1. PEER Relating Structural Response to Damage Eduardo Miranda Hesaam Aslani Shahram Taghavi Stanford University PEER 2002 Annual Meeting

2. Damage Estimation EDPDM How to relate structural response parameters to structural and nonstructural damage ? E. Miranda, PEER 2002 Annual Meeting

3. Damage Estimation EDPDM We need information of damage sustained by structural and nonstructural components when subjected to different levels of structural response. We need MOTION–DAMAGE PAIRS. E. Miranda, PEER 2002 Annual Meeting

4. Damage Estimation 1.Experimental research (e.g. in a lab). Where can we get MOTION–DAMAGE PAIRS for structural nonstructural components ? E. Miranda, PEER 2002 Annual Meeting 2.Damage surveys from instrumented structures that have experienced earthquakes. 3.Damage surveys from structures that have experienced earthquakes and where records are available near by. EXAMPLE 1 – STRUCTURAL COMPONENT EXAMPLE 2 – NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENT

5. Minor Cracks Appear 0123456 IDR [%] Minor Cracks Appear Damage State IDR [%] Lateral Load (Kips) Lateral Displacement (in) Punching Shear Failure Punching Shear Failure Significant Cracking Significant Cracking Collapse DS 4 : Collapse Damage States For Slab- Column Connections

6. Damage States Based On Experimental Results

7. 0123456 IDR [%] Punching Shear Failure Damage State Influence of Gravity Shear Ratio on Punching Failure

8. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.00.10.20.30.40.5 IDR [%] Gravity Shear Ratio 0 V V g Trend ? Dispersion ? Influence of Gravity Shear Ratio on Punching Failure For a Single Specimen

9. Influence of Gravity Shear Ratio on Punching Failure General trend based on 67 punching failure reports.

10. Influence of shear gravity shear ratio on the dispersion of punching failure drift ratio General trend based on 67 punching failure reports. 0 1 2 3 4 5 00.20.40.60.811.21.4 Gravity Shear Ratio Residuals 0 V V g

11. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0%1%2%3%4%5%6% EDP (IDR) P (DM | EDP) Minor Cracks Appear Fragility curves P( DM | EDP ) Punching Shear Failure Significant Cracking

12. Olive View Medical Center 1994 Northridge Earthquake Lateral resisting system: Concrete and steel shear walls Fundamental period of vibration: 0.33 sec Damages: Minor structural but major nonstructural damages

13. N-S Direction E-W Direction Recorded Floor Accelerations in Northridge EQ.

14. N-S Direction E-W Direction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 05001000150020002500 Max. FA (cm/s 2 ) Floor Recorded 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 05001000150020002500 Max. FA (cm/s 2 ) Floor Recorded PFA profile of the building Computed

15. Damage surveys of nonstructural components

16. Damage-motion pairs for HVAC systems of Olive View Hospital 0.20.4 0.8 0.61.01.21.61.4 No Damage Heavy damage Moderate damage Insignificant damage PFA (g) Damage state E-W direction N-S direction

17. 0.20.4 0.8 0.61.01.21.61.4 No Damage Heavy damage Moderate damage PFA (g) Damage state 161 97 25 17 1150 Insignificant damage 2 16 29 5 12 10 1 1 2 11 1 13 1 1 1 1 1 Damage-motion pairs for HVAC systems of 19 buildings Burbank, 10-story residential building Burbank, 6-story commercial building Los Angeles, 17-story residential bldg Los Angeles, 19-story office building Los Angeles, 2-story fire command Los Angeles, 3-story commercial bldg Los Angeles, 5-story warehouse Los Angeles, 52-story office bldg Los Angeles, 54-story office bldg Los Angeles, 6-story office bldg Los Angeles, 54-story parking structure Los Angeles, 7-story UCLA math/science bldg Los Angeles, 7-story university hospital Los Angeles, 9-story office building Los Angeles, Hollywood storage building North Hollywood, 20-story hotel Sherman oaks, 13-story commercial building Sylmar, 6-story hospital Van Nuys, 7-story hotel

18. Fragility curves of HVAC systems