PRINCIPLES OF THE REVISION OF EUROCODE 8

P. Bisch1
Chairman of CEN/TC250/SC8

1
EGIS Industries, Montreuil, France, [email protected]

Abstract: The objective of this article is to present the main developments of the new generation of Eurocode
8, in terms of evolution of concepts and new subjects covered. The general programme for the 2nd generation
of Eurocodes and the positioning of Eurocode 8 in this program are presented, Part of this program was to
improve consistency between all parts of Eurocodes, an important subject for Eurocode 8, which refers to
many of them. The most important thing in this respect was to align the definitions with those of EN1990. It
was necessary to reorganise the six standards constituting Eurocode 8 to implement a more compact structure
avoiding repetitions. The evolutions of the main concepts (e.g., ductility classes) used are presented, and
some of the new subjects.

1. Introduction
Eurocode 8 (EN1998), dedicated to the design of civil engineering structures in seismic regions, has been
used in Europe since 2004. It was preceded by a pre-standard intended for experimentation, but which did not
have the character of a European standard. It belongs to a series of 58 standards brought together in
Eurocodes, constituting the first generation of European standards for the design of structures.
The Eurocodes were developed within CEN, at the instigation of the European Commission, to provide
common standards for the design of works within the European Free Trade Association, for the proper
functioning of the market.
They aim to provide rules allowing compliance with the structure resistance directives, including fire resistance.
Their final objective is therefore the safety of European citizens, which translates into a probability of failure,
in the socio-economic context of Europe. In the end, these are rules applied by an industry, Construction, so
the rules must be practical and economical. CEN procedures guarantee the participation of all Member States
who so wish through the various Technical Committees.
For Eurocodes (EC) as for all European standards, a periodic survey process allows, for standards in use, to
collect comments resulting from their use. This is the Systematic Review procedure. Furthermore, regarding
the Eurocodes, a need was felt to complete the topics covered to better standardise the types of construction
actually used in Europe. These findings therefore led to a proposal to the Commission for a development
program to move from the first to the second generation of Eurocodes. In addition, for Eurocode 8, it was
necessary to modernise the rules used to take into account the rapid development of knowledge in the field of
Earthquake Engineering.
WCEE2024 Philippe Bisch

2. The second generation of Eurocodes

After a period of programming and exchanges with the Commission, it entrusted CEN with Mandate M/515 for
the development of the second generation of Eurocodes. This program is developed within CEN by the TC250
Technical Committee, in charge of the development and maintenance of Eurocodes. TC250, where all CEN
Members are represented, has a pyramidal structure, the second level of which is made up of the different
types of structures covered; for construction in seismic zones, it is Subcommittee 8 (SC8) which is responsible
for the development of Eurocode 8. Each subcommittee can itself organize itself into working groups (WG),
task groups (TG) or ad hoc groups (AHG).
New materials and new types of works are covered by the new generation, which has led to the creation of
new subcommittees and the development of new Eurocodes or new Eurocode parts.
To enable effective development of the new texts, groups of experts were called upon, the project teams (PT),
chosen through a call for tenders based on their skills. These teams took charge of writing a basic version of
the texts respecting the program described in the Mandate. Their work was funded by the European
Commission.
Once the work of the PTs is completed, it is up to each SC to evolve the texts based on discussions within it
and comments submitted by CEN Members. Finally, a formal enquiry (ENQ) organised by CEN makes it
possible to collect comments from Members on an already well-developed draft text. At the end of the enquiry,
based on the comments received, a final version is prepared and submitted to the final vote (FV). The adoption
rules are like those in force within the EU, but the rule in TC250 is to obtain the best possible consensus.
Once adopted within CEN, each standard is taken care of by the National Standard Bodies for translation and
publication, and development of the National Annex.
Indeed, each Eurocode standard can include national choices, which are essentially safety choices, but can
also allow adaptation to certain local productions. These choices are clearly identified in the European text
and are exclusive; they are the subject of the National Annex (NA) established by each Member. The
Eurocodes do not preclude specific national practices, which may be mentioned in the NA, provided that they
are compatible with the EC rules. They may be the subject of non-contradictory supplementary documents
(NCCI). This phase of national development leads to publication of the transposed standard (the initial
European standard not being distributed), then to a withdrawal of the first generation.
Operational development of the M/515 officially began in January 2015 and the work of the PTs took place in
four phases, completed in 2022. The last FVs are expected to take place in early 2026 and the simultaneous
publication date (DOP) of all standards in Member States is set for 30/09/2027, with a first-generation
withdrawal date (DOW) of 30/03/2028.

