Rodriguezmarek Tues 130pm Ven V

TWENTY YEARS AFTER NORTHRIDGE: ENGINEERING LESSONS
Adrian Rodriguez-Marek, Ph.D.

Associate Professor
The Charles E. Via, Jr. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
February 12, 2014
Cat Modeling 2014, Orlando, Florida
Outline

Northridge EQ: event summary Engineering lessons learned

Structural Geotechnical Ground
motions
Progress in hazard assessment in the last 20 years Future trends
A little about myself

Civil Engineer (B.S., M.S., and Ph.D.) Career as a Geotechnical Earthquake Engineer
Ph.D.
topic: Near-Fault Ground Motions (U.C. Berkeley, 2000) Research: Site response, liquefaction, ground motion prediction, seismic hazard analysis
Consulting
Seismic
hazard assessment of nuclear power plants
Thyspunt Siting Project, South Africa Pacific Northwest National Lab and CGS, Hanford, WA
Northridge Earthquake: General Data

Date: 17 January, 1994 Time: 4:30:55 AM (local time) Magnitude: 6.7 (Moment Magnitude) Focal Depth: 19 km Blind-thrust event
From. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1994_01_17.php
From P. Somerville
Event Summary
Engineering Lessons Learned
Progress in Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Northridge Earthquake: Damage

60+ fatalities 9,000 injured 20,000 homeless, 40,000 buildings damaged

red-tagged 7,300 yellow tagged
1,600
20 - 25 Billion dollars in estimated losses (source: USGS)
From. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1996/ofr-96-0263/introduc.htm)
Event Summary
Future Trends
Northridge Earthquake: Damage
Ground motion intensity was high in the near fault, but not beyond design ground motions for most structures Significantly more damage than would be expected for a M 6.7 event
From. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1996/ofr-96-0263/introduc.htm)
Event Summary
Future Trends
Structural Engineering
From Silva (1991)
Engineering Seismology/Ground Motion Engineering

From Silva (1991)
Geotechnical Engineering
From Silva (1991)
Engineering Lessons Learned: Structural Engineering

Northridge was a Structural earthquake Major lessons
Steel structures
Unexpected fractures in moment connections Fractured steel braces in braced frames
Concrete structures
Large deformations in floor diaphragms Brittle columns
Known vulnerabilities that were exposed

Soft Story collapse, masonry structures Significant damage led to large losses
Non-structural components
Event Summary
Engineering Lessons Learned : Structural
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Engineering Lessons Learned: Structural Engineering

Northridge was a Structural earthquake Major lessons
Steel structures
Unexpected fractures in moment connections Fractured steel braces in braced frames
Concrete structures
Large deformations in floor diaphragms Brittle columns
Known vulnerabilities that were exposed

Soft Story collapse, masonry structures Significant damage led to large losses
Non-structural components
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Engineering Lessons Learned: Steel Structures
Unexpected fractures in steel moment frame beam-to column connections

Primary
problem: brittle fractures of the weld between beam flange and column flange
Sketch courtesy of T. Sabol, Englekirk Institutional, Inc

Event Summary Engineering Lessons Learned : Structural Hazard Assessment Future Trends
Unexpected fractures in steel moment frame beam-to column connections
From Forell.com and Michael Engelhardt
From PropertyRisk.com
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Unexpected fractures in steel moment frame beam-to column connections: Causes

NOT:
excessive ground motions
Many fractures occurred in buildings that should have responded elastically (Mahin, 2014) Most buildings were stronger than minimum code forces
Design
issues: connections not properly tested, deep steel
beams Construction issues: poor welding quality Inspection problems

Major research initiatives: FEMA/SAC Steel Project
From S. Mahin, Northridge at 20 Symposium


20
years later: resulting changes
FEMA/SAC research reports
FEMA-350: Design Criteria for New Buildings FEMA-351: Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings FEMA-352: Recommended Post-earthquake Evaluation and Repair FEMA-353: Quality Assurance Guidelines FEMA-354: Policy Guide for Steel Frame Construction
Improve quality of welding materials AISC Seismic provisions: expanded AISC Connection prequalification standard
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Engineering Lessons Learned: Concrete Structures
Large deformations in long-span diaphragms

