simulations of flexible buildings in large earthquakes
DESCRIPTION
Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes. Thomas Heaton (Caltech) Anna Olsen (Caltech) Jing Yang (Caltech) Masumi Yamada (Kyoto Univ.). Key Issues. Modern high-rise buildings and base-isolated buildings have not yet experienced large long-period ground motions (pgd > 1 m). - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070420/56815e07550346895dcc58b2/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes
Thomas Heaton (Caltech)Anna Olsen (Caltech)
Jing Yang (Caltech)Masumi Yamada (Kyoto Univ.)
![Page 2: Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070420/56815e07550346895dcc58b2/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Key Issues
• Modern high-rise buildings and base-isolated buildings have not yet experienced large long-period ground motions (pgd > 1 m).
• Is statistical prediction of long period ground motions technically feasible?
• Will the design of long-period buildings change dramatically in the next 100 years?
![Page 3: Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070420/56815e07550346895dcc58b2/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Ph.D. Thesis of Anna Olsen, 2008• collected state-of-the-art simulations of crustal
earthquakes• 37 earthquakes, over 70,000 ground motions
– 1989 Loma Prieta (Aagaard et al., 2008)– 1906 San Francisco, with alternate hypocenters (Aagaard et
other al., 2008)– 10 faults in the Los Angeles basin (Day et al., 2005)– Puente Hills fault (Porter et al., 2007)– TeraShake 1 and 2 (K. Olsen et al., 2006, 2007)– ShakeOut, from Chen Ji
• Moment magnitudes between 6.3 and 7.8• Long-period (T > 2 s) and broadband (T > 1 s)• PGD and PGV calculated from vector of north-south
and east-west components
![Page 4: Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070420/56815e07550346895dcc58b2/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
1906 San Francisco Ground Motions
• Magnitude 7.8• Same slip distribution,
three hypocenter locations• Long-period PGD exceeds
2 m near the fault• Long-period PGV exceeds
1.5 m• Simulations by Aagaard
and others (BSSA, 2008)
![Page 5: Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070420/56815e07550346895dcc58b2/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
John Hall’s design of a 20-story steel MRF building
•Building U20 1994 UBC zone4 Stiff soil, 3.5 sec. period
•Building J20 1992 Japan code 3.05 sec period
•Both designs consider Perfect welds Brittle welds
![Page 6: Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070420/56815e07550346895dcc58b2/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Pushover Analysis
•Special attention to P-delta instability•Story mechanism collapse•Frame 2-D fiber-element code of Hall (1997)
0 50 100 150 200 250 3000
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40Pushover Curves
Bas
e S
hear
(fra
c of
bui
ldin
g w
eigh
t) %
Lateral Roof Displacement cm
U20BU20PU6BU6PJ20BJ20PJ6BJ6P
![Page 7: Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070420/56815e07550346895dcc58b2/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
•Severe damage or collapse in many areas•Stronger, stiffer building (J20) performs better than more flexible building (U20)•Brittle weld buildings 5 times more likely to collapse than perfect-weld buildings•Results summarized in Olsen and others (BSSA, 2008)
![Page 8: Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070420/56815e07550346895dcc58b2/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Displacements on Base Isolators
•Typical base isolator is 3 sec with a maximum allowed displacement of 40 cm• Nonlinear isolator displacements exceed linear by 20% to 40% (Ryan and Chopra)•Described in Olsen and others (BSSA, 2008)
![Page 9: Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070420/56815e07550346895dcc58b2/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Collapse Prediction
Collapse
Remain standing
![Page 10: Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070420/56815e07550346895dcc58b2/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
All strong motions recorded at less than 10 km from rupture from M>6
From Masumi Yamada
![Page 11: Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070420/56815e07550346895dcc58b2/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
•Near-source pga’s are log-normal•Same distribution will apply 100 years from now
![Page 12: Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070420/56815e07550346895dcc58b2/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
•Long-period ground motions are not log normal•A few large earthquakes can completely change the distribution•Cannot predict what the shape of this distribution will look like 100 years from now
