Minamisanriku, Japan, after the M9.0 earthquake and tsunami in 2011 source: Richard Eisner
If you live in the Pacific Northwest, you should prepare for a large earthquake.
I say this not because I know we will get a large earthquake in the near future, although that’s a notable possibility. Even a probability.
My main reason for saying this is that preparing for an earthquake covers all sorts of disruptive events that are seeming more likely and more imminent.
Consider the likely aftermath of a Cascadia Megaquake, concluded in the 2013 Oregon Resilience Plan:
These are not minor implications. Imagine being 1 to 12 months without clean and available drinking water, and 1 to 3 months without reliable electricity. Something like this will happen. It’s just a matter of time.
But back to my original point. Other disastrous events seem more likely than they used to be. I’ll name a few.
Natural disasters such as wildfires.
Civil unrest. Our nation is becoming more divided than ever, at least in modern history. And the last few years have not helped.
Economic collapse of some sort.The United States and other nations have been on an unsustainable spending spree for decades, but especially the last 15 years or so. The last few years have not helped on this front, either. It’s not going to end well.
I could go on. Global tensions are higher. Russia and Ukraine are currently at war. We are not guaranteed peace in North America.
I do not believe in spreading irrational fear (and I’m not). I suspect you feel it, too. I want to help save lives and help us to prosper as we move into an uncertain future.
The February 2023 earthquake in Turkey and Syria reminded us of how fragile the world is. Source: EERI
Chris Goldfinger went on record with a calculation that there is about a 1 in 3 chance of a Magnitude 8 or higher earthquake off the coast of Oregon in the next 50 years (See “The Really Big One” New Yorker article).
Let us assume that estimate of probability is accurate. Consider what kind of odds we have of any significant disruptive event in the next 50 years- say, a regional, national, or global event, but one that affects us in our location. They’re high… very high.
Many other disruptive events could have similar effects on life and infrastructure in the Pacific Northwest as a large earthquake.
I’ll throw something else out here for consideration. I noticed after the December 2022 M6.4 Ferndale earthquake in northern California, Temblor (an earthquake risk assessment and catastrophe modeling company based in the Bay Area) had this to say: “The (Ferndale) quake produced severe shaking in a lightly populated area, (and) brought the southern tip of the Cascadia Subduction Zone slightly closer to failure…”
Tectonic action is often happening beneath us and off the coast that remind us that the Cascadia Subduction Zone is indeed active, and a large earthquake is looming. The Ferndale earthquake was a recent reminder.
Damage to Molalla High School after the 1993 M5.6 Scotts Mills Earthquake, about 20 miles south of Portland, Oregon
Priorities?
There are many good personal and family goals worthy to be pursued, so earthquake preparedness does not always seem like it needs to be an urgent priority. In addition, our exceedingly distracting world does not help us achieve goals, in general.
Please consider putting earthquake preparedness at or near the top of your list. Or, if you don’t live in earthquake country, preparedness for a particular event that aligns with your region. I would argue that some things we are often encouraged to prioritize should go below earthquake preparedness.
The point of this post is not to get into preparedness details, but think of food, water, sanitation, personal fitness, etc. It’s a time-consuming endeavor and probably needs to be thought of more as a lifestyle change than a checklist of things to get done. A perk about preparedness is that it can overlap with activities that we tend to value in the Pacific Northwest: camping, biking, gardening, hunting, etc.
For information about seismic assessments or retrofitting of a home or building, please see the Cascadia Risk Solutions website.
Whether or not the big earthquake happens in the near future, now is the time to prepare for it.
Home and building owners, as well as renters, in hillside neighborhoods need accurate information about their earthquake risk so they can make informed decisions.
Hillside homes can have high, even catastrophic, earthquake risk. The previous two posts discussed common geological and structural problems with hillside homes.
But if you live in or own a hillside home, what should you do? Move away? Just live with the risk, and hope “The Really Big One” doesn’t happen in your lifetime? Get the house seismically upgraded? Get more information?
