Basic Knoweldge

Part I: Fundamentals of Earhquake Enginering
Part II: 2D Pounding of Buildings during Earthquakes

Part III: 3D Pounding Analysis of Two Buildings
SEISMIC DESIGN OF STRUCTURES

Basic approaches to earthquake analysis
Pounding of buildings during earthquakes
Prof dr Stanko Brčić
Faculty of Civil Engineering

University of Belgrade
Belgrade, April 8, 2011
Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

Outline
1 Part I: Fundamentals of Earhquake Enginering
Causes of earthquakes
Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
2 Part II: 2D Pounding of Buildings during Earthquakes
Beginning of pounding analysis
Unfortunate history: Mexico City, 1985
General remarks about pounding analysis
2D Pounding analysis of two buildings
3 Part III: 3D Pounding Analysis of Two Buildings
Conditions of impact
Computer implementation and numerical example
Summary of pounding analysis
Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Outline of the Presentation

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
What are earthquakes?
Earthquakes: broad-banded vibratory ground motions

Result from a number of causes:
tectonic ground motions
volcanism
landslides
rockburst
man-made explosions

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Tectonic-related earthquakes
the largest and the most important

caused by the fracture and sliding of the rock
along faults within the Earth’s crust
a fault is a zone of the Earth’s crust
within which two sides have moved
faults may be hundreds km long and from one to 100 km deep
boundaries between tectonic plates
Southern California, San Andreas fault, . . .

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Southern California - satelite view

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
San Andreas Fault

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Definition of an Earthquake
Earthquake is
a sudden release of elastic energy by fracture over some area
of the Earth
or a sudden slip on a fault (relaease of elastic energy)
and the resulting ground shaking
i.e. radiated seismic energy (stress waves) caused by the slip

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Tectonic Plates

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Tectonic plates
Motion of tectonic plates

about 15 large tectonic plates
motion of the plates driven by the convective motion in the
Earth’s mantle
i.e by the heath generated in the Earth’s core
relative plate motion at the fault interface restrained by
friction and interlocking
rate of relative motion 0 - 100 mm annually
accumulation of strain energy in the plates . . .
sometimes, accumulated energy overcomes resistance ⇒
sudden slip between the two sides of the fault

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Large scale motions of Earth’s lithosphere

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Typical types of seismic faults

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
The Ring of Fire - Pacific plate

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Seismic stress waves
Types of seismic waves

location of initial radiation of seismic waves (the first location
of dynamic rupture) . . . hypocenter
epicenter . . . projection on the surface of the Earth directly
above the hypocenter
released energy radiated through the Earth in broad spectrum
of frequencies
body waves travel through the interior of the Earth
P-waves (primary, longitudinal waves)
S-waves (secondary, shear waves)
surface waves travel along the Earth surface
Rayleigh waves
Love waves (L-waves)

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Measurement of earthquakes: magnitude
Richter’s Magnitude of an earthquake

Quantification of released strain energy
Richter (1935): 1st definition of earthquake magnitude
ML = log A − log A0
ML . . . the local magnitude (defined only for Southern

California)
A . . . maximum trace amplitude (in µm) recorded on a
Wood-Anderson seismometers, at a site 100 km from the
epicenter
log A0 . . . correction for instruments at distances other than
100 km (and less then 600 km)

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Other magnitudes
Richter’s magnitude ML is locally defined only for South
California
Analogous definition of the surface wave magnitude MS
Surface wave magnitude MS is related to released energy
log ES = 11.8 + 1.5MS
where ES is the total released energy (in ergs)

Also, the body wave magnitude mb
mb = 2.5 + 0.63 · MS

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
The Moment Magnitude M

Dominant magnitude now in use is
the moment magnitude MW , or M
log M0 = 1.5 · MW + 16.0
where M0 is the seismic moment (in dyn cm), defined as

(1974, Lomnitz)
M0 = µ · A · ū
where µ . . . the material shear modulus
A . . . the fault area
ū . . . the averaged relative motion (fault slip)

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Some terminology - classification of earthquakes

