Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
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
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
2-2
2-4
Commentary states:
1
Three Tiers
Moderate
2-5
Moderate
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
2-6
and
Specific demand parameters identified, and Initial acceptance criteria are established.
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)
2-8
Near Collapse
2-9
Essential/Hazardous Facilities
Basic Facilities
2-10
* need not exceed mean + 1 standard deviation for the maximum deterministic event
2-11
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
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.
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
2-15
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
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?
2-18
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.
2-19
2-20
10
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
2-21
Severity of Damage
Joes
Beer! Food!
Joes
Beer! Food!
Joes
Beer! Food!
Operational
Life Safety
0%
2-22
11
Structural/Nonstructural/Element Criteria
2-23
Joes
Beer! Food!
Member Capacity
Force
Lateral Resistance
Joes
Beer! Food!
Deformation
Structural Displacement
2-24
12
(72 years)
Joes
Beer! Food!
Very Rare
(2500 years)
(500 years)
Pea k Ground Acceleration - g
Rare
Joes
Beer! Food!
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.1
2-25
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
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
Not adequate to say Dmedian < Cmedian Need probability of failure less than a specified amount.
Dmedian
Demand
Cmedian
Capacity
Failure Probability
Response Parameter
Cmedian Dmedian
>
2-28
14
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?)
2-29
Now, focus is increasingly on strain, deformation and energy dissipation (fatigue) capacities.
2-30
15
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).
Non-structural components (cladding and other architectural features may actually behave like structural elements, or alter the behavior of structural elements)
2-31
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
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.
2-33
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
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
See: R. Hamburger, Performance-Based Analysis and Design Procedure for Moment-Resisting Steel Frames, SAC Background Report
2-36
18
SAC Approach
Basic approach
1 2 3 ... n D 12 3 .. .n C
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
2-37
con D C
2-38
19
Spalling
0.8
0.7
0.6
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
2-39
2-40
20
Capacity Design
Improved earthquake characterization
Probability
Hazard Model
Sd
Improving control of uncertainties
Demand Capacity
Probability
Reliability Model
Fails
Loss Models
2-41
2-42
21
Capacity Design
Improved earthquake characterization
Probability
Hazard Model
Sd
Improving control of uncertainties
Demand Capacity
Probability Fails
Reliability Model
Loss Models
2-43
2-44
22
Loss Models
Reliability Model
Fails?
Probability
Hazard Model
Sd
2-45
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.,
D|Sa D
C C
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.
2-47
24