 14 experts representing 9 countries (Chile, Italy, Korea, Mexico, P.R. China, Russia, Turkey, UK and USA), the Foundation Committee of the new association on the IAS techniques was established and actions to be undertaken were decided. However, prior to the meeting, 9 more experts representing 5 furt her countries or international institutions (Armenia, EC, Greece, Japan and Kyrgyz Republic) had already confirmed their willingness to join the Foundation Committee. Furthermore, before the end of 2001, 21 additional experts representing 4 additional countries (India, Iran, New Zealand and Spain) had already joined such a Committee, by leading to an overall number of 44 members from 18 countries or international institutions. Finally, 20 further experts representing 11 new countries (Austria, Argentina, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Peru, Portugal, Singapore, Taiwan) have been already invited to join the Foundation Committee.

At the October 6 meeting and in the following weeks: • It was decided to formally found the association

possibly within the first Semester of 2002, after having assessed the By-Laws;

• It was decided that the association will deal with non-active IAS systems, namely different from those of main interest for the IASC;

• The Assisi Seminar chairman, as the GLIS and TG5-EAEE coordinator, was appointed as the Chairman of the Foundation Committee;

• Dr. H.H.Chung (ASME, USA), was appointed as its Technical Secretary;

• The association name was decided to be “Anti-Seismic Systems International Soc iety”, with the acronym ASSISi.

With regard to the association name, it is noted that the first proposal, made during the meeting of October 6, 2001, had been to call it “international ASsociation of Seismic Isolation and energy disSIpation”. However, this name did not make reference to IAS techniques different from SI and ED; moreover, its acronym ASSISI was hardly obtained from the association full name and did not include the important word “international”. However, after some further attempts to identify better names, the above-mentioned excellent proposal of Prof. Kelly solved all problems.

With regard to the acronym ASSISi, it is worthwhile stressing that it was selected as it symbolizes Assisi, the city where the decision was made to found the association. As Assisi is internationally known as the city of Saint Francis, it carries a meaning of “Peace and International Cooperation”. Having ASSISi as the acronym for the association, it reaffirms the willingness of the founders to take a clear symbolic position against the terrorism and their concerted activities to build a better and safer world through international cooperation and collaborations.

The organisation of the next Seminars will be part of the activities of ASSISi. More precisely, such Seminars will be official events of the Association, which will be organized and chaired by one of its members in his country and will be co-chaired by the ASSISi Chairman. The latter will provide all necessary support to the chairman with regard to the organizational aspects and will answer for the observation of the Seminar features, as decided in the preceding event. 15. NEXT SEMINARS The 8th Seminar on the IAS techniques will be a very important event, because it will be the first Seminar that will be organized in the framework of ASSISi activities. Thus, particular care was devoted to the selection of its site and will be devoted to ensure its success, similar to the previous events.

In the weeks following the Assisi Seminar, both Prof. M.Melkumyan and Prof. A.Der Kiureghian, Dean of the Faculty of Engineering of the American University of Armenia and Taisei Professor of Civil Engineering at Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of the University of California at Berkeley, confirmed again their great interest in organizing the 8th Seminar at Yerevan, by stressing the following benefits of choosing this site: • Armenia is the only developing country where SI is

highly developed especially for the ordinary (apartment) buildings. Here, existing buildings have been retrofitted by base and roof SI without interruption of use of the buildings: the only retrofit with similar benefits, known to the authors of this Preface, which was more or less contemporary to the first performed in Armenia, was to a large reinforced concrete building at Seal Beach (California, USA), the columns of which were cut one after the other at the beginning of the ‘90s by continuing operations in the second and upper stories.

• Due to the limited population of Armenia, there the number of isolated buildings per capita is the highest in the world.

• Until now the Seminar was held in developed countries: it would be good if the 8th Seminar is held in a developing country, such as Armenia.

• Until now Seminars were held in regions which were hardly accessible to scientists from the former


33

USSR countries (where there is a great interest in SI, with more than 400 building applications, although frequently using low cost systems). From this point of view Armenia would be the place where many scientists from such countries could easily go.

• Thus, one of the benefits of holding the 8th Seminar at Yerevan would also be that modern SI will find new markets.

In the meantime, in the weeks following the Assisi Seminar, interest of other countries in organizing the 8th Seminar was confirmed only by Prof. Fujita for Japan. However, Prof. Fujita later agreed to postpone the organization of the Seminar in Japan to 2005 (9th Seminar). Thus, on November 28, 2001, Profs. Der Kiureghian and Melkumyan were informed about the final decision of accepting the Armenian proposal of holding the 8th Seminar in 2003 at Yerevan, on dates to be jointly defined.

As proposed by Profs. Der Kiureghian and Melkumyan, the next Seminar title will be "8th World Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Energy Dissipation and Active Vibration Control of Structures". It is worthwhile stressing that this and the following events will keep the same main purposes and features as the previous ones, which made the Seminar unique. More precisely, as agreed not only by the aforesaid organizers of the 8th event, but also by Prof. Fujita for the 9th event, the Seminar main purpose will go on being to periodically define the state-of-the-art, as complete as possible, on the progress of R&D and application of the IAS techniques, and the future trends. The first consequences of this objective are that: • the participation of the representatives of the largest

possible number of countries will be ensured; • the oral program will go on being fully invited; • only speakers from countries which have (or may

soon have) important activity on the IAS techniques will be invited in the oral sessions;

• each of these countries will be represented by only one speaker to present the aforesaid overviews;

• only large projects will be illustrated orally and each related lecture will be possibly co-authored by all the partners of the project;

• more specific contributions on single applications and important spec ific R&D topics will be presented in the Poster Session (which, thus, will not be considered as a "second class" type of presentation);

• the Poster Session will consist of both invited and contributed papers and will be held in parallel to the Seminar, lasting all its duration;

• an international exhibition will also be possibly organized, together with the Poster Session;

• the Seminar local organizers will go on taking advantage of the already very well established international collaborations, which were even extended for the organization of the Assisi Seminar, namely of the cooperation of the large International

Technical-Scientific Committee and the much more reduced International Coordination Committee;

• from now on the Seminar will be an official event of ASSISi and will be co-chaired by its chairman.

Otherwise, the Seminar would not be different from the many other meetings, congresses or conferences. Obviously, the organization of such a kind of event is more complicated than that for the usual conferences. However, Seminar after Seminar, our scientific community has got used to this kind of organization and has agreed on it.

With regard to the contents of the 8th Seminar, particular attention will be devoted in the Oral Sessions to: • design rules, taking advantage of the contributions

on design rules and guidelines which have already been collected for the Assisi Seminar;

• seismic input, through the special session to be organized by Prof. Panza, where joint recommendations of renowned seismologists will be addressed to the engineers using the IAS techniques (especially SI);

• economic and financial aspects; • development of new IAS systems, in particular semi-

active systems; • specific still open issues related to each kind of

structure (bridges and viaducts; strategic and public buildings; ordinary apartment buildings; nuclear plant and high risk plants in general; other plants; cultural heritage);

• new applications of the IAS techniques, especially concerning the construction and retrofit of ordinary apartment buildings, high risk chemical and other plants and cultural heritage;

• issues of particular interest for Armenia, other former USSR countries and developing countries in general;

• information on the IAS techniques to designers, public officials and the ordinary public.

A. Martelli Seminar Chairman

Fifth World Congress on Joints, Bearings and Seismic Systems for

Concrete Structures Rome, Italy , 7-11 October 2001

The International Joints and Bearings Research Council (IJBRC) of the American Concrete Institute has held four World Congresses on structural devices in North America. In October 2001, the Congress was held in Europe for the first time and the IJBRC had appointed ACEDIS (the Italian Association of Structural Devices Manufacturers) as its agent to organise the event.

The event focused on topics of particular importance to progress in the field of joints, bearings and seismic systems: design methods, new technology and applications, product choices as well as regulations, specifications, guidelines, research and


34

testing. These topics were covered in the oral and poster sessions.

The scope of the Congress was to present state-of-the-art knowledge and to highlight further avenues for development in this field. It is felt that there are strong possibilities for developments of design and technology particularly in the area of seismic protection.

With the aim of giving complete information on all aspects of the subject, both theoretical and practical, the event brought together recognised scientists and leading manufacturers from all over the world. Thanks to the participation of international exhibitors, the technical exhibition offered the most complete overview of the achievements and potential of the structural device industry.

A technical visit was organised to a site of the Italian High Speed Railway where special railway expansion joints and bearings capable of withstanding high rotations were illustrated by the Contractor.

The President of the Congress was Donatella Chiarotto, who is president of ACEDIS as well as President and CEO of FIP Industriale, and she could organise such a high profile scientific event with the direction of the Scientific Committee which was composed by Luca Sanpaolesi de Falena, University of Pisa, Giulio Ballio, Technical University of Milan, Konrad Bergmeister, University of Vienna (Austria), Franco Braga, University La Sapienza Rome, Remo Calzona, University La Sapienza Rome, Vincenzo Ciampi, University La Sapienza Rome, Antonello De Luca, University of Naples, Mauro Dolce, University of Basilicata, Giorgio Macchi, University of Pavia, Giuseppe Mancini, Techncial University of Torino, Alessandro Martelli, ENEA Bologna, Camillo Nuti, University of Pescara, Alberto Parducci, University of Perugia.

The Congress took part shortly after the New York facts, nonetheless more than 200 delegates from 30 different countries took part to the event.

The Proceedings of the Congress were published in CD Rom and contain all the oral and poster presentations. The CD is still available upon request. The Congress web site hosts the full text of the invited speakers presentation (http://www.ega.it/jbss5_2001).

NEWS FROM MEMBER ASSOCIATIONS

From Austrian Association for Earthquake Engineering

Arsenal Research History and Latest Organisation Form

Arsenal Research is located in Vienna. The institute was founded in 1950 as a research institution of the government. In the early years it consisted of institutes for Machinery Engineering, Electrotechnical Engineering and Geotechnical Engineering. The institute was always oriented towards practical applications with strong measurement and testing

facilities. Very early also a working group on vibrations and acoustics was started. During the years it became an important non-university research institution of the republic. Since 1960 –under the name Bundesversuchsn und Forschungsanstalt Arsenal (BVFA)- it belonged to the Ministry of Construction and Technology. In the year 1970 BVFA was shifted to the Ministry of Sciences. In 1997 privatisation was started and BVFA was transformed into a private limited company. In 1998 the internal organisation of arsenal was completely changed and the new name Arsenal Research was born. In 1999 it became a subsidiary company of Austrian Research Centers Seibersdorf.

In June 2001 the Holding Company Austrian Research Centers was funded, where seibersdorf research and Arsenal Research are the two main subsidiary companies.

