Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Earthquakes and Health Monitoring of Civil Structures pp 37–84Cite as

Seismic Monitoring of Structures and New Developments

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Springer Environmental Science and Engineering ((SPRINGERENVIRON))

Abstract

Presented in this paper is an overview of the seismic monitoring issues as practiced in the past, as well as current applications and new developments to meet the needs of the engineering and user community. A number of examples exhibit the most recent applications that can be used for verification of design (including performance based design) and construction practices, real-time applications for assessing the functionality, damage condition of built environment and understanding the behavior of a particular building during strong and low-amplitude excitations. In addition and in particular, recent developments and approaches to obtain displacements and, in turn, drift ratios, in real-time or near real-time that are related to damage condition and therefore functionality of a structure are introduced. Development of wireless sensors that are now finding limited but growing applications in projects that require long-term monitoring are discussed with an example. Other special instrumentation arrays that include additional sensors to study soil-structure interaction and wave propagation are described with available recorded data.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    USGS data are available via www.nsmp.wr.usgs.gov and CSMIP data are available via www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/smip. Both are accessible via www.cosmos-eq.org and www.strongmotioncenter.org

  2. 2.

    For example, in San Francisco, California, it is not possible to find a suitable free-field location around the Transamerica building, which is extensively instrumented.

  3. 3.

    Use of commercial names or trademarks cited herein does not imply endorsement of these products by the U.S. Geological Survey.

  4. 4.

    The City of San Francisco, California, has developed a “Building Occupancy Resumption Program” (BORP 2001) whereby a pre-qualified occupancy decision-making process, as described in this paper, may be proposed to the City as a reduced inspection program and in lieu of detailed inspections by city engineers following a serious earthquake.

  5. 5.

    Presently up to 50 sps (samples per second ) differential GPS systems with up to 50 sps are available on the market and have been successfully used to monitor drift ratios (Panagitou et al. 2006, Restrepo, personal communication, 2007) – thus enabling future usefulness of GPS to all types of structures.

  6. 6.

    The instrumentation configuration is now updated to include a modern digital recording system and uniaxial accelerometers on the 29th and 49th floors, similar to the 21st floor.

  7. 7.

    Ambient and forced vibration tests before and ambient tests after the Loma Prieta earthquake show the fundamental period as 2.94 s (0.34 Hz) (Çelebi 1998).

References

  • Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ (1997) Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes. Seismol Res Lett 68:94–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ANSS – An Assessment of Seismic Monitoring in the United States – Requirement for an Advanced National Seismic System (1999) U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 1188, 1999. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/monitoring/anss/, Accessed January 27 2011

  • Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1989) Procedures for post-earthquake safety evaluation of buildings. ATC-20, Redwood City

    Google Scholar 

  • Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1997) NEHRP commentary on the guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, prepared for the building seismic safety council, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 274, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Astaneh A, Bonowitz D, Chen C (1991) Evaluating design provisions and actual performance of a modern high-rise steel structure. In: Seminar on seismological and engineering implications of recent strong-motion data. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, pp 5–1–5–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Joyner WB, Fumal TE (1997) Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western North American earthquakes: a summary of recent work. Seismol Res Lett 68:128–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borcherdt RD (1993) On the estimation of site-dependent response spectra. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on strong-motion data, Menlo Park, published By Port and Harbor Research Institute, Japan, (Preprint of manuscript submitted as “Simplified site classes and empirical amplification factors for site-dependent code provisions”, for Proceedings of the NCEER, SEAOC, BSSC workshop on site response during earthquakes and seismic code provisions, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 18–20 November 1992) vol 2, pp 399–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Borcherdt RD (1994) Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design (methodology and justification). Earthq Spectra 10:617–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borcherdt RD (2002a) Empirical evidence for acceleration-dependent amplification factors. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92:761–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borcherdt RD (2002b) Empirical evidence for site coefficients in building-code provisions. Earthq Spectra 18:189–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boroschek RL, Mahin S (1991) An investigation of the seismic response of a lightly-damped torsionally-coupled building, University of California, Berkeley, California, Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report 91/18, December, 291 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Boroschek RL, Mahin SA, Zeris CA (1990) Seismic response and analytical modeling of three instrumented buildings. In: Proceedings of the 4th U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering, vol 2, Palm Springs, CA, 20-24 May. EERI, El Cerrito, pp 219-228

