1. Research Status UC Science Building PEER Testbeds Fall 2002 Quarterly Meeting Holiday Inn Oakland Airport 8 November 2002 Keith Porter, California Institute of Technology

2. 2 2.1 UCS Structural Model 2D models –Two 2D models: transverse (Oct02), longitudinal (30 April 2003) –Vary strength, stiffness, ground motion, soil (30 Apr 2003) 3D model –Best-estimate model + uncertain mass 31 Aug 2003 –One ground motion to compare w/2D –Mass varied to see if torsion matters Selected response time-histories (d h, v h, a h ) i relative & absolute at points {i} {i} are at center of each floor EDP format either: –For each IM, E[EDP] vector and V[EDP] matrix –Simulations of [EDP] T Report sections Ch 5 done 10 Jul 2002, revisit ??

3. 3 2.0 Facility Description Comerio text by 31 Dec 2002

4. 4 Recorded vs. Simulation Recs Mosalam to run 2D model with simulated recs (Sept 2003) for all IM levels –Beck to provide Matlab code, Mosalam to simulate motions (w/permission of Ivan Au) –Atkinson & Silva (BSSA Apr 2000) –[M, R] from Somerville’s 30 recs; scale to same S a values –Compare EDP (d h, v h, a h, IDI) i relative & absolute with those from recorded motions Beck & Porter to compare DV (Sep 2003)

5. 5 2.2 Structural Analysis Mosalam provided database of time histories for all motions; see previous EDPs of interest: PDA, PDV, PIV, PTD, (horizontal; peak positive, negative values) Check vertical amplification 30 Nov 02 (with updated report) Schedule & format of EDPs (see previous) Mosalam results to report 10 Jul 2002. Updated tables & text, plus pushover results 30 Nov 2002

6. 6 2.3a Small Component Fragilities DMs: see Porter (13 Sep 2002) DVs DMs and FFs.ppt Hutchinson fragility functions delivered 31 Dec 2002 Basis for development & validation –Mechanical testing 4 configs (1A, 1B, 2A, 2B) of mock lab, 2 bench against wall; horizontal excitation – see Hutchinson ppt (7 Nov 2002) –10 pcs equipment, incl. 2 microscopes, 3 monitors, 3 SGI systems (Octane, Indigo, &), glassware (some broken!) –10 ground motions with broad dynamic characteristics –Lab tests validate analytical model –Limit states related to displacement (slide off shelf) & relative velocity (impact other objects) –Lab tests of coefficients of friction Yr-5 configs: see above Yr-6 config: 2 benches back-to-back, shelves on Unistrut Report Sec 6.2 outline May 2002, partial draft Oct 2002 Literature review: Soong (2000; MCEER 2000-5) constant  k, PGA as EDP, vertical motions in analytical tests

7. 7 2.3b Large Equipment Fragilities Fragility functions by 31 Dec 2002 –p[O/T|EDP, equipment, restraint condition] –p[Displ > x | (same conditions)] –p[velocity > v| (same conditions)] Basis for development & validation –Mechanical testing X configs (free-standing, restrained) –3 pcs equipment: huge incubator, 2 refrigerators (1 slender) –500 combinations of ground motions (up to 10%/50 yr) & restraint –¼-scale equipment for 2%/50 yr (  20-in displ. in full scale) –Lab tests to validate analytical model? –2 video directions, wire pots, extensometers along diag to check rigid- body –Lab tests of coefficients of friction Report Sec 6.2 outline (date), partial draft 31 Dec 2002 Literature review (long list)

8. 8 2.6 Performance Metrics Who are the DMs –Van Nuys: owner, insurer & financier –UCS: user (GRA, PI) negotiating with administration What is the hazard –Owner (including UCS): “the earthquake” (question: what event?) –Insurer, finance: probabilistic What are the DVs? –Van Nuys: deaths, injuries, repair costs, downtime –UCS: operational failure, life-safety failure, cost, downtime What are the key DVs (“performance metrics”)? –Van Nuys: see May (23 Oct 2002) DV meeting.doc –UCS: see 3 papers of DM interviews by Ellwood (years ~2-3) Why are they important? –Because DMs can understand them, can’t digest DVs to make decisions Chang will document this –Mar 2003 based on Ellwood’s papers, including generic info from Nisqually –Revised based on UC focus groups 30 Sept 2003

9. 9 2.6 Campus Performance Metrics Relevant functional categories –To what other facilities can UCS DV|IM relationships be applied? –What are the other categories? What kinds of decisions are relevant for the campus testbed? In each kind of decision, who are the decision makers? For each decision maker, what are the metrics needed from the campus model? Chang to provide draft text for report by Sep 2003?