1 / 13

Session IVa – "A Seismic Rehabilitation Agenda for Older Hazardous Concrete Buildings"

Session IVa – "A Seismic Rehabilitation Agenda for Older Hazardous Concrete Buildings". Richard McCarthy Executive Director California Seismic Safety Commission. Mitigation of Seismic Risk in Older Concrete Buildings. EERI Concrete Building Coalition and NEESR Grand Challenge

astrid
Download Presentation

Session IVa – "A Seismic Rehabilitation Agenda for Older Hazardous Concrete Buildings"

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Session IVa – "A Seismic Rehabilitation Agenda for Older Hazardous Concrete Buildings" Richard McCarthy Executive Director California Seismic Safety Commission

  2. Mitigation of Seismic Risk in Older Concrete Buildings EERI Concrete Building Coalition and NEESR Grand Challenge Craig Comartin and Jack Moehle

  3. California, 1994 Turkey, 2003 “50% of the casualties are coming from 5% of the buildings.” Kircher et al., “Estimated Losses due to a Repeat of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, Earthquake Spectra, 2006. Project background

  4. “Current guidelines identify most older concrete buildings as collapse risks.” Craig Comartin, EERI President, 2006 Earthquake Conference Project background 100 80 Percentage Otani (1999) 60 40 Kobe, 1995 20 Erzincan, 1992 Luzon, 1990 0 Mexico City, 1985 Operational Heavy Collapse Older Concrete Building Damage Rating Otani, 1999

  5. Project thesis • Available guidelines are too conservative • most buildings are found inadequate • retrofit costs are high • This “always bad” message • is not credible • is impeding action • Improved procedures • can reduce the problem • can make retrofit programs feasible • What we learn can be translated to other building types and localities.

  6. Project aims • Develop a consensus on the “killer” buildings • Demonstrate cost-effective retrofit • Identify mitigation policy alternatives • Promote active mitigation programs

  7. Stewart Moehle Comerio May Matamoros Mosalam Lopez Hutchinson Steele Project Team Disciplines:  Seismic hazard  Inventory  Simulation  Laboratory  Field  Building  Regional  Public policy  EOT Anagnos Ramirez Leadership team

  8. Research program overview • Inventory • by structural type • by occupancy • by ownership • Participants • building and safety • housing agencies • structural engineers • real estate professionals

  9. Research program overview • Testing to collapse • Multi-directional loadings • Realistic axial loads • Simple retrofit methods

  10. Flexible/Weak Foundation Research program overview • Systems studies • SFSI • Membrane effects

  11. 450 FEMA 356 400 Shear 350 300 Monotonic 250 Cyclic Envelope 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 Displacement Research program overview • Improved simulation • model development • simulation capability • Regional simulation

  12. Research program overview • Crafting and evaluating appropriate policies • Identify different classes of the problem • Structural configuration • Occupancy • Economic conditions • Identify feasible mechanisms • Model risk reduction impacts • Evaluate economic impacts • Costs borne by building owners, governments, and other stakeholders • Regulatory considerations

  13. Collaborations with existing organizations • ASCE Standards Committees • American Concrete Institute • Applied Technology Council • EERI Concrete Coalition

More Related