Geology Reports⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70192826

Study of responses of 64-story Rincon Building to Napa, Fremont, Piedmont, San Ramon earthquakes and ambient motions

Mehmet Çelebi·John Hooper·Ron Klemencic
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We analyze the recorded responses of a 64-story, instrumented, concrete core shear wall building in San Francisco, California, equipped with tuned sloshing liquid dampers (TSDs) and buckling restraining braces (BRBs). Previously, only ambient data from the 72-channel array in the building were studied ( Çelebi et al. 2013 ). Recently, the 24 August 2014 M w 6.0 Napa and three other earthquakes were recorded. The peak accelerations of ambient and the larger Napa earthquake responses at the basement are 0.12 cm/s/s and 5.2 cm/s/s respectively—a factor of ~42. At the 61st level, they are 0.30 cm/s/s (ambient) and 16.8 cm/s/s (Napa), respectively—a factor of ~56. Fundamental frequencies (NS ~ 0.3, EW ~ 0.27 Hz) from earthquake responses vary within an insignificant frequency band of ~0.02–0.03 Hz when compared to those from ambient data. In the absence of soil-structure interaction (SSI), these small and insignificant differences may be attributed to (1) identification errors, (2) any nonlinear behavior, and (3) shaking levels that are not large enough to activate the BRBs and TSDs to make significant shifts in frequencies and increase damping.

Explore related subjects

Earthquake SpectraArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mehmet Çelebi, John Hooper, Ron Klemencic. 2017-08-01. Study of responses of 64-story Rincon Building to Napa, Fremont, Piedmont, San Ramon earthquakes and ambient motions. https://doi.org/10.1193/031616eqs041m

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

An examination of the reasons for, and variability of, the differences between response spectra and pseudo response spectra

For many decades, it has been common practice to overlook the differences between response spectra and pseudo response spectra. This practice stems from analyses indicating that the average difference between response spectra and pseudo response spectra is negligible for a viscous damping ratio of 5%, which is near-universally adopted. As others have shown, the differences depend strongly on the damping ratio, earthquake magnitude, and oscillator period, with larger differences for larger damping, smaller magnitudes, and longer periods. To quantify the full statistical distribution of the ratio of the absolute acceleration response spectrum (SA) to the pseudo absolute acceleration response spectrum (PSA), we fit empirical ratios with the generalized gamma distribution. Data for magnitudes from 4.0 to 5.5 give 95% prediction intervals for the ratio of 1.00–1.02 at 1 s and 1.01–2.24 at 10 s for 5% damping. For 30% damping, these intervals increase to 1.14–2.01 at 1 s and 1.62–11.8 at 10 s, respectively. Further, we demonstrate how the shape of the ground-motion Fourier amplitude spectrum interacts with the natural period of the oscillator to control the differences in the response spectra type. Routinely treating the two measures of acceleration response spectra as interchangeable may lead to unacceptable inconsistencies when the response spectra of individual records are important or when larger damping ratios are used, such as in direct displacement-based design. If one must convert between them, the uncertainty of the conversion should be accounted for during analysis.

Earthquake Spectra↗
USGS2026

Accounting for biases in the analysis of building damage data for the 2023 M7.8 Türkiye/Syria earthquake sequence

In the aftermath of a large earthquake, several practical constraints affect the systematic collection of data for assessing building damage. The available data are therefore typically incomplete, frequently missing key information such as the type of construction, age and geographic location. Moreover, the observations often favour certain locations and damage grades. In the absence of robust methods, using such data directly for characterising the building stock or conducting fragility assessments can introduce systematic bias. Using the 2023 M7.8 Türkiye/Syria earthquake sequence as a case study, we propose a statistical model that enables joint inference over the inventory and fragility of the building stock while explicitly accounting for sources of data error and missing information. The results show higher-than-expected vulnerability amongst several building types, particularly mid- and high-rise reinforced concrete buildings, which performed extremely poorly during the 2023 earthquake sequence. The proposed Bayesian framework provides rigorous uncertainty quantification that can be propagated to future applications.

Earthquake Spectra↗
USGS2026

Development of liquefaction-targeted design basis in U.S. seismic provisions

Seismic design criteria for new buildings in the United States have historically focused on life safety performance objectives through minimizing the potential for structural collapse. Development of design criteria to meet this performance objective has evolved over time, leading to the current, risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCE R ) design basis. Corresponding MCE R seismic design loads incorporate the full range of probabilistic ground motion hazard information available from U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Models, as well as a representation of the uncertainty in structural collapse capacity. Despite these considerable advances in structural design criteria, guidelines for geotechnical hazards such as liquefaction-induced damage, which continue to be based on uniform ground-shaking hazard (i.e., MCE ground motions), are not well-connected with risk-based, collapse prevention performance objectives. This study, undertaken as part of Building Seismic Safety Council efforts to update recommended seismic provisions through the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, presents probabilistic, liquefaction-targeted design objectives and corresponding ground motion parameters, with a focus on improving consistency in first-level screening criteria for liquefaction hazard assessment. This study identifies a potential maximum acceptable annualized probability of liquefaction triggering ( P L,max ) of 2.5% in 50 years, above which liquefaction consequences and potential mitigation measures would be considered. The P L,max -based design basis is calibrated to effective probabilistic liquefaction hazard levels obtained in practice using current MCE peak ground accelerations, and could be implemented via a new liquefaction-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCE L ) peak ground acceleration ( PGA L ). The proposed PGA L is derived from probabilistic liquefaction hazard curves and includes uncertainties inherent to liquefaction hazard modeling. The potential design effects of the proposed PGA L are demonstrated via comparison with current MCE PGA levels, effects on first-level liquefaction screening analyses, and improvements in the consistency of P L,max levels across the United States, and for a wide range of site conditions.

conterminous United States↗