Optimal reliability to retrofit structures damaged by earthquakes from the perspective of the life-cycle cost

被引:0
|
作者
De Leon, David [1 ]
Esteva, Luis [2 ]
Delgado, David [3 ]
Carlos Arteaga, Juan [4 ]
机构
[1] Autonomous Univ Mexico State, Engn Sch, Cuidad Univ, Toluca 50000, Estado De Mexic, Mexico
[2] UNAM, Inst Engn, Ingn S-N,CU, Ciudad De Mexico 04510, Mexico
[3] Autonomous Univ Mexico State, Engn Sch, Cuidad Univ, Toluca 50000, Estado De Mexic, Mexico
[4] Autonomous Univ Mexico State, Sci Sch, Cuidad Univ, Toluca 50000, Estado De Mexic, Mexico
关键词
Optimal retrofit; Seismic hazard; Expected life-cycle cost; Number of earthquake in the lifetime; Building importance; SEISMIC RETROFIT; OPTIMIZATION; UNCERTAINTY;
D O I
10.1016/j.engstruct.2024.118913
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
When an earthquake damages a building, the type and increment on safety level of the retrofit may not be very clear. If that increment is not too large, the next earthquake may produce even more damages to the building; also, the building importance and the seismic hazard levels play a role on that decision. The criterion of minimizing the expected value of the building life-cycle cost brings some guide on that issue. This paper proposes the use of the expected life-cycle cost to identify what is the reliability level which is convenient for the retrofit. The procedure is illustrated by assessing three buildings with different damage level, different level of damage/failure consequences and different seismic hazard. For a school with a damage index of 0.2, a level of damage/failure consequences not so high and a moderate level of seismic hazard, the optimal failure probability for the retrofit is 1.2 * 10(-3). However, for buildings with a damage index of 0.3, and with higher level of damage/failure consequences, and under higher level of seismic hazard, the optimal failure probability for retrofit ranges from 2 to 8 * 10(-4).
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Life-cycle cost analysis of retrofit scenarios for a UK residential dwelling
    Salem, Radwa
    Bahadori-Jahromi, Ali
    Mylona, Anastasia
    Bohdanowicz, Paulina
    Cook, Darren
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS-ENGINEERING SUSTAINABILITY, 2020, 173 (02) : 57 - 72
  • [22] Life-cycle cost design of deteriorating structures
    Li, CQ
    JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, 1998, 124 (11) : 1367 - 1368
  • [23] Optimal Allocation of Life-Cycle Cost, System Reliability, and Service Reliability in Passenger Rail System Design
    Lai, Yung-Cheng
    Lu, Chia-Tsung
    Hsu, Ya-Wen
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD, 2015, (2475) : 46 - 53
  • [24] LIFE-CYCLE COST IMPACT ON HIGH RELIABILITY SYSTEMS
    FISHMAN, CM
    SLOVIN, HJ
    PROCEEDINGS ANNUAL RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY SYMPOSIUM, 1974, 7 (02): : 358 - 362
  • [25] Optimal seismic design based on life-cycle cost
    Wen, YK
    Kang, YJ
    OPTIMAL PERFORMANCE OF CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS, 1998, : 194 - 210
  • [26] LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS ON A MARINE ENGINE INNOVATION FOR RETROFIT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY
    Bui, Khanh Q.
    Perera, Lokukaluge P.
    Emblemsvag, Jan
    Schoyen, Halvor
    PROCEEDINGS OF ASME 2022 41ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON OCEAN, OFFSHORE & ARCTIC ENGINEERING, OMAE2022, VOL 5A, 2022,
  • [27] Life-cycle cost analysis for facade retrofit measures of residential buildings in Cairo
    Kazem, Medhat
    Ezzeldin, Sherif
    Tolba, Osama
    INDOOR AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT, 2022, 31 (04) : 913 - 928
  • [28] Life-cycle cost design of deteriorating structures - Closure
    Frangopol, DM
    JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING-ASCE, 1998, 124 (11): : 1368 - 1369
  • [29] Life-cycle reliability-based maintenance cost optimization of deteriorating structures with emphasis on bridges
    Kong, JS
    Frangopol, DM
    JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING-ASCE, 2003, 129 (06): : 818 - 828
  • [30] Life-Cycle Assessment of Seismic Retrofit Strategies Applied to Existing Building Structures
    Vitiello, Umberto
    Salzano, Antonio
    Asprone, Domenico
    Di Ludovico, Marco
    Prota, Andrea
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2016, 8 (12) : 1 - 18