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

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

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

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!