California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering Building Contractors Society of Japan
UJLPE United States / Japan Loma Prieta Earthquake Project Investigations of Thirty-Three Loma Prieta Earthquake Strong Motion Recording Sites
by
Charles C. Thiel Jr. John F. Schneider
with contributions from
Susan Chang, Joseph Sun, Woodward-Clyde Consultants James Gibbs, Thomas Powers, Thomas Fumal, David Boore, William Joyner, U.S. Geological Survey Robert Steller, Robert Nigbor, Agbabian Associates Bruce B. Redpath, Redpath Geophysics
Reporting information collected with the support of
Building Contractors Society of Japan Electric Power Research Institute
with additional support provided by U.S. Geological Survey University of California, Davis California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering San Francisco International Airport Authority
CUREe/BCS Joint Oversight Committee: Dr. A. Endo, Kajima Corporation Dr. Y. Goto, Obayashi Corporation Dr. K. Hagio, Taisei Corporation Professor LM. Idriss, University of California, Davis Professor H.C. Shah, Stanford University Professor R. Shepherd, University of California, Irvine
July 1993 © 1993 California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering
California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREe) Department of Civil Engineering Stanford University Stanford, California 9305-4020 Investigations of Thirty-Three Loma Prieta Earthquake Strong Motion Recording Sites
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTIONS PAGE Preface iv 1. United States Japan Loma Prieta Earthquake Project 1 Building Contractors Society of Japan 2 California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering 5 Electric Power Research Institute 5 2. UJLPE Project management 6 UJLPE site investigations 7 3. The Loma Prieta earthquake 11 3.1 Overview of the Earthquake 11 3.2 Regional geological and seismological setting 13 3.3 Deep structure of the San Francisco Bay region 15 4. Strong motion observations in the Loma Prieta earthquake 22 5. Results for drilled sites 33 5.1 Sites investigated 33 5.2 Site reports 37 5.3 Electronic data base 38 6. Investigation methods 40 6.1 Geotechnical logging 40 Rock sites 40 Drilling and Sampling 40 Disposal of waste material from drilling 41 Soil sites 41 Drilling and sampling 41 Reaming and PVC casing 42 Grouting and protective covering 42 Disposal of waste material from drilling 43 6.2 Geophysical data collection for investigated sites 43 Measurement techniques and procedures 45 Suspension PS velocity logging 45 Downhole velocity surveys 49 Attenuation measurements 51 Shear-wave refraction surveys 52 7. Concluding Remarks 55 8. References 62
FIGURES 1-1 Locations of free-field strong ground motion sites. 4 3-1 Isoseismal map of the damage impacts of the Loma Prieta earthquake 12 3-2 Simplified map showing faults in the San Francisco Bay area 14
UJLPE Page i 3-3 Crustal thickness for California and adjacent regions as presented in the paper by Fuis and Mooney [1990] 17 3-4 Crustal structure in Central California along Transect C2 18 3-5 Continuation of Figure 3-4. Crustal structure in Central California along Transect C2 19 3-6 Key to symbols used in Figures 3-4 and 3-5 20 3-7 Velocity depth curves. 21 4-1 Ground stations with recorded ground motions from the Loma Prieta earthquake for which drilling has been planned or completed 27 4-2 Peak horizontal recorded accelerations for free field sites recorded during the Loma Prieta earthquake for rock, soil and soft soil sites. 28 4-3 Accelerograms for the east-west components of motions recorded at rock sites (Corralitos, Gilroy No. 1, and Santa Cruz Lick Observatory) within 20 kilometers of the source 29 4-4 Accelerograms for the east-west components of motions recorded at rock sites in San Francisco (Diamond Heights, Rincon Hill and Pacific Heights) 30 4-5 Accelerograms for the east-west components of motions recorded at soil sites in Emeryville and Oakland (Outer Wharf and 2-story building) 31 4-6 Accelerograms for the east-west components of motions recorded at the nearby Treasure Island (soil) and Yerba Buena Island (rock) sites 32 6-1 Conceptual illustration of suspension P-S logging system 47 6-2 Filtered (1000 Hz. lowpass) 78.1 foot record. 49 7-1 Composite rock shear velocity logs for suspension logged sites 56
TABLES 1-1 Strong motion sites for which site characteristics were collected during the UJLPE project 3 2-1 Original proposed listing of rock sites to be investigated 8 2-2 Original proposed rank ordering of soil sites to be drilled under UJLPE. 9 4-1 Ground stations with recorded ground motions from the Loma Prieta earthquake ordered by distant from the epicenter originally considered by JOC 23 5-1 Summary of strong motions recorded at rock sites during 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake 35 5-2 Summary of field exploration data for soil sites. 36 5-3 Summary of field exploration data recorded at soil sites during 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake 36 5-4 Strong motion sites for which site characteristics were collected during the UJLPE project 37 5-5 Single use license agreement. 39
UJLPE Page ii 6-1 Sites at which geophysics information was obtained 44 6-2 Types of geophysical data collected for investigated sites 46 7.1 Stations with recorded ground motions from the Loma Prieta earthquake with subsurface investigations 58 7.2 Summary of recorded strong motions from instrumented buildings during the Loma Prieta earthquake 58 7.3 Summary of records from other structures 61
