Sei sulla pagina 1di 32

SEMINAR REPORT ON

BASE ISOLATION TECHNIQUE OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

By Prashant Chougule Roll No: 3809

Guided by: Mrs. Sahare Professor

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING BRACTS Vishwakarma Institute of Information Technology Pune 411 048

PAGE INDEX

TABLE INDEX

FIGURE INDEX

BASE ISOLATION TECHNIQUE OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

INTRODUCTION:
One of the most significant developments in structural engineering in the past twenty years has undoubtedly been the emergence of performance-based design as a means of selecting, proportioning, and building structural systems to resist seismic excitations. This methodology is an ideal framework for design due to its flexibility with respect to the selection of performance objectives, characterization and simulation of both demand and resistance, and the overarching treatment of uncertainty. A great strength of the methodology is that performance objectives may be defined in terms of structural performance, architectural function, socio-economic considerations, and environmental sustainability. This framework has the attractive feature of providing a metric of performance that can be implemented by a wide variety of infrastructure stakeholders, including architects, building owners, contractors, insurance providers, capital investment proprietors, and public officials. As civil engineers train their focus on broadly defined solutions to the challenges posed by maintaining and improving civilization, performance-based design will increasingly play a central role. This design approach requires the use of innovative structural systems to achieve the complex and potentially multi-objective performance goals that the various stakeholders are likely to envision. Given the uncertainty that is unavoidably present in any earthquake resistant design framework, innovative systems must not only be capable of predictable response to deterministic input, but also be sufficiently robust to respond reliably to a broad range of potential input.

Earthquake:
An earthquake is the result of a sudden release of energy in the Earth's crust that creates seismic waves. Earthquakes are recorded with a seismometer, also known as a seismograph.

A.

Effects of earthquakes:
There are many effects of earthquakes including, but not limited to the following:

1.

Shaking and ground rupture Shaking and ground rupture are the main effects created by earthquakes, principally resulting in more or less severe damage to buildings or other rigid structures. The local effect depends on the complex combination of the earthquake magnitude, the distance from epicenter, and the local geological and geomorphological conditions, which may amplify or reduce wave propagation. The ground-shaking is measured by ground acceleration.

2.

Landslides and avalanches:

Earthquakes can cause landslides and avalanches, which may cause damage in hilly and mountainous areas.

3.

Fires:

Following an earthquake, fires can be generated by break of the electrical power or gas lines. In the event of water mains rupturing and a loss of pressure, it may also become difficult to stop the spread of a fire once it has started.

4.

Soil liquefaction:

Soil liquefaction occurs when, because of the shaking, watersaturated granular material temporarily loses its strength and transforms from a solid to a liquid. Soil liquefaction may cause rigid structures, as buildings or bridges, to tilt or sink into the liquefied deposits.

5.

Tsunami:

Undersea earthquakes and earthquake-triggered landslides into the sea, can cause Tsunamis. For example, the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake.

6.

Floods:

A flood is an overflow of any amount of water that reaches land floods occur usually when the volume of water within a body of water, such as a river or lake, exceeds the total capacity of the formation, and as a result some of the water flows or sits outside of the normal perimeter of the body. However, floods may be secondary effects of earthquakes, if dams are damaged. Earthquakes may cause landslips to dam, rivers, which then collapse and cause floods.

B.

Why Earthquake Effects are to be Reduced:


Conventional seismic design attempts to make buildings that do not collapse under strong earthquake shaking, but may sustain damage to nonstructural elements and to some structural members in the building. This may render the building non-functional after the earthquake, which may be problematic in some structures, like hospitals, which need to remain functional in the aftermath of the earthquake. Special techniques are required to design buildings such that they remain practically undamaged even in a severe earthquake. Buildings with such improved seismic performance usually cost

more than normal buildings do. However, this cost is justified through improved earthquake performance.