Yes, those are the four options that come to my mind:
1. Move Away?
I’ll address this first, because many reading this are concerned about earthquake risk. Of those of you who own and/or live in a hillside home, I’m guessing a high percentage of you didn’t know how dangerous this type of home can be in an earthquake. It’s likely no one told you anything about earthquakes when you bought or moved into the house, in fact, it may not have even entered your mind at the time. But here you are, and now you are thinking of moving, perhaps.
Moving away makes sense if:
You are confident the house is dangerous, and
You’re confident that it would be too expensive for your budget to fix, and/or
You aren’t too attached to the home, or maybe you don’t even like it.
Moving out of a hillside home that you perceive to be dangerous makes more sense, in my opinion, than staying and living with the risk. But you may want to consider my last point (#4 below) before moving.
2. Keep the house and live with the risk?
I certainly don’t recommend this. But there are some situations that are less risky than others.
If you own multiple homes and are rarely occupying the house, risk (at least life-safety risk) is obviously lessened simply due to the fact that you aren’t around much. If you don’t have kids and travel often, that’s a similar situation.
If you have a family, especially with a spouse or kids staying home during the day, you genuinely could be putting their lives at risk by not addressing potential seismic vulnerabilities in the place where most of their time is spent.
If your house is looming over your neighbor’s house down the hill, they could be at risk also due to your home’s earthquake vulnerabilities. You may both have earthquake insurance policies (unlikely), but that can’t make up for loss of life. Just something else to think about before you decide to do nothing.
Interestingly, there may be an economic argument against doing nothing also. Suppose your hillside home is worth a million dollars. Let’s say the chance of a severe earthquake affecting this house in the next 50 years is 20 percent (this is in the ballpark of what seismologists have estimated). Suppose the odds of collapse of the home during the earthquake are 50 percent (arbitrary number), with severe damage likely even if it does not collapse. A retrofit costing in the tens of thousands of dollars, or even $100,000, isn’t necessarily unreasonable in this circumstance, for those with the available capital and desire to keep the home.
There are situations where a retrofit could be more costly, but this would be difficult to know without more information (which is why I like Option #4 below).
It’s also possible that the house has low risk of seismic damage. In that case, it may be reasonable to live with the risk. But how would you know this? You probably need a specific assessment to be sure.
A collapsed California house after the Northridge Earthquake. This will likely happen to some hillside homes in Oregon and Washington when we get our “Big One”. Please take a look at this picture and ponder if you are okay living with this risk before choosing to do so.
3. Have your home seismically upgraded?
Of course, I recommend a seismic upgrade for many hillside homes. I’m concerned about the risk of a Cascadia Megaquake, and what it will do to hillside neighborhoods. This is why I’m writing this and specializing in this type of work.
But the choice to upgrade the home has to work economically. Hillside home seismic upgrades can be expensive, and not only does the money need to be there to pay for the upgrade, but the benefit should be worth the cost to the homeowner. I recommend spending the time necessary up front so you have a good ballpark figure of the cost.
Don’t Mess Around With Cascadia
I strongly believe in conservatism with seismic upgrades. Our Cascadia Subduction Zone could produce a magnitude 9.0+ earthquake that could last 3 to 5 minutes. This earthquake will last much longer than earthquakes that have caused the collapse of hillside homes in California in recent decades. Homes that have poor seismic force resisting systems (such as stilts with wood bracing) could degrade with each cycle of ground shaking, and there could be hundreds of cycles in this type of earthquake.
My point is this: if you are going to do an upgrade, do something that will actually work. Don’t just pay someone a few hundred bucks to take a quick look at your house and give you a few cheap recommendations. Count the cost ahead of time and be willing to pay for the thorough upgrade that you really want, that will really do what it needs to do when the ground shakes longer than an average pop song.
Hillside home seismic upgrades are complex, and involve much more than just “attaching the home to the foundation”.
You will need a structural engineer who specializes in hillside building seismic upgrades. I’m trying to be that guy because there’s a need there, but if you find someone else who qualifies, that’s great! More engineers need to be doing this, in fact, we really need an “army” of specialty engineers and contractors retrofitting homes and buildings ahead of the earthquake who are passionate about this kind of life-saving work.
