12.07.2015
•
Views
OVERVIEW OF A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK FOREARTHQUAKE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTGregory G. DEIERLEIN 1ABSTRACTThe Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center is developing a comprehensiveperformance-based methodology to provide a framework for the next generation of seismicdesign codes and criteria. The performance assessment process follows a logical progression ofsteps, beginning with seismic hazard characterization, and continuing through simulation ofstructural response, damage modeling and assessment, and loss modeling. The outcomes ofeach process are articulated through four generalized variables, termed the earthquake IntensityMeasure (IM), Engineering Demand Parameters (EDP), Damage Measures (DM), and DecisionVariables (DV). A rigorous probabilistic framework permits consistent characterization of theinherent uncertainties throughout the process. Through its modular architecture, the frameworkfacilitates a systems approach to organize the multidisciplinary research necessary to developthe models, criteria, and tools necessary for its implementation. The proposed methodology canbe implemented directly for performance assessment, or can be used as the basis forestablishing simpler performance criteria and provisions for performance-based design.Keywords: Performance based design; Earthquake engineering; Probabilistic.1. INTRODUCTIONPerformance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) seeks to improve seismic riskdecision-making through assessment and design methods that have a strong scientificbasis and that express options in terms that enable stakeholders to make informeddecisions. Publication of the first generation of PBEE procedures in the United States(FEMA-273 1997 and ATC-40 1996) marked a major advancement to formalizeconcepts that had been envisioned by the earthquake engineering profession for manyyears (Krawinkler and Miranda, 2004). The basic concept of these procedures isshown in Figure 1, where a building is being loaded by earthquake-induced lateralforces that result in nonlinear response and damage. Relations are then establishedbetween structural response indices (interstory drifts, inelastic componentdeformations, and member forces) and performance-oriented descriptions such asImmediate Occupancy, Life Safety and Collapse Prevention.1 Professor, John A. Blume Earthquake Engrg. Center, Stanford University, e-mail: ggd@stanford.edu15
OPEOPEOPEBaseShear000IO LS CP25% 50% 100%0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.251 7 30 180Figure 1. Schematic of PBEE assessment process and performance metrics.As with the introduction of any new technologies, there are limitations in thefirst-generation PBEE procedures that warrant further development. Among these arethe following: (1) Engineering demands and the calibrations between demands andcomponent performance are based on simplified analysis techniques, which are notamenable to the use of more realistic inelastic time-history simulation technologies;(2) Associations between engineering demands and component performance arebased somewhat inconsistently on relations between laboratory tests, analyticalmodels, and engineering judgment; (3) Relationships between building systemperformance and component limit states (e.g., definition of “Life Safety” performancebased on a single component deformation) are tenuous; and (4) Except for theprobabilistic definition of the seismic hazard, the methods are largely deterministicand do not rigorously account for the uncertainties in performance prediction.One of the key improvements of the PBEE approach under development byPEER is to provide a more explicit and transparent evaluation of system performancemetrics, that are more informative to stakeholders. Referring to the lower axes inFigure 1, these metrics provide quantitative measures of economic loss, life safetyrisks (casualties), and downtime. Metrics of this sort are common in regional seismicloss assessment. In this sense, the proposed framework will help unify detailedbuilding-specific engineering provisions with more empirically based regional lossassessment methods, such HAZUS (Kircher et al. 1997a,b).2. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORKAs outlined in Table 1, the proposed assessment methodology is articulated by fourprocesses, which are roughly distinguished along disciplinary lines. Associated witheach process is an output variable, which provides for a systematic transfer ofinformation from one process to another. The assessment begins with definition of a16DeformationFEMA 273/356 Performance Levels$, % replacementCasualty rateDowntime, days
-
Page 2 and 3:
PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC DESIGNCON
-
Page 4 and 5:
CONTENTSTable of Contents..........
