PD 6698 Recommendations For Design To BS EN1998

PD 6698:2009
BSI British Standards

Licensed copy:WSP Management Services, 30/03/2011, Uncontrolled Copy, © BSI
PUBLISHED DOCUMENT
Recommendations for the

design of structures for
earthquake resistance to
BS EN 1998
This publication is not to be regarded as a British Standard.
NO COPYING WITHOUT BSI PERMISSION EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW
raising standards worldwide™

PD 6698:2009 PUBLISHED DOCUMENT
Publishing and copyright information

The BSI copyright notice displayed in this document indicates when the
document was last issued.
© BSI 2009
ISBN 978 0 580 61346 3
ICS 91.120.25
The following BSI reference relates to the work on this standard:

Committee reference B/525
Publication history
First published July 2009
Amendments issued since publication

Date Text affected

PUBLISHED DOCUMENT PD 6698:2009
Contents
Foreword ii
Introduction 1
1 Scope 1
2 Normative references 1
3 Assessing the need for seismic design of structures within
the UK 2
4 Seismic hazard in the UK 3
5 Limit states and choice of associated design ground motions
in the UK 6
6 Choice of response spectrum 6
7 Additional advice specific to BS EN 1998-1: General rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings 7
8 Additional advice specific to BS EN 1998-2: Bridges 12
9 Additional advice specific to BS EN 1998-4: Silos, tanks and
pipelines 16
10 Additional advice specific to BS EN 1998-5: Foundations,

retaining structures and geotechnical considerations –
Assessment of liquefaction 17
11 Additional advice specific to BS EN 1998-6: Towers, masts
and chimneys 18
Annexes
Annex A (informative) List of clauses subject to National Choice in
BS EN 1998-1, BS EN 1998-2, BS EN 1998-4, BS EN 1998-5 and BS EN 1998-6,
with cross-references to relevant (sub)clauses of PD 6698 19
Bibliography 22
List of figures
Figure 1 – Seismic hazard map of 475 year return period Peak Ground
Acceleration (PGA) on rock 4
Figure 2 – Seismic hazard map of 2 500 year return period Peak Ground
Acceleration (PGA) on rock 5
List of tables
Table 1 – Examples of bridges with high consequence of failure
where seismic design might need to be considered 12
Table A.1 – BS EN 1998-1: General rules, seismic actions and rules
for buildings 19
Table A.2 – BS EN 1998-2: Bridges 20
Table A.3 – BS EN 1998-4: Silos, tanks and pipelines 20
Table A.4 – BS EN 1998-5: Foundations, retaining walls and
geotechnical considerations 20
Table A.5 – BS EN 1998-6: Towers, masts and chimneys 21
Summary of pages
This document comprises a front cover, an inside front cover,
pages i to ii, pages 1 to 24, an inside back cover and a back cover.
^Ê -ÊÓääÊ UÊ i
Foreword
Publishing information
This Published Document is published by BSI and came into effect on
31 July 2009. It was prepared by Subcommittee B/525/8, Structures in
seismic regions, under the authority of Technical Committee B/525,
Building and civil engineering structures. A list of organizations
represented on these committees can be obtained on request to their
secretary.
Information about this document

This Published Document is a background paper that gives
non-contradictory complementary information for use in the UK with
the following parts of BS EN 1998, Design of structures for earthquake
resistance, and their UK National Annexes:
UÊ Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings;
UÊ Part 2: Bridges;
UÊ Part 4: Silos, tanks and pipelines;
UÊ Part 5: Foundations, retaining walls and geotechnical
considerations;
UÊ Part 6: Towers, masts and chimneys.
It is not planned to issue a UK National Annex or Published Document
to BS EN 1998-3, Assessment and retrofitting of existing buildings,
because it is considered that little use will be made of this part for
buildings in the UK.
Presentational conventions
The word “should” is used to express recommendations of this
Published Document. The word “may” is used in the text to express
permissibility, e.g. as an alternative to the primary recommendation
of the clause. The word “can” is used to express possibility, e.g. a
consequence of an action or an event.
Contractual and legal considerations

This publication does not purport to include all necessary provisions of
a contract. Users are responsible for its correct application.
Compliance with a Published Document cannot confer immunity from
legal obligations.
iiÊ UÊ ^Ê -ÊÓää
Introduction
When there is a need for guidance on a subject that is not covered
by the Eurocode, a country can publish documents containing
non-contradictory complementary information that supports the
Eurocode. This Published Document provides just such information
and has been cited as a reference in the UK National Annexes
to BS EN 1998-1:2004, BS EN 1998-2:2005, BS EN 1998-4:2006,
BS EN 1998-5:2004 and BS EN 1998-6:2005.
1 Scope
This Published Document provides non-contradictory complementary
information for use in the UK with BS EN 1998-1:2004, BS EN 1998-2:2005,
BS EN 1998-4:2006, BS EN 1998-5:2004 and BS EN 1998-6:2005, and their
UK National Annexes.
This Published Document gives background information and some

additional guidance on the clauses subject to National Choice in these
parts of BS EN 1998.
This document only covers the United Kingdom and does not
consider conditions applicable to British Overseas Territories, where
seismological and other aspects might be very different. It is restricted
to considerations for the design of new structures within the scope
of BS EN 1998-1, BS EN 1998-2, BS EN 1998-4, BS EN 1998-5 and
BS EN 1998-6 to resist seismic actions.
2 Normative references
The following referenced documents are indispensable for the
application of this document. For dated references, only the edition
cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the
referenced document (including any amendments) applies.
BS EN 1990:2002, Eurocode – Basis of structural design
BS EN 1991-1-5:2003, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Part 1-5:
General actions – Thermal actions
BS EN 1998-1:2004, Eurocode 8 – Design of structures for earthquake
resistance – Part 1 General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings
resistance – Part 2 Bridges
resistance – Part 4 Silos, tanks and pipelines
resistance – Part 5 Foundations, retaining walls and geotechnical
considerations
resistance – Part 6 Towers, masts and chimneys
^Ê -ÊÓääÊ UÊ 1
3 Assessing the need for seismic design of

structures within the UK
3.1 Function, location and form of structure

The UK National Forewords to BS EN 1998-1 and BS EN 1998-5 state
the following:
“There are generally no requirements in the UK to consider
seismic loading, and the whole of the UK may be considered an
area of very low seismicity in which the provisions of EN 1998
need not apply. However, certain types of structure, by reason
of their function, location or form, may warrant an explicit
consideration of seismic actions.”
3.2 to 3.4 discuss in turn how the function, location and form of a
structure in the UK affect the need for seismic design.
3.2 Influence of function

