12.07.2015 Views

Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley

Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley

Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

more general, as a tolerable mean annual frequency <strong>of</strong> collapse. Both options arepursued in Section 3.2.3. DECISION SUPPORT IN CONCEPTUAL DESIGNIn the up-front conceptual design process, decisions have to be made on the type <strong>of</strong>structural system and its global strength, stiffness, and ductility properties. In thefollowing discussion general comments are made on design decisions based on theperformance targets summarized in the previous section, with implementationsillustrated for moment resisting frames, simply because many “design decision aids”have been developed for such frames. The development <strong>of</strong> similar design decisionaids for wall structures is in progress.3.1 Design Decisions Derived from Loss-Based Performance TargetsThe conceptual process <strong>of</strong> making design decisions based on acceptable dollar losses,is illustrated in Figure 2. The lower portion illustrates the expected loss-EDPrelationship for the dominant subsystem (e.g., NSDSS). The left upper portion showsthe mean S a hazard curve for the specific site, for the estimated first mode period <strong>of</strong>the structure. The right upper portion shows mean S a -EDP relationships for severaldesign alternatives. The process is to enter the lower graph with a value <strong>of</strong> acceptableloss and obtain the associated EDP, and to enter the left upper portion with the hazardlevel at which the loss is acceptable and obtain the associated S a . The intersection <strong>of</strong>the S a value and the EDP value in the design alternatives graph can be viewed as a“design target”. All system solutions that intersect the S a line to the left <strong>of</strong> the designpoint are “feasible” solutions, i.e., the associated expected losses are smaller than thetarget acceptable loss. The “best” solution will depend on many considerations, some<strong>of</strong> them being discussed in the example given in Section 3.1.1.Mean HazardCurveSa/gMean IM-EDP relations forvarious design alternativesDesignTargetPointH(Sa/g )EDPExpected subsystem lossEDPFigure 2. Designing for acceptable monetary loss (or for targeted EDP).510

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!