Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

S2HM of Buildings in USA

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Seismic Structural Health Monitoring

Part of the book series: Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering ((SPRTRCIENG))

Abstract

The evolution of seismic structural-health monitoring (S2HM) of buildings in the USA is described in this chapter, emphasizing real-time monitoring. Rapid and accurate assessment of post-earthquake building damage is of paramount importance to stakeholders (including owners, occupants, city officials, and rescue teams). Relying merely on rapid visual inspection could result in serious damage being missed because it is hidden by building finishes and fireproofing. Absent visible damage to a building’s frame, most steel or reinforced-concrete moment-frame buildings will be green-tagged based on limited visual indications of deformation, such as damage to partitions or glazing. Contrary, uncertainty in judging extent of structural damage may lead an inspector toward a relatively conservative tag, such as a red tag. In such cases, expensive, intrusive, and time-consuming inspections may be recommended to building owners (e.g., following the Mw 6.7 1994 Northridge, Calif., earthquake, approximately 300 buildings were subjected to costly inspection of connections (FEMA 352)). Using real-time data-driven computation of drift ratios as the parametric indicator of structural deformation and damage to a structure could be of great value to minimize potential judgmental errors in such assessments. Recorded sensor data are an indication of performance, and performance-based design standards stipulate that the amplitude of relative displacement of a building’s roof (with respect to its base) indicates performance. Establishing sound criteria for performance is the most important issue for S2HM process, and since 2000 (in the USA), using real-time computed drift ratios and acceptable threshold criteria form the basis for almost all applications in S2HM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The City of San Francisco, California, has developed a “Building Occupancy Resumption Program” (BORP) [36] whereby a prequalified occupancy decision making process as described in this paper may be proposed to the city as a reduced inspection program but in lieu of detailed inspections by city engineers following a serious earthquake.

  2. 2.

    Drift ratio (DR) is defined as relative displacement between any two floors divided by the difference in elevation of the two floors. Usually, this ratio is computed for two consecutive floors.

  3. 3.

    By 2006, as many as 50–100 samples per second (sps) differential GPS systems have been available on the market and have been successfully used [39]. Currently, GPS units with sampling rate of 100 Hz are commercially available.

  4. 4.

    Recently, up to 50 samples per second (sps) differential GPS systems are available on the market and have been successfully used Panagitou et al. [39].

  5. 5.

    The locations of sensors are generally dictated by the desire to obtain optimum response data from different floors and within strategic locations of those floors to compute reliable drift ratios for assessing near real-time performance of a building during an earthquake. Cost also becomes a consideration. In general, on each instrumented floor, a minimum of three accelerometers are deployed—two parallel at a distance apart to facilitate computation of torsion and the third orthogonal to the other two. A minimum of three verticals are deployed at the basement in ground-level corners to compute rocking, if any [29]. The Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council [60] provides guidance also for number of accelerometers according to number of floors of a building (e.g., they recommend 36 channels for buildings taller than 50 stories). However, for S2HM purposes, the number of accelerometers should be greater.

References

  1. Applied Technology Council (1989) Procedures for post-earthquake safety evaluation of buildings. Applied Technology Council ATC-20

    Google Scholar 

  2. SAC Joint Venture (2000) Recommended post-earthquake evaluation and repair criteria for welded steel moment-frame buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-352, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rojahn C, Mork PN (1981) An analysis of strong-motion data from a severely damaged structure, the Imperial County services building, El Centro, California. U.S. geological survey open-file report 81–194

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ventura C, Ding Y (2000) Linear and nonlinear seismic response of a 52-storey steel frame building. J Struct Des Tall Build 9(1):25–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1794(200003)9:1%3c25:AID-TAL140%3e3.0.CO;2-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Boroschek RL, Mahin SA (1991) Investigation of the seismic response of a lightly damped torsionally coupled building. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, UCB/EERC-91/18