ATTACHMENTS Tab 1 Alameda Naval Air Station Tab 2 Agnews State Hospital Tab 3 Belmont Two-story Building Tab 4 Capitola Fire Station Tab 5 Gilroy Array Number 2 Tab 6 Halls Valley Grant Park Tab 7 Hayward - CSUH Stadium Grounds Tab 8 Lawrence Livermore Site 300 Tab 9 Lexington Dam Tab 10 Martinez Veterans Administration Medical Center Tab 11 Menlo Park Veterans Administration Hospital Tab 12 Mission San Jose Fire Station Tab 13 Monterey City Hall Tab 14 Naval Station Treasure Island Tab 15 Oakland Wharf Outer Harbor Tab 16 Oakland Two-story Building Tab 17 Palo Alto Veterans Administration Hospital Tab 18 Patterson Pass Road Tab 19 Piedmont Junior High School Grounds Tab 20 Point Bonita Tab 21 Richmond City Hall Parking Lot Tab 22 SAGO South/Hollister Tab 23 San Francisco Diamond Heights Tab 24 San Francisco International Airport Tab 25 San Francisco Pacific Heights Tab 26 San Francisco Rincon Hill Tab 27 San Francisco Telegraph Hill Tab 28 San Francisco Veterans Administration Medical Center Tab 29 Santa Cruz/Lick Observatory Electronics Laboratory Tab 30 South San Francisco Sierra Point Tab 31 University of California Haviland Hall Tab 32 University of California Memorial Stadium Tab 33 Yerba Buena Island
UJLPE Page iii PREFACE
The advance of earthquake engineering in general, and strong motion seismology in particular, depends on data—observations and measurements of earthquake response. These data will help in formulating, calibrating and verifying existing and future analytical procedures. Over the past 60 years, and particularly in the last two decades, an unheralded group persisted in installing and maintaining strong motion instruments, just waiting for the moment when useful data would be recorded. For instruments in the San Francisco Bay area, that moment came in 1989 with the Loma Prieta earthquake of October 17.
Now we have a wealth of strong motion recordings, but we do not know much about the sites where the instruments were installed and how these site conditions may have effected the recordings. In the desire for data, instruments were installed without determining the details of their supporting foundation materials. This was prudent: the number of instruments installed could thereby be substantially increased whereas site information could be collected after the earthquake. Collection of such subsurface site information was the goal of this project.
The U.S. Geological Survey embarked on a program of site investigations, but was limited by budget and by the enormity of the task. The Building Contractors Society of Japan (BCS) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) recognized both the value of the strong motion data and the importance of accelerating the determination of site properties. BCS, whose members are Japanese construction firms, and EPRI, whose members are US electric power utilities, undertook at considerable expense to add important sites, a total of 33 reported here, to the catalog of those whose site characteristics have been investigated. USGS contributed expertise to these efforts. Many others also participated in this effort, including: the University of California at Davis, California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREe), San Francisco International Airport Authority, and Purdue University. Just as important as the commitment to the investigation work of the sponsors was their decision that the information obtained be made public for all to use.
This report is the product of many individuals' and institutions' efforts. CUREe and EPRI are pleased to acknowledge the contributions of those named in the text as well as many unnamed others who recognized the value of the data and contributed unselfishly. Of the latter, those whose perseverance lead to the network of installed instruments are of particular note. The BCS/CUREe Joint Oversight Committee and the Japanese sponsors made many useful suggestions and recommendations—Drs. Endo, Goto, Hagio, Idriss, Shah and Shepherd each brought an important understanding and insight to the program that shaped its outcome. The efforts of Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Agbabian Associates and Redpath Geophysics all worked beyond their contract terms for the benefit of obtaining the information reported in this report.
UJLPE Page iv CUREe gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Building Contractors Society of Japan. On behalf of current and future research and earthquake engineering users, CUREe thanks the Building Contractors Society of Japan and the Electric Power Research Institute for having the foresight to provide the means to obtain this much needed data. Without their financial and other support, UJLPE could not have been completed. We also thank the other institutions who contributed to UJLPE's successful completion: U.S. Geological Survey, California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco International Airport Authority, Purdue University, and the University of California at Davis and their sponsors the Kiso-Jiban Consultants Co. Ltd.; Mitsui Construction Co., Ltd.; NKK Corporation; and, Sato Kogyo Co., Ltd.
While this report contributes much to the understanding of Loma Prieta sites, much is left undone. Over a hundred sites remain to have subsurface characterizations. Hopefully, they will be completed over time as other institutions and organizations recognize how important these site data are in furthering our understanding of the nature of earthquake ground motion, as have BCS and EPRI.
UJLPE Page v 1. UNITED STATES JAPAN LOMA PRIETA EARTHQUAKE PROJECT
The Loma Prieta earthquake of October 17, 1989 triggered a large number of strong motion instruments on rock, firm and soft soils, ranging from near the epicenter to the far field. These recordings represent one of the most robust, free-field strong motion data sets yet recovered for a major earthquake. They offer a substantial opportunity for advancement of understanding on how site conditions and source-site geometry affect site response.
The objective of the United States/Japan Loma Prieta Earthquake Project (UJLPE) was to collect subsurface geological and geotechnical information for sites where important strong motion records were obtained during the Loma Priem earthquake. Information was collected for 33 sites.