EARTHQUAKE RESISTING TECHNIQUES : A. Shear walls B. Braced Frames C. Tuned Mass Damper D. Base Isolation

SHEAR WALLS :
Shear walls are vertical elements of the horizontal force resisting system. They are typically wood frame stud walls covered with a structural sheathing material like plywood. When the sheathing is properly fastened to the stud wall framing, the shear wall can resist forces directed along the length of the wall. When shear walls are designed and constructed properly, they will have the strength and stiffness to resist the horizontal forces

Location of shear walls :


Shear walls should be located on each level of the structure including the crawl space. To form an effective box structure, equal length shear walls should be placed symmetrically on all four exterior walls of the building. Shear walls should be added to the building interior when the exterior walls cannot provide sufficient strength and stiffness or when the allowable span-width ratio for the floor or roof diaphragm is exceeded. For subfloors with conventional diagonal sheathing, the span-width ratio is 3:1. This means that a 25-foot wide building

with this subfloor will not require interior shear walls until its length exceeds 75 feet unless the strength or stiffness of the exterior shear walls are inadequate

Functions of Shear Wall :


Shear walls must provide the necessary lateral strength to resist horizontal earthquake forces. When shear walls are strong enough, they will transfer these horizontal forces to the next element in the load path below them. These other components in the load path may be other shear walls, floors, foundation walls, slabs or footings. Shear walls also provide lateral stiffness to prevent the roof or floor above from excessive side-sway. When shear walls are stiff enough, they will prevent floor and roof framing members from moving off their supports. Also, buildings that are sufficiently stiff will usually suffer less nonstructural damage.

BRACED FRAMES :
A Braced Frame is a structural system which is designed primarily to resist wind and earthquake forces. Members in a braced frame are designed to work in tension and compression, similar to a truss. Braced frames are almost always composed of steel members.

Types of Braced Frame


Concentrically Braced Frames
Most braced frames are concentric. This means that, where members intersect at a node, the centroid of each member passes through the same point Concentrically Braced Frames can further be classified as either Ordinary or Special. Ordinary concentric braced frames (OCBFs) do not have extensive requirements regarding members or connections, and are frequently used in areas of low seismic risk. Special concentric braced frames (SCBFs) have extensive design requirements, and are frequently used in areas of high seismic risk. The purpose of the SCBF design requirements is to ensure adequate ductility.

Eccentrically Braced Frames


Some braces are intentially designed to accommodate eccentricity in the connections. These frames are called Eccentrically Braced Frames, or EBFs. Because EBFs are highly ductile, they are permitted in areas of high seismic hazard.

Advantages :
High Strength and Stiffness
Braced frames have much higher initial strength and stiffness. Bracing is a much effective than rigid joints at resisting racking deformation of the frame.

Efficient and Economical


Braced frames use less material and have simpler connections than moment-resisting frames

Compact
Braced frames can lead to lower floor-to-floor heights, which can be an important economic factor in tall buildings, or in a region where there are height limits.

Visual
Braces can be used as a strong visual element.

Disadvantages: Obstructive
Braces can interfere with architectural requirements for doors, windows, and open floor area.

Low Ductility
Braced frames have bad ductility characteristics under cyclic loading, which is important for seismic design. Braced frames lose strength and stiffness after the braces buckle.

TUNED MASS DAMPER :


A tuned mass damper, also known as an active mass damper (AMD) or harmonic absorber, is a device mounted in structures to reduce the amplitude of mechanical vibrations. Their application can prevent discomfort, damage, or outright structural failure. They are frequently used in power transmission, automobiles, and buildings.

Principle:
Tuned mass dampers stabilize against violent motion caused by harmonic vibration. A tuned damper reduces the vibration of a system with a comparatively lightweight component so that the worst-case vibrations are less intense. Roughly speaking practical systems are tuned to either move the main mode away from a troubling excitation frequency, or to add damping to a resonance that is difficult or expensive to damp directly. An example of the latter is a crankshaft torsional damper. Mass dampers are frequently implemented with a frictional or hydraulic component that turns mechanical kinetic energy into heat, like an automotive shock absorber. An electrical analogue is a LCR circuit.

