SP3 Webinar Series. Building-Specific Risk Assessment for Tilt-Up Buildings (New Beta Module of SP3)

Transcription

1 SP3 Webinar Series 1 Building-Specific Risk Assessment for Tilt-Up Buildings (New Beta Module of SP3) John Lawson, SE Associate Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo Maria Koliou, PhD Assistant Texas A&M University D. Jared DeBock, PhD, PE Assistant California State University, Chico Katie Wade Engineering Researcher, Haselton Baker Risk Group

2 Project Goal 2 Goal: Enable FEMA P-58 risk analysis for tilt-up buildings without the user needing to create a structural model.

3 FEMA P-58 Overview 3 FEMA P-58 is a probabilistic performance prediction methodology (15 year, $16M+ invested, ~100+ on the team) FEMA P-58 is tailored for building-specific analysis (in contrast to most risk assessment methods) FEMA P-58 output results: Repair costs Repair time Safety: Fatalities & injuries

4 FEMA P-58 and SP3_Engineering 4 Site Hazard Structural Responses Structural Components & Fragilities Nonstructural Components & Fragilities FEMA P-58 Monte Carlo Analysis ENGINE In the SP3_Engineering tool, inputs are done by a licensed engineer on a building-specific and site-specific basis (with some provided automation). Building-Specific Vulnerability Curves Full distributions of losses and repair times, and expected annual values.

5 SP3 Building-Specific Risk Model 5 Site Hazard Structural Responses Structural Components & Fragilities Nonstructural Components & Fragilities FEMA P-58 Monte Carlo Analysis ENGINE Basic Building and Site Information (e.g. location, construction year, etc.) Additional Secondary Modifiers (more building and site info.) SP3 BUILDING-SPECIFIC RISK MODEL Full FEMA P-58 engineering-based risk assessment framework Automation through many researchbacked analytical SP3 Engines and SP3 Databases When full automation is used, this provides building-specific and sitespecific vulnerability curves for large inventories Building-Specific Vulnerability Curves Full distributions of losses and repair times, and expected annual values.

6 SP3 Building-Specific Risk Model 6 Site Hazard Structural Responses Structural Components & Fragilities Nonstructural Components & Fragilities FEMA P-58 Monte Carlo Analysis ENGINE Basic Building and Site Information (e.g. location, construction year, etc.) Additional Secondary Modifiers (more building and site info.) PGA and Sa for many hazard levels Site Hazards Database Soil type Site Soil DB Structural Designs Database Structural responses (e.g. peak drift, floor acceleration, residual drift; for ~100 motions) Structural Response Prediction ENGINE Structural Responses Database Structural Models Database Over-strength by bldg. type, location, etc. Building strength Site-specific EQ and wind strength design Struct. comp. inventory Building modal properties (T 2 -T 3, φ 1 -φ 3 ) Building stiffness (T 1 ) Dynamic Properties ENGINE Site-specific EQ and wind drift design Building Code Design Database Struct. comp. fragilities Comp. Popul. ENGINES Non-str. comp. inventory Site-specific non-structural comp. design Non-str. comp. fragilities Component Fragility Database Strength and stiffness of gravity and non-str. components Experimental Test Database Building-Specific Vulnerability Curves Full distributions of losses and repair times, and expected annual values.

7 Components of Tilt-Up Project 7 SP3 Structural Response Prediction ENGINE We do the nonlinear dynamic structural analysis for you. Building Code Design Database (giving building-specific design information by location, age, and building type) SP3 Structural Responses Database SP3 Structural Models Database SP3 Structural Designs Database Component Fragility Database (42 new fragilities for diaphragm, connections, walls, etc.)

8 Project Goal (more detail) 8 Goal: Enable FEMA P-58 risk analysis for tilt-up buildings without the user needing to create a structural model. 1) Enable in the SP3_Engineering tool (for building-specific engineering evaluations) 2) Enable in the SP3 Building-Specific Risk Model (for buildingspecific vulnerability curves based on insurance-level information, with analysis done quickly by leveraging the SP3 Engines and SP3 Databases) Status of Project: The above goals are accomplished, but calling this release Beta because we are still refining items like overstength by era and adding a few more fragilities; also starting an external review iteration.

9 Introduction to Speakers 9 John Lawson, SE Maria Koliou, PhD Jared DeBock, PhD, PE Katie Wade, MS

10 Presentation Outline 10 John Lawson, SE Topic: Creating a tilt-up building archetype design set (for three era s) and understanding expected behavior and damage modes by era. SP3 Structural Designs Database Building Code Design Database (giving building-specific design information by location, age, and building type)

11 Presentation Outline 11 Maria Koliou, PhD Topic: Creating solid nonlinear models of tilt-up buildings, so we can confidently predict structural responses. SP3 Structural Models Database

12 Presentation Outline 12 Jared DeBock, PhD, PE Topic: Using the nonlinear models, and predicted responses, to create a SP3 Structural Response Prediction Engine module for tilt-up. Also, fiveminute humanitarian break during Jared s section. SP3 Structural Response Prediction ENGINE We do the nonlinear dynamic structural analysis for you. SP3 Structural Responses Database

13 Presentation Outline 13 Katie Wade, MS Topic: Creating a comprehensive set of fragility functions for damageable components of tile-up buildings. Then, examples of resilient design and performance predictions from this new method. Component Fragility Database (42 new fragilities for diaphragm, connections, walls, etc.)

