SEISMIC INSTRUMENTATION OF FEDERAL

BUILDINGS

A PROPOSAL DOCUMENT

FOR 

CONSIDERATION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES

By

Mehmet Qelebi1

Stuart Nishenko2

Clifford Astill3

and 

Riley M. Chung4

Open-File Report 98-117

(This replaces and supersedes OFR 97-452 titled 'Seismic Instrumentation of Federal 

Buildings: Strawman Document for Consideration by Federal Agencies' by M. Qelebi and 

S. Nishenko)

March 1998

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological 

Survey editorial standards (or with the North American Stratigraphic Code). Any use of trade, 

product or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U. S. Government

1 U. S. Geological Survey (MS977), 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, Ca. 94025

2 Risk Assessment Branch, Mitigation Directorate, FEMA, Washington, D.C. 20472

3 Program Director, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.22230

4 National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899
SEISMIC INSTRUMENTATION OF FEDERAL

BUILDINGS

A PROPOSAL DOCUMENT

FOR 

CONSIDERATION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES

By

Mehmet £elebi5

Stuart Nishenko6

Clifford Astill7

and 

Riley M. Chung8

Open-File Report 98-117

(This replaces and supersedes OFR 97-452 titled 'Seismic Instrumentation of Federal 

Buildings: Strawman Document for Consideration by Federal Agencies' by M. (Jelebi and 

S. Nishenko)

March 1998

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological 

Survey editorial standards (or with the North American Stratigraphic Code). Any use of trade, 

product or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U. S. Government

5 U. S. Geological Survey (MS977), 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, Ca. 94025

6 Risk Assessment Branch, Mitigation Directorate, FEMA, Washington, D.C. 20472

7 Program Director, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.22230

8 National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899
CONTENTS 

CONTENTS...................................................................................................3

SYNOPSIS and EVOLUTION............................................................................4

1.0 GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION.................................................^

1.1 General Objective.......................................................................................5

1.2 Prior Recommendations................................................................................5

1.3 Requisites of an Instrumentation Program........................................................6

1.4 Code Recommendations for Instrumentation and Deficiencies...............................7

1.5 Specific Issues Related to Seismic Instrumentation of Structures............................?

1.6 Data Utilization...........................................................................................8

2.0 WHY INSTRUMENT FEDERALLY OWNED BUILDINGS?...............................8

3.0 SUGGESTED ACTIONS.............................................................................11

4.0 COST/BUDGET ISSUES.............................................................................13

REFERENCES.............................................................................................14

APPENDIX A: Sample Paper Summarizing Utilization of Data From Instrumented 

Structures and New Trends...........................................................................16-29

APPENDIX B: Letters, Endorsements and Comments.........................................30-38
SYNOPSIS AND EVOLUTION

The following is an expanded version of presentations "Instrumentation of Federal Buildings" 

made by the senior author during:

1. the theme session on "How to Comply: The Halfway Point" organized by Subcommittee on 

Buildings of the Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction (ICSSC) held at 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on January 15, 1997, and

2. the Full Committee Meeting of ICSSC held in Dallas, Texas on January 28, 1997.

Later, an earlier version of this open file report was prepared for distribution, discussion and 

consideration at the National Earthquake Loss Reduction Program (NEP) of the National 

Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) Agencies Meeting held at the FEMA Building 

(Washington, D.C.) on July 8, 1997 (£elebi and Nishenko, 1997). During this meeting, an adhoc committee comprising the authors of this report was formed. The report was forwarded to 

the representatives of several committees of ICSSC for evaluation and discussion. Ensuing were 

the following endorsements and/or presentations:

1. Based on input from various committees of ICSSC, on October 3, 1997, the Steering 

Committee of ICSSC endorsed the plan and provided comments summarized in Appendix B.

2. Following a presentation on October 18, 1997 by the senior author at the meeting of the 

Committee for the Advancement of Strong Motion Programs in the United States (CASMP 

[now reformed as COSMOS - - Consortium of Organizations for Strong Motion Observation 

Systems]), the plan was endorsed by the committee with comments provided in Appendix B.

3. A short presentation was made during the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) 

workshop on "Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings - Strategic Plans 2005 - the Second 

Decade" held in Reno, Nevada on August 12-13, 1997. Following the meeting, the Applied 

Technology Council endorsed the plan (letter included in Appendix B).

4. Full Committee Meeting of ICSSC held in Washington, D.C. on October 29, 1997 voted to 

endorse the plan.

This revised open-file report documents the endorsements and comments provided by different 

committees and organizations (Appendix B). Also included in this report is a summary of how 

data from instrumented structures is used with sample references (Appendix A). Finally, the 

ultimate purpose of the document is to further advance the consideration of this proposal (to 

instrument federally owned/leased buildings ) by the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program (NEHRP) agencies and adopted by all federal agencies.

1.0 GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

There are two main approaches to evaluating seismic behavior and performance of structural 

systems. One requires a laboratory in which subsystems, components, or (if the facility is large 

enough) prototypes or large, scaled models of complete systems are tested under static, quasistatic, or dynamic loading. This approach does not necessarily demand a time-dependent testing 

scheme, such as a shaking table or an hydraulically powered and electronically controlled 

loading system; however, testing of structural systems under controlled simulated environments
is desirable. Since the early 1950's such laboratory research has increased both in quantity and 

quality, with engineering colleges in the United States and private and governmental laboratories 

in Japan playing a key role. Laboratory testing has also contributed substantially to our 

understanding of dynamic soil properties and the interaction phenomenon between the soil and 

structure (£elebi and others, 1987).

The second approach to evaluate behavior and performance of structural systems is to use the 

natural laboratory of the Earth, by recording structural motions on scale, and by observing and 

studying the behavior and damage, if any, to structures from earthquakes. By determining why 

specific designs lack earthquake resistance, and then by using extensive laboratory testing of 

modified designs, significant progress in improved designs can be achieved.

For such design studies a natural laboratory would be a seismically prone area that offers a 

variety of structural systems. In optimum test areas, strong ground motions as well as moderatelevel motions would be experienced frequently. Integral to the "natural laboratory" compared to 

"controlled laboratory " approach is the advanced instrumentation of selected structures so that 

their responses can be recorded during future earthquakes. Thus, it is essential that integrated 

arrays of instrumentation be planned and installed to assess thoroughly the relation of ground 

motion that starts at a source and is transmitted through various soils to a substructure and finally 

to a superstructure. The direction for seismologists and engineers working together is clear: to 

develop integrated networks which measure the seismic source, the transmittal of ground motion, 

and the structural response processes.

1.1 General Objective

The main objective of the seismic instrumentation program for structural systems is to 

improve our understanding of the behavior and potential for damage of structures under 

the dynamic loads of earthquakes. This will be achieved through the development of an 

integrated network that measures the earthquake source, transmitted ground motions, and 

structural response. These measurements will be correlated with observations of structural 

performance to evaluate current design and construction practices in order to minimize 

damage to buildings during future earthquakes. In accordance with Executive Orders 

12941 [Seismic Safety of Existing Buildings] signed in December 1, 1994 and Executive 

Order 12699 [Seismic Safety of New Buildings] signed on January 5, 1990, this program 

will initially concentrate on instrumenting federally owned and leased buildings.

1.2 Prior Recommendations

Although not directly targeted to federal buildings, several workshops and meetings in the past 

referred to importance of seismic instrumentation. For example, the following quotes are from 

"Earthquake Prediction and Hazard Mitigation Options for USGS and NSF Programs" published 

in!976byNSFandUSGS:

Page 51: Under Activities for Sub-element b: Acquisition of Strong-Motion Data: 

1. Improve the national-strong-motion instrumentation network by: 

(a) Replacing obsolete instruments,
(b) Installing adequate instrumentation arrays in all seismic regions,

(c) Developing arrays to measure the two and three dimensional 

distribution of ground motion.

(d) Instrumenting representative types of structures, particularly in the 

more active parts of the country.

The following quotes are from " Recommendations for the Strong-Motion Program in the 

United States" published in 1987 by Committee on Earthquake Engineering of the National 

Research Council":

Page 50: " Plans for deployment of strong-motion instruments requires decisions as to 

whether they should be located in structures or in the free-field. Both kinds of data are 

needed by engineers, whereas seismologists prefer free-field data."

Page 49: "An effective national strong-motion program must be concerned with all 

phases of activities, including strong-motion instrument development, deployment and 

operation of instruments, processing, archiving and dissemination of data, the uses of 

data, strong-motion research, strong-motion applications, integration of activities of 

various governmental agencies, universities and corporations taking part in strongmotion activities, and identification of the amount of funding required for such a 

national effort and the source of funding."

Many other reports published between 1976-1997 refer to the above recommendations. 