The US Strong Motion program in California is composed of two major parts—the federal part by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and state part by the California Division of Mines and Geology. Early in the federal and state program, a decision was made not to investigate the subsurface conditions at recording sites until an important record was recorded there. The cost of subsurface characterization is several times higher than that of placing the instrument. This decision allowed a substantially larger network to be installed and maintained than would otherwise have been possible. Thus, only a few of the more than 95 Loma Prieta free-field recording sites had subsurface information at the time of the earthquake.
USGS began a program to determine subsurface conditions for a limited number of sites following the earthquake; they have investigated about 29 sites but have reported their results for only two sites. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) initiated a program to determine conditions at five, principally deep alluvium, sites, with assistance from the USGS and with partial financial support from the University of California at Davis.
The California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREe) proposed to undertake scientific investigations for the Building Contractors Society of Japan (BCS). These discussions led to the UJLPE program to collect subsurface information for selected strong motion sites not previously investigated by others. Since the objectives of UJLPE were similar to those of the EPRI program, UJLPE merged its field investigation program with theirs and used their existing drilling and geophysical investigation contracts under EPRI management. This report presents the results of the combined CUREe and EPRI programs and is the report to their respective sponsors. The EPRI effort was managed by John F. Schneider and the CUREe effort was managed by Charles C. Thiel Jr.
Subsurface information was obtained for 33 Loma Prieta strong motion sites: 21 rock and 12 soil sites. Data were obtained through drilling and logging sites, through data exchange with other projects, and through
UJLPE Page 1
subsurface geophysical investigations of existing holes. Figure 1-1 shows the location of the sites covered in this report. Table 1-1 reviews the sites and who sponsored the data collection. Vertical profiles of P- and S- wave velocities were obtained for all the sites except Telegraph Hill, which was characterized by a prior geotechnical investigation. Suspension P-S wave data were obtained for 24 sites. Conventional down-hole velocity data were obtained from the other eight sites. Detailed information for each site is appended to this report at the Tab numbers given in Table 1-1, including both site information, local geological maps, geotechnical logs and interpreted geophysical data.
The balance of this report and the attachments presents the information collected and describes the methods and techniques used. The sections contain:
Section Topic United States/Japan Loma Prieta Earthquake Project UJLPE Project management The Loma Prieta earthquake Strong motion observations in the Loma Prieta earthquake Results for drilled sites Investigation methods References Tabs 1-33 Detailed reports for the sites listed in Table 1-1
Building Contractors Society of Japan
The BCS is the professional trade association of Japanese contractors. It is a distinguished organization with a long history of substantial accomplishment. Fifteen major member firms have provided support to UJLPE. They and their representatives are:
. Fudo Construction Co., Ltd. Mr. H Tsuboi • Fujita Corporation Mr. Y. Takasaki • Hazama-Gumi, Ltd. Mr. M Ichikawa • Kajima Corporation Dr. A. Endo • Kumagai Gumi Co., Ltd. Mr. H Matsuzki • Maeda Corporation Dr. S Shimada • Mitsui Construction Co., Ltd. Mr. H Kosaka • Nishimatsu Construction Co., Ltd. Mr. T. Koyayashi • Obayashi Corporation Dr. Y. Goto • Penta-Ocean Construction Co., Ltd. Mr. T. Tamura • Taisei Corporation Dr. K Hagio • Takenaka Corporation Mr. K. Kobayashi • Tobishima Corporation Mr. T Tohaya • Toda Corporation Mr. M. Toda • Tokyu Construction Co., Ltd. Mr. M. Kimura
The Secretariat of Building Contractors was represented by
Building Contractors Society, Japan Mr. K. Nishimuko
UJLPE Page 2
Table 1-1 Strong motion sites for which site characteristics were collected during the UJLPE project.
Tab Station Name Note 1 Alameda Naval Air Station 8 2 Agnews State Hospital 4 3 Belmont Two-story Building 1 4 Capitola Fire Station 1 5 Gilroy Array Number 2 3 6 Halls Valley Grant Park 1 7 Hayward - CSUH Stadium Grounds 2 8 Lawrence Livermore Site 300 2 9 Lexington Dam 1 10 Martinez Veterans Administration Medical Center 1 11 Menlo Park Veterans Administration Hospital 4 12 Mission San Jose Fire Station 4 13 Monterey City Hall 1 14 Naval Station Treasure Island 3 15 Oakland Wharf Outer Harbor 3 16 Oakland Two-story Building 5 17 Palo Alto Veterans Administration Hospital 9 18 Patterson Pass Road 1 19 Piedmont Junior High School Grounds 1 20 Point Bonita 1 21 Richmond City Hall Parking Lot 4 22 SAGO South/Hollister 1 23 San Francisco Diamond Heights 1 24 San Francisco International Airport 6 25 San Francisco Pacific Heights 1 26 San Francisco Rincon Hill 1 27 San Francisco Telegraph Hill 7 28 San Francisco Veterans Administration Medical Center 2 29 Santa Cruz/Lick Observatory Electronics Laboratory 1 30 South San Francisco Sierra Point 1 31 University of California Haviland Hall 1 32 University of California Memorial Stadium 2 33 Yerba Buena Island 3 Notes 1 Site drilled and investigated with support of BCS. Subsurface geophysics determined from existing hole logged with support of BCS. Support from EPRI with participation of United States Geological Survey and University of California at Davis. Site drilled during Project by the Electric Power Research Institute and subsurface geophysics determined with support of BCS; site was a UJLPE priority site for investigation. Site drilled by Purdue University and investigated by project. Support from EPRI and the San Francisco International Airport Authority with participation by the USGS. Existing geotechnical log available but no subsurface information obtained. Support provided by USGS. Partial support provided to USGS by the Veterans Administration.