14 Housekeeping 14 All phone lines are muted Questions are highly encourage (answered at end) Handouts are available presentation slides Webinar is recorded and video will be distributed Please take a brief survey before signing off at end of webinar

15 Housekeeping 15 Questions: Please use questions tab and we will address as many as we can at the end of the webinar. For further questions, or for feedback on forward development, please contact Angie at HB-Risk and she can connect you with the right person

16 Housekeeping 16 Overview of SP3 Webinar Series: 1) The new SP3 Structural Response Prediction Engine [available online at 2) The new SP3 Building-Specific Risk Model [available online at 3) SP3 Building-Specific Risk Assessment for tilt-up buildings [today] 4) SP3 Building-Specific Risk Assessment for Wood Light- Frame Buildings [Nov. 30 th 12-1pm PST] 5) SP3 Building-Specific Risk Assessment and Resilient Design of Buckling Restrained Braced Frame Buildings [Dec. 12 th 12-1pm PST]

17 SP3 Webinar Series 17 Building-Specific Risk Assessment for Tilt-Up Buildings (New Beta Module of SP3) John Lawson, SE Associate Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo Maria Koliou, PhD Assistant Texas A&M University D. Jared DeBock, PhD, PE Assistant California State University, Chico Katie Wade Engineering Researcher, Haselton Baker Risk Group

18 Presentation Outline 18 John Lawson, SE Topic: Creating a tilt-up building archetype design set (for three era s) and understanding expected behavior and damage modes by era. SP3 Structural Designs Database Building Code Design Database (giving building-specific design information by location, age, and building type)

19 19 Tilt-Up Concrete Buildings The Design Space

20 Tilt-Up Concrete Buildings 20 The Design Space Single-story Buildings, Rectangular in plan Rigid walls Tilt-up concrete v. masonry Flexible Diaphragms Wood v. steel deck Flexible wood deck roof system Perimeter concrete shear wall panels.

21 Tilt-up Wall Panels 21

22 Tilt-up Wall Panels 22 Photo Credit: John Lawson

23 Panelized Wood Roof Diaphragm 23 Photo Credit: John Lawson

24 Panelized Wood Roof Diaphragm 24 Photo Credit: John Lawson

25 Steel Deck Diaphragms 25

26 Rigid Wall - Flexible Diaphragm Behavior 26 Diaphragm Large Deformations (Long Period) Shear Walls Small Deformations (Short Period) wwwwwwww ddddddddd DDDDDDDDD wwwwwwww

27 27 Example Archetype x4 DF #2 subpurlins at 24 o.c. 15/32 Structural I OSB with staggered layout 9 ¼ Concrete Wall Panels, typ. Steel Joists at 8-ft o.c.

28 Building Behavior 28 Expected Behavior and Failure Modes Engineering Demand Parameters Wall out-of-plane anchorage to roof Wall out-of-plane bending Diaphragm ductility Interstory drift Peak roof acceleration Consideration of the design era (Building Code edition)

29 29 Out-of-Plane Wall Anchorage A tracked engineering design parameter

30 Wall Anchorage Design 30 Pre-1973 UBC Wall anchorage inappropriately relied upon indirect wall anchorage through crossgrain bending of wood ledgers. Photo Credit: Los Angeles City Dept of Building & Safety

31 Wall Anchorage Design 31 Pre-1973 UBC Wall anchorage inappropriately relied upon indirect wall anchorage through crossgrain bending of wood ledgers. Photo Source: Earthquake Engineering Research Lab, Cal Tech

32 Wall Anchorage Design 32 Credit: Doc Nghiem

33 Wall Anchorage Design 33 Photo Source: Doc Nghiem

34 Wall Anchorage Design 34 Photo Source: Doc Nghiem

35 Wall Anchorage Design 35 Photo Source: Doc Nghiem

36 Wall Anchorage Design Northridge Earthquake Photo Source: Cascade Crest Consulting Engineers

37 Wall Anchorage Design 37 Photo Credit: EERI

38 Wall Anchorage Design Photo Source: Doc Nghiem

39 Wall Anchorage Design 39

40 Wall Anchorage Design 40 Wall anchorage to roof: F p

41 Wall Anchorage Design 41 Photo Credit: Doc Nghiem

42 Wall Anchorage Design 42 Photo Source: Doc Nghiem

43 Wall Anchorage Design 43 Since the 1973 UBC Continuity ties across the diaphragm have been required to distribute the anchorage force. Photo Source: Doc Nghiem Prior to the 1997 UBC, steel elements were thought to have sufficient ductility for wall anchorage. The current era of design has increased the design forces to maximum expected levels, and don t rely upon steel ductility.

44 Wall Anchorage Design 44 Source of Illustration: WoodWorks

45 Wall Anchorage Design 45 Photo Credit: John Lawson SE

46 Wall Anchorage Design 46

47 Wall Anchorage Design 47

48 Wall Anchorage Design 48

49 Evolution of Wall Anchorage Req ts 49 San Fernando Loma Prieta Landers Northridge Seismic Coefficient (Strength) Wall ties & cross ties required. No wood cross-grain bending Subdiaphragms Middle 1/2 3x wood min Concentrically loaded & Special pilasters rules Steel elements Wood, Conc., Masonry Zone 4 S DS =1.0 S D1 =0.6 UBC/IBC Edition Wall Anchorage Forces (Strength-Level)

50 50 Out-of-Plane Wall Bending A tracked engineering design parameter

51 Out-of-Plane Wall Bending 51 Slender Wall Design P roof F p ¼ thick 51 Photo Source: John Lawson

52 Out-of-Plane Wall Bending 52 Vert. Load Ledger Angle Loading Frame Test panel Air Bag Load Drum Pin connection Test Setup

53 Out-of-Plane Wall Bending 53 FULL SCALE TESTING 12 tilt-up concrete panels 24 ft clear span 4¾, 5¾, 7¼, 9½ thick (H / t = 60, 50, 40, 30) Tilt-up walls deflected up to 13 inches at yield and 19.2 inches ultimate. No instability at maximum displacement.

54 Out-of-Plane Wall Bending inch walls Significant stiffness loss at first crack Load (psf) Deflection (inches)

55 Out-of-Plane Wall Bending f r = 5 f c f r = 5 f c

56 Out-of-Plane Wall Bending 56 Full Scale Experimental Rebound Study L/150 L/60 Source: SEAOSC/ACI-SCC

57 Out-of-Plane Wall Bending 57 Full Scale Experimental Rebound Study L/150 L/67 Source: SEAOSC/ACI-SCC

58 Out-of-Plane Wall Bending 58 To prevent overly flexible panels and permanent deformations. Roof L s < L / 150 Code limit Floor

59 inch thick 700 Moment-Deflection Curves Panel #19 SCCACI - SEAOSC May 14, 1981 L / Moment (in-kips) Test UBC and Current ACI Panel Test UBC Deflection (in)

60 Evolution of Out-of-Plane Wall Force 60 San Fernando Seismic Coefficient (Strength) Zone 4 S DS =1.0 S D1 =0.6 UBC/IBC Edition Wall Out-of-Plane Forces (Strength-Level)

61 61 Diaphragm Shear Ductility A tracked engineering design parameter

62 Diaphragm Shear Ductility 62 Warehouse , Elmendorf AFB (Tilt-up, steel frame, 2x wood sheathing.) Photo Source: University of Alaska, Fairbanks

63 Diaphragm Shear Ductility 63 Warehouse , Elmendorf AFB (Tilt-up, steel frame, 2x wood sheathing.) Photo Source: University of Alaska, Fairbanks

64 Evolution of Diaphragm Design Force 64 San Fernando Seismic Coefficient (Strength) Transition from UBC to IBC Zone 4 S DS =1.0 S D1 =0.6 UBC/IBC Edition Diaphragm Loading (Strength-Level)

65 65 Interstory Drift A tracked engineering design parameter

66 Interstory Drift 66 Second Order Drift Effects (PΔ)

67 Interstory Drift 67 PΔ Effects

68 Interstory Drift 68 Wall Rotation Causes Hinging and Cracking

69 Interstory Drift Napa Earthquake Pilaster restraint against rotation Photo Courtesy of David McCormick

70 Interstory Drift Napa Earthquake Pilaster restraint against rotation Photo Courtesy of David McCormick

71 71 Peak Roof Acceleration A tracked engineering design parameter

72 Peak Roof Acceleration 72 Protection of roof mounted: Mechanical equipment Mechanical ductwork Piping Photo Source: FEMA

73 73 Grouping of Hazard Level by Building Code Era Development of Archetypes Evaluated

74 Grouping of Hazard Level by Building Code 74 Archetype Designs Single story, rectangular Rigid Wall: Tilt-Up Concrete Wall Panels Intermediate Precast Shear Walls Flexible Diaphragm: Wood Structural Panel Fully Blocked, Panelized Roof System Seismic Design Category D max (or UBC Zone 4) West Coast US Practices

75 Grouping of Hazard Level by Building Code UBC and earlier 24-ft roof + 3-ft parapet, 6½ panels Wall Anchorage: Pre-1973 No direct anchorage W p (ASD) Wall Force (oop): 0.20W p (ASD) Base Shear: V=0.133W (ASD) Diaphragm: F p =0.133W p (ASD)

76 Grouping of Hazard Level by Building Code 76 HWL_11 Archetype: 1973 UBC and before Diaphragm Nailing Top of Wall = 27-ft Top of Roof = 24-ft ½ concrete walls (f c=3ksi) with #4@12 o.c. (fy=60ksi) /32 or ½ Structural I rated plywood, fully blocked Roof weight = 12 psf 1 10d at 6,6, d at 4,6, d at 2½,4,

77 Grouping of Hazard Level by Building Code 77 HWL_21/12 Archetype: 1973 UBC and before Diaphragm Nailing Top of Wall = 27-ft Top of Roof = 24-ft ½ concrete walls (f c=3ksi) with #4@12 o.c. (fy=60ksi) 15/32 or ½ Structural I rated plywood, fully blocked 1 10d at 6,6, d at 4,6, d at 2½,4, Roof weight = 12 psf

78 Grouping of Hazard Level by Building Code 78 HWS_21/12 Archetype: 1973 UBC and before Diaphragm Nailing Top of Wall = 27-ft Top of Roof = 24-ft ½ concrete walls (f c=3ksi) with #4@12 o.c. (fy=60ksi) 15/32 or ½ Structural I rated plywood, fully blocked Roof weight = 12 psf 1 10d at 6,6, d at 4,6, d at 2½,4,12

79 Grouping of Hazard Level by Building Code 79 HWS_11 Archetype: 1973 UBC and before Diaphragm Nailing Top of Wall = 27-ft Top of Roof = 24-ft 6½ concrete walls (f c=3ksi) with #4@12 o.c. (fy=60ksi) 15/32 or ½ Structural I rated plywood, fully blocked d at 6,6,12 Roof weight = 12 psf

80 Grouping of Hazard Level by Building Code UBC 27-ft roof + 3-ft parapet, 7½ panels Wall Anchorage: 0.30W p (ASD) Wall Force (oop): 0.30W p (ASD, UBC design) Base Shear: V=0.183W (ASD) Diaphragm: F p =0.183W p (ASD)

81 Grouping of Hazard Level by Building Code 81 HWL_11 Archetype: 1976 UBC to 1994 UBC Diaphragm Nailing Top of Wall = 30-ft Top of Roof = 27-ft 40 7½ concrete walls (f c=3ksi) with #5@16 o.c. (fy=60ksi) /32 or ½ Structural I rated plywood, fully blocked Roof weight = 12 psf 1 10d at 6,6, d at 4,6, d at 2½,4, d at 2,3,12 w/ 3x framing

82 Grouping of Hazard Level by Building Code 82 HWL_21/12 Archetype: 1976 UBC to 1994 UBC Diaphragm Nailing Top of Wall = 30-ft Top of Roof = 27-ft ½ concrete walls (f c=3ksi) with #5@16 o.c. (fy=60ksi) 15/32 or ½ Structural I rated plywood, fully blocked (ICBO ER-1952 was issued in November 1981) d at 6,6, d at 4,6, d at 2½,4, d at 2,3,12 w/ 3x framing 5 2 lines of 10d at 2½,4,12 w/ 4x framing Roof weight = 12 psf 12

83 Grouping of Hazard Level by Building Code 83 HWS_21/12 Archetype: 1976 UBC to 1994 UBC Diaphragm Nailing Top of Wall = 30-ft Top of Roof = 27-ft ½ concrete walls (f c=3ksi) with #5@16 o.c. (fy=60ksi) 15/32 or ½ Structural I rated plywood, fully blocked d at 6,6, d at 4,6, d at 2½,4,12 Roof weight = 12 psf

84 Grouping of Hazard Level by Building Code 84 HWS_11 Archetype: 1976 UBC to 1994 UBC Diaphragm Nailing Top of Wall = 30-ft Top of Roof = 27-ft 7½ concrete walls (f c=3ksi) with #5@16 o.c. (fy=60ksi) 15/32 or ½ Structural I rated plywood, fully blocked 1 10d at 6,6, d at 4,6, Roof weight = 12 psf

85 Grouping of Hazard Level by Building Code UBC and all IBC s 30-ft roof + 3-ft parapet, 9¼ panels Wall Anchorage: 0.80W p (strength) Wall Force (oop): 0.40W p (strength, ACI design**) Base Shear*: V=0.244W (strength) Diaphragm*: F p =0.25W p (strength) * Intermediate Precast Shear Wall (R=4) didn t exist within the 2000 IBC or 2003 IBC, and thus only Special Reinforced Concrete Walls (R-5) could be used in seismic areas. These numbers would be lower. However, California never adopted the 2000 IBC or the 2003 IBC, and instead stayed on the 1997 UBC. ** The slender wall design provisions were incorrectly relaxed in ACI , -02, -05 causing panels to be more flexible, less thick and/or less reinforced. The provisions of ACI (2009 IBC) and later are similar to those of the 1997 UBC. However, because California never adopted the 2000 IBC or the 2003 IBC, only a small era during the 2006 IBC has this issue in the State.

86 Grouping of Hazard Level by Building Code 86 HWL_11 Archetype: 1997 UBC to Current Diaphragm Nailing Top of Wall = 33-ft Top of Roof = 30-ft ¼ concrete walls (f c=4ksi) with #5@10 o.c. (fy=60ksi) /32 or ½ Structural I rated plywood, fully blocked Roof weight = 12 psf 1 10d at 6,6, d at 4,6, d at 2½,4, d at 2,3,12 w/ 3x framing

87 Grouping of Hazard Level by Building Code 87 HWL_21/12 Archetype: 1997 UBC to Current Diaphragm Nailing Top of Wall = 33-ft Top of Roof = 30-ft ¼ concrete walls (f c=4ksi) with #5@10 o.c. (fy=60ksi) 15/32 or ½ Structural I rated plywood, fully blocked d at 6,6, d at 4,6, d at 2½,4, d at 2,3,12 w/ 3x framing 5 2 lines of 10d at 2½,4,12 w/ 4x framing 6 2 lines of 10d at 2½,3,12 w/ 4x framing Roof weight = 12 psf 20

88 Grouping of Hazard Level by Building Code 88 HWS_21/12 Archetype: 1997 UBC to Current Diaphragm Nailing Top of Wall = 33-ft Top of Roof = 30-ft ¼ concrete walls (f c=4ksi) with #5@10 o.c. (fy=60ksi) 15/32 or ½ Structural I rated plywood, fully blocked d at 6,6, d at 4,6, d at 2½,4, d at 2,3,12 w/ 3x framing 5 2 lines of 10d at 2½,4,12 w/ 4x framing Roof weight = 12 psf

89 Grouping of Hazard Level by Building Code 89 HWS_11 Archetype: 1997 UBC to Current Diaphragm Nailing Top of Wall = 33-ft Top of Roof = 30-ft 9¼ concrete walls (f c=4ksi) with #5@10 o.c. (fy=60ksi) 15/32 or ½ Structural I rated plywood, fully blocked 1 10d at 6,6, d at 4,6, d at 2½,4, Roof weight = 12 psf 2

90 Development of Building Model 90 Development of Numerical Building Model Monitor and Evaluate the Various Damage States Peak Roof Acceleration Out-of-Plane Wall to Roof Connection x d9 m d9 x d8 x d7 x d6 x d5 x d4 Diaphragm Shear Ductility m d8 x d3 m d7 m d6 x d2 m d5 x d1 x iw Interstory Drift m d4 m d3 m d2 m d1 m iw Out-of-Plane Wall Bending