1.3 Requisites of an Instrumentation Program

The instrumentation of a structure should provide an optimal number of sensors to allow 

reconstruction of the response of the structure in sufficient detail to compare with the response 

predicted by mathematical models ~ the goal being to improve the models. In addition, the data 

should make it possible to explain the reasons for any damage to the structure. The nearby freefield and ground-level time history should be known in order to quantify the interaction of soil 

and structure. More specifically, a well-instrumented structure for which a complete set of 

recordings has been obtained should provide useful information to:

(1) check the appropriateness of the dynamic model (both lumped-mass and finite element) in 

the elastic range,

(2) determine the importance of nonlinear behavior on the overall and local response of the 

structure,

(3) follow the spreading nonlinear behavior throughout the structure as the response increases, 

and determine the effect of this nonlinear behavior on the frequency and damping,

(4) correlate the damage with inelastic behavior models,

(5) determine the ground-motion parameters that correlate well with building response and/or 

damage, and

(6) make recommendations to improve seismic codes.
1.4 Code Recommendations for Instrumentation and Deficiencies

Various codes in effect in the United States recommend different types and schemes of 

instrumentation depending upon their purposes. For example, the Uniform Building Code (UBC) 

of 1976 (and those that followed, including the recent 1997 issue), recommended that, for 

seismic zones 3 and 4, a minimum of three accelerographs be placed in every building over six 

stories with an aggregate floor areas of 60,000 square feet or more, and in every building over 

ten stories regardless of the floor area. The purpose of this requirement by the UBC was to 

monitor rather than to analyze structural response. In 1976 the City of Los Angeles adopted the 

UBC's recommendation but in 1983 revised this requirement to require only one accelerograph 

(to be deployed at the roof of the building). Recently, there has been a movement in Los Angeles 

to go back to the original UBC recommendation. The code instrumentation recommendation is 

illustrated in Figure la.

The recommendations for instrumentation according to the UBC provisions does not allow 

complete analyses of a building. For example, a single triaxial accelerograph deployed at a floor 

(Figure la) does not allow the evaluation of torsional behavior of a building. Furthermore, only 

one vertical component at the ground or basement level does not allow evaluation of rocking 

motions of a building, if any. This type of instrumentation was prevalent particularly prior to the 

1971 San Fernando earthquake.

Since the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, extensive instrumentation of building structures has 

been used as demonstrated in Figure Ib. Such a scheme involves distribution of triaxial channels 

as uniaxial channels on different floors of a building such that both translational and torsional 

motions of the structural system can be recorded. Also, additional vertical sensors on the ground 

floor or basement facilitates the evaluation of rocking motions. Furthermore, whenever 

physically possible, a free-field triaxial accelerograph is deployed in the vicinity of the building 

to facilitate additional studies related to soil-structure interaction and correlation studies of 

possible damage with free-field ground motions. Figures Ic and d illustrate special cases of 

instrumentation for diaphragm effect and base-isolated buildings.

1.5 Specific Issues Related to Seismic Instrumentation of Structures

 Instrumentation of structures requires multiple single-channels rather than a tri-axial unit 

used for free-field deployment. There are hardware costs involved as presented later in this 

document.

 Instrumentation of structures needs interconnection of cables between the accelerometers and 

recorders for common-time recording. Until such time when wireless/remote motion 

detection/recording is feasible, reliable, and readily available, cables will have to be used to 

achieve common-time recording. Furthermore, recent digital systems with GPS options 

require additional cable connection between the GPS unit (which has to be placed at the roof 

or appropriate location so that the GPS unit can see the sky) and the recording unit.
There are installation costs. In some cases, this can be minimal and in other cases it can be 

substantial. The installation costs include conduits, pulling cables and electrical wiring.

UBC RECOMMENDATION

TOP FLOOR

MID-FLOOR

IDEAL EXTENSIVE INSTRUMENTATION

TOP FLOOR

AT LEVELS WHERE: 

a) higher modes

BASEMENT OR contribute most 

GROUND FLOOR b) change of

stiffness occurs

EXTENSIVE INSTRUMENTATION 

FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGM

Two parallel sensors 

at a distance apart to 

evaluate torsion (all to 

evaluate translation)

Vertical sensors in 

the basement to 

evaluate rocking

U.

FREE-FIELD

EXTENSIVE INSTRUMENTATION 

SPECIAL STRUCTURES 

BASE-ISOLATED BUILDINGS

V _ t

(c)

Below 

Isolators

Figure 1. Instrumentation Schemes

 Finally, there is the maintenance, data retrieval, processing and dissemination issue. In the 

past, with analog instruments, this was a major problem. However with recent advances and 

improvements on digital accelerograph systems, the cost to maintain, retrieve, process and 

disseminate data from such systems will be lower.

1.6 Data Utilization

Often, there are questions raised related to how data is utilized. In Appendix A, sample 

applications with references are provided. The list of references in Appendix A are by no means 

complete. However, it will provide sufficient leads and significant answers as to how data from 

instrumented structures are utilized.

2.0 WHY INSTRUMENT FEDERALLY OWNED BUILDINGS?

In general, it is very difficult to pursuade private property owners to instrument their 

buildings. In most cases, it is not possible to get private property owners to allow federal or 

state (public) agencies to deploy seismic instruments or conduct comprehensive damage 

surveys. Part of the problem for building owners is the concern for possible future litigation. 

This problem can be circumvented by instrumenting federally owned/leased structures. 

Federally owned/leased buildings will not require permits to deploy instruments by a 

federal agency nor will they be closed to federal inspection teams following a damaging 

earthquake. Making the connection between recording strong ground motions and 

documenting building performance is essential to a national earthquake engineering
program. [For example, very few (only 2) steel buildings that were damaged during the 

Northridge earthquake were instrumented (only minimally). Approximately 800 steel 

buildings that are being investigated for possible damage did not have any instruments in 

them. Currently, USGS is having trouble in obtaining permission from one of the owners of a 

(Northridge earthquake) damaged/retrofitted (SAC) steel building to deploy a seismic 

monitoring system (even at no cost to the owner)].

 Instrumentation of federally owned and leased buildings supports the aims of the 1977 

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act which refers to priorities such as:

 Assist in developing improved building codes

 Assess earthquake hazards in federal facilities.

 Instrumentation of federally owned and leased buildings is compatible with the spirit of the 

Public Law 101-614 NEHRP Reauthorization Act. Section 8(a)(l) of this law states: " The 

president shall adopt, not later than December 1, 1994, standards for assessing and enhancing 

the seismic safety of existing buildings constructed for or leased by the Federal 

Government...."

 Instrumentation of new and existing federal buildings is particularly important in light of 

Executive Orders 12941 [Seismic Safety of Existing Buildings] signed in December 1, 1994 

and Executive Order 12699 [Seismic Safety of New Buildings] signed on January 5, 1990. 

These two executive orders demonstrate both the concern and the need for safety of both the 

personnel that work within the buildings and the public that use the buildings. Public safety 

will be enhanced by seismic instrumentation because seismic instrumentation will provide 

important data to:

 Assess the causes of damage, if any.

 Develop the best methods to repair damaged structures.

 Assess the vulnerability of the buildings

 Evaluate the dynamic characteristics of the buildings for planning for and selection of the 

best methods to strengthen and retrofit structures, if necessary.

 There are approximately 84,000 federally owned and 5000 federally leased buildings in 

Seismic Areas 3 and 4 (as defined in the Seismic Zone Map of the United States in the 

Uniform Building Code [UBC 1997]). The acquisition value of these buildinss is $16 

billion (does not include contents). Therefore, protection of property is also an issue. The 

distribution of federally owned/leased properties are illustrated in Table 1 and Figure 2 (both 

from GAO/GGD 92-62 Quake Threatened Buildings, 1992). Instrumentation of federal 

buildings therefore will lead to improvements in the seismic performance of the buildings, 

thus resulting in safety to employees and the public, and to protection of public property.

9 SAC buildings are those steel buildings damaged during the Northridge earthquake and studied by a consortium 

consisting of Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Applied Technology Council (ATC) nd 

California Universities for Research in earrthquake Engineering (CUREe).
Federal agencies should set an example by instrumenting federally owned/leased buildings.

 Evolution of new technologies in earthquake resistant design, construction and retrofit 

practices requires systematic and efficient verification of the performance of structures built 

with the new technologies or retrofitted with new methods. Such verification can only be 

accomplished by strategically deploying seismic sensors in such structures to record their 

performances during future events. Several federal buildings in seismic areas are being 

retrofitted by such emerging technologies (e.g. VA Hospital in Long Beach, Court of 

Appeals Building in San Francisco [both buildings using base-isolation], a Navy Building in 

San Diego [using viscous-elastic dampers]).

Table 1. Statistical Distribution of Federally Owned/Leased Buildings and Employees in 

Seismic Risk Zones Nationwide (from GAO/GGD -92-62: Quake Threatened Buildings)

Level of 

Seismic Risk

VERY HIGH

HIGH

MODERATE

LOW

Level of 

Expected 

Damage

Most Buildings

Many Buildings

Some Buildings

No Buildings

Number of 

Owned 

Buildings

32,000

52,000

99,000

234,000

Number of 

Leased Space 

Locations

2,000

3,000

22,000

41,000

Number of 

Employees

215,000

224,000

668,000

1,759,000

8%

Very High ($6.053 Bfllionl

High ($8,769 Billion) 

Moderate ($18,501 Bilfcn) 

Low{$49,516BiU«n)

Figure 2. Distribution of Federally Owned Buildings and Acquisition Values (from GAO/GGD

-92-62: Quake Threatened Buildings)

The severity of damages to numerous steel structures during the January 17, 1994 Northridge 

earthquake (Ms=6.7) and Kobe (Japan) earthquake of January 17, 1995 (Ms=6.8) is a perfect 

example that points to the need for instrumentation of both the new generation design of midrise to high-rise steel buildings but also those that were repaired and/or retrofitted by methods 

developed for the particular damage problem. It is therefore essential to obtain data during

10
future events for response studies to assess the effectiveness and revise and/or improve the 

new methods of design, construction and retrofitting.