3. General guidelines
In its Mandate, the Commission laid down essential rules to be followed by all Eurocode writers:
• The reduction of national parameters (NDP): the NDPs are the choices concerning safety, for example
the partial factors, which is legitimate since this remains the responsibility of the Members; these can,
under certain conditions, be verification procedures, when they are equivalent in terms of compliance
with the principles. But to ultimately achieve total convergence of rules, the Commission has asked to
reduce the number of NDPs, by concentrating them on safety choices, and therefore avoiding “technical”
NDPs.
• The “ease of use” of the Eurocodes, affecting different aspects of use of the texts, from the formulation
of the rules to the circulation between standards. This last aspect is not easy to resolve since the set of
standards covered by the Eurocodes is 58 in the first generation.
Reducing NDP implies that a consensus can emerge on technical choices, to be able to reduce them to safety
choices. At the same time, it was decided not to develop alternative methods with the same field of application.
But we can develop, for example, a general method and a simplified method having a more restricted field of
application. At the current stage, SC8 has achieved the required objective, since, between the two generations,
the number of NDPs has been approximately halved, despite the increase in scope.

2
WCEE2024 Philippe Bisch

It is true that the precise definition by TC250 of the verbs used in the requirements made it possible to clarify
their interpretation and to clearly identify the possibilities for national flexibility:
• “shall” corresponds to a strict obligation, a “principle” in the first generation. It must be respected in all
situations.
• “should “indicates a strong recommendation, which is an obligation in most cases, but which may
exceptionally be subject to deviation. Indeed, the Eurocodes cannot cover all situations, despite their
broad scope. In addition, it may happen that in a country a particular situation, for example the
production of a construction product, does not allow full compliance with a requirement. Such an
alternative is in principle given in the NA, but it can also be decided in a project, for example for a special
structure. In all cases, reasoned justification is required for not applying the rule given by this verb.
• “may “describe a rule that can be used to comply with the Eurocode but is not exclusive. This is generally
a possible rule for applying stricter requirements.
No other wording such as “it is recommended to” is permitted. In Eurocode 8, a lot of work has been done to
identify the three levels of choice and many abusive “shall” have been eliminated. Most rules are indicated by
"should" but whenever it seemed possible without betraying the concepts of the code, permission was used to
provide a "standard" solution to the designer.
The risk associated with seismic situations is all the higher as the hazard is stronger. This is why it is not
necessary to comply with Eurocode 8 in areas of very low seismicity. In addition, it is allowed to develop
simplified rules for certain types of structures in areas of low seismicity, provided that they respect the
principles; it is up to the NA to decline them. This gives great latitude for adaptation in large areas of Europe.
Regarding ease of use, it is clear that this could not concern the overall volume of texts, given the increase in
scope, even if a reduction effort could be made at the level of each individual subject. In fact, this objective
was to be achieved through several means:
• The formulation of the rules, already clarified by the strict use of verbs.
• Consistency of rules between Eurocodes. We must be able to move from one to the other without
contradiction or discontinuity. This obligation was particularly important for Eurocode 8, the seismic
situation being by nature particular and requiring physical behaviour different from current situations,
therefore requiring specific verifications.
• Circulation between the different parts of the same Eurocode, but also between Eurocodes, in particular
through the clarity of cross-references.
• The elimination of alternative procedures.