The Republic of Austria is the main share holder. In the latest organisation form Arsenal Research consists of the following Business Areas:

• Vehicle Testing Station, • Transport Technologies, • Transport Routes Engineering, • Monitoring, Energy and Drive Technologies, • Renewable Energy Technologies , • Engineering. Arsenal Research, being an application-oriented

R&D enterprise, offers a comprehensive service portfolio in the areas transport and energy.

Qualified employees generate, by the use of most modern computer simulation as well as top-quality measurement and test engineering, solutions for our cus tomers.

Integration in international science networks enables Arsenal Research to extend the service portfolio according to the respective requirements in order to meet customer's demands.

Arsenal Research started a new thematic positioning in the area Transport and Infrastructure Technologies. The Corporate Strategic Focussing is on the topics:

• vehicle, • transport infrastructure, • energy systems. The Business Area, which is involved into

Earthquake Engineering is Transport Routes Engineering (heads R.Flesch and P.Maurer). The unit covers the fields road monitoring, traffic safety, transport telematics, acoustics, vibration- and shock testing, vibration- and structure borne noise protection, structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, structural monitoring. The structural dynamics related activities are given in more detail in what follows: 1. Earthquake resistant design of structures (bridges,

buildings, dams, etc.), 2. Dynamic in-situ testing of structures in order to

elaborate dynamic properties of existing structures, FE- modeling of structures, model updating, assessment of earthquake capacity of existing


35

structures , measures for retrofit and seismic upgrading,

3. Structural monitoring, safety inspection via measurement of vibrations, quality assessment,

4. Vibration- and shock-tests in the laboratory , 5. Vibration- and structure borne noise protection,

especially in railway engineering, prognosis of vibration and structure borne noise, measures for reduction. In 2002 the Business Area will have 15 co-workers,

among them 8 graduated in the fields civil engineering, mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, electronics and computer sciences.

R. Flesch

From Bulgarian National Committee for Earthquake Engineering

On the Modeling of Structures in EUROCODE 8

1. Introduction According to the prescriptions of Eurocode 8 “the model of the building shall adequately represent the distribution of stiffness and mass so that all significant deformation shapes and inertia forces are properly accounted for under the seismic action considered”. In this connection, some considerations of Eurocode 8 [1] should be urgently discussed due to their decisive influence on the structural safety. 2. Structural members According Eurocode 8 the structural system is defined as “the load bearing elements of a building or civil engineering works and the way in which these elements function together”. When dealing with the model of the structure for seismic design, the following distinctions are made: • Primary members: “Members considered as part of

the structural system that resist the seismic action, modelled in the analysis for the seismic design situation and fully designed and detailed for earthquake resistance”.

• Secondary members: “Members, which are not considered as part of the seismic action resisting system and whose strength and stiffness against seismic actions is neglected. They are designed and detailed to maintain support of gravity loads when subjected to the displacements caused by the seismic design situation”.

• Non structural elements: “Architectural, mechanical or electrical element, system and component which, whether due to lack of strength or to the way it is connected to the structure, is not considered in the seismic design as load carrying element”.

As seen from thes e definitions, the designer’s consideration on the primary structural members is crucial when deciding the structural model. The cited above definition of secondary members (or more precisely – the lack of definition) allows modifications of the lateral load resisting system and inadequate representation of its dynamic behaviour during seismic excitations.

The dynamic response of a given structure is defined by its specific features and not by the consideration of the designer, which elements are part of the seismic action resisting system. In the beginning of the seismic excitation the undamaged structure will have much higher stiffness than the considered (i.e. accepted in the model) one. This means, that the structure should withstand loading that is several times larger than the design loading to which it has been dimensioned. Due to the structural redundancy, the most essential part of the seismic loading will be carried by the elements, whose stiffness is greater and thus they will be seriously damaged already in the beginning of the earthquake [3, 6].

In this aspect very showy is the example from the near past with the determination of the fundamental periods of the large panel residential buildings in Bulgaria [2]. For the eight-story buildings “by consideration” they reached 1.2 s and in a separate cases even 1.8 s. In the same time their real values (experimentally determined) do not exceed 0.40 s, as shown in Table 1. This means that they are designed for seismic loading 3 times smaller than it should be. The reason is the incorrect modeling and especially – the incorrect determination of the structural stiffness due to ignoring of the “secondary” members. Table 1. Experimental results for large-panel residential buildings

Natural period [s]

Description of the building xT yT tT

six-story building in JK “Izgrew”, Burgas

0.300 - 0.250

six-story building in JK “Momkova Mahala”, Sofia

0.330 - 0.300

six-story building, Plovdiv

0.360 - -

six-story building in JK “Bukston”, Sofia

0.300 - -

six-story building in JK “Gara Iskar”, Sofia

0.295 - -

eight-story building in JK “Izgrew”, Burgas

0.360 0.270 -

eight-story building in JK “Bukston”, Sofia

0.366 - -

eight-story building in JK “Gara Iskar”, Sofia

0.378 - -

Note: Tx and Ty are the natural periods in transversal and longitudinal direction of the building, respectively; Tt is the natural period of the torsional vibrations. 3. Consideration of infills When modeling the structure, Eurocode 8 requires that “infill walls which contribute significantly to the lateral stiffness and resistance of the building should be taken into account”. Although, the further considerations in “additional measures for masonry infilled frames” allow elimination of the stiffness of the infills, since “the non-engineered masonry infills constructed after the hardening of the concrete frames or the assembly of the steel frame, in contact with them (i.e. without


36

special separation joints), but without structural connection to them (e.g. without shear connectors) are considered in principle as non-structural elements in frame or frame equivalent dual concrete systems of ductility class (DC) H and in mixed steel (or steel-concrete) composite structures of DC H”. Also, “for any wall or wall equivalent dual concrete systems as well as for any braced steel or composite systems the interaction between the concrete frames and the masonry infills may be neglected”.

The influence of the “non-structural” elements (in the following example - masonry infills) is established in the most illustrative way during the experimental in-situ tests of frame structures without girders with prestressed floor panels [2]. In Fig. 1 are shown two such eight-story buildings in the housing complex “Hipodruma” in Sofia. While the first building is completed, only the main structure of the second one is completed and the bricks for the partition walls are stored at the respective floors, i.e. the mass is available. In other words - the difference in the dynamic behaviour of the two structures is caused by their different stiffnesses, which are determined as follows: • for the first building – by the interaction between the

main structural system and the masonry infills; • for the second building – only by the main structural

system.

Figure 1. The two tested eight-story buildings in the housing complex “Hipodruma” in Sofia.

The periods of the fundamental mode of natural vibrations in transversal direction of the two buildings are: • for the first building – T = 0.60 s; • for the second building – T = 0.95 s.

In this way the “non-structural” partition walls contributed an increase of almost two times the stiffness of the first building.

The term “non-structural” (vertical) elements is connected with the statical vertical loading, since these elements are not intended to bear it. However, under seismic excitations the “non-structural” elements dissipate a considerable part of the seismic energy, thus facilitating the “main” structural elements. This is one of the main reasons for the reduction of the design seismic loading by the behaviour factor in Eurocode 8. In other words – there is no elements, which do not participate the dynamic response of the structure.

Disregarding the contribution of the infills in the structural models in Eurocode 8 is contradicted by the requirement for damage limitation of infills: “Except in zones of low seismicity appropriate measures should be taken to avoid brittle failure and premature disintegration of the infill walls, as well as out-of-plane collapse of slender masonry panels or parts thereof (examples of such measures include light wire meshes adequately anchored on the wall and on the concrete frame, RC belts across the full thickness of the walls, etc.). Particular attention should be paid to masonry panels with openings and slenderness ratio (height to thickness ratio of the wall or of separate leafs thereof) greater than 15”. The fulfilment of this requirement increases the strength of the infills and integrates them into the main structural system. Thus the contribution of the infills cannot be neglected in the structural stiffness. The consideration of the contribution of the infills in the structural model would make possible to avoid a number of difficult for fulfilment by the designers prescriptions in Eurocode 8, such as: • “Account shall be taken of the high uncertainties

related to the behaviour of the infills (namely, the variability of their mechanical properties and of their wedging condition, the possible modification of their integrity during the use of the building, as well as the non-uniform degree of damage suffered during the earthquake itself)”,

• “The possibly adverse local effects due to the frame-infill-interaction (e.g. shear failure of slender columns under shear forces due to the diagonal strut action of infills) shall be taken into account”,

• “In case of severe irregularities in plan due to the unsymmetrical arrangement of the infills (e.g. mainly along two consecutive faces of the building), spatial models shall be used for the analysis of the structure, including, if necessary, a sensivity analysis regarding the position and the stiffness of the infills”.

All these facts require change of the concept for the treatment of masonry infills in Eurocode 8 connected with appropriate consideration of their contribution to the structural stiffness. 4. Stiffness of lateral load bearing elements According to Eurocode 8 “in reinforced concrete buildings, in steel-concrete composite buildings and in masonry buildings the stiffness of the load bearing elements should, in general, be evaluated taking into account the effect of cracking. Such stiffness should correspond to the initiation of yielding of the reinforcement”. “Unless a more accurate analysis of the cracked elements is performed, the flexural and shear stiffness properties of concrete and masonry elements, should not exceed one-half of the corresponding stiffness of the uncracked elements”. In this way the reduced stiffness of the structure due to non-linear response of the structural members is taken into account two times in Eurocode 8:


37

(i) when reducing the elastic response spectrum by the behaviour factor, which is intended to account that the structure is able to resist seismic loading greater that those, obtained by the linear analysis, due to allowance of a limited structural damage;

(ii) when modelling the stiffness of the structure to resist the already reduced response spectrum. When designing structures in low seismicity

regions with comparatively low uncertainties in the design loading, generally spoken, linear analysis is applied to obtain the design loading effects. Taking into account the high uncertainties connected with the determination of the seismic loading, the use of so many concepts, resulting from the envisaged non-linear behaviour of the structural members contributes significantly the seismic risk of the structures. 5. Other remarks In Eurocode 8 the regularity of structures is specified implicitly by compliance with the criteria for regularity, most of which are quantitative. In connection with the consequences of the structural regularity on the structural model and method of analysis, there is a need of introduction in the principles of Eurocode 8 of a general statement for definition of regularity according to the principles of structural dynamics. For example; when deciding about the structural model and method of analysis, structure could be treated as a regular one only in case when the shapes of the modes significant for the seismic response are separated in two orthogonal directions. This definition would assist the operation of designers with the qualitative criteria for regularity.

The implementation of simplified analysis in Eurocode 8 allows consideration only of the first mode of the natural vibrations for regular structures with fundamental period T1<1.6-2.0 s. The experience in the seismic design of structures shows that for much smaller T1 the higher modes of natural vibrations have considerable contribution to the design seismic loading and cannot be neglected. In this connection well-defined criteria for the cases, in which the simplified analysis is allowed should be introduced in Eurocode 8.

