Performance-based Earthquake Engineering A Very Short Introduction (why taking Dynamics of Structures) Dr. ZhiQiang Chen UMKC Spring,2011

Transcription

1 Performance-based Earthquake Engineering A Very Short Introduction (why taking Dynamics of Structures) Dr. ZhiQiang Chen UMKC Spring,2011

2 Conventional Design Philosophies ASD (allowable strength design) LRFD (load and resistance factor design) Both feature comparing required strength with nominal strength of individual structural members ASD: R u R n /Ω, Ω is called safety factor LRFD: R u φr n, φ is called resistant factor Results: safe v.s. not save; sufficient v.s. not sufficient; ok v.s. not ok for individual members LRFD is superior to ASD: LRFD seeks to assure performance in terms of failure probability

3 Issues of LRFD LRFD lacks a system-level quantification of structural behavior (structural response indices) at different hazard levels (to structural engineers) a system-level quantification of structural performance at different hazard levels (to clients)

4 Earlier Efforts of PBEE (1 st generation PBEE) SEAOC s vision 2000 (1995); FEMA 273 (1997) Relate structural response indices (inter-story drift, local ductility ) with some performance measures (e.g. immediate occupancy, life safety, collapse prevention), yet with no rigorous/explicit formulation Given a prescribed level of earthquake, one computes the maximum inter-story drift, then how we relate this value with the system performance? The performance measures are too descriptive but quantifiable.

5 SEAOC Vision 2000 recommended seismic performance objectives for buildings

6 PEER s PBEE Framework 2 nd Generation PBEE (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research) Explicitly define four categories of design variables Intensity Measures (IM), e.g. Peak Ground Acceleration) Demand Parameter (DP), e.g. Peak Inter-Story Drift Ratio) Damage Measures (DM), e.g. Physical Condition Decision Variables (DV), e.g. $loss, downtime, life-safety

7 How to obtain and relate DV, DM, DP and IM? Loss Analysis (LA) Fragility Analysis (FA) Structural Analysis (SA) 1. Analysis steps are conducted in a successive way 2. The most challenging factor UNCERTAINTIES! All the analysis has to be conducted statistically! One session of Structural Analysis is deterministic needs to conduct many many times (statistically), and obtain DPs given different IMs Hazard Analysis (HA)

8 PEER s Probabilistic Methodology Based on total probability theorem G<a b> reads as the probability of exceedance (a > a o ) given b Needs to define each component statistically Structural Analysis component: G<EDP IM>

9 The State-of-the-Art Currently being implemented in ATC-58, ATC- 63, Tall Building Initiative of PEER) Lots of debate though many active research projects and many research needs exist PBEE will, as many believe, transform the next-generation engineering design PBEE derivatives: PB wind/hurricane/tsunami/blast/fire if you characterize the hazard (hazard analysis) well probabilistically.

10 More reflection We are used to saying (as SE) we are conservative This makes sense since we are doing LRFD design, which is either safe or not. To be safe (enough), we tend to be conservative (since we don t have more refined and quantifiable performance measures) The PBEE philosophy seeks to achieve specified performance targets (e.g. the annual mean probability of downtime more than 1 day is 0.1%) under the stated level of seismic hazard. This means that accurate Structural Analysis is essential no more being less or more conservative. The analysis must be sufficiently accurate! Some mechanisms, such as Soil-Structure-Interaction (SSI), are often beneficial towards reducing seismic demands. Traditionally, SSI is ignored in the seismic design community. In the PBEE framework, SSI should be included in the modeling. Plus, SSI sometimes is detrimental!

11 To obtain DP accurately given IM To achieve accurate analysis The ground input The soil-foundation-structure interaction The damping mechanism The material/member properties The structural configuration and simplification Nonstructural/structural components <DP IM> n G<DP IM>

12 Definition of DP DP IM

13 How to obtain this analytically? Solve the dynamic governing equation of the soilfoundation-structure system! M x'' t + C x t + K x t = P t How to solve it? what if [K] is not constant? what are the invariant features given different P(t) of the system? what if the frequency contents of P(t) are close to the mode of the structure? We will address these question marks in this class!

14 References SEAOC 2000 (1995) FEMA 273 (1997) G.G. Deierlein, H. Krawinkler, & C.A. Cornell, A framework for performance-based earthquake engineering, 2003 Pacific Conference in Earthquake Engineering Krawinkler, H., and Miranda, E. (2004). Performance-based earthquake engineering, Chapter 9 of Earthquake engineering: from engineering seismology to performancebased engineering, Y. Bozorgnia and V.V. Bertero, Editors, CRC Pres ATC-58, 50% finished report, Guidelines for Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, 2009