Life cycle sustainability assessment of RC buildings in seismic regions

Engineering Structures

Volumn 110, Issue , 2016, Pages 347-362

  Gencturk, Bora ^a   Hossain, Kazi ^a   Lahourpour, Sirvan ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON   (United States)

^b IMAM KHOMEINI INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

Author keywords

Cost estimation; Environmental and social impacts; Life cycle analysis; Performance based earthquake engineering

Indexed keywords

CONCRETE BUILDINGS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST ENGINEERING; COST ESTIMATING; DAMAGE DETECTION; DISASTERS; EARTHQUAKES; ENGINEERING GEOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; GEOPHYSICS; HAZARDS; LIFE CYCLE; REINFORCED CONCRETE;

CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURES; COST ESTIMATIONS; ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS; LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS; LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS; LIFE-CYCLE PERFORMANCE; PERFORMANCE-BASED EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; SOCIAL IMPACT;

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

CONCRETE STRUCTURE; EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; LIFE CYCLE; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; REINFORCED CONCRETE; SEISMIC RESPONSE; STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS; SUSTAINABILITY;

EID: 84951757834     PISSN: 01410296     EISSN: 18737323     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.11.037     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Willard B. The sustainability advantage: seven business case benefits of a triple bottom line (conscientious commerce) 2002, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia.
2. SETAC. Guidelines for life-cycle assessment: a code of practice. Based on a Workshop at Sesimbra, Portugal, March 31-April 3 1993, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Brussels and Pensacola, Florida, USA; 1993.
3. Chang S.E., Shinozuka M. Life-cycle cost analysis with natural hazard risk. J Infrastruct Syst 1996, 2(3):118-126.
4. Wen Y.K., Shinozuka M. Cost-effectiveness in active structural control. Eng Struct 1998, 20(3):216-221.
5. Kohno M, Collins KR. Merging life cycle cost analysis and performance-based design. In: Eighth ASCE specialty conference on probabilistic mechanics and structural reliability, July 23-26, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA; 2000.
6. Lagaros N.D., Fragiadakis M., Papadrakakis M., Tsompanakis Y. Structural optimization: a tool for evaluating seismic design procedures. Eng Struct 2006, 28(12):1623-1633. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.02.014.
7. Takahashi Y., Kiureghian A.D., Ang A.H.-S. Life-cycle cost analysis based on a renewal model of earthquake occurrences. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2004, 33(7):859-880.
8. Mitropoulou C.C., Lagaros N.D., Papadrakakis M. Life-cycle cost assessment of optimally designed reinforced concrete buildings under seismic actions. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2011, 96(10):1311-1331. 10.1016/j.ress.2011.04.002.
9. Wen Y.K., Kang Y.J. Minimum building life-cycle cost design criteria. I: Methodology. J Struct Eng 2001, 127(3):330-337. 10.1061/(Asce)0733-9445(2001)127:3(330).
10. Wen Y.K., Kang Y.J. Minimum building life-cycle cost design criteria. II: applications. J Struct Eng 2001, 127(3):338-346. 10.1061/(Asce)0733-9445(2001)127:3(338).
11. Kumar R., Gardoni P., Sanchez-Silva M. Effect of cumulative seismic damage and corrosion on the life-cycle cost of reinforced concrete bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2009, 38(7):887-905. 10.1002/eqe.873.
12. Junnila S., Horvath A. Life-cycle environmental effects of an office building. J Infrastruct Syst 2003, 9(4):157-166. 10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2003)9:4(157).
13. Scheuer C., Keoleian G.A., Reppe P. Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design implications. Energy Build 2003, 35(10):1049-1064.
14. Björklund T, Jönsson Å, Tillman A-M. LCA of building frame structures: environmental impact over the life cycle of concrete and steel frames. Report 1997:2. Göteborg, Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology; 1996.
15. Jönsson Å., Björklund T., Tillman A.-M. LCA of concrete and steel building frames. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1998, 3(4):216-224.
16. Johnson T.W. Comparison of environmental impacts of steel and concrete as building materials using the life cycle assessment method 2006, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
17. Frangopol D.M., Liu M. Maintenance and management of civil infrastructure based on condition, safety, optimization, and life-cycle cost. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2007, 3(1):29-41. 10.1080/15732470500253164.
