OSU CSZ WorkshopBruce Johnson- July 18, 2012 Highway Mobility After a CSZ Event & Mitigation Highway Mobility After a CSZ Event & Mitigation.

OSU CSZ Workshop Bruce Johnson- July 18, 2012

Highway Mobility After a CSZ Event & Mitigation

ODOT Seismic Mitigation Efforts

1990 – Design for seismic loads considering Cascadia Subduction Zone

1994/1997 – Assessment of vulnerability of existing bridges

1997 – Begin including “life-safety” retrofit of bridges in repair contracts

1997 – Lifeline routes identified2007 – Network analysis of seismic vulnerability2012 – Update to lifeline routes2012 – Prepare Seismic Options Report

2

Seismic Bridge Design in Oregon

Seismic loads typ.not considered

seismic force up to 6%g

seismic force up to 12%g

seismic hazard maps and adoption of FHWA ‘83 seismic design specs.

adopt USGS 2002 seismic hazard maps

adopt FHWA 2009 LRFD Seismic Design Guide Specs

3

Southern Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ)Events have a 260-year frequency

4

0 1000 2000

HISTORY OF SEISMIC RISK IN OREGON

Past Subduction Zone Earthquakes

Last Known Subduction Event: January, 1700

Time

Sei

smic

Str

ain

(R

isk)

When willthe strain

release next?

Frequency

300 to 500 years

1700

Scientist’s most recent estimates found 41 earthquakes over 8.0 magnitude

Last event January 26, 1700

There is a high probability of a major event within the next 50 years on the south Oregon Coast.Goldfinger, et al, OSU

Earthquake Simulation ToolModel of Oregon Highways

Scope of study: State owned

bridges Hwy. network:

Western Oregon, Klamath Falls, and the Columbia River Gorge

5

Estimating Damage and Mobility Impacts for Likely Earthquakes

6

REDARS Seismic Simulation Computer Program

Six earthquake scenarios were used to estimate seismic losses. Two are shown as examples:

Cascadia Subduction Zone: 9.0 magnitude earthquakeEstimated damage: $1.08 billionPlus Significant Economic losses

Crustal: Portland Metro 7.0 magnitude earthquakeEstimated damage: $1.58 billionPlus Significant Economic losses

Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake (Magnitude 9.0)

6 complete collapses

64 extensive

106 major

164 slight

Estimates Loss: $1,080 million for bridge repair and

replacement Significant Economic losses (travel time

related losses)

RouteDamage States

Slight Moderate Extensive Complete

I-5 (MWC) 4 1 0 0

I-5 (MLL) 16 3 1 0

I-5 (DJJ) 27 0 0 0

I-84 13 1 0 0

US-101 7 14 36 5

US-26 7 5 0 0

I-205 8 2 0 0

I-405 7 0 0 0

US-30 4 2 2 0

US-20 5 3 5 0

OR-38 3 2 1 0

OR-42 4 13 13 1

Others 59 60 6 0

Total 164 106 64 6

7

Seismic Risks

• A large damaging earthquake is likely to occur in the next 50 years

• Widespread major damage is expected with loss of life, loss of utilities, and loss of mobility in western Oregon

• Secondary losses will be significant due to lack of mobility by highways, waterways, ports, and airports for fixed wing aircraft

• Major economic distress will occur due to relocation of businesses due to loss of mobility and services

Solutions:1. Retrofit existing bridges

2. Replace aging bridges

3. Prepare for recovery from damage and loss of mobility

9

Retrofit: Phase 1 for “life safety” connects superstructure to the

substructure.

Phase 2 for “serviceability” strengthens the substructure

Retrofitting Critical Bridgesto Reduce Major Mobility Risks

10

Seismic Retrofit Methods

11

Retrofitting ProgressFirst 16 Years Since Vulnerability was Identified

12

Years Actions

1994/1997 CH2M Hill prioritization includes all state and local bridges. Priority state bridges 1155

1994-2010 • Phase 1 retrofit added to repair projects 72 In the OTIA III program 6 • Replacements with seismic design 40 In the OTIA III program 150Total number of bridges addressed 268

Future Bridges still need retrofitting (219 years) 887Delay due to OTIA III payback for 20 years.

