In 1994, Northridge, California, was struck by a 6.7 magnitude earthquake, which caused extensive damage to the area. KPFF’s Structural Engineers were among the first responders who arrived to assess the damage and develop plans for rebuilding the community. KPFF’s response to the quake is considered a crucial moment in our history, and many employees credit it as a turning point in the company’s success.

Last summer, as the 30th anniversary of the earthquake was approaching, and with several retirements on the horizon, we decided to preserve the stories related to the event. What began as an update to a few slides turned into a full documentary. Scope creep at is finest.

With the Hollywood strikes ongoing, we enlisted the help of a striking television writer to help tell our story. His availability allowed us to complete the documentary in only a few weeks, leaving me and the rest of the marketing team fully available support our office with proposals and other marketing tasks.

Initially, there was some hesitation from the participants, but once in front of the camera, the stories flowed easily. “It really bonded us to work as a team,” reflects Susan Crichton. From Joe Stewart quarterbacking calls from owners and clients, to Juan Hinds-Rico entertaining employees from out-of-town, we worked together to accomplish the tasks at hand.

Although the most meme-able moment was Mike Dygean claiming “we don’t know sh–” when it came to facing the disaster head-on (yes, we already have a gif), Ramzi Hodali had perhaps the most inspiring reflection of the time: “I would say what we do matters. We’re here to save lives…create safe buildings.”

The documentary was first shown at the 2023 Fall LAS Basecamp, KPFF’s New Hire Orientation. Later, it was screened at a “World Premiere” party for the entire LAS staff on January 16, 2024, a day before the 30th Anniversary of the quake. The full documentary was made available to the public on January 17, 2024. “I get chills every time I watch it,” Joe Stewart shared. “My wife loved it.” You can watch the complete documentary by clicking here.

The post What We Do Matters: A Look Back on KPFF’s Response to the 1994 Northridge Quake appeared first on KPFF Greater Los Angeles Structural.

The age of the construction inherently presents a lateral resisting system (consisting of perimeter concrete walls at the basement and concrete frames above grade) that lacks adequate detailing for a ductile seismic response. Preliminary retrofit schemes, developed by another firm, incorporated conventional strengthening approaches, including the addition of exterior braced frames or moment frames. The initial project scope as envisioned by UCLA was the selection and implementation of one of the preliminary schemes. Recognizing that such a retrofit would have significantly impacted the architectural nature of the building, as well as presenting significant cost, construction duration, and disruption to ongoing research within the building, the project team explored potential retrofit alternatives that would work in concert with the existing architecture and alleviate negative impacts.

The prominent façade consists of tightly spaced, uniquely profiled concrete beams and columns that support the gravity load from the exterior structural bays. The primary deficiency identified in prior seismic evaluations was an apparent shear failure at the beam/column joints, colloquially referred to as the “fin column” and “ledge beam” system, initiating at extremely low drift ratios on the order of 0.1% to 0.25%. Recognizing that this conclusion was based on existing ASCE 41-13 component models that were developed for conventional concrete frames with larger dimensions and spans than those occurring in this building, we hypothesized that the inherent redundancy from the numerous columns and the potential for load sharing between the ledge beams and the interior waffle slab floor system would significantly enhance the ductility of the system, and accommodate drift ratios on the order of 1% or more at the collapse prevention performance objective. As the specific details could not be precisely modeled with existing ASCE 41 guidelines, and a literature search did not reveal any prior research into similar structural systems, our team identified the “knowledge gap” between the analytical models and the intuition, and conceived of a component testing program to test this hypothesis and develop a better model of the seismic response of the façade structural system, thereby bridging the knowledge gap and supporting the development of a more elegant seismic retrofit solution.