4. Consistency with EN1990

4.1. Limit states
One of the first actions undertaken when work was started by SC8 was to ensure compliance of the main
definitions with those of EN1990, which gives the general philosophy of the Eurocodes.
The first question is the identification of Limit States. In the first generation, the DL State was not clearly
identified, because it implicitly included safety requirements, while having the appearance of a SLS. The
EN1990 classification was therefore adopted, separating the ULS, namely the NC and SD States (see below),
and the SLS, the DL and OP States. The first concern the safety of people and structures, while the second
concern the use of structures and the protection of property, and may be the subject of national choices,
depending on the type of structure.
The Limit States themselves were not entirely consistent between the different parts of Eurocode 8, neither in
the names nor in the description. It was decided to align the names with those of part 3 devoted to assessment
of existing structures, which had benefited from the developments which had preceded it. Furthermore, at the
request of certain Members, a State of Operability was added, intended to ensure the functioning of certain
Civil Security services in the event of a crisis.
A description of the LSs was added to allow stakeholders to know the objective set by the rules and made it
possible to specify the quantification of the rules:

3
WCEE2024 Philippe Bisch

For Ultimate Limit States (ULS):

• Near-collapse (NC) is defined as a state in which the structure is heavily damaged, with large permanent
drifts, but it retains its vertical load capacity; most ancillary components, where present, have collapsed.
• Significant damage (SD) is defined as a state in which the structure is significantly damaged, possibly
with moderate permanent drifts, but retains its vertical load capacity; the auxiliary components, when
present, are damaged (the partitions and fillings have not yet failed out of plan). The structure is
supposed to be repairable, but in some cases, it is not cost effective to repair it.
NC State verification is required for assessment of existing structures, SD for new ones.
For Serviceability Limit States:
• Damage Limitation (DL) is defined as a state in which the structure is only slightly damaged and is cost
effective to repair, with negligible permanent drifts, undiminished ability to withstand future earthquakes
and structural elements retaining their full strength with a limited reduction in stiffness. Ancillary
components, where present, have only minor damage that can be economically repaired in a cost-
effective manner (partitions and infills are permitted to have distributed cracks).
• Fully operational (OP) is defined as a state in which the structure is only slightly damaged and is cost-
effective to repair, allowing continued operation of the systems hosted by the structure.
The DL state is close to that of the first generation, but it is clearly identified as an SLS. In particular, the
limitation of drift for buildings is given to limit damage to auxiliary elements (elements attached to the structure
but not contributing to its resistance); another limitation of drift is given to ensure plastic stability, at the SD
state. The two SLS correspond to behaviour in the elastic domain. The safety of the structure is generally
ensured by the ULS, so attention can be focused on the functional aspect, in particular for OP, for example on
special provisions for auxiliary elements and equipment, which can lead to limitations on deformation of
structures.
Each LS is associated with a seismic action level to consider, which is a national choice.
4.2. Consequence classes
The other alignment of Eurocode 8 with EN1990 concerns the 1st generation importance classes. There were
four importance classes to which importance factors were associated, amplifiers of the design seismic action.
EN1990 defines consequence classes from CC1 to CC4, the last concerning works with exceptional risk not
covered by the Eurocodes. Ultimately, the precise description of the two series of classes (importance classes
and consequence classes) constitutes an NDP, a choice made by Members in the NA or the regulations. But
reading the description of the structures belonging to these two series of classes showed that they were not
very different. There was obviously a major interest in defining the same classes for all design situations, with
the same definitions and the same contents, the seismic classification not being able to be different in terms
of consequences. The only difficulty was that there were four importance classes, against three consequences
classes. Indeed, Eurocode 8 is regulatory in certain European countries, where the importance classes are
precisely defined in regulatory texts. It was considered that regulatory changes could prove difficult to make in
order to change the description of the classes. But it is allowed in EN1990 to subdivide the consequence
classes; this is therefore what was done for CC3, divided into class CC3a for importance class III and CC3b
for class IV. Ultimately, it is only a modification of terminology, without modification of content, nor possibility
of choice for members.
The importance factor associated with the importance classes has also been modified. It came as a multiplier
of the seismic action, independently of it. The performance factor that replaces it has two components that are
not necessarily multiplicative. Its values are therefore given in a table with two entries: the consequence class
and the seismic action level associated with each LS. This table being an essential safety choice, it is an NDP
that each Member can set at their convenience.
4.3. Concepts for assessment
A third important subject required close coordination between the two SCs in charge of the two Eurocodes:
the assessment of existing structures. TC250 has decided to cover the assessment of existing structures for
all design situations. This resulted in the creation of part 2 of EN1990. This new part, which describes a general
philosophy for assessment, is intended to be the basis for new developments in all Eurocodes, as needed.

