1 / 18

Framework for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Helmut Krawinkler, Stanford U.

Framework for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Helmut Krawinkler, Stanford U. PEER Summative Meeting – June 13, 2007. Where were we 10 years ago?. SEAOC Vision 2000, FEMA 273, ATC-40 Descriptive performance levels (IO, LS, CP, etc.)

lyn
Download Presentation

Framework for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Helmut Krawinkler, Stanford U.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. Where were we 10 years ago? 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

  3. Measures of Performance - PBEE • 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

  4. Vision of PBEE • Complete simulation • Defined performance objectives • Quantifiable performance targets • Annual probabilities of achieving them • Informed owners Joe’s Beer! Food! Joe’s Joe’s Beer! Food! Beer! Food! Sources: G. Deierlein, R. Hamburger

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

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

  7. Engineering Demand Parameter Intensity Measure Medina & Krawinkler Performance-Based Methodology

  8. IM (e.g., Sa(T1)) Individual records Median 84% IM Hazard curve (annual freq. of exceedance) EDP (e.g., max. interstory drift) Incremental Dynamic Analysis

  9. Performance Assessment types (ATC-58 definitions): Decision Variable 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 Damage Fragility Curves: Cost Functions: Mean Loss Curve: Damage Measure + Aslani & Miranda Engineering Demand Parameter Intensity Measure Performance-Based Methodology Medina & Krawinkler 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

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

  11. Hazard Domain Structural System Domain Mean IM-EDP Curves Mean Hazard Curve 10/50 EDP = Max. Interstory Drift EDP = Max. Floor Acceleration Loss Domain Mean Subsystem Loss Curves NSDSS NSASS EDP = Max. Interstory Drift EDP = Max. Floor Acceleration Design Decision Support Expected $Loss Zareian & Krawinkler (2005)

  12. Vy g = W Collapse Capacity Assessment of Collapse Potential NORM. STRENGTH VS. MAX. STORY DUCT. x a q N=9, T =0.9, =0.05, =0.03, =0.015, H , BH, K , S , NR94nya 1 3 1 1 20 Non-degrading system Degrading system 15 g )/g] / 10 1 (T a [S 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 m si,max

  13. Modeling of Deterioration

  14. Collapse Capacity for a Set of Ground Motions

  15. 0.1 Collapse Fragility Curve Zareian & Krawinkler (2004)

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

  17. Implementation of Framework • 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 • 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. • 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 Concluding Remarks - 1999

More Related