This document summarizes lessons learned from several major earthquake disasters around the world between 1971 and 2007. It discusses structural damage observed after earthquakes in San Fernando, CA (1971), Loma Prieta, CA (1989), Northridge, CA (1994), Kobe, Japan (1995), Turkey (1999), Taiwan (1999), Nisqually, WA (2001), Niigata, Japan (2007), and Pisco, Peru (2007). Key lessons included improving seismic design of bridges, accounting for soil conditions and ground motion effects, considering fault crossings and near-field shaking, and the importance of preparedness for post-earthquake recovery.
This document summarizes lessons learned from several major earthquake disasters around the world between 1971 and 2007. It discusses structural damage observed after earthquakes in San Fernando, CA (1971), Loma Prieta, CA (1989), Northridge, CA (1994), Kobe, Japan (1995), Turkey (1999), Taiwan (1999), Nisqually, WA (2001), Niigata, Japan (2007), and Pisco, Peru (2007). Key lessons included improving seismic design of bridges, accounting for soil conditions and ground motion effects, considering fault crossings and near-field shaking, and the importance of preparedness for post-earthquake recovery.
This document summarizes lessons learned from several major earthquake disasters around the world between 1971 and 2007. It discusses structural damage observed after earthquakes in San Fernando, CA (1971), Loma Prieta, CA (1989), Northridge, CA (1994), Kobe, Japan (1995), Turkey (1999), Taiwan (1999), Nisqually, WA (2001), Niigata, Japan (2007), and Pisco, Peru (2007). Key lessons included improving seismic design of bridges, accounting for soil conditions and ground motion effects, considering fault crossings and near-field shaking, and the importance of preparedness for post-earthquake recovery.
This document summarizes lessons learned from several major earthquake disasters around the world between 1971 and 2007. It discusses structural damage observed after earthquakes in San Fernando, CA (1971), Loma Prieta, CA (1989), Northridge, CA (1994), Kobe, Japan (1995), Turkey (1999), Taiwan (1999), Nisqually, WA (2001), Niigata, Japan (2007), and Pisco, Peru (2007). Key lessons included improving seismic design of bridges, accounting for soil conditions and ground motion effects, considering fault crossings and near-field shaking, and the importance of preparedness for post-earthquake recovery.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 0
Seismic Lessons Learned
W. Phillip Yen, Ph.D., P.E.
SSeismic Research Program Manager Office of Infrastructure R&D, FHWA [email protected] Outline San Fernando, CA 1971 Loma Prieta, CA 1989 Loma Prieta, CA 1989 Northridge, CA, 1994 Kobe, J apan, 1995 , p , Kocaeli & Duzce, Turkey, 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, 1999 Nisqually (Olympia), WA, 2001 Niigata, J apan, 2007 Pisco, Peru, 2007 Concluding Remarks SAN FERNANDO, CA 1971 SAN FERNANDO SAN FERNANDO LESSONS LEARNED EARTHQUAKE DISASTERS EARTHQUAKE DISASTERS 1971 SAN FERNANDO, CA Increase Seat Width Provide Continuity at Bearings and J oints Design Columns for Shear and Moment Develop Column to Footing/Cap Anchorage LOMA PRIETA, 1989 LOMA PRIETA LOMA PRIETA LOMA PRIETA THE GEOTECHNICAL E.Q. Distribution of damage indicated close correlationbetween local soil condition and severity of resultant damage. LESSONS LEARNED EARTHQUAKE DISASTERS EARTHQUAKE DISASTERS 1989 LOMA PRIETA Simple retrofit helps Evaluate Soil/Foundation Stability Account for Forces/Displacements Evaluate Existing Inventory NORTHRIDGE,1994 NORTHRIDGE NORTHRIDGE NORTHRIDGE NORTHRIDGE NORTHRIDGE LESSONS LEARNED EARTHQUAKE DISASTERS Complex Geometry Redistributes Forces QU S S S 1994 NORTHRIDGE p y - Skew - Varied Column Heights g Accommodate Shear & Flexure Post 89 Designs Reduced Damage g g Retrofit Improves Resistance - J oint Restrainers - Column J acketing Preparedness Facilitates Recovery p y KOBE, J apan 1995 KOBE KOBE LESSONS LEARNED EARTHQUAKE DISASTERS EARTHQUAKE DISASTERS 1995 HANSHIN AWAJ I (KOBE) Consider Structural Filters / Consider Structural Filters / Fuses - Isolation - Energy Dissipation Energy Dissipation - Displacement Control LESSONS LEARNED EARTHQUAKE DISASTERS Accommodate Forces & Displacements Evaluate Ground MotionAmplification/Attenuation Evaluate Ground Motion Amplification/Attenuation Consider Near Field Effects Identify Liquefaction Potential y q Retrofit Improves Performance Current Designs Improve Resistance P d F ili R Preparedness Facilitates Recovery Nothing is Earthquake Proof The 1999 Turkish