Uploaded on

 

More in: Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
49
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • - First, I will provide an overview of the PBWE procedure, as it has been defined in several studies and journal papers by my co-author Dr. Petrini In the second part of my presentation I will briefly discuss models for the occupant comfort assessment in high-rise buildings Finally, I will introduce some considerations for the extension of the application of the PBWE framework to the Damage and Loss analysis from vibration discomfort in high-rise buildings. This is a work in process by me with my co-authors.
  • The structural risk is conventionally measured by the probability of exceeding a relevant value of the corresponding DV . A simplification is introduced: If the performance is expressed by the fulfillment of a limit state , and the limit state condition in terms of an EDP , the whole procedure can be simplified assuming DV = EDP .
  • The assessment of the serviceability of high-rise buildings under wind actions is usually carried out considering the peak values of the horizontal displacements, some measure of the acceleration . Horizontal displacements shall be limited to prevent loss of integrity to cladding and partitions ; the acceleration measure and the building natural frequencies are essential to determine the level of perception of motion , and in general the habitability issue under building vibrations. the occupant motion perception can be related to body sensation and/or visual cues; in general, the perception related to body sensation is dominant in case of low frequency vibrations (less than 2 Hz) , while the perception related to visual cues is dominant in case of relatively high frequency vibrations (greater than 2 Hz). In the right figure from Tamura ed al, comfort curves are shown (ISO and Japanese) Percentage of people that experience discomfort, confronted with literature (at any given frequency corresponds a perception threshold) Figura Tamura, curve di comfort, percezione da giaponesi e ISO Fa vedere I risultati (percentualle di persone che sentono discomfort), confrontate con letteratura, a seconda della frequenza ce soglia di percezione
  • The Italian code adopts the Japanese curves. What you do is enter the graph with the first natural frequency of the structure and see the acceptance rate of the accelerations.
  • The examined high-rise steel building has a square plan (side length: B = 50 m) and a total height of 305 m; the number of floors is 74. The main structural system is composed by a central core (a 3D frame with 16 columns) and a 3D frame on the external perimeter (28 columns). The two substructures are connected at three levels (at the height of 100 m, 200 m and 300 m); the stiffening systems are extended for 3 or 2 floors . The structural analyses have been carried out on a FE model of the building implemented in ANSYS V11; the FE model is composed by 7592 BEAM4 elements and 2680 LINK8 elements Linear dynamic analyses , assuming rigid diaphragms
  • Forse togliere The time series of the floor forces have been obtained by wind tunnel tests on a 1:500 scale rigid model (Fig. left ), that have been carried out at the Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel of the CRIACIV (Inter-university Research Centre on Buildings Aerodynamics and Wind Engineering) in Prato, Italy. One the other hand, in this study well consolidated analytical models has been adopted in order to carry out structural analyses in frequency domain Left: Floor forces in the along and across wind direction, evaluated at the top of the building, by scaling the experimental measures Right: Acceleration at the top of the building for a mean wind velocity at the top of the building for a V=35 m/sec (DESIGN RETURN PERIOD OF 1 YEAR according to the ITALIAN CODE/CNR 2008) – V0=20.25 m/sec
  • In this slide you can see the analytical model of the buffeting forces and the Vortex Shedding model . In particular, the VS effect is strong when the wind is orthogonal to the building side. The VS energy is higher. La frequenza di VS ha piu’ energia delle altre Rosso: turbolenza normale Nero VS ipotizzato tarato Blu: totle sovraposizione dei due For the examined building, time series of the floor forces were available , as derived by experimental tests (Spence et al 2008a, 2008b). However, in order to carry out probabilistic calculations, in the linear range it is preferable (at least, to reduce the computational burden) to analyze the structural response in the frequency domain , by adopting the previously introduced analytical model of the wind action.