You will, in many cases, need a geotechnical engineer also. Geological risks can’t be ignored and can sometimes drive the cost of seismic rehabilitation through the roof. If landslide risk is high, mitigation may be expensive or even virtually impossible. Make sure you figure this out with a geotechnical investigation, and make sure their recommendations are followed in the seismic upgrade. Or, if landslide risk is apparently low, at least have a structural engineer consider slope stability in the seismic upgrade including a conservative design with a new foundation if needed.
A stepped foundation collector I designed for a hillside home built in 2001. The intent of this design is to prevent the stepped shear wall failure (described in the previous blog post) by directing seismic loads into the high part of the foundation. I communicated to the homeowner that this type of failure was unlikely for her house, but I couldn’t rule it out. She wanted to strengthen the house. I believe it was a reasonable decision that gave her house a “belt and suspenders”- i.e. some redundancy, to help her and her family sleep better at night.
Hillside Retrofit Economics
Some hillside homes are almost beyond hope of an adequate seismic retrofit due to high landslide risk or a combination of structural problems. It is possible that effective strengthening measures could cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars if the owner wants to really mitigate their slope stability or significant structural weaknesses. There is little benefit to retrofitting a home structurally if the ground it sits on is unstable.
The earthquake risk of hillside homes varies significantly from house to house and from site to site, and the cost of a necessary seismic retrofit can vary from $0 (no retrofit necessary) to extremely expensive. The decision to upgrade, move away, or live with the risk is a personal decision based on life-safety concerns, risk tolerance, and personal economics.
Due to the variability of cost and the many factors affecting the seismic risk of hillside homes, there is a need for good, up-front information for hillside homeowners.
4. Get More Information.
I hope the information in these blog posts about hillside homes is helpful for making decisions. Since the information is not house-specific, however, many need to go a step further.
Consulting a structural and/or geotechnical engineer is appropriate, and I am happy to do this. My preferred approach is to use a developed seismic risk assessment methodology. I currently use FEMA P-50, P-58, and ASCE 41, depending on the situation. You can learn more about these assessments here.
I believe seismic risk assessments have great value, and are a good first step in the decision process. If you hire me for an assessment, you will get a structural engineer’s opinion (a qualitative assessment) as well as an analytical (quantitative) assessment. This first-pass information can be done quickly at a relatively low cost, to help develop the “big picture” of what a potential retrofit would look like and what the potential benefits are.
“FEMA P-50” is a good seismic methodology that applies to most hillside homes. It will grade the house (with a letter grade from A to D-) based on how well it will perform in our largest expected earthquake. When I assess a home this way, I develop retrofit concepts and then grade the house pre-retrofit and post-retrofit. Sometimes I will provide a “lean” retrofit option, in addition to a more thorough retrofit option, if that makes sense for the particular structure.
Even if your hillside home was engineered relatively recently, it doesn’t hurt to have it double-checked. Engineers make mistakes sometimes, and hillside home retrofits can be difficult to design correctly.
If you’ve read all three of my blog posts on hillside homes, you can hopefully tell that I’m trying to sound the alarm regarding earthquake risk with these types of homes. However, not all hillside homes are in danger.
My main point is that there are many variables to seismic risk with these unique structures. To make an informed decision about what to do, hillside homeowners need accurate information that takes all these variables into account. This information may lead you in many different directions depending on your specific house and personal situation.
For more information about seismic risk assessments and retrofitting, please see the Cascadia Risk Solutions website.
The view from hillside homes can be amazing, but this usually comes with higher earthquake risk.
“Resilience” has become a hot topic in recent years, and rightly so. It’s defined as a region’s ability to rebound after a disaster. We look at cities such as New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and now Houston after Hurricane Harvey, and recognize cities that were not resilient to a known disaster coming at some point.
A Cascadia Megaquake is our unprecedented disaster, at least, the one that we are methodically ticking closer to on the geological clock.