Excessive
diaphragm flexibility Code level diaphragm forces were several times too small
Northridge Fashion Center Parking garage (EERI Recon report) Event Summary
CSUN parking structure in 1994 (EERI Recon report)

Hazard Assessment Future Trends
Engineering Lessons Learned: Concrete Structures
NEES project: Seismic Design Methodology for Precast Building Diaphragms (U. Arizona, UCSD, U. Buffalo, Lehigh U.)
Fleischman, R. B.; Naito, C.; Restrepo, J.; Sause R.; and Ghosh, S. K., "Seismic Design Methodology for Precast Concrete Diaphragms, Part 1: Design Framework," PCI JOURNAL, 2005 Rodriguez, M.E., Restrepo, J. and Blandon, Seismic Design Forces for Rigid Floor Diaphragms in Precast Concrete Building Structures, JSE, 2007.
Actual diaphragm forces far exceed ASCE 7-05 specified diaphragm forces BSSC Provisions Updated Committee on diaphragm forces
Engineering Lessons Learned : Structural Hazard Assessment Future Trends
Event Summary
Engineering Lessons Learned: Non-Structural Components
Olive View Hospital
Near elastic response Ground accelerations were amplified (0.91g free field and 2.31g at roof (Celebi 1997, JSE) Removed from use due to extensive nonstructural damage (sprinklers, light fixtures, etc)
Engineering Lessons Learned : Structural Hazard Assessment Future Trends
Event Summary
Recognition of large damages/cost due to non-structural components NEES Project, UNR (http://www.nees-nonstructural.org/)
Response of the nonstructural components, as part of a system under large drifts/accelerations. Interactions within and between the nonstructural components. Interactions between the components and the structure. Effects of structural yielding on response of the nonstructural components.
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Damages resulting from the Northridge EQ resulted in a push for PERFORMANCE BASED EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Performance Based Earthquake Engineering: PEER methodology
Moehle (2003)
Ground Motion Intensity Measure(s)

Simple parameterizations of (complex) seismic ground motions Predictable as a function of site/seismic parameters
Full probability distribution function(s)
Relevant: can be related to structural response

Moehle (2003)
Engineering Demand Parameter(s)

Quantify structural response Predictable as a function of IMs
Relevant: can be related to structural damage

Moehle (2003)
Damage Measure(s)
Predictable as a function of EDPs
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Moehle (2003)
Decision Variable(s)
Tools for decision maker$ (owners, public policy officials)
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Engineering Lessons Learned: Performance Based Design

Seismic Demand Curve Seismic Hazard Curve
10
0
10
Mean Annual Rate of Exceedance of DMs
Mean Annual Rate of Exceedance of PHA
10
-1
10
-1
10
-2
10
-2
(% 50, 50 yrs)
20%, 50yrs
(%10, 50 yrs) (% 2, 50 yrs)
(% 20, 50%10, yrs) 50 yrs
10
-3
10
-3
2%, 50 yrs
10
-4
10
-4
10
-5
10
-5
IO 0.2
LS
DamageAcceleration Measures(PHA) (DMs) Peak Horizontal
Replacement Cost
0.4
CP 0.6
0.8
ATC-58 (2004) Event Summary Engineering Lessons Learned : Structural Hazard Assessment Future Trends
Engineering Lessons Learned: Geotechnical
Major lessons
Damages
in pipelines (water/gas) due to ground deformation Seismic compression of non-saturated engineering fills Site response of deep soils/basin effects
Event Summary
Engineering Lessons Learned : Geotechnical
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Damage in water/gas distribution systems

Damage
correlated to Peak Ground Velocity

(Jeong and ORourke, 2005)
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Damage in water/gas distribution systems
Photos courtesy of J. Bray, UCB

Event Summary Engineering Lessons Learned : Geotechnical Hazard Assessment Future Trends
Seismic compression of non-saturated engineering fills

Amount
of damage to residential housing was large Well documented case-histories (Stewart et al., 2004, JGGE)
Source: Alan Kropp & David McMahon

