USGS Science⌕ Search

Geology topics

Erol Kalkan

Publications and source records attributed to Erol Kalkan.

34 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
USGS2012

Should ground-motion records be rotated to fault-normal/parallel or maximum direction for response history analysis of buildings?

In the United States, regulatory seismic codes (for example, California Building Code) require at least two sets of horizontal ground-motion components for three-dimensional (3D) response history analysis (RHA) of building structures. For sites within 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) of an active fault, these records should be rotated to fault-normal and fault-parallel (FN/FP) directions, and two RHAs should be performed separately—when FN and then FP direction are aligned with transverse direction of the building axes. This approach is assumed to lead to two sets of responses that envelope the range of possible responses over all nonredundant rotation angles. The validity of this assumption is examined here using 3D computer models of single-story structures having symmetric (torsionally stiff) and asymmetric (torsionally flexible) layouts subjected to an ensemble of near-fault ground motions with and without apparent velocity pulses. In this parametric study, the elastic vibration period is varied from 0.2 to 5 seconds, and yield-strength reduction factors, R , are varied from a value that leads to linear-elastic design to 3 and 5. Further validations are performed using 3D computer models of 9-story structures having symmetric and asymmetric layouts subjected to the same ground-motion set. The influence of the ground-motion rotation angle on several engineering demand parameters (EDPs) is examined in both linear-elastic and nonlinear-inelastic domains to form benchmarks for evaluating the use of the FN/FP directions and also the maximum direction (MD). The MD ground motion is a new definition for horizontal ground motions for use in site-specific ground-motion procedures for seismic design according to provisions of the American Society of Civil Engineers/Seismic Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI) 7-10. The results of this study have important implications for current practice, suggesting that ground motions rotated to MD or FN/FP directions do not necessarily provide the most critical EDPs in nonlinear-inelastic domain; however, they tend to produce larger EDPs than as-recorded (arbitrarily oriented) motions.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2012

Significance of rotating ground motions on nonlinear behavior of symmetric and asymmetric buildings in near fault sites

Building codes in the U.S. require at least two horizontal ground motion components for three-dimensional (3D) response history analysis (RHA) of structures. For sites within 5 km of an active fault, these records should be rotated to fault-normal/fault-parallel (FN/FP) directions, and two RHA analyses should be performed separately (when FN and then FP are aligned with transverse direction of the structural axes). It is assumed that this approach will lead to two sets of responses that envelope the range of possible responses over all non-redundant rotation angles. This assumption is examined here using 3D computer models of a single-story structure having symmetric (that is, torsionally-stiff) and asymmetric (that is, torsionally flexible) layouts subjected to an ensemble of bi-directional near-fault strong ground motions with and without apparent velocity pulses. In this parametric study, the elastic vibration period of the structures is varied from 0.2 to 5 seconds, and yield strength reduction factors R is varied from a value that leads to linear-elastic design to 3 and 5. The influence that the rotation angle of the ground motion has on several engineering demand parameters (EDPs) is examined in linear-elastic and nonlinear-inelastic domains to form a benchmark for evaluating the use of the FN/FP directions as well as the maximum-direction (MD) ground motion, a new definition of horizontal ground motions for use in the seismic design of structures according to the 2009 NEHRP Provisions and Commentary.

Book↗
USGS2012

Design and implementation of a structural health monitoring and alerting system for hospital buildings in the United States

This paper describes the current progress in the development of a structural health monitoring and alerting system to meet the needs of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to monitor hospital buildings instrumented in high and very high seismic hazard regions in the U.S. The system, using the measured vibration data, is primarily designed for post-earthquake condition assessment of the buildings. It has two essential components – sensing and analysis. The sensing component includes all necessary firmware and sensors to measure the response of the building; while the analysis component consists of several data processing modules integrated into an open source software package which compresses a large amount of measured data into useful information to assess the building’s condition before and after an event. The information can be used for a rapid building safety assessment, and to support decisions for necessary repairs, replacements, and other maintenance and rehabilitation measures.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2012

