Opportunities for NEES Research Utilization

1
Opportunities for NEES Research Utilization

• Robert D HansonProfessor Emeritus
• University of Michigan

2
Who is responsible for adapting NEES research
data?

• The NEES researchers are responsible
• Code committees and design professionals digest
  and adapt this data with active participation by
  researchers
• This is done by active participation in code
  committees and professional activities by
  researchers

3
How can this be enhanced?

• NEES research proposals should include input and
  recommendations by the expected users
• NEES research efforts should included these
  professionals at the initiation, intermediate and
  concluding stages of the project
• These professionals can help disseminate the
  applicable results to the design community

4
Research Priorities How are they / should they
be established?

• NAE, EERI, BSSC, FEMA, NIST and material groups
  have identified research needs
• Each has a recommended priority with many
  listed at equal priority
• A group of professionals and researchers without
  a vested interest in a specific research agenda
  should create a priority list for use by NSF
  proposal review panel use

5
Two examples of NEES Research Opportunities How
these projects identify priority needs

• ATC 58 Performance-based Seismic Design -
  Continuum of performance from small response no
  damage, through various amounts of damage, to
  building collapse. Includes existing and new
  construction.
• ATC 63 Quantification of Building System
  Performance and Response For use in new
  building design requirements to prevent life-loss.

6
Major contributors to the following are

• Mike Mahoney DHS/FEMA
• Ron Hamburger ATC 58 Technical lead
• Bob Bachman ATC 58 NPP Lead
• Craig Comartin - ATC 58 RMP Lead
• Andrew Whittaker ATC 58 SPP Lead
• Eduardo Miranda - ATC 58 NPP team
• Keith Porter ATC 58 NPP team
• Charles Kircher ATC 63 Technical Lead

7
Building Code Process

• Uses post-earthquake investigations, research
  information, professional judgment, and observed
  construction problems
• Material standards are improved
• NEHRP Recommended Provisions Evaluation of new
  systems and major increments in knowledge
• ASCE 7 References material standards and uses
  input from NEHRP Recommendations as appropriate
  to update the current Standard
• IBC and NFPA adopt ASCE 7 with or without
  modifications
• Local and State Codes adopt IBC or NFPA with or
  without modifications

8
Building Code Process
Observation of poor performance
9
Performance-based designA new approach
SelectPerformanceObjectives
DevelopPreliminary Design
AssessPerformanceCapability
ReviseDesign
Does
Does
Yes
Yes
Performance
Performance
No
No
Done
Meet
Meet
Objectives?
Objectives?
10
First Generation Procedures

• Federal Emergency Management Agency sponsored a
  series of development efforts focused on existing
  buildings
• Evaluation guidelines
• Predict types of damage a building would
  experience in future events
• Rehabilitation guidelines
• Procedures to design building upgrades to
  achievedesired performance

ASCE-31
11
The First Generation
12
Performance

• The potential consequences of building response
  to earthquakes, including
• Life loss and serious injury (Casualties)
• Direct economic loss (Cost repair and
  replacement costs)
• Indirect economic and social loss(Downtime
  loss of use of damaged or destroyed facilities)

13
Verifying Performance Capability
All StepsRepresented On AProbabilistic
FrameworkConsidering Uncertainty
14
Example
building assessment Moehles EERI Lecture













Height
Area
Occupancy
3 stories 14 ft. floor
22,736 sq.ft. per
Gene
ral office space
to floor 42 ft total
floor 68,208 sq.ft.
above grade no
total (actual building
basement
slightly larger)


15
Performance assessment procedure

• Determine the hazard.
• Analyze the structure.
• Characterize the damage.
• Compute the losses.

16
Performance group fragilities for Damage States
1, 2 and 3
17
Example design decisions
18
Performance group fragility functions
(Probabilistic Mapping Functions)

• In order to establish fragilities it is necessary
  to establish a relationship between the building
  response and its associated damage

19
Performance group fragility functions
INCREASING INTERSTORY DRIFT
20
What Data is Needed? Protocol for data reporting

• Description of the specimen(s)

(Example based on research by Arnold, Uang and
Filiatrault, 2002)
21
What Data is Needed? Protocol for data reporting

• Description of the loading

(Example based on research by Arnold, Uang and
Filiatrault, 2002)
22
What Data is Needed? Protocol for data reporting

• Detailed description of observed damage at each
  loading level

IDR0.34
(Example based on research by Arnold, Uang and
Filiatrault, 2002)
23
What Data is Needed? Protocol for data reporting

• Detailed description of observed damage at each
  loading level

IDR0.40
(Example based on research by Arnold, Uang and
Filiatrault, 2002)
24
Interim Loading Protocols

• FEMA 461 Interim Protocols for Determining
  Seismic Performance Characteristics of Structural
  and Nonstructural Components Through Laboratory
  Testing provides protocols for quasi-static
  cyclic testing of components and shake table
  testing of acceleration sensitive components

25
How will the data be used to generate fragilities?
Six methods are proposed depending upon the data

• Method A all specimens failed at observed test
  levels
• Method B only some specimens failed
• Method C no specimens failed qualification
  tests
• Method D analytically derived fragilities
  without tests
• Method E expert opinion without test data
• Method U updating existing fragilities using
  new failure data or post-earthquake
  investigations

26
How will the data be used to generate fragilities?
27
How will the data be used to generate fragilities?
28
ATC 63 Building Performance to Collapse
current status

• Planar analytical response of reinforced concrete
  moment frames, reinforced concrete shear wall
  buildings, timber townhouse and apartment
  buildings, autoclaved aerated concrete buildings,
  and steel moment frame buildings
• Ibarra-Krawinkler degrading hysteresis model used
  for component behavior

29
ATC 63 Building Performance to Collapse

• Biaxial experimental data not available to
  perform 3-D dynamic response analyses
• Limited full-scale building test data available
  for system performance calibration of analyses
• Limited reduced-size building systems test data
  available
• Very limited experimental data available to
  system collapse levels of deformation

30
Building Performance What can NEESR provide?

• Sufficient archived data at all damage levels
  from no damage, through various damage states, to
  collapse. Include displacement-damage
  relationships and likely repairs needed for each
  level.
• Multiple tests of similar specimens to establish
  reliability coefficients for the data.
• Data on nonstructural components
• Data on structural components
• Data on systems of components

31
More information on projects and participation
opportunities available at
www.atcouncil.org