P E E R

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

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

3. DM Damage Estimation EDP 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. EXAMPLE 1 – STRUCTURAL COMPONENT EXAMPLE 2 – NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENT Damage Estimation Where can we get MOTION–DAMAGE PAIRS for structural nonstructural components ? 1. Experimental research (e.g. in a lab). 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. E. Miranda, PEER 2002 Annual Meeting

5. Damage States For Slab- Column Connections DS4: Collapse Collapse IDR [%] Minor Cracks Appear Lateral Load (Kips) Lateral Displacement (in) Significant Cracking Damage State Punching Shear Failure Significant Cracking Punching Shear Failure Minor Cracks Appear 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 IDR [%]

6. Damage State Collapse (Loss of Vertical Carrying Capacity) Punching Shear Failure Significant Cracking Minor Cracks Appear 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 IDR [%] Damage States Based On Experimental Results

7. Influence of Gravity Shear Ratio on Punching Failure Damage State Punching Shear Failure 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 IDR [%]

8. Influence of Gravity Shear Ratio on Punching Failure For a Single Specimen IDR [%] 6 5 Trend ? 4 3 2 Dispersion? 1 0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 V g Gravity Shear Ratio V 0

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

10. V g V 0 Influence of shear gravity shear ratio on the dispersion of punching failure drift ratio Residuals 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Gravity Shear Ratio General trend based on 67 punching failure reports.

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

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

14. Computed Computed PFA profile of the building Floor Floor 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 Recorded Recorded 1 1 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 2 2 Max. FA (cm/s ) Max. FA (cm/s ) N-S Direction E-W Direction

15. Damage surveys of nonstructural components

16. Damage-motion pairs for HVAC systems of Olive View Hospital Damage state Heavy damage Moderate damage Insignificant damage No Damage PFA (g) 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 E-W direction N-S direction

17. 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 Damage state Heavy damage 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 Moderate damage 16 2 10 5 2 1 29 12 1 Insignificant damage 97 17 161 50 25 11 No Damage PFA (g) 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

18. Fragility curves of HVAC systems