PEER Undergraduate Seismic
Competition
2006 PEER SLC Summer Retreat
Dongdong Chang
Thrust for Competition
• Provide Civil/Structural Engineering
Undergraduates with a Hands on
Experience with Seismic Design
– Other Competitions: Steel Bridge and
Concrete Canoe
• Build Awareness of the Versatile Activities
of PEER amongst Undergrads
– Future Graduate Students
• Increase Value and Role of SLC
Competition Objectives
• Design a Cost Effective 15-Level Commercial
Office Structure to Resist Severe Earthquake
Loading
– Kobe, Northridge, El Centro
• Design Must Meet the Following Needs:
–
–
–
–
–
Economic (Maximize Exterior Openings)
Architectural (Not a box like structure)
Zoning Constraints (Setbacks)
A Given Load Distribution
Deformation Limitations
Competition History
• First Competition Held on May 12th, 2004 at
PEER NSF Site Visit (Richmond Field Station)
– 5 Teams from PEER Competed
– Approximately 1.5 Years of Planning/Development of
this Event on Behalf of PEER SLC Members
• MCEER Competition, Based on PEER Rules,
Held on January 29th, 2005
• Second Competition Held on April 30th, 2005 at
PEER Annual Meeting (Walnut Creek)
– 6 Teams Competed (1 from MAE and 1 from MCEER)
– Add performance prediction in judging rules
2004 Competition
Competing Teams with Models
UCI Presentation
2004 Competitors
•
•
•
•
•
UC Irvine Girl’s Team – 1st place
UC Irvine Boy’s Team – 2nd place
UC San Diego – 3rd place
UC Davis – 4th place
Oregon State Univ. – 5th place
2004
Competition
Structural
Loading
Floor
Level
15
2 lb
14
2 lb
13
2 lb
12
2 lb
11
2 lb
10
1.25 lb
9
1.25 lb
8
1.25 lb
7
1.25 lb
6
1.25 lb
5
1.25 lb
4
1.25 lb
3
1.25 lb
2
1.25 lb
1
Base Motions
Acceleration Response Spectra for PEER Undergraduate
Seismic Competition Earthquake Motions (5% Damping)
30
ElCentro
Northridge
Kobe
20
Spectral
Acceleration
(m/s2)
10
0
0.01
0.1
1
Period (s)
10
Roof Acceleration
Measured
Structure Roof Acceleration
Shaker Base Acceleration
Computed
RoofDisp   RoofAcceleration  dt  dt
BaseDisp   BaseAccele ration  dt  dt
PerformanceCoef 
max RoofDisp  BaseDisp
max RoofAcceleration
Base Acceleration
Small PerformanceCoef is good!
2004 Competition – Testing Day
A Busy Test Setup
NSF Site Review Committee
Members Watching UCSD Model
Base Isolation – UC Irvine
2005 Competition
Competing Teams with their
Models
First Place - UCD Team #2
2005 Competitors
•
•
•
•
•
•
UC Davis Team #2 – 1st place
Florida A&M University (MCEER) – 2nd place
UC Berkeley – 3rd place
UC Davis Team #2 – 4th place
Oregon State Univ. – 5th place
Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
(MAE) – 6th place
2005 Competition -- Changes
• Add a 12 – 14 lbs Roof Weight to
Structure
• Add Structural Seismic Performance
Prediction in the Scoring Criteria:
– PerformanceCoef. – 75%
– Performance Prediction – 25%
2005
Competition
Structural
Loading
Add Roof Weight/Sculpture
in 2005 Competition.
12 to 20 lb
Floor
Level
15
2 lb
14
2 lb
13
2 lb
12
2 lb
11
2 lb
10
1.25 lb
9
1.25 lb
8
1.25 lb
7
1.25 lb
6
1.25 lb
5
1.25 lb
4
1.25 lb
3
1.25 lb
2
1.25 lb
1
Performance Prediction
5
Team 1
( = 0.8g,  = 0.1g)
f(x)
4
3
2
Team 2
( = 1.0g,  = 0.5g)
1
0
0
1
2
x, Acceleration (g)
3
Shake Table and DAQ
2005 Competition – Testing Day
NSF Site Review Committee
Members Watching the UCSD
Model
Audience
Problems from 2005 Competition
• Scoring Criteria:
Validity of Using PerformanceCoef. As the
Major Criteria for Seismic Performance
• Base Isolation:
Almost All Teams Used Base Isolation
System and Some of The Displacement
Drift Is Not Reasonable Nor Realistic
Plan of 2006 Seismic Competition
• April 20th – 21st, Mascone Center, SF.
• Rules Changes Based on Feedback and
Limitations From 2005 Competition.
• New Seismic Chairs Committee.
• Teams National Wide: PEER, MAE,
MCEER.
2006 Competition Rules Changes
• A New Performance-Based Scoring Method
• Base Isolation Displacement is Limited
• Model Dimensions Limitation:
– Height < ~1.5m
– Total Plan Area < 1.0 ~ 3.0 m2
• Allowed:
– Seismic Lateral Force Resistance Systems
• Add Two Special Awards:
– Spirit of The Competition
– Structural Innovation
Performance-Based Scoring Method
Three Primary Components:
• Annual Income
• Annual Initial Building Cost
• Annual Seismic Cost
The Structure Performance is Measured
by Annual Revenue
Annual Revenue = Annual Income –
Annual Initial Building Cost – Annual Seismic Cost
Structure Performance Measurement
• Annual Seismic Cost
– Three Accelerometers at the Roof, the First Floor,
and the Shake Table Base
• EDP1: Peak Relative Drift Between Roof and First Floor
(Lost Caused by Structural Damage)
• EDP2: Peak Absolute Roof Acc.
(Lost Caused by Equipment Damage)
– Annual Economical Damage = Sum of Economical
Lost of the Two EDP for the Ground Motion Divided
by Return Period of the Ground Motion
– Annual Seismic Cost = Sum of The Annual
Economical Damage for the Three Ground Motions
2006 Competition Scoring
•
•
•
•
•
•
Oral presentation
Poster
Final scoring (the annual revenue)
Architecture
Workmanship
Special awards
Questions?