Small . . . M < 5
Moderate . . . M ∈ [5, 6.5]
Large . . . M ∈ [6.5, 8]
Great . . . M > 8

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Measurement of earthquakes: seismic intensity
Seismic intensity - measurement of the effect

Subjective measure (like Beaufort’s wind scale)
Based on observed human behavior and structural damage
Rossi-Forel scale(RF, 1873, Italy) . . . from I to X
Mercalli Intensity Scale (MI, 1902, Italy) . . . from I to XII
Mercali-Cancani-Sieberg (MCS, Europe) revision of MI
Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI, 1931, USA)
. . . from I to XII (the same as MCS)
Medvedev-Sponheuer-Karnik (MSK-64, USSR, Europe)
. . . from I to XII
European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98, 1998, EU)
. . . from I to XII (revision of MSK-64)

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Earthquake magnitude and released energy

Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Measurement of earthquakes: engineering measures
Engineering measures of earthquakes

Peak ground acceleration (PGA)
Time history recordings (accelerograms)
Elastic response spectra


Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
San Fernando Earthquake, Feb. 1971

Olive View Hospital

San Fernando Earthquake, Feb. 1971

Olive View Hospital


Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Mexico City - Before and Now

Big development in housing and population
1820
Lake
Mexico City

Underground Lake in Mexico

All pictures are obtained as the curtesy of Prof. N.Chouw
Lake in
prehistoric times
at the beginning of 16th century
in 1889
today

Mexico City Earthquake, 1985

Very long lasting ground acceleration
ag (m/s2)
2
1st 2nd 2s Tn = n
1
0
-1
T10
Lake side
-2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time (s) 0.83Hz
12
cs=80m/s
flayer = cs/4H flayer = 0.5Hz 10
H= 40m

unding due
It was a very to resonance
nice looking building before! and different heights
/s 2 ] Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings


Different building sizes and dynamic characteristics
Mexico earthquake, 1985


"‘Ugly"’ and rather strong neighbours!
Pounding due to
excited neighbours


Before and after!
Before
Damage due to unequal

mass and height

The last building in a row
Pounding effect on end building


Two buildings meeting at right angle
Pounding at corners


Bridges connecting two buildings
Pounding due to bridge links


Bridges connecting two buildings
Pounding due to bridge links


Collapse of a building and impact upon another one


Some statistics about the damage
Damaged multi-storey buildings

Out of about 330 multistory buildings that were damaged or
have collapsed during the earthquake,
in more then 40% there was the evidence of pounding of
adjacent buildings.
Also, in 15% of all collapsed buildings,
the primary reason was the collision with neighbouring
buildings.


Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
General remarks about pounding of buildings
Notorious facts:
It is not a normal situation to analyze the impact of adjacent
buildings due to an earthquake.
If the buildings were built in accordance with the technical
regulations, impact of adjacent buildings would have never
occured.
The main reason for pounding of buildings is "‘optimize for
profit"’ concept of building investors:
more and more usefull area at any cost!

General approach to pounding analysis
Pounding of buildings during earthquakes

Numerical and analytical investigations of such problem are
still relatively rare
However, interest in the problem is increasing.
There are basically two approaches in the analysis:
Special contact elements (spring and dashpot types) between
buildings.
Elements become active when two masses are in contact
Main problem is how to assign the corresponding constants
Approaches based on global balance of momentum and
internal impact impulses.
However, practically, only 2D problems were considered.


Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Basic assumptions of 2D dynamic analysis
Assumptions for 2D horizontal load analysis

Building mass and stiffness are symmetric
(with respect to a vertical plane)
Typical for buildings with vertical elements in two orthogonal
directions
Slabs are treated as infinitely stiff in their planes
Mass is concentrated at slab levels
Vertical elements are planar structures
Slabs are performing only translatory motions in paralell
horizontal directions

2D Seismic Analysis of a Building
Differential equations of motion

Building with n stories: ⇒ n DOFs
Generalized coordinates: horizontal translations ui of each
storey
Concept of a storey stiffness: ki
(force neccessary to produce unit storey displacement)
Differential eqs. of motion for earthquake excitation
(defined by a given ground acceleration ug (t)):
M ü + Ku = −M e · ug (t)

where matrices and vectors are of the order n:

M is diagonal mass matrix
K is tridiagonal stiffness matrix
u is horizontal displacement vector
e is the unit vector (all elements equal to 1.0)

Of course,
damping may be taken into consideration, too.
Therefore, differential equations of motion are given as:
M ü + C u̇ + Ku = −M e · ug (t)

2D Pounding Analysis of Two Buildings
(I)
n1
- d
Number of DOFs:
.. (II)
. n2 n = n1 + n2
..
. Number of slabs
6z 2 2 in pounding m:
1 1 m ∈ [0, min(n1 , n2 )]
b -
x, u ⇐⇒ üg (t)

Seismic analysis of two neighbouring buildings

Small separation d between buildings
Slabs are at the same level and seismic excitation is the same
Building (I) has n1 stories, building (II) has n2 stories
Differential eqs. of motion are:
Building (I): n1 equations
M1 u¨1 + C1 u˙1 + K1 u1 = −M1 e · ug (t) = f1
Building (II): n2 equations
M2 u¨2 + C2 u˙2 + K2 u2 = −M2 e · ug (t) = f2

Seismic analysis of two neighbouring buildings

Both systems may be written as a single equation with
n1 + n2 = n unknowns:
M ü + C u̇ + Ku = f (1)
with obvious notation:

M1 C1
M= C=
M2 C2

K1 u1 f1
K= u= f=
K2 u2 f2

Pounding conditions of two neighbouring buildings

Buildings are oscillating independently from each other at the
beginning
If dynamic properties of buildings are rather different,
condition of possible contact between slabs is given as
uIj − uII
j =d
Conditions of contact may be achieved between several slabs

at a time:
Am u = dm
where Am is ortgogonal, m × n, matrix of contact and
dm = dem , where em is unit vector with m elements

Lagrange Constraints Multiplier Method

Diff. eqs. of motion, together with conditions of slab contact
Am u = dm , may be written as the system
M ü + C u̇ + Ku + ATm λm = f (t) (2)

Am u = dm (3)
where λm is the vector with Lagrange’s constraints multipliers:
λTm = { λ1 λ2 . . . λm }

Lagrange Constraints Multiplier Method

Lagrange constraints multipliers λj , (j = 1, 2, . . . m) represent
internal impact forces between pounding slabs
System (3) may be written as a single differential equation:

M 0 ü C 0 u̇
+ +
0 0 0 0 0 0
K ATm

u f (t)
= (4)
Am 0 λm dm

Numerical integration - α Method

Differential equations (4) may be written as
M v̈ + C v̇ + Kv = f (t)
Introducing α Method of numerical integration, one obtains

the system of equivalent "‘static"’ equations within each time
step:
∗ ∗
K vn+1 = f n+α (5)

Numerical integration - α Method

Differential equations (5) may be written as
K ∗ ATm
∗
un+1 fn+α
· = (6)
Am 0 λm,n+1 dm
Eqs. (6) may be transformed to obtain Lagrange multipliers

and displacements from:
Dm λm,n+1 = gm (7)
un+1 = c − Bλm,n+1 (8)

Simultaneous iterative solution of the problem

Differential equations (1) may be numerically solved using the
α method (or some other) of numerical integration
Ki∗ · ui,n+1 = fi,n+α

∗
(i=1,2) (9)
Eqs. (9) give displacements, and then velocities and

accelerations of both buildings at the end of considered time
interval ∆t.


Obtained dispalcements u1 and u2 are compared to establish
if the pounding of neighbouring slabs at the same level
happend (according to uIj − uII
j = d ).
If no pounding occured, independent equations are solved for
the next time step.
In the case of pounding (of one or more pairs of slabs), coupled
system of eqs. (3) is considered for the same time step.