    Google Scholar 

  • Building Occupancy Resumption Program (BORP) (2001) City and County of San Francisco, Department of Building Inspection, Emergency Operation Plan, (Rev. 2001). www.seaonc.org/member/committees/des_build.html

  • Campbell KW (1997) Empirical near-source attenuation relationships for horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectra. Seismol Res Lett 68:154–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M (1993) Seismic response of eccentrically braced tall building. ASCE J Struct Eng 119(4):1188–1205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M (1994) Response study of a flexible building using three earthquake records. In: Proceedings of the ASCE Structures Congress XII ‘94, Atlanta, GA, April 24–28, vol 2. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp 1220–1225

    Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M (1995) Successful performance of base-isolated hospital building during the 17 January 1994 Northridge earthquake. J Struct Des Tall Build 5:95–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M (1996) Comparison of damping in buildings under low-amplitude and strong motions. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn [Elsevier Science] 59:309–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M (1997) Response of olive view hospital to Northridge and Whittier earthquakes. ASCE J Struct Eng 123(4):389–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M (1998) Performance of building structures – a summary. In: Çelebi M (ed) The Loma Prieta, California, earthquake of 17 October 1989 – Building structures, USGS prof. paper 1552-C, January 1998. US GPO, Washington, DC, pp c5–c76

    Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M (2000) Seismic instrumentation of buildings, U.S. geological survey open-file report 00–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M (2001a) Current practice and guidelines for USGS instrumentation of buildings including federal buildings. In: Cosmos Proceedings of the invited workshop on strong-motion instrumentation of buildings, Emeryville, November 2001, Cosmos publication No: CP-2001/04

    Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M (2001b) Current and new trends in utilization of data from instrumented structures. In: Çelebi MK [Editor with co-editors Erdik M, Mihailov V, Apaydin N], Strong-motion instrumentation for civil engineering structures, NATO science series-BOOK (E: Applied sciences-vol 373), Kluwer Academic Publishers, ISBN 0-7923-6916-5, pp 179–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M (2003) Identification of site frequencies from building records. Earthq Spectra 19(1):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M (2006a) Recorded earthquake responses from the integrated seismic monitoring network of Atwood building, Anchorage, (AK). Earthq Spectra 22(4):847–864, November 2006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M (2006b) Real-time seismic monitoring of the new Cape Girardeau (MO) Bridge and preliminary analyses of recorded data: an overview. Earthq Spectra 22(3):609–630, August 2006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M (2007) On the variation of fundamental frequency (period) of an undamaged building – a continuing discussion. In: Proceedings [CD] of the international conference on Experimental Vibration Analysis for Civil Engineering Structures (EVACES’07), Porto, Portugal, October 2007, pp 317–326, 24–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M (2008) Real-time monitoring of drift for occupancy resumption. In: Proceedings of the 14WCEE, Beijing, China, 13–17 October 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M (2009) Seismic Monitoring to assess performance of structures in near-real time: Recent Progress, Chapter 1 in Seismic Risk assessment and Retrofitting, Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering, Springer Publishing ISSN: 1573-6059, pp 1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M, Liu H-P (1996) Before and after retrofit – response of a building during ambient and strong-motions. 8th US national conference on wind engineering, The John Hopkins University, Baltimore, 5–7 June

    Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M, Safak E (1991) Seismic response of Transamerica building–I, data and preliminary analysis. ASCE J Struct Eng 117(8):2389–2404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M, Sanli A (2002) GPS in pioneering dynamic monitoring of long-period structures. Earthquake Spectra 18(1):47–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M, Safak E, Brady G, Maley R, Sotoudeh V (1987) Integrated instrumentation plan for assessing the seismic response of structures – a review of the current USGS program. USGS Circular 947

    Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M, Bongiovanni G, Safak E, Brady G (1989) Seismic response of a large-span roof diaphragm. Earthq Spectra 5(2):337–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M (compiler), Lysmer J, Luco E (1992) Recommendations for a soil-structure interaction experiment report based on a workshop held at San Francisco, California on February 7, 1992, U.S. Geological Survey open-file report, pp 92–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M, Phan LT, Marshall RD (1993) Dynamic characteristics of five tall buildings during strong and low-amplitude motions. J Struct Des Tall Build [Wiley] 2:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M, Presscott W, Stein R, Hudnut K, Wilson S (1997) Application of GPS in monitoring tall buildings in seismic areas, Abstract, AGU meeting, San Francisco, December 1997

    Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M, Presscott W, Stein R, Hudnut K, Behr J, Wilson S (1999) GPS monitoring of dynamic behavior of long-period structures. Earthq Spectra 15(1):55–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Journal of EERI, Earthquake Spectra, 20(2):333–346, May 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Çelebi M, Toksoz N, Buyukozturk O (2011) Revelations from ambient shaking data of a recently instrumented unique building at MIT Campus. Paper for IOMAC 2011 (International operational modal analysis conference), Istanbul, Turkey

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho S, Jo H, Jang S, Park J, Jung H-J, Yun C-B, Spencer Jr, BF, Seo J-W (2010) Structural health monitoring of a cable-stayed bridge using wireless smart sensor technology: data analyses, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, NSEL report series no. NSEL-024, June 2010, pp 461–480

    Google Scholar 

  • Chopra A, Goel RK (1991) Evaluation of torsional provisions of seismic codes. ASCE J Struct Eng 117(12):3762–3782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • COSMOS (2001) Proceedings of invited workshop on strong-motion instrumentation of buildings. Publication no. CP-2002/04

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby P, Kelly J, Singh JP (2004) Utilizing visco-elastic dampers in the seismic retrofit of a thirteen story steel framed building. ASCE Structures Congress XII, Atlanta, vol. 2, pp 1286–1291

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouse CB, McGuire JW (1996) Site response studies for purpose of revising NEHRP seismic provisions. Earthq Spectra 12:407–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darragh R, Cao T, Graizer V, Shakal A, Huang M (1994) Los Angeles code-instrumented building records from the Northridge, California earthquake of January 17, 1994: processed release no. 1”, report no. OSMS 94–17, California strong motion instrumentation program, California Department of Conservation, 10 December 1994

    Google Scholar 

  • De La Llera J, Chopra A (1995) Understanding of inelastic seismic behavior of symmetric-plan buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 24:549–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghanem R, Shinozuka M (1995) Structural system identification I. Theory. J Eng Mech 121(2):255–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall JF, Heaton TH, Halling MW, Wald DJ (1996) Near-source ground motion and its effects on flexible buildings. Earthq Spectra 11(4):569–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamburger RO (1997) FEMA-173 seismic rehabilitation guidelines: the next step – verification. In: Proceedings of the SMIP97 seminar on utilization of strong-motion data, California strong motion instrumentation program, Division of Mines and Geology, California Department of Conservation, Sacramento, pp 51–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart G, Rojahn C (1979) A decision-theory methodology for the selection of buildings for strong-motion instrumentation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 7:579–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heo G, Wang ML, Satpathi D (1977) Optimal transducer placement for health monitoring. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 16:496–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang MJ, Shakal AF (2001) CSMIP building instrumentation measurements and objectives. In: Proceedings of the invited workshop on strong-motion instrumentation of buildings, COSMOS, Emeryville. November 2001, Cosmos publication no: CP-2001/04, pp 15–19

    Google Scholar 

  • International Building Code (2000) International conference of building officials, Whittier and also 2003, 2006, 2009 editions