For most engineered and non-engineered structures in the UK,
natural hazards, such as wind, flood, ground movements due to
moisture change, and extreme temperatures, pose a substantially
higher risk of injury and economic loss over the lifetime of a structure
than the risk posed by earthquakes. However, in some cases the
function of a structure is such that failure due to very low probability
events, including earthquakes, might need to be considered. At least
four such categories of structure can be distinguished, as follows.
1) Structures where failure poses a large threat of death or injury
to the population. Examples include nuclear power plants and
major dams (both of which are explicitly outside the scope of
BS EN 1998) and certain petrochemical installations, such as liquid
natural gas (LNG) storage tanks and high pressure gas pipelines
(which are within the scope of BS EN 1998).
2) Structures which form part of the national infrastructure and
the loss of which would have large economic consequences. An
example is a major bridge forming a transportation link vital to
the national economy.
3) Structures whose failure would impede the regional and
national ability to deal with a disaster caused by a major
damaging earthquake.
4) Strengthening or upgrading of historic structures forming an
important part of the national heritage.
In many cases, structures could fall into more than one category; for
example, the seismic failure of a busy estuarial bridge might cause
extensive human casualties, affect the regional or national economy
and also impede the flow of disaster relief into the area affected by
the earthquake.
In some cases, UK legislation requires an explicit consideration of
seismic design for certain types of infrastructure. In other cases,
seismic considerations have been widely applied, even in the absence
of legislation, for example in the assessment of major dams and in the
contractual specifications for the design of major bridges. There might
be other cases where the owner of a structure decides that an explicit
seismic design is required for economic or other reasons; the local
2Ê UÊ ^Ê -ÊÓää
level of seismic hazard and the particular sensitivity of the structure

to seismic excitation (as discussed in 3.3 and 3.4) are likely to influence
that decision.
3.3 Influence of location

The location of a structure affects the regional seismic hazard, which
varies significantly across the UK, as discussed in Clause 4; that is,
the earthquake ground motions for a given annual probability of
exceedence are significantly greater in some parts of the UK than others,
although everywhere the hazard is very low by international standards.
Location also affects the local influences on seismic hazard; in
particular, the effect of superficial soil deposits in modifying seismic
ground motions.
3.4 Influence of structural form

All structures possess some degree of earthquake resistance, and this

is greatly enhanced by regulatory requirements to provide measures
enhancing robustness, such as peripheral ties in buildings and detailing
to increase ductility, and by the provision of wind resistance. In many
cases, these are considered to provide sufficient protection against
seismic actions in the UK. However, certain features might result in
designs that are satisfactory for resisting wind but are vulnerable to
seismic loading. Examples of such seismically unsatisfactory features in
building structures are open and relatively weak ground storeys, very
heavy roof masses and large eccentricities between centres of mass
and stiffness. Examples for bridges are bridge decks on bearings which
provide poor lateral restraint, and concrete bridge piers which are
poorly confined by transverse reinforcement.
3.5 Decision on seismic design

It is the responsibility of the designer to establish whether statutory or
other considerations require an explicit seismic design. In the absence
of statutory requirements or contractual specifications, structures
classified by BS EN 1990:2002, Table B1, as being in consequence classes
CC1 or CC2 are unlikely to warrant seismic design, provided they are
adequately designed for non-seismic design conditions.
For structures in consequence class CC3, the need for an explicit seismic
design should be considered, although in many cases examination of
the consequences of failure, location and structural form will indicate
that an explicit seismic design is not warranted. Specific advice for the
design of buildings, bridges, and silos, tanks and pipelines is given in
Clauses 7, 8 and 9 respectively.
4 Seismic hazard in the UK

An assessment of the seismic hazard in the UK was carried out at
the British Geological Survey by Musson and Sargeant [1], for the
purposes of preparing the UK National Annex to BS EN 1998-1 and this
Published Document. Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the seismic hazard
maps that resulted from this exercise. Note that Figure 1 corresponds
to the definition of agR in BS EN 1998-1 for the recommended
reference return period of 475 years.
Figure 1 Seismic hazard map of 475 year return period Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) on rock
(redrawn from Musson and Sargeant [1])
Comparison of the peak ground acceleration (PGA) values shown

in Figure 1 with PGA values found worldwide (see, for example,
GSHAP [2]) shows that seismic hazard in the UK is very low by
international standards. The recommended definition of a very low
seismicity region in BS EN 1998-1 is an agR value of less than 0.04 g for
a 475 year return period; application of the Eurocode is not required
in such regions. It can be seen from Figure 1 that only a very small part
of Wales exceeds this recommended value and Musson and Sargeant’s
study [1] found no values exceeding 0.08 g. The zoning of the whole
of the UK as an area of very low seismicity given in the UK National

Forewords to BS EN 1998-1 and BS EN 1998-5 therefore essentially
accords with the definition of very low seismicity recommended by the
Eurocode. It may be observed, however, that the Eurocode provides
an alternative definition of very low seismicity regions as those where
the product agRS (i.e. the design PGA on soil) exceeds 0.05 g; this
represents the PGA at the reference return period after allowing for
the amplifying effects of soil on the bedrock motions. It is likely that
a rather larger area of the UK would exceed the “very low” seismicity
threshold on this definition, but the area would still be relatively small.
Figure 2 Seismic hazard map of 2 500 year return period Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) on rock
(redrawn from Musson and Sargeant [1])
5 Limit states and choice of associated design

ground motions in the UK
Booth and Skipp [3] demonstrate that the values of return periods
and importance factors recommended in the main body of BS EN 1998
are inappropriate for an area of very low seismicity such as the UK,
and are too small for the no-collapse requirement defined in
BS EN 1998-1, 2.1(1)P; therefore, alternative advice is provided in the
UK National Annexes. This is summarized as follows.
In cases where an explicit seismic design is considered warranted for
a consequence class CC3 structure (see 3.5), it is recommended that
the mapped acceleration values of Figure 2 for a 2 500 year return
period are used for selection of the design PGA ag, where ag = γI·agR
[ag, γI and agR are defined in BS EN 1998-1, 3.2.1(3)]. Effectively, the
return period TNCR is taken as 2 500 years, and the importance factor
γI is taken as 1,0. A return period of 2 500 years for the design motions
for CC3 is judged sufficiently conservative for most CC3 structures.