The empirical approaches for determination of the fundamental natural period of the structure are inadmissible even for the purposes of the preliminary design [6].

Whenever a spatial model of the structure is used, according to Eurocode 8 the design seismic action shall be applied along all relevant horizontal directions (with regard to the structural layout of the building). Although, Eurocode 8 does not supply a definition of the relevant horizontal directions. A possible way to solve this problem is a definition of the relevant horizontal directions using the work of the design seismic loading for deformation of the structure [4,5, 6].

In Eurocode 8 the spatial variation of the ground motion is accounted for by adding torsional eccentricity to the accidental eccentricity for planar models and accidental eccentricity to the lumped story masses in

case of spatial model of the structure. In this way, for irregular building structures there is no specific formulation for the variation of ground motion in space. In the same time the widely used modern software for earthquake resistant design (for example SAP 2000) do not use the assumption of lumped masses at the center of mass of each floor and respectively – the prescriptions of Eurocode 8 cannot be applied directly to these models. Thus, the proper implementation of modern software in the seismic resistant design practice requires elaboration of specific provisions concerning the seismic action for irregular structures, for example consideration of the spatial variation of the ground motion by the concept of the effective seismic wave [4, 6].

According to Eurocode 8 “the diaphragm may be considered as rigid, if, when it is modelled with its actual in-plane flexibility, its horizontal displacements nowhere exceed those resulting from the rigid diaphragm assumption by more than 10% of the corresponding absolute horizontal displacements in the seismic design situation”. To prove this statement implementation of 3D model of the structure is required. In this way the allowance to use planar models for regular structures is senseless. 6. Conclusion When building a structural model according to the prescriptions of Eurocode 8 concerning,

• designation of some structural members as “secondary”,

• elimination of the contribution of the infills to the stiffness of the structure,

• accounting of the effect of cracking when determining the stiffness of the lateral load bearing elements,

the actual stiffness of the structure will be underestimated many times, which will result in dramatic underestimation of the design seismic loading. Also, these considerations make senseless the experimental tests of structures. Thus the mathematical models of the structures will become uncontrollable, since any experimental verification is impossible.

To improve this situation there is an urgent need to reconsider the abovementioned formulations in Eurocode 8.

Silvia L. Dimova1 & Ludmil L. Tzenov2 1Scientific Secretary, 2President

References 1. Eurocode 8 2001. Design of structures for

earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. PrEN 1998-1, DRAFT No 4, December 2001. Commission of the European Communities, European Committee for Standardization.

2. Tzenov, L., 1968. Study of vibrations of typical Bulgarian buildings in seismic regions, Ph.D.Thesis, Moskow: CNIISK.

3. Tzenov, L. 1983. Reduction of seismic vulnerability of structures, Doctor's Thesis, Sofia: CLSMEE – BAS.


38

4. Tzenov, L. 1994. Seismic design of complex structure systems, In Gerald Duma (ed.), Proceedings of the 10th ECEE, Vienna, 28 August –2 September 1994, 2: 907-911, Rotterdam: Balkema.

5. Dimova S.L, Petrov, P. & Bonev, Z. 2000. Pecising of the design seismic loading of irregular structures. Hasan Boduroglu et al.(eds.), Proceedings of the Third Japan-Turkish Workshop on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul 21-25 February 2000, 65-76.

6. Tzenov, L., Dimova, S.L., Z., Bonev & P., Petrov 2001. Seismic resistant design of irregular structures. Generalized method for determination of design seismic loading. Technical report TDV/TR 037-62, Istanbul: Turkish Earthquake Foundation.

From Italian National Association of Earthquake Engineering (ANIDIS) 10th Italian National Congress on Earthquake

Engineering, Potenza - Matera (Italy) September 9-13, 2001

The Italian National Congress on Earthquake Engineering, organis ed by the Italian National Association of Earthquake Engineering (ANIDIS) and the University of Basilicata, was held in Potenza and Matera, on September 9 to 13, 2001. It is about twenty years that the Italian Congress is held every two years, involving all the Italian researchers in the field of Earthquake Engineering.

The main scope of the Congress was to develop the scientific debate and present the most recent findings on different seismic problems. Also the most practical problems related to seismic design, vulnerability assessment, retrofitting strategies and techniques, urban planning and seismic codes have been dealt with.

The two main cities of Basilicata, in Southern Italy, have been chosen to host the congress, due to the great interest of this area towards seismic problems (it was strongly damaged by the destructive 1980 earthquake) and to the strong contribution of the University of Basilicata to develop the knowledge of seismic problems in Italy. Its Structural Laboratory is now endowed with a large reaction wall and a powerful system for dynamic and pseudodynamic tests.

The President of the Organising Committee was Mauro Dolce, professor of Earthquake Engineering at the University of Basilicata and Head of the Structural Deparment. He organised the congress with the help of his colleagues and assistants of the Department, in agreement with the main directions given by the Scientific Committee of ANIDIS, whose President is Franco Braga, Professor of Earthquake Engineering at the University of Rome.

The technical part of the program was organised in 4 parallel session dealing with the following topics: • Seismicity and local amplification, • Foundations, retaining structures, tunnels and

embankments, • Vulnerability and risk at different scales,

• Vulnerability of constructions and of systems, • Seismic dynamics, • Numerical methods and models, • Structural identification and optimisation, • Dynamic characterisation of structures, • Masonry constructions: experimental tests,

modelling, retrofitting techniques, • R/C constructions: experimental tests, modelling,

retrofitting techniques, • Steel constructions: joints and element behaviour,

structural response, • Passive control: seismic isolation and energy

dissipation, • Active and semi-active control, • Seismic codes, • Case studies: damage analyses and design, • Case studies: seismic behaviour and retrofit of

monuments. About 250 participants attended the congress. The

proceedings of the congress have been published on CD-ROM at the end of January 2002. They contain about 200 papers in Italian. An extended abstract in English (one full page) is also provided for each paper.

Mauro Dolce

From Polish National Committee on Earthquake and Paraseismic

Engineering Surface Ground Motion from Rockbursts

– Recent Research Activity Between March and April 2001 a research study of mine induced ground motion was carried out at Technical University of Opole, Poland (Chmielewski et al., 2001). The research was motivated by a need to properly estimate actual intensity of rockburst effect on the surface of the ground.

Surface ground motion may be an effect of either an earthquake or man made effects like traffic, industrial blasts or rockbursts. In some areas of intensive mine exploitation the rockbursts may cause quite substantial ground motion inducing even some damage to buildings and causing concerns among residents. Rockbursts occur when due to accumulation of stresses breaking of intact rock, usually ahead of an advancing mine face, takes place. The event from March 13, 1989 in Germany near Merker (ML=5.4) which caused injuries to three people and substantial damage to buildings proved that these problems should be treated seriously by civil engineers. Some rockbursts may directly be linked with the underground activity, whereas other occur randomly, usually with 3-6 months return period.

The research reported in this note was prompted by unusually high Peak Ground Accelerations (PGA) recorded by a network of surface accelerometers of “Rudna” Copper Mine located in south-western Poland. The mine is carrying out exploitation of copper ore at a depth of about 600m almost directly below a small town Polkowice. The registered PGA reached level of about


39

0.15g. Geophysical services of the Mine calculate for each quake the location of its epicenter and energy released whereas civil engineers classify the quakes according to Mercalli intensity scale. On the one hand the rockbursts cause usually only minor damage, mostly to non-structural elements of buildings which would suggest intensities of MSK not more than V-VI. On the other hand high PGA values required further studies and clarifications. These studies are needed not only to ensure safety of buildings but also to reliably asses eventual claims for repairs of damaged parts of buildings by the Mine.

The research was carried out on a sample of 31 records registered between January 2000 and May 2001 by 7 surface recording stations located in Polkowice and its vicinity. The main feature of the records of ground motion was typical short 1-2 seconds duration. When analysing deeper their spectral properties another characteristic features were noted. These were very small PGV (Peak Ground Velocity) and PGD (Peak Ground Displacement) values. Typical value of PGA/PGV ratio for far field Californian earthquakes equals about 10 (e.g. El Centro, 1941 record) whereas for the rockbursts these values reached level of 80, far more than it is usually attributed to near field earthquakes for which PGA/PGV may be close to about 30-40. Another characteristic feature of the analysed rockbursts was their almost 1:1 proportion of vertical to horizontal motion also a characteristic for near field earthquakes. When comparing the Fourier spectra of rockburts and low intensity earthquakes of PGA 0.1-0.15g one could see a result of these unusual PGA/PGV ratios – a shift of dominating components of the spectra from about 4-6Hz to about 15-20Hz. The spectral bandwidth of 0-5Hz is almost not present in the rockburst records, whereas it usually dominates in the earthquake accelerograms. This explains why the rocbursts with rather large PGA are not as destructive as typical earthquakes with the same PGA values. As a conclusion one may say that for the description of intensity of rockbursts PGV values are much better than the PGA. Comparing the energy released by the quakes with the surface PGA and PGV values has shown that rockbursts with greatest energies usually did not resulted in the strongest surface effects. Detailed results of the reported research will be subject of further publications.

Zbigniew ZEMBATY Technical University of Opole

Reference Chmielewski T., Ze mbaty Z., Kowalski M, Gorski P. A comparative study of earthquake and rockburst intensities and the assessment of their destructiveness on buildings in LGOM region, (in Polish), Report for “ZG Rudna” Mine Authorities in Polkowice, Technical University of Opole, pp.1-168.

From Russian National Committee for Earthquake Engineering

(RUNCEE) In short words some information of Russian National Committee 2001 activity: 1. The 4th Russian National Conference was held

October 9-13, 2001, Sochi- city. 2. The “Russian Federal Program for Seismic Hazard

Mitigation” for 2002-2009 was prepared and was approved by the Russian Federal Government September 25, 2001, Edict ? 690.

3. Six Volumes of the Russian Journal “Earthquake Engineering Safety of Structures under Dynamic Loads” were published.

Jacob Eisenberg

From Slovak Association for Earthquake Engineering

The Real T ime Control for Earthquake Engineering Applications

The progress in active, hybrid and semi-active vibration control technique in various countries has already led to some promising results, not only for the control of wind or machinery induced vibration, but also for the seismic protection.

However, there are still several questions and tasks open for future research and technology development, prevailingly in optimisation of devices and control processes. Necessary verifications of reliability and safety interfere with reasonable initial and service cos ts. Under these circumstances, the control software is a crucial part of the methodology and vibration control technique.

For verification of such systems reliability, the real time control algorithm and software were developed and analysed in extensive numerical studies of authors. At present the control device is the subject of seismic tests under variable adverse conditions.

