PEER Research: Accomplishments & Impact Greg Deierlein, Stanford University and the PEER Research Committee PEER Summative Meeting – June 13, 2007.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Recent Experience in Turkey for Building Vulnerability and Estimating Damage Losses P. Gülkan and A. Yakut Middle East Technical University.
Advertisements

Seismic Simulation: Advances with OpenSees
Seismic Performance Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Bridges
PEER 2002 PEER Annual Meeting PEER 2002 Annual Meeting uHelmut Krawinkler Seismic Demand Analysis.
3-D Dynamic Base Shaking Model 2-D Static BNWF Pushover Model
PEER Relating Structural Response to Damage Eduardo Miranda Hesaam Aslani Shahram Taghavi Stanford University PEER 2002 Annual Meeting.
1. 2 World seismic activity British Geological Survey 2.
Example Effects of NEES Research on Structural Design Practice Bill Holmes Rutherford + Chekene San Francisco March 3, NEES Governance Board Workshop.
Caltrans Guidelines on Foundation Loading Due to Liquefaction Induced Lateral Spreading Tom Shantz, Caltrans 2010 PEER Annual Meeting.
Performance-based Evaluation of the Seismic Response of Bridges with Foundations Designed to Uplift Marios Panagiotou Assistant Professor, University of.
PEER 2002 PEER Annual Meeting Geotechnical Seismic Simulation uAhmed Elgamal uUCSD PEER 2002 Annual Meeting Vision: Professor Steven Kramer (PEER Geotechnical.
1 Holmes IRCC Workshop October 18, 2006 Motivation and Development of PBEE for Existing and New Buildings William T. Holmes Structural Engineer Rutherford.
Chile Observatories Earthquake Readiness Workshop La Serena, Chile December Seismic Retrofit of Existing Observatories Chile Observatories Earthquake.
Nirmal Jayaram Nilesh Shome Helmut Krawinkler 2010 SCEC Annual Meeting A statistical analysis of the responses of tall buildings to recorded and simulated.
ATC 58 Performance Assessment Calculation Tool (PACT)
Bridge-related research at the University of Bristol John H.G. Macdonald.
New “Risk-Targeted” Seismic Maps Introduced into USA Building Codes
by: Jon Heintz, S.E. & Robert Pekelnicky
Panel Discussion: PBEE Practice and Needs Paul Somerville, URS Joe Maffei, R&C Ron Hamburger, SGH Lloyd Cluff, PG&E Tom Shantz, Caltrans Jim Malley, Degenkolb.
PEER Jonathan P. Stewart University of California, Los Angeles May 22, 2002 Geotechnical Uncertainties for PBEE.
Simulation and Information Technologies Gregory L. Fenves, UC Berkeley PEER Summative Meeting – June 13, 2007.
PBEE Practice and Needs Panel Discussion Lloyd Cluff, PG&E Paul Somerville, URS Joe Maffei, R&C Ron Hamburger, SGH Tom Shantz, Caltrans Jim Malley, Degenkolb.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) Strategic Initiatives Jack Moehle.
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.
Risk Decision Making for Buildings – From Owners to Society Mary Comerio University of California, Berkeley PEER Summative Meeting 13 June 2007.
PBEE Assessment and Design of Bridges Steve Mahin, UC Berkeley
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER)
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.
Modeling Decision Variables: Dollars, Deaths, and Downtime Judith Mitrani-Reiser (JHU) James L. Beck (Caltech) PEER Annual Meeting San Francisco, CA January.