Since the lifetime reliability is fairly insensitive to the design life when
considering such long return periods, it is recommended that the same
return period is used for structures with design lives ranging from
50 years (typical for buildings) to 120 years (typical for UK bridges).
Alternatively, values of the design PGA ag = γI·agR may be selected
by carrying out a site-specific hazard analysis. The return period
associated with the parameter ag in this analysis should be chosen
accounting for the function and consequences of failure of the facility
involved. A site-specific hazard analysis enables account to be taken
of local influences on PGA that are not accommodated in Figure 2. It
is also likely to produce a more realistic response spectrum shape than
the standard shapes recommended by BS EN 1998-1, as discussed in
Clause 6. Site-specific hazard analysis is recommended for structures
and facilities, the failure of which would have very significant regional
or national consequences for the population or the environment.
Conversely, the seismic design motions recommended in the main
body of BS EN 1998 are inappropriately high for the damage limitation
requirement in areas of very low seismicity. This limit state is unlikely to
govern in the UK and may be neglected. However, it is recommended
that the drift limits specified for buildings in BS EN 1998-1, 4.4.3.2,
should still be checked as part of the seismic design, since excessive
deflection, as well as excessive strength and ductility demand, could
affect the no-collapse limit state.
6 Choice of response spectrum
6.1 Introduction
BS EN 1998-1, Clause 3, recommends response spectrum shapes, the
ordinates of which are multiplied by the design PGA ag to produce
a design spectrum. Where ag has been selected from Figure 2, as
discussed in Clause 5, a response spectrum shape is needed to define a
response spectrum for design purposes. The shapes recommended by
BS EN 1998-1, Clause 3, depend on the profile of the soil underlying
the site in question. 6.2 and 6.3 discuss the appropriateness for UK
conditions of the soil profiles and the corresponding spectral shapes
recommended by BS EN 1998-1.
6.2 Soil profiles in the UK

Booth and Skipp [3] provide advice on the appropriateness to the UK
of the standard soil profiles given in BS EN 1998-1, Table 3.1.
6.3 Horizontal elastic response spectra in the UK

The UK National Annex to BS EN 1998-1 states that in the UK the
parameters defining standard shapes for horizontal spectra in
BS EN 1998-1, 3.1.2(2), for Type 2 earthquakes may be used, but
advises reference to this Published Document.
Booth and Skipp [3] discuss the appropriateness to the UK of the
Type 2 spectral shapes recommended in BS EN 1998-1. They note that
the spectral shapes, particularly for sites underlain by soft soils, are
subject to large uncertainties. Therefore, it is recommended that a
site-specific seismic hazard analysis is conducted to establish more
reliable design spectra for structures and facilities, the failure of which
would have very significant regional or national consequences for the

population or the environment.
6.4 Vertical elastic response spectra in the UK

In many cases, explicit consideration of vertical seismic ground
motions is not required by BS EN 1998-1, and in the UK the load
factors on gravity loads will usually be sufficient to ensure these
effects are adequately catered for. The UK National Annex to
BS EN 1998-1 does not provide values for the parameters defining
standard shapes for vertical spectra in BS EN 1998-1, 3.2.2.3(1)P. It
advises that, in cases where explicit design for vertical motions is
required, the recommended values in BS EN 1998-1, Table 3.4, are
used, assuming a Type 2 spectrum.
7 Additional advice specific to BS EN 1998-1:

General rules, seismic actions and rules
for buildings
7.1 Recommendation on the need for seismic design

of buildings
7.1.1 General
It is suggested that seismic design is not required for buildings
classified by BS EN 1990:2002, Table B1, as being in consequence
class CC1 or CC2. Following the discussion of 3.5, buildings classified
as consequence class CC3 do not necessarily require explicit seismic
design, but should be assessed to see if that need applies.
Booth and Skipp [3] propose a screening procedure for establishing
whether CC3 buildings warrant an explicit seismic design, and outline
suggested methods of preliminary and final design in cases where
it is found to be warranted. Consequence class CC3 corresponds to
importance classes 3 and 4 in BS EN 1998-1 and other Eurocodes.
7.1.2 Domestic buildings up to five storeys

It is unlikely that new, low-rise domestic buildings in the UK require
an explicit seismic design. Features of such buildings potentially
vulnerable to seismic activity are discussed in Booth and Skipp [3].
See also 7.9.
7.2 Need for additional ground investigations

Booth and Skipp [3] discuss the extent to which additional ground
investigations might be needed for seismic design purposes, beyond
those needed for non-seismic considerations.
7.3 Defining centres of stiffness and torsional radius

The centre of stiffness and torsional radius have to be defined in order
to check whether a building structure is “regular” in plan. Irregularity
in plan results in undesirable torsional response during earthquakes.

In a building where the lateral force resisting system consists of a
combination of two dissimilar types, such as shear walls combined with
moment-resisting frames, the centre of stiffness becomes ill-defined.
IStructE/AFPS [4] provides advice and proposes methods for checking
plan regularity.
7.4 Geographical limits on ductility classes

As described in Clause 4, the whole of the UK is an area of very low
seismicity, characterized by earthquakes of low energy release, short
duration and relatively low amplitude of ground motions in the
epicentral area. Where it is assessed that an explicit seismic design
is warranted, as discussed in 3.5, in most cases it will be sufficient
to design to the requirements of Ductility Class Low (DCL) without
specific measures to ensure dissipative behaviour (i.e. ductile
performance after the formation of plastic yielding mechanisms
within the structure). In general, design to DCL only requires checks
on strength and deflections under seismic actions, without the need
for seismic detailing or other seismic checks.
However, some highly critical facilities in the UK could also require a
demonstration that performance is acceptable in events beyond the
design basis. One way of achieving this is to provide some degree
of dissipative performance, for example by adopting some of the
seismic detailing provisions required by BS EN 1998-1 for Ductility Class
Medium (DCM) or Ductility Class High (DCH) structures.
7.5 Specific issues relating to concrete building structures

The UK National Annex to BS EN 1998-1 generally adopts the
recommended values, with some minor modifications based on
European and other practice. Further discussion is provided by Booth
and Skipp [3].
7.6 Specific issues relating to steel building structures
7.6.1 General
Instances where the UK National Annex to BS EN 1998-1 modifies
the recommended values for steel buildings are discussed in the
following subclauses.
7.6.2 Upper limit on q-factor for low-dissipative behaviour

