Transcript Opportunities for NEES Research Utilization Robert D Hanson Professor Emeritus University of Michigan Who is responsible for adapting NEES research data? • The NEES researchers are.

Opportunities for NEES Research
Utilization
Robert D Hanson
Professor Emeritus
University of Michigan
Who is responsible for adapting
NEES research data?
• The NEES researchers are responsible
• Code committees and design
professionals digest and adapt this data
with active participation by researchers
• This is done by active participation in
code committees and professional
activities by researchers
How can this be enhanced?
• NEES research proposals should include
input and recommendations by the expected
users
• NEES research efforts should included these
professionals at the initiation, intermediate
and concluding stages of the project
• These professionals can help disseminate the
applicable results to the design community
Research Priorities – How are
they / should they be
established?
• NAE, EERI, BSSC, FEMA, NIST and material
groups have identified research needs
• Each has a recommended priority – with
many listed at equal priority
• A group of professionals and researchers
without a vested interest in a specific
research agenda should create a priority list
for use by NSF proposal review panel use
Two examples of NEES Research
Opportunities – How these
projects identify priority needs
• ATC 58 – Performance-based Seismic
Design - Continuum of performance from
small response [no damage], through various
amounts of damage, to building collapse.
Includes existing and new construction.
• ATC 63 – Quantification of Building System
Performance and Response – For use in new
building design requirements to prevent lifeloss.
Major contributors to the
following are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mike Mahoney – DHS/FEMA
Ron Hamburger – ATC 58 Technical lead
Bob Bachman – ATC 58 NPP Lead
Craig Comartin - ATC 58 RMP Lead
Andrew Whittaker – ATC 58 SPP Lead
Eduardo Miranda - ATC 58 NPP team
Keith Porter – ATC 58 NPP team
Charles Kircher – ATC 63 Technical Lead
Building Code Process
• Uses post-earthquake investigations, research
information, professional judgment, and observed
construction problems
• Material standards are improved
• NEHRP Recommended Provisions – Evaluation of
new systems and major increments in knowledge
• ASCE 7 – References material standards and uses
input from NEHRP Recommendations as appropriate
to update the current Standard
• IBC and NFPA adopt ASCE 7 with or without
modifications
• Local and State Codes adopt IBC or NFPA with or
without modifications
Building Code Process
Observation of poor performance
Performance-based design
A new approach
Select
Performance
Objectives
Develop
Preliminary
Design
Assess
Performance
Capability
Revise
Design
No
Does
Performance
Meet
Objectives?
Yes
Done
First Generation Procedures
• Federal Emergency
Management Agency sponsored
a series of development efforts
focused on existing buildings:
• Evaluation guidelines
 Predict types of damage a building
would experience in
future events
• Rehabilitation guidelines
 Procedures to design building
upgrades to achieve
desired performance
Seismic
Evaluation of
Buildings
ASCE-31
The First Generation
Joe’s
Joe’s
Beer!
Food!
Operational
Beer!
Food!
Immediate
Occupancy
Beer!
Food!
Life
Safety
0%
Damage or Loss
none
Time out of service
Collapse
Prevention
100%
permanent
Performance
• The potential consequences of building
response to earthquakes, including:
Life loss and serious injury (Casualties)
Direct economic loss (Cost = repair and
replacement costs)
Indirect economic and social loss
(Downtime = loss of use of damaged or
destroyed facilities)
Verifying Performance Capability
D
t
Ground
Motion
Structural
Response
Damage
All Steps
Represented On A
Performance Metrics:
Probabilistic Framework Casualties, Cost & Downtime
Considering Uncertainty
Example building assessment – Moehle’s EERI Lecture
:
:
:
Height
3 stories; 14 ft. floor
to floor; 42 ft total
above grade; no
basement
Area
Occupancy
22,736 sq.ft. per
General office space
floor; 68,208 sq.ft.
total (actual building
slightly larger)
Performance assessment
procedure
•
•
•
•
Determine the hazard.
Analyze the structure.
Characterize the damage.
Compute the losses.
