Stephanie A. King

Statistical Analysis of Bridge Damage Data from the 1994 Northridge, CA, Earthquake

This paper presents the significant findings from a study on damage to bridges during the January 17, 1994 Northridge, CA earthquake. The damage and repair cost data were compiled in a database for bridges in the Greater Los Angeles area. Observed damage data for all bridges were discriminated by structural characteristics. The analyses of data on bridge damage showed that concrete structures designed and built with older design standards were more prone to damage under seismic loading. Repair and/or reconstruction of collapsed structures formed seventy five percent of the total estimated repair cost. Peak ground acceleration values were also estimated at all bridge locations as part of this study. Empirical relationships between ground motion and bridge damage, and repair cost ratio were developed in the form of fragility curves and damage probability matrices, respectively. A comparison of the empirical and available ground motion-damage relationships demonstrated that the relationships that are currently in use do not correlate well to the observed damage.

Earthquake Damage and Loss Estimation Methodology and Data for Salt Lake County, Utah (ATC‐36)

As a follow on to the Applied Technology Council (ATC) project to develop earthquake damage evaluation data for California (ATC-13 project), ATC has conducted a project to update and translate the ATC-13 data and methodology for use in Salt Lake County, Utah (ATC-36 project). Methodology has been developed and/or updated for: (1) estimation of damage due to ground shaking, (2) estimation of damage due to collateral loss causes such as fault rupture, ground failure, inundation, and fire following earthquake, (3) estimation of time to restore damaged facilities to pre-earthquake usability, and (4) estimation of deaths and injuries. In addition, an electronic inventory of approximately 200,000 structures (buildings and lifeline systems) within Salt Lake County has been developed. The data and methodology have been developed for implementation in a geographic information system (GIS) application, or in a non-GIS software application, such as a relational database management system or spreadsheet.

Seismic Hazard and Building Vulnerability in Post-Soviet Central Asian Republics

Preface. Executive Summary and Workshop Results. Seismic Hazard of the Central Asia Region A. Nurmagambetov, et al. Earthquake Resistance of Multi-Story Residential Buildings in Central Asian Capital Cities S. Imanbekov, et al. Seismic Hazard and Building Vulnerability in Kazakhstan T. Zhunusov, et al. Seismic Hazard and Building Vulnerability in Kyrgyzstan S. Imanbekov, et al. Seismic Hazard and Building Vulnerability in Tajikistan S. Negmatullaev, et al. Seismic Hazard and Building Vulnerability in Turkmenistan B. Karryev, et al. Seismic Hazard and Building Vulnerability in Uzbekistan T. Rashidov, et al. Destruction of Standard Residential Buildings in the 1988 Spitak, Armenia Earthquake T. Markarian, S. Shaginian. The December 7, 1988 Spitak, Armenia Earthquake: Results of Analysis of Structural Behavior V. Rzhevsky. Lessons of the 1995 Sakhalin and 1994 Kuril Islands Earthquakes C.A. Melentyev. Assessment of Seismic Resistance of Sovi, et Mass Construction Buildings - Almaty as an Example T. Zhunusov, et al. Appendix: Forms and Questions for Workshop Participants. Subject Index.

methodology through GIS

C4 Abstractinformation systems (GIS) provide an invaluable tool lor assessing the damage and losses from earthquakes over large regions. In this paper, a general methodology for damage and loss analysis is presented within the framework of GIS. The methodology presents an approach for integrating the hazards from ground shaking, landslides and liquefaction that may occur due to an earthquake. Information on building stock and lifeline components is manipulated through database management systems. A simple damage and loss algorithm is developed that can be applied over large areas. The method is illustrated through an example for Salt Lake County, Utah.