Framework for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Helmut Krawinkler, Stanford U.

1
Framework for Performance-Based Earthquake
Engineering Helmut Krawinkler, Stanford U.
PEER Summative Meeting June 13, 2007
2
Where were we 10 years ago?

• SEAOC Vision 2000, FEMA 273, ATC-40
• Descriptive performance levels (IO, LS, CP, etc.)
• Associated with specific hazard levels ?
  Performance Objectives
• Qualitative (and a few quantitative) damage
  measures
• Limited consideration of uncertainties
• Implementation in terms of FORCES and DEFORMATIONS

3
Measures of Performance - PBEE

• Forces and deformation?
• Yes, but only for engineering calculations
• Intermediate variables
• Not for communication with clients and community
• Communication in terms of the three Ds
• Dollars (direct economic loss)
• Downtime (loss of operation/occupancy)
• Death (injuries, fatalities, collapse)
• Quantification
• Losses for a given shaking intensity
• Losses for a specific scenario (M R)
• Annualized losses
• With or without rigorous consideration of
  uncertainties

4
Vision of PBEE

• Complete simulation
• Defined performance objectives
• Quantifiable performance targets
• Annual probabilities of achieving them
• Informed owners

Joes
Beer! Food!
Joes
Joes
Beer! Food!
Beer! Food!
Sources G. Deierlein, R. Hamburger
5
The Peer Framework Equation - 1999
6
Performance-Based Methodology Bldgs.
7
Performance-Based Methodology
8
Incremental Dynamic Analysis
9
Performance-Based Methodology
Medina Krawinkler
ATC-58 definitions of performance assessment
types Intensity-based Probable facility
performance, given intensity of ground
motion Scenario-based Probable facility
performance, given a specific earthquake
scenario Time-based Probable facility
performance in a specified period of time
10
Deaggregation of Expected Annual Loss
Example Van Nuys Testbed Building
Collapse 29
Structural 12
Non-collapse 71
Non-tructural 88
Source E. Miranda
11
Design Decision Support
Expected Loss
Zareian Krawinkler (2005)
12
Assessment of Collapse Potential
NORM. STRENGTH VS. MAX. STORY DUCT.
x
a
q
N9, T
0.9,
0.05,
0.03,
0.015, H
, BH, K
, S
, NR94nya
1
3
1
1
20
Non-degrading system
Degrading system
15
g
)/g /
10
1
(T
a
S
5
0
0
5
10
15
20
m
si,max
13
Modeling of Deterioration
14
Collapse Capacity for a Set of Ground Motions
15
Collapse Fragility Curve
Zareian Krawinkler (2004)
16
Probability of Collapse at MCE, for
MRFs with R 8
Zareian Krawinkler (2007)
17
Implementation of Framework

• ATC-58 Guidelines for Seismic Performance
  Assessment of Buildings
• ATC-63 Recommended Methodology for
  Quantification of Building System Performance
• TBI Tall Building Initiative
• LRFD for bridge design

• Impact Implementation
• ATC-58 Guidelines for Seismic Performance
  Assessment of Buildings
• ATC-63 Recommended Methodology for
  Quantification of Building System Performance
• TBI Tall Building Initiative
• LRFD for bridge design

18
Concluding Remarks - 1999