  • Blu: torque Red: forces in the x and y axis
  • Displacements
  • The analysis steps are as follows: First hazard analysis: The intensity measure vector contains the following random elements V10 (10 minute velocity) Theta (the direction of the wind velocity) Z0 (roughness length) Joint Probability Density Function of the MEAN VELOCITY Finally, all previously introduced parameters has been considered random. Here the structural response in terms of across wind peak accelerations is still represented as function of the V10. I passi dell’analisi Distribuzione V10 di cui parametri dipendono da theta Dal database di NIST, Dal mare coef rug basso Z0 dipende da theta
  • For the interaction analysis vector, 3 parameters are chosen The peak response factor And two aerodynamic coefficients
  • The response parameter is given as a sum of the average value plus the peak response factor times the variance
  • Riassunto Edp accelerazione di picco across wind
  • Figure Complementary cumulative function of the EDP
  • Metto TMD tre parametri beta rapporto di frequenze Analisi parametrica variando I 3 rapporti per scegliere Risultati per gamma fissato, alvariare di beta… risposte massime Basso a destra come cambia la curva di rischio TAPEI 101 In order to optimize the structural response, the insertion of a TMD can be considered. Here the TMD has been inserted at the top of the building and the structural response is represented in terms of occupant comfort. The TMD produces two main effects: the variation of the structural natural frequency, and a reduction in maximum the response. Here the maximum across wind acceleration obtained for different sets of TMD design parameters are shown and compared with the comfort thresholds. Each figure represents a different mass ratio “gamma”, different markers represent different natural frequency ratios “beta” and different points with the same marker represent different damping ratios “csi”. The maximum effect is obtained by “gamma” equal to 1/150, “Beta” equal to 1 and “csi” equal to 10%
  • In this part I will provide some considerations for the application of the PBWE framework to the Damage and Loss analysis due to the occupant discomfort in high-rise buildings
  • So far, the research focused on the Hazard, Interaction and Structural analysis for the occupant comfort. In order to apply the PBWE framework to the damage and loss analysis from vibration comfort, some additional considerations are necessary. In this slide are reassumed the major issues (from a paper by Kwok et al) Mitigation measures in particular are proposed in literature in the form of among else the installation of vibration control devices
  • Left Distribution of comfort ratings from occupant comfort tests conducted in motion simulator Right Comparison of occupant comfort serviceability criteria for 1 year return period wind storm . The uncertainty can be modeled considering the different density of the lines at different frequencies.
  • Direct costs were in the past considered the tangible costs. Now also business/service interruption should be considered. Indirect costs should consider indirect consequences (in the supply chain) Need to focus on a case-by-case basis.
  • Questo si fa di solito ma non si puo fare in questo caso For limit states that damage at physical components doesn’t occur, as fo example discomfort in building occupants, the big issue is how to calculate the losses
  • Se la qualita’ non e’ accetabile per residenziali ma lo e’ per uffici Se non e’ accetabile neanche per uffici o se non voglio cambiare la destinazione d’uso, installo TMD Indirect
  • So far, the research focused on the Hazard, Interaction and Structural analysis for the occupant comfort. In order to apply the PBWE framework to the damage and loss analysis from vibration comfort, some additional considerations are necessary. In this slide are reassumed the major issues (from a paper by Kwok et al) Mitigation measures in particular are proposed in literature in the form of among else the installation of vibration control devices For direct cost, the surface of the floor thatare occupied by the TMD should be considered. Direct: differenza di superficie In the case of retrofitting: direct losses are in terms of m2 times m2 cost + cost of instalation perdite dirette differenza di metri quadri e costo di istalazione ( Sismica: perdita dirette sono calcolate con il costo degli elementi struturali e non rotti Vento: se non c-e rottura di niente? Faber e Ciampoli: LQI Concetto: non riusciamo a calcolare le perdite dirette usualmente si basano su un danno fisico… Quinon c’e nessun danno fisico. Se ci sono come si fa a calcolare? Giorni di chiusura per installare il TMD o per attuare la soluzione del programma, costo del TMD: associ il costo della cura. Della soluzione piu economca possibile (e.g. liquid mass damper). Io calcolo le perdite dirette come spesa per togliere quel effetto.
  • So far, the research focused on the Hazard, Interaction and Structural analysis for the occupant comfort. In order to apply the PBWE framework to the damage and loss analysis from vibration comfort, some additional considerations are necessary. In this slide are reassumed the major issues (from a paper by Kwok et al) Mitigation measures in particular are proposed in literature in the form of among else the installation of vibration control devices For direct cost, the surface of the floor thatare occupied by the TMD should be considered. Direct: differenza di superficie In the case of retrofitting: direct losses are in terms of m2 times m2 cost + cost of instalation perdite dirette differenza di metri quadri e costo di istalazione ( Sismica: perdita dirette sono calcolate con il costo degli elementi struturali e non rotti Vento: se non c-e rottura di niente? Faber e Ciampoli: LQI Concetto: non riusciamo a calcolare le perdite dirette usualmente si basano su un danno fisico… Quinon c’e nessun danno fisico. Se ci sono come si fa a calcolare? Giorni di chiusura per installare il TMD o per attuare la soluzione del programma, costo del TMD: associ il costo della cura. Della soluzione piu economca possibile (e.g. liquid mass damper). Io calcolo le perdite dirette come spesa per togliere quel effetto.