UJLPE Page 3 -•....-•••:*„••••••,••.t.„
, ' • . 2 . 'P...• Muir Bade t" .2 to • ."%e747..•' " :: • • •41'• 6 Craw\kon Aria t„ , Vain lanilanoi::: •!1'° 7 ••• 1 61r i ARIChmond City Hale Port \Cost ‘ :, 780 G 680 • i. -tl... 8Hercu. 'Point Bonita al Ellye A,.-. % • • / -...i- \ • les 0 ) Ehicii;1111,,. ra caornat I , dit:. e b. u Cap .•- \ f • tr. Itea ir N.44,. i Wais;/ N,,, , A • Martinez VAMC. ... 1 ?SauSaiiioi.:.1.: li "111411*4111 . 1SR '7 10 'en: 5.bni\ \ ..... Sala In Min Main Heaton* Sto ,.. e Telegraph Hill ._...: " A i tur40,,,.. 'rtr .•=r \ . ,. do.,, ._. ,_ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 " " . +a nez.... 4:t8i.Av-•; kEl Cerrito • • ' \'‘I• • "A" (;nr. 11.211111lT;arl=lim=i SF VAMCV 7"1isme "---..„';;_. .. 41 ?.zi ...m." .. 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 9 10 SW Rock: ..0'..- .. 6,, z .-5‘ricd. ''er,, •''''1' 4s I i 5 saw in 1121ornatars ' U; v• c. , , A1' cz AOrrin Gap; ba ill. ; ''''' • ..4:' -•., -A",, ..,...` R&I,Vre; • „ 0 ,..\... ...... ,•\•. -, 4'8/i0IMPS ..‘ Rao I 1 Pac fic Heights 111-"b-ill %.%Ngt. L‘A':-.4,,' P:I:.-,-72 . 1 I. sfBerkeley t0.Ll..: . 4 I: -'',' • F. t .,,,°dm....)., , ' CAelif I Lie:' :: : '4 UC Berkeley Haviland Hall' .4 FRANCIg -7- . - Z.0 ' ....7_, Rincon Hill ..'.„-r r . Fon :Fannon!, i r. r.. -•-•:, - - 911ffe) . ao Beiii"ggy'iiiiiiiiiiii Staigith Diamond Heights I"' ,...`,470•130 (ICU d .. . .. ,-, •\,,,, Et.. ••( al'. : rrkirind a' ° 1.;: -.74.1a; v __. Daly CitSr irI i• • co :3, • ;my 880 *0 • .II Piedmont Jr. High ' l,.." --.., ‘ ..2 AN:. .4cYerba Buenaa,„,Oakland It, ii r;t r....te.1„..p.:11 ..y-e arayettt. .ne_. „,6v • 317%.,•r•I,,/s/Rndq4ii.i.fi mr,. asscreHL.87,aa:o_r 1 ''' _ . 70utR ea 'Oakland Two-Story'AY:7 .i ,' % 9•7„:,' .31,1.4: „CDc1 Rro4hIr9 , . , rin -. ' ,,,i °rage -‘1Wa'lnut It2'.4:t::::-.4. APecice Sierra Point ..u, . 6 Creek • Oakland-Al mea 't r 4.4 • \___,,.24rArms,s7N .E --1 -)1 `; (0.7: 7752/' A • r • .t.c. outli San Francisco Co.Col; ta ...N. • •-,-. Rif i . :qamo .. co.., f • •• . • \ /. : sat. -b7s, s• V,Porh- ...... J.. .„5..r .1.. . 0 ' Oa Ian . t• \ •<• 4/1iF•. \ • • `% • /. 4 ‘4 Bruno t I/ w 06 SF International Ahport les rt reOPOWAN\ WM 'OM CI) . "--;.---1 :.. ; , :Z s„-,, • , ..,..;,• „,„,,, Montara h l*V"," : ,., r 7 ..• San Francisco --'.. irr auran:oam) f "--: di loll , ... 1. - 11 • Thromational ... °A staar""\r"- 1) PAR, je 1 IIOny.ralab•r, • \, •-t,._. . • 'A --AA iatli° Airport i "- •iAflgaOodPa4a pi iupyw""v,i'li .740 • 134e.;40-;*.''r.1:,Friiti ,:inc' is!7:. brill; Z 111-. San ;4, 880 C.) Mariniz 1 Leandro?. ..,..:\ . .... R cs 24° CD. ,. urlingeme u_ 1 ,f, 5 et 1 i trincetuiPaL, ' • sots • Hoilrli•ri ilea `.c.y.mprivr. g g 1 • .ii RII.A0 et- . • . len 10 el mu mgon7 I°ifl iriGma rs heeti.da ' 'San Mateo °' San Lorenzo agt4.0'm. %Ill y" l'icoi 0 C) 12. . :"c4; : .1344 .., .• • ased4 • ,, tlInt • v /1 • 10 . 3 , Fosses City I 13 on _ 1 580 •• INYttrtor,- .. :•`-) Half Moon - • , hub Dubli . ill) •0s. •- • ::-..1._.,.. ‘5C,1 • ?)11 1.3 Belmont Two-Story ;.' ..7;:•anir.ile CSUH Stadium cots's.- , e8.1onns'A • ,7 r • • / 71•s;,:',1.', : szs dien-Re-nce 1 HMO . i ,7141441 Park \ e Porisima • -...„.4 • c,„ "4 )0 • • S. • kortcz, . , 92:„. • eGivoroctmre. iHfter_ 680 i, 32 4 • .Rg Marti• n's Bach r Pad • ,V,•••.,.. . V• , titta \ .