Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering

To transform earthquake engineering assessment and design ...

Traditional Approach Perform.-Based Approach

Non-scientifically
Scientifically-defined
defined seismic
seismic hazard
hazard

Indirect design Direct design approaches

approaches
Defined outcomes with
Undefined and
probabilities of achieving
uncertain outcomes
them
 Assessment by Static Pushover Analysis
(FEMA 273/356 and ASCE 41)

Base
Shear Joes
Demand Beer! Beer!
Food! Food!

Very rare events

(2%/50yrs)
Rare events
(10%/50yrs)
Occasional events Operational
(20%/50yrs)
Structurally
Frequent events Life Safe Stable
(50%/50yrs)

Lateral Deformation
Ref: R.O. Hamburger
 Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering

O O
P P O
E E P
N N E
N

Collapse
Damage
Onset
Threshold

Deformation

PBEE today IO LS CP FEMA 356 Performance Levels

PBEE tomorrow 25% 50% 100% $, % replacement

0

0.0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.25 Casualty rate

1 7 30 180 Downtime, days

0
 Damage Assessment: Nonstructural Fragilities

P(DM|EPD)
P(DM|EPD) 5/8"
5/8"Gypsum
Gypsumpartition wallwall
partition withwith
3-5/8" WallWall
3-5/8" Frame
1.0
1.0 Frame

0.8
0.8
Damage State

Severe damage to gypsum board

Probability of

and distorsion of metal frame

0.6
0.6 (Replace partition)
Wide cracks in gypsum boards
0.4
0.4
(Replace gypsum boards)
0.2
0.2
Smallcracks
Small
Small cracksonly
cracks only
only
(Patch, Retape & Paint)
0.0
0.0
00 0.005
0.005 0.01
0.01 0.015
0.015 0.02
0.02 0.025
0.025

EPD
Interstory (IDR)
Drift Ratio
EPD (IDR)

Ref: E. Miranda
Performance-Based Methodology
Collapse & Casualties
Decision Variable
Direct Financial Loss
Downtime

Damage Measure

Engineering Demand
drift as an EDP Parameter

Intensity Measure
 Incremental Dynamic Analysis Collapse
EQ: 11111, Sa: 2.06g EQ: 11112, Sa: 2.19g

3.5
44 Ground
Motion Records EQ: 11121, Sa: 2.86g EQ: 11122, Sa: 2.32g
g.m. INTENSITY

3
Sa (T=1.0s)[g]

2.5

2
GROUND MOTION

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Maximum Interstory Drift Ratio
STRUCTURAL RESPONSE (DRIFT)
6
 Mean Annual Frequency of Collapse
1

Collapse
0.9
Cummulative Probability of Collapse

0.8

0.7
CDF Collapse Performance
Margin: Sa,collapse = 2.7 MCE
0.6
2.7
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
5% Probability of collapse
0.1
Empirical CDF
Lognormal CDF (RTR Var.) under design MCE = 5%
5% 0
Lognormal CDF (RTR + Modeling Var.)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Sag.m.(T=1.0s) [g]

Mean Annual Frequency:

0.0020

MAF of Excedance (Poisson rate)

0.0018

0.0016
MAFcol = 1.0 x 10-4
Hazard
0.0014

0.0012 (0.5% in 50 years)

0.0010 Curve
0.0008

0.0006
2/50
0.0004

0.0002

0.0000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Sa at First Mode Period (g)

Nonstructural Damage and Losses (Caltech)
PBEE Methodology: IM-EDP-DM-DV
Ground Motion Hazard Characterization
IM Definition (Sa, )
Selection and Scaling of Ground Motions
Simulation: IM EDP
Choice of EDPs (Drift, Floor Accel., other )
Fidelity of simulations to model collapse
Damage Modeling: EDP DM
Taxonomy of components
Definition of conditional EDP-DM damage function
Loss Modeling: DM DV
Definition of conditional DM-DV loss functions
Downtime and injuries/fatalities are a challenge
Performance Assessment Components

Decision Relating Performance to

Variable Risk Decision Making

Damage Quantifying Damage

Measure Measures

Engineering Simulation of System

Demand Response
Parameter

Intensity Earthquake Hazard

Measure Characterization
Integrative Testbeds
Buildings
- Van Nuys
- UC Sciences
- SRB
UCB Campus
Bridges
- Humboldt Bay
- I-880 Viaduct
Bay Area Highway
Network Map 8.2
Building Downtime in Months from a Rare Earthquake

