PEER Undergraduate Seismic Competition

2006 PEER SLC Summer Retreat Dongdong Chang

• Provide Civil/Structural Engineering Undergraduates with a Hands on Experience with Seismic Design– Other Competitions: Steel Bridge and

Concrete Canoe

• Build Awareness of the Versatile Activities of PEER amongst Undergrads– Future Graduate Students

• Increase Value and Role of SLC

Thrust for Competition

• Design a Cost Effective 15-Level Commercial Office Structure to Resist Severe Earthquake Loading– Kobe, Northridge, El Centro

• Design Must Meet the Following Needs:– Economic (Maximize Exterior Openings)– Architectural (Not a box like structure)– Zoning Constraints (Setbacks)– A Given Load Distribution– Deformation Limitations

Competition Objectives

• First Competition Held on May 12th, 2004 at PEER NSF Site Visit (Richmond Field Station)– 5 Teams from PEER Competed– Approximately 1.5 Years of Planning/Development of

this Event on Behalf of PEER SLC Members

• MCEER Competition, Based on PEER Rules, Held on January 29th, 2005

• Second Competition Held on April 30th, 2005 at PEER Annual Meeting (Walnut Creek)– 6 Teams Competed (1 from MAE and 1 from MCEER)– Add performance prediction in judging rules

Competition History

Competing Teams with Models UCI Presentation

2004 Competition

• UC Irvine Girl’s Team – 1st place

• UC Irvine Boy’s Team – 2nd place

• UC San Diego – 3rd place

• UC Davis – 4th place

• Oregon State Univ. – 5th place

2004 Competitors

1.25 lb

1.25 lb

1.25 lb

1.25 lb

1.25 lb

1.25 lb

1.25 lb8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.25 lb9

1.25 lb10

2 lb11

2 lb12

2 lb13

2 lb14

2 lb15Floor Level

2004 Competition

Structural Loading

0.01 0.1 1 10Period (s)

0

10

20

30

SpectralAcceleration

(m /s2)

ElCentroNorthridgeKobe

Acceleration Response Spectra for PEER UndergraduateSeism ic Com petition Earthquake Motions (5% Dam ping)

Base Motions

Roof Acceleration

Base Acceleration

rationRoofAccele

BaseDispRoofDispeCoefPerformanc

max

max

dtdtrationBaseAcceleBaseDisp

dtdtrationRoofAcceleRoofDisp

Measured

Structure Roof Acceleration

Shaker Base Acceleration

Computed

Small PerformanceCoef is good!

Base Isolation – UC Irvine

A Busy Test Setup

2004 Competition – Testing Day

NSF Site Review Committee Members Watching UCSD Model

Competing Teams with their Models

2005 Competition

First Place - UCD Team #2

• UC Davis Team #2 – 1st place

• Florida A&M University (MCEER) – 2nd place

• UC Berkeley – 3rd place

• UC Davis Team #2 – 4th place

• Oregon State Univ. – 5th place

• Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (MAE) – 6th place

2005 Competitors

2005 Competition -- Changes

• Add a 12 – 14 lbs Roof Weight to Structure

• Add Structural Seismic Performance Prediction in the Scoring Criteria:– PerformanceCoef. – 75%– Performance Prediction – 25%

12 to 20 lb

1.25 lb

1.25 lb

1.25 lb

1.25 lb

1.25 lb

1.25 lb

1.25 lb8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.25 lb9

1.25 lb10

2 lb11

2 lb12

2 lb13

2 lb14

2 lb15Floor Level

Add Roof Weight/Sculpture in 2005 Competition.

2005 Competition

Structural Loading

0 1 2 3x, Acceleration (g)

0

1

2

3

4

5

f(x

)

Team 1( = 0.8g, = 0.1g)

Team 2( = 1.0g, = 0.5g)

Performance Prediction

Shake Table and DAQ

NSF Site Review Committee Members Watching the UCSD

Model

Audience

2005 Competition – Testing Day

• Scoring Criteria: Validity of Using PerformanceCoef. As the

Major Criteria for Seismic Performance

• Base Isolation: Almost All Teams Used Base Isolation

System and Some of The Displacement Drift Is Not Reasonable Nor Realistic

Problems from 2005 Competition

Plan of 2006 Seismic Competition

• April 20th – 21st, Mascone Center, SF.

• Rules Changes Based on Feedback and Limitations From 2005 Competition.

• New Seismic Chairs Committee.

• Teams National Wide: PEER, MAE, MCEER.

• A New Performance-Based Scoring Method

• Base Isolation Displacement is Limited

• Model Dimensions Limitation: – Height < ~1.5m

– Total Plan Area < 1.0 ~ 3.0 m2

• Allowed:– Seismic Lateral Force Resistance Systems

• Add Two Special Awards: – Spirit of The Competition

– Structural Innovation

2006 Competition Rules Changes

Performance-Based Scoring Method

Three Primary Components:• Annual Income • Annual Initial Building Cost• Annual Seismic Cost

The Structure Performance is Measured by Annual Revenue

Annual Revenue = Annual Income –

Annual Initial Building Cost – Annual Seismic Cost

Structure Performance Measurement

• Annual Seismic Cost– Three Accelerometers at the Roof, the First Floor,

and the Shake Table Base• EDP1: Peak Relative Drift Between Roof and First Floor

(Lost Caused by Structural Damage)

• EDP2: Peak Absolute Roof Acc.

(Lost Caused by Equipment Damage)

– Annual Economical Damage = Sum of Economical Lost of the Two EDP for the Ground Motion Divided by Return Period of the Ground Motion

– Annual Seismic Cost = Sum of The Annual Economical Damage for the Three Ground Motions

• Oral presentation

• Poster

• Final scoring (the annual revenue)

• Architecture

• Workmanship

• Special awards

2006 Competition Scoring

Questions?