 Federal building inventory should be compatible with at least the recommendations of 

Uniform Building Code.

 Within the United States, there are large inventories of buildings within 10 km of major 

faults capable of generating M>7 earthquakes. This is particularly important now because, 

very recently, the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) issued the 1996 

edition of the Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary which has 

provisions for increasing the design base shear of such structures by up to 100 % depending 

on the distance of a building from the fault. It is now also reflected in the 1997 issue of the 

Uniform Building Code. This implies that forecasting of the performance of buildings within 

10 km of major faults, where they are subjected to higher levels of motions, must be done 

more informatively. This requisite information can only be acquired by studying response 

data from buildings during earthquakes.

 Recent developments on "Performance Based Design" requires response data from all types 

of structures. Such data will help improve future design procedures based on this concept.

3.0 SUGGESTED ACTIONS:

(a) Instrumentation of federally owned and leased buildings should be confined only to 

Seismic Areas 3 and 4 according to the Seismic Zone Map of the United States in the 

Uniform Building Code [UBC 1997] and on a selective basis that reflects the 

objectives of the strong-motion instrumentation of structures program. Alternatively, 

the areas for instrumentation can be identified by the recent seismic hazard maps of 

conterminous United States that indicate the highest risk or highest PGA with 10 % 

probability of exceedance (Frankel and others, 1997a and 1997b).

(b) As an initial target, 0.1 % of the buildings can be feasibly instrumented. The number 

would reach approximately 90 (of the approximately 84,000 federally owned and 

5000 federally leased buildings in areas 3 and 4) based on the current information and 

data base of inventory and geographical distribution of federally owned/leased 

structures within the seismic areas of the United States). This will create a visible 

program and set an example to other institutions, state agencies, and private 

owners.

(c) Funding for this effort should be provided by:

 Individual agencies,

 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),

 General Services Administration (GSA),

 Department of Defense

 Tie into EO 12941 and 12699

 A new Executive Order

 Other sources [e.g. special add-on to budget, NSF, etc.].

(d) USGS should provide expertise and guidance in deployment and continuous 

monitoring on a reimbursable basis, as well as in management and dissemination of

11
acquired data. USGS should have umbrella agreements with FEMA, GSA and all 

other federal agencies. FUSGS currently cooperates with the Veterans 

Administration, and to a lesser extent with GSA, to instrument, monitor, retrieve and 

disseminate data].

(e) Seismic instrumentation of federally owned/leased buildings should be included in 

the revisions of TR 4 & TR 5 prepared by ICSSC.

(f) Final selection of buildings to be instrumented should be made according to a 

protocol to be developed by an interagency committee drawn from members of the 

ICSSC. Some of the issues that would be addressed by this protocol include:

 Selection Criteria

Building Types

 Which of the 15 model building types [e.g. FEMA 178] do we instrument?

 Additional priorities based on occupancy class, usage [re ICSSC TR-17]

 Are there specific lessons or experiments that we need to conduct/learn for a 

specific building type?

 Do we want to develop "Demonstration" Experiments? [e.g. similar 

structures in close proximity, with and without retrofit/rehabilitation or built 

to different codes [pre- and post- ICSSC benchmarks]

Building Locations

 Selection with respect to ground conditions (e.g. "hard rock" vs. "soft rock")

 Selection with respect to geologic considerations^, g. distance from a specific 

earthquake source ~ strike slip, normal, thrust faults)

 Selection with respect to geographic considerations^, g. California, Seattle, 

Utah, Central US]

 "Demonstration" Experiments [e.g. Two similar structures in close 

proximity, built on different types of ground ]

 Site Surveys for Geologic Conditions (all sites of instrumented buildings 

should be included in a separate or ongoing site characterization efforts). 

Some possible considerations for site surveys are:

 Development of a standardized approach [adopt ATC-26-1 standards 

for all sites?]

 Surface geology, Borehole logs [Lithology, Shear wave velocities, 

other geotechnical parameters]

 Consideration of 3-D Sedimentary Basin structure, Wave Focusing 

and Defocusing Effects

 Instrumentation

 Hardware

 Deployment

12
Within the building(s), development of standardized deployment 

for specific structure classes, and designs

Outside the building(s), development of 'rule of thumb' for 

distance from structure to record true 'free field' measurements 

[re. soil-structure interaction], 

(g) Schedule

 Develop funding base for initiative and/or partnership agreements

 Set up ICSSC Sub-Committee for Instrumentation Issues to deal with :

(a) development of selection criteria of structures for instrumentation,

(b) preliminary selection of specific structures,

(c) strong motion experiments as necessary and feasible,

(d) instrumentation,

(e) data archiving & distribution,

(f) organization of workshops as necessary

 Meeting to finalize building selection and strong motion experiments.

 Deployment

4.0 COST/BUDGET ISSUES:

 The cost of hardware and installation for each building can vary between $30-60 K based on 

the number of channels involved. It seems feasible to provide a standardized 12-18 channel 

instrumentation scheme that follows in general the illustration shown in Figure Ib. Therefore 

on the average $ 50 K per building is the current average expenditure for a building. This 

normally will include a triaxial free-field station in the immediate vicinity of the building, if 

physically possible. Therefore, notwithstanding special cases discussed below, hardware and 

installation costs for 90 federally/owned and leased buildings will be $4.5 M. This amount is 

for a duration of 5 years based on a calculation that approximately 18 buildings/per year can 

be instrumented. Instrumentation costs of $50 K for a building and its contents is a small 

investment when compared with the actual worth of a building (and its contents).

 In special cases, the geotechnical , geological and topographical environment of a building 

could provide opportunities to deploy additional hardware in the vicinity of the building to 

assess the performance of building structures in relation to those environs. I suggest 

consideration of $0.5 M/yr for such special cases, again for the 5 year duration. For example,

 One important aspect of structural response is the soil-structure interaction. In many 

cases, under a specific geotechnical environment, certain structures will respond 

differently than if that structure were built as a fixed based structure on a very stiff 

(e.g rock) site condition. This alteration of vibrational characteristics of structures due 

to soil-structure interaction can be either beneficial or detrimental to their 

performances. To date, the engineering community is not clear about the pros and 

cons of SSL In Mexico City, during the Michoacan earthquake of Sept. 19, 1985, 

many structures were negatively affected due to SSI because the lengthening of their 

fundamental periods placed them in a resonating environment close to the 

approximately 2-second resonant period of Mexico City lakebed. On the other hand,

13
under different circumstances, SSI may be beneficial because it produces an 

environment whereby the structure escapes the severity of the response spectra due to 

shifting of its fundamental frequency. Certainly, in a basin such as that of Los 

Angeles area, SSI may cause both beneficial and detrimental effects in the response 

of structures. The identification of the circumstances and the parameters for which 

SSI is beneficial or detrimental is a necessity. In some cases; therefore, we may 

wish to deploy additional hardware (e.g. free-field accelerographs on the surface 

and in boreholes [downhole accelerographs].

 There are many urban areas in the United States where structures are built on hills. 

There is now sufficient evidence to consider a phenomenon known as the 

topographical effect - amplification of ground motions due to the geological and 

geometrical characteristics of the topography of the site of a building. Thus, in some 

cases, we could deploy additional free-field accelerograph to assess whether the 

motions at the site of the building are amplified due to topographical effects.

The total budget envisioned for the 5 year duration of this effort will be $5 M. or 

$lM/vear.

Other costs such as maintenance costs should be arranged by an umbrella agreement 

between USGS and the agencies involved.

REFERENCES

£elebi, M., Safak, E., Brady, G., Maley, R., and Sotoudeh, V., 1987, Integrated instrumentation 

plan for assessing the seismic response of structures a review of the current USGS 

program, USGS Circular 947.

£elebi, M. (compiler) et al., 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 92-295.

£elebi, M., Safak, E., and Maley, R., 1989, Some Significant Records from Instrumented

Structures in California USGS Program, PROC, ASCE STRUCTURES CONGRESS, 

San Fransisco, CA, May 1989.

£elebi, M., 1989, Seismic Monitoring of Buildings: Analyses of Seismic Data, USJN Panel on 

Wind and Seismic Effects, Tokyo, May 1989.

 , 1992, Federal Buildings: Many are Threatened by Earthquakes, but Limited Action Has 

Been Taken, United States General Accounting Office, Report to Congressional Cornmittees, 

GAO/GGD-92-62

Frankel, A., C. Mueller, T. Barnhard, D. Perkins, E. Leyendecker, N. Dickman, S. Hanson, and 

M. Hopper (1997a). Seismic-hazard maps for the conterminous United States, USGS Open-File 

Report 97-131, 12 maps.

14
Frankel, A., C. Mueller, T. Barnhard, D. Perkins, E. Leyendecker, N. Dickman, S. Hanson, and 

M. Hopper (1997b). National seismic-hazard maps: documentation June 1996, USGS Open-File 

Report 96-532, 110 pages.

Uniform Building Code, 1976, 1979, 1982, 1985, 1988, 1991, 1994 and 1997 editions: 

International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, Calif.