Our city and region have a long way to go to become resilient. If you want to be more convinced of this, please read the Oregon Resilience Plan Executive Summary. It’s been estimated that perhaps 80 percent of our buildings in Oregon do not comply with the current seismic code requirements (this does not mean most of them would fall down, but some of them would)! For most of Portland’s history, buildings have gone up, and remained, with little regard to earthquake forces or effects.
When I think of dangerous buildings to be in during an earthquake, URM’s (unreinforced masonry or brick), hillside homes, soft-story buildings, and old “tilt-up” buildings come to mind.
Yes, hillside homes can be among the most dangerous places to be in an earthquake, and this post is about the seismic hazards unique to this category of buildings.
A hillside neighborhood in northwest Portland.
The basic seismic retrofit that involves strengthening measures implemented in a crawl space or a basement is becoming familiar. But Hillside homes are often not in the conversation, and they need to be.
Hillside homes are common in Portland and other west coast cities. Many of them went up in the 1960’s, when earthquake risk was considered low. They have great views and character. Unfortunately, they can have catastrophic damage in earthquakes.
Hillside homes are by far the most dangerous demographic of single-family residential structures, as measured in recent California earthquake fatalities.
If you live in a hillside home, you are not necessarily in danger during an earthquake. Your structure is just more likely than other homes to be dangerous. I encourage you to take in the information in this post and get a sense of what the risks of your particular home are, so you can take appropriate action.
Some hillside homes seem to compete with each other over which one can defy gravity the most. I’m concerned that gravity may defy some of these houses when the big earthquake shakes for 3 to 5 minutes.
FEMA’s P-50-1 document gives us the following statistics from the 1994 Northridge earthquake (magnitude 6.7) in the Los Angeles area:
114 hillside dwellings were significantly damaged.
15 hillside dwellings collapsed or were so severely damaged that they had to be immediately demolished.
Another 15 hillside dwellings were close to collapse.
At least four people died in these homes.
Other earthquakes, such as the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake near San Francisco, have also resulted in hillside home collapses and fatalities.
The remnants of a hillside home after the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
Geology Concerns
We have unique geological risks in the Pacific Northwest with hillside homes. The soil in the hills around here often consists of a top layer of clayey or sandy silt, somewhere on the order of 30 feet deep, underlain with bedrock. Earthquakes can trigger landslides, landslides are more likely in saturated soils, and saturated soils are a common condition in the rain-soaked northwest. This soft layer of soil can slip away under the right conditions.
Remember the winter of 2017? The west hills of Portland had numerous landslides earlier this year. Landslides happen during earthquakes even in dry conditions; imagine what would happen if the big earthquake strikes at the end of a soggy winter?
Landslide risk is not only a concern at the exact site of a house or directly below it; an unstable slope above could be equally damaging. Even a landslide just down the street could destroy the road that accesses the home and cause severe injury or death of neighbors.
I’m not suggesting that most hillside homes will collapse and slide down the hill. But landslide risk is important to know about if you live in the hills, and some houses are in high-risk areas.
A landslide that occurred in an Alaska neighborhood during the Great Alaska Earthquake (M9.2) of 1964.
The Oregon Department of Geology is expecting tens of thousands of landslides to occur during a full rupture of the Cascadia Subduction Zone. The most at-risk areas have been mapped for the entire state of Oregon on a macro level in an online interactive map called “SLIDO“; they include areas where past landslides have been documented and steep slopes with soil characteristics prone to landslides. “A Homeowner’s Guide to Landslides” by the Washington Geological Survey is another helpful tool homeowners can use to qualitatively assess landslide risk.
I’m concerned that the seismic risk to hillside homes in our region may be worse than California, just from landslide risk alone.
A snapshot of Portland on the “SLIDO” landslide hazard map by DOGAMI. Brown and red areas indicate past landslides. Notice that entire neighborhoods have been built on some of these areas.
What this all boils down to is that an adequate seismic risk assessment or retrofit of a hillside home will often need the input of a geotechnical engineer as well as a structural engineer.
If the soil appears sound and landslide risk appears to be low, at the very least a structural engineer that is attentive to slope stability and geological risks is needed. Sometimes a conservative design with the foundation (such as a continuous footing with significant reinforcing) can make up for limited soil information. I’ll discuss this more in my next post.
