Post on 11-Aug-2015
transcript
PROMOTING PREVENTIVE MITIGATIONS OF BUILDINGS AGAINST HURRICANES THROUGH ENHANCED RISK-ASSESSMENT AND DECISION
MAKING
FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROJECT R-CS-60
Sungmoon Jung (Principle Investigator)Arda Vanli (Co-Principle Investigator)Bejoy P. Alduse (Research Assistant)
Spandan Mishra (Research Assistant)
Overview
2FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROJECT R-CS-60
1. Background and Proposed Tasks2. Tasks Completed
A. Compile Experimental DataB. Deterministic Model for CapacityC. Capacity Prediction Model
Conventional capacity model Capacity Update Model ( Considering the deterministic model) Statistical Pooled Model (Without considering the deterministic model)
D. Fragility analysis Conventional Proposed
E. Comparison of Fragility Results3. Summary4. Future Tasks5. Questions and Comments
1. Background Proposed Tasks
Background
Insured value of coastal counties approach $3
trillion (AIR Worldwide 2013)
Mitigation (Ex: Improved Roof to Wall Connections) results in financial benefits
and improved resilience
However, uncertainties exist about cost-benefit
analysis of different RTW connections.
Motivation
Uncertainties exist in performance of the
common RTW connections - Hurricane clips.
Address uncertainties in capacities systematically
Improve cost-benefit knowledge by addressing
the uncertainties in performance.
a. Address uncertainties in building components before and
after mitigation
1. Develop Fragility formulations
2. Calibrate Fragilityformulations
3FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROJECT R-CS-60
4
A.Compile
Experimental Data
B.Deterministic
Model for Capacity
C.Capacity
Prediction Model
D.Fragility analysis
E.Comparison
of results
2. Tasks Completed
• 6 different sources - 1 PhD. Diss., 2 M. Thesis, 2 J. Publ., 1 T. Report
• Results of component level testing
• Categorized results based on number of clips and wood type Ex: Ahmed et al.(2011)
• Capacity depends on mode of failure which in turn depends on combination of number of clips and wood type.
FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROJECT R-CS-60 5
A. Compile Experimental Data
Ahmed et al. (2011) - H2.5A clips on (SPF,SYP and DF)
6
a) Nail pull out b) Clip tearing c) Wood splitting
A. Compile Experimental Data
Capacity in lbs – Mean and (Standard deviation)
Woo
d ty
pe
Number of clips1 2 4
SPF (2 “ x 4 “) 436.6 591.4 887.4(51.9) (68.3) (70.5)
SYP (2 “ x 4 “) 459 711.4 931.2(29.6) (65.8) (85.3)
DF (2 “ x 6 “) 640.2 753.2(53.1) (65.5)
Observed Modes of failure
Woo
d ty
pe
Number of clips1 2 4
SPF (2 “ x 4 “) Nail pull out Wood split Wood split
SYP (2 “ x 4 “) Nail pull out Wood split Wood split
DF (2 “ x 6 “)Clip
deformation Clip tearing
a) Nail pull out strength (N)1800 G(5/2)D L G – Specific gravity of woodD – Dia. of nail andL – Length of Nail
b) Tearing of the clip (C)c/s Area of clip x Yield stress
c) Wood rupture strength (W)Area of wood x Rupture stress
Deterministic capacity = Minimum (N,C,W)FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROJECT R-CS-60 7
B. Deterministic Model for Capacity
Deterministic Capacity in lbs
Woo
d ty
pe
Number of clips1 2 4
SPF (2 “ x 4 “) 441.4 882.8 1200
SYP (2 “ x 4 “) 554.1 1108.2 1500
DF (2 “ x 6 “) 682.5 1365.1 1950
C. Capacity Prediction Model→ Conventional Capacity Model
• The capacity follows a log-normal distribution
𝐶𝐶𝑐𝑐 = 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿(µ,σ)
• 𝐶𝐶𝑐𝑐 Conventional capacity value
• µ Mean value of capacity from experiments
• σ Standard deviation of capacity from experiments
8FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROJECT R-CS-60
C. Capacity Prediction Model→ Capacity Update Model
• The polynomial model for bias correction is as follows
𝐶𝐶𝑢𝑢 𝑥𝑥 = 𝜌𝜌 𝑥𝑥 𝐶𝐶𝑝𝑝 𝑥𝑥 + 𝛿𝛿 𝑥𝑥 + ε
• 𝐶𝐶𝑢𝑢 Updated capacity value
• 𝜌𝜌 Scale correction function
• 𝐶𝐶𝑝𝑝 Deterministic capacity
• 𝛿𝛿 Bias correction function (𝛿𝛿0+𝛿𝛿1 𝑥𝑥1+𝛿𝛿11 𝑥𝑥12+𝛿𝛿2 𝑥𝑥2+𝛿𝛿3 𝑥𝑥3)
• 𝑥𝑥1 Number of clips
• 𝑥𝑥2 , 𝑥𝑥3 Indicator variables for wood type.
• ε Random model error9FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROJECT R-CS-60
Statistical pooled model based on number of connection and wood type:
𝐶𝐶𝑒𝑒 𝑥𝑥 = 𝛿𝛿 𝑥𝑥 + ε
𝛿𝛿 Bias correction function (𝛿𝛿0+𝛿𝛿1 𝑥𝑥1+𝛿𝛿11 𝑥𝑥12+𝛿𝛿2 𝑥𝑥2+𝛿𝛿3 𝑥𝑥3)
𝑥𝑥1 Number of clips𝑥𝑥2 , 𝑥𝑥3 Indicator variables for wood type.ε Random model error
10FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROJECT R-CS-60
C. Capacity prediction model→ Statistical Pooled Model
Example • Residential building – Wood, Gable
roof (Cope, 2004)• Rigid, Fully enclosed, Exposure B• Length 56’, Breadth 44’, Wall height
10’, Roof slope 5:12 (θ =22.6°)• Eave overhang 2’, Truss spacing 2’• 1 and 2, H2.5A clips at each
connection.• SPF 2” x 4”
56’
44’
10’
9.2’
44’
Truss
Top plate
Column 11FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROJECT R-CS-60
D. Fragility Analysis
FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROJECT R-CS-60 12
Example • Wind parallel to ridge• Region 3 and 4• Cpi = 0.18, Cp = -0.9, Cpov = 0.8• Force per connection=0.00256 x kz x kzt x kd x V2
x ( (Cp- Cpi)x(44/2)x2 + Cpov x 2 x 2 )
D. Fragility Analysis3
4
13FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROJECT R-CS-60
D. Fragility Analysis→ Conventional
• SPF, 1 H2.5A clip• Mean capacity = 436.6 lb• Std. deviation = 51.89 lb
• SPF, 2 H2.5A clip• Mean capacity = 591.4 lb• Std. deviation = 68.34 lb
Φ=
ζµ)/ln()( DvF𝐶𝐶𝑐𝑐 = 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿(µ,σ)
Log transformation• Quantile Quantile-plot of
regression model residuals and lognormal distribution
• Lognormal distribution is an adequate fit for model random errors
• Use logarithmic capacity values in the model
14FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROJECT R-CS-60
D. Fragility Analysis
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Quantiles of normal DistributionQ
uant
iles
of In
put S
ampl
e
QQ Plot of Sample Data versus Distribution
𝑃𝑃 𝐶𝐶𝑢𝑢 𝑋𝑋, 𝑥𝑥 = 𝑡𝑡𝜈𝜈 �𝑏𝑏′𝑥𝑥, 𝑠𝑠2(1 + 𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑋𝑋𝑥𝑋𝑋 −1𝑥𝑥)
𝑥𝑥 Regressor vector 𝐶𝐶𝑝𝑝 1 𝑥𝑥1 𝑥𝑥2 𝑥𝑥12
𝐶𝐶𝑝𝑝 Computer prediction of capacity �𝑏𝑏 Coefficient vector 𝑋𝑋𝑥𝑋𝑋 −1𝑋𝑋′𝑦𝑦
𝑠𝑠2 Error variance 𝐿𝐿 − 𝑑𝑑 −1 𝐶𝐶𝑒𝑒 − 𝑋𝑋�𝑏𝑏′𝐶𝐶𝑒𝑒 − 𝑋𝑋�𝑏𝑏
𝜈𝜈 𝐿𝐿 − 𝑑𝑑𝐶𝐶𝑒𝑒 Vector of capacity observations
𝑋𝑋 Matrix of regressor observations 15
D. Fragility Analysis→ Proposed
Posterior predictive distribution of updated capacity model
FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROJECT R-CS-60 16
Updated capacity distribution• For a given number of clips
the predictive distribution of the capacity is a lognormal distribution.
• We calculate the probability of failure from these distributions.
D. Fragility Analysis→ Proposed
Assume 𝐷𝐷 is the wind-load effect, then the limit state due to wind failure is given
𝑔𝑔 𝛽𝛽, 𝑣𝑣 = 𝐶𝐶𝑢𝑢 𝑥𝑥,𝛽𝛽 − 𝐷𝐷(𝑣𝑣) ≤ 0The probability of failure at a given wind speed 𝑣𝑣 is found by integrating the predictive distribution:
𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 𝑃𝑃 𝑔𝑔 𝛽𝛽, 𝑣𝑣 ≤ 0 = �−∞
𝐷𝐷
𝑃𝑃 𝐶𝐶𝑢𝑢 𝑋𝑋, 𝑥𝑥
18FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROJECT R-CS-60
D. Fragility Analysis→ Proposed
Failure Probability
Proposed approach Conventional approach
20FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROJECT R-CS-60
E. Comparison of Fragility Results
Bounds on wind speed at 0.50 failure probability • Bayesian approach allows us to
quantify the confidence in predictions of updated and statistical model.
• Computer updated model is not markedly improved than the statistical model for prediction uncertainty.
21FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROJECT R-CS-60
E. Comparison of fragility results
3. Summary
Bayesian based approaches in capacity prediction were studied
Fragility curves were obtained using predicted capacities.
Fragility curves from different approaches were compared
22FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROJECT R-CS-60
4. Future tasks
Demand uncertainty
Improve the deterministic capacity model
Improve the Bayesian model fit.
Improve bound estimation
Extreme value prediction
What EQECAT wants us to do ?23FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROJECT R-CS-60
References• S.S., Ahmed, I., Canino, A.G., Chowdhury, A., Mirmiran, N., Suksawang. (2011). “Study of the Capability of Multiple
Mechanical Fasteners in Roof-to-Wall Connections of Timber Residential Buildings.” Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 16, 2-9.
• K. G., Tyner, (1996).”Uplift capacity of rafter-to-wall connections in light-frame construction,” MS thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C.
• T.D., Reed (1997). “Wind resistance of roof systems in light-frame construction.” MS thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C.
• B., Shanmugam, (2011). “Probabilistic assessment of roof uplift capacities in low-rise residential construction” Doctoral dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C.
• L.R., Canfield, S.H. Niu, H. Liu (1991). “Uplift resistance of various rafter-wall connections.” Forest Products Journal, 41, 27-34.
• J. Cheng (2004). “Testing and analysis of the toe-nail connection in the residential roof-to-wall system.” Forest Products Journal, 54, 58-65.
• P. Gardoni, A.D., Kiureghian, K. M. Mosalam (2002). “Probabilistic capacity models and fragility estimates for reinforced concrete columns based on experimental observations.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 128, 1024-1038.
• M. A. Riley, F., Sadek (2003). “Experimental testing roof to wall connections in wood frame houses.” Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROJECT R-CS-60 25
Wind load estimation (Ch 27, ASCE - 07)
• V – Basic wind speed• Kz = 0.61 (velocity pressure
exposure coefficient)• Kzt = 1 (topographic constant)• Kd = 0.85 (Wind directionality
factor)
27FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROJECT R-CS-60
Wind load estimation – Parallel to ridge
• q = qi = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V2
• Self weight = 17 psf.• Cpi = +0.18,-0.18 (Internal pressure
coefficient) Figure 26.11-1• Cp (External pressure coefficient)
Figure 27.4-1.• Design wind pressure = qGCp - qiGCpi• Force on the sheathing = Area *(
Wind pressure – self wt. )• Fconnection =.00256 x kz x kzt x kd x V2 x
( (Cp- Cpi)x(44/2)x2 + Cpoverhang x 2 x2 )
34
56
28FLORIDA SEA GRANT PROJECT R-CS-60
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
6
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
7
7.2
7.4
x, Number of Connections
y(x
), C
ap
acity
SPF - updated model
Pure Model OutputExperimental dataPred of Updated95% PI of updated
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
6
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
7
7.2
7.4
x, Number of Connections
y(x)
, Ca
pa
city
SPF - statistical pooled model
Pure Comp ModelExperimental dataPred of Statistical95% PI of statistical
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
6
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
7
7.2
7.4
x
y(x)
SPY-updated model
Pure Comp Model OutputBias/Scale CorrectedExperimental data
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
6
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
7
7.2
7.4
x
y(x)
SPY - statistical model
Pure Comp ModelExperimental data95% PI of statistical
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 26
6.5
7
7.5
x
y(x
)DYI-updated model
Pure Comp Model OutputBias/Scale CorrectedExperimental data
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 26
6.5
7
7.5
x
y(x
)
DYI-statistical model
Bias/Scale CorrectedExperimental data
60 80 100 120 140 160 1800
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
wind speed (mph)
F(v
)
Fragility curve for SPF with confidence bounds- Updated Model
2 connection1 connection
60 80 100 120 140 160 1800
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
wind speed (mph)
F(v
)
Fragility curve for SPF with confidence bounds - Pooled Stat Mode
2 connection1 connection
60 80 100 120 140 160 1800
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
wind speed (mph)
F(v
)Fragility curve for SPY with confidence bounds- Updated Model
2 connection1 connection
60 80 100 120 140 160 1800
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
wind speed (mph)
F(v
)
Fragility curve for SPY with confidence bounds - Pooled Stat Mode
2 connection1 connection
60 80 100 120 140 160 1800
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
wind speed (mph)
F(v
)Fragility curve for DYI with confidence bounds- Updated Model
2 connection1 connection
60 80 100 120 140 160 1800
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
wind speed (mph)
F(v
)
Fragility curve for DYI with confidence bounds - Pooled Stat Mode
2 connection1 connection
SPF
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5130
140
150
160
170
180
model
win
d sp
eed,
mph
wind speed for 50% failure prob. 1: updated, 2: stat,
1 connect 2 connect 4 connect
SPY
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5130
140
150
160
170
180
model
win
d sp
eed,
mph
wind speed for 50% failure prob. 1: updated, 2: stat,
1 connect 2 connect 4 connect