  • Media datta da Davenport. ‘E affidabile solo per processi stocastici a banda larga

Transcript

  • 1. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NYSapienza – University of RomeFrancesco Petrini, Ph.D., P.E.Konstantinos Gkoumas, Ph.D., P.E.Franco Bontempi, Ph.D., P.E.Sapienza - University of RomeDipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale eGeotecnicaDamage and loss evaluation in the performance-based wind engineering
  • 2. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NYPresentation outline2• Overview of the Performance Based WindEngineering (PBWE) procedure• Models for tall buildings and the assessment ofoccupant comfort:• Application on a high-rise building• Assessment of the annual probabilities of exceedingthe human perception thresholds• Vibration and occupant comfort issues• Damage analysis• Loss analysis• Conclusions and indications for further research
  • 3. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NYPresentation outline3• Overview of the Performance Based WindEngineering (PBWE) procedure• Models for tall buildings and the assessment ofoccupant comfort• Application on a high-rise building• Assessment of the annual probabilities of exceedingthe human perception thresholds• Vibration and occupant comfort issues• Damage analysis• Loss analysis• Conclusions and indications for further research
  • 4. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NYPerformance-Based Wind Engineering (PBWE)4The problem of risk assessment is disaggregated into the following elements:- site and structure-specific hazard analyses, that is, the assessment of theprobability density functions f(IM), f(SP) and f(IP|IM,SP);- structural analysis, aiming at the assessment of the probability density function ofthe structural response f(EDP|IM,IP,SP) conditional on the parameters characterizing theenvironmental actions, the wind-fluid-structure interaction and the structural properties;- damage analysis, that gives the damage probability density function f(DM|EDP)conditional on EDP;- finally, loss analysis, that is the assessment of G(DV|DM), where G(·|·) is aconditional complementary cumulative distribution function.G(DV) = ∫…∫ G(DV|DM) · f(DM|EDP) · f(EDP|IM, IP,SP) · f(IP|IM,SP) ·· f(IM) · f(SP) · dDM · dEDP · dIP · dIM · dSPInteractionParametersStructuralParametersIntensitymeasureIM IP SPEngineeringDemandParametersEDPDamageMeasureDMDecisionVariableDV
  • 5. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NYPBWE procedure flowchart5Petrini, F. & Ciampoli M., 2012, Performance-based wind design of tall buildings, Structure & InfrastructureEngineering, 8(10), 954-966.Of(IM|O)f(IM) f(IP|IM,SP)f(IP)f(EDP|IM,IP,SP)G(EDP)f(DM|EDP)G(DM)f(DV|DM)G(DV)Hazard analysisInteractionanalysisStructuralanalysis Damageanalysis Loss analysisIM: intensitymeasureIP: interactionparametersEDP:engineeringdemand param.DM:damagemeasureDV:decisionvariableSelectO, DO:locationD:designEnvironment infoDecision-makingDf(SP|D)f(SP)StructuralcharacterizationSP:structuralsystem parametersStructuralsysteminfoCiampoli M, Petrini, F. & Augusti G., 2011, Performance-Based Wind Engineering: toward a generalprocedure, Structural Safety, Structural Safety, 33(6), 367-378.
  • 6. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NY6Of(IM|O)f(IM)f(IP|IM,SP)f(IP)f(EDP|IM,IP,SP)G(EDP)f(DM|EDP)G(DM)f(DV|DM)G(DV)Hazard analysisAerodynamicanalysisStruc’l analysis Damage analysis Loss analysisIM: intensity measureIP: interactionparametersEDP: engineeringdemand parametersDM: damage measures DV: decision variablesSelectO, DO: locationD: designEnvironmentinfoDecision-makingDf(SP|D)f(SP)StructuralcharacterizationSP: structural systemparametersStructuralsystem infoOf(IM|O)f(IM)f(IP|IM,SP)f(IP)f(EDP|IM,IP,SP)G(EDP)f(DM|EDP)G(DM)f(DV|DM)G(DV)Hazard analysisAerodynamicanalysisStruc’l analysis Damage analysis Loss analysisIM: intensity measureIP: interactionparametersEDP: engineeringdemand parametersDM: damage measures DV: decision variablesSelectO, DO: locationD: designEnvironmentinfoDecision-makingDf(SP|D)f(SP)StructuralcharacterizationSP: structural systemparametersStructuralsystem infoO, Dg(IM|O,D)g(IM)p(EDP|IM)P(EDP)p(DM|EDP)P(DM)p(DV|DM)P(DV)Hazard analysis Struc’l analysis Damage analysis Loss analysisIM: intensitymeasureEDP: engineeringdemand param.DM: damagemeasureDV: decisionvariableSelectO, DO: locationD: designFacilityinfoDecision-makingO, Dg(IM|O,D)g(IM)p(EDP|IM)P(EDP)p(DM|EDP)P(DM)p(DV|DM)P(DV)Hazard analysis Struc’l analysis Damage analysis Loss analysisIM: intensitymeasureEDP: engineeringdemand param.DM: damagemeasureDV: decisionvariableSelectO, DO: locationD: designFacilityinfoDecision-makingPBWEPBEE