I’ve become a proponent of FEMA’s “simplified” seismic assessments and perform them regularly on houses. I highly recommend this as a starting point for those concerned about the seismic risk of a hillside home. They are affordable and take into account both structural and geological seismic vulnerabilities. This methodology makes a relatively thorough, first-pass assessment and helps quantify the benefit of a retrofit and the likely costs involved.
For more information about seismic risk assessments and retrofitting, please see the Cascadia Risk Solutions website.
One of the top priorities in preparing for an earthquake is making sure your home is safe.
Many homeowners in the Pacific Northwest are concerned about how their home will perform in a large earthquake, but they are confused. Some think earthquake insurance is the next step, but haven’t thought much beyond that. Others (wisely) have considered earthquake retrofitting. But that opens the door to all sorts of questions, like:
How do I verify that the retrofit will actually be effective?
Does my house go from bad to awesome in terms of earthquake performance, or bad to okay, after the retrofit?
Is my house okay without any seismic strengthening?
What else should I do besides the retrofit? What do I need to do myself?
House with failed cripple wall- South Napa earthquake, 2014
My goal is to provide as much useful, free information as possible, and shed some light on a confusing topic.
Earthquake Vulnerabilities are no Mystery
Although earthquake awareness has increased much in the Pacific Northwest, many people are so overwhelmed by the thought of it that some make statements like this:
“There’s no way we can know what will happen to our house after a 9.0 earthquake”- Typical pessimist’s home earthquake risk assessment
While it’s true that we can’t know for sure what will happen, we can make good estimates based on past earthquake data and engineering principles. Plenty of helpful information is out there, and it’s available to those of us who have searched for it and used it in our work. I’d like it to be more available to the general public, which is why I’m writing this.
I’ve been amazed at the wealth of information available at sources such as FEMA or various earthquake engineers I’ve spoken to in California who have designed earthquake strengthening measures for buildings and then seen them tested with actual earthquakes.
Methodologies to assess earthquake risk have been in development for decades, and are based on actual earthquake damage to various building types.
FEMA’s P-50 (for houses) and P-58 (for various building types) methodologies are very helpful resources for assessing earthquake risk, and in my opinion, their usage needs to be marketed more to home and property owners. I use both methodologies as well as structural engineering principles.
The vulnerabilities that cause damage to homes in earthquakes are well documented, but not easily accessible to the typical homeowner in the Pacific Northwest. So… what are they?
One simple way to categorize the different variables affecting any individual building’s earthquake risk are below-ground and above-ground variables.
Below-Ground Variables
The below-ground variables are the geological site characteristics, such as the distance from the earthquake source and the soil type. Ground shaking will generally increase the closer you are to the earthquake source. This is common sense.
What many don’t know is the effect that soil type can have on ground accelerations. In the 1989 earthquake in San Francisco, for example, ground shaking was five times stronger at the Fisherman’s Wharf area (with soft, saturated soil) compared to the Chinatown area, which is on bedrock and only a half mile away.
In some cases, a site that a house (or any structure) is built on can be so poor that a seismic upgrade is not even worth considering, at least, from an economic perspective. The only reasonable choice for a homeowner in this scenario may be to either move away or simply live with the risk.
Near collapse of a “weak story” building on soft soil after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in San Francisco. There are many buildings in Portland and Seattle that have both of these vulnerabilities.
Other below-ground hazards include liquefaction and lateral spreading, which tend to occur in sandy, saturated soils in low-lying areas, and landslides in the hills. I also include tsunami risk in this category; although it’s technically not below the ground, it’s a feature unique to the site where a building is located.
With our abundance of water in the Northwest, and the potential for an earthquake shaking 3 to 5 minutes, geological hazards pose a great risk in many areas.
There are helpful free online resources to allow home or building owners to quickly assess their geological hazards. For example, the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries has an interactive map where all of these different site hazards can be viewed for any location in Oregon (the mapping is on a macro level and does not eliminate the need for a site geotechnical investigation, but is still helpful information). OPB’s “Aftershock” tool combines ground shaking, distance from the Cascadia Subduction Zone and soil type to give you a qualitative explanation of what to expect at your specific address.