[BS EN 1998-1, 6.1.2(1)]
There is extensive evidence that steel buildings designed to modern
non-seismic codes perform well under low levels of earthquake
loading. In view of the short duration of design events in the UK,
even for return periods as long as 10 000 years, the upper limit on
q-factor allowed by BS EN 1998-1 (i.e. q = 2) is recommended for
low-dissipative (DCL) design. This is because the short duration limits
low-cycle fatigue effects, which are particularly important for the

seismic performance of steel structures.
Note that if q = 2, rather than 1,5, is adopted for a DCL design,
BS EN 1998-1 makes one additional recommendation. This is that
cross-sectional class 4 members are not allowed as primary seismic
elements (i.e. those which contribute to design seismic resistance),
whereas they are permitted for q = 1,5 [see BS EN 1998-1, 6.1.2(3)]. In
other respects, design for DCL can follow entirely the requirements of
BS EN 1993, without the need to consider other parts of BS EN 1998-1,
Clause 6.
7.6.3 Requirements for fracture toughness and through

thickness properties in the seismic design situation
[BS EN 1998-1, 6.2(7)]
Refer to IStructE/AFPS [4] for advice on when the requirements relating
to steel material ductility might need to be supplemented for the seismic
design case.
7.6.4 Design of steel connections [BS EN 1998-1, 6.5.5(7)]

The design of steel connections in dissipative structures is crucial to
satisfactory performance, particularly for unbraced moment-resisting
frames. However, BS EN 1998-1 mainly provides generic advice rather
than detailed rules. Further information on connection design is
provided by IStructE/AFPS [4].
7.6.5 Residual post-buckling resistance of diagonal braces

[BS EN 1998-1, 6.7.4(2)]
In dissipative V-braced frames, the horizontal brace is subject to
an out-of-balance vertical force when the compression diagonal
brace buckles. BS EN 1998-1 requires this vertical force to be resisted
by the horizontal brace, and recommends that the force should
be estimated assuming that the post-buckling resistance of the
compression brace is a ratio γpb = 0,3 of its design yield strength in
tension. This could overestimate the residual load for slender braces,
and underestimate it for stocky braces. The UK National Annex
therefore proposes the following.
γ *Nb,Rd λ ( )
γ pb = pb
Npl,Rd
Nb,Rd = design buckling resistance of diagonal brace

Npl,Rd = design resistance in tension of diagonal brace
λ = normalized slenderness ratio of diagonal brace
γpb* = 0,7 for q G 2
γpb* = 0,3 for q H 5
For 2 G q G 5, γpb* = 0,3 may be conservatively assumed, or some
other appropriate assumption may be made. See Elghazouli [5]
and Goggins et al [6] for the research on which this advice is based.
IStructE/AFPS [4] gives further information.
7.7 Specific issues relating to steel/concrete composite

building structures
Generally, the recommended values are adopted; where appropriate,
refer to the discussion in 7.6.
7.8 Specific issues relating to timber building structures

The only issue of National Choice relating to timber building structures
is the possibility of placing geographical limits on the use of the various
ductility classes, and no such limits are appropriate for the UK.
It may be observed that q-factors exceeding 3 for Ductility Class DCH
timber structures are based on sparse experimental data, and might
need to be confirmed by testing.
7.9 Specific issues relating to masonry building structures
7.9.1 Material specification [BS EN 1998-1, 9.2.2(1) and 9.2.3(1)]

Booth and Skipp [3] present evidence that low-rise domestic masonry
buildings conforming to current Building Regulations [7, 8 and 9]
have a low risk of damage from seismic actions in the UK. Therefore,
the UK National Annex to BS EN 1998-1 proposes that no modification
to the material specification for non-seismic design situations is
appropriate if seismic actions need to be considered in the UK.
7.9.2 Perpend joints [BS EN 1998-1, 9.2.4(1)]

The UK National Annex to BS EN 1998-1 permits fully grouted or
mechanically interlocked perpend joints for seismic resistance, but
requires ungrouted perpend joints to be validated before seismic
resistance can be assumed. The nature of the perpend joints affects the
seismic resistance of masonry walls, particularly for out-of-plane loading.
7.9.3 Minimum thickness of unreinforced masonry

[BS EN 1998-1, 9.3(2)]
The minimum thickness of 170 mm recommended by BS EN 1998-1 for
low seismicity areas is adopted in the UK National Annex; however,
a lower minimum thickness might be satisfactory given the very low
seismicity in the UK and the associated short duration of earthquakes.
See also, however, 7.9.4.
7.9.4 Maximum ground acceleration for the use of unreinforced

masonry [BS EN 1998-1, 9.3(3)]
The UK National Annex to BS EN 1998-1 permits the use of
unreinforced masonry for ground accelerations up to 0,25 g, which
is somewhat greater than the value of 0,2 g recommended by
BS EN 1998-1. This may be justified by the very short duration of UK
events, even at long return periods. A PGA of 0,25 g would only be
likely in the UK for very long return periods, exceeding 5 000 years.
If an unreinforced masonry building were required to achieve the
“no-collapse” performance level, as defined in BS EN 1998-1, 2.1(1)P,
then a minimum thickness of unreinforced masonry of at least 240 mm
would most likely be required.
7.9.5 q-factors in masonry buildings [BS EN 1998-1, 9.3(4)]

In the UK National Annex to BS EN 1998-1, the q-factor for
unreinforced masonry buildings conforming only to BS EN 1996-1
has been increased from the recommended value of 1,5 to 2,0. This is
because of the inherent resistance of masonry construction in current
UK practice, as discussed by Booth and Skipp [3], and the very short
duration of UK earthquakes.
No data have been found on masonry systems providing enhanced
ductility, and the UK National Annex therefore recommends that the
appropriate q-factor should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
7.9.6 Geometric requirements for masonry shear walls

[BS EN 1998-1, 9.5.1(5)]
The values recommended by BS EN 1998-1 are adopted by the
UK National Annex, but could be conservative in view of the low levels
of seismicity and short earthquake durations applicable in the UK.
7.9.7 Minimum areas of shear wall for simple design

[BS EN 1998-1, 9.7.2(1)]
There appears to be evidence that the values recommended in
BS EN 1998-1, Table 9.2, are conservative. Pending further research,
the UK National Annex provides no specific advice.
7.10 Specific issues relating to base-isolated structures

[BS EN 1998-1, 10.3(2)P]
Base isolation bearings have to be checked for a displacement equal to γx
times the displacement calculated for the no-collapse limit state. The
recommended value of γx is 1,2. The UK National Annex recommends a
value of 1,5 for buildings. This brings the recommendation into line with
that in BS EN 1998-2 for bridge structures, and also closer to the values
required by US design practice for base-isolated buildings. It allows for

the possibility of greater-than-expected deflection response in the base
isolation bearings, particularly due to long period excitation caused by
unusual site effects.
8 Additional advice specific to

