Risk-benefit-based design decisions for low-probability/high consequence earthquake events in Mid-America

Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 56-70

  Ellingwood, Bruce R ^a   Wen, Yi Kwei ^b  

^a Georgia Institute of Technology   (United States)

^b United States of America   (United States)

Author keywords

Buildings (codes); Civil infrastructure; Consequence based engineering; Design; Earthquakes; Economic loss; Life cycle cost; Limit states; Probability; Reliability; Risk; Seismology; Statistics; Structural engineering

Indexed keywords

BUILDING CODES; BUILDINGS; CIVIL ENGINEERING; DECISION THEORY; EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS; EARTHQUAKES; LIFE CYCLE; PROBABILITY; RELIABILITY; RISKS; SEISMOLOGY; STATISTICS;

CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE; CONSEQUENCE BASED ENGINEERING; ECONOMIC LOSS; LIFE CYCLE COST; LIMIT STATES;

STRUCTURAL DESIGN;

EID: 19044376299     PISSN: 13650556     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pse.191     Document Type: Review

References (59)

1. Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC): NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulation for new buildings and other structures. Report FEMA 302, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC. 1998.
2. Ellingwood B. Issues related to structural aging in probabilistic risk analysis of nuclear power plants. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 1998: 62(3): 171-183.
3. Ellingwood B. Acceptable risk bases for design of structures. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials 2001: 3(2): 170-179.
4. Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA): Ranking of US. Metropolitan Areas with Future Estimated Earthquake Losses. FEMA, Washington, DC. 2001.
5. Wen YK & Foutch DA. Proposed statistical and reliability framework for comparing and evaluating predictive models for evaluation and design and critical issues in developing such framework. Report No. SACIBD-97103, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, California. 1997.
6. Abrams D, Elnashai AE & Beavers JE. A new engineering paradigm: consequence-based engineering. Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL (http://mae.ce. uiuc.edu). 2002.
7. Wen YK, Ellingwood BR & Veneziano D.. Uncertainty modeling white paper. Report FD-2, Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL (http://mae.ce. uiuc.edu). 2002.
8. Wen YK, Ellingwood BR & Bracci J. Vulnerability function framework for consequence-based engineering. Report DS-4, Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL (http://mae.ce.uiuc.edu). 2004.
9. Elms DE.. Risk assessment, In: Blockely D. (ed.), Engineering Safety Wiley-Interscience, 1992. pp. 28-46.
10. Ellingwood B. Earthquake risk for building structures. Reliability Engineering, and System Safety 2001: 7493: 251-262.
11. Algermissen ST & Perkins DM.. A probabilistic estimate of maximum acceleration in rock in the contiguous United States. Open File Report 76-416, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO. 1976.
12. Frankel AD. et al. Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps. UGSG Open File Report 02-420. US Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.
13. Shome N & Cornell CA. Normalization and scaling accelerograms for nonlinear structural analysis. Proceedings of 6th US National Conference on Earthquake Engneering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA. 1998.
14. Stein S, Tomasello J & Newman A. Should Memphis Build for California's Earthquakes? Eos, 84(19), May 2003, pp: 177, 184-185.
15. Frankel AD. Comments on Should Memphis build for California's earthquakes? by Stein et al., Eos. 84(29), July, 2003, pp. 271-273.
16. Searer GR & Freeman SA. Unintended consequences of code modification. Proceedings 7th US National Conferences on Earthquake Engineering, Boston Mass. 2002.
17. Wen YK & Kang YJ. Minimum building life-cycle cost design criteria. I: methodology. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2001: 127(3): 330-337.
18. Wen YK & Kang YJ. Minimum building life-cycle cost design criteria. II: applications. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2001: 127(3): 338-346.
19. Wen YK & Wu CL. Uniform hazard ground motions for mid-America cities. Earthquake Spectra 2001: 17(2): 359-384.
20. Singhal A & Kiremidjian AS. Method for probabilistic evaluation of seismic structural damage. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1996: 122(12): 1459-1467.
21. Singhal A & Kiremidjian AS. Bayesian updating of fragilities with application to RC frames. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1998: 124(8): 922-929.
22. Song J & Ellingwood B. Seismic reliability of special moment steel frames with welded connections II. Journal of Structure Engineering (ASCE) 1999: 125(4): 372-384.
23. Song J & Ellingwood BR. Probabilistic modeling of steel moment frames with welded connections. Engineering Journal, AISC 1999: 36(3): 129-137.
24. Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO & Foutch DA. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management Agency steel moment frame guidelines. Journal of Structural Engneering (ASCE) 2002: 128(4): 526-533.
