Multi-hazard upgrade decision making for critical infrastructure based on life-cycle cost criteria

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Volumn 40, Issue 10, 2011, Pages 1163-1179

  Jalayer, F ^a   Asprone, D ^a   Prota, A ^a   Manfredi, G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NAPLES FEDERICO II   (Italy)

Author keywords

Life cycle cost analysis; Risk analysis; Upgrade decision making

Indexed keywords

COST ACCOUNTING; COSTS; CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURES; DECISION MAKING; HAZARDS; LIFE CYCLE; OCEAN STRUCTURES; PUBLIC WORKS; RETROFITTING; RISK ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

DECISION-MAKING PROBLEM; EXISTING STRUCTURE; LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS; LIFE SAFETY; LIFECYCLE COSTS; LIMIT STATE; NUMERICAL EXAMPLE; SEISMIC HAZARDS; SERVICE LIFETIME; STRUCTURAL MODELING; UPGRADE DECISION MAKING;

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; LOADING; NUMERICAL METHOD; PROBABILITY; RISK FACTOR; SEISMIC HAZARD; STRUCTURAL RESPONSE;

EID: 79960581284     PISSN: 00988847     EISSN: 10969845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.1081     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Wen YK. Reliability and performance-based design. Structure Safety 2001; 23:407-428.
2. Faber MH, Rackwitz R. Sustainable decision making in Civil Engineering. Structural Engineering International 2004; 3:237-242.
3. Yeo G, Cornell CA. Post-quake decision analysis using dynamic programming. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2009; 38(1):79-93.
4. Porter KA, Kiremidjian AS, LeGrue JS. Assembly-based vulnerability of buildings and its use in performance evaluation. Earthquake Spectra 2001; 17(2):291-312.
5. Franchin P, Pinto PE, Schotanus MIJ. Seismic loss estimation by efficient simulation. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2006; 10(1):31-44.
6. Goulet CA, Haselton CB, Mitrani-Reiser J, Beck JL, DeierLein GG, Porter KA, Stewart JP. Evaluation of the seismic performance of a code-conforming reinforced concrete frame building-From seismic hazard to collapse safety and economic losses. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36:1973-1997.
7. Carino NJ, Lew HS. Summary of NIST/GSA workshop on application of seismic rehabilitation technologies to mitigate blast-induced progressive collapse. NISTIR 6831, Oakland, September 2001.
8. Asprone D, Jalayer F, Prota A, Manfredi G. Proposal of a probabilistic model for multi-hazard risk assessment of structures in seismic zones subjected to blast for the limit state of collapse. Structural Safety 2010; 32(1):25-34.
9. Yeo G, Cornell CA. Equivalent constant rates for post-quake seismic decision making. Structural Safety 2009; 31(5):443. DOI: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.11.002.
10. Yeo G, Cornell CA. A probabilsitic framework for quantification of aftershock ground-motion hazard in California: methodology and parametric study. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2009; 38(1):45-60.
11. Jalayer F, Cornell CA. Alternative nonlinear demand estimation methods for probability-based seismic assessments. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2009; 38(8):951-972.
12. Cornell CA, Krawinkler H.. Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News 2000; 3(2):1-3 (Spring).
13. Miranda E, Aslani GH. Probabilistic response assessment for building-specific loss estimation PEER-2003/03. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 2003; 49 (400/P33/2003-03).
14. Mander JB, Priestley JN, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering 1998; 114(8):1804-1826.
15. Asprone D, Jalayer F, Prota A, Manfredi G. Probabilistic assessment of blast-induced progressive collapse in a seismic retrofitted RC structure. Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 12-17 October 2008.
16. Ellingwood BR. Mitigating risk from abnormal loads and progressive collapse. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 2006; 20(4):315-323.
17. Pate-Cornell E. Quantitative safety goals for risk management of industrial facilities. Structural Safety 1994; 13(3):145-157.