BS EN 1998-2: Bridges
8.1 Seismic design of bridges

There is no need to consider seismic actions for the design of bridges in
consequence classes CC1 and CC2. For bridges in consequence class 3,
the need to design bridges for seismic actions should be considered
on a project-specific basis. Factors to be considered include the safety,
economic, social and environmental consequences of failure, and also
the seismicity of the site. Examples of bridges where the consequences

of failure might be high enough for a seismic design to be considered
are shown in Table 1. Such bridges do not necessarily require explicit
seismic design, but should nevertheless be assessed to see if that need
applies. A consideration of the structural form and vulnerability,
location and consequences of failure might indicate that the seismic
risk and vulnerability are sufficiently low for an explicit seismic design
to not be required (see 3.2 to 3.5). Advice on the design of bridges for
seismic actions, where required, is provided in 8.2 to 8.17.
Table 1 Examples of bridges with high consequence of failure where seismic design might need to
be considered
Factor influencing decision Typical example

Economic impact Bridges where loss of serviceability would have a major regional or
national economic impact
Impact on post-earthquake relief Bridges where loss of serviceability could have a major impact on the
rescue effort or on aid delivery
Historic or cultural importance Strengthening or upgrading of bridges which are an important part
of the national heritage
Structural form (see Note) Bridges that carry more than one level of traffic
Bridges with suspension systems supporting spans over 50 m (see Note)
NOTE Certain types of bridge, including suspension bridges and historic bridges, are not included in the scope
of BS EN 1998-2, so other sources of standards would be needed for their design.
8.2 Design ground motions for bridges

Advice on design ground motions for bridges is provided in
BS EN 1998-2, 2.1, Clause 3 and Annex A.
As recommended in Clause 5 of this Published Document, where an
explicit seismic design is considered warranted, the mapped acceleration
values of Figure 2 for a 2 500 year return period may be used for
selection of the design PGA ag = γI·agR. These values may be used in
conjunction with the spectral shapes recommended in BS EN 1998-1,
Clause 3, as discussed in Clause 6 of this Published Document.
Alternatively, a site-specific hazard analysis may be conducted. In
this case, the value of return period associated with the design
PGA ag = γI·agR and associated spectral shape should be selected

on a project-specific basis, taking into account the function and
consequences of failure of the facility involved. Site-specific hazard
analysis would be appropriate for the selection of design ground
motions for major projects of national significance, including long
span suspension bridges. However, since suspension bridges are
outside the scope of BS EN 1998-2, alternative design procedures
would be needed for such bridges.
Very short return period events are negligible in the UK, and seismic
action during the construction phase need not be considered.
8.3 Simplified analysis applicable to seismic design of

UK bridges [BS EN 1998-2, 2.3.7(1) and 6.5.1(1)P]
Following the recommended procedure in BS EN 1998-2, seismic
design of all bridges in the UK should follow the procedures for
limited ductility/essentially elastic design. This involves the use of a

behaviour factor q G1,5 (see BS EN 1998-2, 2.3.2.3). BS EN 1998-2,
2.3.4, 2.3.5, 5.3, 5.6.3 and Clause 6, do not apply to bridges designed
for limited ductility or elastic response.
8.4 Treatment of seismic actions as accidental

[BS EN 1998-2, 2.2.2(5)]
Damaging earthquakes are rare in the UK, and it is not economically
justified to design bridges in the UK to avoid all damage. Hence,
seismic actions may be treated as accidental in nature. BS EN 1998-2,
2.2.2(3) and (4), may therefore be relaxed to the extent compatible
with allowing the passage of emergency vehicles after the earthquake,
and avoiding the creation of a significant safety threat to users of the
bridge travelling in vehicles at the relevant design speed. Economic
considerations might also arise where the cost of repairing damaged
elements would be considerable; however, design using a behaviour
factor q G 1,5 will generally ensure that significant damage is avoided.
See also 8.8.
8.5 Consideration of near source effects

[BS EN 1998-2, 3.2.2.3]
Seismic hazard in the UK is dominated by events smaller than
magnitude 6,5. Therefore, in accordance with BS EN 1998-2, 3.2.2.3,
near source effects need not be considered.
8.6 Spatial variability of earthquake ground motions

Requirements for consideration of spatial variability of earthquake
ground motions are specified in BS EN 1998-2, 3.3, which also provides
a simplified method of analysis. More sophisticated methods are given
in BS EN 1998-2, Annex D.
In the UK, the effect of spatial variability gives rise to action effects
which are likely to be small compared to those arising from the
assumption of perfectly correlated motions. Where bridges with
continuous decks are founded on approximately uniform soils,
the UK National Annex to BS EN 1998-2 recommends that spatial
variability may be neglected for rock sites and for sites on stiff to very
stiff soils (soil types A, B and C). However, they should be checked for
the looser soil types D and E where the length of continuous bridge
deck exceeds the recommended value of Llim. This is because, in softer
soils, seismic ground motions have relatively longer periods, involving
larger displacements for a given acceleration level, and shorter
wavelengths than apply to stiffer soils. Therefore, where soft soils are
present, differential movements between bridge supports are more
likely to give rise to significant effects.
BS EN 1998-2, 3.3(1)P, requires that all bridges with continuous
decks are checked for spatial variability where they are supported
on more than one ground type. The simplified method proposed in
BS EN 1998-2, 3.3(4) to (7), will usually be adequate, and the more
sophisticated methods given in BS EN 1998-2, Annex D, are unlikely to
be required.
8.7 Simplified analysis for P-delta effects

[BS EN 1998-2, 5.4(1)]

More sophisticated analysis than that recommended may be used to
investigate whether a less conservative estimate of P-delta effects is
appropriate for limited ductility design, corresponding to q G 1,5.
8.8 Extent of damage to elastomeric bearings

[BS EN 1998-2, 6.6.2.3(3)]
Any damage to bearings should not interfere with relief effort after
an earthquake, and should not pose a threat to the safety of people
crossing the bridge in vehicles immediately after an earthquake. See
also 8.4.
More stringent requirements might need to be considered where the
cost of replacement of the bearings is large.
8.9 Seismic displacement at abutments

[BS EN 1998-2, 6.7.3(7)]
The seismic displacement should be limited in order to achieve the
objectives discussed in 8.4.
8.10 Value of control period TD for the design spectrum of

bridges with seismic isolation [BS EN 1998-2, 7.4.1(1)P]
Unless a site-specific hazard analysis has been carried out to demonstrate
otherwise, it is recommended that the value of TD is taken as infinitely
large (i.e. there is no transition from “constant velocity” to “constant
displacement” in the design response spectrum). Further discussion of TD
is given in IStructE/AFPS [4].
8.11 Value of γm for elastomeric bearings

[BS EN 1998-2, 7.6.2(5)]
The recommended value of γm is 1,0 rather than the increased value
of 1,15 recommended in BS EN 1998-2. A proposal was made to
amend the value recommended in BS EN 1998-2 to γm = 1,0, but this
had not been formally approved at the time of publication of this
Published Document.
8.12 Lateral restoring capability of the isolation system

[BS EN 1998-2, 7.7.1(2)]
BS EN 1998-2, 7.7.1(1), provides the principle for limiting residual
displacements in seismic isolation bearings. Implementation
procedures aimed at satisfying BS EN 1998-2, 7.7.1(1), are specified in
BS EN 1998-2, 7.7.1(2). Since the publication of BS EN 1998-2, concerns
have been expressed about the adequacy of these procedures under
all circumstances. Alternative procedures, based on those initially
proposed by Medeot [10], were prepared and recommended for
acceptance by the Eurocode 8 Maintenance Group, but, at the time of
publication of this Published Document, they had not formally been
accepted. It is therefore recommended that specialist advice should be
sought on the adequacy of specific base isolation systems to conform
to the principle set out in BS EN 1998-2, 7.7.1(1).
8.13 Minimum isolator temperature in the seismic design

situation [BS EN 1998-2, J.1(2)]

The equation recommended in BS EN 1998-2 does not seem appropriate
for selecting a minimum temperature to use when selecting upper
bound design properties of elastomeric bearings, i.e. their stiffness and
damping, and a revised form of the equation is proposed.
BS EN 1998-2 gives no recommendation on the maximum temperature
to be used when selecting design properties for elastomeric bearings,
which are less sensitive to maximum temperatures than minimum
temperatures. As a guide, the maximum temperature appropriate for
setting elastomeric bearing lower bound properties may be taken as:
Tmax,b = Tave + ψ2 (Tmax – Tave) – ΔT1
where:
Tmax is the value of the maximum shade air temperature at
the bridge location having an annual probability of 0,0083
(120 year return period) that a higher temperature is recorded,
in accordance with BS EN 1991-1-5:2003, 6.1.3.2, adjusted by
Annex A and its National Annex. Note that an annual probability
other than 120 years may be specified for an individual project,
in which case the adjustment from Annex A should be modified
appropriately.
Tave is the average shade air temperature at the bridge location
throughout the year. In the absence of more precise data, Tave
may be taken as:
Tave = (Tmin + Tmax)/2.
Tmin is the value of the minimum shade air temperature at
the bridge location having an annual probability of 0,0083
(120 year return period) that a lower temperature is recorded,
in accordance with BS EN 1991-1-5:2003, 6.1.3.2, adjusted by
Annex A and its National Annex. As previously noted, a different
annual probability may be specified for an individual project.
ψ2 = 0,50 is the combination factor for thermal actions for seismic
design situation, in accordance with BS EN 1990:2002, Annex A2.
ΔT1 depends on the bridge deck type. Its value may be taken as
equal to that for the calculation of minimum isolator temperature,
as reproduced in the following table.
Value of ΔT1 for the determination of

minimum isolator temperature
Deck Concrete Composite Steel

ΔT1 (°C) 7,5 5,0 –2,5
8.14 λ-factors for commonly used isolators

[BS EN 1998-2, J.2(1)]
For a particular type of elastomeric isolator, whether low damping or
high damping, the λ-factors for ageing and temperature effects may
differ significantly from the guidance values given in BS EN 1998-2, JJ.1.
8.15 Relationship between displacement ductility and

curvature ductility factors of plastic hinges in
concrete piers [BS EN 1998-2, Annex B]

As an alternative to BS EN 1998-2, Annex B, other values may be
obtained from the technical literature. As noted in 8.3, UK bridges will
generally be designed for limited ductility or elastic response, in which
case this annex is not relevant.
8.16 Effective stiffness of reinforced concrete ductile

members [BS EN 1998-2, Annex C]
The advice on effective concrete stiffness given in IStructE/AFPS [4] is
acceptable as an alternative to the use of BS EN 1998-2, Annex C, or
other values may be obtained from the technical literature.
8.17 Probable material properties and plastic hinge

deformation capacities for non-linear analyses
[BS EN 1998-2, Annex E]
As an alternative to BS EN 1998-2, Annex E, other values may be
obtained from the technical literature. As noted in 8.3, UK bridges will
generally be designed for limited ductility or elastic response, in which
case this Annex is not relevant.

Silos, tanks and pipelines
9.1 Recommendation on the need for seismic design of

silos, tanks and pipelines
The design of silos, tanks and pipelines of consequence classes CC1
and CC2 need not consider seismic actions. Consequence classes are
defined in BS EN 1990:2002, Table B.1.
It is recommended that all CC3 silos, tanks and pipelines are assessed on
a project-specific basis to determine whether an explicit consideration
of seismic actions is required. A seismic design should be carried out
for CC3 facilities unless a consideration of the structural form and

vulnerability, location and consequences of failure indicate that seismic
design is not required. The discussion of Clause 3 is relevant.
9.2 Additional requirements for facilities associated

with large risks to the population or environment
[BS EN 1998-4:2006, 1.1(4)]
The regulatory basis for the design of high consequence of failure
facilities within the scope of BS EN 1998-4 in the UK is discussed by
Booth and Skipp [3]. It is recommended that a site-specific hazard
analysis should be carried out for facilities associated with large risks
to the population or environment.
It is recommended that, within the framework of the relevant
regulatory requirements, the provisions of BS EN 1998-4 and its
UK National Annex, together with this Published Document, should
be used for the seismic design of non-refrigerated storage tanks in

the petroleum industry, for cases where there are high consequences
of failure. The use of BS EN 1998-4 is recommended in preference to
the use of those parts of BS EN 14015 which deal with seismic design.
BS EN 1473 refers to the seismic design of LNG tanks, but specifies
BS EN 1998-4 as a normative standard.
9.3 Return periods for design and associated importance

and reduction factors [BS EN 1998-4:2006, 2.1.2(4)P,
and 2.1.4(8)]
As discussed in Clause 5, the design return periods and importance
factors recommended in the main body of BS EN 1998 are inappropriate
for the UK. Facilities assessed as posing a large risk to the population
or environment require a site-specific hazard assessment to establish
appropriate design motions (see 9.1). Other consequence class CC3
facilities may use design PGA ag = γI·agR, taken from the 2 500 year
return figures shown in Figure 2. Note that BS EN 14015 and BS EN 1473
(see 9.2) both specify return periods for seismic design.

Foundations, retaining structures and
geotechnical considerations – Assessment
of liquefaction
It is recommended that the assessment of the liquefaction potential
of soils using BS EN 1998-5 should be carried out taking account of
the additional advice contained in IStructE/AFPS [4]. Liquefaction
assessment is a rapidly developing field and in most cases specialist
advice is required.

Towers, masts and chimneys
11.1 Recommendation on the need for seismic design of

towers, masts and chimneys
The design of category CC1 and CC2 facilities need not consider
seismic actions, but all CC3 facilities should be assessed to determine
whether consideration of seismic actions is required. A seismic design
should be carried out for CC3 facilities unless assessment of the
structural form and vulnerability, location and consequences of failure
indicate that seismic design is not required (see also Clause 3).
11.2 Design ground motions for towers, masts

and chimneys
As indicated in Clause 5, the design return periods and importance

factors recommended in BS EN 1998 are inappropriate for the UK.
Where the 2 500 year return period accelerations shown in Figure 2
are used to define the value of agR, the importance factor γI may
be taken as 1. Where a site-specific hazard analysis is conducted
as an alternative to the use of Figure 2, the value of return period
associated with the design PGA ag = γI·agR should be selected on
a project-specific basis, taking into account the function and the
consequences of failure of the facility involved.
Annex A (informative) List of clauses subject to National Choice in

BS EN 1998-1, BS EN 1998-2, BS EN 1998-4,
BS EN 1998-5 and BS EN 1998-6, with
cross-references to relevant (sub)clauses of
PD 6698
Table A.1 BS EN 1998-1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings
(Sub)clause subject to National Choice PD 6698 (sub)clause

in BS EN 1998-1 giving advice
2.1(1)P 5
2.1(1)P 5
3.1.1(4) 7.2
3.1.2(1) 6
3.2.1(1),(2),(3),(4),(5) 4
3.2.2.1(4), 3.2.2.2(1)P 6.3
3.2.2.3(1)P 6.4
3.2.2.5(4)P None
4.2.3.2(8) 7.3
4.2.4(2)P None
4.2.5(5)P 5
4.3.3.1(4) None
4.3.3.1(8) None
4.4.2.5(2) None
4.4.3.2(2) 5
5.2.1(5) 7.4
5.2.2.2(10) None
5.2.4(1),(3) None
5.4.3.5.2(1) None
5.8.2(3) None
5.8.2(4) None
5.8.2(5) None
5.11.1.3.2(3) None
5.11.1.4 None
5.11.1.5(2) No specific advice, but
Clause 4 is relevant
5.11.3.4(7)e) None
6.1.2(1) 7.4, 7.6.4
6.1.3(1) None
6.2(3) None
6.2(7) 7.6.2
6.5.5(7) 7.6.3
6.7.4(2) 7.6.4
7.1.2(1) 7.4, 7.6.4
7.1.3(1),(3) None
7.1.3(4) None
7.7.2(4) None
8.3(1) 7.4
9.2.1(1) 7.9.1
9.2.2(1) 7.9.1
9.2.3(1) 7.9.1
9.2.4(1) 7.9.2
9.3(2) 7.9.1
9.3(2) 7.9.3
9.3(3) 7.9.4
9.3(4), Table 9.1 7.9.5
9.3(4), Table 9.1 7.9.5
9.5.1(5) 7.9.6
9.6(3) None
9.7.2(1) 7.9.7
9.7.2(2)b None
9.7.2(2)c None
9.7.2(5) None
10.3(2)P 7.10
Table A.2 BS EN 1998-2: Bridges
(Sub)clause subject to National Choice PD 6698 sub(clause)

2.1(3)P 8.2
2.1(4)P 8.1
2.1(6) 8.2
2.2.2(5) 8.4
2.3.5.3(1) None
2.3.6.3(5) None
2.3.7(1) 8.3
3.2.2.3 8.5
3.3(1)P 8.6
3.3(6) None
4.1.2(4)P None
4.1.8(2) None
5.3(4) None
5.4(1) 8.7
5.6.2(2)Pb) None
5.6.3.3(1)Pb) None
6.2.1.4(1)P None
6.5.1(1)P 8.3
6.6.2.3(3) 8.8
6.6.3.2(1)P None
6.7.3(7) 8.9
7.4.1(1)P 8.10
7.6.2(1)P None
7.6.2(5) 8.11
7.7.1(2) 8.12
J.1(2) 8.13
J.2(1) 8.14
Table A.3 BS EN 1998-4: Silos, tanks and pipelines

1.1(4) 9.1
2.1.2(4)P 5
2.1.3(5)P 5
2.1.4(8) 5
2.2(3) 5
2.3.3.3(2)P None
2.5.2(3)P None
3.1(2)P None
4.5.1.3(3) None
4.5.2.3(2)P None
Table A.4 BS EN 1998-5: Foundations, retaining walls and

geotechnical considerations

3.1(3) None
4.1.4(11) 10
5.2(2)c) None
Table A.5 BS EN 1998-6: Towers, masts and chimneys

3.1(1) None
3.5(2) None
4.1(5)P 11.1
4.3.2.1(2) None
4.7.2(1) P None
4.9(4) 11.1
Bibliography
Standards publications
For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated
references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including
any amendments) applies.
BS EN 1473, Installation and equipment for liquefied natural gas –
Design of onshore installations
BS EN 1993, Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures
BS EN 1996-1, Eurocode 6 – Part 1: Design of masonry structures
BS EN 14015, Specification for the design and manufacture of site
built, vertical, cylindrical, flat bottomed, above ground, welded, steel
tanks for the storage of liquids at ambient temperatures and above
BS EN 14620-1:2006, Design and manufacture of site built, vertical,
cylindrical, flat bottomed, above ground, welded, steel tanks for the
storage of refrigerated liquefied gases with operating temperatures
between 0 °C and −165 °C – Part 1: General
Other publications
[1] MUSSON R. and SARGEANT S. Eurocode 8 seismic hazard zoning
maps for the UK. British Geological Survey Seismology And
Geomagnetism Programme Technical Report Cr/07/125. Research
Report for the Institution of Civil Engineers. January 2008.
[2] GIARDINI, D. 1999. The Global Seismic Hazard Assessment
Program (GSHAP) – 1992/1999. Annali di Geofisica, Vol. 42,
957-976. www.seismo.ethz.ch/GSHAP
[3] BOOTH E. and SKIPP B. Establishing the necessity for seismic
design in the UK. Research Report for the Institution of Civil
Engineers. January 2008.
[4] IStructE/AFPS. Manual for the seismic design of steel and concrete
buildings to Eurocode 8. Institution of Structural Engineers,
London. 2009.
[5] ELGHAZOULI, A. Y. “Seismic Design Procedures for Concentrically
Braced Frames”, Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs., Structures and Buildings,
156 (2003), 381-394.
[6] GOGGINS, J. M. BRODERICK, B. M., ELGHAZOULI, A. Y. and
LUCAS, A. S. “Experimental Cyclic Response of Cold-Formed
Hollow Steel Bracing Members”, Engineering Structures, 27(7),
(2005), 977-989.
[7] GREAT BRITAIN: The Building Regulations 2000, as amended,
SI 2000, No. 2531, London: The Stationery Office.
[8] GREAT BRITAIN: The Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations
1990, as amended, SI 1990, No. 2179, London: The Stationery
Office.
[9] NORTHERN IRELAND: The Building Regulations (Northern
Ireland) 2000, SR 2000, No. 389, London: The Stationery Office.
[10] MEDEOT, R: Re-centering capability evaluation of seismic

evaluation systems based on energy concepts. 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C. Canada.
[11] BOOTH E. and SKIPP B. Eurocode 8 and its implications for
UK-based structural engineers. The Structural Engineer, Vol 82/3,
Feb 2004.
PD 6698:2009
This page deliberately left blank

PUBLISHED DOCUMENT
This page deliberately left blank

WB9423_BSI_StandardColCov_noK_AW:BSI FRONT COVERS 5/9/08 12:55 Page 2
British Standards Institution (BSI)

BSI is the independent national body responsible for preparing British Standards.
It presents the UK view on standards in Europe and at the international level.
It is incorporated by Royal Charter.
Revisions Information on standards

British Standards are updated by amendment or revision. Users of British BSI provides a wide range of information on national, European and
Standards should make sure that they possess the latest amendments or international standards through its Library.
editions. Various BSI electronic information services are also available which give
It is the constant aim of BSI to improve the quality of our products and details on all its products and services. Contact the Information Centre.
services. We would be grateful if anyone finding an inaccuracy or Tel: +44 (0)20 8996 7111
ambiguity while using this British Standard would inform the Secretary of Fax: +44 (0)20 8996 7048 Email: info@bsigroup.com
the technical committee responsible, the identity of which can be found
on the inside front cover. Subscribing members of BSI are kept up to date with standards
developments and receive substantial discounts on the purchase price
Tel: +44 (0)20 8996 9000 Fax: +44 (0)20 8996 7400 of standards. For details of these and other benefits contact Membership
BSI offers members an individual updating service called PLUS which Administration.
ensures that subscribers automatically receive the latest editions of Tel: +44 (0)20 8996 7002 Fax: +44 (0)20 8996 7001
standards. Email: membership@bsigroup.com
Information regarding online access to British Standards via British
Buying standards Standards Online can be found at www.bsigroup.com/BSOL
Orders for all BSI, international and foreign standards publications Further information about BSI is available on the BSI website at
should be addressed to BSI Customer Services. www.bsigroup.com
Tel: +44 (0)20 8996 9001 Fax: +44 (0)20 8996 7001
Email: orders@bsigroup.com Copyright
Copyright subsists in all BSI publications. BSI also holds the copyright, in the UK, of the
You may also buy directly using a debit/credit card from the BSI Shop publications of the international standardization bodies. Except as permitted under the
on the website www.bsigroup.com/shop Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 no extract may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
In response to orders for international standards, it is BSI policy to system or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, photocopying, recording or
otherwise – without prior written permission from BSI.
supply the BSI implementation of those that have been published This does not preclude the free use, in the course of implementing the standard of necessary
as British Standards, unless otherwise requested. details such as symbols, and size, type or grade designations. If these details are to be used for
any other purpose than implementation then the prior written permission of BSI must be
obtained. Details and advice can be obtained from the Copyright & Licensing Manager.
Tel: +44 (0)20 8996 7070 Email: copyright@bsigroup.com
BSI Group Headquarters

389 Chiswick High Road London W4 4AL UK
Tel +44 (0)20 8996 9001
Fax +44 (0)20 8996 7001
www.bsigroup.com/standards
raising standards worldwide™

PD 6698 Recommendations For Design To BS EN1998

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PD 6698 Recommendations For Design To BS EN1998

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PD 6698 Recommendations For Design To BS EN1998

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PD 6698:2009

BSI British Standards

Recommendations for the

This publication is not to be regarded as a British Standard.

NO COPYING WITHOUT BSI PERMISSION EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW

raising standards worldwide™

Publishing and copyright information

ISBN 978 0 580 61346 3

The following BSI reference relates to the work on this standard:

Amendments issued since publication

Date Text affected

10 Additional advice speciﬁc to BS EN 1998-5: Foundations,

Information about this document

Contractual and legal considerations

This Published Document gives background information and some

3 Assessing the need for seismic design of

3.1 Function, location and form of structure

3.2 Inﬂuence of function

level of seismic hazard and the particular sensitivity of the structure

3.3 Inﬂuence of location

3.4 Inﬂuence of structural form

All structures possess some degree of earthquake resistance, and this

3.5 Decision on seismic design

4 Seismic hazard in the UK

Comparison of the peak ground acceleration (PGA) values shown

of the UK as an area of very low seismicity given in the UK National

5 Limit states and choice of associated design

for CC3 is judged sufﬁciently conservative for most CC3 structures.

6 Choice of response spectrum

6.2 Soil proﬁles in the UK

6.3 Horizontal elastic response spectra in the UK

would have very signiﬁcant regional or national consequences for the

6.4 Vertical elastic response spectra in the UK

7 Additional advice speciﬁc to BS EN 1998-1:

7.1 Recommendation on the need for seismic design

7.1.2 Domestic buildings up to ﬁve storeys

7.2 Need for additional ground investigations

7.3 Deﬁning centres of stiffness and torsional radius

in plan results in undesirable torsional response during earthquakes.

7.4 Geographical limits on ductility classes

7.5 Speciﬁc issues relating to concrete building structures

7.6 Speciﬁc issues relating to steel building structures

7.6.2 Upper limit on q-factor for low-dissipative behaviour

low-cycle fatigue effects, which are particularly important for the

7.6.3 Requirements for fracture toughness and through

7.6.4 Design of steel connections [BS EN 1998-1, 6.5.5(7)]

7.6.5 Residual post-buckling resistance of diagonal braces

Nb,Rd = design buckling resistance of diagonal brace

IStructE/AFPS [4] gives further information.

7.7 Speciﬁc issues relating to steel/concrete composite

7.8 Speciﬁc issues relating to timber building structures

7.9 Speciﬁc issues relating to masonry building structures

7.9.1 Material speciﬁcation [BS EN 1998-1, 9.2.2(1) and 9.2.3(1)]

7.9.2 Perpend joints [BS EN 1998-1, 9.2.4(1)]

7.9.3 Minimum thickness of unreinforced masonry

7.9.4 Maximum ground acceleration for the use of unreinforced

7.9.5 q-factors in masonry buildings [BS EN 1998-1, 9.3(4)]

7.9.6 Geometric requirements for masonry shear walls

7.9.7 Minimum areas of shear wall for simple design