Response study of a 51-story-tall Los Angeles, California building inferred from motions of the Mw7.1 July 5, 2019 Ridgecrest, California earthquake

Abstract

A 51-story building in downtown Los Angeles that is equipped with a seismic monitoring accelerometric array recorded the Mw7.1 Ridgecrest, California earthquake of July 5, 2019. The building is a dual-core reinforced-concrete shear-wall and perimeter-column structure with ~ 80% of floors constructed as post-tensioned flat slabs, which makes it a trending design. Using system identification methods, spectral analyses, and coherence-phase angle computations, the recorded response data allowed the identification of dynamic response characteristics (fundamental frequencies of [NS] 0.21 Hz, [EW] 0.28 Hz, and [Torsional] 0.45 Hz, critical damping percentages < 2.5%, and associated mode shapes), as well as computation of drift ratios with maximum peaks of 0.145% for both NS and EW directions. The critical damping percentages are consistent with those recommended by LATBSDC (2017). There is no indication from the records that post-tensioned slab design played any role in altering the dynamic characteristics.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

adopted from www.strongmotioncenter.org, last accessed February 11, 2021)

Fig. 2

modified from www.strongmotioncenter.org(last accessed February 11, 2021)

Fig. 3

modified from structural drawings

Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a description of this relationship, see Larkin, C. and Van Houtte, C., 2014, Determination of site period for NZS1170.5:2004, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 47, No. 1, March 2014.

References

  1. ASCE/SEI Standard 7–10 (2007) and 7–16 (2016) and Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, Provisions and Commentary, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA

  2. Bendat JS, Piersol AG (1980) Engineering applications of correlation and spectral analysis. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Boroschek RL, Mahin SA (1991) Investigation of the seismic response of a lightly-damped torsionally-coupled building. Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report UCB/EERC-91/18, University of California, Berkeley, 291 pp

  4. Çelebi M (2006) Recorded earthquake responses from the integrated seismic monitoring network of the atwood building, anchorage, (AK). Earthq Spectra 22(4):847–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Çelebi M, Sembera E (1985) Preliminary evaluation of performance of structures. In: Preliminary Report of Investigations of the Central Chile Earthquake of March 3 (ed. ST Algermissen). U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 85–542. Available at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNABF571.pdf (accessed February 12, 2020). pp. 125–180

  6. Çelebi M, Sereci M, Boroschek R, Carreño 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, Earthquake Spectra, 29, 4, pp 1233–1254, November 2013

  7. Çelebi M, Okawa I, Kashima TS, Koyama S, Iiba M (2014) Response of a tall building far from the epicenter of the March 11, 2011 M=9.0 Great East Japan earthquake and its aftershocks. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 23:427–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Çelebi M, Hisada Y, Omrani R, Farid S, Ghahari SF, Taciroglu E (2016a) Responses of two tall buildings in Tokyo, Japan, before, during, and after the M9.0 Tohoku Earthquake of March 11, 2011. Earthq Spectra 32(1):463–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Çelebi M, Ulusoy H, Nakata N (2016b) Responses of a tall building in Los Angeles, California as inferred from local and distant earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 32(3):1821–1843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Çelebi M, Hooper J, Klemencic R (2017a) Study of responses of 64-story Rincon building to Napa, Fremont, Piedmont, San Ramon Earthquakes and Ambient Motions. Earthq Spectra 33(3):1125–1148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Çelebi M, Kashima T, Ghahari SF, Koyama S, Taciroglu E, Okawa I (2017b) Before and after retrofit dynamic characteristics of a 55-story building. In: PROC.EVACES2017: Experimental vibration analysis for civil engineering structures, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 12–14 July

  12. Çelebi M, Kashima T, Ghahari SF, Koyama S, Taciroglu E, Okawa I (2018) (2018) Dynamic characteristics of a 55-story building before and after Retrofit. In: Conte JP, Astroza R, Benzoni G et al (eds) Experimental Vibration 22 Earthquake Spectra 00(0) Analysis for Civil Structures, vol 5. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering. Springer, Cham, pp 656–666

    Google Scholar 

  13. Çelebi M (2018) Quantifying the effect of beating inferred from recorded responses of tall buildings. In: Proceedings of the 11th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA. June 25–29, 2018

  14. Çelebi M, Haddadi H, Huang M, Valley M, Hooper J, Klemencic R (2019) The behavior of the Salesforce Tower, the tallest building in San Francisco, California inferred from earthquake and ambient shaking. Earthq Spectra 35(4):1711–1731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Çelebi M, Ghahari SF, Haddadi H, Taciroglu E (2020) Response study of the tallest California building inferred from the Mw7.1 July 5, 2019 Ridgecrest, California Earthquake and Ambient Motions, submitted, Earthquake Spectra, online versión March, 2020. [doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020906836]