• 1 Y.,"' 2 ifo,4".. '''' *.. Tunites • WO odiide.• litcleenr•fi440 , ,...(• ..-• I 2 ;1•8 tom 3" At , ..r" ..c...,„ L., - Menlo Park VAMC Livermor:t . 3;7.7 fly' aSnaon:171cdt(147114C---t- LLNL Site 300 San Gregono f-,!z..-c, .,,,, Pk Ney•75ark San GrepOri0 Bach/. - 4, , ,i. .. i,,t114i.4.teds 4:2it:7\ re: 8;reirorj l. • Patterson Pass Road STIR :,.., : C‘...... ent: 4...,., .., 10 . • ... 6 1014 4...... 4'..: Pomponio Bach.: 680 .04111 c:s J • . .v0afltiOe ; 0 WW1, 1.1) a A men. . us we 140sI Poscasto Slaw Bach.
1 Of 0 tipper a Nixing I,. ark. . • Hamra „ . , , ."- 4111. 0 A^-4'an; ..:,.... ,cz - Medrone \ • Natural dam( 41111,1 ' Ca • itola Fire Station .l,s, 1: is . ; 0/ sousw.• „,- : A , .c.:..hn ,/.. .„...81:f...erk.Co.. V; •:.:., : •oque• ,,,,t ----T .. itvu,.. e _ Twin Laker Slab r Bath r• .; Will31 . ..4.1n:•2 /V CapitOlf Stan Bach . i.r. oft.i. :: e\:9 . 4C7lo'rn°1; N &than Sine • n'' asg,„ 1 Park Ur./ .':.' . organ Sacilff Sum Baal • Aptos v i .10eirE cot ,' ,, U,.." Um I All ill .1L- 54 Alke.s's' . % rt• . Rio Del Mar ' • , rs i -04 '.1••••••• 1. OAR • •••••• • ss't. cy; 16 c.,,,,,,, 44 I N . ''' 1 :'3. ' ....., = La Salvo Beach 4. Mr. M'i od ow. r ..San --i -- il •••• 0. County Pare 2;144':•441:4 .,,," ' Mamas • 4a P...1 -4r State Bach •
'4 i !, reedpris I. t..`"e17 4 Sunset - ' _4 -s , e" ' . • ... ci State Bach ..A Gilroy Array No. 2 - • sonvitle thlr, a. ; 1: I. A Pa jar n • Zinudowski, ; Eco 0,9 • 131 Sane duet I t4' is !te: Mos s Landing j 13 441,Ti St leach • Aromas Hon Landing,, ;- Bons Statiori1. m Salina River San Felip• •••: State bactp--" • c, (a)
Automat pump Sten 8aadvAll S4 an Bautista A /4•4•.. iAuTUrI ( 1 • .Pacific Grove AMa iila -srdour:rA,f, 4.,•41,- .77 < '12 Jr' 1- 4 gi0 Monterey A 3 ' ' Pebble Montatwy ...- MAIN :•",‘ ' • :each .is GATE V Carntel-• '.' ' Rider ... r,a ' Hollister A• • 'ice) Stan c, 3 • 11; 14.;:sEa Back Monterey City Hall -.Formant Ple: , / .\:s. • (D•, e?' 1.1 V" armal 10141007Ir -••3( toel\ Rey Oaks Amitary ", SAGO South/Hollister " •••- . ••\ Salinas 3.10 . Y".• • ..N \ ,, Roarvarion W. ,•1 SO. Aft A • • e'c,s19 10 • (.r... Tra To EP 0 Spreckels Pins, 0 AAA Cermet Vallity To U.S. 101 To Kira dry .' To Pinnacle:
Figure 1-1 Locations of free-field strong ground motion sites. See Table 2-1 for map locations keys to site names and characteristics. California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering
CUREe is an association of California universities formed in 1987 to cooperate in the performance of earthquake engineering research. Its member institutions include:
California Institute of Technology Stanford University University of California, Berkeley University of California, Davis University of California, Irvine University of California, Los Angeles University of California, San Diego University of Southern California
Electric Power Research Institute
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) was formed in 1973 to apply advanced science and technology to the benefit of member utilities and their customers. EPRI's is supported through annual membership dues from over 660 member utilities. Their work covers a wide range of technologies related to the generation, delivery and use of electricity, with special attention paid to cost-effectiveness and environmental concerns.
