Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
0.08
Design A
(MAL = $3.26e + 005)
Design B
(MAL = $3.36e + 005)
Design C
(MAL = $2.82e + 005)
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
×
10
6
Total repair cost, $C [USD]
12.13
Loss curves of the prototype building using the three design
approaches.
12.4 Conclusions
A fully probabilistic PBEE evaluation framework as well as a practical
implementation of that framework using a novel solution strategy is pre-
sented. The procedure starts with systematic data collection to describe the
seismic environment and the vulnerability of the structure. The seismic
environment is described through probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. The
vulnerability of the structure is described using the fragility curves of the
structural and nonstructural components. The seismic response of the struc-
ture is examined by conducting a limited number of nonlinear dynamic
analyses. Using the results of the nonlinear dynamic analyses, a large array
of correlated
EDP
vectors are then generated using a fully probabilistic
procedure presented within this chapter. With the combination of the cor-
related
EDP
vectors
and the fragility curves, the damage states of the
structure are then identifi ed using random number generators. Finally, the
repair costs of the entire building are then calculated through lookup tables
based on the damage state identifi ed for each component. The process is
repeated a large number of times to generate the distribution of the struc-
tural repair costs of buildings under different ranges of earthquake shaking
intensities considered.
This procedure has been implemented in a computer program to facili-
tate computation. An example of applying the proposed performance-based
assessment procedure is used to compare the seismic performance of
a high-rise building design using three design approaches. This example
Search WWH ::
Custom Search