91 Presentation Outline 91 Maria Koliou, PhD Topic: Creating solid nonlinear models of tilt-up buildings, so we can confidently predict structural responses. SP3 Structural Models Database

92 Development of Numerical Models 92 Modeling Objectives: Accurately capture the global seismic performance of tilt-up buildings Accuracy and computational efficiency (vs. detailed finite element models) Through modeling assumptions capture the engineering demand parameters (EDPs) considered in the study

93 Development of Numerical Models 93 Development of numerical framework for static and dynamic analysis of tilt-up buildings: 2D numerical framework based on a three step sub-structuring modeling approach: Step 1: roof diaphragm connector modeling Step 2: 2D inelastic diaphragm model incorporating local hysteretic connector responses Step 3: 2D simplified building model incorporating global hysteretic diaphragm model responses Step 1 p Step g 2 p Step g 3 Force est Xr4 V Xr3 Xr2 Xr1 V V V V x r4 x r3 x x r2 x r2 x r1 x X r1 r4 -X r3 X r3 -X r2 X r2 -X r1 X r1 x d5 x d4x d3 x d2 m k d5 d5 k d4 k m d3 d4 m d3 m d2 k d2 kd1 m d1 miw k iw x d1 x iw Displacement

94 Development of Numerical Models 94 Step 1: Roof diaphragm connector modeling Main objective: archive the connectors hysteretic properties to be used in Step 2 Hysteretic models considered: Wayne-Stewart CUREE SAWS Force F u p trik o Force F y rk o r 1 K o r 2 K o k o F o K p F i k u =p unl k o r 3 K o d min F i d max Displacement -F i r 4 K o Δ unl Displacement -F y -F u

95 Development of Numerical Models 95 Step 1: Connector modeling Optimal hysteretic parameters: Identification process to match numerical & experimental data of each connector test Minimize differences in force & deformation 10d common nails for wood deck diaphragm Welds for 22ga steel deck diaphragm Experimental data data (Coyne, 2007) SAWS - - fitted Wayne Stewart - - fitted Experimental data (Rogers and & Tremblay, 2003a) SAWS -- fitted Wayne Stewart - fitted Force [kn] Force [kn] Force [kn] Force [kn] Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm] Displacement [mm] Koliou, M. and Filiatrault, A. (2017), Development of Wood and Steel Diaphragm Hysteretic Connector Database for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, /s

96 Development of Numerical Models 96 Step 2: 2D inelastic roof diaphragm model Each deck sheet modeled as a deep shear beam Wayne-Stewart hysteretic model used to represent the inelastic response of each roof connector around each sheet Wayne-Stewart hysteretic properties obtained from Step 1 In-plane flexible diaphragm displacements computed as the sum of: - elastic shear deformation of the deck sheet panel (δ panels ) - elastic flexural deformations of the chord members (δ flexure@chord ) - inelastic deformations/slippage of the connectors (δ connectors ) F C chord M=T chord X d Center of roof diaphragm T chord δ panels δ flexure@chord δ connectors Chord Panel 1 Connectors Panel 2 Panel 3 Panel 4 d F

97 Development of Numerical Models 97 Step 2: 2D inelastic roof diaphragm model Simplified representation using equivalent linear and nonlinear springs: u panels u flexure@chord u connectors w u, Fw Compatibility: u + u + u = u panels flexure@ chord connectors Force-displacement equations - Equilibrium equations F = k u panels panels panels F = k u F flexure@ chord flexure@ chord flexure@ chord connectors = (, mp) f u connectors F F = F panels flexure@ chord = F flexure@ chord connectors

98 Development of Numerical Models 98 Step 2: 2D inelastic roof diaphragm model Model Validation using experimental data for flexible steel roofs available in the literature. Diaphragm tested by Tremblay et al. (2004) under monotonic & cyclic loading. 1 Comparison of monotonic push-over test S/Su Experimental Data (Tremblay et al., 2004) Two-Dimensional Inelastic Diaphragm Model (MATLAB) Shear angle γ (rad) S [kn/m] Comparison of one main cycle from cyclic test Experimental Data (Tremblay et al.,2004) Two-Dimensional Inelastic Diaphragm Model (MATLAB) Shear angle γ [rad] Koliou, M., Filiatrault, A., Kelly, D.J. and Lawson, J. (2016), Distributed Yielding Concept for Improved Seismic Collapse Performance of Rigid Wall-Flexible Diaphragm Buildings, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(2),

99 Development of Numerical Models 99 Step 3: 2D building model phragm ) 2D illustration Typical horizontal inelastic roof diaphragm springs (Wayne-Stewart hysteresis) Horizontal linear elastic spring of in-plane walls m m pw1,4 +m pw2,4 +m d2mpw3,4 d1 m +m pw4,4 +m d4 d3 m iw k iw k d1 k d2 k d3 k d4 k d5 m pw1,3 m pw1,2 m pw1,1 m pw2,3 m pw2,2 m pw2,1 m pw3,3 m pw3,2 m pw3,1 m pw4,3 m pw4,2 m pw4,1 m d5 Center of RWFD building 3D illustration Short direction of shaking 30.48m Typical series of vertical beam elements simply supported@ top & bottom w/ P-Δ effects included X d,i DOF for roof diaphragm m d,i Mass for roof diaphragm X iw DOF for in-plane walls m iw Mass for in-plane walls m d5 m d4 x d5 k d5 kd4 m d3 m d2 x d4 k d3 Typical horizontal inelastic roof diaphragm springs (Wayne-Stewart hysteresis) x d3 k d2 x d2 k d1 x d1 x iw Horizo of in-p m d1 miw m pwi,j Mass for out-of-plane walls X pw i,j DOFs for out-of-plane walls k iw Typical series of vertical beam elements simply supported@ top & bottom Horizontal linear elastic spring of in-plane walls S

100 Development of Numerical Models 100 Ground motions: The FEMA P695 Far-Field ground motion ensemble was considered Contains 22 historical ground motions, two components each

101 Presentation Outline 101 Jared DeBock, PhD, PE Topic: Using the nonlinear models, and predicted responses, to create a SP3 Structural Response Prediction Engine module for tilt-up. SP3 Structural Response Prediction ENGINE We do the nonlinear dynamic structural analysis for you. SP3 Structural Responses Database

102 Mid-Presentation Stretch 102

103 Determining Engineering Demand Parameters (EDP) 103 Necessary Inputs (user defined) Location (lat, lon) Construction year Building size Intermediate Calculations (SP3 can do these for you) Fundamental period (T 1 ) Diaphragm strength Out-of-plane wall strength Out-of-plane wall connection strength Probabilistic EDPS for each hazard intensity level of interest Diaphragm ductility demand Out-of-plane wall connection force Out-of-plane wall flexure deformation Roof drift Peak roof acceleration SP3 Tilt-up Structural Response ENGINE Based on a database of thousands of nonlinear response-history analyses We do the nonlinear dynamic analysis for you

104 Determination of Intermediate Values (Computed within SP3) 104 Fundamental period (T 1 ) Koliou et al. (2015): T = F(diaphragm dims, wall dims, ) Do not use code period! Expected strength of diaphragm, out-of-plane walls, and connections 1. Determine code design forces, as a function of: Year (user defined) Location (user defined) Site properties (SP3 database or user defined) 2. Apply an over strength factor to code design force, base on: Expected over strength Other design constraints (e.g. diaphragm nailing for orthogonal direction design) SP3 can compute all of these for you! or you may choose to enter them yourself.

105 EDPs: Diaphragm Ductility Demand 105 Dimensionless measure of diaphragm drift/damage Δ SP3 Response Engine inputs: Diaphragm ult. strength, V u Fundamental period, T 1 Spectral acceleration, Sa(T 1 ) Output: Ductility demand, μμ = mmmmmm yyyyyyyyyy Plan View

106 EDPs: Out-of-Plane Wall (connection and wall bending) 106 SP3 Response Engine inputs: Out-of-plane wall design force, [g] Expected diaphragm strength, [g] R Fundamental period, T 1 Spectral acceleration, Sa(T 1 ) Peak ground acceleration, pga Δ s L Outputs: Connection force, R [g] Relative flexural deformation, ss LL

107 Presentation Outline 107 Katie Wade, MS Topic: Creating a comprehensive set of fragility functions for damageable components of tile-up buildings. Then, examples of resilient design and performance predictions from this new method. Component Fragility Database (42 new fragilities for diaphragm, connections, walls, etc.)

108 FEMA P-58 Modeling Approach 108 Ground Motion Hazard Structural Response Component Damage

109 FEMA P-58: Component Damage 109 Quantify component damage First, establish what components are in the building. Each component type has a fragility function that specifies the probability that a structural demand causes damage Probability of Damage Damage State Damage State-2 Damage State Diaphragm Ductility

110 Fragilities 110 RWFD Specific Damageable Components Diaphragm Wood Steel Out-of-Plane Wall Precast Concrete Panel Masonry Out-of-Plane Wall to Diaphragm Connection In-Plane Wall Ledgers Chord Collector Elements Most commonly damaged components

111 Fragilities 111 RWFD Specific Damageable Components Diaphragm Wood Steel Out-of-Plane Wall Precast Concrete Panel Masonry Out-of-Plane Wall to Diaphragm Connection Most commonly damaged components 42 New Fragilities

112 Fragilities 112 Out-of-Plane Connections Yucca Valley, 1992 (Source: Gregg Brandow) Northridge Earthquake, 1994 (Source: EERI)

113 Fragilities 113 Out-of-Plane Connections Diaphragm partial collapse. 0.7 Probability of Damage Diaphragm partial collapse + OOP wall collapse 0.1 Damage State-1 Damage State OOP Force (g)

114 Fragilities 114 Out-of-Plane Connections Demand Parameter OOP Force Capacity Era Strength based limit state Units 50 LF DS 1 100% Expected Strength DS 2 120% Expected Strength Correlated Binning Gravity System Wall Consequences Repair Cost Repair Time Red Tagging Casualties 200 ft. Developer and Date: NISTIR Classification: Basic Composition: Normative Quantity (unit): Demand Parameter: 50 ft. No. of Damage States: Damage State Hierarchy: 400 ft. Direction of Shaking Damage States B b 25' DS1 27' Description: Illustrations: Fragility Parameters Fragility, damage measures, and consequences Out-of-Plane Diaphragm-Wall Connections Haselton Baker Risk Group, October 2017 Wood Light Frame 50 LF Gravity System Bay Spacing Out-of-Plane Forces (g) 2 Sequential Wall Height B a 25' 24' DS2 Connections fail at one to several Connections fail along an entire wall bays near the in-plane walls causing line precipitating collapse of the wall the bay nearest the out-of-plane wall outward and the diaphragm to the to collapse into the building. floor of the building. B c 25' 30' B a 35' 24' B b 35' 27' B c 35' 30' B a 50' 24' B b 50' 27' Median Demand (θ): Expected Stregnth 120% Expected Strength Total Dispersion (β): B c 50' 30' Repair Cost: Yes Yes Death or Injury: Yes Yes Red tagging: Yes Yes Correlation: correlated correlated