UJLPE Page 5 2. UJLPE PROJECT MANAGEMENT
CUREe initiated UJLPE in September 1991 under a two year contract with BCS. Dr. Charles C. Thiel Jr., Consulting Professor of Structural Engineering at Stanford University was retained as the Project Manager. A Joint Oversight Committee for the project was appointed with three members each from the sponsor (BCS) and CUREe. They were:
Dr. A. Endo, Kajima Corporation Dr. Yozo Goto, Obayashi Corporation Dr. K. Hagio, Taisei Corporation Professor I.M. Idriss, University of California, Davis Professor H.C. Shah, Stanford University Professor R. Shepherd, University of California, Irvine
The CUREe members served as the CUREe Oversight Committee and regularly met with the Project Manager. The Joint Oversight Committee met four times during the project and once following its completion:
December 10-11, 1991 at Tokyo, Japan March 30, 19 at Yugawara, Japan September 7, 19 at Tokyo, Japan May 17, 1993 at Tokyo, Japan September 6, 1993 at Tokyo, Japan
A meeting was held in conjunction with each JOC meeting with representatives of the sponsors and BCS staff.
CUREe established a Technical Advisory Committee to assist in setting priorities. It met once at the beginning of the project; additional discussions were held with individual members during the project. It had eight CUREe members and three outside experts:
Prof. Ronald Scott California Institute of Technology Prof. Ronnie Borja Stanford University Prof. Nick Sitar University of California, Berkeley Prof. Bruce Kutter University of California, Davis Prof. Jose Pires University of California, Irvine Prof. Miaden Vucetic University of California, Los Angeles Prof. Geoffrey Martin University of Southern California Mr. Thomas Fumal US Geological Survey Dr. Anthony Shakal California Strong Motion Program, Division of Mines and Geology Dr. John Schneider Electric Power Research Institute
Seven sites, six very deep ones, were drilled by EPRI, with technical assistance from USGS and with partial financial support from the University of California at Davis (through a grant from the following companies in Japan: Kiso-Jiban Consultants Co. Ltd.; Mitsui Construction
UJLPE Page 6 Co., Ltd.; NKK Corporation; and, Sato Kogyo Co., Ltd.), and the San Francisco International Airport Authority. Purdue University also contributed access to their holes.
EPRI was able to commit additional internal funds to support drilling and geophysical investigations. These were committed to drilling four sites identified by UJLPE as high priority for investigation and to perform seismic refraction surveys for four other sites. USGS participated in UJLPE by providing geological logging of the UJLPE holes and data on other sites drilled as part of the EPRI program.
UJLPE site investigations
The JOC considered several options for allocating UJLPE resources to drilling and concluded that priority should be given to drilling rock sites. This was done for two basic reasons. First, drilling a soil site is generally much more expensive than for a rock site. Second, relatively few rock sites have been investigated and the UJLPE program could realistically expect to obtain subsurface information for practically all remaining rock sites. A few rock sites had been investigated—Yerba Buena and Corralitos most recently—but the focus for recent drilling had almost exclusively been on soil sites, particularly deep sites. The 25+ rock sites, for which recordings are available from the Loma Prieta earthquake, were evaluated as representing an excellent opportunity to begin to understand how rock type affects local response. Usually the wide range of rock types is lumped together as rock sites without differentiation in analysis. The results of EPRI drilling at Yerba Buena indicated that there was considerable weathering near the surface that could influence strong motion recording. Therefore, the Joint Oversight Committee approved selection of rock sites for first priority investigation, with drilling to proceed as funds allowed. Twenty-one rock sites listed in Table 2-1 were identified for potential investigation.
The cost of investigating rock sites was expected to use all or almost all the available funds. If there was any remaining balance, it was to be allocated to drilling and logging soil sites. While recent USGS and EPRI/USGS field investigations focused on alluvium sites, particularly soft and deep sites, over 50 alluvium sites were identified for which there was no known subsurface information. A priority listing of seven sites was developed to guide selection of soil sites to be drilled with available funds. These sites and the reasons for their selection are given in Table 2-2.
It was recognized that the actual sites to be drilled would depend on obtaining permission from the owner, availability of a suitable site for drilling, and cost. As discussed in Section 4, some adjustments were made during the drilling program.
UJLPE Page 7 Table 2-1 Original proposed listing of rock sites to be investigated. Four digit stations are maintained by the USGS, and five digit stations are maintained by CDMG.
Station Name Station # Calaveras Array, Cherry Flat Reservoir 1696 Hayward 58354 Hollister, SAGO vault 1032 Lawrence Livermore, Site 300 58043 Lexington Dam 57180 Martinez VA 1448 Monterey City Hall 47377 Patterson Pass Road CPP1 Piedmont 58338 Point Bonita 58043 SAGO South/Hollister 47189 San Francisco VA 1225 San Francisco, Cliff House 58132 San Francisco, Diamond Heights 58130 San Francisco, Pacific Heights 58131 San Francisco, Rincon Hill 58151 San Francisco, Telegraph Hill 58133 Santa Cruz, Lick Observatory 58135 South San Francisco, Sierra Point 58133 University of California Haviland Hall 1006 University of California Memorial Stadium NA2 Note: 1. Instrument owned by the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. 2. Instrument owned by the University of California.