Eqs. (8) are solved to obtain Lagrange multipliers and
displacements for considered time step.
If all obtained constraint multipliers have the same sign (all
impact forces have the same sense) and if obtained
displacements u1 and u2 indicate that pounding occured
between the same slabs as in previous independent analysis of
both buildings, then the convergence in pounding is achieved.
In that case, instead of previously obtained velocoties
according to α method, velocities according to impact analysis
are imposed.

Classical impact analysis of two bodies
Immidiately
before after
pounding
m m m m
1 v
2 v
1 v
2 v
1 2 1 2
v v
1 2 K K 0

Classical impact analysis of two bodies in translatory motion

Two bodies of masses mi are moving along the same line and
in the same sense, with velocities vi0 .
Velocity v1 is greater then v2 , so pounding happens.
The Law of Momentum (for both bodies, immidiately after
and before impact):
K~ 00 − K
~0 =0
~ = m~v .
where K


The coefficient of impact (coefficient of restitution) is defined
as:
v 00 − v100
k = 20 k ∈ [0, 1]
v1 − v20
For the particular values:
k = 0 . . . ideally plastic impact
k = 1 . . . ideally elastic impact
For all other values k ∈ (0, 1) . . . realistic impact


The solution for velocities after the impact are obtained as:
m2
v100 = v10 − (1 + k) · (v10 − v20 ) (10)
m1 + m2
m1
v200 = v20 − (1 + k) · (v10 − v20 ) (11)
m1 + m2

Iterative solution of 2D pounding

The solution for velocities, according to (11), are imposed as
new initial velocities for pounding slabs at the beginning of the
next time step.
Accelerations at the beginning of the next time step are
according to numerical integration results.

Part I: Fundamentals of Earhquake Enginering Conditions of impact
Part II: 2D Pounding of Buildings during Earthquakes Computer implementation and numerical example
Part III: 3D Pounding Analysis of Two Buildings Summary of pounding analysis
Basic assumptions (besides the usual linear elasticity)
3D Analysis of Non-symmetric Buildings

Slabs are treated as infinitely stiff in their planes
Mass is concentrated at slab levels
Slabs are performing planar motion in parallel horizontal planes
Vertical elements (frames and/or shear walls) are restraints to
planar motion of slabs
Vertical elements are planar structures
(not neccessary, but usually assumed)

Differential equations of motion

Building with n stories: ⇒ 3n DOFs
Generalized coordinates: two translations ui , vi and rotation
ϕi for each storey
Differential eqs. of motion for earthquake excitation
(defined by a given ground acceleration ug (t)):
M ü + C u̇ + Ku = −M e · üg = f (t)

Numerical solution - direct integration step-by-step

Transformation methods or direct numerical integration
Implicit α-method (or Newmark β)
Equivalent static problem for each time step:
K ∗ un+1 = fn+α
∗
⇒ un+1 (12)

Numerical solution - direct integration step-by-step

Generalized coordinates at the end of ∆t are obtained from
(12)
Velocities and accelerations are then calculated as:
γ γ γ
u̇n+1 = (un+1 − un ) − ( − 1)u̇n − ∆t( − 1)ün
β∆t β 2β
1 1 1
ün+1 = (un+1 − un ) − u̇n − ( − 1)ün
β∆t2 β∆t 2β

Impact analysis of two adjacent buildings
Additional assumptions
Neighboring buildings have the same storey heights
Both buildings exposed to the same seismic excitation:
üg (t) in the same principle direction
Behavior of each building is described by
Mi üi + Ci u̇i + Ki ui = −Mi e · üg = fi (t) (i = 1, 2)
Simultaneous numerical integrations of both systems:
Ki∗ ui,n+1 = fi,n+α

∗
⇒ ui,n+1 (13)
Then, velocities and accelerations: u̇n+1 , ün+1


Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Slabs of both buildings, at the same level, are considered
(at each ∆t and with reference to the same inertial system)
Regions in space, that both slabs are occupying, are denoted
by A and B
Possible relationship between slabs may be expressed as:

 empty set
A∩B = Q point (14)
C non-empty set


Relations (15) represent:
(a) Regions are not in contact, ie. there is no collision;
(b) Regions are having a contact in a point, ie. possible
collision;
(c) Regions are overlapping, ie. the collision has already
happened within the time step
In the case (a) eqs. (13) are solved for the next ∆t