Verification laboratory tests create the part of works done under EU FP5 Human Potential Programme: Transnational Access to Major Research Infrastructures. HPRI-CT-1999-00046 ECOLEADER-SER (2000-2003), Subcontract 2865.03- Semi-active control near the base of asymmetrical structures. The testing facilities of ENEL-ISMES Seriate Italy were proposed for tests, namely MASTER shaking table and separate HJS hydraulic jack system.

The shaking table MASTER (MultiAxes Shaking Table for Earthquakes Reproduction) is one of the most important installations in Europe for experimental studies in the structural dynamics. Besides the classical support of the earthquake engineering, the performances, dimensions and payload capacities of MASTER allow a wide range of applications both in civil and electromechanical fields. This facility was used for the first group of tests and it is foreseen also for the third group of tests.


40

Independent HJS hydraulic jack system was used for the second group of tests and it is foreseen also for the third group of tests together with MASTER shaking table. Interconnection of original HJS system with real time control software from outside control computer was successively tested and verified on single mass model. The information given in Figures 1 and 2 suggests promising behaviour of tested model and remarkable mitigation of the model vibration.

Earthquake is a sudden event and comes to the structure like unknown time history that should be overcome by control system. The quick and reliable response is the basis of actually effective seismic response mitigation.

As far as the second group of tests was realised without use of shaking table, the external source of unknown independent disturbance input had to be used. Such inputs were created by: • impact tests (Fig. 1) and • external source excitation (Fig. 2).

The external source of excitation has appeared as unexpected input that helped in testing of the control algorithm efficiency. Independent specimen was subjected to seismic tests on MASTER shaking table. During some stages of these tests the shaking table motion caused induced subsoil vibration that travelled through foundations also to HJS base and excited tested single mass model. Upper part of Figure 2 gives the information about the model response changes when the control was switched on, the lower part describes the situation of the model response when the control was switched on and then switched off again.

The impact tests utilised general force impulse. The model response can be seen in Figure 1. The upper part represents the case when no control was introduced, while the lower part gives the information about the model response when the real time control came into play. It can be seen that the drastic decrease of response came very soon after the impact excitation.

Figure 1. Response of single mass system to impact excitation results of laboratory tests .

Figure 2. Response of single mass system to induced seismic excitation – results of laboratory tests .

The research is not finished yet. The authors are aware that not only software but also devices alone are continuously subjected to modifications and improvements. Therefore, besides many direct connections they welcome the response of any nature or comparative studies. The participation and support of ENEL-ISMES staff, namely G.Franchioni and G.Bergamo is gratefully acknowledged.

E. Juhasova 1, M. Juhas 2 & V. Svrcek2

1Earthquake Engineering Laboratory ICA SAS 2Department for Automation and Control MEF SUT

From Society for Earthquake and Civil Engineering Dynamics (SECED)

Recent Activities of SECED The UK national society for earthquake engineering, SECED (Society for Earthquake and Civil Engineering Dynamics), has continued to grow in terms of both membership and profile during the last year. The single most important undertaking of SECED during the current period is the organisation of the Twelfth European Conference on Earthquake Engineering (12ECEE) that will be held at the Barbican Centre in London from 9-13 September 2002.

The demands of the organisation of the 12ECEE on the energy and time of SECED members, all of whom work on an entirely voluntary basis, has not prevented us from continuing with a rich and varied programme of our own national activities. Technical meetings continue to be held on the last Wednesday of the month, never drawing audiences of less than 40 or 50 people and frequently reaching 100. During 2001, technical meetings were held every single month except for December and covered topics as varied as:

• seismic effects on buried structures, • performance-based seismic design, • seismic upgrade of industrial plant,


41

• probabilistic seismic safety assessment in the nuclear industry,

• the Bhuj (India) earthquake of January 2001, • seismic strengthening of non-engineered structures, • legal aspects of earthquake risk mitigation in Turkey

(Professor Polat Gülkan), • seismic design of composite structures (Professor

André Plumier), • computational methods for dynamic soil-structure

interaction, • vibrations of the Millennium Bridge in London.

An equally full and exciting programme of meetings is planned for 2002, starting with enhanced damping of structures using visco-elastic materials (January) and the El Salvador earthquakes of 2001 (February).

The highlight of the SECED meetings programme is the prestigious bi-annual Mallet-Milne lecture that was launched in 1987 when Professor Ambraseys delivered his memorable lecture on Engineering Seismology. The Eighth Mallet-Milne Lecture, Living with Earthquakes: Know Your Faults, was delivered in May 2001 by Dr. James Jackson of Cambridge University. This highly acclaimed lecture, exploring the new capabilities in the detection of active faults through advances in seismology, remote sensing and understanding of earthquake signatures in the landscape, has been published as a Special Issue of volume 5 of the Journal of Earthquake Engineering (copies are available at cost from the SECED Secretariat at [email protected]). SECED is delighted to announce that the Ninth Mallet-Milne Lecture will be presented in May 2003 by Professor Nigel Priestley on the subject of Revisiting Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering.

Another very important activity of SECED during 2001 was the publication of a report by the Research Working Group, led by Professors Roy Severn and Edmund Booth, on the Implementation in the UK of Earthquake Engineering Research. The report arises from extensive consultation with earthquake engineering practitioners and researchers in the United Kingdom as well as discussions with organisations and individuals internationally. The report of the Working Group can be viewed or downloaded from the SECED web site at the following URL: http://www.seced.org.uk/rwp/index.htm.

SECED’s web site at http://www.seced.org.uk continues to be expanded and improved by web master Dr. Andrew Chan. The web site receives more than 100 hits per day on average and as a result of the high profile we receive enquiries regarding earthquake engineering from all over the world, including California! The other public face of SECED, in addition to open technical meetings and the web site, is the SECED Newsletter, which continues to be produced to a high quality, with three or four issues every year reporting on news of the Society and of the profession, including many field reports of earthquakes investigated by SECED members. Dr. Adam Crewe, who has served as

Editor for over 6 years, will now be handing over the responsibility to John Sawyer. Henceforth, the SECED Newsletter will be posted on the web site in addition to being circulated as hard copy. There is also a project, led by Dr. Paul Greening, to post as many back issues of the SECED Newsletter as possible (since its inception in the mid-80’s) on the web site in electronic format.

Following the move of our former National Delegate, Professor Amr Elnashai, to the USA, SECED has elected Dr. Bryan Skipp as the new UK representative to the European Association for Earthquake Engineering. Dr. Skipp will be familiar to many in the EAEE have been a founding member of the Association and a member of the Executive Committee for many of its early years.

Dr. Julian Bommer SECED Chairman 2000-2002

From Spanish Association for Earthquake Engineering (AEIS)

• Volume II of the Proceedings of the First Spanish Conference for Earthquake Engineering (Murcia, 1999) has just been published by AEIS (pp. 373). It contains the reports of the 9 Invited Conferences and Special Theme Sessions that were presented during the Conference. Selling price is 37.86 EURO plus mailing expenses. Interested persons please check with [email protected] to order it.

• The 2nd Ibero-American Conference on Earthquake Engineering (AIBIS-2) was held last October in Madrid, sponsored by AEIS. About 170 people (half of them from Latin America) attended the event. A CD-Rom containing the papers presented at the Conference (over 110) can be ordered from AEIS at the above e-mail. The purchase price is 30 EURO plus mailing expenses.

• Professors Rafael Blazquez and Roberto Leon have been appointed President and Vice-president, respectively, of The Ibero-American Association for Earthquake Engineering (A.I.B.I.S) for the period 2001-2005. The 3rd Ibero-American Conference (AIBIS 3) shall take place in Atlanta during the year 2005. Professor V. Bertero who opened the Madrid Conference was specially honored at the event as Honorary President of AIBIS.

Rafael Blázquez President

SOUTH ICELAND EARTHQUAKES 2000: DAMAGE AND STRONG-

MOTION RECORDINGS INTRODUCTION A damaging South Iceland Earthquake sequence started on 17 June 2000, 15:41, with a magnitude 6.6 earthquake with epicentre in Holt. It was followed by a great seismic activity in the entire South Iceland Seismic Zone, the Hengill Area and the Reykjanes Peninsula. The second earthquake exceeding


42

magnitude 6 in the sequence occurred on 21 June, 00:52. The size was 6.5 and the epicentre was approximately 17 km west of the epicentre of the first event.

Totally the Icelandic Strong-Motion Network recorded 83 events in June 2000 and in the following months. This resulted in 774-ground response time series. The two biggest events, on 17 June and 21 June, were recorded on every station within a radius of 250 km. In these two events 147 ground response time series were recorded. The highest recorded peak ground accelerations in these two biggest events were, respectively, 64% and 84% g, which are among the highest values recorded in the world during the last decade. The surface traces of the causative faults of the earthquakes on 17 and 21 June were approximately 20 and 22 km, respectively. The total damage area containing significantly damaged buildings was approximately 800 km2.

The buildings in the near-source area are mostly low-rise, single-family dwellings and farm buildings. Some of these buildings suffered severe damage, while others resisted the earthquake without visible damage. However, none of the residential buildings collapsed. Approximately 5% of the dwellings, in the near-source area, where judged to be damaged beyond repair and most of them have now be demolished. Fortunately, no significant injuries were reported. DAMAGE The earthquake-induced damage was widespread. However, the major damage was mostly confined to the epicentral region of the two biggest earthquakes. The damage areas lie from north to south around the main causative faults. Thus, the impact area of the first big earthquake can be said to be especially in Holta and Landssveit, but it also stretches somewhat into Rangárvellir. The size of the damage area has been estimated to 440 km2. The impact area of the second big earthquake, on the other hand, is especially in Skeid and on the east side of Flói and Grímsnes, but it also stretches east to Holt. The size of it was about 360 km2.

Most of the damage in the first earthquake occurred in a village named Hella, with regard to the number of both individuals and companies suffering damage. In the latter earthquake, there was also great damage, based on the number of buildings in the epicentral area, but the damage was mostly confined to individual farms, groups of summer cottages and utility and communication systems. The following account is based on [1]. Buildings The buildings most damaged in the earthquakes were older structures particularly. Special mention should be made of houses built on poor foundations, houses constructed of building blocks made of lava aggregate and houses with floating base slabs resting on fill of poor quality, as well as houses with masonry partitions. Also, many unreinforced concrete houses were badly

damaged, especially outbuildings in rural areas. However, it can be generally said that well-constructed wood houses and reinforced concrete houses withstood the earthquakes well, sustaining little or no damage. One can also find houses of masonry construction that withstood the earthquakes or sustained little damage despite great excitation. It often appeared somewhat a matter of chance which houses suffer damage. Equipment and house hold articles Great damage occurred to equipment and objects inside buildings, for both individuals and companies. Damage individuals’ household effects was in many places considerable, and it is worth noting that very heavy objects moved (slided or toppled) out of place, indicating that vertical acceleration was considerable, which is in accordance with measurements of the Earthquake Engineering Research Centre. Agriculture and industry The earthquakes originated in a flourishing agricultural district, and many producers of agricultural products sustained considerable damage. In this regard, damage to lighting installations in greenhouses should be mentioned. The damages may be attributed to the improper finishing of hanging fixtures for the lamps. Damage, both direct and indirect, occurring because of this was considerable in several greenhouses. Comparable damage also occurred in recent earthquakes originating in Hellisheidi in 1997 and 1998. Raisers of furbearing animals suffered considerable damage when cages turned on their side, and animals escaped. Chicken farmers also suffered damage resulting from similar causes. In addition feeding and water systems were disconnected, machines were damaged, and eggs broke. In this context, it should however be mentioned that it was to a great extent lucky that the earthquakes occurred in the summer when most of farmers’ livestock was in the fields and not inside buildings. Many outbuildings in the earthquakes’ regions of origin were greatly damaged, and it is obvious what the consequences would have been for animals housed inside them.