15
APPENDIX A

SAMPLE PAPER SUMMARIZING UTILIZATION OF DATA FROM 

INSTRUMENTED STRUCTURES AND NEW TRENDS

16
CURRENT AND NEW TRENDS IN UTILIZATION OF DATA FROM 

INSTRUMENTED STRUCTURES

M. £elebi

U.S. Geological Survey,

345 MiddlefieldRd. (MS977),

Menlo Park, Ca. 94025, USA

[Tel: 650-329-5623, Fax: 650-329-5163, E-mail: celebi@samoa.wr.usgs.gov]

ABSTRACT

The many uses of seismic response data include assessment of design and analysis procedures, 

improvement of code provisions, and correlation of system response with damage. A preliminary 

list of applications of response data with sample references is provided. An example of different 

analyses performed on data recorded from a 30-story building during the 1989 Loma Prieta 

earthquake is used to illustrate uses of response data. A recent seismic monitoring method being 

developed using GPS technology is introduced. GPS technology provides a potential new tool 

for monitoring tall buildings as well as other long-period structures.

INTRODUCTION

Seismic monitoring of structural systems constitutes an integral part of the National Earthquake 

Hazard Reduction Program in the United States and similar programs in other countries. 

Recordings of the acceleration response of structures have served the scientific and engineering 

community well and have been useful in assessing design/analysis procedures, improving code 

provisions and in correlating the system response with damage. Table A. 1 summarizes some of 

the uses for the data from instrumented structures. Unfortunately, only a few damaged structures 

have been instrumented in advance to perform studies of the initiation and progression of 

damage during strong shaking (e.g. Imperial County Services Building during the 1979 Imperial 

Valley earthquake, [Rojahn and Mork, 1981]). In the future, instrumentation programs should 

consider this deficiency. Jennings (1997) summarizes this view as follows: "As more records 

become available and understood, it seems inevitable that the process of earthquake resistant 

design will be increasingly, and quite appropriately, based more and more upon records and 

measured properties of materials, and less and less upon empiricism and qualitative assessments 

of earthquake performance. This process is well along now in the design of special structures".

The methods used in studying structural response records are quite diverse:

(a) mathematical modeling (finite element models varying from crude to very detailed, subjected 

to time-history, response spectrum or modal analyses). The procedure requires the blueprints 

of the structures which may not be readily accessible;

(b) system identification techniques: single input/single output or multi input/multi output. In 

these procedures, the parameters of a model are adjusted for consistency with input and 

output data (Ljung, 1987);

(c) spectral analyses: response spectra, Fourier amplitude spectra, autospectra, Sx or Sy, crossspectral amplitudes 5^, and coherence functions (7) [using the equation : / ^ (f) = S2^ (f)/Sx 

(f)Sy(f) ] and associated phase angles (Bendat and Piersol, 1980); and

17
(d) simple procedures based on principles of structural dynamics (e.g. recently Jennings (1997) 

analyzed data from two buildings within close proximity (<20 km) to the Northridge 

epicenter, calculated the base shear from the records as 8 and 17 % of the weights of the 

buildings, drift ratios as 0.8 and 1.6 % (exceeding code limitations). Jennings (1997) states: 

"A difference between code design values and measured earthquake responses of this 

magnitude - approaching a factor often - is not a tenable situation."

Table A.I. A Preliminary List of Data Utilization & Sample References

GENERIC UTILIZATION

Verification of mathematical models (usually routinely performed) (e.g.Boroschek et al, 1990)

Comparison of design criteria vs. actual response (usually routinely performed )

Verification of new guidelines and code provisions (e.g.Hamburger, 1997)

Identification of structural characteristics (Period. Damping, Mode Shapes) [Goel and Chopra, 

1997, Mulhern and Maley, 1973, ATC3-06, 1978), NEHRP (1994), Marshall et. al., 1992, 

Celebi, 1996]______________________________________________

Verification of maximum drift ratio (e.g. Astaneh, 1991, £elebi, 1993)

Torsional response/Accidental torsional response (e.g. Chopra, 1991, DeLalera, 1995)

Identification of repair & retrofit needs & techniques (Crosby, 1994)

SPECIFIC UTILIZATION

Identification of damage and/or inelastic behavior (e.g. Rojahn & Mork, 1981)

Soil-Structure Interaction Including Rocking and Radiation Damping (Stewart, 1996, £elebi, 

1996, 1997, Todorovska, 1992, Lin and Papageorgiou, 1989)____________________

Response of Unsymmetric Structures to Directivity of Ground Motions (e.g. Porter, 1996)

Responses of Structures with Emerging Technologies (base-isolation, visco-elastic dampers, 

and combination (Kelly and Aiken, 1991, Kelly, 1993, gelebi, 1995)_______________

Structure specific behavior (e.g. diaphragm effects, £elebi et al, 1989, ATC3-08, 1978, 

Boroschek and Mahin,1991, £elebi, 1994)______________________________

Development of new methods of instrumentation/hardware (£elebi, 1997, Straser, 1997)

Improvement of site-specific design response spectra

Associated free-field records(if available) to assess site amplification, SSI and attenuation 

curves

Verification of Repair/Retrofit Methods (Crosby et al, 1994, gelebi ancj LJU, 1997)

Serviceability Requirements (Uang & Maarouf, 1991)

Identification of Site Frequency from Building Records (more work needed)

RECENT TRENDS TO ADVANCE UTILIZATION

Studies of response of structures to long period motions (e.g. Hall et al, 1996)

Need for new techniques to acquire/disseminate data (Straser, 1997, £elebi, 1997, 1998)

Verification of Performance Based Design Criteria (future essential instrumentation work)

Near Fault Factor (more free-field stations associated with structures needed)

Comparison of strong vs weak response (Marshall, Long and £elebi, 1992)

Functionality (Needs additional specific instrumentation planning)

Health Monitoring and other Special Purpose Verification (Heo et al, 1997)

18
Until recently, in general, only accelerometers (single, biaxial or triaxial) were used to 

instrument structures. However, observations of damages during the 1994 Northridge and 1995 

Kobe earthquakes, have forced engineers and scientists to focus on performance based seismic 

design methods and to find new techniques to control drift and displacements. To verify these 

developments, sensors directly measuring displacements or relative displacements (transducers, 

laser devices and GPS units) are now being considered. A recent development in this direction is 

presented later in this paper.

In general, accelerometer deployments, as depicted in Figure 1 (of the main text), fall into three 

categories:

(a) minimal [a triaxial accelerograph only at the roof of a building or three triaxial 

accelerographs deployed at the roof, mid-floor and gound (or basement) levels - the later 

better known as the UBC recommended instrumentation];

(b) extensive [combinations of uniaxial, biaxial and triaxial accelerometers to record 

translational, torsional and rocking motions];

(c) special cases [additional accelerometers to detect deformations of in-plane motions of 

flexible diaphragms];

(d) special cases [additional accelerometers to detect relative vertical displacements of isolators 

of a base-isolated structure].

A SAMPLE CASE: Pacific Park Plaza (Emeryville)

The set of records from the 30-story Pacific Park Plaza (PPP) building is possibly the most 

studied building response data recorded during the Ms=7.1 Loma Prieta earthquake of October 

17, 1989. The building is an equally spaced three-winged, cast-in-place, ductile, momentresistant framed structure. Constructed in 1983 and instrumented in 1985, it is the tallest 

reinforced concrete building in northern California. A general view, a plan view, a threedimensional schematic, and its instrumentation is shown in Figure A.I (£elebi, 1992, 1996). 

Twenty-one channels of synchronized uniaxial accelerometers are deployed throughout this 

structure. Three channels of accelerometers are located at the north free-field outside the 

building. All are connected to central recording systems. In addition, a triaxial strong-motion 

accelerograph is deployed at a free-field site on the south side of the building (SFF or EMV10' 11 ).

The foundation of PPP is a 5-foot-thick concrete mat supported by 828 (14-inch-square) 

prestressed concrete friction piles, each 20-25 m in length, in a primarily soft-soil environment, 

with an average shear-wave velocity between 250 and 300 m/s and a depth of approximately 150 m 

to harder soil. The building, at 100 km from the epicenter of the earthquake, had considerably 

amplified input motions but was not damaged during the earthquake. The east-west components 

of acceleration recorded at the roof and the ground floor of the structure, at the associated free-field 

station (SFF in Figure A.2) and, for comparison, the motion at Yerba Buena Island (YBI), the

10 In most studies, the site of south free-field (SFF) is referred to as the Emeryville site (EMV).

10 In 1997, the analog recording instruments at Emeryville were upgrade to digital. A downhole accelerograph was

installed at the same location as the surface free-field station, SFF.

19
closest rock site with a peak acceleration of 0.06 g, are shown in Figure A.2. The response spectra 

also shown in Figure A.2 clearly demonstrate that the motions at EMV were amplified by as 

much as five times when compared with YBI. Amplification is also indicated by the amplitude 

of the peak accelerations (0.26 g for EMV and 0.06 g for YBI). The differences in peak 

acceleration at the free-field station (0.26 g) and at the ground floor of the building (0.21 g) (Figure 

A.2a) suggest that there was soil-structure interaction (SSI).

NORTH FREE-FIELD

cO

SOUTH FREE-HELD

Figure A. 1. Plan layout and three-dimensional schematic and instrumentation scheme of Pacific 

Park Plaza (PPP), Emeryville, Ca.

