F=faculty; GS=graduate student; US=undergraduate student; PD=post-doc; I=industrial collaborator; O=other

Click on images to enlarge in a new window

1. To demonstrate the value PEER’s 2nd-generation PBEE methodology (PBEE2) brings to new design, particularly, the ability to estimate the performance of code design in terms of decision-making interest to the building owner.
2. To demonstrate how design details that exceed code minima might be show to be cost effective, and thereby save money.
3. To demonstrate how relaxing certain code requirements might (or might not) affect performance, and thereby save money.
4. To demonstrate how additional information gathering (e.g., site soils investigations) might prove to be cost effective by reducing performance uncertainty and therefore excessive design conservativeness.
5. To design data structures and codable algorithms for performing the EDP-to-DV calculation in an automated environment, i.e., with or within OpenSees.
6. To provide required data to perform EDP-to-DV calculations for the benchmark building(s).

1. Quantify DV for one or more variants of an IBC 200x-compliant reinforced concrete moment-frame building selected and analyzed (from IM to EDP) by Deierlein team, considering one or more site selected and analyzed (from location to IM) by Stewart team. DVs to include dollars, deaths, and downtime. Variants may include alternative sites, structural designs (e.g., different reinforcing schedules), or architectural programs (e.g., library building versus office building).
2. Present EDP-DM and DM-DV relationship data for these buildings
3. Present codable EDP-DM and DM-DV algorithm.

1. Has value. It must be shown either to demonstrate that it can save money, either at the new construction stage (reduced cost) or via reduced future losses (increased benefits), and
2. Is workable. It must be packaged to the extent that it is practical for the engineering professional.
3. This project assists in both objectives.

1. Fragility functions. To develop relationships between EDP and DM, one can use methods elucidated in Porter (2000) and Beck et al. (2002). This entails:
   • Clearly defining a taxonomic group for the components (which we have referred to as assembly types),
   • Clearly defining relevant damage measures in terms of required repairs,
   • Compiling test data that show the binary variable of exceeding DM as a function of EDP, and
   • Performing regression analysis to estimate the cumulative distribution function of the assembly’s EDP capacity to resist DM.
2. Loss functions. We establish DV|DM relationships primarily by standard construction-cost-estimation principles:
   • List detailed tasks to be performed,
   • Identify quantities of required labor, materials, equipment, and supplies,
   • Apply unit costs to each required resource, and
   • Add the products of quantity and unit cost.
3. Simulation. Propagate uncertainty through moment matching, and possibly FOSM or other techniques.
4. We will meet with Deierlein and others near the end of the project to draw conclusions from the benchmark analyses.

Figure 1. PEER PBEE methodology (click image to enlarge)

• Meetings. We have met with Deierlein, Stewart and others to select benchmark building(s), DVs of interest, and necessary EDPs.
• Terminology and data protocols. We have agreed upon standard terminology for EDP and defined a detailed data structure for communicating EDP information.
• Fragility functions. We have established a number of fragility functions (DM|EDP relationships) for components in these building(s) based on PEER laboratory testing, PEER databases, and other sources we have examined to date.
• Loss functions. We have similarly established a number of DV|DM relationships, primarily by standard construction-cost-estimation principles.
• SQL code. We have established scripted query language (SQL) code to perform EDP-DM-DV calculations. This SQL code was originally designed for stochastic simulation (Monte Carlo simulation), but has been adapted for a tornado-diagram analysis (Porter et al. 2002), which is very close to moment matching. We anticipate further developing and documenting the moment-matching version for implementation by others, and if possible similarly developing SQL code for FOSM.

1. Practice vs. proof of concept. The testbeds are largely experimental in nature, i.e., proof-of-concept works rather, whereas the current project will provide practical tools for performing PBEE-2.
2. IBC 200x vs. UBC. The testbeds deal with older, non-performance-base codes (UBC from the mid-1960s and early to mid 1990s), whereas this project benchmarks current (IBC 200x) design.
3. The 3 Ds. The testbeds each tend to focus on one PEER DV, whereas the present project will deal simultaneously with all three (dollars, deaths, and downtime); this project will address repair duration more thoroughly than testbed work.
4. Reducing costs and increasing benefits by PBEE-2 analysis of new design. The testbeds have focused on retrofit of existing bridges and buildings. It is expected that the present project will examine the benefits of above-code design and possibility for reduced cost by relaxing code requirements, while still meeting performance objectives.