Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley

Whereas financial and insurance organizations are comfortable dealing with meanannual expected losses or mean annual frequencies of exceedence on loss (which fitinto their business planning models), other stakeholders prefer more “intuitive”measures, such as likely losses or downtimes from one or more earthquake scenarios.In some cases, stakeholders may evaluate earthquake hazard mitigation throughstructural retrofit as one alternative among other strategies (such as insurance) tomanage their risk. In other cases, PBEE may assist in quantifying trade-offs betweenthe cost-benefits of earthquake mitigation compared to other business or societalneeds and priorities. A practical implication of this is that the PBEE methodologyshould permit alternative descriptions of the performance metrics. Thus, while cast interms of a rigorous probabilistic framework, the intent is that the final expression ofthe PBEE decision variables can be translated into different formats.Thinking in broader terms about PBEE and the proposed methodology, two goalsare envisioned. The first is to create a performance engine to be applied in full detailto the seismic performance assessment of important or critical facilities, where suchefforts are warranted. The second is to provide the means of calibrating simplifiedprocedures that might be used for advancement of future building codes. It is in thisapplication that the methodology is likely to have its largest potential impact.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe work summarized herein was supported by the PEER Center through the EERCProgram of the National Science Foundation under Award number EEC-9701568.The author acknowledges the leadership of the PEER Management Team, led bydirector Jack Moehle, and the many contributions of PEER researchers in developingthe proposed methodology and enabling technologies. Any opinions, findings, andconclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author anddo not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation or other sponsors.REFERENCESATC-40. (1996). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of existing concrete buildings, Report No.ATC-40, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.Aslani, H., E. Miranda. (2003). “Fragility Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Interior SlabColumn Connections,” J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, submitted for publication.Aslani, H., E. Miranda. (2004). “Component-Level and System-Level Sensitivity Study forEarthquake Loss Estimation,” Paper No. 1070, Proc. 13WCEE, Vancouver, B.C.Baker, J. W., C. A. Cornell. (2004). “Choice of a Vector of Ground Motion Intensity Measuresfor Seismic Demand Hazard Analysis,” Paper No. 3384, Proc. 13WCEE, Vancouver, B.C.Baker, J., C. A. Cornell. (2003). Uncertainty Specification and Propagation for LossEstimation Using FOSM Method, PEER Report 2003-07, http:/peer.berkeley.edu.Comerio, M., J. C. Stallmeyer, W. Holmes, P. Morris, S. Lau. (2002). Nonstructural LossEstimation: The UC Berkeley Case Study, PEER 2002-01, http:/peer.berkeley.edu.Comerio, M. (ed.). (2004). PEER Testbed Study on a Laboratory Building: Exercising SeismicPerformance Assessment, PEER Report 2004/#, (in press). http:/peer.berkeley.edu.25