More Rational Prioritization

Potential route retrofit selection strategy based on “cost vs. benefit”

Estimate retrofit cost of considered routes Estimate benefit by altering bridge fragility and

reexamining impact on system Consider revised lifeline routes in prioritization Consider landslide and unstable slopes in

prioritization Refine retrofitting cost estimates

13

Oregon Lifeline Routes Study• Ch2M Hill• July 2011 Start• Focus on State Routes

• Response (life safety)• Recovery and rebuilding

• Status:• Vulnerability assessments drafted• Prioritization algorithm drafted• Route selection early draft

• June 2012 Final Report

Oregon Lifeline Routes StudyTier 1 North South Routes:• I-5

• I-405 to I-205• I-205 to OR 58• OR 58 to CA Border

• US 197/97• US 197 from I-84 to US 97• US 97 from US 197 to CA Border

• US 101• Tillamook to Newport• Florence to Coos Bay

Oregon Lifeline Routes StudyTier 1 East-West Route (East):• I-84 / I-205

• I-5 to US 197• US 26

• I-84 to US 97• OR 58

• I-5 to US 97

Tier 2 East-West Route (West):• US 30

• US 101 to I-405• OR 18/US99W

• I-5 to US 101• OR 38

• I-5 to US 101

• Protect citizens and businesses from shaking and tsunami

• Ensure rapid economic recovery• The Plan and recommendations to be

delivered to the Oregon Legislative Assembly by February 28, 2013.

Seismic Options

• Retrofit is a proven method to preserve bridges, slopes, and landslides on the highway system

• Retrofit is viable if done incrementally and strategically on the highest priority routes

• Significant reduction in secondary loss of life and long term economic losses can be achieved

• Route selection is critical to success and will require widespread consensus

Tier 1 Route Map

• Phase 1 – $320M• Phase 2 - $395M

Tier 1 Routes – Retrofit Cost

Tier 2 & 3 Route Map

• Tier 2 – $515M• Tier 3 - $250M

Tier 2 Retrofit Cost

Tier 3 Retrofit Cost

Goal of Seismic Options: Establish Priorities for Achieving High Priority

Resiliency Within Limited Retrofit Funding

24

ODOT Bridge Engineering and Geo-Environmental Sections and

Planning Division

Action that needs broad support and additional

funding to accomplish:

Develop a long-term strategy for mitigation of seismic

vulnerability and risk for entire highway system including

bridges, landslides, local roads, and critical facility access to

support a dedicated seismic retrofitting program for critical

transportation features.

House Resolution 3 – Resilient Oregon Plan due Feb 28, 2013

25

Seismic Vulnerability of Oregon State Bridges – Recommendations

• Protect citizens and businesses from shaking and tsunami

• Ensure rapid economic recovery

House Resolution 3

Directs (OSSPAC) to “lead and coordinate preparation of an Oregon Resilience Plan that . . . makes recommendations on policy direction to protect lives and keep commerce flowing during and after a Cascadia (megathrust) earthquake and tsunami.”

The Plan and recommendations to be delivered to the Oregon Legislative Assembly by February 28, 2013.

HR3 Resilience Definition

Protect Citizens from physical life-threatening harm (from Earthquake and Tsunami)

Community recover rapidly with less vulnerability through mitigation and pre-disaster planning

Cascadia Earthquake is M9.0 with average 500 years return.