In the design of the building, site-specific design response spectra (based on three probabilistic 

earthquakes based on expected levels of performance) were used: (a) the maximum probable 

earthquake (50 % probability of being exceeded in 50 years with 5 % damping) anchored at zero 

period acceleration (ZPA) of 0.32g., and two maximum credible earthquakes both with 10 % 

damping but 10 % probability of being exceeded in (b) 50 years [ZPA of 0.53 g] and (c) 100 years 

[ZPA of 0.63 g]. The design response spectra and the spectrum of the EW component of recorded 

motion at the SFF is shown in Figure A.3. The ZPA of the recorded EW acceleration at SFF (0.26 

g) (at 100 km from the epicenter) is close to that of the postulated maximum probable earthquake 

(0.32 g). Furthermore, the spectral accelerations of the EW component of SFF is considerably 

higher than the maximum probable earthquake for periods >0.6 seconds - that is, practically for the 

first three modes of the building. Therefore, one important conclusion derived from the records is 

that improvements are necessary in establishing site-specific design response spectra to account for 

realistic shaking at a specific site taking into account expected future closer earthquakes likely to 

produce larger peak accelerations.

20
LPE (EW): PPP & YBI LPE (EW): PPP & YBI

20 

TIME (S)

10 10U 

PERIOD (S)

Figure A.2. Recorded (EW components) of accelerations and corresponding response spectra at 

the free-field, ground floor and roof of Pacific Park Plaza (PPP), and at Yerba Buena Island 

(YBI), at approximately the same distance as PPP, depict the level of amplification.

PPP: EMERYVILLE: RESPONSE SPECTRA [DESIGN VS. RECORDED]

^ 

CD

_

LU

00.8

^0.6

O

£0.4

W 0.2

A: MAX PROBABLE EQ. {5 % DAMP:]

[50% PROB. OF EXCEEDENCE IN 50 YEARS] \ 

B: MAX CREDIBLE EQ.TlO % DAMP.] 

! [10% PROB. OF EXCEEDENCE IN 100 YEARS]

SFF [EW-5 % DAMP.] 

^S % DAMP.]

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

PERIOD (S)

Figure A. 3. Design response spectra and response spectra of recorded motions at the ground 

floor and SFF of Pacific Park Plaza. Also shown is the 1979 UBC response spectrum for 

comparison.

Using different methods, the building has been studied in detail by Anderson and Bertero 

(1994), Anderson and others (1991), Kagawa and others (1993), Kagawa and Al-Khatib (1993), 

Aktan and others (1992), Kambhatla and others (1992) and ^elebi and Safak (1992). All 

investigators agree that the predominant three response modes of the building and the associated 

frequencies (periods) are 0.38 Hz (2.63 s), 0.95 Hz (1.05 s), and 1.95 Hz (0.51 s). These three 

modes of the building are torsionally-translationally coupled (£elebi, 1996) and are depicted in 

the cross-spectra (Sxy) of the orthogonal records obtained from the roof, ground floor and SFF (the 

south free-field site) (Figure A.4) and the normalized cross-spectra of the orthogonal records 

(bottom right in Figure A.4). The frequency at 0.7 Hz (1.43 s) observed in the spectra is this site 

frequency (£elebi, 1996).

System identification techniques, when applied to the records of this building, yielded unusually 

large damping ratios corresponding to the 0.38-Hz first-mode frequency [11.6 % (NS) and 15.5 % 

(EW)] [Table A.2] (£elebi, 1996a). Such unusually high damping ratios attributed to a 

conventionally designed/constructed building with its large mat foundation in a relatively soft 

geotechnical environment is due to radiation (or foundation) or material damping. This is one of two

21
cases where large damping percentages implied by the recorded responses of buildings have been 

attributed to radiation damping; the other case is from the Olive View Hospital in Sylmar, Ca. - 

data from the Northridge earthquake (f elebi,1997).

PPP:ROOF PPP:GROUND FL.

0.7

tt

0.95

A350&A260

IL

15000

10000

A350&A260

1,95

1 2 3

FREQ (HZ) 

PPP:SOUTH FF

1234

FREQ (HZ) 

PPP:ROOF,GR.FL.,SFF

1 2 3 

FREQ (HZ)

1234 

FREQ (HZ)

Figure A.4. Cross-spectra of orthogonal accelerations (A350 & A260) at the roof, ground floor, 

free-field of PPP. Also shown (bottom right) is the normalized cross-spectrum depicting 

structural and site frequency peaks. (350 & 260 depict degrees clockwise from true north).

Table A.2. Summary of dynamic characteristics for Pacific Park Plaza

Frequencies (Hz)

Mode

1 2 3

Damping (%)

Mode

1 2 3

1989 (LPE) STRONG-MOTION DATA (from £elebi, 1996)

N-S

E-W

0.38

0.38

0.95

0.95

1.95

1.95

11.6

15.5

MODAL ANALYSES (from Stephen and others, 1985)

N-S

E-W

TORSION

0.60

0.60

0.57

1.67

1.67

1.70

3.10

3.10

3.25

The dynamic characteristics determined from Loma Prieta response records of Pacific Park 

Plaza as well as those determined from modal analyses (Stephen and others, 1985) are 

summarized in Table A.2. Also, it is noted in Table A.2 that although flexibility of the foundation 

was considered in the 1985 analyses, the structural frequency remained the same as the frequency 

determined with fixed base assumption. Clearly, the mathematical models developed at that time 

needed improvements. This conclusion could only be reached because we have recorded on scale 

motions. Most recent studies indicate that the frequencies from recorded motions can be matched 

when soil-structure interaction (SSI) is incorporated into the mathematical models (Kagawa and 

others, 1993; Aktan and others, 1992; Kambhatla and others, 1992). Furthermore, a study of the 

building for dynamic-pile-group interaction by (Kagawa and Al-Khatib, 1993; Kagawa and 

others, 1993) indicates that there is significant interaction. Their studies show that computed

22
responses of the building using state-of-the-art techniques for dynamic-pile-group interaction 

compares well with the recorded responses. On the other hand, Anderson and others (1991) and 

Anderson and Bertero (1994) concluded that soil-structure interaction was insignificant for 

Pacific Park Plaza during the earthquake. They compared the design criteria, code requirements, 

and the elastic and nonlinear dynamic response of this building due to the earthquake using both 

simplified and detailed analytical models.

DEVELOPMENT OF GPS BASED DISPLACEMENT MONITORING

Recording displacements at higher sampling rates than before (e.g. 10 Hz) using GPS technology 

is now possible. This provides a great opportunity to reliably monitor tall buildings, perhaps 

buildings that are 20-40 stories or more. The majority of such buildings are flexible steel framed 

structures whose period can be estimated with the empirical formula: T = 0.1 N, where N is the 

number of stories of the buildings. The frequencies corresponding to the fundamental periods of 

most tall buildings over 20 stories are 10-20 times the Nyquist frequency of the sampling, which 

is sufficient to accurately assess its average drift ratio and therefore the damageability of a 

building. During extreme motions caused by earthquakes and strong winds, data recorded from 

tall buildings monitored with GPS units can be used by building managers/engineers to assess 

the performance of building performance, which is accomplished by establishing different 

threshold displacements or drift ratios and identifying changing dynamic characteristics. Such 

information can then be used to secure public safety and/or take steps to improve the 

performance of an individual building. On the other hand, while displacements, relative 

displacements or average drift ratios can be measured directly using the GPS technology, a 

double-integration process, not normally automated, is required to calculated the same.

To investigate the feasibility of using GPS technology to monitor tall buildings, a rectangular, 

fixed-based, steel bar (H [height]=6', B [width]=2", t (thickness]=l/8") was used to simulate an 

approximately 40 story flexible building (Figure A.5). With a 10 Hz sampling GPS unit attached 

at its tip, the bar was set to free vibration. Figure A.5 also shows a sample displacement plot and 

amplitude spectra indicating the fundamental frequency (period) to be 0.245 Hz (4.08 s) and 

yielding a damping percentage of approximately 2 %. This simple test shows that with GPS, 

sampling at 10 Hz, a clear and accurate response history (displacements, drift ratios and dynamic 

characteristics)can be obtained (£elebi et al, 1997a). A project is underway to deploy permanent 

GPS units on the roof of a tall building already instrumented with accelerometers. This will 

facilitate comparison of roof displacements recorded with the GPS unit and those derived by 

double-integration of the acceleration recordings from the same location. Possible steps in use of 

the GPS based data are:

(1) A building equipped with GPS units on its roof can be configured to provide real-time or 

near real-time data to indicate its real-time average drift ratio and changes in dynamic 

characteristics after it has exceeded predetermined thresholds (e.g. A, B and C as shown in 

Figure A.6). When warranted, according to pre-established procedures, this information can 

be made available to building managers (or interested parties) in real-time or near real-time 

for additional assessment and action. If a situation is serious, the management may make 

decisions to inspect/vacate the building and to secure safety of the occupants.

23
(2) The collected information on the response of the building during strong motion events can be 

used to make decisions for further evaluation of the damageability of the building, and to 

develop future repair/retrofit schemes.

(3) The recorded data can be used to analyze the performance of the building, and the results can 

be used to improve future analyses/design procedures.

SATELLITE,

SIMULATED 

BUILDING

REFERENCE 

GPS UNIT

TEST1

0.5 1 

FREQ (HZ)

Figure A.5. Simulated tall building with GPS antenna, displacement response and amplitude 

spectra.

POSSIBLE HYPOTHETICAL THRESHOLDS OF DISPLACEMENT

20 (---.---------

O

10

CO

0-20

.TH.RESHplDg_

.J.HBEStfQLD_B_

10 15 20 

TIME (S)

25 30 35

Figure A.6. Hypothetical thresholds for measured displacement of a structure.