Conditions of impact - position and velocity conditions

Case (b) - collision is only possible: contact in a point
It is the necessary condition of impact between slabs:
the position condition
Velocities of the points of contact of both slabs should be such
as to imply the tendency for overlapping of slabs
It is the sufficient condition of impact between slabs:
the velocity condition

Conditions of impact - position and velocity conditions

The position and velocity conditions are given as:
(A) (B)
~rQ − ~rQ = 0
(A) (B)
(~vQ − ~vQ ) ~n > 0 ⇒ vn1 − vn2 > 0 (15)
where
~r and ~v are the position and velocity vectors of point Q
~n is the outward normal defined for region A

Impact has already happened within considered time interval ∆t

Case (c): impact has already happened within the current
interval ∆t
Eqs. of motion for both buildings are solved again for the
same step, but ∆t is reduced to one half of the previous ∆t
Obtained new solutions for reduced ∆t are used to check
conditions of impact
Iterative procedure is performed in order to capture impact at
the end of considered ∆t

Impact analysis of two rigid slabs
Impact analysis of two rigid slabs in planar motion

If both impact conditions (15) are met, the classical impact
analysis of two rigid bodies in planar motion is performed
Generalized velocities obtained at the end of the time step, are
the known velocities immediately before the impact
The impact of two bodies is treated as sudden change in
velocity fields of two bodies
Immediately after the impact, slabs occupy the same space,
but the velocity fields are changed


Separated slabs with internal impact impulses
B
A t n t
n
h K-K=I
2
I1 Q
h
1 Q
S
S
I2 2 DS - DS = HS
1
Y
I2 I1 K = m vS
X
DS= J w
S


Balances of Momentum and Moment of Momentum
The Laws of Momentum and Moment of Momentum

Instances immediately before ((..)0 ) and after the impact
((..)00 )
The Laws of Momentum and Moment of Momentum (planar
motion):
K~ 00 − K
~ 0 = I~
DS00 − DS0 = HS (16)

where the Momentum and Moment of Momentum are
~ = m · ~vS
K
DS = IS · ω



For Slab A
m1 u̇001 − m1 u̇01 = −I cos θ

m1 v̇100 − m1 v̇10 = −I sin θ (17)
Jζ1 ϕ̇001 − Jζ1 ϕ̇01 = −I sin θx̄Q1 + I cos θȳQ1 = Ih1



For Slab B
m2 u̇002 − m2 u̇02 = I cos θ

m2 v̇200 − m2 v̇20 = I sin θ (18)
Jζ2 ϕ̇002 − Jζ2 ϕ̇02 = −I sin θx̄Q2 − I cos θȳQ2 = −Ih2


The closure equation - coefficient of restitution
Solution of impact problem

Unknown quantities in eqs (18, 19) are:
six velocity components (after the impact) for both slabs
internal impact impuls I
The closure equation is the definition of the coefficient of
restitution (or impact)
00 − v 00 |
|vn2 n1
k= 0 − v0 | k ∈ [0, 1] (19)
|vn1 n2



where vni , (i = 1, 2) represent the components of the velocity
of points Q of both regions in direction of the outward normal
n
Coefficient of restitution may be assumed as:
k = 0 for ideally plastic impact
k = 1 for ideally elastic impact
k ∈ (0, 1) for realistic impact


Internal impulse between slabs

Equations (18), (19) and (19) may be solved to obtain:
Internal impulse between the slabs:
b
I = (1 + k) (20)
a
where
2
X 1 h2 0 0
a= ( + i )>0 b = vn1 − vn2 >0 (21)
mi Jζi
i=1


Velocities immediately after the impact

After that, velocity components of both slabs immediately
after the impact are obtained
They are imposed as initial velocities at the beginning of the
next time step
Acceleration at the beginning of the next time step are as
obtained from previous time step solution (before impact
calculation)

Overall seismic analysis with possible pounding
Steps in seismic analysis with possible pounding