4
WCEE2024 Philippe Bisch

But it turns out that Eurocode 8 includes from its origin a part 3 devoted to the assessment and retrofitting of
existing buildings. Given the specificity of the seismic situation, the concepts on which this part is based may
be different from those recommended in EN1990-2. It was therefore necessary to ensure that bridges existed
between the two approaches so that the designer could carry out all the necessary verifications in a seismic
zone, for seismic or non-seismic design situations. However, there is room for progress to improve continuity
between the two standards on this subject, which can be done in the future.

5. The reorganisation
Although there was a solid foundation developed in the pre-standard, the first generation was developed with
the desire to provide an effective solution for engineers for each type of structure. But there was no general
framework fixed in advance in terms of organisation of the texts. This resulted in redundancies, or even (rarely)
provisions that could appear contradictory. However, one of the rules for developing the 2nd generation of
Eurocodes is to avoid repetition. From the start of the work, it was therefore necessary to rethink the
organisation of the six standards constituting Eurocode 8. In particular, the definition of the seismic action and
the general rules of design and analysis are the same for all types of structures.

EN1998-1-1 EN1998-5
GENERAL
Seismic action Geotechnics
RULES
& general
rules

DESIGN OF
NEW EN1998-1-2 EN1998-2 EN1998-4&6
STRUCTURES Buildings Bridges Other
structures

ASSESSMENT
OF EXISTING EN1998-3
STRUCTURES Buildings & bridges

Figure 1. Organisation of Eurocode 8, 2nd generation

It was therefore decided to cut the old part 1 which covered seismic action and the rules for buildings into two
parts and to keep all the general rules in part 1-1. The organisation put in place therefore has three levels
(Figure 1):
• Parts 1-1 (general rules) and 5 (geotechnics) which are called by the other parts constitute the first level.
• The second level covers the different types of new structures.
• The third level covers existing structures and refers to the other levels.
Furthermore, the previous parts 4 and 6 found themselves deprived of all the general rules which were
duplicated there, and it was no longer justified by their volume to make them separate parts, in particular the
old part 6 covering the masts and chimneys. So, all these types of constructions were grouped together in part
4. Finally, the number of standards constituting Eurocode 8 remained at 6.

6. Content of part 1-1

This part (new as a separate standard) covers all principles and methods used in all parts of Eurocode 8, and
the description of the design seismic action. The topics covered in the first part of EN1998-1 of the first
generation are therefore found here.

5
WCEE2024 Philippe Bisch

TC250 decided to give, whenever possible, the same structure to all material Eurocode parts. This alignment
effort was made in Eurocode 8, in particular for the first chapters, whose titles are the same as for the other
Eurocodes. The first are “standard”: foreword, introductions, scope, normative references, definitions, and list
of symbols. Chapter 4 gives the Basis of Design. The following chapters deviate from the standard structure,
considering the specificity of the contents in Eurocode 8 parts.
Chapter 5 deals with seismic action and its representation.
Chapter 6 contains all the general rules for modelling, analysis, and verification. In particular, it deals with anti-
seismic devices covered by the EN15129 standard, no longer only the total isolation described in the first
generation.
Finally, chapter 7 was introduced to give the elastic and ultimate deformation criteria allowing calculations to
be carried out in displacement-based analysis for the usual configurations.
Several normative or informative annexes supplement the main text.