    Google Scholar 

  • Jang S, Jo H, Cho S, Mechitov K, Rice JA, Sim S-H, Jung H-J, Yun C-B, Spencer, Jr, BF, Agha G (2010) Structural health monitoring of a cable-stayed bridge using smart sensor technology: deployment and evaluation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, NSEL report series report no. NSEL-024, June 2010, pp 439–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly J (1993) Seismic isolation, passive energy dissipation and active control. In: Proceedings of the ATC 17–1 seminar on state of the art and state of the practice of base isolation, vol 1, pp 9–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly JM, Aiken ID, Clark PW (1991) Response of base-isolated structures in recent California earthquakes. In: Seminar on seismological and engineering implications of recent strong-motion data, preprints: California Division of Mines and Geology, Strong Motion Instrumentation Program, Sacramento, pp 12-1–12-10

    Google Scholar 

  • Kijewski-Correa T, Kareem A (2004) The height of precision: new perspectives in structural monitoring. In: Proceedings of the earth & space: 9th aerospace division international conference on engineering, construction and operations challenging environments, 7–10 March, Houston

    Google Scholar 

  • Ljung L (1987) System identification: theory for the user. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NY

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall RD, Phan LT, Çelebi M (1992) Measurement of structural response characteristics of full-scale buildings: comparison of results from strong-motion and ambient vibration records, NISTIR report 4884. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Panagitou M, Restrepo JI, Conte JP, Englekirk RE (2006) Seismic response of reinforced concrete wall buildings, 8NCEE (paper no. 1494), San Francisco, 18–22 April 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter LD (1996) The influence of earthquake azimuth on structural response due to strong ground shaking. In: Eleventh world conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, Mexico (June), (No. 1623), Elsevier – Pergamon, Oxford (CD-ROM)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rojahn C, Matthiesen RB (1977) Earthquake response and instrumentation of buildings. J Tech Counc, Am Soc Civ Eng 103:TCI, Proceedings paper 13393, pp 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, pp 81–194

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadigh K, Chang C-Y, Egan JA, Makdisi F, Youngs RR (1997) Attenuation relationships for shallow crustal earthquakes based on California strong motion data. Seismol Res Lett 68:180–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Şafak E (1999) Wave-propagation formulation of seismic response of multistory buildings. ASCE J Struct Eng 125(4):426–437, April 1999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Şafak E, Çelebi M (1991) Seismic response of Transamerica building–II: system identification preliminary analysis. ASCE J Struct Eng 117(8):2405–2425, August 1991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shakal AF, Huang MJ, Rojan C, Poland C (2001) Selection and criteria for the selection of buildings for instrumentation. In: Proceedings of the invited workshop on strong-motion instrumentation of buildings, COSMOS, Emeryville, November 2001, Cosmos publication no: CP-2001/04, pp 5–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Shinozuka M, Ghanem R (1995) Structural system identification I. Theory. J Eng Mech 121(2):265–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Sohn H, Farrar CR, Hemez FM, Shunk DD, Stinemate DW, Nadler BR (2003) A review of structural health monitoring literature: 1996–2001, Los Alamos National Laboratory report, LA-13976-MS, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer BF Jr, Yun C-B (eds.) (2010) Wireless sensor advances and applications for civil infrastructure monitoring. Newmark Structural Engineering Laboratory Report Series, no. 24 (http://hdl.handle.net/2142/16434)

  • Straser E (1997) Toward wireless, modular monitoring systems for civil structures in John A 1079 Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Newsletter, No 2. Stanford University, Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarquis F, Roesset J (1988) Structural response and design response spectra for the 1985 Mexico City earthquake. University of Texas, Austin, Texas, report no. GD89-1, 208p

    Google Scholar 

  • The MathWorks, Inc. (1988) User’s guide: system identification toolbox for use with Matlab, South Natick, MA. (1988 and newer versions Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA. (1970 and, 1976, 1979, 1982, 1985, 1988, 1991, 1994, 1997 editions)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. USGS (MS977), 345 Middlefield Rd, 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. Engineering Seismology (IZIIS), Institute of Earthquake Engineering and, Salvador Aljende 73, Skopje, 1000, Macedonia

    Mihail Garevski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Çelebi, M. (2013). Seismic Monitoring of Structures and New Developments. In: Garevski, M. (eds) Earthquakes and Health Monitoring of Civil Structures. Springer Environmental Science and Engineering. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5182-8_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation