Overview of Earthquake Engineering

Whats covered in this section:

! Basic sources of damage
! Fundamental guidelines
! How building codes have
evolved
! Current trends in
earthquake engineering
! How CE 227 fits
Whats Next:
Design criteria, code
formats, Is nonlinearity our
friend?
CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

Review Sources of Damage

Damage caused by:
" Ground shaking
" Fault rupturing
" Liquefaction and soil

1-1

We will look
at effects of
ground shaking
in more detail
later

movement
" Slope instability and
landslides
" Tsunami and seiche
" Fire
" Flooding
" Interaction with adjacent
structures (pounding)

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-2

Review Sources of Damage

Damage caused by:
" Ground shaking
" Fault rupturing
" Liquefaction and soil
movement
" Slope instability and
landslides
" Tsunami and seiche
" Fire
" Flooding
" Interaction with adjacent
structures (pounding)
CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-3

Review Sources of Damage

Damage caused by:
" Ground shaking
" Fault rupturing
" Liquefaction and soil
movement
" Slope instability and
landslides
" Tsunami and seiche
" Fire
" Flooding
" Interaction with adjacent
structures (pounding)

nisee

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-4

Review Sources of Damage

Damage caused by:
" Ground shaking
" Fault rupturing
" Liquefaction and soil

nisee

movement
" Slope instability and
landslides
" Tsunami and seiche
" Fire
" Flooding
" Interaction with adjacent
structures (pounding)

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

1-5

UC Regents

Review Sources of Damage

Crescent City 11/15/06

Damage caused by:

" Ground shaking
" Fault rupturing
" Liquefaction and soil

movement
" Slope instability and
landslides
" Tsunami and seiche
" Fire
" Flooding
" Interaction with adjacent
structures (pounding)

Hilo, Hawaii following 1960 M 9.5 Chilean Earthquake

(61 fatalities)

14-meter tall tsunami in 1946 resulting from M 7.8

Alaskan Earthquake caused 159 fatalities

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-6

Review Sources of Damage

Damage caused by:
" Ground shaking
" Fault rupturing
" Liquefaction and soil

movement
" Slope instability and
landslides
" Tsunami and seiche
" Fire
" Flooding
" Interaction with adjacent
structures (pounding)

December 2004 Sumatra Earthquake

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-7

Sumatra
Earthquake
Banda Aceh,
Indonesia
Before

December 2004 Sumatra Earthquake

After
CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley DigitalGlobe

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-8

Tsunami Videos

(see:http://www.asiantsunamivideos.com/)

Dec. 26, 2005 Banda Aceh, Indonesia

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-9

UC Regents

1-10

Sumatra
Earthquake
Banda Aceh,
Indonesia
Before

After
CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley DigitalGlobe

Spring 2009

Review Sources of Damage

Damage caused by:
" Ground shaking
" Fault rupturing
" Liquefaction and soil

movement
" Slope instability and
landslides
" Tsunami and seiche San Francisco, 1989
" Fire
" Flooding
" Interaction with adjacent
structures (pounding)
Kobe, 1995

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-11

Review Sources of Damage

Damage caused by:
" Ground shaking
" Fault rupturing
" Liquefaction and soil

movement
" Slope instability and
landslides
" Tsunami and seiche
" Fire
" Flooding
" Interaction with adjacent
structures

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-12

Review Sources of Damage

Damage caused by:
" Ground shaking
" Fault rupturing
" Liquefaction and soil

movement
" Slope instability and
landslides
" Tsunami and seiche
" Fire
" Flooding
" Interaction with adjacent
structures

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-13

Lessons from Past Earthquakes: Basic Design Guidelines

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Avoid unnecessary mass.

Achieve a uniform distribution
of mass.
Preserve symmetry. Avoid
significant torsional motions.
Use as simple a structural
system as possible.
Make sure there is a complete
load path. Tie all structural
components together.
Use a redundant structural
system. Use a backup
structural system where ever
possible.

Structure should be compact

and regular in both plan and
elevation. Avoid structures with
elongated or irregular plans;
having substantial setbacks in
elevation; or that are unusually
slender.
7. Use a uniform and continuous
distribution of stiffness and
strength. Avoid nonstructural
components that unintentionally
effect this distribution. Avoid
sudden changes in member
sizes or details.
6.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-14

Lessons from Past Earthquakes: Basic Design Guidelines

Permit inelastic action
(damage) only in inherently
non-critical and ductile
elements (i.e., in beams rather
than columns).
9. Detail the members to avoid
premature, brittle failure
modes. Utilize capacity
design principles to avoid
undesired shear, axial or joint
failures and to foster ductile
flexural failure modes.
10. Avoid hammering (pounding)
of adjacent structures.
8.

11. Anchor nonstructural

components to structure to
avoid falling hazards and
economic loss.
12. Avoid systems with low
amounts of viscous damping.
Absence of nonstructural
components tied to structure
may be indication of low
damping in steel and other
structures.

We will return to these later

in the course

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-15

Rapid evolution of building codes

Historically,
! Focus on prevention of major catastrophes associated
with structural collapse
! Changes in code provisions has
usually been tied to observed
damage in major earthquakes
"Damage to buildings on soft soil
# soil factors
"Damage to tops of tall structures
# concentrated forces
applied
at top of structures
"Damage in R/C columns
# ductile details
CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-16

Building codes: useful design tools, but

Define the standard of care ... An
important legal and professional concept.
But ... focus is on minimum standards
needed for the protection of life safety
provide minimum standards to safeguard life or

g
Buildin
Code

limb, health, property and public welfare by regulating

and controlling the design, construction, quality of
materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance
of buildings.

