Crosscutting Topic 2 Bridge Impacts and DVs Keith Porter PEER Bridge Testbed Progress Meeting Richmond Field Station May 22, 2002 Objectives for 10:00-10:50 Impacts, DVs • Inform modelers about DMs and DVs from other studies & from Caltrans • Draft & formalize DMs and DVs? • Identify implications for methodology • Development needs EDP, DM aspects of Caltrans Humboldt meeting Failure mode (DM) EDP Capacity Pile shear V at Mmax Seible pile tests Unseating Longit. displ. Seat length D Abutment slumping Lap splice Mmax, esteel (Caltrans inspectors?) Mspall P/T pile T T Tult DM and DV aspects of Caltrans I-880 Meeting 1. 2. 3. 4. Post-earthquake decision-making process Inspectors assess safety of bridges At EOC, compile database of bridge open/closed status, recs and cost of repair Prioritize repairs with traffic engineers. If important routes are closed, can they be shored & opened? Construction or design engineers design repairs Straw Man: Suggested Means of Defining DVs and DMs • Define performance DVs to model Caltrans’ implicit or explicit post-earthquake performance levels, i.e., p[PL|T] or p[PL|event] • Define helper DVs: parameters that drive Caltrans’ repair & replacement decisions • Define DMs as physical damages that drive determination of PL and post-earthquake decisions Straw Man: PLs, DMs and DVs PLs DVs DMs PL1: Open DV1: p[PL|T] DM1: residual vertical capacity PL2: Briefly closed to repair minor damage DV2: p[PL|event] DM2: residual lateral capacity PL3: Closed, shored, opened DV3: p[Trepair|PL4c] DM3: abutment D PL4,critical: Closed. Faster of repair/replace DV4: p[Treplace|PL4c] DM4: expansion jt D PL4,non-critical: Closed. DV5: p[Crepair|PL4nc] Cheaper of repair/replace DV6: p[Creplace|PL4nc] Van Nuys Sensitivity Study Keith Porter PEER Bridge Testbed Progress Meeting Richmond Field Station 22 May 2002 Objectives • Assess gross sensitivity of damage factor (DF) to uncertainty in basic random variables (X) • Assess variability in each Xi • Assess sensitivity of DF to uncertainty in Xi • Illustrate with the Van Nuys testbed Methodology, 1/3 • Identify basic variables XT = [X1, X2,…XN] in repair cost C = f(X) • Assess E[Xi], Var[Xi] for i = 1, 2, … N • Assess Xi,50 = 50th percentile of Xi • Assess Xi,10 = 10th percentile of Xi • Assess Xi,90 = 90th percentile of Xi Methodology, 2/3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Describe facility B as a collection of standard assembly types j = 1, 2, … Nj with possible damage states d = 1, 2, … Nj,d, each with uncertain capacity Fj,d, and uncertain repair costs Cj,d Structural analysis : EDP = g(GM, B) Damage analysis: for each assembly k, if EDPk > Fi,d, then DMk ≥ d Loss analysis: C = (1 + COP)SjSdNj,dCj,d Damage factor DF = C/RCN (RCN: replacement cost, new) Methodology, 3/3 • • • • • Calculate baseline C0 = f(X1,50, X2,50, … XN,50) Ci,10= f(X1,50, X2,50,…Xi,10,… XN,50): i = 1…N Ci,90= f(X1,50, X2,50,…Xi,90,… XN,50): i = 1…N Swingi = |Ci,90 – Ci,10| Sort Xi by swingi & plot in a “tornado diagram” Results: Xi Xi Xi,10 X i,50 X i,90 0.11 (LA50, 0.52) 0.27 (LA50, 1.28) 0.58 (LA50, 2.74) LA45, 1.10 LA50, 1.28 LA49, 1.26 0.87Mn Mn 1.13Mn Damping 2.4% 5.0% 7.6% Force-def. multiplier 0.90 1.00 1.10 Assembly capacity e lnxm 1.28 xm e lnxm 1.28 xm and from Table 4 Costs: unit cost e lnxm 1.28 xm e lnxm 1.28 xm and from Table 5 0.15 0.175 0.20 Sa (g) Ground motion Mass O&P Comment Spectral acceleration (Record, scaling factor) Record, scaling factor Mn: nominal mass Constant stiffness CO&P of Equation 11 Results: Tornado Diagram Assembly capacity Sa Ground motion record Unit cost Damping F-d multiplier Mass O&P 0.00 0.25 0.50 Damage factor 0.75 1.00 Conclusions • For this model & this building, assembly capacity and shaking intensity swamp other uncertainties • Important uncertainties omitted, need study: – F-d model selection, R/C joint capacity, difference between field & lab fragility, repair method | damage state, nonunion vs. union, demand surge, … • Tornado diagram depicts important RVs • Model for UC Science Building? Bridges? • Report: www.peertestbeds.net/Crosscutting.htm