Sie sind auf Seite 1von 24

Basic Concepts: Performance-based Earthquake Engineering

Seismic Performance

What are our goals? A design framework for expressing performance goals Performance vs. Engineering Response parameters Nonlinear response - Is it desirable feature or a problem to overcome? Some engineering approaches to improve performance Quantifying performance

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

1-1

Performance Expectations
Current codes - What are their stated objectives? Ideal situation - A simple limit states framework for design. Current directions - Vision 2000 (SEAOC), SAC LRFD approach, etc. Future directions - reliability based approaches, PEER performance-based evaluation strategy References
CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

Model codes Vision 2000


FEMA 273/356 FEMA 350-353

PEER PBEE FEMA PBEE

2-2

References: Performance-Based Design Codes


Hamburger, R.O., Performance-Based Analysis and Design Procedure for Moment Resisting Steel Frames, Background Document, SAC Steel Project, Sept. 1998. SEAOC, Vision 2000: Performance Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings, San Francisco, April 1995. Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel MomentFrame Buildings, FEMA 350, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC, July 2000 FEMA, Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Vol. 1: Guidelines, FEMA 356, Washington DC, 2002 (formerly FEMA 273). Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Performance-based Seismic Design of Buildings: An Action Plan , U.C., Berkeley, 1995. FEMA/EERI, Action Plan for Performance -Based Seismic Design, FEMA 349, Washington DC, 2000. ATC, Development of Performance-based Earthquake Design Guidelines, ATC-58, Redwood City, 2002.
Spring 2003 UC Regents

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
2-3

Current Model Codes


CBC, IBC and UBC Stated purpose:
Provide minimum provisions for design and construction of structures to resist effects of seismic ground motions to safeguard against major structural failures and loss of life, not to limit damage or maintain function.

Structurally undamaged building astride fault

(UBC, 1997 ed., Section 1626)

Shear failures in short captive columns

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-4

Commentary states:
1

SEAOC Blue Book Recommendations


Earthquake Intensity Minor F requency of Occurrence Several times during service life One or more times during service live Desired Performance No damage to structure or nonstructural contents Limited damage to nonstructural components and no significant damage to structure No collapse of structure or other damage that would create a life safety hazard.

Three Tiers

Moderate

Major (Catastrophic) (10% exceedence in 50 years)

Rare and unusual event as large as any experienced in vicinity of site.

(After: Lateral Force Recommendations and Commentary, SEAOC.)

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-5

Current code goals are ambiguous


Ea rthquake I ntensity 1 Minor Fre que ncy of Occurre nce Several times during service life One or more times during service live Desired Performa nce No damage to structure or nonstructural contents Limited damage to nonstructural components and no significant damage to structure No collapse of structure or other damage that would create a life safety hazard.

Moderate

Major (Catastrophic) (10% exceedence in 50 years)

Rare and unusual event as large as any experienced in vicinity of site.

(After: Lateral Force Recommendations and Commentary, SEAOC.)

Definitions are nonquantitative (e.g., damage, one times, etc.) Three tiers, but Only one design earthquake Provisions not specifically associated with any particular performance level. Leads to wide variation in interpretation and performance.
limited or more

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-6

Vision 2000 - Trends toward Performance-Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings


Seminal Document - some powerful new concepts
The definitions of performance states developed are: incorporated in the appendices of the SEAOC Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary Refined by other groups in later documents Focuses on: defining what constitutes a frequent, rare or very rare earthquake, and describing in detail what are the performance states that one wants for different types of events and structures.
Spring 2003 UC Regents

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
2-7

Vision 2000 - Basic Approach


Relationship developed between:
Performance objective Type of facility Probability of earthquake

Performance objective increases (i.e., less damage):

and

Response parameters related to each performance objective.

Specific demand parameters identified, and Initial acceptance criteria are established.

Conversely, more damage is acceptable:


for a rare, severe earthquake, for less critical or temporary facilities.

for a high probability earthquake (one that may occur several times during the life of a structure), or for an important structure or dangerous occupancy (i.e., a hospital or dynamite plant)

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-8

Vision 2000 - Performance States


Fully operational Operational Life Safe
Continuous service. Negligible structural and non-structural damage. Most operations and functions can resume immediately. Structure safe for occupancy. Essential operations protected, non-essential operations disrupted. Repair required to restore some non-essential services. Damage is light. Damage is moderate, but structure remains stable. Selected building systems, features or contents may be protected from damage. Life safety is generally protected. Building may be evacuated following earthquake. Repair possible, but may be economically impractical. Damage severe, but structural collapse prevented. Non-structural elements may fall.