  • 7. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NYPresentation outline7• Overview of the Performance Based WindEngineering (PBWE) procedure.• Models for tall buildings and the assessment ofoccupant comfort• Application on a high-rise building• Assessment of the annual probabilities of exceedingthe human perception thresholds• Vibration and occupant comfort issues• Damage analysis• Loss analysis• Conclusions and indications for further research
  • 8. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NY8Tamura,Y.(2009).Windandtallbuildings,ProceedingsoftheFifthEuropean&AfricanConferenceonWindEngineering(EACWE5),Florence,Italy,July19-23,2009..Vibration frequencyAccelerationthresholdsformotionperceptionw(t;z2)Vm(z2)Vm (z1)Vm (z3)V(t;z2)v(t;z2)u(t;z2)XZYθB1B2HLoss of serviceabilityLossofintegrityofnon-structuralelementsMotionperceptionbybuildingoccupantsDisplacementsAccelerationDiscomfort level in terms ofperception thresholds1
  • 9. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NY9Loss of serviceabilityLossofintegrityofnon-structuralelementsMotionperceptionbybuildingoccupantsBashor,R.andKareem,A.(2007)."ProbabilisticPerformanceEvaluationofBuildings:AnOccupantComfortPerspective",Proc.12thInternationalConferenceonWindEngineering,1-6July,Cairns,Australia.Availableonlineathttp://www.nd.edu/~nathaz/[Accessed15June2010].w(t;z2)Vm(z2)Vm (z1)Vm (z3)V(t;z2)v(t;z2)u(t;z2)XZYθB1B2HDiscomfort level in terms ofperception thresholdsUsually Across wind vibrationis critical for comfortThe reference period forcomfort evaluation is 1 year123 1stnatural frequency is dominant4Italian Guidelinesf1ScalarthresholdDisplacementsAcceleration
  • 10. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NY10Case study structureStructure•74 floors•Height H=305m•Footprint B1=B2=50m (square)3dframeontheexternalperimetercentralcoreBracing systemA steel high-rise buildingFinite Element modelFE ModelApproximately•10,000 elements•4,000 nodes•24,000 DOFs
  • 11. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NY11Experimental model ofActionsSpenceS.M.J.,GioffrèM.,GusellaV.,Influenceofhighermodesonthedynamicre-sponseofirregularandregulartallbuildings,Proc.6thInternationalColloquiumonBluffBodiesAerodynamicsandApplications(BBAAVI),Milano,Italy,July20-24,2008.Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel of theCRIACIV in Prato, Italy1:500ScalemodelResponsetime historyTime domain structural analyses(Experimental actions)Time domainanalysesExperimentalforces-30-20-1001020303500 3600 3700 3800 3900 4000aL, aD[cm/s2]t [s]Along Across
  • 12. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NY12( )( )( ) )(),(),,(exp1),(),(222122ωχωρωξξωρω⋅⋅⋅⋅==⋅⋅−⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅=∫∫hSVcdAdAfAhSVchSuumxDA AuumxDDD tt( ))(),h(S)(HVc),h(S)(H),h(S2uu22mxDDD2rr ttttωχωωρωωω⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅=⋅=⋅+−⋅⋅⋅=202220220224111)(ωωνωωωωmHrrmpgrr σ⋅+= rgWind actionspectra(analytical)Response spectraPeak responseFrequency domain responseResponse PeakFactorAnalytical model of the buffeting forces( ) ( ) ( ) ( )( )ωfexpωSωSωS jkuuuuuu kkjjkj−=( )( )( ) ( )( )kj2kj2zjkzVzV2πzzCωωf+−=Cross-spectrum5.00uu2xu200300(x)dxRu1L ⋅== ∫∞zwhere:( )( ) [ ]5/3jujux2uuu/zLf10.3021ω/2π/zLfσ6.686ωS jj⋅⋅+⋅⋅⋅⋅=( )( ) 2fri00u2uu1.75)log(zarctan1.16(n)dnSσ⋅+⋅−=== ∫∞)z(V2πzωfjmj⋅⋅=Autospectrum( ) 3ew(t)2ev(t)1eu(t))j(zmV)jz(t;jV⋅+⋅+⋅+=α10m10zV(z)V⋅=Solari,G.Piccardo,G.(2001).Probabilistic3-Dturbulencemodelingforgustbuffetingofstructures,ProbabilisticEngineeringMechanics,(16),73–86.Turbulentwindvelocityspectra(analytical)Model of the Vortex shedding forces(variable with the angle of attack)1.E+011.E+031.E+051.E+071.E+091.E+110.000 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000PSDn [Hz]Total ForcespectrumTurbulenceforcespectrumVortexsheddingforcespectrum
  • 13. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NY13
  • 14. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NY14