25. Lee K & Foutch DA. Seismic performance evaluation of pre-Northridge steel frame buildings with brittle connections. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2002: 128(4): 546-555.
26. Yun S-Y, Hamburger RO, Cornell CA & Foutch DA. Seismic performance evaluation for steel moment frames. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2002: 128(4): 534-545.
27. Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Lee J & Naganuma T. Statistical analysis of fragility curves. Journal of Engineering Mechnics (ASCE) 2000: 126(12): 1224-1231.
28. Der Kiureghian A. Measures of structural safety under imperfect states of knowledge. Journal of Structural Engineering. (ASCE) 1989: 115(5): 1119-1140.
29. Gardoni P, Der Kiureghian A & Mosalam KM. Probabilistic capacity models and fragility estimates for reinforced concrete columns based on experimental observations. Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE) 2002: 128(10): 1024-1038.
30. Ellingwood B. Validation studies of seismic PRAs Nuclear Engineering and Design 1991: 123(2): 189-196.
31. Whitman RV, Biggs JM, Brennan JE, Cornell CA, de Neufville RL & Vanmarcke EH. Seismic design decision analysis. Journal Structural Division (ASCE) 1975: 101(5): 1067-1084.
32. Priestley MJN. Displacement-based seismic assessment of existing reinforced concrete buildings. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Engineering Earthquake Engineering 1996: 29(4): 256-272.
33. Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA-273 NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. 1997.
34. McKenna F & Fenves GL. OpenSees command language manual. University of California, Berkeley (opensees.ce.berkeley.edu). 2001.
35. Imam RL & Conover WJ. Small sample sensitivity analysis techniques for computer models with an application to risk assessment. Communication in Statistics Part A - Theory and Methods 1980: A9 (17): 1749-1842.
36. Rubenstein RY & Melamed B. Modern simulation and modelling, Wiley New York, NY. 1998.
37. Song J & Ellingwood B. Seismic reliability of special moment steel frames with welded connections I. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1999: 125(4): 357-371.
38. Krawinkler H & Seneviratna GD. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Engineering Structures 1998: 20(4-6): 452-464.
39. Gupta A & Krawinkler H. Behavior of ductile SMRFs at various seismic hazard levels. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2000a: 126(1): 98-107.
40. Gupta A & Krawinkler H. Estimation of seismic drift demands for frame structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2000b: 29: 1287-1305.
41. Vamvatsikos D & Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002: 31 (3): 491-514.
42. Rosenblueth E. Towards optimum design through building codes. Journal Structural Division (ASCE) 1976: 102: 591-607.
43. Frangopol DM. Structural optimization using reliability concepts. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1985: 111: 2288-2301.
44. Chang S & Shinozuka M. Life-cycle cost analysis with natural hazard risk. Journal of Infrastructure Systems (ASCE) 1996: 2 (3): 118-126.
45. Kanda J & Shah H. Engineering role in failure cost evaluation for buildings. Structural Safety 1997: 19(1): 79-90.
46. Shinozuka M. et al. Advances in earthquake loss estimation and applications to Memphis, TN. Earthquake Spectra, EERI 1997: 13(4): 739-757.
47. National Institute of Building Sciences. HAZUS earthquake loss estimation methodology, NIBS Document No. 5201, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC. 1997.
48. Porter KA, Kiremidjian AS & LeGrue JS. Assembly based vulnerability of buildings and its use in performance evaluation. Earthquake Spectra, EERI 2001: 17(2): 291-312.
49. Ellingwood B, Corotis RB, Boland J & Jones NP. Assessing the cost of dam failure. Journal Water Resources Planning and Management (ASCE) N.P. 1993: 119(1): 64-82.
50. ATC 13. Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA. 1985.
51. Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA). A Benefit-Cost Model for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings Vol. I and II, FEMA-227 and 228, Washington DC. FEMA, 1992.
52. Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA). Typical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. FEMA-156, Washington DC. 1994.
53. Rackwitz R. Optimization and risk acceptance based on the life quality index. Structural Safety 2002: 24(2-4): 297-331.
54. Ditlevsen O. Decision modeling and acceptance criteria. Structural Safety 2003: 25(2): 165-191.
55. Ang AH-S & De Leon D. Determination of optimal target reliabilities for design and upgrading of structures. Structural Safety 1997: 19(1): 91-103.
56. Collins KR, Wen YK & Foutch DA. Dual-level design: a reliability-based methodology. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1996: 25: 1433-1467,
57. Building Construction Cost Data (BCCD). 54th Annual Edition. 1996.
58. French S. Memphis Test Bed Inventory. MAE Center Project DS-2 Report. 2004.
59. Yeo GL & Cornell CA. Building-specific seismic fatality estimation methodology. Proceedings of Ninth International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering (ICASP9), San Francisco, California, July 2003: 765-771.