PEER 2002 PEER Annual Meeting PEER 2002 Annual Meeting uHelmut Krawinkler Seismic Demand Analysis.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Motion and Force A. Motion 1. Motion is a change in position

Advertisements

INSTITUTE OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING SEISMOLOGY (IZIIS) University SS. Cyril and Methodius Skopje, Republic of Macedonia.

Seismic Performance Assessment and Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings SPEAR International Workshop Joint Research Centre, Ispra, 4 th -5 th April 2005.

Robustness assessment for multiple column loss scenarios

Performance-based Evaluation of the Seismic Response of Bridges with Foundations Designed to Uplift Marios Panagiotou Assistant Professor, University of.

1 Holmes IRCC Workshop October 18, 2006 Motivation and Development of PBEE for Existing and New Buildings William T. Holmes Structural Engineer Rutherford.

Seismic Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings Ronald O. Hamburger Senior Principal Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. Quake Summit 2010 October 8, 2010.

Nirmal Jayaram Nilesh Shome Helmut Krawinkler 2010 SCEC Annual Meeting A statistical analysis of the responses of tall buildings to recorded and simulated.

PEER 2002 PEER Annual Meeting PEER 2002 Annual Meeting uPractical Application of the PEER Limit State Checking Methodolgy uAllin Cornell uwith F. Jalayer,

ATC 58 Performance Assessment Calculation Tool (PACT)

Stability Degradation and Redundancy in Damaged Structures Benjamin W. Schafer Puneet Bajpai Department of Civil Engineering Johns Hopkins University.

Record Processing Considerations for Analysis of Buildings Moh Huang California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program California Geological Survey Department.

Prague, March 18, 2005Antonio Emolo1 Seismic Hazard Assessment for a Characteristic Earthquake Scenario: Integrating Probabilistic and Deterministic Approaches.

Structural models Christine Goulet, Presenter

PEER Jonathan P. Stewart University of California, Los Angeles May 22, 2002 Geotechnical Uncertainties for PBEE.

GMSM Methodology and Terminology Christine Goulet, UCLA GMSM Core Members.

Quantifying risk by performance- based earthquake engineering, Cont’d Greg Deierlein Stanford University …with contributions by many 2006 IRCC Workshop.

Ground Motion Intensity Measures for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Hemangi Pandit Joel Conte Jon Stewart John Wallace.

The use of risk in design: ATC 58 performance assessment procedure Craig D. Comartin.

Demand and Capacity Factor Design: A Performance-based Analytic Approach to Design and Assessment Sharif University of Technology, 25 April 2011 Demand.

Framework for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Helmut Krawinkler, Stanford U. PEER Summative Meeting – June 13, 2007.

Partially Post-Tensioned Precast Concrete Walls

Overview of GMSM Methods Nicolas Luco 1 st Workshop on Ground Motion Selection and Modification (GMSM) for Nonlinear Analysis – 27 October 2006.

Section 2.1 Overview Types of NL Models Inelastic Model Attributes

Assessing Effectiveness of Building Code Provisions Greg Deierlein & Abbie Liel Stanford University Curt Haselton Chico State University … other contributors.

S a (T 1 ) Scaling Nilesh Shome ABS Consulting. Methodology Developed in 1997 (Shome, N., Cornell, C. A., Bazzurro, P., and Carballo, J. (1998), “Earthquake,

Roberto PAOLUCCI Department of Structural Engineering

Ground Motion Parameters Measured by triaxial accelerographs 2 orthogonal horizontal components 1 vertical component Digitized to time step of

Seismic LRFD for Pile Foundation Design

December 3-4, 2007Earthquake Readiness Workshop Seismic Design Considerations Mike Sheehan.

Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering

Time-dependent vulnerability assessment of RC buildings considering

Preliminary Investigations on Post-earthquake Assessment of Damaged RC Structures Based on Residual Drift Jianze Wang Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Kaoshan.

Incremental Dynamic Analyses on Bridges on various Shallow Foundations Lijun Deng PI’s: Bruce Kutter, Sashi Kunnath University of California, Davis NEES.

