goals and objectives
- General coordination. Coordinate
PEER methodology testbed research. Includes meetings, reports, online
locus, methodological coordination, shepherding crosscutting topics,
research planning, and promotion of BIP participation.
- Meetings. Assist
RC to arrange quarterly combined testbed meetings. Assist testbed managers
to arrange mid-quarter testbed-specific meetings. Assist
various researchers to arrange ad-hoc meetings of crosscutting-topic
groups. Participate in RC and SAC meetings.
- Reports. Assist testbed managers (Krawinkler, Comerio, Elgamal, & Kunnath)
to coordinate whole-testbed project reports, which specify general
methodology and illustrate with end-to-end analyses of individual testbeds.
- Online locus. Establish
and maintain online locus for summary of PEER testbed projects, document
exchange, documentation of progress, and contact information.
- Coordinate methodology. Assist
testbed managers to establish and document common methodological elements
between building testbeds and between bridge
- Crosscutting topics. Assist
researchers to advance treatment of uncertainty, evaluation of intensity
and establishment of bridge decision
- Research planning. Assist
RC members to develop project work-statements. Identify needed development
work. Promote allocation of this work in project
- Promote BIP participation. Promote
BIP practitioners’ participation
in the development of PEER’s methodology & comparison of
PEER methodology with current practice.
of this project in supporting PEER’s vision
are required to ensure that PEER’s methodology is elucidated
from end to end, and illustrated for the benefit of PEER researchers
This coordination project is necessary to ensure that individual testbed
projects are effectively integrated. Testbed coordinator also offers
an overview of all the testbeds in a single researcher.
Combined testbed reports. These
reports, outlined in Years 5 and 6, include explicit authorship responsibilities
and submission deadlines. They have helped to ensure that projects fit
together and produce necessary results.
Peertestbeds.net webpage. This
commercially hosted website offers a locus for disseminating publications,
presentations, contacts, and other information.
description of past year’s accomplishments and more detail on
expected Year 6 accomplishments
- Reports. Authored various report sections,
most notably Introduction in Van Nuys & UC Science reports, facility
definition in Van Nuys report.
- Online locus. Registered peertestbeds.net domain, authored & maintained
- Methodology coordination. Coordinated
building-analysis methodologies via common definitions, informal meetings
and formal quarterly testbed meetings
between loss modelers (self included). Documented methodology in common
overview text in two testbed reports and ICASP9 conference proceedings.
Bridge methodologies coordinated via plenary sessions at quarterly
meetings, and via informal joint meetings. Acquired and disseminated
and copyrights for Van Nuys testbed.
- Uncertainty. Proposed
and illustrated tornado-diagram approach for Van Nuys testbed; expect
to do so in Year 6 for UC Science Building under a
separate project with Beck. Participated in uncertainty working group.
- IMs. At
end of year 5, promoted inclusion of evaluation tasks in year-6 workstatements
and possibly Hutchinson. Monitoring
and encourage progress of evaluations in year 6.
- Bridge DVs. Drafted
bridge DV and DM-DV methodology in discussions with Caltrans.
- Research planning. Participated
in research-committee planning meetings.
- Van Nuys and UC Science. Arranged site visit and conversation with owner representative of Van
Nuys. Coordinating contribution by practitioners
to testbed reports of their critique of PEER’s methodology, and
their state-of-the-practice analysis. Ensuring that BIPs receive necessary
participate in testbed meetings and contribute to reports.
- Humboldt & I-880. Drafted practitioner workstatements, and recruited
BIP researchers (Nascimento and Imbsen). Encouraged Conte & Kunnath
to outline testbed reports similar to those of Van Nuys and UC Science.
Ensure Caltrans participants attend and contribute to testbed meetings
similar work being conducted within and outside PEER and how this project
for Year 7 if this project is expected to be continued
any instances where you are aware that your results have been used
- Meetings as noted above.
- Online locus. Already
established at website (www.peertestbeds.net).
- Methodology coordination is ongoing.
- Research planning. Year-7
work-statements to be reviewed in Aug-Sep 2003 in coordination with
- BIP participation is ongoing, and demonstrated
with text in PEER testbed reports delivered by Sep 2003, and possibly
in separate publications.
- Campus testbed plan. Campus
methodology documented in a PEER report submitted by Sep 2003.
- Reports. Van
Nuys and UC Science milestones detailed in the testbed reports, deliverable
- Peer-reviewed publications.
Porter, K.A., J.L. Beck, and R.V. Shaikhutdinov,
2002, “Sensitivity of Building Loss Estimates to Major Uncertain
Variables,” Earthquake Spectra, 18 (4), Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 719-743, http://keithp.caltech.edu/publications.htm
K.A., 2003 (expected), “An Overview of PEER’s Performance-Based
Earthquake Engineering Methodology,” Proc. Ninth International
Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering (ICASP9)
July 6-9, 2003, San Francisco, CA. Civil Engineering Risk and Reliability
Association (CERRA), http://keithp.caltech.edu/publications.htm
- Uncertainty. On track
to be treated via deterministic sensitivity studies (“tornado diagrams”)
to be delivered with final testbed projects (Sep 2003). Van Nuys: done
in year 4 by Porter. UC Science to be done
by Mosalam, Beck, and Porter, with delivery expected by Sep 2003. Humboldt
and I-880 to be done by Conte and Kunnath, respectively, although delivery
date is less certain. Kramer has completed a draft tornado diagram
for geotechnical issues.
- IMs. Partially planned.
Milestones and deliverables are uncertain. Evaluation for UC Science
Building has progressed (Hutchinson has produced some
preliminary results), but no formal deliverable has been planned. It
is practical for
someone to analyze IMs for Van Nuys—perhaps Hutchinson—by
Sep 2003, if resources are allocated. Analysis of IMs for bridges is
- Bridge DVs have been drafted by Porter and are currently
in further development. If successful, will be documented in a PEER
possibly in a journal
article, to be submitted by Sep 2003.