7. Performance objectives and compliance criteria

The main performance objectives are given in part 1-1. They are completed in the different parts to consider
the specificity of the types of structures.
It is first recalled in the introduction to the code that the seismic action considered is not that corresponding to
a specific earthquake, but a conventional action representative of the movements that may occur on the
construction site, allowing the design to be made. Perfect protection is not possible, particularly in this case,
given the random nature of seismic movements. Furthermore, the analysis methods used call on post-elastic
behaviours that are more complicated to model and carry out, which adds to the random nature of the proposed
approach, which must remain economically supportable. We are therefore aiming for a very low probability of
failure, however higher than that accepted in the other Eurocodes. Consequently, it may occur (with a low
probability) that a seismic movement on the site considered could produce more severe effects than those
described by the LSs.
The general objectives set for the design of structures in seismic zones are, considering an appropriate degree
of reliability:
• human lives are protected;
• damage is limited;
• installations important for civil protection remain operational.
The method for providing justification for achieving these objectives is the verification of the structure and its
foundations to the appropriate Limit States, including for auxiliary elements.
To give Members a possibility of homogeneous safety choice for a type of structure, a seismic action index
Sd = d Fa FT Sa,475 was introduced, defined from the seismic action (parameters derived of the hazard, not
detailed here) and a safety parameter d which is an NDP and whose default value is 1. Secondly, seismic
action classes are defined based on variation ranges of the seismic action index, according to table 1.

Seismic action class Range of seismic index

Very low Sd < 1,30 m/s2
Low 1,30 m/s2 £ Sd < 3,25 m/s2
Moderate 3,25 m/s2 £ Sd < 6,50 m/s2
High Sd ³ 6,50 m/s2
Table 1. Seismic action classes
For example, the index can be used to give the limit of use of a type of structure in a given ductility class, the
classes can be used to set a ductility class use. Also, the safety choice can be made by each Member, but as
this choice is unique by d, the homogeneity of effectiveness of the structural choices determined by the code

6
WCEE2024 Philippe Bisch

remains maintained, which makes it possible to avoid distortions of competition by inhomogeneous safety
choice biases.
A completely elastic design remains possible, as the use of ductility may be problematic or superfluous for
certain types of structures. In this case, the force method and associated verifications must be used, the action
effects being calculated with the elastic spectrum. Additional conditions are given in the other parts, depending
on the type of structure and material.
As in the first generation, a distinction is made between the primary elements, which participate in bracing,
and the secondary elements, which only have a (vertical) loading function. Most design rules concern primary
elements, but secondary elements must be verified to continue to perform their loading function.
For new structures, verification of the SD LS is mandatory, NC resistance being implicit and ensured by the
code. The behavioural rule for the design is to ensure the ductility of the primary structure, in particular by
avoiding brittle fractures and unstable mechanisms. This is necessary to cover exceedances of the design
seismic action level while avoiding “cliff effects”. This is done by capacity design rules, which are detailed in
the different parts. To ensure this ductile behaviour, three ductility levels are proposed, and the structures must
belong to one of these classes (except purely elastic design).