Several options were considered for how the rock sites could be investigated: 1) drill sites to sufficient depth to assure that the basement rock type has been encountered and log the holes using down-hole geophysical instruments; 2) drill sites to a modest depth, say 100-± feet, assuring penetration below the weathered section, and log the holes; or, 3) use geophysical methods to determine remotely the velocity profile (refraction) for the site, that is, do not drill the site, but use surface geophysical methods alone to determine the profile.
The first option was evaluated by the JOC as potentially so expensive that it could severely limit the number of sites that could be investigated. The second option has the advantage of surety in the type of material encountered to the depth drilled and that weathering near the surface is adequately characterized; the third has the advantages that it is considerably less expensive than the first or second and provides information to greater depth, but has the distinct disadvantage of not providing "hard" information on the materials encountered. Surface geophysics data were obtained for four representative sites by EPRI. Examination of these results indicated that cost savings and seismic profile
UJLPE Page 8 Table 2-2 Original proposed rank ordering of soil sites to be drilled under UJLPE. The number of sites to be drilled depended on available funds. Priority Name Station # Discussion 1 Capitola 47125 This is the closest alluvium site to the epicenter of the earthquake, about 9 km. It had the second highest ground motion recorded, .54g—the highest was at Corralitos, a rock site. It is believed to be a coarsely graded Holocene alluvium site. 2 Richmond 58503 This is a soft site at about 108 km. from the City Hall epicenter that experienced peak ground accelerations of .13g. This is much higher than alluvium sites at considerable closer distances, two standard deviations above typical attenuation projections for such a site. 3 Menlo Park 1230 This is an alluvium site at about 54 km. from the Veterans epicenter that experienced peak ground Administration accelerations of .27g. This is twice as high as the Hospital Fremont alluvium site at about the same distance, 55 km., but across the Bay. A comparison between the site characteristics of the Menlo and Fremont sites could offer an explanation of their substantially different response. 4 Mission 57064 This is an alluvium site at about 55 km. from the San Jose epicenter that experienced peak ground accelerations of .13g. This is half as high as the Menlo Park VA alluvium site at about the same distance, 55 km., but across the Bay. 5 Saratoga This is an alluvium site at about 27 km. from the epicenter that experienced peak ground accelerations of .33g. This is one of the closest alluvium high acceleration sites yet to be investigated 6 Halls 57191 This is an alluvium site at about 37 km. from the Valley/Grant epicenter that experienced peak ground Park accelerations of .13g. This site had relatively low accelerations for its distance to the epicenter. 7 Agnews State 57066 This is an alluvium site at about 40 km. from the Hospital epicenter that experienced peak ground accelerations of .17g. This is in an area of relatively low observed accelerations. It is expected to be a deep site based on nearby qeotechnical investigations for building sites. resolution were not sufficient to prefer its use. The decision tree analysis used to evaluate the possible outcomes for different approaches had several branches with substantially higher costs than the Option 2 approach of drilling all the sites to a modest depth. The JOC determined that Option 2, drilling through the weathered interface, was the most appropriate approach and it was implemented.
An agreement was completed with EPRI to manage all data acquisition efforts through existing contracts with Woodward-Clyde
UJLPE Page 9 Consultants of Oakland, California for drilling and with Agbabian Associates and Redpath Geophysics for field geophysics. EPRI also had an existing agreement with USGS to provide field logging. These agreements provided favorable costs to UJLPE.
UJLPE Page 10 3. THE LOMA PRIETA EARTHQUAKE
3.1 OVERVIEW OF THE EARTHQUAKE;
The Loma Prieta earthquake of October 17, 1989, (5:04 PM, Pacific Daylight Time) occurred near three, large modem cities—San Jose, San Francisco and Oakland. It was named after the highest topographic point near the fault zone. The epicenter was in a sparsely populated, mountainous area. The fault rupture penetrated upward to within about 4 miles of the ground surface, but did not break the ground surface. The earthquake (7.1M5, 6.9M,,,,) was felt from Los Angeles north to the Oregon State line, and east to western Nevada, BSSA [1991]. It was the largest to occur in the San Francisco Bay area since the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906.
Over 1,300 buildings were destroyed and 20,000 buildings damaged. More than 3,500 businesses were damaged and about 400 destroyed. Thirteen state-owned and five locally owned bridges were closed to traffic following the earthquake. Forty-one people died in the Cypress collapse, and one died on the Bay Bridge in a traffic accident moments after the earthquake. The cost of the earthquake to the transportation system was estimated at $1.8 billion, of which damage to State-owned viaducts totaled about $200 million and damage to other State- owned bridges was about $100 million. Fairly or not, the lasting legacy of the Loma Prieta earthquake probably will be the damage sustained by highway bridges, Housner and Thiel [1990].
The region affected by the strong, potentially damaging, ground motion extended from the Monterey Bay to the San Francisco-Oakland area (Figure 3-1). This area contains a wide range of modern engineered structures representing most forms of current construction: buildings, bridges, dams, tunnels, harbor works, pipelines, and manufacturing facilities. Shaking intensity was VIII on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale (MM!) over an area of 30 miles long and 15 miles wide extending from Los Gatos to Watsonville and Santa Cruz. An outer zone of intensity VII extended 60+ miles northwest to San Francisco and Oakland, and 30 miles southeast to Salinas and Hollister. Within these regions, free-field, peak horizontal accelerations exceeded 60% g close to the source and were as high as 26% g at a distance of 60 miles. Strong shaking lasted less than 10 seconds.
