Life Cycle Cost Considerations in Seismic Design Optimization of Structures - Structural Seismic Design Optimization and Earthquake Engineering - page 20

criterion for the economy objective of seismic
design, as the repair and indirect costs due to
damage in future earthquakes might be signifi-
cantly higher than the initial cost, therefore the
life-cycle cost (LCC) should also be considered.
In this chapter the LCC considerations in seismic
design optimization of structures is discussed
emphasizing the importance of the following: (1)
use of advanced analysis, which provides the most
rigorous assessment of structural capacity and
earthquake demand, (2) evaluation of the struc-
tural capacity by taking into account not only the
global behavior of the structure but also the local
response, (3) use of system-specific limit states
to define the structural capacity, and (4) consid-
eration of all major sources of uncertainty, from
seismogenic source characteristics to material
properties and structural modeling in calculating
the limit state exceedance probabilities. A LCC
formulation is provided where each component
from seismic hazard, to structural assessment, LCC
model and optimization algorithm are rigorously
addressed. An example application is included to
allow for easy implementation of the framework
presented here.

Baykasoglu, A., Owen, S., & Gindy, N. (1999a).
Solution of goal programming models using a
basic taboo search algorithm. The Journal of the
Operational Research Society , 50 (9), 960-973.

Baykasoglu, A., Owen, S., & Gindy, N. (1999b).
A taboo search based approach to find the Pareto
optimal set in multiple objective optimization.
Engineering Optimization , 31 (6), 731-748.
doi:10.1080/03052159908941394

Bertero, V. V., & Zagajeski, S. W. (1979). Optimal
inelastic design of seismic-resistant reinforced
concrete framed structures. Paper presented at
the Nonlinear Design of Concrete Structures,
CSCE-ASCE-ACI-CEB International Sympo-
sium, Ontario, Canada.

Bland, J. (1998). Structural design optimization
with reliability constraints using tabu search.
Engineering Optimization , 30 (1), 55-74.
doi:10.1080/03052159808941238

Chan, C. M., & Zou, X. K. (2004). Elastic and
inelastic drift performance optimization for rein-
forced concrete buildings under earthquake loads.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics ,
33 (8), 929-950. doi:10.1002/eqe.385

Cheng, F. Y., & Truman, K. Z. (1985). Optimal
design of 3-D reinforced concrete and steel build-
ings subjected to static and seismic loads including
code provisions (No. Final Report Series 85-20).
Washington, DC, USA: prepared by University
of Missouri-Rolla, National Science Foundation,
US Department of Commerce.

REFERENCES

Abrahamson, N. A. (1993). Non-stationary spec-
tral matching program RSPMatch: user's manual .

Adamu, A., Karihaloo, B. L., & Rozvany, G. I.
N. (1994). Minimum cost design of reinforced
concrete beams using continuum-type optimality
criteria. Structural and Multidisciplinary Opti-
mization , 7 (1), 91-102.

Collins, K. R., Wen, Y. K., & Foutch, D. A. (1996).
Dual-level seismic design: A reliability-based
methodology. Earthquake Engineering & Struc-
tural Dynamics , 25 (12), 1433-1467. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1096-9845(199612)25:12<1433::AID-
EQE629>3.0.CO;2-M

Aslani, H., & Miranda, E. (2005). Probability-
based seismic response analysis. Engineering
Structures , 27 (8), 1151-1163. doi:10.1016/j.
engstruct.2005.02.015