Dampers in buildings and related structures :


Typically, the dampers are huge concrete blocks or steel bodies mounted in skyscrapers or other structures, and moved in opposition to the resonance frequency oscillations of the structure by means of springs, fluid or pendulums.
1. Sources of vibration and resonance

Unwanted vibration may be caused by environmental forces acting on a structure, such as wind or earthquake, or by a seemingly innocuous vibration source causing resonance that may be destructive, unpleasant or simply inconvenient.

a)

Earthquakes

The seismic waves caused by an earthquake will make buildings sway and oscillate in various ways depending on the frequency and direction of ground motion, and the height and construction of the building. Seismic activity can cause excessive oscillations of the building which may lead to structural failure. To enhance the building's seismic performance, a proper building design is performed engaging various seismic vibration control technologies.
b) Mechanical human sources

Masses of people walking up and down stairs at once, or great numbers of people stomping in unison, can cause serious problems in large structures like stadiums if those structures lack damping measures. Vibration caused by heavy industrial machinery, generators and diesel engines can also pose problems to structural integrity, especially if mounted on a steel structure or floor. Large ocean going vessels may employ tuned mass dampers to isolate the vessel from its engine vibration.
c) Wind

The force of wind against tall buildings can cause the top of skyscrapers to move more than a meter. This motion can be in the form of swaying or twisting, and can cause the upper floors of such buildings to move. Certain angles of wind and aerodynamic properties of a building can accentuate the movement and cause motion sickness in people.

d)

Examples of buildings and structures with tuned mass dampers (1) Canada

One Wall Centre in Vancouver It employs tuned liquid column dampers, at the time of its installation, a unique form of tuned mass damper. (2) China

Shanghai World Financial Center in Shanghai, China (3) Germany

Berlin Television Tower (Fernsehturm) tuned mass damper located in the spire. (4) Ireland

Dublin Spire in Dublin, Ireland This narrow slender structure was designed with a tuned mass damper to ensure aerodynamic stability during a wind storm. (5) Japan

Akashi-Kaiky Bridge, between Honshu and Shikoku in Japan, currently the world's longest suspension bridge, uses pendulums within its suspension towers as tuned mass dampers. Tokyo Sky Tree, vertically placed two units (total 100 tons) in the housing as atop. Yokohama Landmark Tower (6) Russia

Sakhalin-I An offshore drilling platform (7) Taiwan

Taipei 101 skyscraper Contains one of the world's largest tuned mass dampers, at 730 tons.[7] (8) United Arab Emirates

Burj al-Arab in Dubai 11 tuned mass dampers. (9) United States of America

Bally's to Bellagio, Bally's to Caesars Palace, and Treasure Island to The Venetian Pedestrian Bridges in Las Vegas, NV Bloomberg Tower/731 Lexington in New York City, NY

Citigroup Center in New York City, NY Designed by William LeMessurier and completed in 1977, it was one of the first skyscrapers to use a tuned mass damper to reduce sway. Uses a concrete version.

Comcast Center in Philadelphia, PA Contains the largest Tuned Liquid Column Damper (TLCD) in the world at 1,300 tons.[8] Grand Canyon Skywalk, AZ John Hancock Tower in Boston, MA A tuned mass damper was added to it after it was built. One Rincon Hill South Tower , San Francisco, CA First building in California to have a liquid tuned mass damper Park Tower in Chicago, IL The first building in the United States to be designed with a tuned mass damper from the outset. Random House Tower Uses two liquid filled dampers in New York City, NY Theme Building at Los Angeles International Airport Los Angeles, CA Trump World Tower in New York City, NY (10) United Kingdom

London Millennium Bridge 'The Wobbly Bridge'

BASE ISOLATION : INTRODUCTION:


In the past 20 years, seismic isolation and other response modification technologies have seen a variety of applications in the design of structures to mitigate seismic

risk. While such technologies provide a means of controlling the demands imposed by earthquakes, very few new seismic isolated buildings have been constructed in the U.S., compared to other countries with significant seismic hazards, such as Japan, China, and Taiwan. While a number of reasons for this have been identified, one is the lack of a transparent design method for choosing isolator properties that can minimize damage to the structure from various sources, while achieving isolator designs and displacement demands that are practical. The introduction of new technologies, such as supplemental energy dissipation devices and new types of isolator devices, has only compounded this problem. As such, performance-based seismic design provides a useful framework for developing an understanding of the relationships among the characteristics of the ground motion, superstructure and isolation system, and to evaluate the ability of various design approaches and isolator system properties to reliably achieve targeted performance goals. While significant effort has been devoted to these areas by organizations devoted to collaborative research, less attention has been given to the role of innovative seismic isolation devices and systems in achieving the goals of a performance-based design framework described above. These types of devices are ideally suited for implementation within a performance-based framework because (a) robust characterization of their behavior can be made through experimentation; (b) the uncertainty associated with their behavior is generally low relative to conventional structural elements; and (c) it can be challenging, or even impossible, to reliably achieve an enhanced performance objective without their use. These benefits, combined with the fact that the implementation of innovative systems in practice is often met with resistance from building officials, owners, contractors, and even design professionals, make future research critical to the continued evolution of performance-based design. Such structural systems have been developed and investigated by both the research and practicing communities for decades, but implementation has been slow, and mainstream application has yet to emerge. As a result, there is a need for strategies and techniques that broaden the use of innovative structural systems, and it is in the context of performance-based design that an effective methodology may be developed.

