Earthquake Analysis of an Existing Structure in the Southeast Region of the United States

1. Earthquake Analysis of an Existing Structure in the Southeast Region of the United States Terri Norton and Makola M. Abdullah, Ph.D Wind Hazard & Earthquake Engineering Lab FAMU-FSU College of Engineering

2. OUTLINE • Introduction • Earthquake Occurrence • Objective • Structural Description • Structural Model • Dynamic Analysis • Results • Conclusion • Future Work Charleston earthquake of August 31, 1886.

3. INTRODUCTION • Southeastern US is exposed to natural phenomenon like hurricanes and earthquakes • One of the major earthquakes in the region occurred in Charleston, South Carolina (1886) • Between 1997 and 2001, more than 60 earthquakes have occurred in this region

4. SOUTH CAROLINA • 40 - 60% chance of another earthquake like the 1886 quake, in the next 30 years1 • $20 billion, total economic losses from damage2 • Earthquakes cause more damage in the eastern US3 (1. Nishenko & Bollinger, 1990; 2. SCEPD & FEMA, 2001 3. Chapman et. al, 1993)

5. OBJECTIVE • To evaluate the structure’s response to earthquake loading • Use control devices to reduce floor displacement • Reduce structural damage caused by earthquakes

6. STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION The Turlington Building was built in 1990 • Houses the Florida Department of Education • Located downtown Tallahassee, FL • Present worth: $39,624,000.00

7. STRUCTURE MODEL • 17 story steel frame building • W-shapes • 3 bays in the N-S, 10 bays in the E-W direction • 32 Columns, 104 Nodes • 312 DOF, including splices • Structure is fixed-connected at basement level 2

8. SYSTEM MODEL Equation of Motion: • M, C, K: mass, damping, and stiffness matrices • p: participation mass matrix • : ground acceleration (earthquake) • : relative displacement, relative velocity, relative acceleration.

9. DYNAMIC ANALYSIS • Passive Control • No external inputs to function • Tuned mass damper and Base Isolator • Input Load • Ground accelerations • Charleston Earthquake; Charleston, South Carolina • 1886 • Magnitude = 7.3 • Simulation Software • MATLAB, Simulink • Damage Approximation • Damage functions, HAZUS

10. RESULTS

11. RESULTS

12. CONCLUSION • By comparing the structure controlled to the uncontrolled structure, it can be seen that there is a reduction in the building displacement. • Reduced effects to structural and non-structural components • Reduced amount of damage

13. FUTURE WORK • Research the effects of building acceleration to nonstructural damage • Use a 3-D model for analysis • Repeat study using hurricane wind forces • Use results as a teaching tool

14. REFERENCE • Bollinger, G. A., Chapman, M.C., & Sibol, M.S. (1993). “A Comparison of Earthquake Damage Areas as a Function of Magnitude Across the United States.” Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 83(4), 1064-1080. • Chopra, A. K. (2001). Dynamics of Structures, Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. • FEMA. (1999). “HAZUS: National Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology.”Technical Manual. • Nishenko, S. P. B., G. A. (1990). “Forecasting damaging earthquakes in the Central and Eastern U.S.” Science, 249, 1412-1416. • SCEPD. (2001). “Comprehensive Seismic Risk and Vulnerability Study for the State of South Carolina.” 1, URS Corporation. • Sibol, M. S., Snoke, J.A., Bollinger, G.A., Birch, J.B., & Johnston, A.C. (1990). “The Probability of a Major Earthquake in the Eastern United States.” Seismological Research Letters, 61(2), 133-134. • Spencer, B., Christenson, R., and Dyke, S. “Next Generation Benchmark Control Problem for Seismically Excited Buildings.” 2nd World Congress on Structural Control, Kyoto, Japan. • Tedesco, J. W., McDougal, W.G., and Ross, C.A. (1999). Structural Dynamics: Theory and Applications, Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., Melo Park.