  16. Haskell NA (1953) The dispersion of surface waves on multi-layered media. Bull SeismolSoc Am 43:17–34

    Google Scholar 

  17. Haskell NA (1960) Crustal reflection of plane SH waves. J Geophys Res 65(12):4147–4150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. I Cemento del y del Hormigon de Chile (ICH) (2002) EdificioChilenos de Hormigon Armado ICH Providencia, Chile

  19. Juang JN, Pappa RS (1995) An eigensystem realization algorithm for modal parameter identification and model reduction. J Guid, Control, Dyn 8:620–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 DynEarthqEng 31:231–239

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lagos R, Kupfer M, Lindenberg J, Bonelli P, Saragoni R, Guendelman T, Massone L, Boroschek R, Yanez F (2012) Seismic performance of high-rise concrete buildings in Chile. Int J High-Rise Build 1(3):181–194

    Google Scholar 

  22. Larkin C, Van Houtte C (2014) Determination of site period for NZS1170.5:2004. Bullet N. Z. SocEarthqEng 47(1):28–40

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lee E-J, Chen P, Jordan TH, Maechling PJ, Denolle M, Beroza GC (2014) Full-3-D tomography for crustal structure in southern California based on the scattering-integral and the adjoint-wavefield methods. J geophys Res 119(8):6421–6451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ljung L (1987) System identification: theory for the user. Prentice Hall, Englewood

    Google Scholar 

  25. Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council (LATBSDC) (2017) An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analyses and Design of Tall Buildings Located in the Los Angeles Region: A Consensus Document. 2017 later ed. Los Angeles, CA: LATBSDC, 72 pp

  26. Mathworks (2020) and previous versions. Matlab and Toolboxes, South Natick, MA

  27. Okawa I, Kashima T, Koyama S, Iiba M, Çelebi M, (2012) Summary of recorded building responses during the 2011 Off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku earthquake with some implications to design motions, in Proceedings, The International Symposium on Engineering Lessons learned from the Giant Earthquake One Year the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake CD-ROM, Kenchiku-kaikan, Tokyo, Japan

  28. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) (2017) Guidelines for Performance- Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings Version 2.03, PEER Report 2017/06, Berkeley, CA

  29. Li QS, Kang Zhou K, Li X (2020) Damping estimation of high-rise buildings considering structural modal directions. EarthqEngngStructDyn. 49:543–566. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Safak E, Kaya Y, Skolnik D, Ciudad-Real M, Al Mulla H, Megahed A (2014) Recorded response of a tall building in Abu Dhabi from a distant large earthquake, May 2014: Proc. 10th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering (DOI: https://doi.org/10.4231/D3C53F215)

  31. Shaw JH, Plesch A, Tapea C, Suess MP, Jordan TH, Ely G, Hauksson E, Tromp J, Tanimoto T, Graves R, Olsen K, Nicholson C, Maechling PJ, Rivero C, Lovely P, Brankman CM, Munster J (2015) Unified structural representation of the Southern California crust and upper mantle, Earth and Planet. SciLett Earth Planet. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2015.01.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Skolnik D, Ciudad RM, Franke M, Milutinovic DZ, Ahmed A, Ali M, Kaya Y, Safak E (2013) Operation of the structural health monitoring network of unique structures in Abu Dhabi Emirate, 8th Gulf Seismic Forum, 3–6 March. Oman, Muscat

    Google Scholar 

  33. Taborda R, Azizzadeh-Roodpish S, Khoshnevis N, Cheng K (2016) Evaluation of the southern California seismic velocity models through simulation of recorded events. Geophys J Int 2016(205):1342–1364. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggw085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Takewaki I, Murakami S, Fujita K, Yoshitomi S, Tsuji M (2011) The 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku earthquake and response of high-rise buildings under long-period ground motions. Soil DynEarthqEng 31:1511–1528

    Google Scholar 

  35. The Building Center of Japan (BCJ) (2001a) Time history response analysis building performance evaluation manual, Technical appraisal Department, Structural safety Section Report No: BR KO-02–01 (adopted 1 June 2000, amended 25 April 2001)

  36. The Building Center of Japan (BCJ) (2001b) Manual for time history response analysis of building performance evaluation manual, Technical Appraisal Department, Structural Safety Section Report No: BR KO-02-01 (adopted 1 June 2000, amended 25 April 2001)

  37. Van Overschee P, De Moor B (1994) N4SID: Subspace algorithms for the identification of combined deterministic-stochastic systems. Automatica 30(1):75–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Van Overschee P, De Moor B (1996) Subspace identification for linear systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The paper was improved with reviews by Noha Farghal, Shahram Pezeshk, and two anonymous reviewers. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehmet Çelebi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Çelebi, M., Swensen, D. & Haddadi, H. Response study of a 51-story-tall Los Angeles, California building inferred from motions of the Mw7.1 July 5, 2019 Ridgecrest, California earthquake. Bull Earthquake Eng (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01053-9

Download citation

Keyword

  • Tall building
  • Recorded earthquake responses
  • System identification
  • Spectral methods
  • Drift ratio
  • Ridgecrest earthquake
  • Basin effect