HEA RST
Ba r k e r H al l To lm an H a ll He s se H al l

M c L au g h li n H al l

Gi an n i n i H a ll
La t im e r H al l
Downtime for Building in Months
W a r r e n H al l
C am p b e ll H al l Le w is H a ll 0- 1
2- 4
M u lf o r d H al l Hi ld e b r a n d H al l
5 - 12
13 - 24
D oe A n n e x 25 - 40
Non-cor e Building s
Topo Lines
OX FO RD W u r s t e r H al l
#
Haywa rd Fault
A r t G a ll e r y Str eets
22 51 C O L L E G E A V E
Ba r r ow s H al l

22 23 F u l t on
Be r k e l e y A r t M u s u e m

21 11 B A N C R O F T W A Y

W E
0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Miles
S
Performance Assessment Components

Decision Relating Performance to

Variable Risk Decision Making

Damage Quantifying Damage

Measure Measures

Engineering Simulation of System

Demand Response
Parameter

Intensity Earthquake Hazard

Measure Characterization
Performance Assessment Components

Decision DV: $ loss, functionality,

Variable downtime, casualties
Damage DM: physical condition &
Measure consequences/ramifications
Engineering EDP: Drift Ratio (peak, residual),
Demand Floor Acceleration, Local
Parameter
Indices (Qp, strain, )
Intensity IM: Sa(T1), multiple Sas,
Measure
epsilon, Sdinelastic, duration
PBEE Probability Framework Equation

vDV G DV DM | dG DM EDP | dG EDP IM | d ( IM )

Impact Performance (Loss) Models and Simulation Hazard

IM Intensity Measure
EDP Engineering Demand Parameter
DM Damage Measure
DV Decision Variable

n(DV) Probabilistic Description of Decision Variable

(e.g., Mean Annual Probability $ Loss > 50% Replacement Cost)
 Comprehensive System Simulation

Schematic of the Finite Element Model

REF: Yang, Conte, Elgamal (UCSD)
Axial
Compression

V
P
Non-linear
Fiber Beam Element
2D, 4D Steel Fibers
Extended or 6D
Pile Shaft Non-linear p-y element
Unconfined
Ground Level Concrete Fibers

Confined Core
A Concrete Fibers

Non-linear Fiber Beam Element

14 Elements
at 1.0D o.c.
= 14D Near field Far-field
Plastic Response Elastic
Response
Pile Node
Drag
Plastic Elastic

Closure
Gap

Non-linear p-y element

Displacement Time history inputs

from 1-D nonlinear site response

REF: Boulanger (UCDavis)

 NS Components & Contents
Problem Insight Small Equipment

Multi-Story
Building

DM
Movement Equipment
Support
Element

Bench-level motion
Floor-level motion

EDP = PFA Floor-level motion

-Cascade approach
Ground-level motion
-Transmissibility important
IM = Sa(T1)
Hutchinson
Integrated Simulation/Assessment Platform

Computation Information
Algorithms,
Technology
Software framework,
Solvers,
Databases, Visualization,
Parallel/distributed
Internet/grid computation
computing
Models

Simulation & Reliability

Models for Materials,
Components, and Systems

http://opensees.berkeley.edu
 Integrative Testbeds
Buildings
Van Nuys
UC Sciences

UCB Campus

Bridges

Map 8.2
Humboldt Bay
Building Downtime in Months from a Rare Earthquake

#
I-880 Viaduct
HEA RST
Ba r k e r H al l To lm an H a ll He s se H al l

M c L au g h li n H al l

Gi an n i n i H a ll
La t im e r H al l
Downtime for Building in Months

Bay Area Highway Network

W a r r e n H al l
C am p b e ll H al l Le w is H a ll 0- 1
2- 4
M u lf o r d H al l Hi ld e b r a n d H al l
5 - 12
13 - 24
D oe A n n e x 25 - 40
Non-cor e Building s
Topo Lines
OX FO RD W u r s t e r H al l
#
Haywa rd Fault
A r t G a ll e r y Str eets
22 51 C O L L E G E A V E
Ba r r ow s H al l

22 23 F u l t on
Be r k e l e y A r t M u s u e m

21 11 B A N C R O F T W A Y

W E
0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Miles
S
 Evolution of PBEE Concept

Individual Building Groups of

Buildings: Ratings: Buildings:
Evaluation Probable Portfolio Analysis
Retrofit Maximum Loss Regional Loss
Other Studies
e.g., FEMA 273/356 Mitigation Studies
e.g., ST-RISK
e.g., ATC 13, HAZUS

Percentage or Casualties
Performance
Dollars Repair Costs
Objectives
Downtime

Ref. W. Holmes