1

**Damage & Loss (PELICUN) / Re: EDP definition**

« **on:**June 06, 2020, 11:20:41 PM »

Thank you for your clarification, I have the following several questions and could you please help me with them?

(1) If the PID in orthogonal directions (North-South and East-West) are the same for a one-story building, should I define the same numbers for 1-PID-1-1 and 1-PID-1-2 (as shown in the attached photo) or just define 1-PID-1-1 without defining 1-PID-1-2. Similar confusions for PFA.

(2) For RID, I can have the following two options:

(a) Define the residual story drift ratio for each story and in each direction (N-S and E-W). For example, if it is a two-story building. Then I have to define 1-RID-1-1, 1-RID-1-2, 1-RID-2-1, 1-RID-2-2.

(b) Obtain the maximum residual story drift of the whole building and define it as 1-RID-1-1. For example, if it is a two-story building, then I can simply define 1-RID-1-1 and 1-RID-1-2 as the maximum residual story drift.

Am I correct for the aforementioned cases (a) and (b)?

(3) When I ran loss assessment using Pelicun for a one-story building, I have eight EDPs. They are 1-PID-1-1, 1-PID-1-2, 1-PFA-0-1, 1-PFA-0-2, 1-PFA-1-1, 1-PFA-1-2, 1-RID-1-1, 1-RID-1-2. I defined the EDPs using the results from 40 nonlinear response history analyses, but I input the same numbers for the EPD in two orthogonal directions because the building has exactly the same lateral-force resisting systems in both directions. For example, I use the same numbers for 1-PID-1-1 and 1-PID-1-2. However, the Pelicun gives me the following warning:

"The number of samples is not sufficient to estimate the correlation matrix. We assume uncorrelated EDPs".

According to my understanding, 40 NRHAs is enough to estimate the correlation matrix, but I still get this warning.

(1) If the PID in orthogonal directions (North-South and East-West) are the same for a one-story building, should I define the same numbers for 1-PID-1-1 and 1-PID-1-2 (as shown in the attached photo) or just define 1-PID-1-1 without defining 1-PID-1-2. Similar confusions for PFA.

(2) For RID, I can have the following two options:

(a) Define the residual story drift ratio for each story and in each direction (N-S and E-W). For example, if it is a two-story building. Then I have to define 1-RID-1-1, 1-RID-1-2, 1-RID-2-1, 1-RID-2-2.

(b) Obtain the maximum residual story drift of the whole building and define it as 1-RID-1-1. For example, if it is a two-story building, then I can simply define 1-RID-1-1 and 1-RID-1-2 as the maximum residual story drift.

Am I correct for the aforementioned cases (a) and (b)?

(3) When I ran loss assessment using Pelicun for a one-story building, I have eight EDPs. They are 1-PID-1-1, 1-PID-1-2, 1-PFA-0-1, 1-PFA-0-2, 1-PFA-1-1, 1-PFA-1-2, 1-RID-1-1, 1-RID-1-2. I defined the EDPs using the results from 40 nonlinear response history analyses, but I input the same numbers for the EPD in two orthogonal directions because the building has exactly the same lateral-force resisting systems in both directions. For example, I use the same numbers for 1-PID-1-1 and 1-PID-1-2. However, the Pelicun gives me the following warning:

"The number of samples is not sufficient to estimate the correlation matrix. We assume uncorrelated EDPs".

According to my understanding, 40 NRHAs is enough to estimate the correlation matrix, but I still get this warning.