peer relating structural response to damage eduardo miranda hesaam aslani shahram taghavi stanford...
TRANSCRIPT
PPEEEERR
Relating Structural Response to Damage
Eduardo MirandaHesaam Aslani
Shahram TaghaviStanford University
PEER 2002 Annual Meeting
Damage Estimation
EDP DM
How to relate structural response parameters to structural and nonstructural damage ?
E. Miranda, PEER 2002 Annual Meeting
Damage Estimation
EDP DM
We need information of damage sustained by structural and nonstructural components when subjected to different levels of structural response.
We need MOTION–DAMAGE PAIRS.
E. Miranda, PEER 2002 Annual Meeting
Damage Estimation
1. Experimental research (e.g. in a lab).
Where can we get MOTION–DAMAGE PAIRS for structural nonstructural components ?
E. Miranda, PEER 2002 Annual Meeting
2. Damage surveys from instrumented structures that have experienced earthquakes.
3. Damage surveys from structures that have experienced earthquakes and where records are available near by.
EXAMPLE 1 – STRUCTURAL COMPONENT
EXAMPLE 2 – NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENT
Minor Cracks
Appear
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
IDR [%]
Minor CracksAppear
Damage State
IDR [%]
Late
ral L
oad
(K
ips)
Lateral Displacement (in)
Punching Shear Failure
Punching Shear
Failure
Significant Cracking
Significant
CrackingCollapse
DS4: Collapse
Damage States For Slab- Column Connections
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
IDR [%]
Minor CracksAppear
Punching Shear Failure
Significant Cracking
Damage State
Collapse (Loss of Vertical Carrying
Capacity)
Damage States Based On Experimental Results
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
IDR [%]
Punching Shear Failure
Damage State
Influence of Gravity Shear Ratio on Punching Failure
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
IDR [%]
Gravity Shear Ratio 0V
Vg
Trend ?
Dispersion ?
Influence of Gravity Shear Ratio on Punching Failure For a Single Specimen
Influence of Gravity Shear Ratio on Punching Failure
General trend based on 67 punching failure reports.
Influence of shear gravity shear ratio on the dispersion of punching failure drift ratio
General trend based on 67 punching failure reports.
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Gravity Shear Ratio
Residuals
0V
Vg
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%EDP (IDR)
P (DM | EDP)
Minor Cracks Appear
Fragility curves P( DM | EDP )
Punching Shear Failure
Significant Cracking
Olive View Medical Center
1994 Northridge Earthquake
Lateral resisting system:
Concrete and steel shear walls
Fundamental period of vibration: 0.33 sec
Damages:
Minor structural but major nonstructural damages
N-S DirectionE-W Direction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Max. FA (cm/s2)
Floor
Recorded
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Max. FA (cm/s2)
Floor
Recorded
PFA profile of the building
Computed Computed
Damage surveys of nonstructural components
Damage-motion pairs for HVAC systems of Olive View Hospital
0.2 0.4 0.80.6 1.0 1.2 1.61.4
No Damage
Heavy damage
Moderate damage
Insignificant damage
PFA (g)
Damage state
E-W direction
N-S direction
0.2 0.4 0.80.6 1.0 1.2 1.61.4
No Damage
Heavy damage
Moderate damage
PFA (g)
Damage state
161 97 25 171150
Insignificant damage2 16 29 51210 112
1 1 113 111 1 1
Damage-motion pairs for HVAC systems of 19 buildings
•Burbank, 10-story residential building
•Burbank, 6-story commercial building
•Los Angeles, 17-story residential bldg
•Los Angeles, 19-story office building
•Los Angeles, 2-story fire command
•Los Angeles, 3-story commercial bldg
•Los Angeles, 5-story warehouse
•Los Angeles, 52-story office bldg
•Los Angeles, 54-story office bldg
•Los Angeles, 6-story office bldg
•Los Angeles, 54-story parking structure
•Los Angeles, 7-story UCLA math/science bldg
•Los Angeles, 7-story university hospital
•Los Angeles, 9-story office building
•Los Angeles, Hollywood storage building
•North Hollywood, 20-story hotel
•Sherman oaks, 13-story commercial building
•Sylmar, 6-story hospital
•Van Nuys, 7-story hotel
Fragility curves of HVAC systems
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75
PFA (g)
P(DM | PFA)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75
PFA (g)
Fragility curves of HVAC systems
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75EDP(PFA (g))
P(DM | EDP)
Insignificant damage
Moderate damage
Fragility curves of HVAC systems