![Page 13: Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070420/56815e07550346895dcc58b2/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Ph.D. Thesis of Jing Yang
• Repeat of the giant (M>9) Cascadia earthquake of 1700• Simulate rock ground motions with 2003 Tokachi-Oki M8.3 rock records as
empirical Green’s functions• Include effect of the Seattle basin by a transfer function derived from teleseismic
S-waves transect (Pratt and Brocher, 2006)
Narrow model Wide modelMedium model
![Page 14: Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070420/56815e07550346895dcc58b2/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Ground Motion Recordings of the M 8.3 Tokachi-oki earthquake
![Page 15: Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070420/56815e07550346895dcc58b2/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Seattle Basin transfer function for teleseismic S-waves
-1
0
1x 10-3
EW Rock site: 7295
-1
0
1x 10-3
EW Soil site: 7335
Vel
cm
/s
RecordsRecoverd
0 50 100 150 200-10
0
10Green's function EW
Time sec
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20-10
0
10Amplified Green's function EW
Vel
cm
/s
Time sec
![Page 16: Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070420/56815e07550346895dcc58b2/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Simulated rock and basin ground motions for medium rupture
-100
0
100NS C-Med-15 Med
Rock Vel: 13.8
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500-100
0
100
vel c
m/s
Soil Vel: 84.1 GF:7295-7335
Time sec
-200
0
200Rock Accn: 161.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500-200
0
200
accn
cm
/s2
Soil Accn: 202.8 GF:7295-7335
Time sec
![Page 17: Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070420/56815e07550346895dcc58b2/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Roof Displacement U-20 Brittle welds
-100
0
10026.7 C-Narrow-15 Rock
-100
0
10069.1 C-Wide-23 Rock
Roof Displacements NS U20B
-100
0
10030.4 C-Med-15 Rock
-200
0
200
Roo
f Dis
p cm
-200
0
200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500-200
0
200
Collapse C-Narrow-13 Soil
Time sec
Collapse C-Med-15 Soil
Collapse C-Wide-23 Soil
![Page 18: Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070420/56815e07550346895dcc58b2/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
-100
0
10088.5 C-Wide-23 Rock
Roof Displacements NS U20P
-100
0
100
31.4 C-Med-15 Rock
-100
0
100
27.0 C-Narrow-13 Rock
-200
0
200
Collapse C-Wide-23 Soil
Roo
f Dis
p cm
-100
0
100100.7 C-Med-15 Soil
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
-100
0
100 126.8 C-Narrow-13 Soil
Time sec
Roof Displacement U-20 Perfect welds
![Page 19: Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070420/56815e07550346895dcc58b2/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Conclusions
• Presence of brittle welds significantly degrades performance (2-8 times more likely to collapse)
• Very generally, ground motions with PGD > 0.5-1 m and PGV > 1-2 m/s collapse MRFs
• Although much of the physics of long-period ground motions is understood, statistical prediction might not be meaningful (or possible) … a few earthquakes of unknown source characteristics will determine the fate of long-period buildings.
![Page 20: Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070420/56815e07550346895dcc58b2/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
![Page 21: Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070420/56815e07550346895dcc58b2/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Model Name
Rock Soil
Wide Med Narrow C-Wide-23 C-Med-15
C-Narrow-
13
PGV cm/smax 78 39 38 227 222 131 med 43 14 18 290 84 82 min 24 16 6 103 54 25
U20bwIDR (%)
max 2.3 2.6 2.0 CO CO COmed 2.3 0.4 0.4 CO CO COmin 0.7 0.4 0.1 CO CO 1.3
U20pw IDR (%)
max 1.2 1.0 1.4 CO CO COmed 1.8 0.3 0.3 CO 2.4 2.9min 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.7 2.2 0.6
J20bw IDR (%)
max 2.1 2.2 2.5 CO CO COmed 2.6 0.3 0.3 CO CO 4.4min 0.5 0.2 0.1 CO 4.3 0.3
J20pw IDR (%)
max 1.1 0.5 0.7 CO 6.2 COmed 1.2 0.3 0.3 CO 1.2 0.9min 0.4 0.2 0.1 1.2 1.0 0.3
20-Story Steel Frame Buildings (UBC94 and 1992 Japan)
![Page 22: Simulations of Flexible Buildings in Large Earthquakes](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070420/56815e07550346895dcc58b2/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Model Name
Rock Soil
Wide Med Narrow Wide Med Narrow
PGV cm/s
max 78 39 38 227 222 131 med 43 14 18 290 84 82 min 24 16 6 103 54 25
U6bw IDR (%)
max 2.0 1.1 0.7 CO CO COmed 1.2 0.2 0.4 CO 3.5 3.5min 1.0 0.3 0.1 4.7 3.4 0.6
U6pw IDR (%)
max 2.1 0.8 0.5 CO CO COmed 1.0 0.2 0.4 CO 1.9 1.8min 0.9 0.3 0.1 4.7 1.8 0.5
J6bw IDR (%)
max 1.5 0.5 0.3 CO CO COmed 0.6 0.2 0.2 CO 1.9 1.9min 0.3 0.2 0.1 3.5 2.0 0.4
J6pw IDR (%)
max 1.4 0.5 0.3 CO 3.8 2.4med 0.5 0.2 0.2 CO 0.8 1.2min 0.3 0.2 0.1 2.4 1.1 0.4
6-Story Steel Frame Buildings (UBC94 and 1992 Japan)