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rahmani M, Todorovska M (2015) Structural health monitoring of a 54-story steel frame building using wave method and earthquake records. Earthq Spectra 31(1):501–525. https://doi.org/10.1193/112912EQS339M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rahmani M, Todorovska MI (2014) 1D system identification of a 54-story steel frame building by seismic interferometry. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 43(4):627–640. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Safak E, Çelebi M (1991) Recorded seismic response of Transamerica building, II: system identification. J Struct Eng 117(8):2405–2425. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1991)117:8(2405)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Safak E, Çelebi M (1992) Recorded seismic response of Pacific Park Plaza, II: system identification. J Struct Eng 118(6):1566–1589. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1992)118:6(1566)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jennings PC (1997) Use of strong-motion data in earthquake resistant design. In: Proceedings of SMIP97 seminar on utilization of strong-motion data. California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program. Division of Mines and Geology, California Department of Conservation, Sacramento, CA, pp 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  11. Çelebi M, Safak E (1991) Recorded seismic response of Transamerica building, I: data and preliminary analysis. J Struct Eng 117(8):2389–2404. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1991)117:8(2389)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Çelebi M, Safak E (1992) Seismic response of Pacific Park Plaza, I: data and preliminary analysis. J Struct Eng 118(6):1547–1565. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1992)118:6(1547)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Çelebi M, Bongiovanni G, Safak E, Brady G (1989) Seismic response of a large-span roof diaphragm. Earthq Spectra 5(2):337–350. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Çelebi M, Sereci M, Boroschek R, Carreno R, Bonelli P (2013) Identifying the dynamic characteristics of a dual core-wall and frame building in Chile using aftershocks of the 27 February 2010 (Mw = 8.8) Maule (Chile) earthquake. Earthq Spectra 29(4):1233–1254. https://doi.org/10.1193/011812EQS012M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Çelebi M, Huang M, Shakal A, Hooper J, Klemencic R (2013) Ambient response of a unique performance-based design tall building with dynamic response modification features. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 22:816–829. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Çelebi M, Toksöz N, Büyüköztürk O (2014) Rocking behavior of an instrumented unique building on the MIT campus identified from ambient shaking data. Earthq Spectra 30(2):705–720. https://doi.org/10.1193/032112EQS102M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Çelebi M, Okawa I, Kashima T, Koyama S, Iiba M (2014) Response of a tall building far from the epicenter of the March 11 2011 M9.0 Great East Japan earthquake and aftershocks. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 23:427–441. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Çelebi M, Kashima T, Ghahari F, Abazarsa F, Taciroglu E (2016) Responses of a tall building with U.S. code-type instrumentation in Tokyo, Japan—to events before, during, and after the Tohoku earthquake of 11 March 2011. Earthq Spectra 32(1):497–522. https://doi.org/10.1193/052114EQS071M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Çelebi M, Hisada Y, Omrani R, Ghahari F, Taciroglu E (2016) Responses of two tall buildings in Tokyo, Japan, before, during, and after the M9.0 Tohoku earthquake of 11 March 2011. Earthq Spectra 32(1):463–495. https://doi.org/10.1193/092713EQS260M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Çelebi M, Ulusoy HS, Nakata N (2016) Responses of a tall building in Los Angeles, California as inferred from local and distant earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 32(3):1821–1843. https://doi.org/10.1193/050515EQS065M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Çelebi M, Hooper J, Klemencic R (2017) Study of responses of 64-story Rincon building to Napa, Fremont, Piedmont, San Ramon earthquakes and ambient motions. Earthq Spectra 33(3):1125–1148. https://doi.org/10.1193/031616EQS041M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Çelebi M, Kashima T, Ghahari SF, Koyama S, Taciroglu E, Okawa I (2017) Before and after retrofit behavior and performance of a 55-story tall building inferred from distant earthquake and ambient vibration data. Earthq Spectra 33(4):1599–1626. https://doi.org/10.1193/122216EQS249M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Çelebi M (1993) Seismic response of an eccentrically braced tall building. J Struct Eng 119(4):1188–1205. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1993)119:4(1188)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Çelebi M (1993) Seismic response of two adjacent buildings with downhole and free-field recordings, I: data and analysis. J Struct Eng 119(8):2461–2476. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1993)119:8(2461)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Çelebi M (1993) Seismic response of two adjacent buildings with downhole and free-field recordings, II: interaction. J Struct Eng 119(8):2477–2492. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1993)119:8(2477)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Çelebi M (1997) Response of Olive View Hospital to Northridge and Whittier earthquakes. J Struct Eng 123(4):389–396. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:4(389)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Çelebi M (1998) GPS and/or strong and weak motion structural response measurements—case studies. In: Proceedings of structural engineers world congress, CD-ROM, San Francisco, CA, 19–23 July 1998

    Google Scholar 

  28. Çelebi M (1998) Performance of building structures—a summary. In: Çelebi M (ed) The Loma Prieta, California, earthquake of October 17, 1989—building structures. U.S. geological survey professional paper 1552–C, c5–c76. https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1552/pp1552c/

  29. Çelebi M (2004) Structural monitoring arrays—past, present and future. In: Gulkan P, Anderson J (eds) Future directions in strong motion instrumentation. Proceedings of NATO SFP workshop on future directions on strong motion and engineering seismology, Kusadasi, Izmir, Turkey, 17–21 May 2004, NATO science series IV, earth and environmental sciences, vol 58. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 157–179