Concept :

Seismic isolation has its roots in the need to control structural response due to harmonic vibrations. This need stems from a) the discomfort caused to occupants as a result of oscillatory motion of floor-supported equipment and b) the potential for damage to sensitive equipment caused by vibrations of the supporting structure [Clough and Penzien, 1993]. The sources of such vibrations have traditionally been rotating machinery, ambient traffic conditions, and walker induced floor vibrations. A common method of reducing the accelerations due to harmonic excitation is to provide a compliant base (either from steel springs or elastomeric pads) that adjusts the natural frequency of the supported equipment such that it is unable to reach resonance under the operating frequency of the excitation [Rivin, 2003]. This idea is behind the concept of transmissibility, or the ratio of the response amplitude to the input amplitude. For example, in vibration isolation, one can define the transmissibility as where is the peak total acceleration of the equipment and is the peak input acceleration of the support. TR is generally a function of the forcing frequency, the natural frequency of the supporting hardware, and the amount and type of damping present. Whereas the forcing frequency may be a function of the operating speed and weight (and therefore a fixed quantity independent of the support), the natural frequency and damping of the supporting hardware may be adjusted to limit the total acceleration due to harmonic excitation. The reduction of transmissibility is also the goal of seismic isolation. Unlike traditional equipment isolation, however, the excitation is due to ground shaking, and cannot be characterized by harmonic input. These undesirable deformations can be mitigated to some extent through the addition of damping, typically through a combination of velocity-dependent (termed viscous damping) and deformation-dependent (termed hysteretic damping) energy dissipation mechanisms. As a result, a properly designed isolation system will have the appropriate combination of stiffness and damping such that substantial dynamic decoupling is achieved without detrimental deformation demands in the isolation hardware. Period elongation is not, however, the only necessary component to a seismic isolation system. Indeed, if adding flexibility were sufficient to reduce seismic response, then an effective design strategy would be to use the most flexible members possible given the consideration of stability under gravity. An equally important aspect of isolation is the change in fundamental mode shape. The introduction of a layer that is compliant relative to the supported structure introduces a key modification to the free vibration characteristics of the structure. The more similar the

fundamental mode shape is to rigid-body behavior, the less mass participation is present in higher modes. Such rigid-body behavior is associated with the relative compliance of the isolation layer. Hence, as the natural period of the isolation system increases relative to the natural period of the supported structure, the participation of higher modes becomes closer to zero and the seismic deformation is concentrated at the isolation layer and not in the superstructure.

Current Status of Base Isolation :


The concept of seismic isolation has been documented since the early 1900s, and its development surely extended prior to that. Naeim and Kelly [1999] recount the infancy of seismic isolation for civil construction, where the concept was simply to detach a structure at its foundation, and provide some interstitial joint with a low-friction interface. This method of isolating a structure from the ground represents a simple, if not indelicate, way of reducing transmission of horizontal ground movement into the supported structure. Obviously, if some zero-friction interface is introduced (akin to the structure suspended in mid-air), any ground movement will excite zero movement of the structure relative to its original position. However, these methods of isolation have proved impractical, and more sophisticated methods of decoupling the motion of a structure and the ground was sought. Modern seismic isolation found its origins in the mid-1960s with the New Zealand Department of Scientific and Industrial Research [Skinner et al., 1993]. Many researchers contributed to the development of reliable devices to achieve the requisite flexible layer for successful isolation while retaining sufficient vertical stiffness to resist service loading. These isolation bearings exploited the beneficial properties of natural rubber to provide flexibility. Since the development of reliable seismic isolation hardware in the mid-1970s there has been significant adoption of isolation as a design strategy for seismic hazard mitigation. Naeim and Kelly [1999] provide a detailed description of substantial isolation projects undertaken in various parts of the world. Higashino and Okamoto [2006] summarize the worldwide adoption of seismic isolation and describe the current state of the practice, including specific applications and regulatory environments, in the following countries: China, Italy, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Taiwan, and the United States. They also include detailed design and construction information for many specific projects.

