Project Title/ID Number Building loss Modeling and Benchmarking EDP to DV—1222003
Start/End Dates 10/1/03—9/30/04
Project Leader James Beck (Caltech/F), Keith Porter (Caltech/O)
Team Members Judith Mitrani (Caltech/GS)

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. Project Goals/Objectives:

Objectives: benchmarking and packaging

To evaluate the seismic performance of benchmark buildings designed to current code (IBC 200x) in terms of PEER’s decision variables (DVs: repair costs, fatalities, and repair duration, or “dollars, deaths, and downtime”) and to package for practitioner use relationships between structural response (PEER’s engineering demand parameters, or EDPs) and DVs.

Goals: “show them the money” and deliver the tools

  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.

2. Role of this project in supporting PEER’s mission (vision):

To be accepted in practice, PEER must demonstrate that PBEE-2:

  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.

3. Methodology Employed:

  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:
  2. Loss functions. We establish DV|DM relationships primarily by standard construction-cost-estimation principles:
  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)

4. Brief Description of past year’s accomplishments (Year 6) & more detail on expected Year 7 accomplishments:

5. Other Similar Work Being Conducted Within and Outside PEER and How This Project Differs:

PEER has recently completed a set of testbed analyses of existing bridges and buildings. Four important differences are:

  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.

6. Plans for Year 8 if project is expected to be continued:

Not expected at this time.

7. Describe any actual instances where you are aware your results have been used in industry:

None to date.

8. Expected Milestones & Deliverables:

Deliver joint report with Deierlein and Stewart at end of project; produce journal article(s) on benchmark results and packaging at end of project.

back to top