The regional damage distribution differed in several respects from what might have been expected. The duration of strong shaking was about half as long as typical for a Magnitude 7.1 earthquake; ground motions were lower than would have been expected in San Jose, near the source, and higher than expected in the San Francisco-Oakland area, distant from the source. The nature of the soil conditions, both in the epicentral region and in the Bay area, played a very strong role in the damage distribution in this as well as in most California earthquakes. The ground motions in the Bay Area at soft soil sites, where much of the damage to bridges and viaducts
UJLPE Page 11 0 10 20 30 Miles
Figure 3-1 Isoseismal map of the damage impacts of the Loma Prieta earthquake. MM! VII is termed strong shaking and is described by the types of effects observed: weak unrein forced buildings damaged; unrein forced masonry chimneys broken at roof lines; disruption of building contents; plaster cracked. MM! VIII is termed very strong shaking: damage to non earthquake-resistant structures can be significant, with some collapses, particularly those in poor condition; damage to nonstructural elements in modern, seismically resistant buildings; and substantial disruption of building contents and toppling of unanchored equipment. Figure taken from Housner and Thiel [1990] based on maps prepared by the USGS. occurred, were significantly greater than the motions recorded at nearby rock and stiff soil sites.
Many reports and papers have been written that characterize the overall impacts of this earthquake on buildings and lifelines, Thiel, Housner, and Tobin [1991], Housner and Thiel [1990], and Benuska [1990]. Newer buildings generally performed well during and after the earthquake. Unreinforced masonry buildings experienced collapse and severe damage in the epicentral region and in the regions with poor soils, and these events resulted in loss of life. Older wood frame houses in the Santa Cruz and Watsonville areas suffered severe damage from collapse of unbraced cripple walls and thousands were made homeless by such failures. Older wood frame residential structures in the Marina area of San Francisco
UJLPE Page 12 sustained major damage due too weak first stories, principally because of garage openings, poor condition, and poor soils.
3.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGICAL AND SEISMOLOGICAL SETTING
The strong motion accelerograph sites are located within the California Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province. Two basic bedrock complexes are present: the Franciscan Assemblage, which consists of an array of continental and ocean floor deposits that were commingled in a subduction zone, and an intrusive granitic and metamorphic complex referred to as the Salinian block. The bedrock complexes are separated by faults, and are locally overlain by great thicknesses of Cretaceous and Cenozoic sedimentary rocks. The entire geomorphic province is strongly affected by folds, thrust faults, steep reverse faults and strike slip faults that developed as a consequence of deformations that began in the Cenozoic time [Page 1966, Taliaferro 1951]. The most prolonged and extensive displacement has occurred along the San Andreas fault system.
The Salinian block is bounded on the northeast by the San Andreas fault and on the southwest by the the San Gregorio fault system, see Figure 3-2. Its most prominent physiographic feature is the Salinas Valley, within which the bedrock complex is concealed by as much as three kilometers of Tertiary sediments. Bedrock is widely exposed in the Montara Mountains- Ben Lomond Mountain zone, in the Santa Lucia Range, the Sierra de Salinas, and the Gabilan Mountains. The Santa Cruz/Lick Observatory Laboratory, Capitola Fire Station, Monterey City Hall, and SAGO South/Holister sites are located within the Salinian block.
Franciscan assemblage rocks are extremely diverse; the prevalent rock type is sandstone [Taliaferro, 1951]. Shale also is common with chert, limestone, altered volcanics, and metamorphic rocks comprising smaller percentages of this assemblage. Serpentine is commonly associated with fault contact, with rocks of the Franciscan Assemblage. Rocks of the Franciscan Assemblage are widely exposed in San Mateo, San Francisco and Mann Counties, but are overlain by Tertiary rock units and by poorly consolidated sedimentary units of Plio-Pleistocene age in the eastern San Francisco Bay region and Santa Clara Valley. In general, they are present at great depths beneath the San Francisco Bay and the Santa Clara Valley. They also are deeply buried along the east side of the Berkeley Hills, where they are overlapped by Cretaceous sedimentary rocks of the Great Valley Sequence.
San Francisco Bay and Santa Clara Valley occupy a structural geologic depression bounded by the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Gabilan Range on the west and by the Mount Hamilton Range and the Berkeley Hills on the east. The central part of this depression has been filled to great depths by interfingering, relatively coarse-grained alluvial deposits and clay deposited in a subaqueous environment. The great thickness of the deposits
UJLPE Page 13 0
ve4e
1- 38°
San Francisco
IN
- 37'
30 mi. \A• i t I 0-IN %.N \ % •1
I \x
Figure 3-2 Simplified map showing faults in the San Francisco Bay area.
is the result of tectonic downwarping and the sea level fluctuations in response to glaciation during Pleistocene times [Norris and Webb, 1976]. Significant, but much lesser, deposits are the result of smaller Holocene sea-level fluctuations [Atwater et al, 1977]. In general, the Pleistocene deposits are covered with a relatively thin mantle of Holocene deposits. The youngest materials close to the present Bay shoreline are comprised largely of soft, plastic clay, with interbedded sand, organic matter, and shells. This