  • 15. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NY15Hazard analysis( ) ( ) θ−⋅θ⋅θθ=θθ−θθ)(101)(1010, exp)()(),(f 10kkVcVcVckVThe roughness length z0 is characterized by alognormal PDF. The mean value μz0 and thestandard deviation σz0 of z0 are expressed asfunction of θ (assuming a slight difference betweenfour sectors, i.e. a mean value of z0 varyingbetween 0.08 m and 0.12 m and a COVz0 equal to0.30).V10 and θ are described by their joint probabilitydistribution functionθV10IM =θV10z0Parameters c(θ) and k(θ) are derived from NIST®wind speed database.(Annual occurrence)Models for tall buildings and the assessment of occupant comfortOf(IM|O)f(IM) f(IP|IM,SP)f(IP)f(EDP|IM,IP,SP)G(EDP)f(DM|EDP)G(DM)f(DV|DM)G(DV)Hazard analysisInteractionanalysisStructural analysis Damageanalysis Loss analysisIM: intensitymeasureIP: interactionparametersEDP:engineeringdemand param.DM:damagemeasureDV: decisionvariableSelectO, DO:locationD:designEnvironment infoDecision-makingDf(SP|D)f(SP)StructuralcharacterizationSP:structuralsystem parametersStructuralsysteminfo
  • 16. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NYFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco Bontempi16Models for tall buildings and the assessment of occupant comfortInteraction analysis IP =grCDCLOf(IM|O)f(IM) f(IP|IM,SP)f(IP)f(EDP|IM,IP,SP)G(EDP)f(DM|EDP)G(DM)f(DV|DM)G(DV)Hazard analysisInteractionanalysisStructural analysis Damageanalysis Loss analysisIM: intensitymeasureIP: interactionparametersEDP:engineeringdemand param.DM:damagemeasureDV: decisionvariableSelectO, DO:locationD:designEnvironment infoDecision-makingDf(SP|D)f(SP)StructuralcharacterizationSP:structuralsystem parametersStructuralsysteminfo
  • 17. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NYFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco Bontempi17Interaction analysis IP =grCDCLOf(IM|O)f(IM) f(IP|IM,SP)f(IP)f(EDP|IM,IP,SP)G(EDP)f(DM|EDP)G(DM)f(DV|DM)G(DV)Hazard analysisInteractionanalysisStructural analysis Damageanalysis Loss analysisIM: intensitymeasureIP: interactionparametersEDP:engineeringdemand param.DM:damagemeasureDV: decisionvariableSelectO, DO:locationD:designEnvironment infoDecision-makingDf(SP|D)f(SP)StructuralcharacterizationSP:structuralsystem parametersStructuralsysteminfoModels for tall buildings and the assessment of occupant comfort462.2507.1265.0 2+ξ+ξ−=µrg( )≤⋅η>⋅η⋅η+−⋅η=σ++++122if650122if4621345221.T..T.)Tln(.)Tln(.windr,ewindr,ewindr,ewindr,egr( )<≤η<≤η−=η +++1690if690100if380631 450rrrr.rr,eq..q..q.rrr σσ=+η (Obtained from time-domainanalyses)The peak response factor gr is characterized by a Gaussian distribution functionrgµrgµVanmarcke (1975)The aerodynamic coefficients CD and CL are characterized by Gaussiandistributions. Mean values are expressed as a function of θ, varying fromthose corresponding to a square shape (for θ = 0) to those corresponding toa rhomboidal shape (for θ = 45); the coefficient of variations of CL and CDare taken equal to 0.07 and 0.05.μCD μCLDCµμCD μCLLCµrrmpgrr σ⋅+=
  • 18. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NYFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco Bontempi18G(EDP) = ∫…∫ G(EDP|IM, IP, SP) · f(IP|IM,SP) · f(IM) · f(SP) · dIP · dIM · dSPMonte Carlo sim(5000 runs)aLpReducedformulationOf(IM|O)f(IM) f(IP|IM,SP)f(IP)f(EDP|IM,IP,SP)G(EDP)f(DM|EDP)G(DM)f(DV|DM)G(DV)Hazard analysisInteractionanalysisStructural analysis Damageanalysis Loss analysisIM: intensitymeasureIP: interactionparametersEDP:engineeringdemand param.DM:damagemeasureDV: decisionvariableSelectO, DO:locationD:designEnvironment infoDecision-makingDf(SP|D)f(SP)StructuralcharacterizationSP:structuralsystem parametersStructuralsysteminfoStructural analysisModels for tall buildings and the assessment of occupant comfortEDP= aLp(peak acceleration in the across wind direction)
  • 19. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NYFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco Bontempi19Risk Curve. EDP= aLp= peak acceleration in the across wind directionThe annual probabilities of exceeding the human perception thresholds forapartment and office building vibrations are 0.0576 and 0.0148 respectively.aLpG(aLp)aLp [mm/s2]Ciampoli, M. & Petrini, F., 2012, Performance-Based Aeolian Risk assessment and reduction for tall buildings, ProbabilisticEngineering Mechanics, 28 (75–84).Models for tall buildings and the assessment of occupant comfort
