Seismic loss and damage in light‐frame wood buildings from sequences of induced earthquakes

Abstract

Summary Activities related to oil and gas production, especially deep disposal of wastewater, have led to sequences of induced earthquakes in the central United States. This study aims to quantify damage to and seismic losses for light‐frame wood buildings when subjected to sequences of induced, small to moderate magnitude, events. To conduct this investigation, one‐ and two‐story multifamily wood frame buildings are designed, and their seismic response dynamically simulated using three‐dimensional nonlinear models, subjected to ground motion sequences recorded in induced events. Damage is quantified through seismic losses, which are estimated using the FEMA P‐58 methodology. Results show that at levels of shaking experienced in recent earthquakes, minor damage, consisting of cracking of interior finishes and nonstructural damage to plumbing and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, is expected, which is consistent with observed damage in these events. The study also examines how expected losses and building fragility will accumulate and/or change over a sequence of earthquakes. Results indicate that damage quantified in terms of absorbed hysteretic energy tended to accumulate over the sequences; this damage corresponds to elongation or widening of cracks. However, fragility is not significantly altered by damage in a preceding event, meaning structures are not becoming more vulnerable due to existing damage. In addition, sequences of events do not change losses if the building is only repaired once at the end of the sequence, as the worsening of damage does not alter repair actions. If repairs are conducted after each event, though, total seismic losses can increase greatly from the sequence.

Magnitude thresholds and spatial footprints of damage from induced earthquakes

“…Similar patterns of damage have been experienced in other recent OK earthquakes (e.g. Taylor et al, 2016), and observed in analytical studies (Chase et al, 2019).…”

Value at Induced Risk: Injection‐Induced Seismic Risk From Low‐Probability, High‐Impact Events

“…Risk-based TLSs were proposed by Douglas & Aochi, 2014, in terms of the risk of nuisance, and by Mignan et al, 2015, in terms of damage potential. For induced seismicity in the central United States, recent studies assess induced seismic risk by quantifying the damage to and seismic losses for specific building types (Chase et al, 2019) and life safety risks to building occupants (Liu et al, 2019).…”

Quantifying the effects of long‐duration earthquake ground motions on the financial losses of steel moment resisting frame buildings of varying design risk category

“…With the development of the second‐generation performance‐based earthquake engineering (PBEE) methodology, 5,6 decision makers and building stakeholders have been able to make more informed decisions for optimal design alternatives and seismic retrofit measures with modest seismic losses in the postearthquake environment; decision bases include seismic losses associated with probabilistic repair costs (financial losses), life‐safety risk, and loss of function due to damage to a wide variety of structural and nonstructural building components. While several researchers have begun to pay attention to evaluating economic seismic losses in recent years, particularly for reinforced concrete, 7–13 steel, 14–18 wood, 19–21 and high‐performance structures, 22,23 seismic loss assessments have only been partial in prior studies; such efforts have been focused mainly upon structures designed as standard occupancy use (ie, risk category II structures).…”