Below is a brief summary of notable practical achievements in seismic isolation of buildings. The first modern building to incorporate base isolation was the Pestalozzi School in Skopje, Macedonia, constructed in 1969. This project used rubber blocks in the basement to provide flexibility between the structure and foundation. The first building to be seismically isolated in the United States, and the first in the world to incorporate high-damping rubber bearings, was the Foothill Community Law and Justice Center in Rancho Cucamonga, California. The first rehabilitation of an existing structure with seismic isolation was in 1986 with the City and County Building in Salt Lake City, Utah. This project pioneered many construction methods of jacking and post-installation of bearings that are still used today. The existing United States Court of Appeals Building in San Francisco, California, was renovated in 1994, and was the first building (new or existing) to be isolated with friction pendulum bearings. The first seismic isolated hospital in the world was the USC University Hospital in Los Angeles, California, constructed in 1991. A number of isolated buildings have been subjected to strong ground motion in both the United States and Japan, and recorded data are available for many. In all post-earthquake observations and analysis of recorded data, the performance and behavior of isolated buildings has been consistent with expectations, and very little damage has been reported. For descriptions of observed behavior of isolated buildings in past earthquakes, see Clarketal. [1994], Nagarajaiah and Sun [2000], and Higashino et al. [2006].

TYPES OF ISOLATION DEVICES :

Elastomeric Isolation Systems :


The pioneering work in modern seismic isolation was undertaken at the New Zealand Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and this work is reported in Skinner, Kelly, and Heine [1975] and Skinner, Beck, and Bycroft [1975]. The focus of this research was the development of reliable mechanical devices for seismic isolation and energy dissipation with applications to civil structures. Energy dissipation devices studied were metallic yielding elements in either flexure or torsion. The need to develop substantial movement to obtain damping from these devices motivated the study of isolation systems. Here, isolation was identified as a reliable method to protect against both structural and nonstructural damage. Not only did this research present a theoretical framework for seismic isolation systems, but an in-depth discussion is included on a variety of practical implementation topics. The mechanical behavior of

laminated elastomeric bearings typical of modern practice is described by Kelly [1996]. This behavior includes force deformation in shear, axial compression, and bending; instability of bearings; and methods of design to achieve target properties. Clark et al. [1997] summarized a series of earthquake simulator tests on a three-story isolated model subjected to severe seismic excitation. These tests identified the behavior of high-damping elastomeric bearings under large cyclic deformation and provided important limit states for both the bearings and the supported structure. Sliding Isolation Systems Among the earliest contributions to sliding isolation systems is the seminal work on steadystate harmonic forced vibration of a linear oscillator with Coulomb friction damping, an exact solution to which is due to Den Hartog [1947]. The result of this solution is a response spectrum for harmonic input that demonstrates the benefit of reduced transmissibility resulting from a reduction in natural frequency below that of the excitation, even with the presence of dry friction as a damping mechanism. Early studies of multi-story buildings isolated with systems incorporating sliding elements are reported by Kelly and Beucke [1983] and Constantinou and Tadjbakhsh [1984]. In this work, the effect of friction on an otherwise linear isolation system is investigated, and found to mitigate large isolation system displacements while retaining the benefits of decoupling due to the linear elastomeric bearings. The first analytical and experimental studies on friction pendulum (FP) isolation bearings was conducted by Zayas et al. [1987]. This research program identified the potential to achieve reliable base isolation through the introduction of a spherical sliding surface, thereby simulating pendulum behavior. Substantial experimental characterization of FP bearings and development of nonlinear analytical models was reported by Zayas et al. [1989], Mokha et al. [1990, 1991, 1993], Nagarajaiah et al. [1992], and Constantinou et al. [1993]. Almazn and Dela Llera [1998, 2002] summarized bidirectional modeling considering first and second-order displacement and velocity effects in computing the deformation response and base shear of structures isolated on FP bearings. Experimental characterizations of FP under multi-component excitation and validation of nonlinear models to describe such behavior was reported by Anderson [2003] and Mosqueda et al. [2004]. Roussis and Constantinou [2006] conducted analytical and experimental investigations on the behavior of FP bearings with the ability to resist tensile forces. Recently, multi-stage friction pendulum bearings have been introduced and applied on projects worldwide. Tsai et al. [2008] proposed a multiple friction pendulum system (MFPS) consisting of multiple sliding interfaces and an articulating slider. Such bearings exhibit large displacement capacity relative to bearings consisting of only a single spherical surface. Fenz and Constantinou [2006] presented further work on friction pendulum (FP) bearings with two spherical surfaces and distinct friction coefficients on each sliding interface, leading to sliding behavior that exhibits multi-stage hysteretic response. The analytical behavior of triple pendulum (TP) bearings, including suitable cyclic models with experimental verification, has been reported by Fenz and Constantinou [2008a,b] and Becker and Mahin [2010].