Earthquakes: Post-Earthquake Investigation of Structures on TEM Hamid Ghasemi, PH.D. Philip Yen, PH.D., P.E. J D C P E James D. Cooper, P.E. Federal Highway Administration Black Sea Nov. 12, 1999 Aug 17 1999 Black Sea Duzce EQ M w = 7.2 T = 30 sec. > 1000 Casualties (0.25g Aug. 17, 1999 Kocaeli EQ M w = 7.4 T = 45 sec. 17000 Casualties Duzc e MARMARA SEA (0 8 (0.41g) (0.23g) ( g ) (0.32g) (0.5 g) (0.8 g) NAF TURKEY Epicenters and PGAs Epicenters and PGAs Arifiye Overpass Arifiye Overpass 45 km east of the epicenter p Constructed in 1988 AASHTO (1975) coefficient method 25 skew 25 skew 4 Spans (26 m) 12.5 mwide 5-Simply supported precast, pre-stressed concrete u-beams Continuous deck cast in site Elastomeric laminated bearings ll & l f d Wall type piers & pile foundations Shear keys only at abutments MSE walls Right Right--Lateral Offset = 1.5 m Lateral Offset = 1.5 m Surface Fault Trace Surface Fault Trace MSE walls Surface Fault Trace Surface Fault Trace Shear-key Failure Typical Underpasses Typical Underpasses Typical Underpasses yp p Observed Damage Settlement General View of the Viaduct #1 General View of the Viaduct #1 -- Total Length = 2.3 km Total Length = 2.3 km -- Number of Spans = 59 Number of Spans = 59 -- Each Span = 40 m Each Span = 40 m -- Width = 17.5 m Width = 17.5 m Continuous Continuous over 10 spans over 10 spans Width 17.5 m Width 17.5 m -- Max. Pier Height = 49 m Max. Pier Height = 49 m -- Superstructure = 7 PS Box Girder Superstructure = 7 PS Box Girder -- Soil Type = Type II Soil Type = Type II A 0 4 A 0 4 pp -- A = 0.4g A = 0.4g -- It was 95% completed It was 95% completed at the time of earthquake at the time of earthquake -- Pile cap is 3 Pile cap is 3- -m thick, resting on 12 m thick, resting on 12 pp , g , g D=1.8 m CIDH piles up to 37 m in alluv D=1.8 m CIDH piles up to 37 m in alluv Surface Fault Rupture at Viaduct #1 Surface Fault Rupture at Viaduct #1 KOERI KOERI Surface Fault Rupture at Viaduct #1 Surface Fault Rupture at Viaduct #1 ~ ~ ~ ~ Pier Pier Pier 45 Pier 46 Pier 47 Pier Pier #45 #45 40 m ~ ~ ~ ~ 40 m 40 m 40 m * Resurveyto determine relative pier movement. Check for pile/foundation damage 40 m 40 m Excessive Movement in Longitudinal Direction Excessive Movement in Longitudinal Direction EDU Failure EDU Failure Expansion J oint Expansion J oint Lessons Learned from Turkey EQ. e EQ Fault crossings difficult to identify If possible avoid construction near known faults Provide sufficient displacement capacity for short span bridges constructed near known faults Larger seat width -- very sound investment Proper construction and detailing of critical elements Correctly characterizing sites is very important Correctly characterizing sites is very important Proper selection, design, and detailing of EDU Preparedness facilitates recovery Preparedness facilitates recovery Design & construction Q-C imperative Awareness / information dissemination Taiwan Chi-Chi EQ. 1999: First EQ. Report from Central Weather Bureau Report from Central Weather Bureau Chi-Chi Earthquake, Taiwan 9/21 Taiwan, 9/21, 2007 Local Local Magnitude = 7.3 Reverse Fault 1. DIP-SLIP FAULTS a) Normal Fault normal-slip fault, tensional fault or gravity fault b) Reverse Fault thrust fault, reverse-slip fault or compressional fault ] Fault Motion 2. STRIKE-SLIP FAULT transcurrent fault, lateral fault, tear fault or wrench faul] 3. OBLIQUE-SLIP FAULT Design Codes for Taiwanese Highway Bridges Highway Bridges Prior to Varies Bridges Based on J apanese Prior to 1960 Design Spec. p Bridge Design Codes Standard S ifi ti f Based on 1953 1960 Specification for Highway Bridges of Taiwan AASHTO Standard Specification Basedon1977 1987 2 nd edition Bridge Design Codes Based on 1977 AASHTO Specification B d 1992 1995 Current Bridge Design Codes Based on 1992 AASHTO Specifications
Neu-Tso-Pu Creek Bridge: S ttl t i T Di ti Settlement in Transverse Directions Substructure Damage - Fault Crossing Fault Crossing Bearing Failure g Shi-Wei Bridge g Constructed 1994 Constructed 1994 3-Spans, PCI Girders T ll d Two spans collapsed Piers Tilted 15 degrees Skewed bridge Fault Rupture Fault Rupture Collapse of Shi wei bridge due to liquefaction Chi chi Earthquake Collapse of Shi-wei bridge due to liquefaction, Chi-chi Earthquake, Taiwan, September 1999 I-Jiang Bridge g g Constructed in 1972 Simple Supported Constructed in 1972, Simple Supported 24 spans @ 11m F lt R t lift d 1 5 t 2 d th Fault Rupture uplifted 1.5 to 2m under the North Abutment 12 spans collapsed Overhang Superstructures??? g p I-Jiang Bridge Bei-Fung Bridge