-
Page 6 and 7:
REAL-TIME DYNAMIC HYBRID TESTING OF
-
Page 8 and 9:
PREFACEThe workshop on “Seismic D
-
Page 10 and 11:
LIST OF PARTICIPANTSSergio M. Alcoc
-
Page 12 and 13:
RESOLUTIONSThe International Worksh
-
Page 14 and 15:
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSThe
-
Page 16 and 17:
nonlinear dynamic) and when they sh
-
Page 18 and 19:
exists to develop testing protocols
-
Page 20 and 21:
to be sent soon to the 28 members o
-
Page 22 and 23:
factor γ I is 1.4 or 1.2 for essen
-
Page 24 and 25:
i. The well-known relation µ θ -
-
Page 26 and 27:
γ s =1.15. Values less than 1.0 me
-
Page 28 and 29:
efore (factor α in Eq.(4)). Materi
-
Page 30 and 31:
the force demand from the analysis,
-
Page 34 and 35:
ground motion Intensity Measure (IM
-
Page 36 and 37:
2.2 Simulation of Engineering Deman
-
Page 38 and 39:
describing the economic losses asso
-
Page 40 and 41:
practice the localized gravity load
-
Page 42 and 43:
Whereas financial and insurance org
-
Page 44 and 45:
AN OUTLINE OF AIJ GUIDELINES FOR PE
-
Page 46 and 47:
(7) a method of performance evaluat
-
Page 48 and 49:
where, T: natural period of structu
-
Page 50 and 51:
6. DAMAGE AND LIMIT DEFORMATIONSThe
-
Page 52 and 53:
The limit inter-story deformations
-
Page 54 and 55:
DirectionX-directionY-directionSkew
-
Page 56 and 57:
HAZARD, GROUND MOTIONS AND PROBABIL
-
Page 58 and 59:
of events with [X1>x 1 , X 2 >x 2 ,
-
Page 60 and 61:
2.4 Option C: Sufficient IMs: Estim
-
Page 62 and 63:
predictions and hence required samp
-
Page 64 and 65:
PEER has put forward PBSA methodolo
-
Page 66 and 67:
3.2.1 A DCF Displacement-Based Form
-
Page 68 and 69:
parameter k (the slope of the hazar
-
Page 70 and 71:
POST-EARTHQUAKE FUNCTION OF HIGHWAY
-
Page 72 and 73:
ln( EDP) a b ln ( IM )= + (1)Probab
-
Page 74 and 75:
terms of global and local bridge pe
-
Page 76 and 77:
Figure 3. Bridge column component d
-
Page 78 and 79:
5.2 Method B: MDOF Residual Displac
-
Page 80 and 81:
calculated using a 2 dimensional mu
-
Page 82 and 83:
MODELING CONSIDERATIONS IN PROBABIL
-
Page 84 and 85:
location. Transverse reinforcement
-
Page 86 and 87:
2.50.1000Spectral Accel. (g)2.01.51
-
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 138 and 139:
In FEMA 273/356, the intersection o
-
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
-
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 212 and 213:
REFERENCESAbrams, D. P., A. S. Elna
-
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.
-
Page 262 and 263:
tests of its type ever conducted. T
-
Page 264 and 265:
end work-point to work-point). And
-
Page 266 and 267:
Fig. 5 shows the actual application
-
Page 268 and 269:
3Roof Disp. (mm)250200150100500-50-
-
Page 270 and 271:
Base Shear (kN)Base Shear (kN)40002
-
Page 272 and 273:
8. CONCLUSIONSBased on the test and
-
Page 274 and 275:
REAL-TIME DYNAMIC HYBRID TESTING OF
-
Page 276 and 277:
:::::2004) can be formulated using
-
Page 278 and 279:
The structure to be simulated is di
-
Page 280 and 281:
measurements, to the modeling of th
-
Page 282 and 283:
Figure 8. Two stories (left) and hy
-
Page 284 and 285:
ROLES OF LARGE-SCALE TEST FOR ASSES
-
Page 286 and 287:
mid-height in the third story, at w
-
Page 288 and 289:
cycles were repeated for each ampli
-
Page 290 and 291:
the tests with ALC panels were excl
-
Page 292 and 293:
the relationship between the moment
-
Page 294 and 295:
attachment details adopted for inst
-
Page 296 and 297:
FULL-SCALE LABORATORY TESTING: STRA
-
Page 298 and 299:
economic losses resulting from the
-
Page 300 and 301:
4. OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOME OF STRUCT
-
Page 302 and 303:
15001000500Shear [kN]0-8.0 -6.0 -4.
