PEER Relating Structural Response to Damage Eduardo Miranda Hesaam Aslani Shahram Taghavi Stanford University PEER 2002 Annual Meeting.

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

Recorded Floor Accelerations in Northridge EQ.

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