1. What Will a Large Earthquake be Like? Tom Heaton Caltech

2. Magnitude Paradox … Seismologist Radiated energy increases by 32 times for each unit of magnitude. The number of earthquakes decreases by 10 times for each unit of magnitude. In California, most of the energy is in earthquakes with magnitudes larger than 7.4. Large earthquakes do most of the work of plate tectonics. Although they are infrequent, they are inevitable. After the M 6.7 1994 Northridge earthquake seismologists said, “this was only a moderate earthquake … wait till you see a great one.”

3. Magnitude Paradox … Engineer Perhaps there can be larger motions, but these are extreme examples of extraordinary events that shouldn’t be used for building design. Eyewitness reports of the 1906 earthquake indicate that the shaking was comparable to that in 1994, but it lasted longer and occurred over a larger area. Computer models shows that most of the risk comes from more frequent moderate size events. This building is designed for a M 8, the largest possible earthquake!

6. Current model says most of the threat to downtown LA is not from the San Andreas fault

7. 1906 M 7.8 San Francisco earthquake rupture with large ground displacement. Notice that the farm buildings were largely intact.

8. Pt Reyes Station 1906

9. Current Building Code Current building codes are mostly prescriptive rules based on the building type and seismic zone. Codes have been developed by fixing deficiencies from past earthquakes. If you’ve got a good building code, who needs a seismologist?

10. How do buildings resist earthquake forces? Front View Top View Image: Courtesy EERI stiff Wooden Houses 7-11 stores Caltech High-rise buildings flexible

13. Flexible or Strong? Stiff buildings tend to have high stresses, and must therefore be strong. Making a building strong increases the stiffness, which increases the stresses, which increases the required strength of the building (a vicious circle). Making a building flexible tends to decrease the stress, but it also decreases the strength of a building (another vicious circle). Tall buildings are always designed to be flexible.

14. Lateral stiffness relies on flexing beams

15. Large deformation should result in bent steel beams From the lab of Chia-Ming Uang, UC San Diego

17. Tall buildings cannot withstand large Tilts Integrity of the columns is critical. Gravity loads are normally axial compressional loads on the columns. Tilted columns result in bending forces on the columns caused by the weight of the building. Drift (i.e. column tilt) should not exceed 0.03 for tall MRF buildings.

18. John Hall’s design of a 20-story steel MRF building that meets California 1994 code (zone IV, site class C)

20. 20-story steel-frame building subjected to a 2-meter near-source displacement pulse (from Hall) triangles on the frame indicate the failures of welded column-beam connections (loss of stiffness).

21. Simulated deformation of 20-story steel frame for the M6.9 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake JBC is Japanese building code UBC is 1994 California code

22. 1906 g1906 ground motion simulation from Brad Aagaard (USGS)

23. Simulated 20- story steel frame for a M 7.8 1906-like earthquake Yellow and red are damaged beyond repair Pink is simulated collapse

24. Large displacements can overwhelm base isolation systems 2-meter displacement pulse as input for a simulation of the deformation of a 3- story base-isolated building (Hall, Heaton, Wald, and Halling The Sylmar record from the 1994 Northridge earthquake also causes the building to collide with the stops

25. Isolator displacements (m) Most isolated buildings cannot exceed 0.4 m

29. Frame buildings can have also be built with concrete columns and beams (as opposed to steel) 1971 San Fernando earthquake showed that many concrete frames were brittle Potential for collapse at drifts of about 0.01 (lower than for steel buildings) There are thousands of these buildings in California and occupants have not been notified Olive View Hospital M 6.7 1971 San Fernando Earthquake

30. Northridge 118 FWY Example of failure of a brittle concrete column (pre-1975 code)

31. Example of “ductile” behavior of concrete columns. Although the parking structure performed poorly, the exterior columns did not fail.

32. One of the great disappointments is that there has been little progress in the retrofitting of “nonductile” concrete frame buildings. Most people who live or work in them are not aware of the serious risk involved.

34. Conclusions Current probabilistic hazard analysis may seriously underestimate the importance of large earthquakes. Flexible buildings that rely on high ductility will be damaged beyond repair in large earthquakes and many may collapse. Fix the pre-1994 steel welds! Notify occupants of pre 1975 brittle concrete frame buildings! Base isolation systems may be overdriven by large near-source ground motions. Strong shear-wall construction is best suited to resist large-magnitude earthquakes (your wooden house will perform well). If it doesn’t burn.