These tools, however, are not building-specific, and for this reason, they do not accurately quantify the earthquake risk of your home. They are helpful tools- and I recommend using them- but there will be a huge variability in earthquake damage from one home to another, even in the same neighborhood, because of the differing construction of each home.
Above-Ground Variables
Above the ground, every structure will respond differently in an earthquake. Every home has its unique geometry and construction, which will affect the way it reacts to the forces.
There are plenty of exceptions, but in general, newer homes perform better than older homes.
A building will shake roughly proportional to its weight and height, which means that a smaller one-story house will typically do better than a larger two or three-story house.
Wood-framed houses tend to perform well in earthquakes, if they don’t have any significant vulnerabilities. Wood-framed construction is flexible, which dampens earthquake forces. This is true even with older wood-framed homes, although damage is typically greater. This is one reason why a brick house would likely perform worse than a wood-framed house in the same neighborhood.
The following common above-ground vulnerabilities tend to generate earthquake damage:
Brick Chimneys. Chimneys are heavy, tall, skinny, and brittle. This is a dangerous recipe. Even in moderate earthquakes, chimney damage is common and can result in injury or death.
Weak Cripple Wall. A “cripple wall” is the wood-framed wall between the home’s foundation and its first floor. A house with an elevated porch often has a cripple wall, particularly if there is no basement. This is a common weakness in older homes, and failure to strengthen a cripple wall can result in the house suddenly dropping and shifting laterally a few feet during an earthquake. This usually results in a complete economic loss of the home.
Inadequate Foundation Anchorage. In hindsight, it’s amazing that builders didn’t think it was necessary to attach wood-framed houses to the concrete basement walls or foundations way back when, but that’s how they commonly built homes. It’s also amazing that many relatively new homes sometimes have inadequate anchorage, even homes built after the building codes required it. The code began catching up to our knowledge of a potential large subduction earthquake about 20 years ago, but I sometimes see homes built as late as the early 2000’s with missing nuts and plate washers on many of the anchor bolts. Inadequate anchorage is a common failure mechanism in earthquakes which results typically in total economic loss as the house slides off the foundation during strong shaking.
Deteriorating concrete or brick basement walls and foundations. This is a common structural problem with homes around 100 years old in Portland. It’s a hazard that should be addressed regardless of earthquake risk. It’s also important to not attempt a textbook retrofit that attaches to poor concrete or brick without an expert’s input.
Soft or Weak Story homes. A practical definition of a “soft story” is an exterior wall line that has very few wall segments (i.e. it is mostly composed of windows or openings). A common example of this is a garage door with a living space above it and very little wall width each side of the garage door. The narrower the walls each side of the garage door, the greater the likelihood of severe damage. Another similar issue with older homes is that after a century of different owners, the current floor plan is open with more windows and less walls than it originally had. If enough wall segments are removed, very little lateral strength remains. A weak story combined with liquefaction-prone soil is particularly dangerous in earthquakes.
Hillside Homes. By far the most dangerous demographic, these homes can suffer severe damage during an earthquake. Not only is the structure often weak and top-heavy, as in the case of homes on “stilts”, but they can have catastrophic landslide risk. They also often have other structural problems such as torsional weakness and lack of ductility with bracing or shear walls.
Split Level Homes, Complex Floor Plans and Roof Lines. Complexities to homes add character, but sometimes they are problematic for an earthquake load path. The more discontinuities in roof, floor, or wall lines, the more likely separations will occur.
Elevated Porches and Decks. These types of “add-ons” to a house sometimes detach from the house during an earthquake and collapse without adequate bracing.
The remnants of two hillside homes after the 1994 Northridge earthquake in the Los Angeles area.
In the past decade or two, a number of contractors have established a niche for residential earthquake retrofitting. Typically, an earthquake retrofit contractor will provide services primarily relating to weak cripple walls and inadequate foundation anchorage. Rightly so, because these vulnerabilities are common and relatively inexpensive to fix compared to say, a home on stilts or with a severe soft story problem. But as I’ve established, there are many variables of earthquake risk both with the site of a home and the structure itself, and these risks aren’t always communicated or addressed.
