Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley

Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley

peer.berkeley.edu
from peer.berkeley.edu More from this publisher
12.07.2015 Views

functions for a wide variety of nonstructural components of significance that can beused with confidence to predict performance.3.5 Development of Framework to Adjust Generalized Fragility/LossFunctionsOvertime it is expected that many more fragility and loss functions will becomeavailable for individual nonstructural components. This task will provide a frameworkand associated procedures for adjusting the generalized fragility and loss functionsdeveloped in Task 2 above to account for newly available functions. The proceduremay take the form of explaining how to subtract on the component of interest fromthe generalized functions and perhaps having the individual component or system ofinterest separately identified in the aggregation. This would permit a betterunderstanding of the key limiters of performance through deaggregation.3.6 Document Performance Assessment Procedures and Provide ExamplesThe final task of the performance assessment phase of this project is to document andthe performance assessment procedure. The documentation would cover the fullscope of the project including defining the ground motion hazard, structural andnonstructural assessment, development of loss functions and loss aggregation andother decision information needed by decision makers to make informed decisions. Itis expected that the documentation may include the step-by-step process that anengineer would need to follow in order to do a performance assessment. It would alsoinclude commentary and provide background material on the procedure development.Also examples would be provided that would illustrate the use of the procedures.4. SUMMARYThe ATC-58 guidelines have the potential to revolutionize the practice ofperformance-based design for nonstructural components when the project iscompleted. Nonstructural components while well recognized as the dominatingcontributor to losses in recent earthquakes and a major contributor to downtime losseshave not received serious attention in previous performance–based earthquakeengineering guideline development. With the attention provided to nonstructuralcomponents in this project along with the use of probabilistic structural reliabilitytechniques, the likely-hood that performance-based designs will actually achieveintended performance should greatly improve. More importantly, decision makerswill be provided information that will be directly useful in selecting appropriateperformance criteria for building design, nonstructural design and upgrade projects.135

REFERENCESAmerican Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), (2002). Prestandard and Commentaryfor Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Report No. FEMA-356, FederalEmergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.Deierlein, G. G. (2004). “Overview of a Comprehensive Framework for EarthquakePerformance Assessment.” In Proceedings of the International Workshop onPerformance-Based Seismic Design, Bled, Slovenia, pp. 15.Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), (2000). Action Plan forPerformance-Based Seismic Design, Report No. FEMA-349, Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, Washington, D.C.Hamburger, R. O. (2004). “Development of Next-Generation Performance-BasedSeismic Design Guidelines” Proceedings of the International Workshop onPerformance-Based Seismic Design, Bled, Slovenia.Moehle, J. P. (2003). “A framework of performance-based earthquake engineering,”Proceedings, Tenth U.S.-Japan workshop on Improvement of Building SeismicDesign and Construction Practices, 2003, Report ATC-15-9, AppliedTechnology Council, Redwood City, CA.Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), (1999), RecommendedLateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Appendix G, Performance-basedDesign, International Code Council, Whittier, CA, 1999.136

REFERENCESAmerican Society <strong>of</strong> Civil Engineers (ASCE), (2002). Prestandard and Commentaryfor Seismic Rehabilitation <strong>of</strong> Buildings, <strong>Report</strong> No. FEMA-356, FederalEmergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.Deierlein, G. G. (2004). “Overview <strong>of</strong> a Comprehensive Framework for EarthquakePerformance Assessment.” In Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the International Workshop onPerformance-Based Seismic Design, Bled, Slovenia, pp. 15.Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), (2000). Action Plan forPerformance-Based Seismic Design, <strong>Report</strong> No. FEMA-349, Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, Washington, D.C.Hamburger, R. O. (2004). “Development <strong>of</strong> Next-Generation Performance-BasedSeismic Design Guidelines” Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the International Workshop onPerformance-Based Seismic Design, Bled, Slovenia.Moehle, J. P. (2003). “A framework <strong>of</strong> performance-based earthquake engineering,”Proceedings, Tenth U.S.-Japan workshop on Improvement <strong>of</strong> Building SeismicDesign and Construction Practices, 2003, <strong>Report</strong> ATC-15-9, AppliedTechnology Council, Redwood City, CA.Structural Engineers Association <strong>of</strong> <strong>California</strong> (SEAOC), (1999), RecommendedLateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Appendix G, Performance-basedDesign, International Code Council, Whittier, CA, 1999.136

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!