    Google Scholar 

  30. Çelebi M (2004) Responses of a 14-story Anchorage, Alaska, building to two close earthquakes and two distant Denali fault earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 20(3):693–706. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1779291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Çelebi M (2006) Recorded earthquake responses from the integrated seismic monitoring network of the Atwood building, Anchorage, Alaska. Earthq Spectra 22(4):847–864. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2359702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Çelebi M (2011) Seismic monitoring of structures and new developments. Invited keynote lecture paper. In: Proceedings of 2011 experimental vibration analyses of civil engineering structures, Varenna, Italy, 3–5 Oct 2011, pp 15–36

    Google Scholar 

  33. Çelebi M (2013) Modern structural monitoring arrays and needs: GPS and other developments, chapter 6. In: Bull JW (ed) Tall buildings: design advances for construction. Computational science, engineering and technology series 33. Saxe-Coburn Publications, pp 143–182

    Google Scholar 

  34. Çelebi M (2013) Seismic monitoring of structures and new developments, chapter 2. In: Garevski M (ed) Earthquakes and health monitoring of civil structures. Springer environmental science and engineering, pp 37–84

    Google Scholar 

  35. Rodgers J, Çelebi M (2006) Seismic response and damage detection analyses of an instrumented steel moment-framed building. J Struct Eng 132(10):1543–1552. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:10(1543)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. City and County of San Francisco (2001) Building Occupancy Resumption Program (BORP). City and County of San Francisco, Department of Building Inspection, Emergency Operation Plan (Rev. 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Çelebi M, Sanli A (2002) GPS in pioneering dynamic monitoring of long-period structures. Earthq Spectra 18(1):47–61. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1461375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Çelebi M, Sanli A, Sinclair M, Gallant S, Radulescu D (2004) Real-time seismic monitoring needs of a building owner—and the solution: a cooperative effort. Earthq Spectra 20(2):333–346. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1735987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Panagitou M, Restrepo JI, Conte JP, Englekirk RE (2006) Seismic response of reinforced concrete wall buildings. In: Proceedings of 8th national conference on earthquake engineering, San Francisco, CA, 18–22 Apr 2006, paper 1494

    Google Scholar 

  40. Jerri A (1979) Correction to “The Shannon sampling theorem—its various extensions and applications: a tutorial review”. Proc IEEE 67(4):695. https://doi.org/10.1109/proc.1979.11307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Çelebi M (2008) Real-time monitoring of drift for occupancy resumption. In: Proceedings of 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China, 13–17 Oct 2008 (CD-ROM)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Applied Technology Council (1997) NEHRP commentary on the guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA-274, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  43. Applied Technology Council (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA-273, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  44. Porter KA, Beck JL, Ching JY, Mirani-Reiser J, Miyamura M, Kusaka A, Kudo T, Ikkatai K, Hyoda Y (2004) Real-time loss estimation for instrumented buildings. Caltech EERL report 2004-08. https://authors.library.caltech.edu/26545/

  45. Porter K, Mitrani-Reiser J, Beck JL, Ching J (2006) Smarter structures: real-time loss estimation for instrumented buildings. In: Proceedings of 8th national conference on earthquake engineering, San Francisco, CA, 18–22 Apr 2006, paper 1236

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hyzak M, Leach M, Duff K (1997) Practical application of GPS to bridge deformation monitoring. In: Proceedings of permanent committee meeting and symposium international federation of surveyors, May 1997

    Google Scholar 

  47. Teague EH, How JP, Lawson LG, Parkinson BW (1995) GPS as a structural deformation sensor. In: Proceedings of American institute of aeronautics and astronautics guidance, navigation, and control conference, Baltimore, MD, Aug 1995

    Google Scholar 

  48. Guo J, Ge S (1997) Research on displacement and frequency of tall buildings under wind loading using GPS. In: Proceedings of institute of navigation conference, Kansas City, MO, Sept 1997

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kondo H, Cannon ME (1995) Real-time landslide detection system using precise carrier phase GPS. In: Proceedings of institute of navigation conference, Palm Springs, CA, Sept 1995

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lovse JW, Teskey WF, Lachapelle G, Cannon ME (1995) Dynamic deformation monitoring of a tall structure using GPS technology. J Surv Eng 121(1):35–40. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9453(1995)121:1(35)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hudnut KW, Behr J (1998) A continuous GPS monitoring of structural deformation at Pacoima Dam, California. Seismol Res Lett 69(4):299–308. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.69.4.299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Behr JA, Hudnut K, King N (1998) Monitoring structural deformation at Pacoima Dam, California using continuous GPS. In: Proceedings of 11th international technical meeting of the satellite division of the Institute of Navigation [ION GPS-98; Nashville, TN], pp 59–68

    Google Scholar 

  53. Stein RS, Hudnut KW, Satalich J, Hodgkinson KM (1997) Monitoring seismic damage to bridges and highways with GPS: insights from the 1994 Northridge earthquake. In: Proceedings of national seismic conference on bridges and highways. Federal Highway Administration and California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, pp 347–360