Diff. eqs. of motion of both buildings are simultaneously
solved step-by-step
At the end of each ∆t current configuration of both buildings
is being checked
Three basic possibilities:
No contact of slabs at the same level during current ∆t
Pounding between some slabs at the end of current ∆t
Pounding has already happened within the current time step

Overall seismic analysis with possible pounding
Steps in seismic analysis with possible pounding

If no pounding, solution for the next time step is obtained for
both buildings
In the case of pounding at the end of the current ∆t, impact
between pounding slabs is solved
Obtained velocities immediately after impact are imposed as
the corresponding initial conditions for the next time step
If pounding has already happened (slabs are overlapping),
previous ∆t is reduced by half, and new solution for the same
(but reduced) time step is obtained
Iterative reduction of time step in order to capture pounding
at the end of considered (reduced) time step


Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Numerical example of seismic analysis with possible pounding

Corresponding computer program has been developed
(Lj.Žugić-Zornija)
Seismic response of two buildings, 3 and 5 stories high
Both are rectangular in plan and have orthogonal, but
non-symmetric arrangement of frames
Seismic excitation: El Centro accelerogram scaled to max
ground acceleration of 0.32 g
Separation between buildings is assumed as
d = 0.50 m, which means there is no pounding,
d = 0.03 m, which means that pounding is possible

B T = 0.40 s
5
d = 0.03 m
4
A T = 0.34 s d = 0.50 m
3
1 1
A B
d
El Centro 2
Umax = 0.32 g Plan

Numerical example of seismic analysis with possible pounding

Pounding happened 19 times between slabs of the third floors
The first pounding happened after the 3rd second (max
ground accelerations)
Six more times there was a contact between slabs without
pounding
As illustration, time response of x component of displacement
of corner point "‘2"’ of the 3rd floor of building A is given



Seismic faults
Seismic waves
Seismic intensity
Summary and Concluding Remarks
Concluding remarks
Pounding of buildings during earthquakes is a serious problem
Further research paths

Concluding remarks
Insufficient separation gap is the main reason of pounding

Concluding remarks
Numerical analysis is still at research phase

Concluding remarks

Better damage modeling of slabs during pounding

Concluding remarks

Neighboring slabs at different levels

Concluding remarks

Neighboring slabs at different levels
Who knows what . . .

Basic Knoweldge

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Basic Knoweldge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Part I: Fundamentals of Earhquake Enginering

Part II: 2D Pounding of Buildings during Earthquakes

SEISMIC DESIGN OF STRUCTURES

Prof dr Stanko Brčić

Faculty of Civil Engineering

Belgrade, April 8, 2011

Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

Outline of the Presentation

What are earthquakes?

Earthquakes: broad-banded vibratory ground motions

Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

the largest and the most important

Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

Southern California - satelite view

Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

San Andreas Fault

Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

Outline of the Presentation

Motion of tectonic plates

Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

Large scale motions of Earth’s lithosphere

Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

Typical types of seismic faults

Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

The Ring of Fire - Pacific plate

Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

Outline of the Presentation

Seismic stress waves

Types of seismic waves

Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

Seismic stress waves

Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

Seismic stress waves

Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

Seismic stress waves

Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

Outline of the Presentation

Measurement of earthquakes: magnitude

Richter’s Magnitude of an earthquake

ML . . . the local magnitude (defined only for Southern

Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

Measurement of earthquakes: magnitude

log ES = 11.8 + 1.5MS

where ES is the total released energy (in ergs)

Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

Measurement of earthquakes: magnitude

The Moment Magnitude M

log M0 = 1.5 · MW + 16.0

where M0 is the seismic moment (in dyn cm), defined as

Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

Measurement of earthquakes: magnitude

Some terminology - classification of earthquakes

Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

Measurement of earthquakes: seismic intensity

Seismic intensity - measurement of the effect

Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

Earthquake magnitude and released energy

Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

Measurement of earthquakes: engineering measures

Engineering measures of earthquakes

Prof dr Stanko Brčić Earthquakes & Pounding of Buildings

Outline of the Presentation