New Zealand’s deadliest quake sounds alarm for cities on fault lines

The catastrophic Christ Church Earthquake is a strong reminder to engineers and scientists of the hazards pose by fault lines, both mapped and unknown, near major cities. In February 2011, the relatively moderate earthquake that struck the cities of Christchurch and Lyttleton in the Canterbury region of New Zealand's South Island surprised many with its destructive power. The magnitude 6.2 temblor killed 181 people, 118 of whom were killed in the collapse of a single building in the city center. The quake damaged or destroyed more than 100,000 buildings. It was the deadliest quake to strike the nation in 80 years-since the 1931 earthquake that struck the Napier and Hastings area of the North Island. The Christchurch quake was part of the aftershock sequence following the September 2010 magnitude 7.1 earthquake near Darfield, 40 kilometers west of the city. The Darfield earthquake was in a sparsely populated area, causing to loss of life. By contrast, the Christchurch earthquake was generated on a fault in close proximity to the city.

Christchurch↗
USGS2011

Preface to the Focused Issue on the 22 February 2011 Magnitude 6.2 Christchurch Earthquake

The 22 February 2011 magnitude 6.2 Christchurch earthquake, centered southeast of Christchurch, was part of the aftershock sequence that has been occurring since the September 2010 magnitude 7.1 quake near Darfield, 40 km west of the city. The Christchurch earthquake killed more than 180 people, damaged or destroyed more than 100,000 buildings, and is New Zealand's most deadly disaster since the earthquake that struck the Napier and Hastings area on 3 February 1931. This special focused issue of Seismological Research Letters , which I had the fortune to edit, contains a selected set of 19 original technical papers. These papers cover different aspects of the 2011 Christchurch earthquake from seismological, geodetic, geological, and engineering perspectives.

Christchurch↗
USGS2011

8 March 2010 Elazığ-Kovancilar (Turkey) Earthquake: observations on ground motions and building damage

An earthquake of M W = 6.1 occurred in the Elazığ region of eastern Turkey on 8 March 2010 at 02:32:34 UTC. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) reported the epicenter of the earthquake as 38.873°N-39.981°E with a focal depth of 12 km. Forty-two people lost their lives and 137 were injured during the event. The earthquake was reported to be on the left-lateral strike-slip east Anatolian fault (EAF), which is one of the two major active fault systems in Turkey. Teams from the Earthquake Engineering Research Center of the Middle East Technical University (EERC-METU) visited the earthquake area in the aftermath of the mainshock. Their reconnaissance observations were combined with interpretations of recorded ground motions for completeness. This article summarizes observations on building and ground damage in the area and provides a discussion of the recorded motions. No significant observations in terms of geotechnical engineering were made.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2011

Modal-pushover-based ground-motion scaling procedure

Earthquake engineering is increasingly using nonlinear response history analysis (RHA) to demonstrate the performance of structures. This rigorous method of analysis requires selection and scaling of ground motions appropriate to design hazard levels. This paper presents a modal-pushover-based scaling (MPS) procedure to scale ground motions for use in a nonlinear RHA of buildings. In the MPS method, the ground motions are scaled to match to a specified tolerance, a target value of the inelastic deformation of the first-mode inelastic single-degree-of-freedom (SDF) system whose properties are determined by the first-mode pushover analysis. Appropriate for first-mode dominated structures, this approach is extended for structures with significant contributions of higher modes by considering elastic deformation of second-mode SDF systems in selecting a subset of the scaled ground motions. Based on results presented for three actual buildings-4, 6, and 13-story-the accuracy and efficiency of the MPS procedure are established and its superiority over the ASCE/SEI 7-05 scaling procedure is demonstrated.