Bracing For Cascadia
Many people have latched onto phrases like, “everything west of I-5 is toast” (a quote made somewhat infamous after the 2015 New Yorker article, “The Really Big One”), and they envision a post-earthquake Northwest where all or most buildings are destroyed. Some suppose the tsunami will enter the Willamette Valley and Portland. Neither of these ideas are true whatsoever (and that’s not what the quote meant). I expect most buildings to remain standing after our big earthquake. I expect most homes to do even better than other buildings overall, as they have done in past earthquakes.
That’s not to say the earthquake won’t be a major disaster. It will certainly be. Power outages for 1 to 3 months in the Portland area, which is what the state expects, is a disaster.
As far as home preparedness goes, we need a realistic view of our earthquake risks. We need to make sure we don’t have a home that is prone to damage. We want to ride through the earthquake uninjured if possible, so we can help others. And as most of us know, there are numerous other tasks we need to do to prepare for the earthquake, so let’s make sure our homes are safe to the best of our ability.
For more information about seismic risk assessments and retrofitting, please see the Cascadia Risk Solutions website.
On August 24, 2014, a magnitude 6.0 earthquake struck near the California city of Napa. It was subsequently named the South Napa Earthquake. One person died and 200 were injured as a result of the quake. Damage was in the range of $300 million to $1 billion- not an insignificant amount.
Much of the damage associated with structures occurred in brittle buildings like those constructed with URM (brick) or with stone-clad veneer. But there was a good deal of damage to homes and other wood-framed structures, also.
I read an article recently revisiting damage from this earthquake, and I couldn’t help but notice some basic statistics and compare them to our Cascadia threat looming off the coast.
Consider just two data points: Ground accelerations and duration of shaking.
The recorded peak ground accelerations during the South Napa earthquake were .61g (61% of gravity). The significant shaking lasted for less than 10 seconds.
Compare this to a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake:
Ground accelerations in the Portland area are expected to be around .75g. The shaking will be greater in areas with soft soil, which comprise a good portion of the metro area. Areas near the rivers- the Columbia, Willamette, Tualatin, etc are also prone to liquefaction, which will further increase damage. Ground accelerations will also generally increase as you move further west.
Duration of shaking will be measured in minutes, not seconds. If the full subduction zone ruptures, the shaking could last as long as five minutes.
What does this simple comparison tell us? It should be a sobering reminder of our need to strengthen our infrastructure in the Pacific Northwest. Consider these points also:
California has had multiple earthquakes to help weed out the weaker buildings, so to speak- through damage, repairing, and rebuilding over time. We haven’t even had a “South Napa” (i.e. magnitude 6.0) in the Portland area in recorded history. As a result, we have an excessive amount of weak structures still hanging around.
Liquefaction will likely be a huge source of damage during the Cascadia quake. Liquefaction damage was limited in the South Napa earthquake due to drought conditions, but it was a significant source of damage during the 1989 Loma Prieta (magnitude 7.0) earthquake and the 2001 Nisqually (magnitude 6.8) earthquake near Olympia, Washington.
The need for retrofitting of homes by strengthening cripple walls, providing foundation anchorage, and using blocking and framing connectors to create an adequate load path is very much needed in the Pacific Northwest. Every significant California earthquake produces this type of damage.
1800 URM (brick) buildings in Portland alone will all likely have significant damage unless they are strengthened. This has been known for at least 20 years, but only a small percentage… I believe it is less than 10%… have been adequately retrofitted.
Some news today and some upcoming events show that many in the city of Portland are serious about the Cascadia earthquake threat.
The Portland City Club released a report today outlining strategies and steps needed for earthquake resilience in our city. The report focuses on five areas: fuel, buildings, lifelines, people, and planning/ investment for resilience.
I commend them for taking the time to think through the implications of a megaquake on our city and I’m hopeful that efforts like these will result in action.