  • 20. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NY20TMDDesign Parametersγ = mTMD/mtotβ = ωTMD/ ω1ξ* = damping of TMDaLp[mm/s2]n [Hz]β = ξ* =β = ξ* =β = ξ* =β = ξ* =β = ξ* =β = ξ* =β = ξ* =G(aLp)aLp [mm/s2]Parametric analysis Effects on riskγ = 1/150Aeolian Risk reduction using TMDModels for tall buildings and the assessment of occupant comfort
  • 21. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NYPresentation outline21• Overview of the Performance Based WindEngineering (PBWE) procedure.• Models for tall buildings and the assessment ofoccupant comfort• Application on a high-rise building• Assessment of the annual probabilities of exceedingthe human perception thresholds• Vibration and occupant comfort issues• Damage analysis• Loss analysis• Conclusions and indications for further research
  • 22. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NY22Vibration and occupant comfort issuesConsequences of wind induced vibrationsin high rise buildings-Fear and alarm-Discomfort-Reduced task concentration-Dizziness, migraine and nauseaKwok, K.C.S., Hitchcock, P.A. & Burton, M.D., 2009, Perception of vibration and occupant comfort in wind-excited tall buildings, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 97(7-8), 368-380Wind induced vibration−Damage analysis−Loss AnalysisStudies on human perception of vibration and tolerance thresholds-Field experiments and studies in wind-excited buildings-Motion simulator tests-Field experiments conducted in artificially excited buildingsMitigation measures-Modifications to the structural system and/or theaerodynamic shape-Installation of vibration control devices- Negative impressions/ publicity- Eventually they can be an attractionOf(IM|O)f(IM) f(IP|IM,SP)f(IP)f(EDP|IM,IP,SP)G(EDP)f(DM|EDP)G(DM)f(DV|DM)G(DV)Hazard analysisInteractionanalysisStructural analysis Damageanalysis Loss analysisIM: intensitymeasureIP: interactionparametersEDP:engineeringdemand param.DM:damagemeasureDV: decisionvariableSelectO, DO:locationD:designEnvironment infoDecision-makingDf(SP|D)f(SP)StructuralcharacterizationSP:structuralsystem parametersStructuralsysteminfo
  • 23. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NY23Of(IM|O)f(IM) f(IP|IM,SP)f(IP)f(EDP|IM,IP,SP)G(EDP)f(DM|EDP)G(DM)f(DV|DM)G(DV)Hazard analysisInteractionanalysisStructural analysis Damageanalysis Loss analysisIM: intensitymeasureIP: interactionparametersEDP:engineeringdemand param.DM:damagemeasureDV: decisionvariableSelectO, DO:locationD:designEnvironment infoDecision-makingDf(SP|D)f(SP)StructuralcharacterizationSP:structuralsystem parametersStructuralsysteminfoDamage analysisProbabilistic damage analysis: assign a probability distribution to the perceptionthresholdsProcedure: obtain a pdf that assigns at each vibration level a percentage of personsthat experience discomfortKwok, K.C.S., Hitchcock, P.A., 2008. Occupant comfort test using a tall building motion simulator. In: Proceedings of FourthInternational Conference on Advances in Wind and Structures, Jeju, Korea, 28–30 May.Vibration and occupant comfort issues
  • 24. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NY24Of(IM|O)f(IM) f(IP|IM,SP)f(IP)f(EDP|IM,IP,SP)G(EDP)f(DM|EDP)G(DM)f(DV|DM)G(DV)Hazard analysisInteractionanalysisStructural analysis Damageanalysis Loss analysisIM: intensitymeasureIP: interactionparametersEDP:engineeringdemand param.DM:damagemeasureDV: decisionvariableSelectO, DO:locationD:designEnvironment infoDecision-makingDf(SP|D)f(SP)StructuralcharacterizationSP:structuralsystem parametersStructuralsysteminfoLoss analysisProbabilistic loss analysis: assign a cost probability for different damagesIssues: the uncertainty in the cost relies on various factors (e.g. market trend)DMNon structural elementsStructural elementsComfortSafetyServiceabilitySafetyServiceabilityDVDirectIndirect(As a direct damage to the structure)(As a consequence of the damaged structure)IMSPIP EDP DM DV- Direct VS indirect cost that are notpossible to account for in monetary terms.- Initial VS life-cycle cost. In particularregarding the evaluation of retrofittingstrategies that could improve theserviceability performance (e.g. comfort),by means of vibration mitigation.Vibration and occupant comfort issues
  • 25. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NY25Vibration and occupant comfort issuesLoss analysis for comfort – concept (1)Limit states implying damages in structural or non-structural components•Direct damages (tangible): costs necessary forretrofitting the structures•Direct damages (non tangible): costs due to serviceinterruption for restorationUncertainties are on the unitary costs
