1. PEER Undergraduate Seismic Competition 2006 PEER SLC Summer Retreat Dongdong Chang

2. 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 Thrust for Competition

3. 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 Objectives

4. First Competition Held on May 12 th, 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 29 th, 2005 Second Competition Held on April 30 th, 2005 at PEER Annual Meeting ( Walnut Creek ) –6 Teams Competed ( 1 from MAE and 1 from MCEER ) –Add performance prediction in judging rules Competition History

5. Competing Teams with ModelsUCI Presentation 2004 Competition

6. UC Irvine Girl’s Team – 1 st place UC Irvine Boy’s Team – 2 nd place UC San Diego – 3 rd place UC Davis – 4 th place Oregon State Univ. – 5 th place 2004 Competitors

7. 1.25 lb 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 2 lb11 2 lb12 2 lb13 2 lb14 2 lb15 Floor Level 2004 Competition Structural Loading

8. Base Motions

9. Roof Acceleration Base Acceleration Measured Structure Roof Acceleration Shaker Base Acceleration Computed Small PerformanceCoef is good!

10. Base Isolation – UC Irvine A Busy Test Setup 2004 Competition – Testing Day NSF Site Review Committee Members Watching UCSD Model

11. Competing Teams with their Models 2005 Competition First Place - UCD Team #2

12. UC Davis Team #2 – 1 st place Florida A&M University (MCEER) – 2 nd place UC Berkeley – 3 rd place UC Davis Team #2 – 4 th place Oregon State Univ. – 5 th place Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (MAE) – 6 th place 2005 Competitors

13. 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%

14. 12 to 20 lb 1.25 lb 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 2 lb11 2 lb12 2 lb13 2 lb14 2 lb15 Floor Level Add Roof Weight/Sculpture in 2005 Competition. 2005 Competition Structural Loading

15. Performance Prediction

16. Shake Table and DAQ

17. NSF Site Review Committee Members Watching the UCSD Model Audience 2005 Competition – Testing Day

18. 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 Problems from 2005 Competition

19. Plan of 2006 Seismic Competition April 20 th – 21 st, Mascone Center, SF. Rules Changes Based on Feedback and Limitations From 2005 Competition. New Seismic Chairs Committee. Teams National Wide: PEER, MAE, MCEER.

20. A New Performance-Based Scoring Method Base Isolation Displacement is Limited Model Dimensions Limitation: –Height < ~1.5m –Total Plan Area < 1.0 ~ 3.0 m 2 Allowed: –Seismic Lateral Force Resistance Systems Add Two Special Awards: –Spirit of The Competition –Structural Innovation 2006 Competition Rules Changes

21. 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

22. 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

23. Oral presentation Poster Final scoring (the annual revenue) Architecture Workmanship Special awards 2006 Competition Scoring

24. Questions?