Speakers
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Opening Plenary Session: 8:30 AM – 10:00AM
Mary Lou Zoback
Geophysicist, Risk Management Solutions
Presentation: National Seismic Hazard and Risk – The Problem
Description: Seismic hazard assessment is based on two primary components: (1) establishing the likelihood of earthquake occurrence and (2) quantifying earthquake effects, such as the distribution of strong shaking. The seismically active western United States (U.S.) has relatively young crust that is actively deforming, and in some cases uplifting, part of a broad plate boundary with the Pacific Plate. This on-going deformation is easily measured with GPS instrumentation and generates relatively frequent large earthquakes, particularly along the San Andreas fault system. In contrast, the central and eastern U.S. resides on older, generally stable crust that is not rapidly deforming. Large earthquakes can occur in this stable crust (e.g., 1811-1812 New Madrid or 1886 Charleston, South Carolina earthquakes), but they are much less frequent than in the western U.S. However, the older (and colder) crust beneath the central and eastern U.S. transmits seismic energy much more efficiently than in the western U.S, so despite lower rates of earthquake occurrence, the potential effects of equivalent sized earthquakes in the eastern and central U.S. is larger than in the West. Furthermore, effects such as directional fault rupture or geologic subsurface complexity, such as the existence of a large basin filled with soft sediments, can locally greatly amplify shaking levels. A variety of earthquake sources and examples of these effects on ground motion will be demonstrated with “likely” earthquake scenarios from around the U.S., together with the expected losses as well as the ratio of insured to total economic loss.
Bio: Dr. Zoback is Vice President, Earthquake Risk Applications with Risk Management Solutions in Newark, California, where her responsibilities include leading initiatives on the significance of risk quantification for expanding the societal role of earthquake insurance, disaster management, and risk reduction activities worldwide.
William T. Holmes,
Structural Engineer, Rutherford & Chekene
Presentation: Report Card on Seismic Rehabilitation Progress
Description: The progress on mitigating the seismic risks from existing buildings will be summarized for states with the highest Annualized Earthquake Loss and/or Annualized Earthquake Loss Ratios. In this context, mitigation is defined as seismic rehabilitation or demolition controlled by jurisdictional programs or significant voluntary trends. Numerical risk reduction from the normal renewal or replacement process is not estimated. Examples of programs include federal, state, city/county and institutional mandated or triggered rehabilitation. These programs usually focus on critical buildings (e.g., schools, hospitals, post-earthquake emergency buildings), or targeted high-risk model building types (e.g., Unreinforced Masonry, tilt-up construction.). Private voluntary seismic risk reduction has also been undertaken to lower Probable Maximum Loss (PML) calculations used for refinancing, or to avoid business interruption.
Bio: Mr. Holmes, a Principal at Rutherford & Chekene, has been responsible for the structural design and seismic retrofit of numerous buildings as well as being active in significant research and development in structural and earthquake engineering. In the mid-seventies he had a key role in the conceptual development of the NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 273) and the subsequent FEMA 356 Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitations of Buildings.
Luncheon Speaker: Noon - 1:30 PM (Speaker to be Confirmed)
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Opening Plenary Session: 8:30 AM – 10:00AM
Ronald O. Hamburger
Structural Engineer, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
Presentation: Performance-based Seismic Rehabilitation of Building Structural Systems – A 2020 Vision
Description: Performance-based seismic engineering initiated with the problem of existing buildings. Owners would not retrofit existing structures unless they first understood that there was a problem (poor performance) and then understood that acceptable performance could be attained with reasonable expenditure. This need engendered the series of Applied Technology Council (ATC) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publications embodied today in the ASCE 31 Standard, Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, and the ASCE 41 Standard, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. Under the ATC-58 project, ATC and FEMA are developing next-generation performance-based seismic design guidelines applicable to new and existing buildings. The procedures will combine Building Information Modeling (BIM), Structural Reliability, and Engineering Economics to both improve the reliability of performance-based engineering and its usefulness to Owners and other decision-makers. The procedures are expected to be in widespread practice by the year 2020.
Bio: Mr. Hamburger has more than 30 years of experience in structural design, evaluation, upgrade, research, code and
standards development, and education. Throughout his career he has been extremely active in numerous professional organizations, including the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA).