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, various uses of data from instrumented structures are summarized. A preliminary 

listing and classification of the different uses of data is provided with some sample references. A 

data set from an instrumented building is used to demonstrate extraction of dynamic 

characteristics (modal frequencies) and other features (radiation damping). It is shown for this 

case that during future earthquakes that are closer to the building, the design response spectra 

will be significantly exceeded. On a generic note, it is noted that development of design response 

spectra particularly for longer periods should be improved and soil-structure interaction should 

be considered in design/analyses procedures. Furthermore, a recent method being developed for 

monitoring structures using GPS technology is introduced.

24
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX A:

Aktan, H., Kagawa, T., Kambhatla, A., and £elebi, M., 1992, Measured and analytical response of a pile 

supported building, in Proceedings, Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering: A.A. Balkema, 

Rotterdam, v. 3, p. 1791-1796.

Anderson, J. C., Bertero, V. V., and Miranda, E. (1992). "Seismic Design Criteria and Measured 

Response," PROC. ASCE Structures Congress, San Antonio, Texas, April 1992, pp. 575-578.

Anderson. J. C. and Filippou, F. C., 1997, Dymnamic Response analysis of a 17 story steel building 

following the Northridge earthquake, The Northroidge earthquake Research Conference, Los Angeles, Ca., 

CUREE, Aug. 20-22,1997.

Anderson, J.C., Miranda, E., and Bertero, V.V., and Kajima Project Research Team, 1991, Evaluation of 

the seismic performance of a thirty-story RC building: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 

University of California, Berkeley, Report: UCB/EERC-91/16, 254 p.

Anderson, J.C., and Bertero, V.V., 1994, Lessons learned from an instrumented high rise building, in 

Proceedings, Fifth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering: Earthquake Engineering 

Research Institute, Oakland, Calif., v. n, p. 651-660.

Asher, J., Hosker, S., Ewing, R., Volkinburg, D., Mayes, R., and Barton, M., 1995, Seismic performance of 

the base-isolated USC Hospital in the 1994 Northridge earthquake, advance draft copy of paper for 

ASME/JSME Joint PVP Confrence, Hawaii.

Astaneh, A., Bonowitz, D., and 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, p. 5-1-5- 

10.

ATC3-06, 1978, Applied Technology Council, Tentative provisions for the development of seismic 

regulations for buildings, June 1978.

Bendat, J.S., and Piersol, A.G., 1980, Engineering applications of correlation and spectral analysis: John 

Wiley and Sons, 302 p.

Bertero, V. V., Benderimad, D. M., and Shah, H. C., 1988, Fundamental period of reinforced R/C 

moment-resisting frame structures, Rep. No. 87, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford 

University, Stanford, Ca.

Boroschek, R. L., Mahin, S. A., and Zeris, C., A., 1990, Seismic response and analytical modeling of three 

instrumented buildings, PROC., 4th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, v.2, pp. 

219-228, Palm Springs, Ca., May 20-24.

Boroschek, R. L., and 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.

Bozorgnia, Y., Mahin, S. A., and Brady, A. G., 1995, Recorded vertical responses of twelve instrumented 

structures,

25
Bozorgnia, Y., Mahin, S. A., and Brady, A. G., 1997, Vertical Responses of twelve instrumented 

structures recorded during the Northridge earthquake, The Northroidge earthquake Research Conference, 

Los Angeles, Ca., CUREE, Aug. 20-22,1997.

£elebi, M., Bongiovanni, G., Safak, E., and Brady, G., 1989, Seismic response of a large-span roof 

diaphragm: Earthquake Spectra, v. 5, no. 2, p. 337-350.

£elebi, M., and Safak, E., 1991, Seismic response of Transamerica Building I, data and preliminary 

analysis: Journal of Structural Engineering, v. 117, no. 8, p. 2389-2404.

£elebi, M. and Safak, E., 1992, Seismic response of Pacific Park Plaza I, data and preliminary analysis: 

Journal of Structural Engineering, v. 118, no. 6, p. 1547-1565

£elebi, M., Phan, L. T., and Marshall, R. D., 1993, Dynamic characteristics of five tall buildings during 

strong and low-amplitude motions, Journal of Structural Design of Tall Buildings, J. Wiley, v. 2, pp. 1- 

15.

£elebi, M., 1994, Response study of a flexible building using three earthquake records, Structures 

Congress XII: Proceedings of papers presented at the Structures Congress '94, Atlanta, GA, April 24-28, 

American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, Vol. 2, 1220-1225.

£elebi, M., 1996, Comparison of damping in buildings under low-amplitude and strong motions, Journal 

of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Elsevier Science, v. 59, pp. 309-323.

£elebi, M., Presscott, W., Stein, R., Hudnut, K., and Wilson, S., 1997, Application of GPS in Monitoring Tall 

Buildings in Seismic Areas, 1997a, Abstract, AGU Meeting, San Francisco, Ca., Dec.

£elebi, M. and Liu, H-P., Before and After Retrofit - Response of a Building During Ambient and 

Strong-motions, SUSNational Conference on Wind Eng,, The John Hopkins Univ. June 5-7.

£elebi, M., 1993, Seismic response of eccentrically braced tall building, Journal of Structural 

Engineering, v. 119, no. 4, p. 1188-1205.

£elebi, M., 1996, Comparison of damping in buildings under low-amplitude and strong motions: Journal 

of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Elsevier Science, v. 59, p. 309-323.

£elebi, M., 1997, Response of Olive View Hospital to Northridge and Whittier earthquakes, American 

Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Structural Engineering, April ,v,123, no. 4, p. 389-396.

£elebi, M, GPS and/or Strong and Weak Motion Structural Response Measurements - Case Studies, 1998 , 

Structural Engineers World Congrass (invited paper), San Francisco, Ca. July 18-23,1998.

£elebi, M., 1995, Successful Performance of base-isolated hospital building during the 17 January 1994 

Northridge earthquake, Journal of the Structural Design of Tall Buildings, v. 5, pp.95-109.

Chopra, A., and Goel, R.K., 1991, Evaluation of torsional provisions of seismic codes, J. Struct. Eng. 

ASCE, 117, 12,3762-3782.

Colvin, R. L., 1994, Seismic design hailed for averting hospital damage, Los Angeles Times, 3/24/1994.

26
Crosby, P., Kelly, J., and Singh, J. P., Utilizing visco-elastic dampers in the seismic retrofit of a thirteen 

story steel framed building, ASCE Structures Congress XH, Atlanta, Ga., 1994, v. 2, 1286-1291.

De La Llera, J., and Chopra, A., 1995, Understsanding of inelastic seismic behavior of symmetric-plan 

buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 24, pp. 549-572.

Goel, R. K. and Chopra, A. K., 1997, Period formulas for moment-resisting frame buildings, ASCE, 

Journal of structural engineering, v. 123, no. 11, November 1997, pp. 1454-1461.

Goel, R. K. and Chopra, A. K., 1997, Improvements in Code Analysis using motions recorded during 

earthquakes, The Northroidge earthquake Research Conference, Los Angeles, Ca., CUREE, Aug. 20-22, 

1997.

Hall, J. F., Heaton, T. H., Hailing, M. W., and wald, D. J., 1996, Near-source ground motion and its 

effects on flexible buildings, Earthquake Spectra, v. 11, no.4, pp. 569-605.

Hamburger, R. O., 1997, FEMA-173 Seismic Rehabilitation Guidelines: The next step - Verification, in 

Proc.SMIP97 Seminar on Utilization of Strong-motion Data, California strong Motion Instrumentation 

Program, Div. of Mines and Geology, California Dept. of Conservation, Sacramento, Ca., 51-69.

Heo, G., Wang, M. L., and Satpathi, D., 1977, Optimal transducer placement for health monitoring, Soil 

Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 16, pp-496-502

Jennings, P.C., 1997, Use if strong-motion data in earthquake resistant design, in Proc.SMIP97 Seminar 

on Utilization of Strong-motion Data, California strong Motion Instrumentation Program, Div. of Mines 

and Geology, California Dept. of Conservation, Sacramento, Ca.,1-8.

Kagawa, T., Aktan, H., and £elebi, M., 1993, Evaluation of soil and structure model using measured 

building response during the Loma Prieta earthquake: Department of Civil and Environmental 

Engineering, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 169 p.

Kagawa, T., and Al-Khatib, M.A., 1993, Earthquake response of 30-story building during the Loma 

Prieta earthquake, in Third International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, June 

1-4, University of Missouri-Rolla, v. I: p. 547-553.

Kambhatla, A. , Aktan, H.M., Kagawa, T., and £elebi, M., 1992, Verification of simple soil-pile 

foundation-structure models, in Structures Congress '92: American Society of Civil Engineers, New 

York, p. 721-724.

Kelly, J., 1993, Seismic isolation, passive energy dissipation and active control, PROC. ATC 17-1 Seminar 

on State of the Art and State of the Practice of Base Isolation, vol. 1, 9-22.

Kelly, J.M., Aiken, I.D., and Clark, P.W., 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, p. 12-1 

12-10.

Li, Y. and Mau, S. T., 1997, learning from recorded earthquake motions of buildings, ASCE, Journal of 

Structural Engineering, v. 123, no. 1, pp. 62-69, January 1997.