The component testing program was developed in collaboration with Dr. John Wallace at UCLA, and consisted of the construction and testing of 2/3 scale component models to explicitly determine the deformation capacity of the façade structure. The specimen was designed by Dr. Wallace, and PhD Candidate Ellie Moore with the UCLA Civil and Environmental Engineering Structural Design and Testing Laboratory, and constructed by PCL Construction’s Special Projects Group. The test specimen was based on a location at the base of the tower where fixity imposed by the large transfer girder resulted in the highest deformation demands on the system. The final test specimen included five columns, extended vertically for one and a half stories and included one-half of an interior floor framing bay. Inclusion of the interior bay was critical to impose the appropriate rotational restraint on the columns for out-of-plane deformations, and to simulate the load sharing between the ledge beams and the waffle slab gravity framing. Gravity and overturning axial demands were applied to the columns by a system of actuators while biaxial lateral deformations were imposed on the specimen. A figure-eight displacement pattern was utilized, with increasing displacement amplitudes applied on each cycle. The tests were conceived to be conducted until a loss in axial capacity was realized in the columns, however the tests were eventually limited by the lateral displacement limitations of the actuators and no loss of vertical capacity was observed in the testing.

Upon completion of the testing program, the instrument data was used to develop hysteresis loops that were further distilled into a backbone curves for the façade components. The resulting data successfully bridged the “knowledge gap” by showing a nearly tenfold increase in allowable deformation at the Life- Safety and Collapse-Prevention performance objectives. Preliminary 3-dimensional nonlinear analytical models were refined through incorporation of the experimentally derived backbone curves. Analysis was performed with Perform3D software using the nonlinear dynamic procedure in ASCE 41-.-13. GeoPentech conducted a site-specific seismic hazard analysis to obtain seven pairs of ground motion records representing a uniform hazard spectra for 225 year (20% in 50 years), 475 year (10% in 50 years), 975 year (5% in 50 years), and 2475 year (2% in 50 years) return-period earthquakes.

The nonlinear analysis demonstrated that the addition of supplemental damping was an effective means to reduce interstory drift to the order of 1% to 2% at the 475 year and 2475 year return-period earthquakes representing the BSE-1N and BSE-2N hazard levels. As these drift levels were comfortably under the Life Safety and Collapse Prevention limits derived from the experimental results, the retrofit objective was set at achieving a SPL III rating under the UC Seismic Safety Policy through the introduction of supplemental damping. Analysis also demonstrated that a limited number of interior columns required the addition of confining FRP wraps to meet the required ductility demands.

The damping system developed for the project utilized fluid viscous damper devices installed in-line with steel drivers placed on primary grids between beam and column joints. Analysis demonstrated that the addition of four damper devices per floor from grade to Level 6 effectively limited the building drifts sufficiently to meet the SPL III rating objective. At the lower levels, dampers were implemented in discrete locations at the building perimeter, while dampers on the upper stories were located on interior grid lines and incorporated into a full interior remodel designed by CO Architects. Meticulous attention was given to details that subtly reveal the presence of the dampers while seamlessly integrated into the building architecture. Most notably, the exterior braces were connected to the structure using a discrete, bespoke picture frame gusset plate conceived by CO Architects, demonstrating their high level of attention to design details. The remodel also included opening the original lobby into a two-story space by removing a portion of the mezzanine level. The overall retrofit scheme was designed to minimize the impact on the exterior and historical aspects of the building, and preserving maximum usable space in the interior.

Our collaboration with Rudolph and Sletten, the general contractor, included an early procurement package for the viscous damping devices, which were manufactured by Taylor Devices. The project team understood that the lead time for the dampers, estimated at six months, was a critical path that needed to be addressed as soon as the testing phase was complete. Additionally, the retrofit scheme minimized the number of attachment points to the structure in order to reduce vibrations that could disrupt ongoing research within the basement levels which would remain occupied. Extensive preconstruction investigations helped ensure that unforeseen conditions were minimized and the high level of attention on detailing and the commitment from all of the team members to deliver a great final product resulted in smooth construction and installation.