Near Collapse

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-9

Occupancy or Use of Building Considered


Three occupancy types considered in Vision 2000. Safety Critical Facilities:
Large quantities of hazardous materials (toxins, radioactive materials, explosives) with significant external effects of damage to building. Critical post-earthquake facilities (hospitals, communications centers, police, fire stations, etc.) Hazardous materials with limited impact outside of immediate vicinity of building. (Refineries, etc.) All other structures.

Essential/Hazardous Facilities

Basic Facilities

One can argue with or adapt these definitions.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-10

Quantitative Indexing of Earthquake


The earthquake intensity is now described quantitatively in probabilistic terms for Vision 2000.
Earthquake Claassification Frequent Occasional Rare Very Rare Recurrance Interval 43 years 72 years 475 years 970 years* Probability of Occurance 50% in 30 years 50% in 50 years 10% in 50 years 10% in 100 years

* need not exceed mean + 1 standard deviation for the maximum deterministic event

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-11

Schematic Relation Between Performance Objective and Earthquake Probability


Earthquake Probability Frequent Occasional Rare Very Rare Fully Operational Performance Objective Operational Life Safe Near Collapse

Ess

Saf e

ent

ty C

ial/ Haz

Ba s i
ard

cF

riti ca l F

ous

ac i litie s

Unacceptable Performance

aci li ti es

Fac iliti es
adapted from Vision 2000, SEAOC

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-12

Comments on Relationship
Earthquake Probability Frequent Occasional Rare Very Rare Fully Operational Performance Objective Operational Life Safe Near Collapse

Ess e

Sa fety

ntia l /Ha

Ba si c
zar dou s

Fac il

Unacceptable Performance
itie s
s

Cr i ti

cal F

aci

Fa c ilitie

litie s
adapted from Vision 2000, SEAOC

Thus, a building would be expected to suffer more damage if it were subjected to a more severe, less likely earthquake. A more critical building would be expected to have less damage for the same earthquake probability.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-13

Comments on Approach.
A basic structure would be expected to: have essentially no damage if subjected to an earthquake with a 30% probability of occurrence in 30 years, whereas it would be be near collapse if subjected to an event with a 10% probability within 100 years. One can substitute more appropriate numbers for a particular project, or upgrade the characterization of the structure (to an essential facility, for instance, where the structure would be designed to remain life safe during the very rare event.)
CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-14

Some More Comments


This method removes some of the ambiguity from current recommendations. Geotechnical engineers (seismologists and structural engineers) are able to and do regularly develop estimates of peak ground motion parameters (acceleration, velocity, etc.), elastic response spectrum and even time histories corresponding to: x% probability of occurrence in y years We will look at how this is done later in the course.
CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-15

Quantification of Earthquake Hazard

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-16

Acceptance Criteria
Vision 2000 introduces engineering response parameters to consider (drift, stress, plastic hinge rotation angle, acceleration, etc.) and what limits are acceptable for a particular performance objective. These criteria were for the most part based on consensus, rather than on test data or quantitative field observation. For example, ...
CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-17

Drift Limits in Vision 2000


NEW
Permissible Ma ximum Drift, % Fully Ope ra tiona l Ope ra tiona l Life S a fe Ne a r C olla pse 0.2 0.5 1.5 2.5 Permissible Pe rma ne nt D rift, % ne gligible ne gligible 0 .5 2 .5

After, Vision 2000, SEAOC

Vision 2000 does not describe acceptable analysis methods. So, how do we calculate the maximum drift (or maximum permanent drift) and prove we satisfy these criteria? Why are these criteria selected? Will a building at 2.6% drift collapse? Can all buildings with drifts of 0.4% remain operational?

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-18

Damage to Steel Moment Frames


Damage Description Fully Operational Negligible Operational Minor local yielding at a few places. No observable fractures. Minor buckling or observable permanent distortion of members. Life Safe Hinges form. Local buckling of some beam elements. Severe joint distortion. Isolated connection failures. A few elements may experience fracture. Near Collapse Extensive distortion of beams and column panels. Many fractures in connections.