18. Khasreen M.M., Banfill P.F.G., Menzies G.F. Life-cycle assessment and the environmental impact of buildings: a review. Sustainability 2009, 1(3):674-701.
19. Sharma A., Saxena A., Sethi M., Shree V. Life cycle assessment of buildings: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011, 15(1):871-875.
20. Arroyo D, Teran-Gilmore A, Ordaz M. Seismic loss estimation including environmental losses. In: 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, September 24-28, Lisbon, Portugal; 2012.
21. Tapia C, Padgett JE. Examining the integration of sustainability and natural hazard risk mitigation into life cycle analyses of structures. In: 43rd ASCE structures congress, March 29-31, Chicago, Illinois, USA; 2012.
22. Dong Y., Frangopol D.M., Saydam D. Time-variant sustainability assessment of seismically vulnerable bridges subjected to multiple hazards. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2013, 10.1002/eqe.2281.
23. Sarkisian M.P. Design of environmentally responsible structures in regions of high seismic risk. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2013, 1-16. 10.1080/15732479.2012.761249.
24. Goulet C.A., Haselton C.B., Mitrani-Reiser J., Beck J.L., Deierlein G.G., Porter K.A., Stewart J.P. Evaluation of the seismic performance of a code-conforming reinforced-concrete frame building-from seismic hazard to collapse safety and economic losses. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2007, 36(13):1973-1997.
25. Yang T.Y., Moehle J., Stojadinovic B., Der Kiureghian A. Seismic performance evaluation of facilities: methodology and implementation. J Struct Eng 2009, 135(10):1146-1153. 10.1061//asce/0733-9445/2009/135:10/1146.
26. Bachman RE. The ATC 58 project plan for non-structural components. In: Fajfar P, Krawinkler H, editors. Performance-based seismic design: concepts and implementation. Bled, Slovenia; 2004. p. 125-36.
27. Deierlein GG, Krawinkler H, Cornell CA. A framework for performance-based earthquake engineering. In: Pacific conference on earthquake engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand; 2003.
28. Porter KA. An overview of PEER's performance-based earthquake engineering methodology. In: Ninth international conference on applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering (ICASP9), San Francisco, California, USA; 2003.
29. Moehle J, Deierlein GG. A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, August 1-6, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; 2004. Paper No. 679.
30. Pinto PE, Bazzurro P, Elnashai AS, Franchin P, Gencturk B, Gunay S, Haukaas T, Mosalam KM, Vamvatsikos D. Probabilistic performance-based seismic design. International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib), Bulletin No. 68, TG 7.7, Lausanne, Switzerland; 2013.
31. Kramer S.L. Geotechnical earthquake engineering 1996, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA.
32. PEER. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center: NGA database. Available from: [accessed on January 1, 2009]. http://peer.berkeley.edu/nga/.
33. Gencturk B. Life-cycle cost assessment of RC and ECC frames using structural optimization. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2013, 42(1):61-79. 10.1002/eqe.2193.
34. Mitrani-Reiser J. An ounce of prevention: probabilistic loss estimation for performance-based earthquake engineering 2007, Engineering and Applied Science, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California.
35. Lehman D., Moehle J., Mahin S., Calderone A., Henry L. Experimental evaluation of the seismic performance of reinforced concrete bridge columns. J Struct Eng 2004, 130(6):869-879. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:6(869).
36. Berry M, Eberhard M. Performance models for flexural damage in reinforced concrete columns. PEER report 2003/18. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 2003.
37. ATC. Seismic performance assessment of buildings. Report ATC-58. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council (ATC); 2012.
38. Hose YD, Seible F. Performance evaluation database for concrete bridge components and systems under simulated seismic loads. PEER report 1999/11. San Diego, California, USA: Department of Structural Engineering, University of California; 1999.
39. Park R. Ductility evaluation from laboratory and analytical testing. In: Ninth world conference on earthquake engineering, vol. VIII, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan; 1988. p. 605-16.
40. Wen YK, Ellingwood BR, Bracci JM. Vulnerability function framework for consequence-based engineering. Project DS-4 report. Urbana, Illinois, USA: Mid-America Earthquake (MAE) Center; April 28, 2004.
41. Aslani H., Miranda E. Probability-based seismic response analysis. Eng Struct 2005, 27(8):1151-1163. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.02.015.
42. Vamvatsikos D., Cornell C.A. Direct estimation of the seismic demand and capacity of MDOF systems through incremental dynamic analysis of an SDOF approximation. ASCE J Struct Eng 2005, 131(4):589-599.
