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

2. NSF-PEER Summative Meeting SEAOC Vision 2000, FEMA 273, ATC-40 Descriptive performance levels (IO, LS, CP, etc.) Associated with specific hazard levels → Performance Objectives Qualitative (and a few quantitative) damage measures Limited consideration of uncertainties Implementation in terms of FORCES and DEFORMATIONS Where were we 10 years ago?

3. NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Forces and deformation? Yes, but only for engineering calculations Intermediate variables Not for communication with clients and community Communication in terms of the three D’s: Dollars (direct economic loss) Downtime (loss of operation/occupancy) Death (injuries, fatalities, collapse) Quantification Losses for a given shaking intensity Losses for a specific scenario (M & R) Annualized losses With or without rigorous consideration of uncertainties Measures of Performance - PBEE

4. NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Joe’s Beer!Food! 1.Complete simulation 2.Defined performance objectives Quantifiable performance targets Annual probabilities of achieving them 3.Informed owners Joe’s Beer!Food! Beer!Food! Sources: G. Deierlein, R. Hamburger Vision of PBEE

5. Performance (Loss) Models and Simulation Hazard Impact The Peer Framework Equation - 1999 Curse? Blessing

6. NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Performance-Based Methodology – Bldgs. Engineering Demand Parameter Intensity Measure Damage Measure drift as an EDP Decision Variable Collapse & Casualties Direct Financial Loss Downtime Measures of Performance

7. NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Intensity Measure Performance-Based Methodology Engineering Demand Parameter Medina & Krawinkler

8. NSF-PEER Summative Meeting EDP (e.g., max. interstory drift) IM (e.g., S a (T 1 )) IM Hazard curve (annual freq. of exceedance) Incremental Dynamic Analysis

9. NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Decision Variable Engineering Demand Parameter Intensity Measure Performance-Based Methodology Medina & Krawinkler Damage Measure Damage Fragility Curves: Cost Functions: + Mean Loss Curve: Aslani & Miranda ATC-58 definitions of performance assessment types Intensity-based:Probable facility performance, given intensity of ground motion Scenario-based:Probable facility performance, given a specific earthquake scenario Time-based: Probable facility performance in a specified period of time Performance Assessment types (ATC-58 definitions): Intensity-based: Scenario-based: Time-based: Prob. facility perf., given intensity of ground motion Prob. facility perf., given a specific earthquake scenario Prob. facility perf. In a specific period of time

10. Deaggregation of Expected Annual Loss Source: E. Miranda Collapse 29% Non-collapse 71% Structural 12% Non-tructural 88% Example: Van Nuys Testbed Building

11. NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Structural System Domain Loss Domain Hazard Domain NSDSSNSASS EDP = Max. Interstory DriftEDP = Max. Floor Acceleration Mean Subsystem Loss Curves EDP = Max. Interstory DriftEDP = Max. Floor Acceleration Mean IM-EDP Curves Mean Hazard Curve 10/50 Expected $Loss Design Decision Support Zareian & Krawinkler (2005)

12. NSF-PEER Summative Meeting 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 0 5 10 15 20 05101520  si,max [S a (T 1 )/g] /  Non-degrading system Degrading system Collapse Capacity  = VyVy W Assessment of Collapse Potential

13. NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Modeling of Deterioration

14. NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Collapse Capacity for a Set of Ground Motions

15. NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Collapse Fragility Curve Zareian & Krawinkler (2004) 0.1

16. NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Probability of Collapse at MCE, for MRFs with R = 8 Zareian & Krawinkler (2007)

17. NSF-PEER Summative Meeting ATC-58 – Guidelines for Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings ATC-63 – Recommended Methodology for Quantification of Building System Performance TBI – Tall Building Initiative LRFD for bridge design Implementation of Framework Impact – Implementation: ATC-58 – Guidelines for Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings ATC-63 – Recommended Methodology for Quantification of Building System Performance TBI – Tall Building Initiative LRFD for bridge design

18. NSF-PEER Summative Meeting Concluding Remarks - 1999 Performance based engineering is here to stay It enforces a transparent design/assessment approach Much more emphasis must be placed on $ losses and loss of function (downtime) Performance based design should be reliability based We have a long road ahead of us