Characterization of Ground Motion Hazard PEER Summative Meeting - June 13, 2007 Yousef Bozorgnia PEER Associate Director.
Implementation, Adoption, and Stakeholder Perspectives Peter J. May University of Washington PEER Summative Meeting – June 13, 2007.
Framework for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Helmut Krawinkler, Stanford U. PEER Summative Meeting – June 13, 2007.
Section 2.1 Overview Types of NL Models Inelastic Model Attributes
PEER Summative Meeting 13 June 2007 Implementation, Adoption, and Stakeholder Perspectives Peter J. May University of Washington.
Assessing Effectiveness of Building Code Provisions Greg Deierlein & Abbie Liel Stanford University Curt Haselton Chico State University … other contributors.
PEER A Survey of Bridge Practitioners to Relate Damage to Closure Keith Porter Bridge Testbed Meeting 21 Oct 2003.
Crosscutting Topic 2 Bridge Impacts and DVs Keith Porter PEER Bridge Testbed Progress Meeting Richmond Field Station May 22, 2002.
Seismic LRFD for Pile Foundation Design
The Nuclear Renaissance & Research Opportunities in the Nuclear Field Dr. Annie Kammerer PEER NEES Quake Summit 2010 San Francisco, California October.
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.
Greg Deierlein, Paul Cordova, Eric Borchers, Xiang Ma, Sarah
The 5th Tongji-UBC Symposium on Earthquake Engineering
PEER EARTHQUAKE SCIENCE-ENGINEERING INTERFACE: STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE Allin Cornell Stanford University SCEC WORKSHOP Oakland, CA.
Static Pushover Analysis
NEES Facilities Used: University of Nevada, Reno University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana INTRODUCTION Bridge columns are subjected to combinations of.
Earthquake Vulnerability and Exposure Analysis Session 2 Mr. James Daniell Risk Analysis Earthquake Risk Analysis 1.
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.
LIQUEFACTION FAILURE OF FOUNDATION - STRUCTURE COLLAPSE.
Weian Liu 3. Research Interest Soil Structure Interaction Seismic Analysis and Design of Bridge Structures Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics.
Estimation of Future Earthquake Annualized Losses in California B. Rowshandel, M. Reichle, C. Wills, T. Cao, M. Petersen, and J. Davis California Geological.
Session 1A – Ground Motions and Intensity Measures Paul Somerville Andrew Whittaker Greg Deierlein.
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.
Overview of the “Recommended LRFD Seismic Design Specifications for Highway Bridges” Ian M. Friedland, P.E. Bridge Technology Engineer Federal Highway.
Progress towards Structural Design for Unforeseen Catastrophic Events ASME Congress Puneet Bajpai and Ben Schafer The Johns Hopkins University.
Ground Motions and Liquefaction – The Loading Part of the Equation
BASICS OF DYNAMICS AND ASEISMIC DESIGN
Davide Forcellini, Univ. of San Marino Prof. Ahmed Elgamal, Dr. Jinchi Lu, UC San Diego Prof. Kevin Mackie, Univ. of Central Florida SEISMIC ASSESSMENT.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center HAWAII WASHINGTON CALIFORNIA OREGON Core University Partners: UC Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, San.
BRIDGES MOST IMPORTANT GEOTECHNICAL EFFECT- LIQUEFACTION
Presentation transcript:

PEER Research: Accomplishments & Impact Greg Deierlein, Stanford University and the PEER Research Committee PEER Summative Meeting – June 13, 2007

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Base Shear Deformation Damage Threshold Collapse Onset OPENOPEN OPENOPEN OPENOPEN FEMA 356 Performance Levels IOLSCP PBEE yesterday $, % replacement 0 25% 50% 100% Downtime, days Casualty risk PBEE today Evolution of PBEE

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting REF: Yang, Conte, Elgamal (UCSD) Comprehensive System Simulation REF: Boulanger (UCDavis)

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting PEER’s Research Projects & Products PBEE Methodology Technologies & Data Illustrative Examples Guidelines Simulation Hazard Methodology Models Impact t r a n s i t i o n s Year 1 Year 5 Year 10 Methodology: Development ---- Application/Packaging Data/Model: Creation ---- Implementation/Validation Demonstrations: Evaluate/Synthesize ---- Impact of PBEE

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Engineering Demand Parameter Intensity Measure Damage Measure Performance-Based Framework: Buildings Decision Variable Collapse & Casualties Direct Financial Loss Downtime drift as an EDP

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Bridge and Transportation Systems Damage Measure (DM) Decision Variable (DV) Engineering Demand Parameter (EDP) Intensity Measure Quality of Network Service Restoration ($ and Time)

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Electric Utility Lifeline Systems Damage Measure (DM) Decision Variable (DV) Power Transmission Lines Engineering Demand Parameter (EDP) Intensity Measure Quality of Service Restoration ($ and Time)

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Performance Assessment Components Decision Variable Intensity Measure Damage Measure Engineering Demand Parameter Relating Performance to Risk Decision Making Quantifying Damage Measures Simulation of System Response Earthquake Hazard Characterization

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting PBEE – Probability Framework Equation Performance (Loss) Models and Simulation Hazard Impact IM – Intensity Measure EDP – Engineering Demand Parameter DM – Damage Measure DV – Decision Variable (DV) – Probabilistic Description of Decision Variable (e.g., Mean Annual Probability $ Loss > 50% Replacement Cost)

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Hazard Characterization PEER Ground Motion Database Next Generation Attenuation Functions Hazard Mapping Geotechnical Data Center Selection & Scaling of Ground Motions Spatial Hazard & Correlations (scenario) Site Response and Effects Utilization of GM Shaking Data

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting PEER Ground Motion Database New DataPrevious Data Over 10,000 records Uniformly Processed Available On-Line “Google Inspired” Ground motions Maps Damage Photos

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Attenuation Functions & Hazard Maps NGA Attributes Long Period (0 to 10 sec.) Magnitude Range (5.0 to 8.5) Distance Range (0 to 200 km) Fault Mechanisms (SS, R, N) More Accurate Lower intensity in many places Improved Understanding Spectral shape Spatial correlations Influencing US national seismic hazard maps

Selection & Scaling of Ground Motions the “+  effect” Spectral Shape of Extreme (Rare) Ground Motions Collapse Assessment at the MCE

Significance of +  (SSF) effect Average Response Spectra (from bins of +  and epsilon neutral records) ++  ++ +22% increase in apparent collapse capacity Building Collapse Fragility (case study 4-story building from NL dynamic analyses) Period (sec) Sa (T1) Prob [collapse] Sa/g

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Structural & Geotechnical Simulation Reinforced Concrete Structural Modeling Cyclic degradation and shear needed for assessing damage and collapse potential Continuum Soil Models Large ground deformations & Liquefaction Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction Site response, foundation interaction necessary for system performance Computational Reliability Consistent tracking of uncertainty from hazard to model uncertainty Advanced Computing and Simulation Integrating with NEESit and cyberinfrastructure

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Integrated Simulation/Assessment Platform Algorithms, Solvers, Parallel/distributed computing Simulation & Reliability Models for Materials, Components, and Systems Computation Information Technology Software framework, Databases, Visualization, Internet/grid computation Models

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Simulating Non-Ductile RC Columns Numerical Models

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Simulating Collapse of RC Buildings Building Frame Definitions Component Tests & Models  Collapse Mechanisms P[Collapse/MCE] = 16 % Collapse Fragility Curves Building System Simulation

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Geotechnical and Soil-Foundation Models 11’ = 44’ 6’ Nodes Elastic beam- column elements 24’ 12’ Le Lm Force Disp Qz springs (Boulanger, 2000) Centrifuge Experiments (NEES-UC Davis) Soil-Foundation Model

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Soil-Structure-Foundation Interaction Behaviour of piles in liquefied soils using coupled fluid-soil models System performance analyses

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Damage Measures & Fragility Functions Reinforced Concrete Components columns & beam-column joints Nonstructural Components & Contents interior partitions laboratory equipment HVAC facilities Electric Utility Equipment Development of concepts, techniques and data applied to:

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Repair-Specific Damage Functions Damage State 0 Damage State 2 Damage State 4 Components Evaluated: RC Beam-Columns, Joints, Walls Interior Partitions Laboratory Equipment Ceiling & MEP Systems Electric Utility Components P[DM:EDP]

Testing Nonstructural Components & Equipment Lab Equipment Development of Damage (Fragility) Functions Design Improvements to Components and Equipment Development of Testing Standards -FEMA 461: Interim Protocols For Determining Seismic Performance Characteristics of Structural and Nonstructural Components -IEEE-693 standard for testing Electric Utility Equipment

Motion-Damage Pairs from Real Buildings No Damage Heavy damage Moderate damage PFA (g) DM Insignificant damage HVAC Systems EDP ( PFA g ) HVAC Systems P (DM | EDP = PFA ) a model for systematically collecting & characterizing data from damaged buildings

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Translating Damage to Decision Variables

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Decision Making and PBEE Applications Tradeoffs in Decision Making quantifying benefits and costs Influencing practice “early adopters” codes and standards implementing new technologies Influencing policy benchmarking standards and practice collaborating with stakeholders regulatory models

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Integrative Testbeds Buildings - Van Nuys - UC Sciences UCB Campus Bridges - Humboldt Bay - I-880 Viaduct Bay Area Highway Network

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting High-priority Issues for Bridges Post-earthquake residual displacements are a primary contributor to bridge closure. Liquefaction hazards continue to cause widespread damage or drive huge foundation costs. After sixth repetition of Maximum Run - Olive View About 100 columns with more than 1.75% drift were demolished after 1995 Kobe Earthquake although they did not collapse.

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Bridge Testbed Model in OpenSees Modular design developed (Stojadinovic) Core Foundation Deck Columns Abutment Billington, Eberhard, Lehman, Mahin plus Kunnath Arduino & Kramer, Boulanger, Brandenberg, Bray, Martin plus Jeremic, Elgamal Ashford

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Bridges with lateral spreading / liquefaction Assessment of current approaches, improve understanding, and identification of benefits of nonlinear analysis: Current design and remediation methods, vs. coupled soil-pile-structure models in OpenSees

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting New Technologies: Self-Centering Columns Design method: Mild reinforcement reduced Prestressing force from a central unbonded tendon Same envelop Q-  Peak displacements within 10% of RC column Residual displacements less than 20% of RC column Q  ECC, Steel Jackets, Unbonded Rebars

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Building Benchmarking Studies multiple realizations “design uncertainty” Facility Definition PBEE Assessment IM-EDP-DM-DV DV’s: p(collapse) p($ > X) p(D.T. > Y) 2003 Code Compliant - Strength - Stiffness - Capacity Design - Detailing … …

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Benchmarking: 1967 vs Designs 1960’s Vintage 2003 Design Codes BuildingCollapse Risk P col. /MCEMAF collapse 20035%1 x to 80%20 to 50 x 10 -4

Effect of Design Parameters on Performance: Minimum Base Shear Strength Issue: What minimum base shear (if any) should be imposed in ASCE 7 Minimum Design Loads Standard? Design Spectra (SDC D, R=8) minimum base shear T 4st T 20st

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Building code, regulation and policy issues Benchmarking building codes Absolute safety and performance Relative safety and performance across:  systems/materials  building heights/configurations,  seismic hazard categories  use/occupancy Non-ductile RC Building Risks how bad is the problem? technologies to address it cost-effectively policy, incentives and regulation Residential High Rise structural systems not envisioned by code tenant & societal performance expectations New Innovative structural systems

NSF-PEER Summative Meeting PEER --- Making an IMPACT Tools for decision makers Cost-benefit, financial models Regulatory & implementation issues (IRCC) Packaging of PBEE Methodology Specificity & Simplification ! Demonstrate value/benefits of PBEE Building benchmarking Bridge systems (liquefiable soil, self-centering) Dissemination & Outreach Initiatives Research community (NEES researchers) Professional engineers Other design professionals & decision makers Implementation Initiatives Buildings - ATC 58, 63, NEHRP, Insurance, … Bridges – Caltrans, FHWA, …