Engineering Lessons Learned: Geotechnical/Ground Motions
Site response: clusters of red-tagged buildings

Site
response at deep soil sites Basin effects
Observations led to changes in the way site response is accounted for

No
similar changes yet for basin effects (too complex a problem)

Source: Davis et al. 2000, Science
Engineering Lessons Learned : Geotechnical Hazard Assessment Future Trends
Event Summary
Engineering Lessons Learned: Site Response in Codes
Before Northridge
Zone
Map
Courtesy of Jon Stewart, UCLA

Before Northridge
Zone
Map Linear PGA site factors

Before Northridge
Zone
Map Linear PGA site factors Site-dependent spectral shapes

After Northridge
USGS
online hazard
maps
Updated coming in 2014

After Northridge
USGS
online hazard
maps Spectral shape anchored at two periods Nonlinear sitefactors
New updates proposed (Seyhan and

Stewart, 2014)
Courtesy of Jon Stewart, UCLA Seyhan and Stewart 2014
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Engineering Lessons Learned: Ground Motions
Near-fault Ground Motions

Together
with 1992 Landers and 1995 Kobe EQ, realization of damage potential of near-fault ground motions
Engineering Lessons Learned : Ground MotionsHazard Assessment Future Trends
Event Summary
Engineering Lessons Learned: Ground Motions
Near-fault Ground Motions: Forward-directivity effects

Initiate with high-intensity-longperiod pulses Higher Peak Ground Velocity (PGV) Higher level of spectral accelerations within a narrow band Shorter duration Higher damage potential
Sommervile et al. 1997
Event Summary
Engineering Lessons Learned : Ground MotionsHazard Assessment
Future Trends
Progress in Seismic Hazard Assessment in the last 20 years
Progress in Seismic Hazard Assessment: Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment

Pre-1994: hazard analyses were mostly deterministic Yucca Mountain Project (Stepp et al. 2001)
Started in 1987 Full probabilistic approach
SSHAC procedure (Budnitz et al, 1997)

A procedure for conducting PSHA Guidelines for eliciting expert opinion
Today, PSHA is the norm

Critical facilities(e.g., nuclear power plants) USGS hazard maps
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Progress in Seismic Hazard Assessment: Ground Motion Prediction
Ground motion prediction is key to seismic hazard assessment

Attenuation
relationships, now called Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs)
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Ground Motion Prediction
Problem Determine the ground motion parameters for a hypothetical future earthquake scenario
Known
Magnitude, distance, etc. Since this is a prediction exercise, there is uncertainty
Prediction must be made in probabilistic terms
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends

Spectral Acceleration, (T = 0.05 s) (g)
2
0.2
0.1
Ground Motion Prediction Equation (GMPE) or Attenuation Relationship
0.02
Earthquakes of magnitude 7 Earthquakes of magnitude 6
0.01 1 2 10 20 100
Courtesy of J. Bommer
Future Trends
Distance from earthquake (km)

Event Summary Engineering Lessons Learned : Geotechnical Hazard Assessment

log(Yobs) , residual
log(Y)
log(Ypred)
M
log(R)
log(Y) = f(M, F, R, S) + = f(M, F, R, S) + .
log(PGA)
N(0,)
M
log(Distance)
Ground Motion Prediction Equations

A
function that predicts a ground motion parameters as a function of Source, Site, and Geometrical parameters
log(Y) = f(M, F, R, S) + = f(M, F, R, S) + .

Ground Motion Parameter
Usually the log (natural log or base 10 log is taken because the distribution is log-normal) Usually Y = Geometric Mean of Sa (T, x=5%), but can be anything
Duration, Tms, Arias Intensity, etc

Event Summary

A
log(Y) = f(M, F, R, S) + = f(M, F, R, S) + .

Median Prediction

This is the equation itself In data rich regions: obtained from regression analysis of recorded data In CEUS, obtained from data and seismological simulations
Event Summary

A
log(Y) = f(M, F, R, S) + = f(M, F, R, S) + .

Deviation from median
s : standard deviation
(predicted by the GMPE)
e : number of standard deviations

away from the median
Future Trends
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Pre-Northridge
Sadigh
et al. (1978): Campbell (1981): Joyner and Boore (1981):
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Since Northridge: large increase in available ground motion data
Pre-Northridge Data

Northridge Data

NGA West II Data

Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) project (PEER) GMPE development using a common data-set, with strong interaction between modelers First round: NGA West 1 (2008 ) Second round: NGA West 2 (2014, models ready, soon to come out in Earthquake Spectra)

Campbell and Bozorgnia Chiou and Youngs Boore, Stewart, Seyhan, and Atkinson Abrahamson, Silva, and Kamai
Idriss
Event Summary
What is new?: Complexity!
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
NGA West 2 GMPEs capture:

Magnitude range: 3 to 8.5 (for strike-slip events) Distance range: 0 to 300 km Hanging wall effects Site conditions: parameterized by Vs30 Term to capture deep site response (deep basin effect) Style of faulting term: strike slip, reverse, normal Magnitude saturation at short periods Buried rupture effects
Separate group working on Directivity effects (part of NGA West 2 project)

Event Summary
NGA West 2 GMPEs capture:

Magnitude range: 3 to 8.5 (for strike-slip events) Distance range: 0 to 300 km Hanging wall effects Site conditions: parameterized by Vs30 Term to capture deep site response (deep basin effect) Style of faulting term: strike slip, reverse, normal Magnitude saturation at short periods Buried rupture effects
Separate group working on Directivity effects (part of NGA West 2 project)

Event Summary
Magnitude saturation is now a common feature

(from Y. Bozorgnia)
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Buried Rupture

M<7 Buried Rupture M>7 Surface Rupture
(from P. Somverville)
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Period-to-Period correlation models

Baker
and Jayaram (2008), Baker (2011)
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Period-to-Period correlation models

Baker
and Jayaram (2008), Baker (2011) Very useful for ground motion selection/assessment of losses over a system with multiple components
NGA West 2: Period-to-Period correlation model will be part of the final product
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Progress in Seismic Hazard Assessment: Partially non-ergodic PSHA
Key to PSHA: accounting for uncertainties
Large uncertainty
Small uncertainty
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Two types of uncertainties

UNCERTAINTIES
ALEATORY
True randomness (natural variability) Quantified by the standard deviation (s) of a probabilistic distribution Cant be reduced with more data
Event Summary
EPISTEMIC
Lack of knowledge Expert judgment Logic-trees Can be reduced with more data
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Epistemic Uncertainty
Yucca Mountain Project (Stepp et al. )
Aleatoric variability
log(PGA)
N(0,)
M
log(Distance)
From Strasser et al. (2009)
Sigma (aleatory variability) has remained constant over the years, despite improved parameterization
Why hasnt sigma decreased?

components of variability cant be reduced! Within out limited parameterization (e.g., M, R, Vs30), there is true natural variability Improved characterization of some effects (hanging wall, directivity, etc):
Some
Important in reducing bias Does not reduce sigma because it affects only a limited portion of the data
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
However, one component of variability can be reduced: site-to-site variability

Variability
that results from treating all sites with the same parameterization (e.g., Vs30) as identical
Resulting variability is known as single-station sigma For site-specific analysis, this variability can be removed At the cost of computing/measuring the average residual (e.g., the site term) at the given site
Event Summary

5.0 <M<= 7.6, 0 <R<=200 0.8
Ergodic
and
ss
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.01
0.1
0.2 0.3 0.5 Period (Sec)
1.0
3.0
From Rodriguez-Marek et al. 2013


5.0 <M<= 7.6, 0 <R<=200 0.8
ss
and
0.6
0.4
Single-Station ss
0.01 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 Period (Sec) 1.0 3.0
0.2
From Rodriguez-Marek et al. 2013

Non-ergodic PSHA (e.g., use of single station sigma

UNCERTAINTIES
ALEATORY
PREDICTION OF SITE RESPONSE - Use generic predictive variables Cant be reduced with more data
Event Summary Engineering Lessons Learned : Geotechnical
EPISTEMIC
Use measurements Site response analysis ($)
Can be reduced with more data

What the future holds
Future Trends
More NGA Projects (information below from Y. Bozorgnia, PEER)

NGA
West 3
Expand range of applicability of models into softer soil and harder rock Refinement of directivity models Improvement in prediction of vertical motions Beyond elastic response spectra Incorporate Single Station Sigma
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Future Trends
More NGA Projects (information from Y. Bozorgnia, PEER)

NGA
East for stable continental regions (2015) NGA Subduction (2016)
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Future Trends
Use of seismological models in hazard analyses

Large
scale validation project (SCEC) Models already work well to predict median motions for a low frequencies At issue is how to predict input parameters for models
More applications of Single Station concept

Use
of project-specific instrumentation to measure site terms
Event Summary
Hazard Assessment
Future Trends
Concluding Remarks
Research pays off

Response
to Northridge earthquake:
Reaction from industry/funding agencies Research Code implementation
Civil engineering moving (fast) towards Performance Based Design

Important
for insurance industry
Continued funding of research for seismic hazard reduction is important
Acknowledgments

Matthew Eatherton (Virginia Tech) Jonathan Stewart (UCLA) Julian Bommer (Imperial College) Jonathan Bray (U.C. Berkeley) Yousef Bozorgnia (U.C. Berkeley) PEER (Northridge at 20 symposium)
Thank you!

Rodriguezmarek Tues 130pm Ven V

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Rodriguezmarek Tues 130pm Ven V

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

TWENTY YEARS AFTER NORTHRIDGE: ENGINEERING LESSONS

Adrian Rodriguez-Marek, Ph.D.

February 12, 2014

Cat Modeling 2014, Orlando, Florida

Northridge EQ: event summary Engineering lessons learned

Progress in hazard assessment in the last 20 years Future trends

A little about myself

hazard assessment of nuclear power plants

Northridge Earthquake: General Data

Engineering Lessons Learned

Progress in Hazard Assessment

Northridge Earthquake: Damage

60+ fatalities 9,000 injured 20,000 homeless, 40,000 buildings damaged

20 - 25 Billion dollars in estimated losses (source: USGS)

Engineering Lessons Learned

Progress in Hazard Assessment

Northridge Earthquake: Damage

Engineering Lessons Learned

Progress in Hazard Assessment

Engineering Lessons Learned

From Silva (1991)

Engineering Seismology/Ground Motion Engineering

From Silva (1991)

Engineering Lessons Learned: Structural Engineering

Northridge was a Structural earthquake Major lessons

Known vulnerabilities that were exposed

Engineering Lessons Learned : Structural

Engineering Lessons Learned: Structural Engineering

Northridge was a Structural earthquake Major lessons

Known vulnerabilities that were exposed

Engineering Lessons Learned : Structural

Engineering Lessons Learned: Steel Structures

Unexpected fractures in steel moment frame beam-to column connections

Sketch courtesy of T. Sabol, Englekirk Institutional, Inc

Engineering Lessons Learned: Steel Structures

Unexpected fractures in steel moment frame beam-to column connections

From Forell.com and Michael Engelhardt

Engineering Lessons Learned : Structural

Engineering Lessons Learned: Steel Structures

Unexpected fractures in steel moment frame beam-to column connections: Causes

excessive ground motions

issues: connections not properly tested, deep steel

beams Construction issues: poor welding quality Inspection problems

Engineering Lessons Learned: Steel Structures

Major research initiatives: FEMA/SAC Steel Project

From S. Mahin, Northridge at 20 Symposium

Engineering Lessons Learned: Steel Structures

years later: resulting changes

FEMA/SAC research reports

Engineering Lessons Learned : Structural

Engineering Lessons Learned: Concrete Structures

Large deformations in long-span diaphragms

CSUN parking structure in 1994 (EERI Recon report)

Engineering Lessons Learned : Structural

Engineering Lessons Learned: Concrete Structures

Engineering Lessons Learned: Non-Structural Components

Olive View Hospital

Engineering Lessons Learned: Non-Structural Components

Engineering Lessons Learned : Structural

Engineering Lessons Learned: Non-Structural Components

Engineering Lessons Learned : Structural

Performance Based Earthquake Engineering: PEER methodology

Ground Motion Intensity Measure(s)