115 Fragilities 115 Wood Diaphragm Tissel, 1967

116 Fragilities 116 Wood Diaphragm 400 ft ft. 4% Diaphragm Damaged 400 ft Tearing of roofing materials. 200 ft. 200 ft. 8% Diaphragm Damaged 400 ft. 38% Diaphragm Damaged Probability of Damage Nails pull out, framing splitting and plywood tearing. Plywood panels pull free of sub-framing and framing splits. Damage State Damage State-2 Damage State Diaphragm Ductility

117 Fragilities 117 Wood Diaphragm Demand Parameter Diaphragm Ductility Capacity Ductility based limit state Units 50 SF Correlated Binning Era Aspect Ratio Consequences Repair Cost Repair Time Red Tagging Casualties Developer and Date: NISTIR Classification: Basic Composition: Demand Parameter: No. of Damage States: Damage State Hierarchy: Description: Illustrations: Fragility Parameters Sequential Fragility, damage measures, and consequences Current Era Wood Flexible Diaphragm Haselton Baker Risk Group, October 2017 Wood Light Frame Normative Quantity B (unit): 50 SF 1:1 Damage States 3 Era DS1 DS2 DS3 B Tearing of roofing materails and Nails pull out, 2:1 framing splitting flashing at supports. Some nail and plywood tearing extends slippage and withdrwal at the into the diaphragm. diaphragm center and corners. In addition to damage described for DS1 and DS2, plywood panels pull free of sub-framing and framing splits over approximately 25% of the diaphragm span at each diaphragm support (FEMA P58). (Tissel, 1967) (Tissel, 1967) Median Demand (θ): Total Dispersion (β): Repair Cost: Yes Yes Yes Death or Injury: No No No Red tagging: No Yes Yes Correlation: correlated correlated correlated AR Diaphragm <1976 Ductility Demand B :1 B :2 B :1 <1997 B :2 B : B :1 B :2

118 Fragilities 118 Out-of-Plane (OOP) Walls (Koliou, 2014) (Koliou, 2014) (Urmson & Toulmin, 2012)

119 Fragilities 119 OOP Walls (Urmson & Toulmin, 2012) Probability of Damage Residual Cracking requiring epoxy injection. Residual drift requiring realignment or replacement. (Koliou, 2014) 0.1 Damage State-1 Damage State Out-of-Plane Displacement

120 Fragilities 120 OOP Walls Demand Parameter OOP Deformation Capacity Era Ductility based limit state Units EA Panel Uncorrelated Binning Geometry Consequences Repair Cost Repair Time Red Tagging Casualties Developer and Date: NISTIR Classification: Basic Composition: Normative Quantity (unit): Demand Parameter: No. of Damage States: Damage State Hierarchy: Damage States DS 1 Residual Cracking DS 2 Residual Drift Req. Realignment/Replacement Deflected wall OOOOOO DDDDDDDD. = Δ/LL B b DS1 20 DS2 27 Description: Illustrations: Fragility Parameters Fragility, damage measures, and consequences ID Era Panel Length (ft) Panel Height (ft) Current Era Out-of-Plane Precast Concrete Wall Panel B a Haselton Baker Risk Group, October 2017 B a B a Precast Concrete <1976 B b Δ L One panel (25'x33') B b Out-of-Plane Wall Drift B b L/2 B a Sequential B a B a Residual Cracking requiring <1976 epoxy injection Damage State 1 + residual drift requiring realignment B b B b B c B c B c (Urmson & Toulmin, 2012) (Koliou, 2014) B a B a Median Demand (θ): 2% 3% B a Total Dispersion (β): B b Repair Cost: Yes Yes B b Death or Injury: No No B b Red tagging: No Yes B c B c Correlation: uncorrelated uncorrelated B c 30 30

121 FEMA P-58 Modeling Approach 121 Ground Motion Hazard Structural Response Casualties Economic Loss Repair Time Component Damage

122 Resilient Design Example 122 Goals of the Resilient Design: Reduce risk of loss and downtime, since Watson Land Company owns the buildings. Allow building customers to resume business operations as quickly as possible. Quantify the reduced risk to hopefully get a discount on earthquake insurance.

123 Resilient Design Example 123 Approach Design by ASCE 41 for Immediate Occupancy Figure Source: SOM/NYASE 2016 SEAOC presentation Then use FEMA P-58/SP3 to quantify the improved resilience (i.e. reductions in loss and downtime); future designs could use FEMA P-58/SP3 directly to design for specific loss and repair time objectives (or a building rating).).

124 Resilient Design Example 124 The Team: Watson Land Company HSA Associates Figure SP3 Source: SOM/NYASE software 2016 SEAOC team presentation (HB-Risk) as consultants

125 Resilient Design Example 125 Costs: Only $1.27 per square foot to get Immediate Occupancy performance, when compared with a standard code-compliant design.