-
Page 304 and 305:
5.1 3D Tests on a Torsionally Unbal
-
Page 306 and 307:
Non-linear substructuring was recen
-
Page 308 and 309:
PERFORMANCE BASED ASSESSMENT — FR
-
Page 310 and 311:
4 x 50 m = 200 mC1 C2 C3h u = 7 mh
-
Page 312 and 313:
some procedures are (contrary to th
-
Page 314 and 315:
5 th floor disp. [cm]0.60.0-0.6CC =
-
Page 316 and 317:
While the global drift of the build
-
Page 318 and 319:
the use of such connections in eart
-
Page 320 and 321:
I d = 0.25elastic limitmaximum resi
-
Page 322 and 323:
As regards the influence of differe
-
Page 324 and 325:
ON GROUND MOTION DURATION AND ENGIN
-
Page 326 and 327:
time between the first and last acc
-
Page 328 and 329:
FyFyFyFFFkk0.03kδδδcover a large
-
Page 330 and 331:
T5b, T13a, T13b, T20a and T20b can
-
Page 332 and 333:
Tabled results show that in the cas
-
Page 334 and 335:
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1Dkin PfSa[g]0 0.25
-
Page 336 and 337:
ON DRIFT LIMITS ASSOCIATED WITH DIF
-
Page 338 and 339:
BehaviourElasticInelasticCollapseDa
-
Page 340 and 341:
Other factors such as the applied l
-
Page 342 and 343:
4. MOMENT RESISTING FRAMES4.1 Ducti
-
Page 344 and 345:
5Ductility factor432100 0.2 0.4 0.6
-
Page 346 and 347:
5.1 Flexural Structural WallsAn exa
-
Page 348 and 349:
MODAL PUSHOVER ANALYSIS: SYMMETRIC-
-
Page 350 and 351:
Floor963SeattleNonlinear RHAFEMA1st
-
Page 352 and 353:
The peak modal demands r n are then
-
Page 354 and 355:
9BostonSeattleLos AngelesFloor63RSA
-
Page 356 and 357:
5. EVALUATION OF MPA: UNSYMMETRIC-P
-
Page 358 and 359:
Without additional conceptual compl
-
Page 360 and 361:
AN IMPROVED PUSHOVER PROCEDURE FOR
-
Page 362 and 363:
for a response governed by the fund
-
Page 364 and 365:
2.2 Modal ScalingThe principal aim
-
Page 366 and 367:
2.3 Pushover-History AnalysisSubsti
-
Page 368 and 369:
(3) Calculate cumulative scale fact
-
Page 370 and 371:
46.4 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58
-
Page 372 and 373:
EXTENSIONS OF THE N2 METHOD — ASY
-
Page 374 and 375:
The strength reduction factor due t
-
Page 376 and 377:
The relations apply to SDOF systems
-
Page 378 and 379:
in X-direction pushover curves prac
-
Page 380 and 381:
As an example, an idealized force-d
-
Page 382 and 383:
The IN2 curve can be used in the pr
-
Page 384 and 385:
HORIZONTALLY IRREGULAR STRUCTURES:
-
Page 386 and 387:
Dutta and Das (2002, 2002b and refs
-
Page 388 and 389:
They tested the procedure on three
-
Page 390 and 391:
Table 1. Properties of the 4 WallsW
-
Page 392 and 393:
The following is a summary of two s
-
Page 394 and 395:
ectangular concrete deck supported
-
Page 396 and 397:
REFERENCESAlmazan, J. L., and J. C.
