PEER Testbed Progress Meeting
Richmond Field Station
22-23 May 2002
Program
Day 1, Bridges (9:00-5:00 22 May 2002)
9:00-9:30 AM: Continental Breakfast
9:30-9:50 AM: Plenary session, plans and objectives (Deierlein & Porter)


Deierlein: welcome, objectives for today.
Porter: agenda & directions
10:00-10:50 AM Crosscutting Topics (parallel meetings)
Topic 1: Hazard and intensity measures (Bray)
Participants: Conte, Mahin, Deierlein, Wallace, Yang, Kunnath, Jeremic, Kiremidjian,
Moore, Eberhardt, Boulanger, Pestana, Hiplee or Roblee,
Info



Bray: recap 4/26/02 meeting, noting candidate IMs, manner of evaluating IMs,
minimum level of reporting, scalar vs. vector, expectations as to what extent the
testbed exercise will contribute to answering the IM question, suggestions for
future work.
Bray: review of ground-motion selection and scaling procedures for the testbed
exercise. Address how IM plan deals with the need to have an IM that can be
used for network analysis. >>Distribute 4/26/02 meeting minutes by email before
the 5/22/02 meeting, for review.<<
Deierlein: role and status of Year-5 and future Year-6 projects to address IM
selection and p[IM].
Objectives



Modelers accept reporting plan? If not, what data can they provide so that others
can assess IMs?
Development needs.
BIP (Hipley or Roblee): observations on IM evaluation criteria. How will industry
judge new IMs?
22-23 May 2002 Testbed Meeting, Preliminary Program, pg 2
Topic 2: Impacts and decision variables (Porter)
Participants: Elgamal, Fenves, Kiremidjian, Gordon (will be absent), Moore, Der
Kiureghian, Roblee, Yashinski, Harrington, Kramer, Stewart, Stojadinovic.
Info



Porter recap 2/15/02 and 2/25/02 meetings, noting damage and performance
measures in practice, suggestions for p[DV|DM] relationship.
Moore: summarize LA study, REDARS, especially with respect to economic
impacts.
Moore or Kiremidjian: recommendations for DM, DV, p[DV|DM]
Objectives





Group: review DM and DV list: any missing or irrelevant?
Implications for methodology (reliability, simulation, other).
Plan to define PEER’s position on bridge DM, DV, p[DV|DM]. Need a report or
position paper?
BIP: observations on DM, DV.
Holes & next steps.
11:00-12:00 Noon: Plenary Session – Propagation of Uncertainty (Deierlein)
Info




Deierlein: list sources of uncertainty and correlation, any existing estimates, and
means of quantifying remaining ones.
Stewart: sources and degree of uncertainty in geotechnical issues.
Conte: sources and degree of uncertainty for soil-structure issues, progress on
evaluating uncertainty for Humboldt, reliability tools
Porter: sensitivity study for Van Nuys
Objectives


Group: review Deierlein’s list; which remain to be evaluated for Humboldt, I-880?
Implications for broader methodology.
1:00-3:50 PM Bridge Testbed Breakouts (parallel meetings)
Humboldt Bay Bridge (Elagamal)
Participants: Elgamal, Conte, Bray, Wallace, Boulanger, Jeremic.
Info
22-23 May 2002 Testbed Meeting, Preliminary Program, pg 3


Recap IM, EDP, DM, and DV
Overview of p[EDP|GM], p[DM|EDP], p[DV|DM]
Objectives


Accept IM, EDP, DM, DV, p[EDP|GM], p[DM|EDP], p[DV|DM]
Development needs
I-880 (Fenves)
Participants: Kunnath, Jeremic, Stojanovic, Der Kiureghian, Eberhardt, Pestana,
Gordon (will be absent)
Info


Recap IM, EDP, DM, and DV
Overview of p[EDP|GM], p[DM|EDP], p[DV|DM]
Objectives


Accept IM, EDP, DM, DV, p[EDP|GM], p[DM|EDP], p[DV|DM]
Development needs
4:10-5:00 PM Bridge Methodology Plenary Session (Deierlein)
Info




Porter: recap discussion with Caltrans re DM, DV
Elgamal: 35,000-ft overview of Humboldt methodology from IM to DV
Fenves: ditto for I-880
BIP: list basis for comparison between state-of-the-practice and PEER
Objectives



Group: proposals for plan to reconcile testbed methodologies and to define final
PEER bridge methodology.
Identify gaps for year-6 research
Deierlein: reconcile current plans for year-6 research with these gaps
22-23 May 2002 Testbed Meeting, Preliminary Program, pg 4
Day 2, Buildings (9:00-5:00 23 May 2002)
9:00-9:30 AM: Continental Breakfast
9:30-9:50 AM: Plenary Session (Deierlein & Porter)


Deierlein welcome, objectives for today.
Porter agenda & directions
10:00-10:50 AM: Crosscutting Topics (parallel meetings)
Topic 1: Hazard and Intensity Measures (Cornell)
Participants: Miranda, Lowes, Martin, Pekelnicky, Holmes, Deierlein, Beck (will be
absent, but will send Shaikhutdinov)
Info


Cornell: recap 4/26/02 meeting, noting candidate IMs, manner of evaluating,
reporting plan, scalar vs. vector. Address how IM plan deals with the need to
have an IM that can be used for network analysis. Recap Somerville conclusions
re ground-motion selection. >>Distribute 4/26/02 meeting minutes by email
before the 5/23/02 meeting, for review.<<
Deierlein: associated researchers, research agenda, means of evaluating p[IM]
Objectives



Modelers accept reporting plan? If not, what data can they provide so that others
can assess IMs?
Pekelnicky: thoughts about IM evaluation criteria. Suggest criteria on which
industry will judge new IMs.
Group: other holes and next steps
Topic 2: Impacts and Decision Variables (Peter May)
Participants: Porter, Comerio, Meszaros, Ince, Chang, Law, Heintz, Comartin,
Kramer, Stewart, Somerville.
Info
22-23 May 2002 Testbed Meeting, Preliminary Program, pg 5


May – discuss/review survey of recommended DVs and ways of expressing
performance. Feedback from group.
Comerio, Meszaros, Ince – feedback/comments on DV’s for Life Sciences and
Van Nuys testbeds.
Objectives



Group: consensus on these DVs and their scope?
Group: holes and next steps.
BIP: observations on DVs, comparison with ASCE/FEMA 356.
11:00-12:00 NOON Plenary Session: Propagation of Uncertainty (Deierlein)
Info



Cornell: observations on propagation of uncertainty, esp. in IM-EDP stage, and
casualties
Porter: results of sensitivity study on Van Nuys uncertainties
Miranda: observations on propagation of uncertainty, emphasis on EDP-DM-DV,
progress or plans with Van Nuys on uncertainty
Objectives

Group: identify additional options to evaluation of uncertainty, reach consensus
that we have identified all important sources of uncertainty. Discuss relative
importance of sources.
12:00-1:00 PM LUNCH
1:00-3:50 PM: Building Testbed Breakouts
Van Nuys (Porter)
Participants: Lowes, May, Meszaros, Ince, Cornell, Kramer, Lehman, Stanton,
Deierlein, Martin, Kutter, Sitar, Miranda, Heintz, Pekelnicky
Info


Porter: documented progress since Jan, objectives by Oct, recap current plan for
evaluation of EDP, DM, DV.
Lowes: describe OpenSEES model to date, plans for release of the 2-D model,
objectives for 3-D model, fragility of reinforced concrete elements, selection of
EDP, methodology for evaluating p[EDP|GM] and p[DM|EDP] for Van Nuys,
implications for broader PEER methodology.
22-23 May 2002 Testbed Meeting, Preliminary Program, pg 6




Miranda: summarize beam-slab joint fragility, other fragility functions, summarize
p[DM|EDP] methodology, p[DV|DM] methodology, and implications for broader
PEER methodology. Summarize vision for OpenSEES library of fragility
functions and cost distributions. Identify any outstanding fragility and geotech
issues.
Meszaros & Ince: characterization of risk; desirability of choices.
Law: schedule for database. When online for data on fragilities, costs? (>>KAP
call KL: appropriate use of database?<<)
Heintz: recap FEMA analysis to date. List intended basis for comparison
between FEMA and PEER, i.e., what will be on the final exam?
Objectives





Martin: resolving outstanding geotechnical issues
Lowes & Miranda: Agree on format of Lowes’ EDP and DM data handed off to
Miranda.
Group: review and revise upcoming delivery dates.
Group: suggestions for Heintz' report card.
Group: holes and next steps.
LSA (Comerio)
Participants: Comartin, Holmes (will not attend, but will consult with Comartin),
Mosalam, Ellwood, MacCoun, Zerbe, Chang (will not attend), Fillippou, Makris (will
not attend, but will send Dimitrios Konstantinidis), Hutchinson, Pardoen, Beck (will
not attend, but will send Shaikhutdinov).
Info







Mosalam: describe OpenSEES modeling results. Summarize p[EDP|GM]
methodology, p[EDP|IM] results. Format of p[EDP|IM] results.
Hutchison: test plan
Konstantinidis: test plan
Hutchinson & Konstantinidis: revisit selection of EDP: floor motions, peak floor
acceleration, etc. Format of fragility functions: will produce DM (“mice killed,”
“hard drive inoperative” etc.) or some intermediate measure (displacement,
acceleration, overturning). Suggestions for appropriate component taxonomy.
Shaikhutdinov: p[DV|IM] methodology; definition of DM (what constitutes
operational or life-safety failure?); needs for p[DM|EDP] format.
Holmes (Comerio?): R&C analysis to date; objectives by Oct.
Comartin: list basis for comparison of FEMA vs PEER methodology—what will be
on the final exam?
Objectives

Group: review and revise upcoming delivery dates.
22-23 May 2002 Testbed Meeting, Preliminary Program, pg 7



Group: develop equipment taxonomy?
Group: suggestions for Comartin & Holmes’ report card.
Group: holes & next steps.
4:10-5:00 PM: Plenary Session, Building Methodology (Deierlein)
Info




Comerio, or May: recap DV; implications for methodology
Miranda or Lowes: 35,000-ft overview of Van Nuys methodology from IM to DV.
Comerio: ditto for LSA
Holmes & Heintz: recap basis for comparison between state-of-the-practice and
PEER.
Objectives



Group: proposals for plan to reconcile testbed methodologies and to define final
PEER bridge methodology.
Identify gaps for year-6 research.
Deierlein: reconcile current plans for year-6 research with these gaps.