27
Lin, B. C, and Papageorgiou, A. S., Demonstration of torsional coupling caused by closely spaced 

periods 1984 Morgan Hill Earthquake Response of the Santa Clara County Building, Earthquake 

Spectra, 1989, vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 539-556.

Ljung, L. ,1987, System identification - Theory for the User: Prentice-Hall, 519 p.

Marshall, R. D., Phan, L. T., and £elebi, M., 1992, Measurement of structural response characteristics of fullscale buildings: Comparison of results from strong-motion and ambient vibration records, NISTIR REPORT 

4884, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Mulhern, M. R., and Maley, R. P., 1973, Building period measurements before, during and after the San 

Fernando earthquake, in San Fernando, California Earthquake of Feb. 9, 1971, U. S. Dept. of 

Commerce, NOAA, v. L, Part B., pp. 725-733.

Nagarajah, S. and Xiahong, S., 1995, Response of base-isolated buildings during the 1994 Northridge 

earthquake, Proc. Seminar on Seismological and Engineering Implications of Recent Strong-Motion Data 

(SMIP95), California Strong-Motion Instrumentation Program, Div. Of Mines and geology, California 

Department of Conservation, 1995.

NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings: 1994 Part 2- Commentary, 

FEMA 223A(Federal Emergency Management Agency), 1995, p. 96.

Papageorgiou, A. S., and Lin, B-C., 1991, aAalysis of recorded earthquake response and identification of 

a multi-story structure accounting for foundation interaction effects, Journal of the Soil dynamics and 

Earthquake Engineering, v. 10, no. 1, pp. 55-64.

Porter, L.D., 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 Science Ltd. (CD-ROM).

Rezai, M., Rahmatian, P., and Ventura, C. E., 1997, Seismic data analysis of a seven-story building using 

frequency response function and wavelet transform, The Northroidge earthquake Research Conference, Los 

Angeles, Ca., CUREE, Aug. 20-22,1997.

Rihal, S., Freeman, S. A., Gates, W., Sabol, T., 1997, Lessons and seismic design implications of nonstructural component damage during the 1994 Northridge earthquake - selected case studies: Seven story 

hotel, Van Nuys and Oviatt Library, CSU Northridge, The Northroidge earthquake Research Conference, Los 

Angeles, Ca., CUREE, Aug. 20-22,1997.

Rojahn, C., and Mork, P.N., 1981, An analysis of strong-motion data from a severely damaged structure, 

the Imperial County Services Building, El Centre, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

81-194.

Safak, E., and £elebi, M.,1991, Seismic response of Transamerica Building; - II, System identification 

and preliminary analysis: Journal of Structural Engineering, v. 117, no. 8, p. 2405-2425.

Safak, E., and £elebi, M., 1992, Recorded seismic response of Pacific Park Plaza; - II, System 

identification: Journal of Structural Engineering, v. 18, no. 6, p. 1566-1589

28
Soong, T.T., Bachman, R.E. and Drake, R. M., 1997, Implications of 1994 Northridge earthquake on 

design guidelines for nonstructural components, The Northroidge earthquake Research Conference, Los 

Angeles, Ca., CUREE, Aug. 20-22,1997.

Stewart, J., 1996, An Empirical assessment of soil-structure interaction effects on the seismic response of 

structures, Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, U.C. Berkeley, Ca.

Straser, E., 1997, Toward wireless, modular monitoring systems for civil structures, in the John A. Blume 

Earthquake Engineering Center Newsletter, Issue No. 2.

Todorovska, M. L, 1992, Radiation damping during in-plane building-soil interaction, in Proceedings, Tenth 

World Conference on Earthquake Engineering: A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, v. 3, p. 1549-1554.

Uang, C.-M., and Maarouf, A., 1991, An investigation of UBC serviceability requirements from building 

responses recorded during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake: Northeastern University, Boston, 

Department of Civil Engineering, Report CE-91-06,138 p.

Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA, 1970, 1976, 1979, 

1982,1985, 1988, 1991, 1994and 1997 editions.

29
APPENDIX B

LETTERS, ENDORSEMENTS, AND COMMENTS

30
ICSSC Steering Committee Meeting 

Meeting Summary

Date: Friday, October 3, 1997 

Time: 9:00 a.m. to noon 

Place: Department of Commerce

14th and Construction Avenue

Attendees: Richard Wright, Chair

Charles Gutberlet Walt Hays 

H. S. Lew UgoMorelli 

Riley Chung

Summary Prepared by: Riley Chung 

Distributed to: ICSSC Full Committee Members

SUMMARY 

2. ICSSC Comments on Seismic Instrumentation for NEP

Riley presented a two-page compilation of the comments received from ICSSC 

members in their review of the proposal. In addition to the points in the summary, Ugo 

mentioned that the former Soviet Union should also have data related to SSI (soilstructure interaction) and suggested to contact Keith Nakanishi at LLNL on this topic.

It was suggested that Riley consolidate these comments and present the revised 

summary at the October 29 Full Committee meeting. (AttachmelitT) 

Meanwhile, it is agreed that ICSSC should injorrnNEP that "ICSSC endorsesjhe 

proposalfor consideration as part of the NEP Strategic Planning process, with the 

°clanricatior7of some of the comments given by the ICSSC members." '(Thi^messagewas^ 

pass'ecfalong to Bob Volland at the NEP's October 7 meeting).

31
October 20, 1997 Attachment 1

to ICSSC SCI 0/3/97 

meeting summary

Summary of Comments on 

Draft Seismic Instrumentation of Federal Buildings

Comments by seven (7) ICSSC members from six (6) agencies were received and they are 

summarized below. By and large, the members expressed their support to this proposed 

effort.

Supporting statement;

 Add to Section 2.0: One additional benefit would be the ability to use the strong 

motion data for determining the level of post seismic assessment of the building after 

an earthquake. As an example, if the building felt low g-levels and there is no visual 

damage the assessment would be minimal. If the building felt high g-levels and there is 

still no visual damage, a more detailed assessment, such as opening a few walls for 

internal inspection of critical components, should be performed.

Issues to be resolved

 Proposed program versus the CDMG program

* The proposal does not discuss similarities or differences with the California Strong 

Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP). "Lessons learned" from the 

implementation of CSMIP should be beneficial to this effort and factored into the 

planning.

 Cost

* The proposal lacks an estimation of cost associated with the development of the 

mathematical building models and supportive pre-and post-earthquake analyses. 

Section 1.3 states "The instrumentation of a structure should provide an optimal 

number of sensors to allow reconstruction of the response of the structure in 

sufficient detail to compare with the response predicted by mathematical models - 

the goal being to improve the models."

* The proposal should give a rough idea of the level of maintenance cost that USGS 

would assess the agencies who own the instrumented buildings.

 Soil-structure Interaction (SSI)

4 Data on soil-structure interaction (SSI) are undoubtedly very significant in the 

design of complex buildings and structures, and appropriately instrumented and 

located buildings are a good source of such data. With so many competing

32
demands on a budget that shows no growth signs, however, I believe that the 

ICSSC should ask NEP to examine two questions pertinent to this proposal:

 How successful have been the efforts to date to mathematically model SSI) Is 

the degree of approximation heretofore achieved by modeling adequate for 

design purposes?

 How does the proposed building instrumentation program compare in terms of 

need, urgency, and probability of success to the other major ongoing and new 

programs competing for available funds?

These questions should be examined against the realization that data from a 

building instrumentation program would yield useful results only in the very long 

term, hence the program should be initiated if at all, only if it can he assured pf 

continuing support over many years. The NEP Strategic Plan now in preparation 

appears to be the proper vehicle for this analysis.

4 There are many references describing SSI. The selection of the reference list is too 

narrow. Why not delete the list?

Specific Suggestions

 Change the wording on the objective to "The main objective of the seismic

instrumentation program for buildings and structures is to improve our understanding 

of their behavior and their potential for damage under earthquake loading."

 We could delete Section 1.2, Prior Recommendations since the connection of that 

section and what this proposal wants to accomplish is very weak.

 Section 3.0: As much as possible in the selection process, use the EO12941 inventory 

data base due in December 1998, rather than casting out another data call for agencies 

to respond to. Maybe it should be the other way around, the Committee selects 

buildings from the EO12041 inventory, and then proposes that selection to agencies. 

How would selection work under EO 12699 for new construction? Note that where 

EO 12699 is cited it doesn't mean the Federally assisted and regulated aspects of that 

EO

Questions

 Section 2.0: Does instrumenting Federally owned/leased buildings mean leased 

buildings and not space (portions of buildings)? Wouldn't owners of leased buildings 

have the same "litigation concerns" as other private property owners?

 The statement on p. 9, "Federal building inventory should be compatible with at least 

the recommendations of UBC," is not clear as to its intent under Section 2. Does it 

mean to state, "therefore representing the state of the practices in seismic design"?

33
CASMP

J. S. Committee for Advancement

of Strong Motion ProgramS___ ___________Readership for Earthquake Saftey

November 6, 1997

Mr. Robert H. Volland

Director, National Earthquake Loss

Reduction Program Office

Federal Emergency Management Agency

500 C Street, S. W., Room 416

Washington, DC 20472

Dear Mr. Volland:

Subject: Seismic Instrumentation of Federal Buildings

By this letter I am providing comments of the U. S. Committee for Advancement of Strong 

Motion Programs on the Draft Document: "Seismic Instrumentation of Federal Buildings", 

prepared by Mehmet Celebi and Stuart Nishenko, USGS Open-File Report 97-452, July 

1997. The Committee particularly appreciated the review of this document provided by Dr. 

Celebi at its meeting on October 18,1997. The comments contained in this letter are a 

result of Dr. Celebi's very valuable presentation.

