Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley

assumptions inherent in these estimates, it is possible to determine probabilitydistributions of the possible losses, as a function of the damage state.Loss functions tend to incorporate significant uncertainty as compared withhazard curves, response functions and fragility curves because they are highlydependent on human factors including the owner’s ability to act rapidly in retainingthe necessary design professionals and construction contractors to effect repairs, theefficiency with which the design professionals and contractors operate and the speedwith which building departments approve proposed repair programs.The loss functions would initially be normalized and would indicate whatpercentage of the replacement cost would be needed to repair all the components incategory. Loss functions would also be developed for downtime and deaths andinjuries for each of the broad categories and EDPs-Ns.3.4 Development of Standardized Procedures for Establishing FragilitiesA key element in predicting the performance of nonstructural components is havingreliable measurements of the extent of damage that occurs to components when theyare subject to given levels of EDP-Ns. This extent of damage provides a measure offragility of the components. One primary method for establishing fragility fornonstructural components is by component or system testing. Currently there are threeprimary methods of fragility testing; (1) shake table testing that measures the fragilityof components which are primarily acceleration sensitive, (2) racking testing whichmeasures the fragility of components which are primarily sensitive to horizontalrelative displacements (drift sensitive) and (3) component cyclic testing whichmeasures axial and/or rotational fragility (capacity) of subcomponents ofnonstructural components such as pipe joints or braces. Some fragility tests arecurrently being conducted which two or all three of the above methods in theprocedures and approaches.One of the common needs in all fragility methods is accepted protocols fortesting. Testing protocols provide the details of how the test is to be conducted andthe test motions that are to be imparted onto the component by the test machines.With such accepted protocols in place, results can be duplicated and validated andstandardized fragilities for individual components developed. Without such protocols,extrapolations with large variability are introduced into the fragility data. ATC isworking in cooperation with the three NSF earthquake engineering centers (PEER,MCEER and MAE) to develop the protocols.Standardized procedures for establishing fragility functions and loss functionsbased on fragility testing, experience data and detailed structural analysis will also bedeveloped as part of this task. Also included in this task will be the development ofprocedures to how to convert existing and available fragility data in fragility functionsand associated loss functions that are consistent with newly established data. It is along term goal of the project to eventually develop a sanctioned database of fragility134