126 Resilient Design Example 126 $8.0 $7.0 Repair Cost (Millions USD) $6.0 $5.0 $4.0 $3.0 $2.0 $1.0 $0.0 50% In 50 Years 50% In 100 Years 10% In 50 Years 5% In 50 Years 2% In 50 Years Watson Building Current Code

127 Sample Results by Era Loss Ratio PGA (g) 2017 San Bernardino 1990 San Bernardino

128 Sample Results by Era San Bernardino Loss Ratio Total Loss Structural Partitions Cladding Interior Finishes Plumbing &HVAC Other Collapse Residual Drift PGA (g)

129 Sample Results by Era San Bernardino 2.5 OOP Force (g) Demand - Dir 1 Demand - Dir 2 Connection - DS 1 Connection - DS PGA (g) San Bernardino 1 OOP Force (g) Demand - Dir 1 Demand - Dir 2 Connection - DS 1 Connection - DS PGA (g)

130 Sample Results for 1990 s Era Loss Ratio HAZUS P-58: San Bernardino PGA (g)

131 Sample Results for 1990 s Era Loss Ratio HAZUS P-58: San Bernardino P-58: Santa Barbara P-58: Los Angeles P-58: Long Beach P-58: Northridge 0.6 P-58: San Diego PGA (g)

132 Presentation Outline 132 John Lawson, SE Topic: Creating a tilt-up building archetype design set (for three era s) and understanding expected behavior and damage modes by era. SP3 Structural Designs Database Building Code Design Database (giving building-specific design information by location, age, and building type)

133 Presentation Outline 133 Maria Koliou, PhD Topic: Creating solid nonlinear models of tilt-up buildings, so we can confidently predict structural responses. SP3 Structural Models Database

134 Presentation Outline 134 Jared DeBock, PhD, PE Topic: Using the nonlinear models, and predicted responses, to create a SP3 Structural Response Prediction Engine module for tilt-up. Also, fiveminute humanitarian break during Jared s section. SP3 Structural Response Prediction ENGINE We do the nonlinear dynamic structural analysis for you. SP3 Structural Responses Database

135 Presentation Outline 135 Katie Wade, MS Topic: Creating a comprehensive set of fragility functions for damageable components of tile-up buildings. Then, examples of resilient design and performance predictions from this new method. Component Fragility Database (42 new fragilities for diaphragm, connections, walls, etc.)

136 SP3 Building-Specific Risk Model 136 Site Hazard Structural Responses Structural Components & Fragilities Nonstructural Components & Fragilities FEMA P-58 Monte Carlo Analysis ENGINE Basic Building and Site Information (e.g. location, construction year, etc.) Additional Secondary Modifiers (more building and site info.) PGA and Sa for many hazard levels Site Hazards Database Soil type Site Soil DB Structural Designs Database Structural responses (e.g. peak drift, floor acceleration, residual drift; for ~100 motions) Structural Response Prediction ENGINE Structural Responses Database Structural Models Database Over-strength by bldg. type, location, etc. Building strength Site-specific EQ and wind strength design Struct. comp. inventory Building modal properties (T 2 -T 3, φ 1 -φ 3 ) Building stiffness (T 1 ) Dynamic Properties ENGINE Site-specific EQ and wind drift design Building Code Design Database Struct. comp. fragilities Comp. Popul. ENGINES Non-str. comp. inventory Site-specific non-structural comp. design Non-str. comp. fragilities Component Fragility Database Strength and stiffness of gravity and non-str. components Experimental Test Database Building-Specific Vulnerability Curves Full distributions of losses and repair times, and expected annual values.

137 SP3 Building-Specific Risk Model 137 Site Hazard Structural Responses Structural Components & Fragilities Nonstructural Components & Fragilities FEMA P-58 Monte Carlo Analysis ENGINE Basic Building and Site Information (e.g. location, construction year, etc.) Additional Secondary Modifiers (more building and site info.) Structural responses (e.g. peak drift, floor acceleration, residual drift; for ~100 motions) Structural Response Prediction ENGINE Structural Responses Database Structural Models Database Building strength Site-specific EQ and wind strength design Struct. comp. inventory Building modal properties (T 2 -T 3, φ 1 -φ 3 ) Building stiffness (T 1 ) Site-specific EQ and wind drift design Struct. comp. fragilities Comp. Popul. ENGINES Component Fragility Database Building-Specific Vulnerability Curves Full distributions of losses and repair times, and expected annual values. Structural Designs Database Over-strength by bldg. type, location, etc. Building Code Design Database

138 Project Outcomes 138 Goal: Enable FEMA P-58 risk analysis for tilt-up buildings without the user needing to create a structural model. 1) Enable in the SP3 Building-Specific Risk Model (for buildingspecific vulnerability curves based on insurance-level information) Done and can now run tilt-up buildings as part of large inventories; using SP3_Batch, we can now do building-specific vulnerability curves for tens-of-thousands+ property inventories. We are now starting with early-adopters of this technology. 2) Enable in the SP3_Engineering tool (for building-specific engineering evaluations) Done and fragilities loaded into SP3_Engineering; while the Response Engine is being incorporated. While the response engine is being added, the SP3 team is happy to run responses and load then into your SP3 model.

139 Closing and Questions 139 Thank you for your time. Our goal is to support adoption of resilience-based design and risk assessment, and we welcome feedback and suggestions. Time for questions! Angie Carpenter (HB-Risk admin): Curt Haselton: Direct: (530)

140 Upcoming Webinars in this Series 140 Overview of SP3 Webinar Series: 1) The new SP3 Structural Response Prediction Engine [available online at 2) The new SP3 Building-Specific Risk Model [available online at 3) SP3 Building-Specific Risk Assessment for tilt-up buildings [today] 4) SP3 Building-Specific Risk Assessment for Wood Light- Frame Buildings [Nov. 30 th 12-1pm PST] 5) SP3 Building-Specific Risk Assessment and Resilient Design of Buckling Restrained Braced Frame Buildings [Dec. 12 th 12-1pm PST]

141 Closing and Questions 141 Questions: Please use questions tab and we will address as many as we can for the rest of our time. For further questions, or for feedback on forward development, please contact Angie at HB-Risk and she can connect you with the right person