CONSTRUCTION FIXINGS
Barbara Sorgato secretary to the European Consortium of Anchor Producers
CE marking for anchors for seismic zones coming soon
May’s earthquake in Emilia, Italy, put the spotlight on one of the peculiarities of some European regions: seismicity. Barbara Sorgato of ECAP writes about the implications for CE marking of concrete anchors for use in earthquake vulnerable areas.
T
he European earthquake hazard map shows that the highest earthquake hazard is mainly concentrated in southeastern areas of Europe, e.g. Greece, Italy and Romania. As it is well known, according to the theory of
plate tectonics, most earthquakes occur along the margins of plates, where one plate comes into contact with another, developing shear stresses and accumulating energy that is suddenly released as seismic waves. Such is the case in Emilia – on the basis of the events registered during the last 500 years not considered in the actual code as a particularly high seismic hazard area. The most serious damage caused by this earthquake was the
collapse of several industrial buildings. The connections between slabs and beams or beams and columns (not designed according to seismic design criteria since it was not mandatory) did not resist the seismic action. Therefore, the attention of designers is now focused on
strengthening/reinforcement of the structural elements of industrial buildings, with the use of bi- and tri-dimensional steel connections and related post-installed anchoring systems. The basic questions for designers are about product choice
(“which anchor should I use?”) and its design (“How do I use it?”). Whilst Europe already has a code for the design of structures for earthquake resistance, the Eurocode 8, CE marked anchors for seismic zones are not yet available. The good news is that the CE marking is coming, which will establish extremely strict criteria, to safeguard all European territories, particularly the seismic regions. “Tomorrow is here”, says the Italian song “Domani 21-04-2009”,
composed in the aftermath of Italian earthquake which occured in L’Aquila, in 2009. We hope it also applies to CE marked anchors. Let’s have a look at the present normative situation in Europe regarding anchors for seismic zones.
Anchors (in general) Product
CE marking based on European Technical Approvals (EOTA Guideline: ETAG 001 and related amendments/integrations).
Design
UNI CEN/TS 1992 – 4:2009 (Eurocode).
researches to provide data for the assessment of suitable testing methods. ECAP played its part and commissioned the structural engineering department of the Milan University “Politecnico di Milano” - involved for 10 years in the drafting of EOTA guidelines - with its research.
“ CE marking is coming, which will establish extremely strict criteria, to safeguard all European territories, particularly the seismic regions.”
In the meanwhile, to compensate for the lack of a European Anchors for use in seismic zones
Annex E (“Earthquake”): under discussion since 2007. The document has been finalised and the CE marking will be available soon.
Code under review. The imminent CE marking on anchors for seismic zones will
be an EOTA CE marking, based on an amendment of the EOTA guideline ETAG 001, called Annex E (“Earthquake”). The technical discussions for this CE marking has taken over five years, during which the European Industry commissioned technical
98 Fastener + Fixing Magazine • Issue 76 July 2012
standard or guideline, other seismic certifications are circulating in Europe. The best known is the US certification called ICC-ES (USA Norm: ACI 355.2 based on USA design ACI 318). It is important to mention this certification, as, due to the panic created by the Italian earthquake and to the lack of public information on the pending CE marking, anchors with this certification may be used in structural applications for industrial buildings in seismic zones, whilst, according to the coming CE marking, they are suitable only in specific cases and never for seismicity higher than
“low” (as defined in the EC8). Let’s explain why. It is not strictly a question of products, but
a question of design and of test protocol. When a new norm is introduced, it is common practice to consider other existing codes and certification, and to refer to them with the aim of
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164