Merits and Demerits of Base Isolators :


Device Merits Demerits High Displacements Low Damping No Resistance to service loads Low cost P- moments top and Bottom Strain dependent stiffness and damping Complex Analysis Limited choice of stiffness and damping Change in properties with scragging P- moments top and Bottom Cyclic change in properties P- moments top and Bottom

Low Damping Rubber Bearing

Low in structure accelerations

Moderate in structure accelerations High Damping Rubber Bearing

Resistance to service loads

Moderate to High Damping Moderate in structure accelerations Wide choice of stiffness/damping

Lead Rubber Bearing

Device

Merits

Demerits

Low profile

High in structure accelerations

Resistance to service loads Flat Sliders High Damping

Sticking

No restoring force P- moments can be top or Bottom Low profile

Resistant to service loads High Damping Rubber Bearing

High in structure accelerations

Moderate to high damping P- moments can be top or Bottom Sticking Reduced Tension Response

Isolation System Suppliers :


Company Product

Bridgestone (Japan) BTR Andre (UK) Seougal Rubber Corporation (US) High Damping Rubber

Robinson Seismic (NZ) Earthquake Protection Systems ,Inc (US)

Lead Rubber

Friction Pendulum System

Dynamic Isolation Systems,Inc (US) Skellerup Industries (NZ) Seismic Energy Products (US) Lead Rubber ,High Damping Rubber

Hercules Engineering (Australia) R J Watson ,Inc (US) FIP-Energy Absorption Systems (US) Sliding Bearings

Case Study Of San Francisco City Hall :

The earthquake damage :


The epicenter for the October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, was located approximately 60 miles to the south of San Francisco. This earthquake had varying affects on San Francisco depending primarily on the nature of the underlying soil conditions. Because of the distance of the epicenter of the earthquake from the city, soft soil areas that had greater surface response because of their tendency to resonate with the longer seismic waves. Pockets of significant damage in the city were located on fill or alluvium. Less significant damage extended through other areas located on firmer ground. The City Hall is located on an area of "Quaternary dune sand," a "fine grey sand underlain by a tough blue clay stratum." The site lies inland from the areas of San Francisco located on fill over bay mud where greater damage occurred. The City Hall site is firmer than the bay mud locations, with "no historical evidence of soil liquefaction" for the site.

The damage to the building consisted of the following: 1) Cracks and slight dislocation of some of the exterior masonry. The cracks are located for the most part along the mortar joints of the exterior granite, with evidence of cracking through brick masonry units on the inside face of the walls. 2) A crack in one granite lintel spanning between exterior columns on the north side of the building. 3) Hairline cracks in many of the interior hollow clay tile (HCT) walls, visible through the plaster surface, most frequently along the mortar joints between the units and at the column to HCT infill interface. 4) Displacement of hollow clay tile units in a few of the hollow clay tile walls at the first floor level in areas where the HCT is not bounded and restrained by the building frame.

