Geology Reports⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70252583

Performance-based earthquake early warning for tall buildings

S. Farid Ghahari·Khachik Sargsyan·Grace Alexandra Parker·Dan Swensen·Mehmet Celebi·Hamid Haddadi·Ertugrul Taciroglu
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning (EEW) system aims to issue an advance warning to residents on the West Coast of the United States seconds before the ground shaking arrives, if the expected ground shaking exceeds a certain threshold. However, residents in tall buildings may experience much greater motion due to the dynamic response of the buildings. Therefore, there is an ongoing effort to extend ShakeAlert to include the contribution of building response to provide a more accurate estimation of the expected shaking intensity for tall buildings. Currently, the supposedly ideal solution of analyzing detailed finite element models of buildings under predicted ground-motion time histories is not theoretically or practically feasible. The authors have recently investigated existing simple methods to estimate peak floor acceleration (PFA) and determined these simple formulas are not practically suitable. Instead, this article explores another approach by extending the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) to EEW, considering that every component involved in building response prediction is uncertain in the EEW scenario. While this idea is not new and has been proposed by other researchers, it has two shortcomings: (1) the simple beam model used for response prediction is prone to modeling uncertainty, which has not been quantified, and (2) the ground motions used for probabilistic demand models are not suitable for EEW applications. In this article, we address these two issues by incorporating modeling errors into the parameters of the beam model and using a new set of ground motions, respectively. We demonstrate how this approach could practically work using data from a 52-story building in downtown Los Angeles. Using the criteria and thresholds employed by previous researchers, we show that if peak ground acceleration (PGA) is accurately estimated, this approach can predict the expected level of human comfort in tall buildings.

Explore related subjects

Earthquake SpectraArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S. Farid Ghahari, Khachik Sargsyan, Grace Alexandra Parker, Dan Swensen, Mehmet Celebi, Hamid Haddadi, Ertugrul Taciroglu. 2024-03-28. Performance-based earthquake early warning for tall buildings. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930241236762

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Revisions to the 2023 U.S. 50-state National Seismic Hazard Model

We present an update to the 2023 U.S. 50-state National Seismic Hazard Model, based on questions and comments received from a range of users, as well as additional internal and building code reviews since its initial release. For the conterminous United States, the update includes (1) revised weighting of ground motion models in the Intermountain West, (2) revised weighting of seismicity models across the stable crust of the central and eastern United States, (3) corrections to fault rupture input files and hazard codes, and (4) adjustments to stable crust nonlinear site amplification terms at soft soil sites. The model also updates the implementation of moment magnitude 7–8 subduction interface earthquake ruptures for Alaska and includes an alternate, full-catalog rate model for Hawaii. The revised model is available through the U.S. Geological Survey online tools and is accompanied by a data release of high-resolution hazard datasets for eight site conditions (from soft soil to hard rock with a time-averaged shear-wave velocity, V S30 , ranging from 150 to 1500 m/s) in terms of peak horizontal ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and 5% damped pseudo-spectral accelerations at 21 spectral periods. It has been approved as the basis for updated design provisions and is being considered for inclusion in other hazard and risk assessment products.

Earthquake Spectra↗
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↗