The most noteworthy damage to industrial companies occurred at Samverk Glassworks in Hella. Great damage occurred there to both the inventory and finished panes of glass. Communication structures Some damage occurred to communication structures. Most of the damage occurred to roads in the epicentral regions where cracks ran through pavements, and roads subsided, for example, at bridges. Emergency repairs were carried out immediately after the earthquakes, being completely both swiftly and expediously.

Thjórsá River Bridge was subjected to great strain in both the earthquakes, although especially the latter one, when peak ground acceleration went up to 85% g and differential displacements of supports were excessive. However, it withstood the excitation without


43

considerable damage, since measures had been taken to strengthen the bridge. The most efficient protective part of the strengthening program was to be replacing the original bearings in the bridge with new lead-rubber bearings. Water supply and changes of ground water level Damage to and disruption of water supply systems were common, especially in the first earthquake. In the following earthquakes, utility systems suffered smaller disruption.

In the first earthquake, on 17 June, great damage occurred to the part of the geothermal heating system in Rangárvallasýsla, where the distribution system was made of asbestos pipes. This involved an older part of the conduit between Hella and Raudalækur, on the one hand, and Hella and Djúpidalur, on the other. Fortunately, a new steel pipe was under construction between Hella and Raudalækur. It was not damaged, and its connection was expedited. Hot water was back on in Hella a little over 24 hours after the earthquake. Hot water began to flow into Hvolsvöllur in the wee hours of 19 June. On the other hand, street pipes in Hella were considerably damaged in several places, and about half of the houses in Hella were without hot water for approximately 24 hours after the main line had been fixed. Lyngás between Hella and Raudalækur was also without hot water for approximately two days. In addition, the earthquake put the hot water utility for Vindás and nearby farms out of order. In the earthquake of 21 June, substantial damage was done to the piping systems of Sólheimar in Grímsnes for hot water, cold water and drainage. Also, the main water line between Selfoss and Eyrarbakki broke, but water was restored in the morning.

In both the earthquakes, considerable changes occurred in the water flow in boreholes in the epicentral areas, with the water level either rising or falling. If we look at the fault plane solutions of the two biggest earthquakes we see that the water level changes followed the same patterns as seen on the “beach ball” diagrams. In other words the water level rose in the pressure zones and sank in the tension zones. The changes of water level in boreholes indicated with fair accuracy the epicentres of the two biggest events.

There were examples of pumps in boreholes being flooded and the pumps’ electrical systems being damaged. It is to be expected that it could take some time for the boreholes to recover, but the general belief is that earthquakes, from a long-term perspective, have a positive effect on geothermal areas. In this regard, it can be mentioned that the great geyser Geysir in Haukadalur Valley has been revived to some extent and has erupted rather regularly since the second earthquake occurred. On 13 July, a full eruption of the geyser occurred without help for the first time since 1919. Electrical power supply In the earthquake on 17 June, the electricity went out in Hvolsvöllur, the Eyjafjöll Mountains district, Vík and the

Westman Islands. About 15 minutes passed before electricity was restored in Hvolsvöllur, and it took about two hours to restore electricity to the Westman Islands and Vík. The reason was that the main switch in the substation had to be circumvented as its insulators broke in the earthquake. They are three meters high, made of ceramic material and are perched on three-metre-high pillars. When they broke, a flaming splash of oil ignited dry grass next to a security fence surrounding the substation at Hvolsvöllur. No substantial fire resulted, and it burned itself out. One transformer went out at the Búrfell Power Station and with it one of the six generators. It seems that a sensor broke the current because of shaking, but there was no damage to transformers or machinery. At the same time, electricity went out at one of the Icelandic Aluminium Company Ltd.’s pot rooms and one furnace of the Iceland Alloys Ltd. ferrosilicon plant. Electricity was restored approximately 10 minutes later.

Power lines sagged in the surrounding area of Selfoss and a total of six National Power Company high-voltage masts were damaged in the earthquakes when guy anchors and foundations subsided by up to 20-30 cm. They nevertheless continued to perform their function. Repairs began 21 June and were finished 22 June. Telephone No disruption occurred in the general telephone system, but part of the GSM -system of Iceland Telecom- went out for a short time when the earthquake rumbled through, and a disturbance occurred in part of an exchange in the GSM system in the Breidholt neighbourhood in Reykjavik. This caused some GSM transmitters to drop out, but not others. This disturbance lasted only a few minutes, and at 16:15 all the GSM transmitters in Iceland were back on line. Because of great load in particular plac es, on the other hand, transmitters could not handle all the traffic, especially, in some places in South Iceland and in Reykjavik. Where electricity was lost, telephone exchanges operated on reserve power until the electricity came back on. Th ere were no reports of fibreoptic cables or telephone lines breaking. Rock fall and landslides Rock fall and landslides were very prominent in these earthquakes, and this seems to coincide with previous experience. It is therefore right to draw attention to the risk to inhabited areas stemming from such occurrences and houses that are built too near steep hills where there is a risk of falling rocks and landslides. Fear – role of mass media Some fear and dread seems to have gripped people when the earthquak es occurred. Many left their houses and awaited further developments. The length of time passing after the first earthquake occurred before the mass media issued their first news of the earthquake seems to have increased people’s uncertainty. It is desirable that the Iceland Civil Defence, along with civil


44

defence committees in parishes, issues press release to the State Broadcasting System’s related to such events as quickly as possible. Not more than a quarter of an hour should pass between an event and the presentation of the first announcements about it. The content of such notices does not have to be very substantial to achieve their goal, which is to calm people. It is often enough for people to know that someone is addressing the matter, and that more detailed information will be presented as soon as it is available. The performance of the mass media and civil defence was better in the second earthquake, which is normal.

People’s fear also surfaced in places faraway from the epicentral areas. Examples that may be mentioned include people in the Westman Islands, where there was a great deal of rock falls, and instances in high-rise building in Reykjavik where considerable magnification of vibration occurred. It can be assumed that the acceleration of the top stories was around or more than 20% of g in several places in the first earthquake. In this regard, it can be pointed out that in this earthquake elevators went out of order in several buildings.

Mass media have a tendency to emphasise the reporting news on ground dislocation and damage most, but there is often little discussion of all the structures that are not dam aged or other positive aspects. This can result in the news’ giving an unrealistic picture of the overall effects of earthquakes, which, in turn, can have various negative consequences. In this regard, foreign mass media, among others, can be mentioned. For a while, it was feared that exaggerated news coverage by foreign mass media would have a bad effect on Icelandic tourism, with corresponding financial damage. Undoubtedly, some trips to Iceland were cancelled because of the earthquakes. On the other hand, the fact was that foreign tourism in Iceland increased in June, compared with the previous year.

Regarding tourism, positive aspects may also be pointed out. Iceland’s turbulent nature no doubt plays a part in making the country a more exciting and different destination. Also, it can be mentioned that the great Geysir, which has for many decades been one of the main tourist attractions, became active again following the earthquakes, as was previously mentioned. Accidents involving people No serious accidents occurred in the earthquakes, but many things indicate that luck had a great deal to do with this, for example, the fact that the first earthquake occurred on Iceland’s National Day, 17 June, when many people are gathered outdoors or indoors in well-built meeting houses. There were, however, several minor injuries. Summary Clearly, the earthquakes caused great damage to structures, communications and utility systems as well as household effects. Ground dislocation and subsidence were also considerable in areas in the

vicinity of earthquake origins. Furthermore, the inhabited areas in the western part of Holt and around the Thjórsá River were greatly impacted by the earthquakes. The consequence of this was incremental damage to the buildings that were damaged in the first earthquake. Aftershocks also resulted in damage to structures increasing with time.

When the effect of the earthquakes is assessed, and the destruction following in their wake is examined, it can be said that South Iceland came through amazingly well and better than one would have expected. There are many reasons for this. Here, it should be mentioned that the first earthquake occurred when many people were gathered outdoors or inside in well-built meetinghouses. Also, in the impact area of the latter earthquake, there was no large inhabited area core. It is also of substantial importance that most buildings in the impact area of the earthquakes are low-rise and generally simple in construction and robust. It should also be kept in mind that the great damage stemming from fires in the wake of an earthquake in many places abroad is almost unknown in Iceland. Last but not least, it is also unequivocal that precautionary measures that companies, municipalities and individuals have worked at over the previous decades have produced the desired results of reducing the damage from what it otherwise would have been [2]. MEASUREMENTS The earthquakes were measured by different agencies, both domestically and abroad. Herein only recordings of the Icelandic Strong-Motion Network will be dealt with. The network is operated by University of Iceland, the Earthquake Engineering Recearch Centre, under agreements with the National Power Company, the Public Road Administration, the City Engineer of Reykjavik and the municipalities in South and North Iceland. The network comprises 36 (free field) ground response stations besides arrays in buildings and structures.

The biggest earthquakes were recorded on every station within a radius of about 150 km from the epicentres. The greatest epicentral distance of a recording was, however, about 270 km. In this context it should be kept in mind that the measurement threshold is generally maintained at 0.4 to 0.6% g. Tables 1 and 2 provide an overview of the peak ground acceleration recorded at the most important sites in the earthquakes on 17 and 21 June, 2000, respectively. From the tables, one can see that the acceleration in the near source area was substantial and even greater than one would have expected in earthquakes of this magnitude.