Big jump

May need to add intermediate limit state related to reparability where damage is limited to make repair quick and/or economically feasible. Since damage difficult to quantify and economics issues are ownersensitive, these intermediate states are difficult to incorporate in a code.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-19

Extending the Vision 2000 approach


The Vision 2000 approach does not suggest analytical approaches nor methods to assure reliability of structure. Intermediate limit states difficult to quantify. The Vision 2000 is an uncoupled approach. That is, we end up with a deterministic procedure based on a probabilistically determined spectrum. Load and resistance factors still remain to be determined to provide desired reliability. Identification of limit states by subjective name (continued operation) may lead to legal problems if goal is not realized following an earthquake. Some codes use a letter system (i.e., performance objective A, B, C, etc.). Probabilistic specification of response parameters may be better.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-20

10

Several Major Advances in FEMA-273/356


Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings
Four Performance Goals:
Collapse Prevention, Life Safe, Continued Occupancy, Operational

National Seismic Hazard Maps developed by USGS Spectral ordinants (5% damping) for Sa SD1/T different probabilities of occurrence and SDS soil conditions at T= 0.2sec and T=1sec. T Displacement-Based Approach with subjective factors to assess uncertainty d =CCCCCS Defines Nonlinear Dynamic and Static Pushover methods in addition to conventional elastic methods
roof 0 1 2 3 4 delastic

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-21

Severity of Damage

Joes
Beer! Food!

Joes
Beer! Food!

Joes
Beer! Food!

Operational

Immediate Occupancy Damage

Life Safety

Collapse Prevention 99%


(R. Hamburger)

0%

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-22

11

Structural/Nonstructural/Element Criteria

From FEMA 356

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-23

Damage related to demand parameters


Joes
Beer! Food!

Joes
Beer! Food!

Member Capacity
Force

Lateral Resistance

Joes
Beer! Food!

Deformation

Structural Displacement

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-24

12

Relate Probabilities of Exceedence to Damage States


Occasional
Joes
Beer! Food!

(72 years)

Joes
Beer! Food!

Very Rare
(2500 years)

Frequent (25 years)


10

(500 years)
Pea k Ground Acceleration - g

Rare

Joes
Beer! Food!

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001

0.1

0.01 Annual Probability of Exceedance

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-25

Some limitations of FEMA 356

While ground motion is defined in probabilistic terms, uncertainty and randomness not considered related to: structural demands, and capacities. Evaluation is made on a member by member basisthe failure of a few elements might not lead to the failure of the system. Performance goals are defined in absolute, but subjective terms. Structure is either life safe or it is not.
CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-26

13

Extending the FEMA 356 concept


Basic Limit States Design Format

Common format in Europe and in other industries. Explicit list of performance goals, criteria, and usually, a acceptable probability of reaching or exceeding the goal; Direct relation between goal and what engineering demand parameter is checked (and acceptance criteria). Explicit recognition and consideration of randomness and uncertainty (e.g., LRFD format implementation)
Limit State Performance Objective Goal you are trying to achieve Probability of Evaluation Criteria for Exceeding Engineering Parameters Performance Criteria Response parameter(s) measured and acceptance criteria x 1 % in y 1 years Name

Many
2-27

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

For each limit state:


Need to recognize and manage randomness and uncertainty.
Frequency of Occurrence

Not adequate to say Dmedian < Cmedian Need probability of failure less than a specified amount.

Dmedian
Demand

Cmedian
Capacity

Failure Probability

Response Parameter

X % probability in y years (often, y is the assumed service life) In LRFD format

Cmedian Dmedian

>

For a given probability of failure in y years

Dmedian < Cmedian

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-28

14

Large randomness and uncertainty in earthquake-resistant design

Randomness in both demand and capacity.

Uncertainty in demand has components related to:

Earthquake motions inherently random. Even with increased knowledge there will be large randomness in excitation and response. Structural behavior effected by random variations in material properties, deterioration and construction quality. Capacity is also affected by loading history and duration which are influenced by randomness of excitation.