  • 26. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NY26Vibration and occupant comfort issuesLoss analysis for comfort – concept (2)Limit states implying perception of low structuralquality (e.g. discomfort) but not implying damagesOur proposalCost necessary for improving the quality to anacceptable level, e.g.a.Cost related with a change of the activity in the structure (forexample, change from residential to office)b.Cost of a TMD installation• Direct losses: DL= ATMD * Ac + TMD installation cost• Direct losses due to the activity interruption for retrofitting the TMD’s• Account for possible future gains due to attraction factor
  • 27. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NY27Vibration and occupant comfort issuesLoss analysis for comfort – concept (3)INDIRECT DAMAGESDepending o whether we consider a new or anexisting structure• Structural design beforethe construction• Existing structureno indirect costscosts due toservice interruption
  • 28. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NYWind occurrence28Vibration and occupant comfort issuesLifecycle cost analysisOf(IM|O)f(IM) f(IP|IM,SP)f(IP)f(EDP|IM,IP,SP)G(EDP)f(DM|EDP)G(DM)f(DV|DM)G(DV)Hazard analysisInteractionanalysisStructural analysis Damageanalysis Loss analysisIM: intensitymeasureIP: interactionparametersEDP:engineeringdemand param.DM:damagemeasureDV: decisionvariableSelectO, DO:locationD:designEnvironment infoDecision-makingDf(SP|D)f(SP)StructuralcharacterizationSP:structuralsystem parametersStructuralsysteminfoLoss analysisEconomicinvestmentEconomicvalueLife cycleassessmentMCsimulationWith TMDWith TMD retrofittedEconomiclossesWithout TMD
  • 29. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NYPresentation outline29• Overview of the Performance Based WindEngineering (PBWE) procedure.• Models for tall buildings and the assessment ofoccupant comfort• Application on a high-rise building• Assessment of the annual probabilities of exceedingthe human perception thresholds• Vibration and occupant comfort issues• Damage analysis• Loss analysis• Conclusions and indications for further research
  • 30. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NY• Occupant comfort is an important issue in the design oftall buildings. Due to the stochastic nature of wind actionand wind-induced vibration, deterministic analyses areinadequate for carrying out a comfort assessment.• The insertion of passive control devices can reducethe vibration perception of building occupants. But theeffectiveness of the device must be evaluated in terms ofcost (by computing the probability of exceedingacceptable values of an appropriate DV).• Damage and loss analysis of wind-induced vibrationswill be based on corroborated literature studies thatprovide statistics on the occupant comfort.30Conclusions and indications for further research
  • 31. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NYThank you for your attention31Francesco Petrini, Konstantinos Gkoumas, Franco BontempiSapienza - University of Rome, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale e GeotecnicaAcknowledgements:Prof. Marcello Ciampoli, Prof. Giuliano AugustiThis study is partially supported by StroNGER s.r.l. from the fund “FILAS - POR FESR LAZIO2007/2013 - Support for the research spin-off”.
  • 32. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco BontempiICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NYAdditional slides32Francesco Petrini, Konstantinos Gkoumas, Franco BontempiSapienza - University of Rome, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale e Geotecnica
  • 33. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NYFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco Bontempi33Models for tall buildings and the assessment of occupant comfortInteraction analysis IP =grCDCLOf(IM|O)f(IM) f(IP|IM,SP)f(IP)f(EDP|IM,IP,SP)G(EDP)f(DM|EDP)G(DM)f(DV|DM)G(DV)Hazard analysisInteractionanalysisStructural analysis Damageanalysis Loss analysisIM: intensitymeasureIP: interactionparametersEDP:engineeringdemand param.DM:damagemeasureDV: decisionvariableSelectO, DO:locationD:designEnvironment infoDecision-makingDf(SP|D)f(SP)StructuralcharacterizationSP:structuralsystem parametersStructuralsysteminforrmpgrr σ⋅+=)T(log.)T(logwindewindegr⋅η+⋅η=µ257702 Davenport(1983)Reliable results for a broadrange of processes