HR 3 Resilience Definition To Achieve Rapid Recovery, Require

Government Continuity, Resilient Physical Infrastructure, Business Continuity

Resilient Physical Infrastructure is the foundation

Resilience Planning ObjectiveLook at 50-year time window

Develop a comprehensive plan so that state is resilient by 2062

Utilize concepts and ideas by SF Planning +Urban Research Association and from Resilient Washington Initative

Phase Time Frame Condition of the built environment

I 1 to 7 days Initial response and staging for reconstruction

II 7 to 60 days Workforce housing restored – ongoing social needs met

III 2 to 36 months Long term reconstruction

Performance Goals for the “Expected” Earthquake

Lifelines and workforce are the key elements

Transparent Performance Measures for Lifelines

Category Performance Standard

Category I Resume 100% service within 4 hours

Category II Resume 90% service within 72 hours

95% within 30 days

100% within 4 months

Category III Resume 90% service within 72 hours

95% within 30 days

100% within 3 years

Oregon Resilience Planning Organizational Structure

OSSPAC 18 members appointed by Governor Six representatives of government (Bldg Codes, DOGAMI, DLCD, OEM,

ODOT, DOE) Six representatives of public interest (Legislature, Red Cross etc.) Six representatives of industry and stakeholders (Struct., Banking, local

govern., multi-family, Bldg Owner, Utilities)The mission of OSSPAC is to increase or improve:

1) earthquake awareness, education and preparedness;2) earthquake risk information;3) the earthquake safety of buildings and lifelines;4) geoscience and technical information; and5) emergency pre-disaster planning, response and recovery efforts

http://www.oregon.gov/OMD/OEM/osspac/osspac.shtml

OSSPAC Steering Committee

Kent Yu (Chair, Public member/Structural)

Jay Wilson (vice Chair, Public member/local government)

Althea Rizzo (OEM, State Earthquake/Tsunami Manager)

Ian Madin (DOGAMI)

Stan Watters (Public member/Utilities)

Eight Workgroups

Magnitude 9.0 Earthquake/Tsunami Scenario

Critical/Essential Buildings

Energy

Telecommunications

Transportation

Tsunami Risk Mitigation

Water and Waste Water Systems

Business Continuity

Transportation Group

Led by Bruce Johnson (ODOT)The Transportation Task Group will address the systems listed below:

Bridges (owned by ODOT, Counties or Cities)

Airports and Seaports

Railroads

Mass Transit (Trimet)

Columbia River

Work Plan

• April - Determine Resiliency Goals• May – Identify Vulnerabilities• August – Develop Mitigation/Strengthening

costs• September – Assess Mitigation Plan/Goals• October – Prioritize Investment Plan• November – Establish 50-year Funding

Plan to achieve resiliency and submit to Steering Committee

Continuing Research Activities

Research is needed on the following topics:

Impacts of a large seismic event on the Oregon transportation network for use in prioritization

Evaluate bridges based on Oregon bridge types

Evaluate and update vulnerability for typical Oregon type bridge columns

Cost/Benefit Analysis of Retrofitting

39

Goal of Seismic Efforts: Establish Priorities for

Limited Resiliency And Retrofit $$

40

Bruce Johnson, State Bridge EngineerODOT Bridge Engineering Section

REDARS Research conducted by:Peter Dusicka, Assistant Professor

Portland State University

METRO BridgesBridge Name Expected Performance NotesI-5 Boone Bridge Slight Damage Retrofitted Ph 1 I-5 Marquam Moderate Retrofitted Ph 1I-5 Interstate Collapse Poor details, counterweightI-5 Oregon Slough Moderate Poor girder connectionsI-205 Abernethey Moderate Poor column confinementI-205 Glen Jackson Slight to moderateI-205 South Channel SlightUS30 Bypass St. JohnsExtensive Poor column detailsI-405 Fremont Moderate Poor column detailsI-405 Fremont approach Collapse Poor column detailsUS26 Ross Island Collapse Poor column detailsSellwood, Hawthorne CollapseSteel, Broadway CollapseMorrison, Burnside Extensive

I