1 / 16

Quantifying risk by performance-based earthquake engineering, Cont’d

Quantifying risk by performance-based earthquake engineering, Cont’d. Greg Deierlein Stanford University …with contributions by many. 2006 IRCC Workshop on Use of Risk in Regulation. PBEE Assessment Components. DV: COLLAPSE. Decision Variable. Damage Measure.

patch
Télécharger la présentation

Quantifying risk by performance-based earthquake engineering, Cont’d

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. Quantifying risk by performance-based earthquake engineering, Cont’d Greg Deierlein Stanford University …with contributions by many 2006 IRCC Workshop on Use of Risk in Regulation

  2. PBEE Assessment Components DV: COLLAPSE Decision Variable Damage Measure DM: Non-simulated failure, e.g., Loss of Vertical Carrying Capacity (LVCC) Engineering Demand Parameter EDP: Interstory Drift Ratio Intensity Measure IM: Sa(T1) + Ground Motions

  3. Deterioration Modes & Collapse Scenarios F • Deterioration Modes of RC Elements • Simulation vs. Fragility Models • Building System Collapse Scenarios • Sidesway Collapse (SC) • Loss in Vertical Load Carrying Capacity (LVCC) • Likelihood of Collapse Scenarios • Existing vs. New Construction • “Ordinary” versus “Special” seismic design

  4. Realistic RC Component Simulation

  5. Example: Criteria for RC Beams (FEMA 273)

  6. Sidesway Collapse Modes - SMF 40% of collapses 27% of collapses 17% of collapses 12% of collapses 5% of collapses 2% of collapses

  7. Incremental Dynamic Analysis – Collapse Mediancol = 2.2g σLN, col = 0.36g GROUND MOTION INTENSITY STRUCTURAL RESPONSE (DRIFT)

  8. Uncertainty – Plastic Rotation Capacity Mean (m) Plastic Rotation Capacity Reduced (m-s) Plastic Rot. Cap.

  9. Correlation of Component Variabilities Type A: Correlation of parameters within an element Type B: Correlation between parameters of different elements

  10. Margin 2.7x P[collapse |Sa = 0.82g] = 5% 5% MCE 2% in 50 yrs Collapse Capacity – with Modeling Uncert. Median = 2.2g sLN, Total = 0.36 σLN, Total = 0.64 w/mod. GROUND MOTION INTENSITY

  11. Mean Annual Frequency of Collapse Collapse Performance • Margin: Sa,collapse = 2.7 MCE • Probability of collapse under design MCE = 5% • MAFcol = 1.0 x 10-4 (about ¼ of the MCE 2% in 50 year ground motion) Collapse CDF Hazard Curve 2/50

  12. Benchmarking Archetype Studies … … DV’s: p(collapse) p($ > X) p(D.T. > Y) Facility Definition • 2003 Code Compliant • Strength • Stiffness • Capacity Design • Detailing PBEE Assessment IM-EDP-DM-DV multiple realizations “design uncertainty”

  13. 30 Archetype Realizations • Height: 1, 2, 4, 8, 12 and 20 stories • Bay Width: 6 & 9 meters • Space vs. Perimeter Frame (Atrib/A = 0.1 to 0.2) • Strength/Stiffness Distribution • step sizes per typical practice • weak story (1st or 1st-2nd stories) Space Frame (Atrib/Atotal = 1.0) Perimeter Frame (Atrib/Atotal = 0.16)

  14. MAF x 10-4 Likelihood & Mode of Collapse Perimeter Frames Mean Annual Frequency (MAF) of collapse: 5 to 25 x 10-4 Space Frames 1 story 2 stories 4 stories 8 stories 12 stories 20 stories

  15. Relative Risk Levels

  16. Concluding Remarks • PB Methods == Means of Quantifying Performance • scientific models and data • role of judgment • probabilistic vs. scenarios assumptions • Performance Targets • minimum life safety • minimum “convenience” (societal value - cost/benefit) • enhanced performance (cost-benefit) • Implementation • explicit assessment • prescriptive methods (calibrated to performance targets) • Consensus Guidelines and Standards • design professionals, societal representatives, and stakeholders

More Related