Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley
Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley
In FEMA 273/356, the intersection of the median capacity (pushover) andmedian demand (hazard) curves is termed a performance point. Such a point,although instructive, provides no information on the impact of uncertainty andrandomness on the capacity and demand calculations and by extension on the buildingperformance. Reinhorn extended the concept of the performance point to aperformance space, to account for both uncertainty and randomness in a rigorousmanner. Figure 7 presents performance points using median maximum drift (ID*) andmedian peak floor acceleration (A*) as the performance metrics; ID* and A* aredefined in the figure. Alternate groupings of ID* and A* (e.g., A2/ID1) might bemore appropriate for nonstructural components such as suspended ceiling systems. (InFigure 7a, the median peak 1st floor acceleration of each of the non-isolated models isequal to the median peak ground acceleration. In the isolated models, the 1st flooracceleration is measured above the isolation interface.) In terms of demands onNCCs, performance points adjacent to the origin are preferable to those points remotefrom the origin. On the basis of the chosen metrics, the performance of the buildingsequipped with supplemental fluid viscous dampers or seismic isolation bearings issuperior to that of the traditional moment-frame buildings or the building equippedwith BRBs.Interstory drift (%)3.53.02.521.510.500 .3 .6 .9 1.2 1.5Floor acceleration (g)3.53.02.521.510.500 .3 .6 .9 1.2 1.5Floor acceleration (g)a. 1st floor (A1), 1st story (ID1) b. 2nd floor (A2), 2nd story (ID2)Interstory drift (%)3.53.02.521.510.500 .3 .6 .9 1.2 1.5Floor acceleration (g)c. 4th floor (A4), 4th story (ID4)Interstory drift (%)M3M6M7M8M9M10M11M12M13M14M15A5A4A3A2A1Figure 7. Performance points for 10/50 earthquake histories.ID4ID3ID2ID1121
Figure 8 presents one possible form of the performance space, in which onlyground motion variability has been considered. Herein, the performance space is abox defined by the 16th and 84th percentile maximum drift and zero-period flooracceleration responses. An optimal performance space should be small in size(indicating small variability in displacement and acceleration responses) and locatedclose to the origin.Interstory drift (%)3.53.02.521.510.500 .3 .6 .9 1.2 1.5Floor acceleration (g)3.53.02.521.510.500 .3 .6 .9 1.2 1.5Floor acceleration (g)a. 1st floor (A1), 1st story (ID1) b. 2nd floor (A2), 2nd story (ID2)Interstory drift (%)3.53.02.521.510.500 .3 .6 .9 1.2 1.5Floor acceleration (g)c. 4th floor (A4), 4th story (ID4)Interstory drift (%)M3M6M7M8M9M10M11M12M13M14M15Figure 8. Performance spaces for 10/50 earthquake histories.On the basis of the data presented in Figure 8, the performance of the isolatedbuildings is superior to that of the other buildings in terms of smaller displacementand acceleration demands on NCCs. Of the remaining traditional and protectedlateral-force-resisting systems, the buildings equipped with fluid viscous dampers(M8 and M9) outperform the remaining 3 buildings (M3, M6 and M7).For many acceleration-sensitive NCCs, peak floor acceleration alone is aninefficient predictor of damage: an observation made years ago by engineers taskedwith designing mechanical systems in nuclear power plants. Better estimates of thevulnerability of acceleration-sensitive NCCs can be developed through the use offloor (in-structure) acceleration spectra. Median 5% damped median flooracceleration spectra for the 2nd floor (A2) and 4th floor (A4) of the 11 models for the10/50 earthquake histories are presented in Figures 9a and 9b. The stiff and strongmoment frame building (M3) and the building equipped with BRBs (M7) produce thehighest spectral acceleration demands across a frequency range from 1 Hz to 100 Hz.The smallest acceleration demands are associated with the viscous damped framesA5A4A3A2A1ID4ID3ID2ID1122
- Page 88 and 89: Results indicate that 33% of the re
- Page 90 and 91: 4.1.2 Elastic vs. Inelastic ModelsF
- Page 92 and 93: The increased dispersion leads to h
- Page 94 and 95: AN ANALYSIS ON THE SEISMIC PERFORMA
- Page 96 and 97: The survey stood on the condition t
- Page 98 and 99: who decide the design force levels
- Page 100 and 101: It is interesting to clarify whethe
- Page 102 and 103: concluded that the dependence of in
- Page 104 and 105: Table 10. Problems of performance-b
- Page 106 and 107: DEVELOPMENT OF NEXT-GENERATION PERF
- Page 108 and 109: ground shaking hazard, probable str
- Page 110 and 111: Vulnerability of buildings to losse
- Page 112 and 113: Peak Interstory Drfit Ratio0.120.10
- Page 114 and 115: Conditional Probability ofDamage St
- Page 116 and 117: Probability of Non-Exceedance10.80.