  • 34. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NYFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco Bontempi34Interaction analysis IP =grCDCLOf(IM|O)f(IM) f(IP|IM,SP)f(IP)f(EDP|IM,IP,SP)G(EDP)f(DM|EDP)G(DM)f(DV|DM)G(DV)Hazard analysisInteractionanalysisStructural analysis Damageanalysis Loss analysisIM: intensitymeasureIP: interactionparametersEDP:engineeringdemand param.DM:damagemeasureDV: decisionvariableSelectO, DO:locationD:designEnvironment infoDecision-makingDf(SP|D)f(SP)StructuralcharacterizationSP:structuralsystem parametersStructuralsysteminforrmpgrr σ⋅+=)T(log.)T(logwindewindegr⋅η+⋅η=µ257702 Davenport(1983)Reliable results for a broadrange of processes- In the Davenport formulation the peak factor does not depend on the bandwidth of the stochastic process.- Alternative formulations consider this dependence.( )≤⋅η>⋅η⋅η+−⋅η=σ++++122if650122if4621345221.T..T.)Tln(.)Tln(.windr,ewindr,ewindr,ewindr,egr)ln(2577.0)ln(2,,windrewindregTTr⋅η+⋅η=µ++Vanmarcke(1975)Models for tall buildings and the assessment of occupant comfort
  • 35. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NYFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco Bontempi35Interaction analysis IP =grCDCLOf(IM|O)f(IM) f(IP|IM,SP)f(IP)f(EDP|IM,IP,SP)G(EDP)f(DM|EDP)G(DM)f(DV|DM)G(DV)Hazard analysisInteractionanalysisStructural analysis Damageanalysis Loss analysisIM: intensitymeasureIP: interactionparametersEDP:engineeringdemand param.DM:damagemeasureDV: decisionvariableSelectO, DO:locationD:designEnvironment infoDecision-makingDf(SP|D)f(SP)StructuralcharacterizationSP:structuralsystem parametersStructuralsysteminforrmpgrr σ⋅+=)T(log.)T(logwindewindegr⋅η+⋅η=µ257702 Davenport(1983)Reliable results for a broadrange of processes- In the Davenport formulation the peak factor does not depend on the bandwidth of the stochastic process.- Alternative formulations consider this dependence.( )≤⋅η>⋅η⋅η+−⋅η=σ++++122if650122if4621345221.T..T.)Tln(.)Tln(.windr,ewindr,ewindr,ewindr,egr)ln(2577.0)ln(2,,windrewindregTTr⋅η+⋅η=µ++Vanmarcke(1975)Models for tall buildings and the assessment of occupant comfortrR12rB2rR22n*Srrn (Hz)rR12rB2rR22n*Srrn (Hz)Background(broad band process)Resonant(narrow bandprocess)Lightly dampedbuildingsHighly dampedbuildings
  • 36. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NYFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco Bontempi36Interaction analysis IP =grCDCLOf(IM|O)f(IM) f(IP|IM,SP)f(IP)f(EDP|IM,IP,SP)G(EDP)f(DM|EDP)G(DM)f(DV|DM)G(DV)Hazard analysisInteractionanalysisStructural analysis Damageanalysis Loss analysisIM: intensitymeasureIP: interactionparametersEDP:engineeringdemand param.DM:damagemeasureDV: decisionvariableSelectO, DO:locationD:designEnvironment infoDecision-makingDf(SP|D)f(SP)StructuralcharacterizationSP:structuralsystem parametersStructuralsysteminfoModels for tall buildings and the assessment of occupant comfortrR12rB2rR22n*Srrn (Hz)rR12rB2rR22n*Srrn (Hz)Background(broad band process)Resonant(narrow bandprocess)Lightly dampedbuildingsHighly dampedbuildingsTherefore, the bandwidthparameter, and also the responsepeak factor must depend on thestructural damping
  • 37. Damageandlossevaluationintheperformance-basedwindengineeringICOSSAR 201311thInternational Conference on Structural Safety & ReliabilityJune 16-20, Columbia University, New York, NYFrancesco PetriniKonstantinos GkoumasFranco Bontempi37Interaction analysis IP =grCDCLOf(IM|O)f(IM) f(IP|IM,SP)f(IP)f(EDP|IM,IP,SP)G(EDP)f(DM|EDP)G(DM)f(DV|DM)G(DV)Hazard analysisInteractionanalysisStructural analysis Damageanalysis Loss analysisIM: intensitymeasureIP: interactionparametersEDP:engineeringdemand param.DM:damagemeasureDV: decisionvariableSelectO, DO:locationD:designEnvironment infoDecision-makingDf(SP|D)f(SP)StructuralcharacterizationSP:structuralsystem parametersStructuralsysteminfoModels for tall buildings and the assessment of occupant comfort462.2507.1265.0 2+ξ+ξ−=µrg( )≤⋅η>⋅η⋅η+−⋅η=σ++++122if650122if4621345221.T..T.)Tln(.)Tln(.windr,ewindr,ewindr,ewindr,egr( )<≤η<≤η−=η +++1690if690100if380631 450rrrr.rr,eq..q..q.rrr σσ=+η (Obtained from time-domainanalyses)The peak response factor gr is characterized by a Gaussian distributionfunctionrgµrgµVanmarcke (1975)