The recordings obtained in these earthquakes are now accessible within the framework of the ISESD project (Internet-Site for European Strong-Motion Data), supported by the European Commission, Research-Directorate General, Environment and Climate Programme [3]. The web site will give access to both uncorrected and corrected three-component


45

Table 1. Overview of peak ground acceleration in the earthquake on 17 June 2000, at 15:40:42, recorded by the Icelandic Strong-Motion Network [1]

Geographical location Peak ground acceleration (% g) Station No Latitude

(°N) Longitude

(°W) Horizontal

(L-axis) Horizontal

(T-axis) Vertical (V-axis)

Epicentral distance

(km)

Distance from fault

(km)

101 63.94 21.00 5.3 7.1 3.0 30.9 30.2

102 64.00 21.19 11.2 11.1 5.2 40.4 40.4

103 64.00 20.47 61.2 46.6 63.6 6.3 5.7

105 63.84 20.39 21.0 46.9 19.5 14.5 2.5

106 63.99 20.26 31.9 34.4 27.7 5.4 4.6 107 63.93 20.65 - - - 14.5 13.2

108 64.05 20.16 12.5 15.8 12.2 13.2 8.7

109 64.07 20.64 37.4 24.4 9.5 17.6 14.7

112 63.94 21.00 7.6 5.5 4.1 31.5 30.8

113 64.00 21.19 9.5 11.2 8.7 40.4 40.4

301 64.10 19.84 8.9 5.6 4.4 29.1 24.1 302 64.20 19.24 1.4 1.6 1.0 60.0 54.7

303 64.19 19.57 2.2 2.4 1.5 45.4 39.2

304 64.16 19.10 3.9 3.4 2.4 64.7 60.5

305 64.09 21.01 3.8 4.7 2.2 33.8 32.3

306 64.10 21.01 6.6 5.0 2.6 34.7 32.9 307 64.17 19.13 1.2 1.1 1.4 63.7 59.2 309 64.19 19.60 3.9 4.2 2.6 45.4 39.1 311 65.23 19.67 0.26 0.33 0.16 142.6 130.7 401 64.14 21.90 3.2 3.9 2.1 77.1 76.2 402 64.13 21.79 4.7 4.7 2.5 71.7 70.8 403 64.08 21.79 3.7 4.4 3.4 69.1 68.9 502 63.93 20.65 14.4 22.1 6.4 14.6 13.5 502 63.93 20.65 36.9 53.0 16.9 14.7 13.6

- 66.13 23.13 0.07 0.08 - 273.8 263.8

strong-motion acceleration records and their corresponding (linear) response spectra, along with information on their seismological, instrumental and site-specific parameters. CONCLUSION This paper has given an account of the South Iceland earthquakes 2000, emphasising the biggest events occurring on 17 and 21 June. The discussion builds primarily on information collected with the Icelandic Strong-Motion Network and data acquired in a field survey.

The effect of the earthquakes is evaluated, based, on the one hand, on field surveys and, on the other, on the above-mentioned recordings and calculations based on them. The findings are that considerable damage occurred to loose objects, equipment and technical systems as well as buildings. The buildings damaged most are especially older buildings made of unreinforced concrete or mortared ‘stone’. In light of how great the measured effects of the earthquakes are, it is nevertheless noteworthy that visible damage should

not be greater than was actually observed. In this regard, on the other hand, it should be kept in mind that hidden damage that was first revealed upon closer examination turned out to be significant. Furthermore, progressive damage induced by settlements of building foundations has also surfaced in the course of time. It is also noteworthy that negligible accidents involving people occurred in the earthquakes, and many factors played a part there.

In these earthquakes, it was plainly revealed how precautionary measures can produce great results. Here, there is special reason to mention Thjórsá River Bridge, which the Public Road Administration had strengthened applying lead rubber bearings designed for the purpose. It can be asserted that without these bearings, the bridge would have been destroyed. Replacement of sensitive asbestos pipes with steel pipes were in progress when the earthquakes occurred. This foresight greatly facilitated restoring hot

Table 2. Overview of peak ground acceleration in the earthquake on 21 June 2000, at 00:51:48, recorded by the Icelandic Strong-Motion Network [1]

Geographical location Peak ground acceleration (% g) Station No Latitude (°N) Longitude

(°W) Horizontal

(L-axis) Horizontal

(T-axis) Vertical (V-axis)

Epicentral distance

(km)

Distance from fault

(km)

101 63.94 21.00 17.9 11.8 6.4 14.0 13.6

102 64.00 21.19 13.0 6.1 4.4 23.6 23.5

103 64.00 20.47 33.2 39.3 35.0 12.1 11.5

105 63.84 20.39 11.2 16.7 7.2 21.3 16.5

106 63.99 20.26 5.2 3.9 2.2 22.0 21.8

107 63.93 20.65 67.7 33.2 54.6 5.6 3.4

108 64.05 20.16 2.1 2.5 3.0 28.2 26.4

109 64.07 20.64 43.5 70.8 41.4 11.6 4.5

112 63.94 21.00 12.7 11.2 6.8 14.7 14.1

113 64.00 21.19 11.6 5.6 6.4 23.5 23.4

301 64.10 19.84 2.6 2.5 1.4 44.7 42.4

302 64.20 19.24 0.7 0.6 0.4 75.7 73.1

303 64.19 19.57 0.9 1.0 0.6 60.5 57.2

304 64.16 19.10 1.8 1.5 0.7 80.9 78.9

305 64.09 21.01 5.3 10.5 4.2 19.4 15.4

306 64.10 21.01 10.7 8.9 6.3 20.5 16.2

307 64.17 19.13 0.9 0.6 0.5 79.8 77.6

309 64.19 19.60 1.1 1.5 0.9 59.1 55.8

311 65.23 19.67 0.43 0.42 0.17 147.3 139.8

401 64.14 21.90 1.6 1.8 0.9 60.8 59.1

402 64.13 21.79 1.0 1.1 0.9 55.5 53.6

403 64.08 21.79 1.2 0.8 0.5 52.5 51.5

502 63.93 20.65 44.9 53.7 27.2 5.3 3.2

502 63.93 20.65 76.6 83.7 41.7 5.3 3.1

- 66.13 23.13 0.08 0.09 - 266.4 259.3

water following the earthquakes. The National Power Company has systematically made efforts to strengthen and bolster the electrical power system and make it more capable of coping with such natural catastrophes. Without these measures, one can assume that greater disruption would have occurred to electricity than actually did. In conclusion, the SEISMIS project for preventive measures and preparedness against earthquakes should be mentioned. It came clearly to light in these earthquakes that simple measures can considerably reduce damage to household effects. It should be inculcated in people in earthquake areas that there is no advanced warning of big earthquakes, and the main reason that people are injured in earthquakes is because they are hit by objects sliding around or falling over. People are therefore encouraged to fasten down objects insofar as possible.

Some details of the South Iceland earthquakes, strong-motion recordings as well as induced damage are to be presented at the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering to be held in London 2002.

Ragnar Sigbjörnsson University of Iceland

REFERENCES 1. Sigbjörnsson R. et al. (2000). Earthquakes in South

Iceland on 17 and 21 June 2000, Selfoss: Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of Iceland.

2. Sigbjörnsson, R. et al. (1998). Earthquake Risk Mitigation in South Iceland, Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, ISBN 90 5410 982 3.

3. Ambraseys, N. N. et al. (2001). Internet-Site for European Strong-Motion Data http://www.isesd.ic.ac.uk/, European Commission,


47

Research-Directorate General, Environment and Climate Programme.

THEMATIC EU-NETWORK SAMCO (STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT

MONITORING AND CONTROL) Structural Assessment, Monitoring and Control has gained importance in our complex technical environment. The European Union/ DG Research appreciates the development and supports the activities in these fields for the benefit of society.

SAMCO focuses on methods for the assessment of the status of existing structures (safety inspection, quality control, improved strategies for maintenance) and on measures to increase the structural safety (also earthquake resistance) and vibration protection. The kick-off meeting was held on 5th October 2001 in Assisi, Italy.

The main goal of the network is the practice oriented presentation of existing knowledge. Working groups will present the State-of-the-Art of Monitoring and Assessment, Structural Control, Whole Life Cost and Risk Management, Micro Zonation and Soil Damping and Environmental Loads.

The network has a homepage and will provide as much as possible relevant links (http://www.samco.org). Further, there will be a database at JRC Ispra. The huge amount of data available shall be collected, sorted and properly stored in the data base at JRC. It shall contain information on already finished projects as well as ongoing activities. Furthermore information on the relevant literature and exemplary projects will be provided. The main innovation is in the free access to dynamic data gained from benchmark tests together with detailed description.

The database should contain many examples of different structures. To make them really useful for practical engineers they should have the following structure: • Description of the structure (type, dimensions, year

of construction, etc.), • Modelling, analysis (FE- and other models, results of

in-situ measurements, etc.), • Results (internal forces, details of design), • Demonstration of simplest acceptable analysis

method, • Publications, references, contacts.

Civil Engineering is still a very conservative discipline. New assessment methods, which include new concepts like measurements (e.g. measurement of dynamic parameters) are not well known by the potential end users. Further, the owners of structures want to see reference projects and also codes as the basis for the application of new methods. Many of them have also problems with the theory behind the new methods. Due to all these facts they do not accept the new methods up to now. SAMCO will provide an End –

User - Forum, where end users and proposers of new technologies will be brought together. The new methods will be demonstrated at workshops, summer academies etc.

SAMCO Workpackage no. 3 will concentrate on Recommendations, Codes and Guidelines. To remove the major obstacle in the application of "new methods", guidelines shall be drafted to form a basis for a public order of such services. Starting point shall be the guideline existing in Germany drafted in 1999. Negotiation with CEN shall be started for the implementation of the guidelines into the European code system.

Workpackage no. 4 will concentrate on the Certification of Methods. Tests have shown, that results of measurements, which were carried out by top- institutions can differ considerably due to different applications or "specialities" of hardware and software. In order to increase the usefulness of measurements and to enable comparable results a calibration of tools and methods is necessary. A Certification System has to be established, which should be finally implemented in every European country.

Workpackage no. 5 is devoted to Benchmark Tests. The main innovation is in the free access to dynamic data gained from benchmark tests together with a detailed description. The benchmark tests will provide uninterrupted data over a period of 2 years. A couple of major structures shall be instrumented and monitored. Among the candidates is the highest building in Europe- the Commerzbank in Frankfurt, one of the highest steel- bridges - the Europabridge in Austria, a cable-stayed bridge in France and other objects of interest. The possibility to gain these data has been proven to be one of the most attractive features of the Network.

Workpackage no. 7 is concentrated on Dissemination of Information. This comprises the use of the data base where actively information shall be sent out to stimulate its use. Furthermore the right connection to the relevant information shall be provided on request. An electronic journal to be developed under this task shall be distributed as wide as possible. It shall report on the activities of the Network as well as ongoing European Research Projects. The further activity is devoted to international collaboration. This comprises a representation of the Network at international conferences and co-ordination meetings to major activities outside of Europe.

Workpackage no. 9 is devoted to Practical Bridge Management. It is thought to interface the other WPs because its aim is to finalize and organize the knowledge and specific tools, available in the SAMCO network, in such a way that, filtered by the end-user point of view, they will result in practical guidelines and criteria to serve the purposes and needs of the management of bridges.


48

The first SAMCO Workshop will be held during the Third World Conference on Structural Control, Como, Italy, 7 – 12 April 2002.