Earthquakes and Modeling Chris Van Horn and Kyle Eli.

Greg Deierlein, Paul Cordova, Eric Borchers, Xiang Ma, Sarah

Task 3—Development and verification of simplified design tools Juan Vargas – Junior in Civil Engineering – Vice President SCU SHPE Mark Aschheim – Professor,

PEER EARTHQUAKE SCIENCE-ENGINEERING INTERFACE: STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE Allin Cornell Stanford University SCEC WORKSHOP Oakland, CA.

Static Pushover Analysis

Prof. Khalid Mosalam University of California, Berkeley.

Opportunities for NEES Research Utilization Robert D Hanson Professor Emeritus University of Michigan.

Performance-based Earthquake Engineering – A Very Short Introduction (why taking Dynamics of Structures) Dr. ZhiQiang Chen UMKC Spring,2011.

GROUND MOTION INTENSITY MEASURES THAT CORRELATE TO ENGINEERING DEMAND PARAMETERS Jonathan Bray and Thaleia Travasarou University of California, Berkeley.

IMPLEMENTATION OF SCEC RESEARCH IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING ONGOING PROJECTS SCEC PROPOSAL TO NSF SCEC 2004 RFP.

Weian Liu 3. Research Interest Soil Structure Interaction Seismic Analysis and Design of Bridge Structures Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics.

The 5th Tongji-UBC Symposium on Earthquake Engineering

University of Palestine

1 NEESR Project Meeting 22/02/2008 Modeling of Bridge Piers with Shear-Flexural Interaction and Bridge System Response Prof. Jian Zhang Shi-Yu Xu Prof.

Semi-active Management of Structures Subjected to High Frequency Ground Excitation C.M. Ewing, R.P. Dhakal, J.G. Chase and J.B. Mander 19 th ACMSM, Christchurch,

EERI Seminar on Next Generation Attenuation Models Role of SCEC Ground Motion Simulation Validation Technical Activity Group (GMSV TAG) in SEISM Project.

1 Building Collapse Fragilities Considering Mainshock-Aftershock Sequences Using Publicly Available NEEShub Data Yue Li and Ruiqaing Song Michigan Technological.

Part II: Model Class Selection Given: Dynamic data from system and set of candidate model classes where each model class defines a set of possible predictive.

Tall Building Initiative Response Evaluation Helmut Krawinkler Professor Emeritus Stanford University On behalf of the Guidelines writers: Y. Bozorgnia,

NEEDS FOR PERFORMANCE-BASED GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

Nonlinear Performance and Potential Damage of Degraded Structures Under Different Earthquakes The 5 th Tongji-UBC Symposium on Earthquake Engineering “Facing.

C ONSIDERATION OF C OLLAPSE AND R ESIDUAL D EFORMATION IN R ELIABILITY-BASED P ERFORMANCE E VALUATION OF B UILDINGS Chiun-lin WU 1, Chin-Hsiung LOH 2,

Response of MDOF structures to ground motion 1. If damping is well-behaving, or can be approximated using equivalent viscous damping, we can decouple.

Adaptive Nonlinear Analysis as Applied to Performance based Earthquake Engineering Dr. Erol Kalkan, P.E. United States Geological Survey TUFTS, 2008.

Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the pseudo-negative stiffness control of a steel base-isolated building: A comparative study with bilinear.

Progress towards Structural Design for Unforeseen Catastrophic Events ASME Congress Puneet Bajpai and Ben Schafer The Johns Hopkins University.

SCHEDULE 8:30 AM 10:30 AM Session I 11:00 AM Break 12:15 PM Session II 1:30 PM Lunch 2:45 PM Session III 3:15 PM 4:30 PM Session IV.

Ground Motions and Liquefaction – The Loading Part of the Equation

Seismic Performance of New and Older CBFs Dawn Lehman and Charles Roeder (PIs) Po-Chien Hsiao (GSRs) University of Washington.