5) Displacement of the marble cladding at the sides of the staircase and hallways in the central rotunda area. The staircase walls have been temporarily supported and covered with plywood making their inspection by the Task Force incomplete. 6) Slight movement and displacement of some of the limestone cladding on the piers and arches of the central rotunda. Some of the keystones in the first story arches have dropped slightly. 7) Minor cracking in the ornamental plaster ceiling of the central rotunda, particularly at the intersections of the walls and ceiling. Some small pieces of ornamental plaster broke off, falling to the floor 8) Widening of existing cracks, with some additional new cracks, in the floor slabs, particularly around the central rotunda and around the dome. 9) Some broken glass in the windows of the central rotunda. There was no reported damage to any part of the steel frame. All of the damage was limited to the cracking of brittle materials such as masonry and concrete. There were no reports of major falling elements, although some smaller pieces of plaster fell from the cracks in the ceilings and walls. The building was determined to be structurally safe by city inspectors, with a sign installed after the earthquake stating that it was safe. The building was not vacated at any time after the earthquake, and has been occupied continuously since the earthquake.

Seismic Strengthening Alternatives :


The recently identified problems with San Francisco City Hall mostly relate to the building's seismic design deficiencies when measured against current engineering standards. Present day seismic design is based on a better understanding of the seismic ground shaking and building response. Engineering practice now has the capacity to analyze complex structures mathematically, supplementing engineering practice based on judgement and observed performance.

The structural system of the building can be quantified. The structural system of the City Hall, measured by the standards of today, shows that it does not have the strength, ductility or control of architectural damage that is mandated by current building codes. The stability of the 20 foot high Main Floor, and the lateral capacity of the dome structure are the primary concerns with the City Hall structure. Damage to the architectural skin and interior wall surfaces, resulting from excessive deflections in these weaker areas, is a secondary concern. If life safety was the only goal of seismic strengthening of the City Hall, the building stability against collapse would be a sufficient level of seismic strengthening. If damage control is desired, increased seismic strengthening is what is typically required. Controlling falling hazards is also a life safety goal, but the number of potential lives lost from falling objects is substantially less than are at risk if the building collapsed. Falling hazard risk can be mitigated by either reducing building deflections by strengthening or by reducing its seismic response by either dissipators or base isolation. It can also be dealt with by installing a separate schedule of secondary anchors. The seismic strengthening scheme for a project such as San Francisco City Hall must be developed based on the goals appropriate for the building. Descriptions of schemes with increasing levels of performance are summarized below to illustrate the range of mitigation measures that could be applied to the building: 1) No Upgrade, Repair Damage Only: The building historically has performed well in small to moderate earthquakes. Potential severe damage or collapse has been postulated for a very large earthquake.

2) Strengthened Building Design: (Federal Option B) Add strength to existing brick walls and strengthen dome. Provide stability for a large earthquake. collapse is prevented. Damage is controlled for moderate earthquakes and potential for Extensive damage may still be possible in a very large event.

3) Energy Dissipation Design: (Federal Option A) Reduce overall building motions with mechanical energy dissipators. Assures stability but accepts a controlled amount of damage.

4) New Shear Walls Design: (City Alternative B) Add new reinforced concrete walls of sufficient strength to resist the expected seismic forces while decreasing deformations and increasing strength and damage control in comparison with approach 2.

5) Base Isolation with upper story strengthening Design: (City Alternative A) Insert base isolator bearings beneath the building, and strengthen building above isolators. The isolation system would reduce the seismic response and the strengthening would avoid "tuning" of isolator and building periods. the building. Provides maximum protection of the brittle architectural finishes of

Seismic strengthening ordinances have typically focused on the minimum level to provide reasonable life safety rather than more extensive damage control. Generally the costs rise as more damage control is sought, while this is not absolutely the case. As is shown by the Federal Options, because of the unique configuration and dynamics of the City Hall, the use of superstructure dampers is expected to afford a greater degree of life-safety protection and overall damage control at less cost than the more conventional perimeter and courtyard wall strengthening design in the larger earthquakes.

Conclusion : REPORT SUMMARY The Task Force recognizes that San Francisco Hall has inherent structural weaknesses that could become life-safety issues in the event of a major earthquake. Since FEMA regulations limit funds to hazard mitigation that can be shown to be "cost-effective", the role of the Task Force has been to evaluate alternative design schemes with the City's base isolation seismic retrofit scheme for different performance criteria.

It should be understood that the Task Force is not critical toward the base isolation technology or the high degree of seismic protection gained by the technology, but has been asked to evaluate alternative seismic mitigation schemes for different performance goals for comparison in order to measure the degree of appropriate FEMA funding that is waranted to meet the "cost-effective" measure. The Task Force has developed alternative designs which meet the life-safety minimum standards and the minimum seismic force levels of Section 2313 of the San Francisco Building Code. Federal Design Option A, Energy Dissipation Scheme, utilizes mechanical energy dissipation devices to control building displacements and accelerations to levels which prevent building collapse in a major earthquake and controls building damage in more likely smaller earthquakes. The devices are installed in the Main floor level and in the dome and dome-to-building transfer regions. In the Main floor level the dissipation device support system is independent of the existing structural framing system to capture the relative story displacement in the Main story level for the dissipation device. earthquake intensities. Option A Total Project Cost (including relocation): Federal share = 75% Benefit/Cost Ratio: $83 million $63 million 0.93 The dissipation scheme successfully controls the damage of the building reasonable for all

Federal Design Option B, Fixed Base Strengthened Building Scheme, is a scheme that strengthens the building to a degree that prevents building collapse in the major earthquake and controls damage in more likely moderate and small earthquakes. The strengthening comes from a new membrane of reinforced concrete applied to the inside face to the unreinforced masonry walls on both the perimeter and light court walls as well as strengthening of the dome, drum and drum support framing. The design option meets the FEMA Criteria outlined in Chapter IV of providing life-safety, by strengthening weaknesses in the building load path, and controlling seismic response. As a result, it will provide a degree of protection for the historical fabric by placing the strengthening such

that the outward appearance of the building is unaltered and minimal changes in the interiors are required. The scheme will minimize disruption to the occupants by phasing the strengthening such that portions of the building could be under construction at one time. It is a cost effective strengthening scheme. Option B Total Project Cost (including relocation): Federal share = 75% Benefit/Cost Ratio: $104 million $78 million 0.75

The City's Base Isolation Scheme provides seismic protection that exceeds the FEMA criteria through a combination of base isolation and building superstructure strengthening. Base Isolation Total Project Cost (including relocation): Benefit-Cost Ratio: $180 million 0.66

TASK FORCE CONCLUSIONS

Recognizing that FEMA has concluded that the State Historical Building Code and the San Francisco Building Code are not triggered by the damage caused by the Loma Prieta Earthquake, the Panel has arrived at the following conclusions and recommendation: 1. That life-safety concerns over the future performance of the San Francisco City Hall in a large earthquake with the potential of occurring at that site can be beneficially reduced by a seismic upgrade of the building. 2. That FEMA has determined that Federal funds should be used to reduce life-safety risks in a cost-effective manner, without trying to achieve maximum property damage protection. 3. That discretionary seismic upgrade design alternatives, which are less costly than the base isolation scheme, are feasible for seismic upgrading of the San Francisco City Hall. 4. That either of the design options developed by the Panel, Federal Design Options A and B, would be equally or more cost effective than the City's proposal, and would satisfy FEMA program goals for total project costs, including relocation and soft costs, of approximately $83 million for Option A (Federal Share = $63 million) and $104 million for Option B (Federal Share = $78 million). The City's design has been estimated to cost approximately $180 million. 5. That the impact of either of the Federal design options on the important historical architectural features of the City Hall is different than that of the City's design, but, if carried to final design, could be kept in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. 6. The Panel recognizes the difficulty associated with quantifying historic preservation benefits and therefore recommends that some acknowledgment of the major historical significance of San Francisco City Hall be made when comparing the different performance objectives of the different designs.

TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION :


The Panel recommends that FEMA, under the Section 406 program, which allows funds for discretionary hazard mitigation, consider making eligible the costs of a building upgrade of the San Francisco City Hall not to exceed Option B. The basis for providing some additional funds above the lower cost Option A is the Panel's concern with possible increases in costs associated with final design and construction delay of Option A,and an acknowledgment cited in item 6 above. Therefore, as stated above, the Panel would concur with a grant not to exceed the estimated cost of Option B.

Potrebbero piacerti anche