The preservation of this architectural gem is inherently the most sustainable outcome for the UCLA campus. The ability to continue using an existing building significantly reduces the use of new materials, waste from demolition, and develops a sense of place for the students on campus. The retrofit scheme required only 20 new bracing elements which minimized the introduction of new materials and the carbon emissions associated with the manufacture and transport of major structural elements, and particularly with the introduction of new concrete. In addition to preserving a part of the campus culture, the cost savings and construction schedule improvements demonstrate that this retrofit scheme successfully integrated new research, nonlinear analysis and viscous damping technologies to provide another 50 years of service for this campus landmark.

The post UCLA Pritzker Hall Seismic RenovationExcellence in Structural Engineering SEAOSC 2021 Award appeared first on KPFF Greater Los Angeles Structural.

In the middle of a staff meeting on Friday, November 30, 2018, the Director of Construction for one of our long-time clients texted me…

Time to get out the winter jacket! Fortunately, when I checked the weather on my phone, I saw that the temperatures were in the 30’s and 40’s. I went home immediately after the earthquake, packed my bag and awaited confirmation that the client wanted me to go.

Being ready to assist the community and our clients when there is a natural disaster is part of being a structural engineer. KPFF LA’s response to the 1994 Northridge Earthquake is pivotal in the history of the LA Structural office. One of the lessons I’ve learned after immediately arriving on site post-earthquake to assist our clients in Fullerton and Napa is that getting to these campuses as soon as possible is critical. People are nervous about any damage they see, from a harmless razor thin concrete crack that probably has been there for years to the non-structural damage (including their personal belongings) strewn about, even if there is no damage to main structural systems. It is incredibly helpful just to be a calm, concerned professional and to be there to help calm nerves and triage the critical damage from the incidental.

At the time of the staff meeting, I wasn’t aware earlier that day on Friday, November 30, 2018, at 8:29 a.m. local time, a magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck 10 miles north of Anchorage. Anchorage is in an area of very high seismic activity including the 1964 Good Friday magnitude 9.2 earthquake that is the largest ever recorded in North America and the second largest ever recorded. So, when I got on that red eye flight Friday night, I wasn’t really sure what I was going to encounter from the earthquake damage, the daytime darkness, the weather and my wife’s fear of me being eaten by a bear.

I visited our client’s campus and several offsite buildings to perform a visual observation of the buildings and to determine if any significant damage had occurred that affected the life safety or usability of the buildings. None of the observed structures showed signs of significant damage to the primary structural system. However, all the buildings on the main campus (closest to the epicenter) did have some degree of damage to secondary systems. The secondary system damage was not a structural life-safety issue but did need to be addressed from an operational and cleanliness perspective for the facility.

What I have since learned about this earthquake is that its frequency content was such that it was felt strongly by people (very short period ground motion) and by unbraced non-structural systems (very long period ground motion). The frequency content most applicable to a building’s primary structural system was not as pronounced. This helps explain why the people of Anchorage, who experience earthquake activity on a regular basis, felt that this earthquake was particularly strong. It also explains the fairly significant amount of non-structural damage without damage to the primary structural systems. Most institutional buildings in Anchorage were constructed after the large 1964 Good Friday earthquake and designed to current codes, keeping the primary structural systems intact during this 2018 Anchorage earthquake. We don’t see this for some of the older institutional buildings in Southern California.

So, I’m relieved to report that I did not freeze to death or get eaten by a bear. Most importantly I was happy to support a client and the Anchorage community when in need. I will say that the closest I came to danger is when this moose almost ran into my Uber. Yes, I just used the words “moose” and “Uber” in the same sentence.

The post 2018 Anchorage Earthquake appeared first on KPFF Greater Los Angeles Structural.

We are working on several soft story projects related to this ordinance, with half of our projects currently under construction or completed. Additionally we have been in conversations with owners of non-ductile concrete buildings, with whom we expect to work on the seismic evaluation and retrofit design of their structures. Owners of non-ductile concrete buildings have a more generous compliance deadline than owners of soft story buildings (25 years vs. 7 years), therefore we expect that it will take some time before we see owners of non-ductile concrete buildings initiating the process of evaluation and retrofit of their buildings.

The post Los Angeles Seismic Ordinance Update appeared first on KPFF Greater Los Angeles Structural.