-
Page 398 and 399:
Rosenblueth, E. (1957). “Consider
-
Page 400 and 401:
instantaneous period of vibration a
-
Page 402 and 403:
value of the maximum plastic deform
-
Page 404 and 405:
(a) elastic-perfectly plastic type(
-
Page 406 and 407:
where a is the constant peculiar to
-
Page 408 and 409:
Referring to Eq. (15), the natural
-
Page 410 and 411:
-The effective period obtained by u
-
Page 412 and 413:
eal damage data, rather than theore
-
Page 414 and 415:
liquefaction-induced damage. This i
-
Page 416 and 417:
Figure 5. Selected damage distribut
-
Page 418 and 419:
Figure 6. Idealized capacity spectr
-
Page 420 and 421:
I’ for the ductile case, as expec
-
Page 422 and 423:
This study has shown that a modific
-
Page 424 and 425:
thickness of the inner wall is usua
-
Page 426 and 427:
4. EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTION INPUT A
-
Page 428 and 429:
5.2 Performance Levels and Limit St
-
Page 430 and 431:
where λ I jis the occurrence rate
-
Page 432 and 433:
intensity VI because the number of
-
Page 434 and 435:
and thus are not considered in seis
-
Page 436 and 437:
The values of the displacement modi
-
Page 438 and 439:
constant amplitude loading (CA) or
-
Page 440 and 441:
deterioration. These are the type o
-
Page 442 and 443:
members, is the main feature of the
-
Page 444 and 445:
RESULTS, DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION
-
Page 446 and 447:
systems, where FEMA estimations are
-
Page 448 and 449:
The case study is a Hospital in the
-
Page 450 and 451:
Table 1. Dimensions and amount of r
-
Page 452 and 453:
4.2 Incremental AnalysisBase shear
-
Page 454 and 455:
When adding jackets to columns, the
-
Page 456 and 457:
storyShear in interior Column [ton]
-
Page 458 and 459:
PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC ASSESSMEN
-
Page 460 and 461:
2. HYBRID FRAME BUILDINGSTwo precas
-
Page 462 and 463:
15’ - 0” 15’ - 0”Hybrid fra
-
Page 464 and 465:
and maximum residual inter-story fr
-
Page 466 and 467:
As the first step in understanding
-
Page 468 and 469:
Table 3. Comparison of calculated m
-
Page 470 and 471:
NEW MODEL FOR PERFORMANCE BASED DES
-
Page 472 and 473:
(a) interior beam-column joint(b) k
-
Page 474 and 475:
yxVN =VADjDBABLD jDOV cOVCN= VLV bV
-
Page 476 and 477:
3.3.2 B-modeThe equilibrium conditi
-
Page 478 and 479:
3.6 Failure ModeBased on the calcul
-
Page 480 and 481:
Name ofSpecimenTable 2. Comparison
-
Page 482 and 483:
EARTHQUAKE ACTIONS IN SEISMIC CODES
-
Page 484 and 485:
examination of the risk implication
-
Page 486 and 487:
Bozorgnia and Campbell (2004) find
-
Page 488 and 489:
structure, the results of inelastic
-
Page 490 and 491:
hazard curves will often vary throu
-
Page 492 and 493:
large uncertainties associated with
-
Page 494 and 495:
A PRAGMATIC APPROACH FOR PERFORMANC
-
Page 496 and 497:
Relative Height20118160.8140.6 1210
-
Page 498 and 499:
Yield Strength Coefficient, Cy2.01.
-
Page 500 and 501:
Yield Strength Coefficient, Cy*1.61
-
Page 502 and 503:
2.6 Preliminary DesignIn the preced
-
Page 504 and 505:
4. CONCLUSIONSIn the space availabl
-
Page 506 and 507:
EXAMINATION OF THE EQUIVALENT VISCO
-
Page 508 and 509:
of the bilinear model with the ener
-
Page 510 and 511:
3. STUDY PARAMETERS AND ASSESSMENT
-
Page 512 and 513:
decided to investigate the accuracy
-
Page 514 and 515:
DISPLACEMENT(m)DISPLACEMENT (m)DISP
-
Page 516 and 517:
The results for all 100 earthquake
-
Page 518 and 519:
CONTRASTING PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIG
-
Page 520 and 521:
Conceptual design is greatly facili
-
Page 522 and 523:
2. The availability of cost-of-repa
-
Page 524 and 525:
There are many questions to be answ
-
Page 526 and 527:
assess expected NSASS losses. For t
-
Page 528 and 529:
3.2.2 Design for Tolerable Mean Ann
-
Page 530 and 531:
THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS IN JAP
-
Page 532 and 533:
2.1 Law Enforcement and InspectionT
-
Page 534 and 535:
Splices and development of reinforc
-
Page 536 and 537:
as for the rising part of continuou
-
Page 538 and 539:
compressive stress of concrete is t
-
Page 540 and 541:
MOLIT Notification No. 1461 outline
-
Page 542 and 543:
AUTHOR INDEXH. Akiyama.............
-
Page 544 and 545:
F. Taucer .........................
-
Page 546 and 547:
PEER 2003/06PEER 2003/05PEER 2003/0
-
Page 548 and 549:
PEER 2001/13PEER 2001/12Modeling So
-
Page 550:
PEER 1999/04 Adoption and Enforceme
Change language