8. Seismic action
Mandate M/515 scope for Eurocode 8 includes a component for the seismic action: it was requested to
standardise seismic zoning in Europe. A first task was to make a description of the zones by homogenising
the names and the intervals covered by the seismic areas, parameterised by the spectral acceleration at the
plateau. A second step in this direction is the introduction of hazard maps as informative annexes, on a small
scale, for a return period of 475 years. These maps are only information giving a good idea of the distribution
of earthquakes in Europe, but the definition of precise national maps remains the responsibility of the Members.
Furthermore, for the association between the Limit States and the Consequence Classes, on the one hand,
and the associated seismic levels, on the other hand, Members were given the possibility of choosing return
periods of the design earthquake, or performance factors, the two choices being presented in the form of
tables. This alternative had already been used by certain Member States, although it was not described in the
1st generation.
For the description of seismic action, the representation by elastic spectra is preferred, but series of equivalent
accelerograms can also be used, in particular to make non-linear time history response analysis.
The elastic spectra of the first generation were calibrated in relation to a single parameter, the ground
acceleration ag, but this quantity is not really representative for the analysis of structures, none being infinitely
stiff. This is why two parameters were introduced instead: the acceleration on the plateau of the spectrum,
useful for stiff structures, and that at 1 s, for flexible structures. This makes it possible to better refine the
spectra and the definition has sufficient flexibility to adapt to a particular seismicity. In addition, to easily allow
analysis by a displacement-based method, the elastic spectra are also given in displacements.
Finally, the formulation of the damping correction factor has been modified to allow a better approximation
when using dissipative systems.
A more precise description of the seismic action is the subject of another presentation.

9. Ductility classes
The definition of ductility classes and their number have since the beginning been a subject of debate within
SC8. It was considered during the conversion to improve the ductility L in order to keep only two classes by
removing the H. Finally, SC8 decided to keep three classes. Several arguments led to a fairly thorough review
of the way classes are defined and constructed:
• DC H is often too complicated and ultimately little used, especially in concrete, so there is no point in
keeping it as is.
• There is no real conceptual difference between M and H; the rules are simpler and less restrictive in M
because the ductility demand is lower.

7
WCEE2024 Philippe Bisch

• The clauses were developed without a very clear relationship with the level of seismicity, except the
certainty of properly covering the high seismicity. However, most of the European territory has low or
moderate seismicity where simpler rules may suffice.
• The 1st generation recommends using ductility L only in low seismicity, but on the one hand this limit is
an NDP and, on the other hand, certain countries with areas of high seismicity have not limited its use.
Furthermore, the term “recommends” can no longer be used.
Therefore, the ductility classes have been redefined such that the two ductile classes are better adapted to
the level of seismicity:
• DC1 is an extension of the DCL, where the limitations (by the seismic action index) depend on the type
of structure and the material. The behaviour is quasi-elastic, only the overstrength is considered. Control
of drifts between floors is nevertheless required. With this extension of the limits, a large number of
structures can be built in DC1 in moderate seismicity areas.
• DC2 is built to cover most common structures, in moderate areas. It is not the DCM and must therefore
be considered new. The local overstrength (in deformation) is imposed by design criteria of capacity
and plastic deformation. The overall behaviour is controlled by limiting drifts and 2nd order effects, but
no criterion such as "weak beams - strong columns" is imposed. The wording of the rules is simplified
as much as possible. On the other hand, the use of DC2 is limited for certain types of structures.
• DC3 adds to the DC2 the control of the global plastic mechanism, with the strong column criterion. The
rules are between DCM and DCH, depending on the case. There are no limitations on the use of DC3.
All application conditions are given in the different parts depending on the type of bracing and the material.