One interesting point of news I learned in the report is that the city may soon require a mandatory seismic disclosure in real estate transactions, focused on whether the home is bolted to its foundation or not.
The Portland City Club will be sharing the details of the report on Friday, February 24th.
Another significant event will be the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) annual meeting on March 7th-10th. The meeting will be in Portland and is titled, “The Really Big One: Road to Resilience”. Hundreds of earthquake experts will be at the meeting and it should help continue to stir up interest in the topic both locally and even nationally.
I’ll be attending both of the above meetings and look forward to both learning more and meeting others interested in earthquake resilience.
Most structural engineers have experienced a glazed-over look in someone else’s eyes when describing what they do for a living, followed by a response like, “so, you’re an architect?”
There remains ignorance in the public about what structural engineering (and engineering in general) is for. Other engineering disciplines may be even more confusing; I doubt most people could define the term, “geotechnical”. Personally, I’m still not 100 percent sure what an industrial engineer does.
I think the fault of this ignorance lies primarily with engineers. We have an incredibly cool profession and if people understood better what we do, we would probably make more money, quite frankly. Especially if we were passionate about taking our skills and orienting them toward serving the community, region, and world to make it a better place (which is the reason all professions should exist).
Structural engineering seems to be making more inroads into the public sphere in recent years. It’s always amusing when Hollywood addresses your career. This happened in the latest Star Wars movie, Rogue One (slight spoiler alert if you haven’t seen it). The movie specified a large building, which reminded me of a dark version of a Dubai hotel, as a site dedicated to structural engineering (among other things) for the Empire. And there was also the scene of a group of engineers (in lab coats?) being assassinated for apparent faulty design of the Death Star. Considering the fact that this Death Star weakness led to the downfall of the Empire in subsequent episodes, this was understandable using Imperial logic, I suppose.
The Structural Engineers Association of Oregon has this clear statement defining the profession of structural engineering (good job, whoever wrote it):
Structural Engineering is the practice of analyzing and designing buildings, bridges and other structures to resist forces induced by gravity, wind, and earthquakes and to safely transfer these forces to the ground.
See here for more: http://www.seao.org/resources/aboutstructengr/
Regarding engineering in general, there are a number of good definitions online, but here is my very simple one:
Engineers apply science and mathematics to the real world to solve real world problems.
Engineers and the engineering profession should act as a bridge between the theoretical realm of science/ mathematics and real life.
Consider the large problem of an impending Cascadia megaquake. The science indicating that these earthquakes have happened and that the subduction zone is locked and building up energy has been settled for about 20 years.
Emergency management at the state and federal level has been aware of the threat for a long time also. The Oregon Resilience Plan, which was a state funded plan addressing the effects of a Cascadia megaquake and its consequences, was published in 2013.
Journalists helped disperse the information about this topic into the homes and hearts of Pacific Northwest residents (thank you Sandi Doughton and Kathryn Schulz, to name two). For the last couple of years, there has been more mainstream awareness of this issue than ever. And my experience has been that people are still baffled by the topic and wondering what to do about it.
Here is my exhortation to engineers, particularly those involved in the disciplines of infrastructure (civil, structural, and geotechnical at the forefront). The Cascadia earthquake threat is large enough to involve all of our individual efforts for years. Please consider what part you can play in increasing your personal, community, and regional resilience. We all know more than the average person about earthquakes and what they do to the ground and to structures. Don’t hide in your cubicle or office. Do what you can with your career to help and you will be saving lives when the earthquake happens.
In Portland, engineers know that there are about 1800 URM (brick) buildings which may partially or completely collapse in a large earthquake. We know many older homes have weak cripple walls, dangerous unreinforced chimneys, and “soft story” weaknesses which will result in damage, injury, and in some cases, loss of life. We know there will likely be long term loss of power and drinking water. We know industrial areas are set to contaminate our rivers with millions of gallons of liquid fuel. Wow, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Let’s get to work.
Engineers are a key to helping bridge our gap between what we now know (the science) and resilience. But not just engineers… every one of us can help and I would argue that we have a duty to make steps toward preparedness.
