Download to read offline
Uploaded byGilsanz Murray Steficek
Understanding Resilience through a Musical Analogy
The document presents a musical analogy to understand the impact of natural hazards on infrastructure, illustrating relationships between seismic activity and music elements such as melody and dynamics. It discusses various engineering approaches to building design aimed at enhancing resilience against earthquakes, comparing methods used in different countries. Real-life examples, such as significant historical earthquakes, are cited to emphasize the importance of resilient cities and structures in minimizing damage and ensuring safety.
More Related Content
Similar to Understanding Resilience through a Musical Analogy
Understanding Resilience through a Musical Analogy
- 1. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Understanding Resilience through a Musical Analogy Ramon Gilsanz, PE, SE, FSEI
- 2. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure A Musical Analogy Earthquake ↔ Music Soil ↔ Musician Seismic Spectrum ↔ Score Building ↔ Instrument Bldg. Response ↔ Melody Occupants ↔ Audience Social Context ↔ Concert Hall
- 3. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Soil Magnitude Acceleration Shaking Duration Frequency Musician Dynamics (Loudness) Tempo (Speed) Time (Length of Piece) Musical Pitch Soil-Musician
- 4. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Soil-Musician Types of Waves Bolt, B. (1993) “Earthquakes and Geological Discovery”
- 5. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Soil-Musician Types of Waves Atkinson Physics (YouTube)
- 6. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure • Density (Granite): 156-168 lbs/sf3 • P-Waves: 19,700 ft/s • S-Waves: 10,800 ft/s Soil-Musician Solid Rock
- 7. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure • Density: 94 lbs/sf3 • P-Waves: 1,310 ft/s • S-Waves: 330 ft/s Soil-Musician Sand Rachel Barton Pine
- 8. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Soil-Musician esmes.com
- 9. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Soil-Musician Liquefaction Christchurch, New Zealand, 2011 nzraw.co.nz
- 10. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Soil-Musician Liquefaction Assam, India, 1897 Oldham, R.D. “Report on the great earthquake of 1897”
- 11. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Soil-Musician Clay and Silt Indiana University Southeast
- 12. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Soil-Musician John Hacket (pintrest)
- 13. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Soil-Musician Clay and Silt Bolt, B. (1993)
- 14. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure • Measure of energy an earthquake releases • An increase in magnitude of 1 is a 32-fold increase in energy released • Seismic Moment = (Strength of soil) x (Rupture area) x (Fault displacement) (Adopted by USGS in 2002) Soil-Musician Magnitude
- 15. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure • Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) – Maximum acceleration experienced by a particle at ground level • Peak Floor Acceleration (PFA) – Maximum acceleration experienced at a floor level Soil-Musician Accelerations
- 16. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Seismic Spectrum - Score
- 17. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Seismic Spectrum - Score Adapted from Bolt, B. (1993)
- 18. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Building-Instrument Frequency
- 19. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Building-Instrument emporis.com
- 20. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Building-Instrument Resonance Missouri S&T, Prof. O. Kwon (YouTube)
- 21. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Role of the Engineer • Static Analysis • Response Spectrum • Non-linear / Time History (measures duration) Building-Instrument Ways to Design
- 22. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Approximate acceleration experienced by a building, when modeled as a particle on a vertical mass-less rod, with an identical period as the building Building-Instrument Ways to Design Acceleration T F ~ m x SA GMS
- 23. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Building-Instrument Ways to Design Acceleration PERIOD SA T ACCELERATION SDS SD1 PGA GMS
- 24. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure NEHRP SDS SD1 2003 0.24 0.047 2000 0.28 0.063 1997 0.28 0.063 Design accelerations for Zip Code: 10016 Assuming Site Class B Rock Standard Steel building Ordinary moment frame Ie =1 R = 3.5 Ts = 0.195 seconds Building-Instrument Ways to Design Acceleration
- 25. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure • Approach: Redundant shear wall construction • Goal: Immediate occupancy • Downside: High non-structural damage, architectural constraints Building-Instrument Design Approach: Chile
- 26. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Building-Instrument Design Approach: Chile FEMA-350 (2000)
- 27. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Building-Instrument Design Approach: Japan • Approach: Base isolation • Goal: Immediate occupancy & minimal damage • Downside: High cost
- 28. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Building-Instrument Design Approach: Japan Photos: GMS
- 29. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Building-Instrument Design Approach: Japan Shimizu Corporation
- 30. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Building-Instrument Design Approach: United States • Approach: Energy dissipation through plastic deformations of the structure • Goal: Cost effective life safety • Downside: Significant damage to building
- 31. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Building-Instrument Design Approach: United States Photo: GMS
- 32. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Building-Instrument Plastic Hinge FEMA-350 (2000)
- 33. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Building-Instrument Plastic Hinge FEMA-350 (2000)
- 34. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Occupants- Audience Modified Mercalli Earthquake Intensity Scale imgur.com
- 35. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Collapse Unusable Usable Source: CATDAT Damaging Earthquakes Database (via earthquake-report.co Building Damage
- 36. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Context-Concert Hall South African National Youth Orchestra Chrisian Mehlfurer
- 37. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure U.S. Approach Protects the individual… • 0.5% of all crashes are fatal • 1.07 fatalities per 100 mil VMT (US DOT NHTSA) …but cripples the system (city) (US DOT FHWA) Bottle- necks 25% Collisions Bad weather Work zones Poor Signal Other
- 38. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Context-Concert Hall Lisbon, 1755 Bettman Archives
- 39. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Context-Concert Hall Lisbon, 1755 Voltaire Rousseau Nature is so cruel… Look at this devastation in Lisbon! Nature is so cruel… Look at this devastation in Lisbon! Nature did not construct twenty thousand houses of six to seven stories there! Nature did not construct twenty thousand houses of six to seven stories there!
- 40. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Context-Concert Hall San Francisco, 1906 Wikimedia Commons
- 41. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Context-Concert Hall San Francisco, 1906 Over 3,000 deaths Total damage ~ $350 million Estimates of % damage due to earthquake: 3% - Colonel Francis W. Fitzpatrick, ISBC, 1906. About 4% - Horace D. Dunn, engineer, 1906. 3 to 10% - Architect and Engineer, 1907. Less than 5% - A.M. Hunt, insurance adjuster, 1925. 20% - Professor Karl Steinbrugge, University of CA, 1982. 5% - Professor Stephen Tobriner, University of CA.
- 42. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Great Kantō earthquake struck Tokyo at 11:58:44 a.m September 1, 1923 Because the earthquake struck at lunchtime when many people were cooking meals over fire, many people died as a result of the many large fires that broke out 3 hour 6 hour 12 hour Building Damage 3 hour Courtesy of Michigan State University
- 43. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Context-Concert Hall Additional Effects
- 44. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure • How many instruments must break before a performance gets canceled? • How important are those instruments? • Not only individual buildings, but the entire neighborhood must be resilient. • It is important that the neighbor remains standing Context-Concert Hall
- 45. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure • The most vulnerable elements of the city are most in need of protection. • 9/11 attack – Economically strong neighborhood – Newer construction – Localized damage – City is not paralyzed • Hurricane Sandy – Economically weak neighborhoods – Older construction – Widespread damage – More difficult to respond Context-Concert Hall
- 46. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Credits Staring Ramon Gilsanz Supporting Roles Verónica Cedillos Dan Eschanasy Ayse Hortacsu Sissy Nikolaou Len Joseph Produced by Petr Vancura
- 47. 2016 International Conferenceon Natural Hazards and Infrastructure Thank you Gilsanz Murray Steficek Engineers and Architects
Editor's Notes
- #16 skip