" A detailed, prescriptive deemed-to-comply

format used.
" Contains a mix of empiricism, simplified
theory and expert judgment.
" Current codes provide little guidance on how
various stipulations relate to performance.
CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-17

Codes improving, but not perfect ...

Uneven performance of model code-compliant buildings noted
in recent earthquakes. Some perform very well, while others
are inadequate.

" Nearly 70% of new steel buildings

shaken by the Northridge earthquake

suffered brittle fractures in their welded
beam to column connections. More than
10% of new steel welded moment frame
buildings in Kobe actually collapsed.
" Several new reinforced concrete
structures collapsed or were severely
damaged during the Northridge and
Loma Prieta earthquakes.
" Important buildings designed by well
respected engineers, under stringent
quality control conditions are not immune
to frequent damage.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-18

Trends in Earthquake Engineering

! Rapid evolution of model building codes and ad
hoc guidelines for design of special structures and
evaluation and rehabilitation of existing structures
! Fundamental approaches being developed for
performance-based engineering design and
evaluation
!Guidelines do not all have same objectives
"Life safety. How safe?
! More attention
"Stated performance goals may differ
to sustainable
"What is meant by performance state
(e.g., continued occupancy)
development
!Targeted confidence levels may vary
(median, 95%)

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-19

Design problems becoming more complex

Structures are becoming:
! Taller
! Architecturally more
complex and irregular
! Less redundant

! Use new materials and

older materials combined
in new ways.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-20

Design problems becoming more complex

Expected ground motions more severe and complex
than previously assumed.

" Concern for near-source, soft soil,

long duration motions ... the big one.

Publics tolerance for damage has diminished

due to apparent increase in the frequency of
damaging earthquakes

" Recent earthquakes

$ Near Los Angeles and San Francisco
$ Turkey, Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia
" Highly publicized probabilistic predictions
# No longer considered a rare act of god.
# Insurance companies and building owners

concerned with maximum probable economic losses

# Minimizing disruption of services important

3Ds - Deaths, Damage, Downtime

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-21

UC Regents

1-22

Situation is in flux!
! Addition of new technologies for
seismic resistance (isolation,
supplemental damping, buckling
restrained bracing, composite
members, etc.)
! Addition of new analysis and design
tools (nonlinear static and dynamic
analysis, probabilistic hazard
analysis, etc.)

"Quantitative, not qualitative,

answers wanted
"Economic and social impacts
increasingly important
CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

On the Positive-Side:
From research to practice
! No longer need to wait
until the next
earthquake
! Testing has had a big
impact on structural
engineering knowledge and practice
! NSF George Brown Jr.
Network for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation
(NEES)
CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-23

UC Regents

1-24

From research to practice

! No longer need to wait
until the next
earthquake
! Testing has had a big
impact on structural
engineering knowledge and practice
! Greatly improved
details

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

From research to practice

! No longer need to wait
until the next
earthquake
! Testing has had a big
impact on structural
engineering knowledge and practice
! Greatly improved
details
! Validated computer
models
CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-25

Better Quantification of Earthquake Hazard

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-26

Much activity to improve codes

Improved national codes
! National Earthquake
Hazard Reduction
Program (NEHRP)
Tentative Provisions for
Seismic Design of
Buildings (Building Seismic
Safety Council)

New approaches
! Improved performance and
reliability

" Performance -based design

(PEER & FEMA/ATC-58)

" Vision 2000 (SEAOC)

" SAC Steel Project (FEMA 350 FEMA 353)

" Next generation codes (NSF,

FEMA)

! International Building
Code (merging of three
main model codes used in
the US and incorporating
NEHRP provisions.
! ASCE-7 (parallel model
code)

" FEMA/ATC-63 (Safety

benchmarking)

! Existing Buildings

" Guidelines for the Rehabilitation

"

of Existing Buildings (FEMA

356/ASCE 41))
Retrofiting Techniques (FEMA
547)

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

Some considerations
Traditional Analysis problem
Given structure and
loading, check that

Demands < Capacity

Design problem
Identify attributes of a
structure that for given
earthquake environment
will economically and
reliably satisfy stated
performance
expectations.

UC Regents

1-27

Need tool box

" analysis of demands on structure
" analysis of capacity of structure
Understand behavior
Control behavior
Manage risk and uncertainty
" Need to account for scatter in
demand and capacities
" Rational load and resistance
factors
" Seek system characteristics
inherently insensitive to
uncertainties in seismic hazard

Focus more on displacement

and stability than force

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-28

Some considerations
Traditional Analysis problem
Given structure and
loading, check that

Demands < Capacity

Design problem
Identify attributes of a
structure that for given
earthquake environment
will economically and
reliably satisfy stated
performance
expectations.

Need tool box

" analysis of demands on structure
" analysis of capacity of structure
Understand behavior
Control behavior
Manage risk and uncertainty
" Need to account for scatter in
demand and capacities
" Rational load and resistance
factors
" Seek system characteristics
inherently insensitive to
uncertainties in seismic hazard

Focus more on displacement

and stability than force

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-29

Introduction

Questions?

nisee

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering

U.C. Berkeley

Spring 2009

UC Regents

1-30