Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley
Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley
REFERENCESAbrams, D. P., A. S. Elnashai, and J. E. Beavers. (2002). “The Mid-AmericaEarthquake Center for research program towards development of consequencebased-seismicrisk mitigation.” International Conference on Advances and NewChallenges in Earthquake Engineering Research, Harbin, China, August 15-18.ATC-13. (1985). “Earthquake damage evaluation data for California.” AppliedTechnology Council, Redwood City, California.ATC-14. (1987). “Evaluating the seismic resistance of existing buildings.” AppliedTechnology Council, Redwood City, California.Calvi, G. M. (1999). “A displacement-based approach for vulnerability evaluation ofclasses of buildings.” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 3(3), pp. 441-438.Dimova, S. L., and K. Hirata. (2000). “Simplified seismic fragility analysis ofstructures with two types of friction devices.” Earthquake Engineering andStructural Dynamics, 29, pp. 1153-1175.Geysken, P., A. Der Kiureghian, and P. Monteiro. (1993). “BUMP: Bayesianupdating of model parameters.” UBS/SEM-93/06, University of California atBerkeley.Gumbel, D. J. (1954). “Statistical theory of extreme values and some practicalapplications.” Applied Mathematics Series 33, National Bureau of Standards,Washington, D.C.Lang, K. (2002). “Seismic vulnerability of existing buildings.” IBK Bericht, Bd. 273,Institute of Structural Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,Zurich, Switzerland.Rossetto, T., and Elnashai, A. S. (2003). “Derivation of vulnerability functions forEuropean-type RC structures based on observational data.” EngineeringStructures, 25(10), pp. 1241-1263.Singhal, A., A. S. Kiremidjian (1998). “Bayesian updating of fragilities withapplication to RC frames.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 124(8), pp.922-929.Wen, Y. K., B. R. Ellingwood, and J. Bracci. (2004). Vulnerability functionframework for consequence-based engineering. MAE Report 04-04, Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.196
SEISMIC FRAGILITY OF SMALL EQUIPMENT AND CONTENTSTara HUTCHINSON 1 and Samit RAY CHAUDHURI 2ABSTRACTThis paper presents analytically developed seismic fragility curves for unattached benchmountedequipment and contents. The emphasis of the study is on rigid scientific equipment,which is often placed on the surface of ceramic laboratory benches in science laboratories orother buildings. Although theoretical solutions are available to determine the seismic responseof rigid sliding blocks and research has been conducted to develop the analytical fragilitycurves, previous studies have not considered the uncertainty of important input parameters andhow they affect the shape and distribution of the curves. Moreover, for scientific equipmentmounted on benches, limited experimental data are available regarding the dynamiccharacteristics of the typical support systems and the equipment frictional behavior.For this study, only uniaxial seismic excitation is considered to provide insight into thecontributions and sensitivity of the fragility to different uncertain parameters. Uncertainparameters considered in this study include: (i) static and kinetic coefficients of friction and (ii)supporting (bench and building) characteristics. In this paper, generalized fragility curves forsliding-dominated equipment are provided for use in seismic performance assessment.Keywords: Nonstructural response; Seismic fragility; Equipment response; and Friction.1. INTRODUCTIONScientific equipment such as analyzers, microscopes, centrifuges, monitors, andcomputer workstations, are often placed on the surface of ceramic laboratory benchesin science laboratories. Damage to these items has gained significant attentionfollowing recent earthquakes, largely due to the potential for significant economiclosses and/or research downtime. Many of these types of scientific equipment arefairly costly and loss of functionality would result in total economic loss of theequipment itself. In addition, in hospital or other critical buildings, failure of suchequipment may hinder emergency response efforts immediately after an earthquake.However, in comparison with structural systems, there is little research on theperformance of these equipment and contents, particularly with respect tounderstanding the characteristics of the varied support (bench and building)conditions and their frictional behavior.1 Asst. Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Irvine2 Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Irvine197
- 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
- Page 188 and 189: Nigg, J. M. (1998). Empirical findi
- Page 190 and 191: acceleration with a 475-year return
- Page 192 and 193: limit states, the suggestions given