Maryann Phipps
Structural Engineer, Estructure
Presentation: Seismic Anchorage and Bracing of Nonstructural Components – a 2020 Vision
Description: By 2020 there will be widespread availability and increasing use of assessment tools capable of estimating building specific potential earthquake losses. Modeling advancements, built on BIM technology, will facilitate comprehensive building evaluations. The standard of care for design professionals will expand to include direct consideration of potential losses and translation of building specific performance objectives into reliable designs. Structural systems will focus on damage control and new strategies for nonstructural protection will be in common use.
Bio: Ms. Phipps, President of Estructure, has over twenty-five years of experience as a practicing Structural Engineer evaluating, designing and renovating facilities in areas of high seismicity, with a particular focus on nonstructural components.
Luncheon Speaker: 12 noon-1:30PM
Director of Hyogo Earthquake Engineering Research Center (E-Defense)
Presentation: The Role of Large Scale Structural Testing in Seismic Rehabilitation
Description: In research and development on evaluation and enhancement of structural safety, structural testing plays an important role in that it provides us with actual data on structural performance. When scaled up, however, structural testing becomes very costly in the facility development, maintenance, and operation as well as in the test specimens. At the very large three-dimensional shake table facility in Kobe, Japan (dubbed E-Defense), which was constructed by the Government of Japan following the very serious damage observed in the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe) Earthquake, the question of whether or not it is worthwhile to pursue large scale testing is constantly being addressed. To answer this question, the value of large scale testing is analyzed in terms of the comparisons of “real scale” versus “reduced scale”, “elements and components” versus “overall structures”, “quasi-static loading” versus “dynamic loading”, and “test” versus “numerical simulation”. This presentation examines these issues, provides an overview of the tests conducted at E-Defense, and discusses the experiences accumulated through the tests, reproduction of table (ground) motion, safety of the specimen and facility during the test, sensoring and data acquisition/storage, and public appeal.
Bio: In addition to his position with E-Defense, Dr. Nakashima is Professor of Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Japan. His fields of research include inelastic, stability, and collapse behavior of steel members and frames, seismic analysis and design of steel building structures, experimental techniques for simulating the earthquake responses of large structural systems, and seismic design of base-isolated buildings.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Opening Plenary Session: 8:30 AM – 10:00AM
Lucile Jones
Chief Scientist, Multi Hazards Project, U. S. Geological Survey
Presentation: The Great California ShakeOut: Inspiring Community Action
Description: The Great Southern California ShakeOut was a week of special events in November 2008 featuring the largest earthquake drill in United States history. Based on a plausible scenario of a magnitude 7.8 earthquake on the southern San Andreas Fault, it engaged over 5 million people in preparing for a significant earthquake. The goal of the ShakeOut was to change the culture of earthquake preparedness in southern California, making earthquakes a reality that are regularly discussed by making use of the sociological finding that “milling,” discussing a problem with loved ones, is a prerequisite to taking action. As one measure of the success of the ShakeOut, Home Depot showed a 270% increase in the sale of earthquake fastening supplies in 2008 compared to 2007.
Bio: Dr. Jones has been a seismologist with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and a Visiting Research Associate at the Seismological Laboratory of Caltech since 1983. At USGS, she is developing a new program to integrate hazards science in urban areas with economic analysis and emergency response to increase community resiliency to natural disasters, which led to the creation of The Great Southern California ShakeOut.
Chris D. Poland
Structural Engineer, Degenkolb Engineers
Presentation: Call to Action at the Professional and Political Level
Description: Design practices make improving the seismic performance of individual structures possible, Guidelines and Standards allow for uniform application, but only political action can create an environment where enough rehabilitation is done to save a city from demise. Structural engineers must assert their expert knowledge, crafted into public policies that make rehabilitation attractive, affordable and achievable, for communities to become disaster resilient. This is possible when we actively participate in policy discussions within our own communities and speak in common, understandable, and transparent terms.
Bio: Mr. Poland is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Degenkolb Engineers, San Francisco. His structural engineering career spans 35 years and includes a wide variety of new building designs and rehabilitation projects.
A passionate seismic safety advocate, he actively participates in the academic, ethical and social advancement of his field.