Journal of Structural Engineering↗
USGS2011

Required number of records for ASCE/SEI 7 ground-motion scaling procedure

The procedures and criteria in 2006 IBC (International Council of Building Officials, 2006) and 2007 CBC (International Council of Building Officials, 2007) for the selection and scaling ground-motions for use in nonlinear response history analysis (RHA) of structures are based on ASCE/SEI 7 provisions (ASCE, 2005, 2010). According to ASCE/SEI 7, earthquake records should be selected from events of magnitudes, fault distance, and source mechanisms that comply with the maximum considered earthquake, and then scaled so that the average value of the 5-percent-damped response spectra for the set of scaled records is not less than the design response spectrum over the period range from 0.2T n to 1.5T n sec (where T n is the fundamental vibration period of the structure). If at least seven ground-motions are analyzed, the design values of engineering demand parameters (EDPs) are taken as the average of the EDPs determined from the analyses. If fewer than seven ground-motions are analyzed, the design values of EDPs are taken as the maximum values of the EDPs. ASCE/SEI 7 requires a minimum of three ground-motions. These limits on the number of records in the ASCE/SEI 7 procedure are based on engineering experience, rather than on a comprehensive evaluation. This study statistically examines the required number of records for the ASCE/SEI 7 procedure, such that the scaled records provide accurate, efficient, and consistent estimates of" true" structural responses. Based on elastic-perfectly-plastic and bilinear single-degree-of-freedom systems, the ASCE/SEI 7 scaling procedure is applied to 480 sets of ground-motions. The number of records in these sets varies from three to ten. The records in each set were selected either (i) randomly, (ii) considering their spectral shapes, or (iii) considering their spectral shapes and design spectral-acceleration value, A(T n ). As compared to benchmark (that is, "true") responses from unscaled records using a larger catalog of ground-motions, it is demonstrated that the ASCE/SEI 7 scaling procedure is overly conservative if fewer than seven ground-motions are employed. Utilizing seven or more randomly selected records provides a more accurate estimate of the EDPs accompanied by reduced record-to-record variability of the responses. Consistency in accuracy and efficiency is achieved only if records are selected on the basis of their spectral shape and A(T n ).

Open-File Report↗
USGS2010

Practical guidelines to select and scale earthquake records for nonlinear response history analysis of structures

Earthquake engineering practice is increasingly using nonlinear response history analysis (RHA) to demonstrate performance of structures. This rigorous method of analysis requires selection and scaling of ground motions appropriate to design hazard levels. Presented herein is a modal-pushover-based scaling (MPS) method to scale ground motions for use in nonlinear RHA of buildings and bridges. In the MPS method, the ground motions are scaled to match (to a specified tolerance) a target value of the inelastic deformation of the first-'mode' inelastic single-degree-of-freedom (SDF) system whose properties are determined by first-'mode' pushover analysis. Appropriate for first-?mode? dominated structures, this approach is extended for structures with significant contributions of higher modes by considering elastic deformation of second-'mode' SDF system in selecting a subset of the scaled ground motions. Based on results presented for two bridges, covering single- and multi-span 'ordinary standard' bridge types, and six buildings, covering low-, mid-, and tall building types in California, the accuracy and efficiency of the MPS procedure are established and its superiority over the ASCE/SEI 7-05 scaling procedure is demonstrated.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2010

Documentation for assessment of modal pushover-based scaling procedure for nonlinear response history analysis of "ordinary standard" bridges

The earthquake engineering profession is increasingly utilizing nonlinear response history analyses (RHA) to evaluate seismic performance of existing structures and proposed designs of new structures. One of the main ingredients of nonlinear RHA is a set of ground-motion records representing the expected hazard environment for the structure. When recorded motions do not exist (as is the case for the central United States), or when high-intensity records are needed (as is the case for San Francisco and Los Angeles), ground motions from other tectonically similar regions need to be selected and scaled. The modal-pushover-based scaling (MPS) procedure recently was developed to determine scale factors for a small number of records, such that the scaled records provide accurate and efficient estimates of 'true' median structural responses. The adjective 'accurate' refers to the discrepancy between the benchmark responses and those computed from the MPS procedure. The adjective 'efficient' refers to the record-to-record variability of responses. Herein, the accuracy and efficiency of the MPS procedure are evaluated by applying it to four types of existing 'ordinary standard' bridges typical of reinforced-concrete bridge construction in California. These bridges are the single-bent overpass, multi span bridge, curved-bridge, and skew-bridge. As compared to benchmark analyses of unscaled records using a larger catalog of ground motions, it is demonstrated that the MPS procedure provided an accurate estimate of the engineering demand parameters (EDPs) accompanied by significantly reduced record-to-record variability of the responses. Thus, the MPS procedure is a useful tool for scaling ground motions as input to nonlinear RHAs of 'ordinary standard' bridges.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2009

