Research Status
UC Science Building
PEER Testbeds Fall 2002 Quarterly Meeting
Holiday Inn Oakland Airport
8 November 2002
Keith Porter, California Institute of Technology
2.0 Facility Description
• Comerio text by 31 Dec 2002
2
2.1 UCS Structural Model
• 2D models
– Two 2D models: transverse (Oct02), longitudinal (30 April 2003)
– Vary strength, stiffness, ground motion, soil (30 Apr 2003)
• 3D model
– Best-estimate model + uncertain mass 31 Aug 2003
– One ground motion to compare w/2D
– Mass varied to see if torsion matters
• Selected response time-histories (dh, vh, ah)i relative & absolute at
points {i}
• {i} are at center of each floor
• EDP format either:
– For each IM, E[EDP] vector and V[EDP] matrix
– Simulations of [EDP]T
• Report sections Ch 5 done 10 Jul 2002, revisit ??
3
Recorded vs. Simulation Recs
• Mosalam to run 2D model with simulated recs
(Sept 2003) for all IM levels
– Beck to provide Matlab code, Mosalam to simulate
motions (w/permission of Ivan Au)
– Atkinson & Silva (BSSA Apr 2000)
– [M, R] from Somerville’s 30 recs; scale to same Sa
values
– Compare EDP (dh, vh, ah, IDI)i relative & absolute with
those from recorded motions
• Beck & Porter to compare DV (Sep 2003)
4
2.2 Structural Analysis
• Mosalam provided database of time histories for
all motions; see previous
• EDPs of interest: PDA, PDV, PIV, PTD,
(horizontal; peak positive, negative values)
• Check vertical amplification 30 Nov 02 (with
updated report)
• Schedule & format of EDPs (see previous)
• Mosalam results to report 10 Jul 2002.
• Updated tables & text, plus pushover results 30
Nov 2002
5
2.3a Small Component Fragilities
•
•
•
DMs: see Porter (13 Sep 2002) DVs DMs and FFs.ppt
Hutchinson fragility functions delivered 31 Dec 2002
Basis for development & validation
– Mechanical testing 4 configs (1A, 1B, 2A, 2B) of mock lab, 2 bench against wall;
horizontal excitation – see Hutchinson ppt (7 Nov 2002)
– 10 pcs equipment, incl. 2 microscopes, 3 monitors, 3 SGI systems (Octane,
Indigo, &), glassware (some broken!)
– 10 ground motions with broad dynamic characteristics
– Lab tests validate analytical model
– Limit states related to displacement (slide off shelf) & relative velocity (impact
other objects)
– Lab tests of coefficients of friction
•
•
•
•
Yr-5 configs: see above
Yr-6 config: 2 benches back-to-back, shelves on Unistrut
Report Sec 6.2 outline May 2002, partial draft Oct 2002
Literature review: Soong (2000; MCEER 2000-5) constant mk, PGA as EDP,
vertical motions in analytical tests
6
2.3b Large Equipment Fragilities
• Fragility functions by 31 Dec 2002
– p[O/T|EDP, equipment, restraint condition]
– p[Displ > x | (same conditions)]
– p[velocity > v| (same conditions)]
• Basis for development & validation
–
–
–
–
–
–
Mechanical testing X configs (free-standing, restrained)
3 pcs equipment: huge incubator, 2 refrigerators (1 slender)
500 combinations of ground motions (up to 10%/50 yr) & restraint
¼-scale equipment for 2%/50 yr ( 20-in displ. in full scale)
Lab tests to validate analytical model?
2 video directions, wire pots, extensometers along diag to check rigidbody
– Lab tests of coefficients of friction
• Report Sec 6.2 outline (date), partial draft 31 Dec 2002
• Literature review (long list)
7
2.6 Performance Metrics
•
Who are the DMs
– Van Nuys: owner, insurer & financier
– UCS: user (GRA, PI) negotiating with administration
•
What is the hazard
– Owner (including UCS): “the earthquake” (question: what event?)
– Insurer, finance: probabilistic
•
What are the DVs?
– Van Nuys: deaths, injuries, repair costs, downtime
– UCS: operational failure, life-safety failure, cost, downtime
•
What are the key DVs (“performance metrics”)?
– Van Nuys: see May (23 Oct 2002) DV meeting.doc
– UCS: see 3 papers of DM interviews by Ellwood (years ~2-3)
•
Why are they important?
– Because DMs can understand them, can’t digest DVs to make decisions
•
Chang will document this
– Mar 2003 based on Ellwood’s papers, including generic info from Nisqually
– Revised based on UC focus groups 30 Sept 2003
8
2.6 Campus Performance Metrics
• Relevant functional categories
– To what other facilities can UCS DV|IM relationships be applied?
– What are the other categories?
• What kinds of decisions are relevant for the campus
testbed?
• In each kind of decision, who are the decision makers?
• For each decision maker, what are the metrics needed
from the campus model?
• Chang to provide draft text for report by Sep 2003?
9