1. Opportunities for NEES Research Utilization Robert D Hanson Professor Emeritus University of Michigan

2. Who is responsible for adapting NEES research data? The NEES researchers are responsible Code committees and design professionals digest and adapt this data with active participation by researchers This is done by active participation in code committees and professional activities by researchers

3. How can this be enhanced? NEES research proposals should include input and recommendations by the expected users NEES research efforts should included these professionals at the initiation, intermediate and concluding stages of the project These professionals can help disseminate the applicable results to the design community

4. Research Priorities – How are they / should they be established? NAE, EERI, BSSC, FEMA, NIST and material groups have identified research needs Each has a recommended priority – with many listed at equal priority A group of professionals and researchers without a vested interest in a specific research agenda should create a priority list for use by NSF proposal review panel use

5. Two examples of NEES Research Opportunities – How these projects identify priority needs ATC 58 – Performance-based Seismic Design - Continuum of performance from small response [no damage], through various amounts of damage, to building collapse. Includes existing and new construction. ATC 63 – Quantification of Building System Performance and Response – For use in new building design requirements to prevent life- loss.

6. Major contributors to the following are: Mike Mahoney – DHS/FEMA Ron Hamburger – ATC 58 Technical lead Bob Bachman – ATC 58 NPP Lead Craig Comartin - ATC 58 RMP Lead Andrew Whittaker – ATC 58 SPP Lead Eduardo Miranda - ATC 58 NPP team Keith Porter – ATC 58 NPP team Charles Kircher – ATC 63 Technical Lead

7. Building Code Process Uses post-earthquake investigations, research information, professional judgment, and observed construction problems Material standards are improved NEHRP Recommended Provisions – Evaluation of new systems and major increments in knowledge ASCE 7 – References material standards and uses input from NEHRP Recommendations as appropriate to update the current Standard IBC and NFPA adopt ASCE 7 with or without modifications Local and State Codes adopt IBC or NFPA with or without modifications

8. Building Code Process Observation of poor performance

9. Performance-based design A new approach Does Performance Meet Objectives? No Yes Does Performance Meet Objectives? No Yes Select Performance Objectives Develop Preliminary Design Assess Performance Capability Done Revise Design

10. First Generation Procedures Federal Emergency Management Agency sponsored a series of development efforts focused on existing buildings: Evaluation guidelines Predict types of damage a building would experience in future events Rehabilitation guidelines Procedures to design building upgrades to achieve desired performance Seismic Evaluation of Buildings ASCE-31

11. The First Generation Damage or Loss 0%100% Time out of service nonepermanent Joe’s Beer! Food! Operational Collapse Prevention

12. Performance The potential consequences of building response to earthquakes, including: Life loss and serious injury (Casualties) Direct economic loss (Cost = repair and replacement costs) Indirect economic and social loss (Downtime = loss of use of damaged or destroyed facilities)

13. Verifying Performance Capability t Ground Motion  Structural Response Damage Performance Metrics: Casualties, Cost & Downtime All Steps Represented On A Probabilistic Framework Considering Uncertainty

14. Example building assessment – Moehle’s EERI Lecture Height : 3 stories; 14 ft. floor to floor; 42 ft total above grade; no basement Area : 22,736 sq.ft. per floor; 68,208 sq.ft. total (actual building slightly larger) Occupancy : General office space

15. Performance assessment procedure Determine the hazard. Analyze the structure. Characterize the damage. Compute the losses.

16. Performance group fragilities for Damage States 1, 2 and 3

17. Example design decisions 4% 5% 8% 12% 25% 41% 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45% Roof top equipment Structure Contents (Ist and 2nd flr. offices) Interior nonstructural (accel. sensitive) Interior nonstructural (drift sensitive) Contents (3rd flr. computer center) Exterior envelope Portion of annualized capital loss

18. Performance group fragility functions Fragility Functions Structural Response Parameters (Engrg. Demand Parameters) Structural and Nonstructural Damage In order to establish fragilities it is necessary to establish a relationship between the building response and its associated damage (Probabilistic Mapping Functions)

19. Performance group fragility functions INCREASING INTERSTORY DRIFT DM 1 First Visible Damage DM 2 Wide cracks DM 3 Punching failure DM 4 Loss of vertical carrying capacity

20. What Data is Needed? Protocol for data reporting 1.Description of the specimen(s) (Example based on research by Arnold, Uang and Filiatrault, 2002)

21. What Data is Needed? Protocol for data reporting 2.Description of the loading (Example based on research by Arnold, Uang and Filiatrault, 2002)

22. What Data is Needed? Protocol for data reporting 3.Detailed description of observed damage at each loading level (Example based on research by Arnold, Uang and Filiatrault, 2002) IDR=0.34%

23. What Data is Needed? Protocol for data reporting (Example based on research by Arnold, Uang and Filiatrault, 2002) IDR=0.40% 3.Detailed description of observed damage at each loading level

24. Interim Loading Protocols FEMA 461 – Interim Protocols for Determining Seismic Performance Characteristics of Structural and Nonstructural Components Through Laboratory Testing – provides protocols for quasi-static cyclic testing of components and shake table testing of acceleration sensitive components

25. How will the data be used to generate fragilities? Method A – all specimens failed at observed test levels Method B – only some specimens failed Method C – no specimens failed [qualification tests] Method D – analytically derived fragilities without tests Method E – expert opinion without test data Method U – updating existing fragilities using new failure data or post-earthquake investigations Six methods are proposed depending upon the data

26. How will the data be used to generate fragilities?

28. ATC 63 – Building Performance to Collapse current status Planar analytical response of reinforced concrete moment frames, reinforced concrete shear wall buildings, timber townhouse and apartment buildings, autoclaved aerated concrete buildings, and steel moment frame buildings Ibarra-Krawinkler degrading hysteresis model used for component behavior

29. ATC 63 – Building Performance to Collapse Biaxial experimental data not available to perform 3-D dynamic response analyses Limited full-scale building test data available for system performance calibration of analyses Limited reduced-size building systems test data available Very limited experimental data available to system collapse levels of deformation

30. Building Performance What can NEESR provide? Sufficient archived data at all damage levels from no damage, through various damage states, to collapse. Include displacement-damage relationships and likely repairs needed for each level. Multiple tests of similar specimens to establish reliability coefficients for the data. Data on nonstructural components Data on structural components Data on systems of components

31. More information on projects and participation opportunities available at www.atcouncil.org