Reassessment of probabilistic seismic hazard in the Marmara region

In 1999, the eastern coastline of the Marmara region (Turkey) witnessed increased seismic activity on the North Anatolian fault (NAF) system with two damaging earthquakes (M 7.4 Kocaeli and M 7.2 D??zce) that occurred almost three months apart. These events have reduced stress on the western segment of the NAF where it continues under the Marmara Sea. The undersea fault segments have been recently explored using bathymetric and reflection surveys. These recent findings helped scientists to understand the seismotectonic environment of the Marmara basin, which has remained a perplexing tectonic domain. On the basis of collected new data, seismic hazard of the Marmara region is reassessed using a probabilistic approach. Two different earthquake source models: (1) the smoothed-gridded seismicity model and (2) fault model and alternate magnitude-frequency relations, Gutenberg-Richter and characteristic, were used with local and imported ground-motion-prediction equations. Regional exposure is computed and quantified on a set of hazard maps that provide peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral acceleration at 0.2 and 1.0 sec on uniform firm-rock site condition (760 m=sec average shear wave velocity in the upper 30 m). These acceleration levels were computed for ground motions having 2% and 10% probabilities of exceedance in 50 yr, corresponding to return periods of about 2475 and 475 yr, respectively. The maximum PGA computed (at rock site) is 1.5g along the fault segments of the NAF zone extending into the Marmara Sea. The new maps generally show 10% to 15% increase for PGA, 0.2 and 1.0 sec spectral acceleration values across much of Marmara compared to previous regional hazard maps. Hazard curves and smooth design spectra for three site conditions: rock, soil, and soft-soil are provided for the Istanbul metropolitan area as possible tools in future risk estimates.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗
USGS2008

Status and needs for seismic instrumentation of structures along the Hayward fault

The inventory of structures in heavily urbanized communities within the greater San Francisco (SF) Bay area that will experience strong ground motions from the rupture of the Hayward Fault includes a variety of types of recent and older structures built with a variety of materials and to different code standards. Those who remember the effects of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake on structures in the San Francisco Bay area also remember the collapse of one upper-deck segment of the Bay Bridge that halted transportation for approximately five weeks. In order to understand how these structures respond to earthquake motions and to improve building practices to resist these strong motions it is imperative that owners of these structures as well as governmental organizations acquire shaking response data from instrumented (or yet to be instrumented structures) during the forecast events. Within California, such data are acquired mainly by California Geological Survey and the United States Geological Survey. A small number of private owners contribute to this effort. The inventory of existing instrumented structures is much less than 0.1% of the total, and thus statistically it is not sufficient. For example, some of the existing important regular or lifeline structures are not instrumented(e.g. Bart Trans-Bay Tunnel, many segments of the Bart elevated structures in the proximity of the Hayward Fault, the yet to be completed eastern part of San Francisco Bay Bridge, Hetch-Hetchy pipeline system crossing the Hayward Fault)even though attempts and proposals have been developed to do so in the past. This paper presents a critical assessment of the status quo and the future needs for instrumentation of structures in the greater SF Bay area that includes the Hayward Fault. There are many new attempts and successes in instrumentation of structures in this region. Two successful examples are provided here, but more needs to be done. The paper does not present new research results; hence, it should be considered to be a “tutorial” paper.

California↗
USGS2008

Seismic hazard mapping of California incorporating spatial variability of site conditions

The U.S. Geological Survey has recently released a 2008 version of the probabilistic National Seismic Hazard Maps. These maps plot the peak ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral acceleration (SA) ordinates at 0.2 and 1.0 sec with 2% and 10% probabilities of being exceeded in 50 years, corresponding to earthquake return periods of about 2,475 and 475 years, respectively. These acceleration levels were computed for uniform “firm rock” site conditions, i.e., 760 m/sec average shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 m, and therefore these maps do not show the potential spatial variability of ground motion associated with different site conditions, so we have combined the USGS National Seismic Hazard model with the California showing 17 generalized geologic units geologic units that can be defined by their shear-wave velocity (Wills and Clahan 2006), we regrouped these units into to 7 shear-wave velocities. At each shear-wave velocity value, a probabilistic seismic hazard map was generated for the entire state. By combining seismic hazard maps based on the 7 different shear-wave velocity values, a suite of seismic hazard maps was computed for California for 0.2 and 1.0 sec spectral ordinates at 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years. The improved maps thus explicitly incorporate the site effects and their spatial variability on ground motion estimates. The SA at 1.0 sec map of seismic shaking potential for California has been now published as California Geological Survey Map Sheet 48, which is intended to be accessible and understandable to the general public.

California↗