10. Seismic analysis methods

It was decided to develop the rules of justification in displacements in parallel with the force method, without a
preference being given to one or the other. This makes it possible to regulate two existing practices and leave
the choice to the designer (for new structures).
The force-based method has undergone some changes compared to the first generation, the main one being
the formulation of the behaviour factor, which is divided into three parts: q = qR qS qD, where qS is the
overstrength factor, fixed at 1,5. qR illustrates the redundancy of the structure and is equal to the ratio au/a1 of
the 1st generation. Finally, qD represents the ductility demand, which depends on the DC concerned. This
decomposition has the advantage of more precise rules, since they can relate separately to qR and qD, and
the physical meaning appears more clearly. For DC1, q reduces to qS. A correction of the behaviour factor is
carried out when the soil-structure interaction is considered, since then the ductility demand is modified in the
structure. The formulation of the design spectrum is modified to take into account the evolution of the elastic
spectra, but the general form is not changed.
The lateral forces method no longer uses simplified formulas for the period. The use of the Rayleigh method,
which is much more reliable and precise, is preferred. In principle this does not present any additional difficulty,
as long as we have a model of the structure.
For multimodal analysis, the combination of modes is the CQC if the modes are close.
There is no other significant modification for the force method. Capacity design affects the calculated effects,
but verifications are carried out with the rules of the other Eurocodes.
The displacement-based method was developed in such a way that it can be used with the same level of
precision as the rules of the other method, without however the concepts already described in the 1st
generation being substantially modified. It was necessary to complete the modelling rules so that the post-
elastic domain is adequately covered, with several types of behaviour being considered. But what is new is
the precision provided in the verification rules:
For brittle mechanisms, the verification is carried out by forces, according to the rules of the Eurocodes, to
avoid entry into the plastic domain.
For ductile mechanisms, the verification is local (not exclusively) and concerns the plastic deformation of critical
#
zones, according to the Formula: 𝛿!" = $ #𝛿% + 𝛼!",' 𝛿()* & where 𝛼!",' is a coefficient limiting the
!",$%,&

8
WCEE2024 Philippe Bisch

deformation d considered in the plastic domain. This coefficient is taken equal to 0,5, unless otherwise provided
for certain types of structure. The SD state therefore corresponds locally to the middle of the plastic domain,
which is judged to comply with the definition given above.
Global criteria on the pushover curve, therefore in displacement, may also be used, particularly for masonry.
On the basis of existing comparative calculations, it was possible to establish correlations between the two
methods making it possible to evaluate the behaviour factors and to compare the two methods, in order to
best ensure their equivalence (Figure 2).

V
Ve = qS qR qDVd = q Vd

Ductile plastic deformation phasis

V2 = qS qRVd
DL SD NC
V1 = qSVd

OP
V d = Fb Progressive yielding phasis

Quasi-elastic phasis

dd d1 dy d2 du dtop

du = q dd = qD d2 = qD qR d1

Figure 2. Comparison between calculation methods (forces and displacements) and positioning of LS
To allow the pushover analysis, it is necessary to have rules making it possible to determine the local
deformations at the elastic limit and ultimate. These rules do not depend on the type of structure, only on the
material and the structural element. This is why they are considered general rules; they are the subject of
Chapter 7, which covers concrete, steel and composite structures and timber. The rules for masonry are given
in parts 1-2 and 3, masonry being developed only for buildings.

11. Main new developments

The modifications made to the first generation are numerous, they are not listed here. Complexity of methods
is inherent to Earthquake Engineering, but there has been an effort to simplify and clarify existing parts of the
texts. On the other hand, this contributed to increasing the overall volume, because it was sometimes
necessary to detail the procedures.
New structures are also covered, to better consider the reality of structural types and meet the designer’s
needs. Among the most important, we can cite (in addition to those already described):

9
WCEE2024 Philippe Bisch

• Partial factors for resistance gRd determined on a unified basis from a single fractile of the resistance
distribution (NDP).
• Spatial model of seismic action.
• Structures equipped with more general anti-seismic devices than isolators.
• Systems with energy dissipation.
• Soil-structure interaction.
• Auxiliary elements and floor spectra.
• Flat slabs (buildings).
• Frames with filling and claddings (buildings).
• Aluminium structures in part 1-2 (buildings).
• Bridges in Part 3 (existing structures).
• Timber structures in parts 2 (bridges) and 3 (assessment of existing structures).

12. References used in this article

CEN (2004). EN 1998-1:2004. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General
rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels.
CEN (2022). prEN1990:2022. Eurocode — Basis of structural and geotechnical design. Comité Européen de
Normalisation, Brussels.
CEN (2024). prEN1998-1-1:2024. Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1-1:
General rules and seismic action. Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels.

10