Performance group fragilities for
Damage States 1, 2 and 3
Fragility curves for direct loss calculations
1.0
0.9
0.8
P (DS > DSi)
0.7
0.6
0.5
DS1
0.4
DS2
0.3
DS3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
2
4
6
Story drift (% of story height)
8
Example design decisions
Exterior envelope
41%
Contents (3rd flr. computer center)
25%
Interior nonstructural (drift sensitive)
12%
Interior nonstructural (accel. sensitive)
8%
5%
Contents (Ist and 2nd flr. offices)
Structure
4%
Roof top equipment
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Portion of annualized capital loss
45%
Performance group fragility functions
(Probabilistic Mapping Functions)
Fragility Functions
Structural Response
Parameters
Structural and
Nonstructural Damage
(Engrg. Demand Parameters)
• In order to establish fragilities it is necessary to establish
a relationship between the building response and its
associated damage
Performance group fragility functions
INCREASING INTERSTORY DRIFT
DM1
First Visible Damage
DM2
Wide cracks
DM3
Punching failure
DM4
Loss of vertical
carrying capacity
What Data is Needed?
Protocol for data reporting
1. Description of the specimen(s)
(Example based on research by
Arnold, Uang and Filiatrault, 2002)
What Data is Needed?
Protocol for data reporting
2. Description of the loading
(Example based on research by
Arnold, Uang and Filiatrault, 2002)
What Data is Needed?
Protocol for data reporting
3. Detailed description of observed damage at each loading level
IDR=0.34%
(Example based on research by
Arnold, Uang and Filiatrault, 2002)
What Data is Needed?
Protocol for data reporting
3. Detailed description of observed damage at each loading level
IDR=0.40%
(Example based on research by
Arnold, Uang and Filiatrault, 2002)
Interim Loading Protocols
• FEMA 461 – Interim Protocols for Determining
Seismic Performance Characteristics of Structural
and Nonstructural Components Through Laboratory
Testing – provides protocols for quasi-static cyclic
testing of components and shake table testing of
acceleration sensitive components
How will the data be used to
generate fragilities?
Six methods are proposed depending upon the data
• Method A – all specimens failed at observed test levels
• Method B – only some specimens failed
• Method C – no specimens failed [qualification tests]
• Method D – analytically derived fragilities without tests
• Method E – expert opinion without test data
• Method U – updating existing fragilities using new
failure data or post-earthquake investigations
How will the data be used to
generate fragilities?
P( DS | IDR )
Gypsum Wall Partition
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
DS1 Data
DS2 Data
DS3 Data
Lognormal Fit DS1
Lognormal Fit DS2
Lognormal Fit DS3
0.2
0.0
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
Interstory Drift Ratio
0.030
0.035
0.040
How will the data be used to
generate fragilities?
P( DS | IDR )
Gypsum Wall Partition
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
DS1 Data
DS2 Data
DS3 Data
Lognormal Fit DS1
Lognormal Fit DS2
Lognormal Fit DS3
0.2
0.0
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
Interstory Drift Ratio
0.030
0.035
0.040
ATC 63 – Building Performance
to Collapse
current status
• Planar analytical response of reinforced concrete
moment frames, reinforced concrete shear wall
buildings, timber townhouse and apartment buildings,
autoclaved aerated concrete buildings, and steel
moment frame buildings
• Ibarra-Krawinkler degrading hysteresis model used
for component behavior
ATC 63 – Building Performance
to Collapse
• Biaxial experimental data not available to perform 3-D
dynamic response analyses
• Limited full-scale building test data available for system
performance calibration of analyses
• Limited reduced-size building systems test data
available
• Very limited experimental data available to system
collapse levels of deformation
Building Performance
What can NEESR provide?
• Sufficient archived data at all damage levels from no
damage, through various damage states, to collapse.
Include displacement-damage relationships and likely
repairs needed for each level.
• Multiple tests of similar specimens to establish
reliability coefficients for the data.
• Data on nonstructural components
• Data on structural components
• Data on systems of components
More information on projects
and participation opportunities
available at
www.atcouncil.org