Methodology for Forensic Investigations of Seismic Damage
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 120, Issue 12
Abstract
A methodology is presented for conducting forensic investigations of earthquake‐damaged structures. Causes of unexpected damage, indicated by differences between predicted (expected) and observed damage, are significant to the engineering and construction professions. Due to the existence of uncertainties associated with randomness and vagueness, methods for conducting probabilistic and fuzzy‐set damage‐assessments are discussed. Measures are presented to compare expected‐ and observed‐damage assessments that are probabilistic or fuzzy. Methods for identifying, studying, and ranking causes of unexpected damage are presented. The use of fuzzy expert systems is proposed as a structured method for using expert knowledge to assess the effect of observed distress on structural integrity. Desiderata are proposed to ensure reliable conclusions. A fundamental desideratum is proposed to maintain uniform levels of precision in the required analyses. Results are presented in layers to determine the professional significance of the unexpected damage. This methodology is applied to the forensic investigation of a three‐story reinforced‐concrete office building damaged in the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Benjamin, J. R., and Cornell, C. A. (1970). Probability, statistics, and decision for civil engineers. McGraw‐Hill, Inc., New York, N.Y.
2.
Castaneda, D. E. (1992). “A methodology for conducting forensic investigations of earthquake damaged buildings,” PhD dissertation, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, Wash.
3.
Collins, M. P. (1978). “Towards a rational theory for RC members in shear.” J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 104(4), 649–666.
4.
Elms, D. G. (1985). “The principle of consistent crudeness.” Proc., National Science Foundation (NSF) Workshop on Civ. Engrg. Applications of Fuzzy Sets, C. B. Brown, J.‐L. Chameau, R. Palmer, and J. T. P. Yao, eds., Purdue Univ., School of Civ. Engrg., West Lafayette, Ind., 35–44.
5.
Haviland, R. (1976). “Study of the uncertainties in the fundamental translational periods and damping values for real buildings.” Rep. No. 5, Pub. No. R76‐12: Evaluation of Seismic Safety of Buildings, Mass. Inst. of Technol., Cambridge, Mass.
6.
Hsu, T. T. C. (1993). Unified theory of reinforced concrete. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Fla.
7.
Kanaan, A. E., and Powell, G. H. (1975). “Drain‐2D. A general purpose computer program for dynamic analysis of inelastic plane structures with users' guide.” Reps. No. EERC 73‐6 and 73‐22, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, Calif.
8.
Kreger, M. E., and Sozen, M. A. (1989). “Seismic response of Imperial County Services Building in 1979.” J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 115(12), 3095–3111.
9.
Rojahn, C., and Mork, P. N. (1982). “An analysis of strong‐motion data from a severely damaged structure—the Imperial County Services Building, El Centro, California.” The Imperial Valley, California, Earthquake of October 15, 1979; Profl. Paper 1254, U.S. Geological Survey, 357–375.
10.
Shepard, R., and Plunkett, A. W. (1983). “Damage analysis of the Imperial County Services Building.” J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 109(7), 1711–1726.
11.
Stevens, N. J., Uzumeri, S. M., and Collins, M. P. (1991). “Reinforced concrete subjected to reversed cyclic shear‐experiments and constitutive model.” ACI Struct. J., 88(2).
12.
Thiel, C. C. Jr. (1984). “Divergence between estimated building vulnerability and observed damage: a fuzzy set theory reconciliation.” Appl. Technol. Rep. ATC‐10‐1: Critical Aspects of Earthquake Ground Motion and Building Damage Potential, Applied Technology Council, Berkeley, Calif., 115–129.
13.
Weaver, W. (1948). “Probability, rarity, interest, and surprise.” The Scientific Monthly, 67(6), 390.
14.
Wilson, E. L., and Habibullah, A. (1988). SAP90: A series of computer programs for the static and dynamic analysis of finite element analysis of structures. Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, Calif.
15.
Zadeh, L. A. (1978). “Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1(1), 3–28.
16.
Zadeh, L. A. (1973). “Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex systems and decision processes.” IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 3(1), 28–44.
17.
Zeris, C. A., Mahin, S. A., and Bertero V. V. (1986). “Analysis of the seismic performance of the Imperial County Services Building.” Proc., 3rd U.S. Nat. Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Aug. 24–28, Charleston, S.C., Vol. II, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Oakland, Calif., 847–858.
18.
Zsutty, T. C. (1968). “Beam shear strength prediction by analysis of existing data.” ACI J., 65(11).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 120 • Issue 12 • December 1994
Pages: 3506 - 3524
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Sep 23, 1993
Published online: Dec 1, 1994
Published in print: Dec 1994
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.