Seismic risk analysis and management of civil infrastructure systems: an overview - Seismic Risk Analysis and Management of Civil Infrastructure Systems - page 166

selected through cost-benefi t analysis and life-cycle costing. Often, the
retrofi t selection is subject to multiple and confl icting criteria. Different
multiple criteria decision making tools, without the consideration of relative
weights are discussed and an illustrative example is provided.
The state-of-the-art review from this chapter highlighted there is a need
for robust risk analysis decision making tools that can incorporate different
uncertainties. These uncertainties are prevalent from quantifi cation of
hazard to decision making for risk management. Failing to quantify these
uncertainties, will give a false sense of security with the risk analysis, and
under extreme case manifest as catastrophic consequences. The problem is
compounded for spatially distributed civil infrastructure systems. Thus,
there is an even increasing need to integrate existing uncertainty quantifi ca-
tion and aggregation technique for seismic risk analysis of spatially distrib-
uted infrastructure.

6.6 References

ATC-13. 1985. Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California . Applied Tech-
nology Council.
Aven, T. 2011. Interpretations of alternative uncertainty representations in a reli-
ability and risk analysis context. Reliability Engineering and System Safety , 96 ,
353-360.
Baker, J.W. and Cornell, C.A. 2008. Uncertainty propagation in probabilistic seismic
loss estimation. Structural Safety , 30 , 236-252.
Blockley, D.I. 1995. Engineering Safety . London: McGraw Hill.
Bradley, B.A., Lee, D.S., Broughton, R. and Price, C. 2009. Effi cient evaluation of
performance-based earthquake engineering equations. Structural Safety , 31 ,
65-74.
Braun, M. and Muermann, A. 2004. The impact of regret on the demand for insur-
ance. Journal of Risk Insurance , 71 , 737-767.
Budnitz, R.J. Apostolakis, G., Boore, D.M., Cluft, L.S., Coppersmith, K.J., Cornell,
C.A. and Morris, P.A. 1997. Recommendations for probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis: guidance on uncertainty and use of experts. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, NUREG/CR-6372.
Budnitz, R.J., Apostolakis, G., Boore, D.M., Cluff, L.S., Coppersmith, K.J., Cornell,
C.A. and Morris, P.A. 1998. Use of technical expert panels: applications to proba-
bilistic seismic hazard analysis. Risk Analysis , 184 , 463-469.
Carlsson, C. and Fullér, R. 1996. Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making: recent
developments. Fuzzy Set and System , 78 , 139-153.
Caterino, N., Iervolino, I., Manfredi, G. and Cosenza, E. 2008. Multi-criteria decision
making for seismic retrofi tting of RC structure. Journal of Earthquake Engineer-
ing , 12 , 1-29.
Caterino, N., Iervolino, I., Manfredi, G. and Cosenza, E. 2009. Comparative analysis
of multi-criteria decision-making methods for seismic structural retrofi tting. Com-
puter-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering , 24 , 432-445.