- Page 118 and 119: APPLICATIONS OF PERFORMANCE-BASED E
- Page 120 and 121: PRACTICAL ADAPTATION FOR STAKEHOLDE
- Page 122 and 123: cost premium for the more expensive
- Page 124 and 125: The future techniques will improve
- Page 126 and 127: Benefit-cost ratio(BCR) 2.5UC Berke
- Page 128 and 129: motivation to change the way they w
- Page 130 and 131: CHANGING THE PARADIGM FOR PERFORMAN
- Page 132 and 133: Ideally, the preliminary design of
- Page 134 and 135: ModelM1M2M3Table 1. Description of
- Page 136 and 137: Sample results from the response-hi
- Page 140 and 141: (M8 and M9) and the isolated frames
- Page 142 and 143: THE ATC-58 PROJECT PLAN FOR NONSTRU
- Page 144 and 145: The development of next-generation
- Page 146 and 147: for these flexible nonstructural co
- Page 148 and 149: spectra is several times larger tha
- Page 150 and 151: The variability is associated with
- Page 152 and 153: functions for a wide variety of non
- Page 154 and 155: SIMPLIFIED PBEE TO ESTIMATE ECONOMI
- Page 156 and 157: One can show (Porter et al. 2004) t
- Page 158 and 159: ( )FDM| EDP= xdm = 1 −FRdm , + 1,
- Page 160 and 161: 1. Facility definition. Same as in
- Page 162 and 163: Table 1. Approximation of seismic r
- Page 164 and 165: The EAL values shown in Figure 3 mi
- Page 166 and 167: ASSESSMENT OF SEISMIC PERFORMANCE I
- Page 168 and 169: where e -λτ is the discounted fac
- Page 170 and 171: IDR 3[rad]σPFAIDR34(g)σ PFA4media
- Page 172 and 173: Figure 3a, shows an example of frag
- Page 174 and 175: P(C LVCC i |IM )1.00.80.60.40.20.00
- Page 176 and 177: E [ L T | IM ]$ 10 M$ 8 M$ 6 M$ 4 M
- Page 178 and 179: SEISMIC RESILIENCE OF COMMUNITIES
- Page 180 and 181: 2. RESILIENCE CONCEPTSResilience fo
- Page 182 and 183: quantification tools could be used
- Page 184 and 185: structure remains elastic. This is
- Page 186 and 187: of Figure 7a will be used. It is as
Figure 8 presents one possible form <strong>of</strong> the performance space, in which onlyground motion variability has been considered. Herein, the performance space is abox defined by the 16th and 84th percentile maximum drift and zero-period flooracceleration responses. An optimal performance space should be small in size(indicating small variability in displacement and acceleration responses) and locatedclose to the origin.Interstory drift (%)3.53.02.521.510.500 .3 .6 .9 1.2 1.5Floor acceleration (g)3.53.02.521.510.500 .3 .6 .9 1.2 1.5Floor acceleration (g)a. 1st floor (A1), 1st story (ID1) b. 2nd floor (A2), 2nd story (ID2)Interstory drift (%)3.53.02.521.510.500 .3 .6 .9 1.2 1.5Floor acceleration (g)c. 4th floor (A4), 4th story (ID4)Interstory drift (%)M3M6M7M8M9M10M11M12M13M14M15Figure 8. Performance spaces for 10/50 earthquake histories.On the basis <strong>of</strong> the data presented in Figure 8, the performance <strong>of</strong> the isolatedbuildings is superior to that <strong>of</strong> the other buildings in terms <strong>of</strong> smaller displacementand acceleration demands on NCCs. Of the remaining traditional and protectedlateral-force-resisting systems, the buildings equipped with fluid viscous dampers(M8 and M9) outperform the remaining 3 buildings (M3, M6 and M7).For many acceleration-sensitive NCCs, peak floor acceleration alone is aninefficient predictor <strong>of</strong> damage: an observation made years ago by engineers taskedwith designing mechanical systems in nuclear power plants. Better estimates <strong>of</strong> thevulnerability <strong>of</strong> acceleration-sensitive NCCs can be developed through the use <strong>of</strong>floor (in-structure) acceleration spectra. Median 5% damped median flooracceleration spectra for the 2nd floor (A2) and 4th floor (A4) <strong>of</strong> the 11 models for the10/50 earthquake histories are presented in Figures 9a and 9b. The stiff and strongmoment frame building (M3) and the building equipped with BRBs (M7) produce thehighest spectral acceleration demands across a frequency range from 1 Hz to 100 Hz.The smallest acceleration demands are associated with the viscous damped framesA5A4A3A2A1ID4ID3ID2ID1122
Change language