- Page 194 and 195: ∆NSLsi= SϑH(5)iTFor column-sway
- Page 196 and 197: Pinto et al., 2004). The probabilit
- Page 198 and 199: The main difficulty in assigning a
- Page 200 and 201: Crowley, H., R. Pinho, and J. J. Bo
- Page 202 and 203: analytical models generally have si
- Page 204 and 205: Figure 2. Structure of the response
- Page 206 and 207: can be used as a random variable of
- Page 208 and 209: 4. DERIVATION OF THE VULNERABILITY
- Page 210 and 211: 5. CONCLUSIONSDerivation of vulnera
- Page 214 and 215: In general, these types of bench-mo
- Page 216 and 217: where & x&(t ) = acceleration at th
- Page 218 and 219: science building. The lateral load-
- Page 220 and 221: emain the same, the magnitude of sl
- Page 222 and 223: of sliding thresholds, are desirabl
- Page 224 and 225: Retrofit of Nonstructural Component
- Page 226 and 227: was developed to accommodate these
- Page 228 and 229: tested by Meinheit and Jirsa are us
- Page 230 and 231: where D is the maximum drift and N
- Page 232 and 233: in predicting damage as well as rep
- Page 234 and 235: 4.2.2 Modeling the Data Using Stand
- Page 236 and 237: that the defining demand using a no
- Page 238 and 239: • The influence on the dynamic re
- Page 240 and 241: deviations σ and correlation coeff
- Page 242 and 243: The first three modes of vibration
- Page 244 and 245: Details about the ten records selec
- Page 246 and 247: to allow a quantitative assessment
- Page 248 and 249: Cornell A. C., F. Jalayer, R. Hambu
- Page 250 and 251: limited possibilities of overcoming
- Page 252 and 253: uildings, up to five stories high (
- Page 254 and 255: Efficiency η, %100806040203D-RWBW-
- Page 256 and 257: Table 1. Performance criteria for c
- Page 258 and 259: Because the analytical model strong
- Page 260 and 261: REFERENCESAguilar, G., R. Meli, R.
SEISMIC FRAGILITY OF SMALL EQUIPMENT AND CONTENTSTara HUTCHINSON 1 and Samit RAY CHAUDHURI 2ABSTRACTThis paper presents analytically developed seismic fragility curves for unattached benchmountedequipment and contents. The emphasis <strong>of</strong> the study is on rigid scientific equipment,which is <strong>of</strong>ten placed on the surface <strong>of</strong> ceramic laboratory benches in science laboratories orother buildings. Although theoretical solutions are available to determine the seismic response<strong>of</strong> rigid sliding blocks and research has been conducted to develop the analytical fragilitycurves, previous studies have not considered the uncertainty <strong>of</strong> important input parameters andhow they affect the shape and distribution <strong>of</strong> the curves. Moreover, for scientific equipmentmounted on benches, limited experimental data are available regarding the dynamiccharacteristics <strong>of</strong> the typical support systems and the equipment frictional behavior.For this study, only uniaxial seismic excitation is considered to provide insight into thecontributions and sensitivity <strong>of</strong> the fragility to different uncertain parameters. Uncertainparameters considered in this study include: (i) static and kinetic coefficients <strong>of</strong> friction and (ii)supporting (bench and building) characteristics. In this paper, generalized fragility curves forsliding-dominated equipment are provided for use in seismic performance assessment.Keywords: Nonstructural response; Seismic fragility; Equipment response; and Friction.1. INTRODUCTIONScientific equipment such as analyzers, microscopes, centrifuges, monitors, andcomputer workstations, are <strong>of</strong>ten placed on the surface <strong>of</strong> ceramic laboratory benchesin science laboratories. Damage to these items has gained significant attentionfollowing recent earthquakes, largely due to the potential for significant economiclosses and/or research downtime. Many <strong>of</strong> these types <strong>of</strong> scientific equipment arefairly costly and loss <strong>of</strong> functionality would result in total economic loss <strong>of</strong> theequipment itself. In addition, in hospital or other critical buildings, failure <strong>of</strong> suchequipment may hinder emergency response efforts immediately after an earthquake.However, in comparison with structural systems, there is little research on theperformance <strong>of</strong> these equipment and contents, particularly with respect tounderstanding the characteristics <strong>of</strong> the varied support (bench and building)conditions and their frictional behavior.1 Asst. Pr<strong>of</strong>essor, Dept. <strong>of</strong> Civil and Environmental Engineering, <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>California</strong>, Irvine2 Graduate Student, Dept. <strong>of</strong> Civil and Environmental Engineering, <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>California</strong>, Irvine197