SEISMIC ASSESMENT of SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL using FRAGILITY CURVES

Seismic analysis of Bridges Part II

Eduardo Ismael Hernández UPAEP University, MEXICO

(PERFORMANCE-BASED PLASTIC DESIGN)

Seismic Moment Dr. Syed Mohamed Ibrahim M.Tech., Ph.D.,

Earthquake resistant buildings

Notes on the Intensity Measure Breakout Session - PEER Annual Meeting - Jan. 17, 2002 · Testbeds will not provide definitive answers as to the best.

Presentation transcript:

PEER 2002 PEER Annual Meeting PEER 2002 Annual Meeting uHelmut Krawinkler Seismic Demand Analysis

Performance Assessment Performance (Loss) Models and Simulation Hazard Impact Please accept my apologies for showing the (in)famous framework equation

Engineering Demand Parameters Collapse:Maximum Story Drift (and others) Struct. Damage:Story Drifts (each story) and Component Deformations Nonstr. Damage:Story Drift (each story) Content Damage:Floor Acceleration and Velocity (each story)

Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis (PSDA) Given: Structural system Base shear strength,  = V y /W Story shear strength distribution Ground motion hazard, (S a (T 1 )) Set of representative ground motions Asked: EDP hazard, (EDP), max. drift, average drift, floor accel.

Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis EDP (y)= mean annual frequency of EDP exceeding the value y P[EDP  y | IM = x]= probability of EDP exceeding y given that IM equals x IM (x)= mean annual frequency of IM exceeding the value x (ground motion hazard)

EDP (e.g., max. interstory drift) IM (e.g., S a (T 1 )) IM Hazard curve (annual freq. of exceedance) Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA)

Hazard Curve for Average of Max. Drifts AVERAGE DRIFT HAZARD CURVE-T 1 =1.8 sec. N=9,  =0.10,  =0.05, Peak-oriented model,  =0.060, BH, K 1, S 1, LMSR Average of Maximum Story Drifts,   si,ave (  ) Numerical Integration

Ground Motion Hazard: Median EDP-IM relationship: EDP Hazard Curve: Closed Form Expression for EDP Hazard

AVERAGE DRIFT HAZARD CURVE-T 1 =1.8 sec. N=9,  =0.10,  =0.05, Peak-oriented model,  =0.060, BH, K 1, S 1, LMSR Average of Maximum Story Drifts,   si,ave (  ) Analytical Sol.-Variable Std. Dev.of Log. Drfit/Given Sa Analytical Sol.-Constant Std. Dev. of Log. Drift/Given Sa Numerical Integration Hazard Curve for Average of Max. Drifts

First mode participation factor Roof drift/(Sd(T1)/H) Maximum drift/(Sd(T1)/H) Average drift/(Sd(T1)/H) FEMA 273/356 “Validation”

Median 84% Design – Strong Column Concept

[Sa(T1)/g]/ = 1.0 [Sa(T1)/g]/ = 2.0 [Sa(T1)/g]/ = 4.0 [Sa(T1)/g]/ = 6.0 [Sa(T1)/g]/ = 8.0 OTM-simplifed proc.      Design – Overturning Moment

Non-Deteriorating Hysteretic Systems Displacement Force Displacement Force Displacement Force

Basic Modes of Deterioration

Calibration - RC Component

Very Ductile – Slow Deterioration

Medium Ductile – Moderate Deterioration

Deterioration Effect, MDOF System NORM. STRENGTH VS. MAX. STORY DUCT. N=9, T 1 =0.9,  =0.05,  =0.03,  =0.015, H 3, BH, K 1, S 1, NR94nya  si,max [S a (T 1 )/g] /  Non-degrading system Degrading system

Median Global Collapse Assessment

Collapse Fragility Curves – SDOF Systems

Median R-factors at Collapse - SDOF Systems

Summary Assessment PSDA, leading to EDP hazard curves, is feasible for 2-D and 3-D systems We need refinements/improvements in IMs and ground motion selection procedures Site effect and SFSI quantification Quantification of uncertainties Modeling of deterioration Collapse prediction necessitates Modeling of deterioration Modeling of propagation of local collapses Consideration of ground motions associated with long return period hazards (near-fault)