43. FEMA. Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology, earthquake model: HAZUS-MH MRI. Technical and user's manual. Washington, District of Columbia, USA: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2003.
44. ACI. Structural crack repair by epoxy injection. ACI RAP bulletin 1. Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA: American Concrete Institute (ACI); 2003.
45. FEMA. Repair of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall buildings. FEMA 308. Washington, District of Columbia, USA: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 1998.
46. Hossain KA. Structural optimization and life-cycle sustainability assessment of reinforced concrete buildings in seismic regions. MS thesis. Houston, Texas, USA: Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston; 2013.
47. Lee TH, Mosalam KM. Probabilistic seismic evaluation of reinforced concrete structural components and systems. PEER 2006/04. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 2006.
48. Günay S., Mosalam K.M. PEER performance-based earthquake engineering methodology, revisited. J Earthq Eng 2013, 17(6):829-858. 10.1080/13632469.2013.787377.
49. ISO. Environmental management - life cycle assessment - principles and framework. ISO 14040. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2006.
50. ISO. Environmental management - life cycle assessment - requirements and guidelines. ISO 14044. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2006.
51. RS Means. Building construction cost data 2011 book. RS means. Kingston, Massachusetts, USA: Reed Construction Data Inc.; 2012.
52. Stadel A, Gursel P, Masanet E. Life-cycle evaluation of concrete building construction as a strategy for sustainable cities. Serial No. SN3119. Skokie, Illinois, USA: Portland Cement Association; 2012.
53. Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus HJ, Doka G, Dones R, Hischier R, Hellweg S, Nemecek T, Rebitzer G, Spielmann M. Overview and methodology. final report ecoinvent data v2.0, ecoinvent report No. 1. Duebendorf, CH; 2007.
54. EPA Clean energy power profiler 2006, Environmental Protection Agency, Available from: [accessed on March 31].
55. Hossain KA, Gencturk B. Life-cycle environmental impact assessment of RC buildings subjected to natural hazards. ASCE J Architect Eng; 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000153. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000153.
56. Krawinkler H., Miranda E. Performance-based earthquake engineering. Earthquake engineering: from engineering seismology to performance-based engineering 2004, 9.1-9.59. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. Y. Bozorgnia, V.V. Bertero (Eds.).
57. Bare J. TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Technol Environ Policy 2011, 13(5):687-696.
58. ATC. Earthquake damage evaluation data for California, Palo Alto. Report ATC-13. Applied Technology Council (ATC); 1985.
59. Gencturk B, Elnashai AS. Multi-objective optimal seismic design of buildings using advanced engineering materials. Research report 11-01. Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; 2011. Available from. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/25523.
60. Haselton CB, Deierlein GG. Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings. Report No. 156. Palo Alto, California, USA: The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University; 2007.
61. ICC International building code 2003, International Code Council (ICC), Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
62. ASCE. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE 7-02; 2002.
63. ACI Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-02) and commentary (ACI 318-02R) 2002, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA.
64. ASCE. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE 7-10; 2010.
65. ACI Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-11) and commentary (ACI 318-11R) 2011, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA.
66. Elnashai AS, Papanikolaou VK, Lee D. ZEUS NL - a system for inelastic analysis of structures. User's manual. Urbana, Illinois, USA: Mid-America Earthquake (MAE) Center, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; 2010.
67. Mander J.B., Priestley M.J.N., Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 1988, 114(8):1804-1826.
68. Martínez-Rueda J.E., Elnashai A.S. Confined concrete model under cyclic load. Mater Struct 1997, 30(3):139-147.
69. Lowes L, Mitra N, Altoontash A. A beam-column joint model for simulating the earthquake response of reinforced concrete frames. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center report 2003-10. Berkeley, CA: University of California; 2003.
70. Dong Y., Frangopol D.M., Saydam D. Sustainability of highway bridge networks under seismic hazard. J Earthq Eng 2013, 18(1):41-66. 10.1080/13632469.2013.841600.