    Google Scholar 

  54. Roberts GW, Dodson AH, Ashkenazi V (1999) Twist & deflect: monitoring motion of the Humber Bridge. GPS World 10(10):24–34

    Google Scholar 

  55. Nakamura S (2000) GPS measurement of wind-induced suspension bridge girder displacements. J Struct Eng 126(1):1413–1419. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:12(1413)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Toriumi R, Katsuchi H, Furuya N (2000) A study on spatial correlation of natural wind. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 87(2–3):203–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Çelebi M, Prescott W, Stein R, Hudnut K, Behr J, Wilson S (1999) GPS monitoring of dynamic behavior of long-period structures. Earthq Spectra (J EERI) 15(1):55–66. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Tamura Y, Matsui M, Pagnin L-C, Yoshida A (2001) Measurement of wind-induced response of buildings using RTK-GPS. In: Proceedings of 5th Asia-Pacific conference on wind engineering, Kyoto, Japan, 21–24 Oct 2001

    Google Scholar 

  59. Bendat JS, Piersol AG (2011) Random data: analysis and measurement procedures, vol 729. Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  60. Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council (2017) An alternative procedure for seismic analysis and design of tall buildings in the Los Angeles region—a consensus document. Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council. http://www.tallbuildings.org/PDFFiles/2017-LATBSDC-CRITERIA_Final_w_2018_%20Supplements_FINAL_20180320.pdf

  61. Safak E (1999) Wave-propagation formulation of seismic response of multistory buildings. J Struct Eng 125(4):426–437. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1999)125:4(426)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Abdelrazaq A (2012) Validating the structural behavior and response of Burj Khalifa: synopsis of the full scale structural health monitoring programs. Int J High-Rise Build 1:37–51

    Google Scholar 

  63. Kijewski-Correa T, Kareem A (2004) The height of precision: new perspectives in structural monitoring. In: Proceedings of 9th biennial conference on engineering, construction and operations challenging environments, Houston, TX, 7–10 Mar 2004. https://doi.org/10.1061/40722(153)28

  64. Williams S, Bentz A, Kijewski-Correa T (2013) A typology-driven damping model (TD2M) to enhance the prediction of tall building dynamic properties using full-scale wind-induced response data. In: Proceedings of 12th Americas conference on wind engineering, Seattle, WA, 16–20 June 2013

    Google Scholar 

  65. Ciudad-Real M, Skolnik D, Swanson D, Bishop E (2017) Earthquake business continuity for United Arab Emirates buildings using structural health monitoring and performance-based earthquake engineering rapid evaluation. In: Proceedings of 16th world conference on earthquake engineering, Santiago, Chile, 9–13 Jan 2017

    Google Scholar 

  66. Kaya Y, Safak E (2014) Real-time analysis and interpretation of continuous data from structural health monitoring (SHM) systems. Bull Earthq Eng 13(3):917–934. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Hisada Y, Yamashita T, Murakami M, Kubo T, Arata T, Shindo J, Aizawa K (2012) Seismic response and damage of high-rise buildings in Tokyo, Japan, during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. In: Proceedings of 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 24–28 Sept 2012

    Google Scholar 

  68. Kubo T, Hisada Y, Murakami M, Kosuge F, Hamano K (2011) Application of an earthquake early warning system and a real-time strong motion monitoring system in emergency response in a high-rise building. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 31(2):231–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.07.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. The Building Center of Japan (2001) Time-history response analysis of building performance evaluation. The Building Center of Japan, Technical Appraisal Department, Structural Safety Section Report BR KO-02-01, adopted June 1, 2000, amended April 25, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  70. The Building Center of Japan (2001) Manual for time history response analysis of building performance evaluation. Technical Appraisal Department, Structural Safety Section Report BR KO-02-01, adopted June 1, 2000, amended April 25, 2001

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

These developments were funded by PG&E (GPS project) and FDIC (accelerometric S2HM project). Financial supports of these organizations in early development of S2HM configuration are acknowledged. Dr. Ahmet Sanli contributed to both efforts. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. U.S. Geological Survey, Earthquake Science Center, 345 Middlefield Rd. (MS977), Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA

    Mehmet Çelebi

Authors
  1. Mehmet Çelebi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehmet Çelebi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering, Politecnico di Milano , Milano, Italy

    Maria Pina Limongelli

  2. United States Geological Survey , Menlo Park, CA, USA

    Mehmet Çelebi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Çelebi, M. (2019). S2HM of Buildings in USA. In: Limongelli, M., Çelebi, M. (eds) Seismic Structural Health Monitoring. Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13976-6_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13976-6_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-13975-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-13976-6

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation