Performance-Based Earthquake

Engineering
To transform earthquake engineering assessment and
design
...
Perform.-Based
Traditional
Approach
Approach
Non-scientifically
defined seismic
hazard

Scientifically-defined
seismic hazard

Indirect design
approaches

Direct design
approaches

Undefined and
uncertain
outcomes

Defined outcomes with

probabilities of
achieving them

Assessment by Static Pushover

Analysis (FEMA 273/356 and ASCE
41)
Base
Shear
Demand

Joes

Joes
Beer!
Food!

Beer!
Food!

Very rare events

(2%/50yrs)
Rare events
(10%/50yrs)
Occasional events
(20%/50yrs)
Frequent events
(50%/50yrs)

Operational

Life Safe

Structurally
Stable

Lateral Deformation
Ref: R.O. Hamburger

Performance-Based Earthquake
Engineering
O
P
E
N

Base
Shear

O
P
E
N

O
P
E
N

Collapse
Onset

Damage
Threshold

Deformation

PBEE today

IO

PBEE tomorrow

25%

0.0
0

LS

0.0001
1

50%

CP
100%

0.001 0.01
30

180

0.25

FEMA 356 Performance Levels

$, % replacement
Casualty rate
Downtime, days

Damage Assessment: Nonstructural

Fragilities
P(DM|EPD)
P(DM|EPD)

5/8"
wallwall
withwith
3-5/8"
WallWall
Frame
5/8"Gypsum
Gypsumpartition
partition
3-5/8"
Frame

Probability of
Damage State

1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8

Severe damage to gypsum board

and distorsion of metal frame

(Replace partition)

0.6
0.6

Wide cracks in gypsum boards

0.4
0.4

(Replace gypsum boards)

0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
00

Smallcracks
cracksonly
only
Small
cracks
only
Small

(Patch, Retape & Paint)

0.005
0.005

0.01
0.01

0.015
0.015

Interstory
EPD
(IDR)
Drift Ratio
EPD (IDR)

Ref: E. Miranda

0.02
0.02

0.025
0.025

Performance-Based Methodology
Collapse & Casualties
Direct Financial Loss

Decision
DecisionVariable
Variable

Downtime
Damage
DamageMeasure
Measure

drift as an EDP

Engineering
EngineeringDemand
Demand
Parameter
Parameter

Intensity
IntensityMeasure
Measure

Incremental Dynamic Analysis

Collapse
EQ: 11111, Sa: 2.06g

EQ: 11112, Sa: 2.19g

EQ: 11121, Sa: 2.86g

EQ: 11122, Sa: 2.32g

Sa
(T=1.0s)[g]
g.m. INTENSITY
GROUND MOTION

3.5
3

44 Ground
Motion
Records

2.5
2

1.5
1

0.5
0
0

0.05

0.1

Maximum Interstory Drift Ratio

STRUCTURAL RESPONSE (DRIFT)

0.15

Mean Annual Frequency of Collapse

1

Collapse
CDF

Cummulative Probability of Collapse

0.9

5%

0.8
0.7
0.6

Collapse Performance

2.7

0.5

Margin: Sa,collapse = 2.7 MCE

5% Probability of collapse

0.4
0.3
0.2

0
0

under design MCE = 5%

Empirical CDF
Lognormal CDF (RTR Var.)
Lognormal CDF (RTR + Modeling Var.)

0.1
0.5

1.5

2.5

Sag.m.(T=1.0s) [g]

3.5

4.5

Hazard
Curve
2/50

Mean Annual Frequency:

MAFcol = 1.0 x 10-4
(0.5% in 50 years)

Nonstructural Damage and Losses

(Caltech)

PBEE Methodology: IM-EDP-DM-DV

Ground Motion Hazard Characterization

IM Definition (Sa, )
Selection and Scaling of Ground Motions

Simulation: IM EDP

Choice of EDPs (Drift, Floor Accel., other )

Fidelity of simulations to model collapse

Damage Modeling: EDP DM

Taxonomy of components
Definition of conditional EDP-DM damage function

Loss Modeling: DM DV

Definition of conditional DM-DV loss functions

Downtime and injuries/fatalities are a challenge

Performance Assessment Components

Decision
Decision
Variable
Variable

Relating Performance to
Risk Decision Making

Damage
Damage
Measure
Measure

Quantifying Damage
Measures

Engineering
Engineering
Demand
Demand
Parameter
Parameter
Intensity
Intensity
Measure
Measure

Simulation of System
Response
Earthquake Hazard
Characterization

Integrative Testbeds
Buildings
- Van Nuys
- UC Sciences
- SRB

UCB Campus
Bridges
- Humboldt Bay
- I-880 Viaduct

Bay Area Highway

Network

Map 8.2
Map 8.2
Building Downtime in Months
from a Rare Earthquake
Building Downtime in Months from a Rare Earthquake

HEARST
#

Ba rker Hal l

To lm an H a ll

Ba rker H al l

Hes se Hal l
HEA
RST
Hes se H al l

To lm an Ha ll

McLaug hli n Hal l

Gi anni ni Ha ll

McLaug hli n Hal l

La tim er H al l

Gi anni ni Ha ll
Cam pbell H al l

Wa rren H al l
Wa rren H al l

La tim er Hal
Lewl is H a ll

Cam pbell H al l

Mulfo rd H al l

Lew is H a ll
Hi ldebra nd H al l

Mulfo rd H al l

Hi ldebra nd H al l
Doe Annex
Doe Annex

OX FORD

Wurs ter Hal l

OXFORD

Wurs ter H al l

Art G a ll ery

Downtim e for Building in Months

0 - 1 e for Building in Months
Downtim
2 - 04 - 1
5 - 212- 4
13 -5 24
- 12
25 -1340- 24
Non-cor
e Building s
25 - 40
Topo
Lines Building s
Non-core
Haywa
Fault
TopordLines
Streets
Haywa rd Fault
Streets

22 51 COLL EG E AV E

Art G a ll ery
Ba rrow s Hall

22 51 COL LEGE AV E

Ba rrow s Hal l

22 23 Fulton
Berkel ey A rt Mus uem

22 23 Ful ton

Berkel ey A rt Mus uem

21 11 BANC ROF T W AY
21 11 BANC ROF T W AY

N
N
W
0.2

0
0.2

0.2
0

0.4
0.2

0.6 Miles
0.4

0.6 Miles

E
W

E
S
S

Performance Assessment Components

Decision
Decision
Variable
Variable

Relating Performance to
Risk Decision Making

Damage
Damage
Measure
Measure

Quantifying Damage
Measures

Engineering
Engineering
Demand
Demand
Parameter
Parameter
Intensity
Intensity
Measure
Measure

Simulation of System
Response
Earthquake Hazard
Characterization

Performance Assessment Components

Decision
Decision
Variable
Variable

DV: $ loss, functionality,

downtime, casualties

Damage
Damage
Measure
Measure

DM: physical condition &

consequences/ramificat
ions
EDP: Drift Ratio (peak,
residual), Floor
Acceleration, Local
Indices (p, strain, )
IM: Sa(T1), multiple Sas,
epsilon, Sdinelastic,
duration

Engineering
Engineering
Demand
Demand
Parameter
Parameter
Intensity
Intensity
Measure
Measure

PBEE Probability Framework Equation

v DV G DV DM | dG DM EDP | dG EDP IM | d ( IM )
Impact

Performance (Loss) Models and Simulation

Hazard

IM Intensity Measure
EDP Engineering Demand Parameter
DM Damage Measure
DV Decision Variable
(DV) Probabilistic Description of Decision Variable
(e.g., Mean Annual Probability $ Loss > 50% Replacement Cost)

Comprehensive System
Simulation

REF: Yang, Conte, Elgamal (UCSD)

Schematic of the Finite Element Model

Axial
Compression

P
Non-linear
Fiber Beam Element
Extended
Pile Shaft

Steel Fibers

2D, 4D
or 6D
Non-linear p-y element

Unconfined
Concrete Fibers

Ground Level

Confined Core
Concrete Fibers

Non-linear Fiber Beam Element

14 Elements
at 1.0D o.c.
= 14D

Near field
Plastic Response
Pile Node

Far-field
Elastic
Response

Drag
Plastic

Elastic

Closure
Gap

Non-linear p-y element

Displacement Time history inputs
from 1-D nonlinear site response

REF: Boulanger (UCDavis)

NS Components &
Contents

Problem Insight Small Equipment

Multi-Story
Building

D
M

Movement

Equipment
Support
Element
Bench-level motion

Floor-level motion

EDP = PFA

Ground-level motion

Hutchinson

IM = Sa(T1)

Floor-level motion

-Cascade approach
-Transmissibility
important

Integrated Simulation/Assessment Platform

Computation Information
Technology

Algorithms,
Solvers,
Parallel/distributed
computing

Software framework,
Databases, Visualization,
Internet/grid computation

Models
Simulation & Reliability
Models for Materials,
Components, and Systems

http://opensees.berkeley.edu

Integrative Testbeds
Buildings

Van Nuys

UC Sciences

UCB Campus
Bridges

Map 8.2
Building Downtime in Months from a Rare Earthquake

Humboldt Bay

I-880 Viaduct

HEARST
Ba rker H al l

To lm an H a ll

Hes se Hal l
McLaug hli n Hal l

Bay Area Highway Network

Gi anni ni H a ll
La tim er H al l
Cam pbell H al l

Wa rren Hal l

Lew is H a ll

Mulfo rd H all

Hi ldebra nd H al l

Doe Annex

OXFORD

Wurs ter H al l

Art G a ll ery

Downtim e for Building in Months

0- 1
2- 4
5 - 12
13 - 24
25 - 40
Non-cor e Building s
Topo Lines
Haywa rd Fault
Str eets

22 51 CO LLEG E AV E
Ba rrow s H al l

22 23 Ful ton
Berkel ey A rt M usuem

21 11 BANC RO F T W AY

N
W
0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6 Miles

E
S

Evolution of PBEE Concept

Individual
Buildings:

Building
Ratings:

Groups of
Buildings:

Evaluation
Retrofit

Probable
Maximum Loss
Other

Portfolio Analysis
Regional Loss
Studies
Mitigation Studies

e.g., FEMA 273/356

e.g., ST-RISK

e.g., ATC 13, HAZUS

Performance
Objectives

Ref. W. Holmes

Percentage or
Dollars

Casualties
Repair Costs
Downtime