{"title":"基于欧洲规范8制定马来西亚抗震结构设计标准:挑战与建议","authors":"D. Looi, N. Lam, H. Tsang","doi":"10.3390/standards1020012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In late 2017, the Malaysian National Annex (NA) to Eurocode 8 (EC8) was released and enacted following some 13 years of deliberations and preparations. The authors of this paper aim to use this article to share their experiences and reflections during this period of developing the first national standard for the seismic design of buildings for Malaysia. To begin with, there were major challenges in implementing the 20-year-old EC8 framework for a country so far away from Europe. The first challenge was adapting the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) methodology in a low-to-moderate seismicity region where the paucity of representative seismic data presented a great deal of uncertainties. To address this situation, imposing a minimum level of seismic hazard was recommended. The second challenge was about dealing with the outdated EC8 site classification scheme, which poorly represents the potential effects of soil amplification in certain geological settings. To address this situation, an alternative site classification scheme in which the site natural period is an explicit modelling parameter was introduced. The third challenge was concerned with difficulties generated by the EC8 provisions mandating Ductility Class Medium (DCM) detailing in certain localities where the level of seismic hazard is predicted to exceed a certain threshold. To address this situation, the viable option of using strength to trade off for ductility was recommended, or in cases where ductility design is needed, a simplified set of code-compliant DCM designs was presented. The fourth challenge was about handling the requirements of EC8 that the majority of buildings are to involve dynamic analysis in their structural design when the majority of practising professionals did not have the skills of exercising proper use of the requisite software. To address this situation, a generalized force method was introduced to control the use dynamic analysis in commercial software. It is hoped that, through sharing the lessons learnt, code drafters for the future would be able to find ways of circumventing the multitude of challenges with clear thinking and pragmatism.","PeriodicalId":21933,"journal":{"name":"Standards","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Developing Earthquake-Resistant Structural Design Standard for Malaysia Based on Eurocode 8: Challenges and Recommendations\",\"authors\":\"D. Looi, N. Lam, H. Tsang\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/standards1020012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In late 2017, the Malaysian National Annex (NA) to Eurocode 8 (EC8) was released and enacted following some 13 years of deliberations and preparations. The authors of this paper aim to use this article to share their experiences and reflections during this period of developing the first national standard for the seismic design of buildings for Malaysia. To begin with, there were major challenges in implementing the 20-year-old EC8 framework for a country so far away from Europe. The first challenge was adapting the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) methodology in a low-to-moderate seismicity region where the paucity of representative seismic data presented a great deal of uncertainties. To address this situation, imposing a minimum level of seismic hazard was recommended. The second challenge was about dealing with the outdated EC8 site classification scheme, which poorly represents the potential effects of soil amplification in certain geological settings. To address this situation, an alternative site classification scheme in which the site natural period is an explicit modelling parameter was introduced. The third challenge was concerned with difficulties generated by the EC8 provisions mandating Ductility Class Medium (DCM) detailing in certain localities where the level of seismic hazard is predicted to exceed a certain threshold. To address this situation, the viable option of using strength to trade off for ductility was recommended, or in cases where ductility design is needed, a simplified set of code-compliant DCM designs was presented. The fourth challenge was about handling the requirements of EC8 that the majority of buildings are to involve dynamic analysis in their structural design when the majority of practising professionals did not have the skills of exercising proper use of the requisite software. To address this situation, a generalized force method was introduced to control the use dynamic analysis in commercial software. It is hoped that, through sharing the lessons learnt, code drafters for the future would be able to find ways of circumventing the multitude of challenges with clear thinking and pragmatism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21933,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Standards\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Standards\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/standards1020012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Standards","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/standards1020012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Developing Earthquake-Resistant Structural Design Standard for Malaysia Based on Eurocode 8: Challenges and Recommendations
In late 2017, the Malaysian National Annex (NA) to Eurocode 8 (EC8) was released and enacted following some 13 years of deliberations and preparations. The authors of this paper aim to use this article to share their experiences and reflections during this period of developing the first national standard for the seismic design of buildings for Malaysia. To begin with, there were major challenges in implementing the 20-year-old EC8 framework for a country so far away from Europe. The first challenge was adapting the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) methodology in a low-to-moderate seismicity region where the paucity of representative seismic data presented a great deal of uncertainties. To address this situation, imposing a minimum level of seismic hazard was recommended. The second challenge was about dealing with the outdated EC8 site classification scheme, which poorly represents the potential effects of soil amplification in certain geological settings. To address this situation, an alternative site classification scheme in which the site natural period is an explicit modelling parameter was introduced. The third challenge was concerned with difficulties generated by the EC8 provisions mandating Ductility Class Medium (DCM) detailing in certain localities where the level of seismic hazard is predicted to exceed a certain threshold. To address this situation, the viable option of using strength to trade off for ductility was recommended, or in cases where ductility design is needed, a simplified set of code-compliant DCM designs was presented. The fourth challenge was about handling the requirements of EC8 that the majority of buildings are to involve dynamic analysis in their structural design when the majority of practising professionals did not have the skills of exercising proper use of the requisite software. To address this situation, a generalized force method was introduced to control the use dynamic analysis in commercial software. It is hoped that, through sharing the lessons learnt, code drafters for the future would be able to find ways of circumventing the multitude of challenges with clear thinking and pragmatism.