Seismology (what earthquake intensity is expected during a given interval of time) various methods available to improve estimates Ground motion characteristics (what response spectrum corresponds to an earthquake motion corresponding to a given intensity and soil conditions) Structural characteristics (what is the structures actual mass, stiffness, strength, damping, foundation condition, etc.?) Modeling (have we accurately modeled the structures: completeness, etc.) Structural Analysis Method (Elastic, Inelastic; dynamic, static?)

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-29

Uncertainty and randomness in capacity


In the past, strength was generally primary criterion related to capacity

Now, focus is increasingly on strain, deformation and energy dissipation (fatigue) capacities.

From Marc Eberhard, UW

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-30

15

Capacity estimates may be a problem


Even for flexural strength, there are difficulties:
Inconsistent development of capacity equations In complete tests or inadequate documentation

Slab contributions (composite action) Connections (panel zone deformations, welds, bar pull out, etc.) Shear (in members, connections and structural walls) Non-compliant or marginally ductile elements (existing structures).

Both strength & deformation capacity sensitive to:


Loading history (low-cycle fatigue) Rate of loading effects (effects on strength and deformability) Ultimately, seismic capacity is related to dynamic aspects of response of a complete structural system

Non-structural components (cladding and other architectural features may actually behave like structural elements, or alter the behavior of structural elements)

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-31

Probabilistic PBE Approaches


In general one would want to state the problem as:

w% chance of exceeding performance objective in y years (life of structure)


This is complex, computationally intensive reliability problem.

Solve rigorously as a reliability problem. Results tend to be dominated by uncertainty in ground motions
CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-32

16

Seismic Hazard and Performance Level


Now more common to uncouple the problem, as:

x% chance of exceeding performance level for an earthquake with an z% probability of occurrence in y years
Treat ground motion and structure separately: Probabilistic response spectrum used with deterministic conservative selection of seismic hazard for design. Develop calibrated load and resistance factors using reliability analysis or Monte Carlo simulation to have appropriate overall reliability.

Thus, Performance Objective has three parts:


Definition of Performance Level Statement of associated Seismic Hazard Statement of desired confidence

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-33

Now, engineer can state:

Significance of Confidence Level

We have a high, moderate, or low confidence that the performance objective can be met for an earthquake with a x% probability of occurring in y years We would say, for instance: there is a 90% (10%) confidence that a structure will remain stable in earthquakes having a median probability of exceedence of 2% in 50 years. Powerful evaluation tool, and one that is understandable by clients and other professionals
CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-34

17

FEMA/SAC Steel Project

Builds on FEMA 273/356, but covers new & existing buildings Two Performance Objectives
Continued Occupancy - damage permitted, so long as it does not reduce future confidence in buildings ability to achieved performance objectives Collapse Prevention - local plastic rotations, global instability, avoid premature failure modes

NEHRP seismic hazard data: 50%, 10% and 2% in 50 years Consistent system-level reliability approach used. Treats randomness and uncertainty to focus on confidence of achieving performance goal during specified period. Extensive Monte Carlo simulation used.
CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering
U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

Designer/owner can select confidence level. Rational load, resistance and analysis bias factors developed for various forms of uncertainties.

2-35

Performance-based Design: SAC Approach


LRFD-type format often utilized
Demand uncertainty divided into several parts;
Ground motion (randomness and uncertainty treated using probabilistically-based response spectrum and load factors corresponding to geographical location and soil conditions), Structural response -- Even for a family of ground motions with similar characteristics, structural response will have large variations. Analysis method - ESP, EDP, NSP, NDP Modeling --Variations in mechanical and dynamic characteristics will make these uncertainties in response demand larger. Element level effects (stress, plastic hinge rotations) Global behavior (drifts, static and dynamic instability) Brittle failure modes (premature column fracture or buckling)

Seismic capacity related to three main components:

See: R. Hamburger, Performance-Based Analysis and Design Procedure for Moment-Resisting Steel Frames, SAC Background Report

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-36

18

SAC Approach
Basic approach
1 2 3 ... n D 12 3 .. .n C

or, combining terms and adding confidence level:


con D C

Multi-level design approach

Standard default code approach with specified demand, capacity and confidence values Explicit methods allowing nonlinear analysis and testing to develop demand and capacity values, or to specify different target confidence levels
90% confidence for global instability response parameters 50% confidence for local stability and continued occupancy