The core of the network consists of 20 partners (see homepage). 8 of them are also members of the Steering Committee. At the moment about 40 working members and end-user members get their contracts. The network will be kept always as open as possible. Interested institutions and individuals are invited to contact the network – coordinator Dr. Helmut Wenzel – [email protected].

R. Flesch ADVANCED METHODS FOR ASSESSING THE SE ISMIC

VULNERABILITY OF EXISTING MOTORWAY BRIDGES (VAB) Projects ENV4-CT97-0574 (DG 12 – EHKN)

+ ENV4-CT98-0717 (DG12 – EHKN) Duration: May 1998 – April 2001

Partners: ARSENAL, ÖFPZ ARSENAL Ges.m.b.H, (Arsenal Research), Austria, ENEL Hydro/ ISMES, Italy, ICTP, The Abdus Salam International Center for Theoretical Physics, Italy (ENV4-CT98-0717 (DG12 – EHKN)), SETRA, France UPORTO, Univerdidade do Porto, Portugal, CIMNE, International Centre for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Spain, JRC, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, EU. 1. Original research objectives Recent seismic events all over the world have shown that bridge structures are particularly sensitive to earthquake loading. There are several reasons for such sensitivity. First many existing bridges were designed without adequate consideration for seismic risk. This has resulted in inadequate detailing of confining steel and insufficient shear reinforcement in the bridge piers, insufficient seat length of bearings, and inadequate strength and stiffness of the superstructure-abutment connection. Furthermore, there are many open questions concerning the ductile behaviour of large bridge piers, in particular those with rectangular hollow cross-section. Also, the seismic zonation map of many European countries has been revised recently, prescribing now higher horizontal ground accelerations in several regions. Finally, local soil conditions and the possibility of asynchronous motion at the base of the piers of long bridges are factors which can cause additional difficulties in properly designing irregular bridges.

There is therefore a need for reliable methods for assessing the seismic vulnerability of existing bridges, in particular large and irregular motorway bridges having lifeline character.

The whole project is centred on an Austrian bridge, "Talübergang Warth", which was built 20 years ago.

The bridge was designed for a horizontal acceleration of 0.04 g using the quasi static method. Now, according to the new Austrian seismic code the bridge is situated in zone 4 with a horizontal design acceleration of about 0.1 g. Hence a detailed seismic vulnerability assessment is necessary. 2. Expected deliverables Towards the above objectives, an international team has been set up covering the following disciplinary tasks contributing to the seismic vulnerability issue:

1. Dynamic insitu structural testing to identify the actual bridge properties including soil-structure interaction effects and to characterise the surrounding soil (Task leader ARSENAL). The expected deliverable consisted in the measured dynamic parameters of Warth bridge.

2. Development and calibration (fitting to test results) of numerical models for predicting the linear bridge response (Task leader ISMES). The expected deliverable was the linear model of the bridge, which is very close to reality. It represents the linear behaviour of the bridge deck and the “starting point” of the behaviour of the piers during an earthquake.

3. Numerical modelling for simulating the nonlinear behaviour of bridge piers under severe earthquake loading using damage mechanics concepts (Task leader UPORTO). The expected deliverables were the very detailed non-linear models for the rectangular hollow piers, which are finally also used for the pseudodynamic tests.

4. Physical testing of realistically large bridge piers with rectangular hollow cross section to calibrate numerical models and assess the ductility demand and capacity (Task leader JRC Ispra). The expected deliverables were the development of the continuous PSD testing with non-linear substructuring and asynchronous excitation and its application to Warth bridge.

5. Analysis of the effects on the bridge seismic response of asynchronous motion at the base of bridge piers. The expected deliverable was the computation of realistic synthetic broad-band records, taking into consideration source, path and local effects (Task leader ICTP). This time histories are used for the PSD tests.

6. Development of simplified analysis tools for assessing the vulnerability of complete bridges (Task leader CIMNE). The expected deliverables were simplified models, which are calibrated by the sophisticated “overall” procedure outlined above and which can be used as engineering tools for every day application.

7. Development of retrofitting measures to improve bridge reliability, including an evaluation of intervention costs (Task leader SETRA). The expected deliverable was a guideline for practical application, which should help the bridge owners to


49

select the appropriate method and give also the necessary details for application.

3. Project’s actual outcome Task 1: The in-situ test of bridge Warth showed once

more the efficiency of dynamic in-situ testing. It is obvious that linear models are obtained, which reflect the actual status of the structure including also the influence of the boundary conditions. For the assessment of vulnerability this means the “linear starting point” for further structural modelling. An experienced earthquake engineer can predict the structural locations, where nonlinear mechanism will occur under a severe earthquake and he will consider this non-linearities during the next modelling step. Several possibilities to improve the test technique were shown.

Task 2: Linear modelling is a standard procedure. But still many problems exist for model updating using measurements. The methods available up to now do not cover all civil engineering needs. One promising software is HISTRIDE, but too less experience is available up to now.

Task 3: The development of a refined constitutive model devised for simulating the nonlinear behaviour of reinforced concrete bridge piers (rectangular hollow sections included) was a full success. Comparing the results of investigations with 2D- and 3D variants clearly demonstrated that 2D modeling is sufficient even in the case of rectangular hollow sections. It was found by the calculations of partner UPORTO, that important variations on the longitudinal reinforcement in almost all the piers will force the plastic hinges of the higher piers induced by the seismic loading preferably to occur in correspondence with the cross sections where reinforcement is reduced. This observation was clearly verified by the experiments.

Task 4: The JRC accomplished the objectives of the project programme in what concerns testing of large-scale models of bridge piers and pseudo-dynamic testing of a bridge model using non-linear substructuring, continuous PSD testing and non-synchronous earthquake input motions. This activity represents a step forward in advanced testing techniques. In fact, the PSD tests carried out at ELSA are pioneer at worldwide level.

Task 5: The synthetic signals, to be used as seismic input in a subsequent engineering analysis, have been produced at a very low cost/benefit ratio taking into account a broad range of source characteristics, path and local (geological and geotechnical) conditions. Lateral heterogeneities can produce strong spatial variations in the ground motion even at small length scales, that can be hardly accounted for by stochastical models. A general result of our modelling is that the effect of the differential motion can cause an increment

greater than one unit in the seismic intensity experienced by the bridge, with respect to the average intensity affecting the area where the bridge is built. Different ground motions at the Warth site have been studied, in order to consider the maximum excitation in both longitudinal and transverse direction.

Task 6: CIMNE started work on Task 6 with a detailed bibliographic review to complete a state-of-the-art on the seismic estimation of the vulnerability of bridges. Next a simplified non-linear analysis model to estimate the damage produced by seismic action in this structures was elaborated. Monte Carlo simulations were carried out in order to account for the uncertainties of the seismic input, of the structural dimensions and of the mechanical material properties. Concerning the seismic input, families of artificial time histories were generated using some “mother histories” elaborated with the deterministic procedure used for Task 5.

Task 7: The assessment of the vulnerability and retrofitting of bridges has been presented, based on bibliographical research and engineering experience. The following steps have been looked into: a) The setting of a prioritization scheme, b) The performing of detailed analysis, c) The assessment of the vulnerability of the bridge, d) The application of adequate retrofitting techniques when the capacity of the bridge is not sufficient.

General: Several results are shown for bridge Warth. It is underlined that bridge Warth was designed considering a low seismicity zone with near field earthquakes (energy content only at high frequency ranges). However, similar bridges exist in medium/high seismicity zones with other earthquake scenarios (e.g. Italy, Greece, Portugal, etc.). Numerical simulations of this last situation, with models calibrated from the test results, will demonstrate that the similar structures will reach collapse for earthquake intensities far below the nominal ones.

R. Flesch

LARGE-SCALE FACILITIES PROGRAMME EUROPEAN

COMMUNITY - ACCESSS TO RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURES ACTION OF THE IMPROVING

HUMAN POTENTIAL PROGRAMME The Commission has agreed to provide funded access for researchers to the large shaking tables and reaction-wall facility listed below. Applications for such access from nationals of a Member State or Associated State* are now invited.


50

Applicants with interest in research in earthquake and structural dynamics engineering should apply to the Director of one of the laboratories for consideration by the Management Panel appointed by the Commission. Details should be given of the research proposed and the likely amount of access required. Approved users will receive travel and subsistence costs from the host laboratory. More precise details are available from the Director of each laboratory. Professor Panayotis Gr. CARYDIS National Technical University of Athens, Laboratory for Earthquake Engineering, 157 00 Polytechnioupoli Zografou, Athens, GREECE, Tel: 0030 1 772 1180/1181/1185, Fax: 0030 1 772 1182, e-mail: [email protected], home page: http://www.civil.ntua.gr/earthquake Professor Michel GERADIN Safety in Structural Mechanics Unit, TP 480, ISIS, JRC, 1-21010 Ispra (Va), ITALY, Tel : 0039 0332 789 989, Fax: 0039 0332 789 049, e-mail: [email protected] Dr. Giorgio FRANCHIONI ENEL HYDRO - B.U. ISMES, Via Pastrengo 9, 24068 SERIATE (BG), ITALY, Tel: 0039 035 307 612, Fax: 0039 035 302 999, e-mail: [email protected], home page: http://www.ismes.it Professor Roy T.SEVERN Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, Queens Building, University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK, Tel : 0044 117 928 7708, Fax : 0044 117 928 7783, e-mail: [email protected], Home Page: http://www.cen.bris.ac.uk/civil/eerc

* Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Republic of Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

OBITUARY NOTICE

PROFESSOR DR. AYKUT BARKA 1952 - 2002

We have lost our dearest friend and colleague Prof. Aykut Barka at 5:30 pm on February 1, 2002. His legacy will continue in our hearts and lives. We will never forget you Aykut Barka.

http://atlas.cc.itu.edu.tr/~barka

A Eulogy for Aykut A. Barka Aykut was an internationally honored scientist for so many reasons —the quality and depth of his work; his plain talk to the Turkish public; his tireless efforts to convince the government to confront the potential for an earthquake disaster; his unstinting integrity; and his humor, openness, and selflessness. He embodied the highest calling of science in service to the public. Aykut felt that the public deserved the truth—both what we know and what we don’t know. He worried that the press was unable or unwilling to distinguish authoritative scientific council from the pronouncements of those who seek only to soothe or scare the public. He worked to educate the press to demand to see publications in refereed journals on the topics for which they claimed expertise. He was relentless in his efforts to encourage the government to take action now to reduce the losses in future earthquakes, and he was rarely satisfied with the response. He felt that as a citizen of Turkey and an inhabitant of his beloved Istanbul, he could not face himself if he had not adequately warned the public of the risks they confront. Aykut never saw himself as an intellectual. This despite a magnificent career working at some of the world’s greatest intellectual centers, such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Université de Paris, a long string of honors, and numerous landmark publications. He would have nothing of it, because he felt that this would distance him from people. Rather, he believed that his understanding was made valuable by sharing it—with colleagues, students, civic groups, the government, and the population at large. He neither sought nor enjoyed the limelight of public or media attention, and it came with a heavy price. The envy among some colleagues was palpable, and the time away from his work and family came at a huge cost. But he considered speaking to the press a sacred duty, enabling every person to make an informed decision about his safety. I know of few other scientists who sacrificed so much of his precious research time to make such a public gift. Aykut was passionate about his work. He gained deep insight from close study of the earth’s landscape. He learned how to read the past history of earthquakes from the creases and wrinkles of meadows and ridges. When he realized that many of the villagers who had experienced the great 1939-1944 earthquakes along the North Anatolian fault would soon be gone, he went from village to village along 700 kilometers of the fault, having tea with the elders and letting them lead him to sites where evidence of the earthquakes were uniquely preserved. His published slip distribution for the 12 great earthquakes increased the number of observations by an order of magnitude,


51

enabling stress transfer calculations in which he also participated. In a prescient 17 September 1999 article in Science, Aykut argued that two faults were made more vulnerable by the 17 August 1999 Izmit shock: the Yalova fault to the west, and the Düzce fault to the east. Two months later, the 12 November 1999 M=7.1 Düzce earthquake struck. This accurate and timely warning is simply without peer elsewhere in the world. A daily stream of renowned scientists from all over the world traipsed through Aykut’s cramped office and modest field camps to share in the research with him. Everyone wanted to work with Aykut; everyone wanted to learn from him. Scientific collaboration can often be prickly, with struggles for lead authorship sapping the pleasure of working together. With Aykut these issues never arose. His generosity, humbleness and humor made collaboration both a joy and an adventure. But Aykut’s scientific prestige and the originality of his vision sometimes made him a target for rather pointed and public attacks at international meetings and workshops. Although this deeply upset him, he argued cogently for his views, never lost his temper, and he never took it personally. His students adored him, took care of him, and flourished because of him. They are a precious resource for their nation, and will carry his torch far into this century. Aykut lived modestly, but he was generous to everyone around him. He ran about 2 hours late for every appointment. He slept for just several hours a night. His phones rang every 30 seconds. He rarely answered emails—there were too many. So, one never knew where and when he would show up next, every encounter coming as a surprise. There were always several graduate students, television news crews, and university administrators lined up outside his door. His travel schedule was simply impossible, and constantly in flux. He lovingly maintained his 1972 Peugeot, doing valve jobs at the parking lot at Istanbul Technical University before racing to the airport to fly down the fault, or walking for hours in the middle of the night carrying his radiator, in search of a welder. He loved fresh seafood simply prepared, Turkish carpets, and sailing down the Bosphorous. Most of all, he loved to laugh with friends and family. All of us who knew and worked with Aykut will miss him terribly. But the message of his life’s work is clear: Strive to understand the mystery and hazards of the earth on which we live, and communicate that insight—both the joy of discovery and the risk of disaster—to those most affected.

1 February 2002

Ross S. Stein

U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park, California

FORTHCOMING EVENTS

By EAEE Related Organisations

7-12.4.2002 Third World Conference on Structural Control, Como, Italy, Contact: 3WCSC Organizing Committee, c/o Mrs. Nadia Tansini, A.Volta Cultural Center, Villa Olmo, Via Cantoni 1, 22100 Como, Italy, Fax: +39031573395, e-mail: [email protected]

1-6.9.2002 XXVIII General Assembly of European Seismological Commission, Genoa, Italy, Contact: LOC XXVIII General Assembly ESC, Attn: Dott. S. Solarino, DIPTERIS/sez.Geofisica, Viale Benedetto XV, 5; 16132 Genova, Italy. e-mail: [email protected], http://www.dipteris.unige.it/geofisica/esc2002

9-13.9.2002 Twelfth European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, Unite Kingdom contact Liz Marwood, Tel:+43-171 665 2238, Fax:+43-171 799 1325, e-mail: [email protected], The Society for Earthquake and Civil Engineering Dynamics, The Institution of Civil Engineers, One Great George Street, Westminster, London SW1P 3AA, UK.

Others 7-8.3.2002 Soil Structure Interaction in Urban Civil

Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, Contact: Institute for Geotechnical Engineering, CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland, Tel:+41 1 633 2500, Fax:+41 1 633-1079, e-mail: [email protected]

11-13.3.2002 International Conference on High Performance Structures and Composites, Seville, Spain. Contact: [email protected]; web: www.wessex.ac.uk/conferences/2002/hps02

22-26.4.2002 European Geophysical Society, XXVII General Assembly, Nice, France, Symposium: NH3-03: Risk assessment and mapping: Application of GIS to earthquake vulnerability, risk and disaster management, For Information: www.copernicus.org/EGS/egsga/nice02/nice02.htm

24-26.4.2002 8th Chilean Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Valparaiso, Chile. Universidad Técnica Federico Santa Maria of Valparaíso, Contact: Organising Committee, Casilla110-V, Valparaíso, Chile, Phone: 56-(32) 654388; Fax: 56- (32) 797478 e-mail:[email protected]; http://www.achisina2002.utfsm.cl

28.4-1.5.2002 Seismic Conference on Highways and Bridges, Portland, Oregon, USA, Contact: [email protected]

16-18.5.2002 ITU-Faculty of Mines Symposium on Earth Sciences and Engineering, For Information: http://www.earth.itu.edu.tr


52

27-29.5.2002 Seventh International Conference on Stuctures Under Shock, and Impact, SUSI2002, Montreal, Canada, Contact: Stacey Hobbs, Conference Secretariat , Wessex Institute of Technology, Ashurst Lodge, Ashurst, Southampton, SO40 7AA, UK, Tel:+ 44 (0) 238 029 3223, Fax:+ 44 (0) 238 029 2853, e-mail: [email protected]

30-31.4.2002 ATC-17-2 Seminar on Response Modification Technologies for Performance-Based Seismic Design, Los Angeles. Contact: www.atcouncil.org

3-7.6.2002 Ninth International Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations, Nice, France, Contact: Deep Foundation Institute, 120 Charlotte Place, Third Floor, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ 07632 USA.

10-12.6.2002 3rd International Conference on Composites in Infrastructure, San Francisco, Cal. Contact: www.azicci.org

19-21.6.2002 Third International Conference on Computer Simulation in Risk Analysis and Hazard Mitigation, Sintra, Portugal, Contact: Karen Neal, Wessex Institute of Technology, Ashurst Lodge, Ashurst, Southampton, SO40 7AA, UK, Tel: 44-0-238-029-3223, Fax: 44-0-238-029-2853, e-mail:[email protected] Information: http://www.wessex.ac.uk/conferences

21-25.7.2002 Seventh U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Boston, Massachusetts, Contact: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), 499 14th Street, Suite 320, Oakland, CA 94612-1934 USA, Fax: +1 510 451 5411, e-mail: [email protected]

29.7-3.8.2002 United Engineering Foundation International Conference on High Performance Materials in Bridges, Kona, Hawaii. Contact: Dr. Atorod Azizinamini, 410-472-5106; http://www.engfnd.org

2-5.9.2002 The Fifth European Conference on Structural Dynamics (EURODYN 2002), Munich, Germany, Contact: Conference Secretariat, EURODYN 2002 Secretariat, Lehrstuhl fur Baumechanik, Technische Universitat Munchen, D-80290 Munich, Germany, Tel: 49-89-289-28345, Fax: 49-89-289-28665, e-mail: eurodyn2002@ bv.tum.de

18-20.9.2002 International Workshop on Wave Propagation, Moving Loads, Vibration Reduction (WAVE2002), Okayama University, Japan, Contact: WAVE2002, Okayama University, Dep. of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 3-1-1, Tsushima Naka, Okayama Shi, 700-8530 Japan, Tel:+81 (0)86 251 8862, Fax:+81(0)86 251 8866, e-mail: [email protected],

http://www.civil.okayama-u.ac.jp/?WAVE2002

25-27.9.2002 Fifth International Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, Contact: Dr. Alper Ilki, Istanbul Technic al University, Faculty of

Civil Engineering, Ayazaga, 80626 Istanbul, Turkey, Fax:+90 212 285-6106, e-mail: [email protected],

http://www.ins.itu.edu.tr/ace2002

26-28.9.2002 Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Santa Barbara. Contact: Michael Cockran, 310-207-6638; [email protected]

3-6.10.2002 Hazards 2002 Symposium, Ninth International Symposium on Natural and Human-Made Hazards; Disaster Mitigation in the Perspective of the New Millennium, Antalya, Turkey, Information: http://www.hazards2002.metu.edu.tr

9-12.10.2002 Second Structural Engineers World Congress (SEWC 2002), Yokohama, Japan. Contact: email: [email protected]; web site: sewc2002.gr.jp

20-22.12.2002 11th Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium, Tokyo, Contact: Organizing Committee, The 11th JEES c/o Japanese Geotechnical Society 2-23, Sugayama building, Kanda Awaji-cho, Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 101-0063, Japan, Tel: +81-3-3251-7661, Fax: +81-3-3251-6688, e-mail: [email protected], Information: http://www.jiban.or.jp/organi/bu/chousabu/JEES/JEEShome-j.html

4-6.12.2002 Conference on Advances in Building Technology, Hong Kong, Contact: www.polyu.edu.hk/~fclu/ABT2002

13-15.2.2003 Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. Contact: www.nzsee.org.nz

1.5.2003 Concrete Structures in Seismic Regions, Korfu, Greece, Contact: fib Secretariat, Case Postale 88, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland, Tel: 41-21-693-2747, Fax: 41-21-693-5884, e-mail: [email protected], Information: http://fib.epfl.ch/events

12-14.5.2003 Fourth International Conference on Seismology and Earthquake Engineering (SEE4) Tehran, Iran, Contact: Mohammad Mokhtari, Information: http://www.iiees.ac.ir/

1-4.6.2003 9th North American Masonry Conference, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA, Contact: http://www.masonrysociety.org/ Conferences/9NAMCmain.html

2-5.6.2003 11th International Conference on Wind Engineering (ICWE), Lubbock, TX. Contact: 806-742-3476; [email protected]; www.icwe.ttu.edu.

22-24.9.2003 3rd International Symposium on Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, Lyon, France, Contact: IS Lyon 03, ENTPE/DGCB, Rue Maurice AUDIN, 69518, Vaulx en Velin Cedex, France, Tel: 33-0-472047065 or 33-0-472047286, Fax: 33-0-472047156, e-mail: [email protected], Information: http://islyon03.entpe.fr

December 2001 Volume 20 The Bulletin of the European ... · PDF fileDulácska, Technical...

Documents

Transcript of December 2001 Volume 20 The Bulletin of the European ... · PDF fileDulácska, Technical...