g g PCI Girder Simple Supported PCI Girder, Simple Supported Spans Collapsed F lt R t d N b Ab t t Fault Ruptured Near by an Abutment New Water Fall Bei-Fung Bridge -Fault Rupture 5-6M Mao-Luo-Shi Bridge g Steel Superstructure Steel Superstructure C-bents Type Connection (Eccentrically) H i t l C d Horizontal Curved Pier Top Concrete Spalling and Shear Cracks Superstructure Settled p Mao-Lo-Shi Bridge g Mau-Lo-Shi Bridge g Mau-Lo-Shi Bridge g Vertical/Horizontal Acceleration Acceleration Tong-Tou Bridge g g PCI Girder Superstructure PCI Girder Superstructure Spans Collapse F lt R t Fault Rupture Abutments moved Liquefaction under abutment foundations and approaches pp Piers Fractured Failure of shear-critical columns in Tong-tou bridge, Chi-chi Earthquake, Taiwan, September 1999 p Shear failure in pier of Wu-shi bridge, Chi-chi Earthquake, Taiwan, September 1999 Lessons Learned Fault rupture Near field ground motions Near-field ground motions Ground failures precipitate structural f il failure Abutment back-walls and back -fills are essential for continuous bridges Shear failures must be avoided in piers p Shear keys are required to prevent spans falling transversely spans falling transversely Issues Shear Key Design Shear Key Design Near Fault Effects B i D i Bearing Design Restoration Retrofitting How to construct (or reconstruct) a bridge across a known fault? across a known fault? Other Infrastructure Components Components Dam Dam Buildings H b Harbor Liquefaction Huge Land Slides Shi-Gang Dam- Fault Rupture g p Kung-Fu Elementary School g y Kung-Fu Elementary School g y Huge Landslide g Huge Landslide g Challenge g H ld t t b id How would you construct a bridge across a known fault? Nisqually (Olympia) Earthquake Earthquake 10:54 a m local time 10:54 a.m. local time Wednesday, February 28, 2001 E i t 11 il th t f Ol i Epicenter: 11 miles northeast of Olympia Hypocenter: 30 miles Magnitude: 6.8 Fourth Avenue Bridge, Olympia Shear Cracks in Column M li B id S ttl Magnolia Bridge, Seattle Damaged Concrete T-Brace Holgate Bridge - Column Failure Fourth Avenue Ramp to I-90, Seattle Damaged Bearing Capitol Blvd. U-Xing - damaged end diaphragm and laterals Alaskan Way Viaduct Temporary Shoring at Damaged Knee J oint Niigata Earthquake, Japan 2007 2007 Date: July 16th, 2007. Th h t d th The hypocenter depth is approximately 17 km. The magnitude of this g earthquake was 6.8, 11 people were killed and 1300 people and 1300 people injured. 2000 houses were l t l ll d completely collapsed or partially collapsed. Pisco, Peru Earthquake , 2007 , q , Embankment and roadway failure at Pan American Highway km 190. The picture was taken facing north. Note the Pacific Ocean in the top left of the photo. The damage was caused by liquefaction of the wet coastal silty soils that led to lateral spreading and subsequent embankment failure. embankment failure. Ground waves moving from west to east appeared to have reflected off the more rigid material on the right. Paved shoulder on the east side of the Pan American Highway was shoved up against the ridge in the background when liquefied coastal soils sloshed laterally. Pavement damage from liquefaction Pan American Highway km 220 near San Clemente, Peru Severe cracking of Pier 2 (from South end) necessitates extensive repair but the horizontal shear blocks managed to retrain lateral movement of the superstructure. Multiple hazard Issue: Huachinga Bridge on Rte 110 at km 39. This steel truss bridge has suffered severe damage to the bottom chord from debris impact. There is a large granite boulder jammed between the two channels of the bottom chord that has fallen from the adjacent mountain channels of the bottom chord that has fallen from the adjacent mountain from this earthquake. Multiple hazard Issue: Huachinga Bridge on Rte 110 at km 39. This steel truss bridge has suffered severe damage to the bottom chord from debris impact. There is a large granite boulder jammed between the two channels of the bottom chord that has fallen from the adjacent mountain from this earthquake adjacent mountain from this earthquake. SUMMARY LESSONS LEARNED EARTHQUAKE DISASTERS Newer Designs Improve Performance Retrofit Helpsbut.. U.S. Seismicity Not Well Understood
Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. LXVIII, Sept. 1910
The New York Tunnel Extension of the Pennsylvania Railroad.
The East River Tunnels. Paper No. 1159
Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. LXVIII, Sept. 1910, Start/End Papers
The New York Tunnel Extension of the Pennsylvania Railroad