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-37

SAC Approach for New Buildings


1. Select performance objective, confidence levels and earthquake hazard, e.g. Collapse Prevention, 90% confidence and 2% in 50 year hazard. 2. Determine design seismic earthquake for hazard, e.g. spectral displacement at the fundamental periods of the building, time histories... 3. Develop a mathematical model of the building. 4. Analyze mathematical model to determine the values of the key design parameters: maximum and permanent inter-story drift; column load. 5. Apply demand and bias factors to the computed response parameter values to compensate for the various biases and uncertainties inherent in the predictive methodology as well as the randomness inherent in seismic structural response . Apply additional demand factor to achieve desired confidence level. 6. Compare the factored demand against the factored acceptance criteria value for the response parameter.

con D C

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-38

19

Fragility curves describe reliability of structure


1 0.9

Minor Damage (Park&Ang)

Dcol = 60", ar = 6, Pr = 0.2

Spalling

0.8

0.7

0.6

Significant Damage (Park&Ang)

Probability

0.5 Spalling Park Ang > 0.4 Park Ang > 1.0 Fatigue Index> 0.5 Fatigue Index> 1.0

0.4

0.3

0.2

Fatigue Failure

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1 Sa/SaARS

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-39

Rapid Evolution of Performance-oriented Codes and Guidelines expected.


These PBEE guidelines (FEMA 273, SAC, etc.) are being routinely used for many new and existing buildings. These are only first steps in developing Performance Based Codes. Much work is needed to evaluate and validate methodologies. Lots of changes will be made in the next few years. Improved tools needed for analysis and design.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-40

20

Structural Engineering Tools Improve


Greater demands for quantitative design and evaluation methods that realistically and explicitly account for performance Improving analysis tools
Analysis Engine

Improved proportioning strategies

Capacity Design
Improved earthquake characterization

Probability

Hazard Model

Sd
Improving control of uncertainties

Demand Capacity

Probability

Reliability Model

Fails

Improving characterization of performance


Damage Models

Improved assessment of losses

Loss Models

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-41

Drift is not ... performance


Engineers must use quantitative engineering demand parameters (such as drift, plastic rotation, stress) as a measure of performance. These are generally not performance indices of interest to an owner who is concerned about repair cost, loss of revenue, injuries to occupants, down time, etc. Many intermediate performance objectives related to reparable damage or minimization of economic or social impacts.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-42

21

Structural Engineering Tools Improve


Greater demands for quantitative design and evaluation methods that realistically and explicitly account for performance Improving analysis tools
Analysis Engine

Improved proportioning strategies

Capacity Design
Improved earthquake characterization

Probability

Hazard Model

Sd
Improving control of uncertainties

Demand Capacity

Probability Fails

Reliability Model

Improving characterization of performance


Damage Models

Improved assessment of losses

Loss Models

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-43

Economic, social & operational impacts


In general, we need to consider economic and related impacts as well. Initial costs need to be compared with life cycle costs to determine the design that performs best. Evaluation of economic costs also depend on who pays for damage (owner, insurance, government). Perspective varies * * *

Developer Insurance company Engineer

* Large institutional owner * Government decision makers

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-44

22

Performance-Based Design Approaches


Capacity Design

Damage Models Analysis Engine


Demand Capacity Probability

Loss Models

Reliability Model

Fails?

Probability

Hazard Model

Sd

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-45

PEER Probability Framework Equation


v (DV ) = 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 Implementation Through DM Damage Measure LRFD-like Format: DV Decision Variable (DV) Probabilistic Description of Decision Variable P (e.g.,

Saf0 Mean Annual Probability $

D|Sa D

C C

Loss > 50% Replacement Cost)

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-46

23

FUTURE of PBEE
FEMA is funding a new project to implement a PBEE framework for all structural systems, not just retrofit or steel ATC-58 project PBEE is currently being implemented on many conventional and important structures Answers need for more reliable, quantitative information on performance, utilizing modern capabilities for characterizing seismic hazard, simulating seismic response, and assessing impact of response on owner and society Validation and refinement needed How do we design a structure to attain our objectives reliably? NEXT.

CEE 227 - Earthquake Engineering


U.C. Berkeley
Spring 2003 UC Regents

2-47

24

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen