Free access
Technical Breakthrough Abstracts
Mar 7, 2023

The 2022 Chihshang, Taiwan, Earthquake: Initial GEER Team Observations

Publication: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Volume 149, Issue 5
We recently returned from a post-earthquake reconnaissance trip to Taiwan sponsored by the National Science Foundation–funded Geoengineering Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER) Association. We studied the effects of the September 18, 2022 MW6.9 Chihshang, Taiwan earthquake. The earthquake occurred on the Central Range strike-slip fault, with the rupture direction extending north from the epicenter. Nearfield seismic stations measured peak ground accelerations (PGAs) exceeding 0.5g along the fault. Peak ground velocities (PGVs) increased in the direction of the rupture with average intensities of 8  cm/s near the epicenter, increasing along the fault to 89  cm/s at the northern terminus. The ground motion recordings of the east (approximately fault parallel) component indicated strong velocity pulses in the direction of the rupture (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Acceleration and velocity-time series located at northern (Station EYUL) and southern (Station TTN045) ends of the Central Range fault.
We found eight damaged bridges within 2 km of the fault, all with multiple spans of simply supported concrete deck girders founded on concrete piers: two bridges had multispan and foundation pier collapses, three bridges were closed for repair, and the remaining bridges were operational with reductions in service. Six bridges, including the two collapses, had longitudinal orientations perpendicular to the fault. All but one bridge spanned an 800-m-wide braided river channel, with foundation elements supported by alluvial soils.
We initially assumed that earthquake-induced liquefaction caused the collapses; however, we did not find any surface manifestations—an observation echoed by our Taiwanese colleagues who were in the field immediately after the earthquake. The bridges also did not have major construction defects or signs of deterioration, suggesting that the seismic forces from the pulselike ground motion and fling effects may have been the primary cause of damage to the bridges. To lend further credence to our interpretation, the bridges at the northern end of the fault sustained more damage; the pulselike ground motions in this area were stronger.

Implications

We saw bridge damage potentially caused by large-velocity pulses and differential displacements of the abutments caused by fling. The observed damage has important implications for design and retrofit of bridges in seismically active areas. For example, we should re-examine current seismic design guidelines and start considering earthquake motions rotated in bridge normal and bridge parallel directions.
Our team also is assessing why the alluvial sediments at the damaged bridge sites did not liquefy. Our current hypothesis is that the duration of strong shaking was not long enough to cause sufficient pore-water pressure buildup. We performed passive horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio (HVSR) testing at the collapsed bridges to determine the underlying ground conditions. Our analyses will use the data from HVSR testing, ground motions records, supplemental data provided by our Taiwanese colleagues, and liquefaction analysis procedures for ground motions with pulselike directivity effects (e.g., Green et al. 2008). The findings have implications for liquefaction analysis procedures performed at sites susceptible to ground motion directivity effects.

Acknowledgments

The National Science Foundation (NSF) supported the work under the GEER Association Grant No. CMMI-1826118. We gratefully acknowledge the support of our Taiwanese colleagues, who will be coauthors of the forthcoming GEER report.

References

Green, R. A., J. Lee, T. M. White, and J. W. Baker. 2008. “The significance of near-fault effects on liquefaction.” In Proc., 14th World Conf. Earthquake Engineering. Tokyo: International Association for Earthquake Engineering.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Volume 149Issue 5May 2023

History

Received: Nov 30, 2022
Accepted: Dec 7, 2022
Published online: Mar 7, 2023
Published in print: May 1, 2023
Discussion open until: Aug 7, 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Trevor J. Carey
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4.
Research Civil Engineer, Geologic Hazards Science Center, US Geological Survey, Golden, CO 80401; Associate Professor, College of Engineering, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4279-2854. Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
Domniki Asimaki, A.M.ASCE
Professor, Division of Engineering and Applied Science, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125.
Adda Athanasopoulos-Zekkos, M.ASCE
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA 94720.
Fernando E. Garcia, A.M.ASCE
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.
Brian Gray
Senior Geologist, Lettis Consultants International, 1000 Burnett Ave., Suite 350, Concord, CA 94520.
Grigorios Lavrentiadis
Postdoctoral Scholar, Division of Engineering and Applied Science, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125.
Chukwuebuka C. Nweke, M.ASCE
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089.

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.

View Options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share