1

**Damage & Loss (PELICUN) / Re: Comparison between the Results of Pelicun and PACT**

« **on:**July 03, 2022, 04:37:53 PM »

Hi Adam,

First and foremost, I am so grateful for such a valuable and detailed response. Also, I appreciate the new version with the added EDPs.

Moreover, I apologize for replying too late. I had a hectic month and wanted to try all the mentioned points before reaching out.

I thoroughly checked all the options and input data and examined different cases for a 6-story eccentrically braced frame. To make a fair comparison between PACT and PELICUN, I tried to use the same input data as follows:

a- The components' quantities are deterministic in both software (no dispersion was considered for the components).

b- In PELICUN, the number of blocks for each component is calculated by the total quantity divided by the unit quantity of the component defined in PACT. For example, if the total quantity of “B.20.22.001" is 1500 square feet (SF), the unit of this component in PACT is "30 SF". Therefore, the number of blocks in PELICUN was calculated to be 1500/30=50.

c- Similar fragilities for collapse and excessive RID were introduced (median and dispersion).

d- "Mont-Carlo" simulation with 1000 realization was used in both software.

e- Non-directional conversion factor equal to 1.2 was assigned in PACT (the default value in PELICUN).

f- IN PACT, the demands of the prototype subjected to a set of 22 ground motions were provided, while in PELICUN the median and logarithmic standard deviation of these demands were introduced. The log-stdev of each set of demands was calculated by first getting the natural logarithm of the set of 22 EDPs and then calculating the standard deviation of this set (please confirm if it is correct).

g- In PACT, the maximum residual drifts of the building (among all the stories) subjected to the set of 22 ground motions were provided. In PELICUN the ensemble median of the peak residual story drift of each story subjected to the set of 22 ground motions was introduced (similar to the other EDPs). Therefore, there is a difference in terms of providing the input data of the residual drift between PACT and PELICUN.

I examined different cases, and here are some of the findings:

Case-1: On the first try, I tried to make a simpler model for comparison, therefore I only included 2-3 components in the CMP_marginals, and excluded excessive RID and collapse cases by assigning a large number to the median of the corresponding fragilities. If the "Economies of scale" is set to "True", "True" (similar to PACT), the analysis fails (probably because no realization leads to neither collapse nor excessive drift), but if this option is set to "True", "False", the analysis converges. As can be seen in the figure, there is a small difference between CDFs of the repair cost in terms of uncertainty.

Case-2: Similar to case-1, but the collapse, and excessive RID are included. The "Economies of scale" was set to "True", "True" (similar to PACT). As shown in the figure, there is a break in the CDF of the repair cost. This break is due to the large difference between the total repair cost of the repairable cases and the replacement cost (irreparable and collapse cases). The difference between the height of the two horizontal lines infers the probability of either collapse or irreparable damage. It can be seen that PELICUN predicts a higher probability for those scenarios (which is mainly due to excessive RID and not collapse and maybe because of the different ways of providing the residual drift in the two software as mentioned in part "g" above).

Case-3: The remaining components were added, and probabilistic quantities were used for components. Excessive RID and collapse were included in the analysis and the "Economies of scale" was set to "True", "True".

Consequently, two differences can be observed between the results:

1- the probability of irreparable damage in PACT and PELICUN seems to be different (In the first post, such a difference was not observed because the prototype was a self-centering system with almost zero residual drift).

2- The uncertainty seems to be slightly different as shown in Case-1.

Please let me know if I am missing something.

Again, I appreciate your precious work, and I will be glad if I can do any help.

Pooya,

First and foremost, I am so grateful for such a valuable and detailed response. Also, I appreciate the new version with the added EDPs.

Moreover, I apologize for replying too late. I had a hectic month and wanted to try all the mentioned points before reaching out.

I thoroughly checked all the options and input data and examined different cases for a 6-story eccentrically braced frame. To make a fair comparison between PACT and PELICUN, I tried to use the same input data as follows:

a- The components' quantities are deterministic in both software (no dispersion was considered for the components).

b- In PELICUN, the number of blocks for each component is calculated by the total quantity divided by the unit quantity of the component defined in PACT. For example, if the total quantity of “B.20.22.001" is 1500 square feet (SF), the unit of this component in PACT is "30 SF". Therefore, the number of blocks in PELICUN was calculated to be 1500/30=50.

c- Similar fragilities for collapse and excessive RID were introduced (median and dispersion).

d- "Mont-Carlo" simulation with 1000 realization was used in both software.

e- Non-directional conversion factor equal to 1.2 was assigned in PACT (the default value in PELICUN).

f- IN PACT, the demands of the prototype subjected to a set of 22 ground motions were provided, while in PELICUN the median and logarithmic standard deviation of these demands were introduced. The log-stdev of each set of demands was calculated by first getting the natural logarithm of the set of 22 EDPs and then calculating the standard deviation of this set (please confirm if it is correct).

g- In PACT, the maximum residual drifts of the building (among all the stories) subjected to the set of 22 ground motions were provided. In PELICUN the ensemble median of the peak residual story drift of each story subjected to the set of 22 ground motions was introduced (similar to the other EDPs). Therefore, there is a difference in terms of providing the input data of the residual drift between PACT and PELICUN.

I examined different cases, and here are some of the findings:

Case-1: On the first try, I tried to make a simpler model for comparison, therefore I only included 2-3 components in the CMP_marginals, and excluded excessive RID and collapse cases by assigning a large number to the median of the corresponding fragilities. If the "Economies of scale" is set to "True", "True" (similar to PACT), the analysis fails (probably because no realization leads to neither collapse nor excessive drift), but if this option is set to "True", "False", the analysis converges. As can be seen in the figure, there is a small difference between CDFs of the repair cost in terms of uncertainty.

Case-2: Similar to case-1, but the collapse, and excessive RID are included. The "Economies of scale" was set to "True", "True" (similar to PACT). As shown in the figure, there is a break in the CDF of the repair cost. This break is due to the large difference between the total repair cost of the repairable cases and the replacement cost (irreparable and collapse cases). The difference between the height of the two horizontal lines infers the probability of either collapse or irreparable damage. It can be seen that PELICUN predicts a higher probability for those scenarios (which is mainly due to excessive RID and not collapse and maybe because of the different ways of providing the residual drift in the two software as mentioned in part "g" above).

Case-3: The remaining components were added, and probabilistic quantities were used for components. Excessive RID and collapse were included in the analysis and the "Economies of scale" was set to "True", "True".

Consequently, two differences can be observed between the results:

1- the probability of irreparable damage in PACT and PELICUN seems to be different (In the first post, such a difference was not observed because the prototype was a self-centering system with almost zero residual drift).

2- The uncertainty seems to be slightly different as shown in Case-1.

Please let me know if I am missing something.

Again, I appreciate your precious work, and I will be glad if I can do any help.

Pooya,