Preventing Earthquake Disasters: The Grand Challenge in Earthquake Engineering A Research Agenda for the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) (2003) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
1. Preventing Disasters: The Grand Challenge for Earthquake Engineering Research
1. Preventing Disasters: The Grand Challenge for Earthquake Engineering Research
Pages 12-25
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 12... ...
, the potential for economic loss and social disruption is enormous (Mileti, 1999~. Recent California earthquakes of even moderate magnitude, such as the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 and the Northridge earthquake in 1994, caused damage ranging up to $30 billion (Sidebar 1.1~.
|
From page 13... ...
A recent report of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute calculates a total annualized loss exposure approaching $10 billion if losses due to infrastructure damage and indirect economic losses are included in this estimate (EERI, 2003~. However, because the losses from a strong, damaging earthquake would be sudden and of great magnitude, the characterization of losses on an annualized basis, while useful for comparison, can be misleading (Sidebar 1.2~.
|
From page 14... ...
Decades of research and learning from all historical earthquakes have contributed to numerous successes in earthquake engineering, a few of which are discussed later in this chapter. Appendix C lists significant discoveries that have helped to reduce earthquake losses.
|
From page 15... ...
Created to encourage revolutionary advances in earthquake engineering and science and building on the successful concept of engineering research centers, the NEES testing facilities, computational capabilities, and connecting grid are designed to integrate the diverse and multidisciplinary earthquake hazards community into a national program aimed directly at addressing the critical threat posed by earthquakes. NEES has funded 16 experimental facilities at universities around the country, all of which are scheduled to be operational by October 2004.
|
From page 18... ...
The hazard is inevitable because we do not now know when an earthquake will strike any specific city or how severe it will be, nor do we know when we might gain this predictive capability. However, earthquake disasters ultimately can be prevented by implementing cost-effective miti2Throughout this report, the committee has reasoned that minimizing the catastrophic losses normally associated with major earthquakes can prevent an earthquake from becoming a disaster.
|
From page 19... ...
THE GRAND CHALLENGE FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH TABLE 1.1 Summary of NEES Equipment Awards 19 Location Equipment Brigham Young University Cornell University Lehigh University Oregon State University Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute State University of New York at Buffalo University of California, Berkeley University of California, Davis University of California, Los Angeles University of California, San Diego University of Colorado, Boulder University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign University of Minnesota, Twin Cities University of Nevada, Reno University of Texas, Austin Permanently Instrumented Field Sites for Study of Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction Large-Displacement Soil-Structure Interaction Facility for Lifeline Systems Real-Time Multidirectional Testing Facility for Seismic Performance Simulation of Large-Scale Structural Systems Upgrading Oregon State's Multidirectional Wave Basin for Remote Tsunami Research Upgrading, Development, and Integration of Next Generation Earthquake Engineering Experimental Capability at Rensselaer's 100 G-ton Geotechnical Centrifuge Towards Real-Time Hybrid Seismic Testing Versatile High-Performance Shake Tables Facility Large-Scale High-Performance Testing Facility Reconfigurable Reaction Wall-Based Earthquake Simulator Facility NEES Geotechnical Centrifuge Facility Field Testing and Monitoring of Structural Performance Large High-Performance Outdoor Shake Table Facility Fast Hybrid Test Platform for the Seismic Performance Evaluation of Structural Systems Multiaxial Full-Scale Substructuring Testing and Simulation Facility System for Multiaxial Subassemblage Testing Development of a Biaxial Multiple Shake Table Research Facility Large-Scale Mobile Shakers and Associated Instrumentation for Dynamic Field Studies of Geotechnical and Structural Systems SOURCE: National Science Foundation.
|
From page 20... ...
, the resilience of the built environment can be substantially improved, the public can be better informed of the risk and the options available to manage risk, and more enlightened public policy can be enacted and implemented. The grand challenge to NEES, the National Science Foundation, and the entire community of NEES stakeholders is to make the prevention of earthquake disasters a reality.
|
From page 21... ...
The need for continued research that will lead to practices that also reduce property damage to acceptable levels is particularly borne out by observations made following the 1994 Northridge earthquake.3 An the Northridge earthquake, seismic design provisions that focused on life safety were credited with the relatively low number of fatalities but were also held responsible for the thousands of damaged commercial structures that were subsequently labeled ''unsafe to occupy or limited to a restricted use.
|
From page 22... ...
Test results and design guidelines led to its provisional adoption as an American Concrete Institute standard and approval from the International Conference of Building Officials Evaluation Service for construction in seismic zones. Several structures using the hybrid connections have been built, including a $128 million, 39-story building in San Francisco that is the tallest concrete frame building ever to be built in a region of high seismicity.
|
From page 23... ...
Cadillac Avenue ramp had been retrofitted with steel jacketing in 1990 and was not damaged, but the steel reinforcement in the Bull Creek Bridge column (built in 1976 and not upgraded) buckled due to lack of confinement of the concrete.
|
From page 24... ...
It differs from traditional prescriptive design methods because it focuses on what to achieve rather than what to do. Implementation of PBSD concepts will lead to structures that incorporate the life safety provisions of prescriptive codes while limiting earthquake damage to economically acceptable levels.
|
From page 25... ...
2003. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program: Past, Present, and Future.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.