The Committee considers recordings of earthquake generated strong motions in and near 

important classes of buildings to be an essential need to improve earthquake safety. This 

need was strongly emphasized by participants in the recent workshop held by the CASMP: 

"Vision 2005: An Action Plan for Strong Motion Programs to Mitigate Earthquake Losses 

in Urbanized Areas", April 2-4,1997. The proposed initiative described in Open-File 

Report 97-452, to instrument certain classes of federal buildings exposed to high 

earthquake ground shaking hazard is a significant initial step toward monitoring the safety 

performance of structures in densely populated urban areas during future earthquakes. The 

potential benefits are significant Critical needs following every strong earthquake affecting 

a densely populated area are to rapidly determine the damage impact for implementation of 

emergency response and recovery actions and to return facilities to full operation. The 

proposed instrumentation of federal buildings could contribute to these critical needs for 

post earthquake information by aiding in the early assessment of buildings safety and 

functionality for continued use. The Committee recognizes that use of strong motion 

recordings to rapidly determine a building's damage state is in development With near 

real-time monitoring capability however, post earthquake response and recovery and the 

developing potential for rapid determination of structural performance could be greatly 

facilitated.

The Committee notes that the proposed instrumentation initiative contributes to several 

goals established in NEP Strategic Plan: "Strategy for National Earthquake Loss 

Reduction", April 1996. In particular, it contributes to Goal 1: Provide Leadership and 

Coordination for Federal Earthquake Research; Goal 3: Improve Engineering of the Built 

Environment; Goal 4: Improve Data for Construction Standards and Codes; Goal 5: 

Continue Development of Seismic Hazard and Risk Assessment Tools; and Goal 9: 

Continue Documentation of Earthquakes and their Effects. There is broad consensus that 

there will not be significant improvement in earthquake engineering technology until we

34
Mr. Robert H. Volland 

November 6, 1997 

Page 2

have numerous records from buildings experiencing different levels of damage in strong 

ground shaking.

The Committee notes also that the proposed instrumentation initiative is consistent with the 

framework for achieving seismic safety in federal buildings expressed in Executive Order 

12941: "Seismic Safety of Existing Buildings", December 1, 1994, and Executive Order 

12699: Seismic Safety of New Buildings, January 5, 1990. While strong motion 

instrumentation is not specifically mandated by these Executive Orders, such 

instrumentation is critically important for determining the safety performance of structures 

following strong earthquake shaking. Seismic instrumentation could therefore, be 

considered an important element of the implementation of the Executive Orders. The 

Committee considers coordinated Federal leadership in the spirit of these Executive Orders 

and the NEP Strategic Plan to be vitally important for achieving national safety goals in 

earthquakes.

Coordination with other seismic monitoring initiatives is considered to be highly important 

to achieve economy and effectiveness in meeting national earthquake hazard mitigation 

goals. Specifically, the Committee considers close coordination between the proposed 

initiative for Seismic Instrumentation of Federal Buildings and the FY 1999 Initiative: RealTime Hazards Warnings, put forward by the USGS, July 1997 which includes seismic 

together with other natural hazards monitoring, to have significant value in advancing 

national preparedness to respond to earthquakes in densely urbanized areas.

The Committee considers the proposed initiative for Seismic Instrumentation of Federal 

Buildings to be a needed, important action to advance safety in earthquakes and strongly 

supports its implementation.

Carl Stepp 

Chairman

William A. Anderson (NSF)

John Filson (USGS)

Richard N. Wright (NIST/ICSSC)

35
CASMP

U. S. Committee for Advancement

of Strong Motion Programs_______________________Leadership for Earthquake Safety

November 11, 1997

Dr. Mehmet Celebi 

U. S. Geological Survey 

MS 977

345 Middlefield Road 

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Dear Mehmet:

_ i 

By this letter I want to thank you for attending the CASMP meeting on October

18 and for your very valuable discussion of the initiative for instrumentation of 

certain classes of federal buildings in high seismic hazard zones: SEISMIC 

INSTRUMENTATION OF FEDERAL BUILDINGS, by Mehmet Celebi and 

Stuart Nishenko, USGS OFR 97-452. The Committee considers recordings of 

earthquake generated strong motions in and near important classes of buildings 

to be an essential need to improve earthquake safety.

During the discussion following your presentation the Committee made 

several suggestions and observations. I am passing them on to you for 

consideration as you move forward with further development of this initiative.

 A stated objective of the initiative is to instrument each building 

sufficiently to record free-field motions and to determine the translational, 

tortional and rotational responses of the building. It was noted that the scope of 

seismic instrumentation needs may vary among classes of structures. It would 

be desirable to develop specific seismic monitoring objectives and needs for 

different classes of buildings to optimize the effectiveness of the initiative for 

the investment. The function of a building and possibly, other use 

considerations could be an important. A useful initial action might be to 

convene a small group of knowledgeable engineers to develop criteria for 

selecting buildings to be instrumented.

 The seismic instrumentation may be able to contribute to rapid 

determination following potentially damaging shaking, of the instrumented 

buildings' structural health and fitness to return to service. This potential 

function should be considered in determining the scope and layout of the 

seismic sensors.

36
Mehmet Celebi 

November 11, 1997 

Page 2

 It is considered highly important that the selection of buildings to be 

instrumented under this initiative should be coordinated with other activities 

aimed at installing seismic instrumentation in structures located in densely 

urbanized areas. Specifically, the Committee considers close coordination 

between the proposed initiative and the FY 1999 Initiative, Real-Time Hazards 

Warnings, put forward by the USGS in July 1997 as well as with existing strong 

motion programs to have significant value in advancing national preparedness 

to respond to earthquakes in densely urbanized areas.

 An important need as part of the initiative is to provide for long term 

maintenance of the instrumentation and develop a plan for processing and 

disseminating the data following an earthquake.

There is broad consensus that there will not be significant improvement in 

earthquake engineering technology until we have numerous records from 

buildings experiencing different levels of damage in strong ground shaking. 

Considering this recognized need, the Committee considers the proposed 

initiative to seismically instrument federal buildings, though modest, to be 

highly important and offers its continued support as you move forward with its 

implementation.

Sincerely,

Chairman

c: Robert H. Volland, FEMA/NEP

37
Applied Technology Council 555 TWIN DOLPHIN DRIVE. SUITE sso REDWOOD CITY. CALIFORNIA 94065

A Nonprofit Corporation PHONE 650/595-1542 FAX 650/593-2320 E-MAIL atc@atcouncil.org 

Advancing Engineenng Applications for Natural Hazard Mrtigation

OTC C Mark Saunders. President 

Cnartes H Thomton. Vice President 

Edwin T. Dean, Secretary/Treasurer

November 10, 1997

Mr. Robert Volland

Federal Emergency Management Agency

500 C Street, S. WM

Washington, DC 20472

Dear Bob:

SUBJECT: SEISMIC INSTRUMENTATION OF FEDERAL BUILDINGS

At the FEMA-funded EERI Workshop on "Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings Strategic Plan 

2005 The Second Decade" held in Reno, Nevada, on August 12-13, 1997, I learned of a plan 

from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for "Seismic Instrumentation of Federal Buildings". The 

plan is described in detail in USGS Open-File Report 97-452, authored by Mehmet Celebi and 

Stuart Nishenko (see attached), and proposes that state-of-the-art instruments be installed in 

approximately 90 federally owned or leased buildings over the next five years at a capitalization 

cost of approximation $ 4.5 million.

The purpose of this letter is endorse the proposed plan and to encourage that steps be taken to 

fund the proposed program in full. ATC experience on the FEMA-funded SAC Program for 

Reducing Seismic Hazards of Steel Moment Frame Buildings, the U. S. Postal Service Seismic 

Program (ATC-26 project), and several USGS-funded projects (e.g., ATC-10, ATC-10-1, and 

ATC-35) has clearly indicated that strong-motion instrumentation of federally owned and leased 

buildings is highly desirable for several fundamentally important reasons: (1) the Federal 

inventory is representative of the at-large inventory of commercial buildings in the United States 

and includes excellent examples of all types of standard "model" building types in all seismic 

regions; (2) restrictions cannot be placed on the use of data acquired from such structures (as is 

potentially possible for virtually all instrumented private-sector buildings); and (3) strong-motion 

data from severely shaken and damaged buildings are the most important source of data for 

development of new knowledge on building seismic performance and the improvement of codes 

and standards for seismic design. In fact, it can be argued that, given the high cost of 

instrumentation, installation of such equipment in privately owned buildings is conceptually 

flawed.

Applied Technology Council strongly endorses the concepts outlined in USGS Open-File Report 

97-452. If we can be of further assistance in advancing the program, please advise. Thank you.

Sincere

Christopher Rojahn 

Executive Director

cc: Robert Page

Directors Arthur N L Chiu. Edwin T. Dean. Robert G. Dean, James R. Libby. Kenneth A. Luttrell. Newiand J. Maknquist, Andrew T. Merovich. 

Richard J Phillips. Charles W Roeder. C Mark Saunders. Jonathan G. Shipp. John C Theiss, Charles H Thomton

Executive Director Christopher Rojahn

38