Assembly-Based Vulnerability of Buildings and Its Use in Performance Evaluation

Porter, Keith; Kiremidjian, Anne S.; LeGrue, Jeremiah S.

doi:10.1193/1.1586176

Cited by 239 publications

(177 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

172

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One detailed method introduced by Porter et al [4] is Assembly Based Vulnerability (ABV). It is especially good at estimating the overall damage to a building based on the damage to its individual components.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computational and rapid expected annual loss estimation methodologies for structures

Solberg

Dhakal

Mander

et al. 2007

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYExpected annual loss (EAL), which can be expressed in dollars, is an effective way of communicating the seismic vulnerability of constructed facilities to owners and insurers. A simplified method for estimating EAL without conducting time consuming non-linear dynamic analyses is presented. Relationships between intensity measures and engineering demand parameters resulting from a pushover analysis and a modified capacity-spectrum method are combined with epistemic and aleatory uncertainties to arrive at a probabilistic demand model.Damage measures are established to determine thresholds for damage states from which loss ratios can be defined. Financial implications due to damage can then be quantified in the form of EAL by integrating total losses for all likely earthquake scenarios. This rapid loss estimation method is verified through the computationally intensive Incremental Dynamic Analysis, with results processed using a distribution-free methodology. To illustrate the application of the proposed method, the seismic vulnerability of two highway bridge piers is compared; one bridge is traditionally designed for ductility while the other is based on an emerging damage avoidance design (DAD) philosophy. The DAD pier is found to have a clear advantage over the conventional pier; the EAL of the DAD pier is less than 20 percent of its ductile counterpart. This is shown to be primarily due to its inherent damage-free behaviour for small to medium earthquake intensities, whose contribution to EAL is significantly more than that of very rare events.2

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computational and rapid expected annual loss estimation methodologies for structures

Solberg

Dhakal

Mander

et al. 2007

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…for all k = 1-N DS.i and l = 1-N DS.j ; thus the sequential process in Equation (14) does not result in any unnecessary computations.…”

Section: Correlations In Ds|edp Relationshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the DS|EDP or L|DS correlation matrix is required for the simulation of correlated random numbers in the loss estimation [e.g. 6,14] then it is possible that the Cholesky decomposition of a non semi-positive definite correlation matrix may contain imaginary numbers.…”

Section: Epistemic Uncertainty In Correlation Coefficientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Note the mean and variance in the loss to repair or replace each component should obviously account for contractor overhead, inflation and location [14]. Equations (1)- (6) reveal that given the above assumptions, correlations between component losses (which appear in Equations (4) and (6)) only affect the variance in the total loss, and therefore do not need to be considered when computing only the expected value of the loss [e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Component correlations in structure‐specific seismic loss estimation

Bradley

Lee

2009

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses correlations between multiple components in structure-specific seismic loss estimation. To date, the consideration of such correlations has been limited by methodological tractability; increased computational demand; and a paucity of data for their computation. The effect of component correlations, which arise in various forms, is however a significant factor affecting the results of structure-specific seismic loss estimation and therefore it is prudent that adequate consideration is given to their effect. This paper provides details of a tractable and computationally efficient seismic loss estimation methodology in which correlations can be considered. Methods to determine the necessary correlations are discussed, particularly those that can be used in the absence of sufficient empirical data, for which values are suggested based on judgement. The effects of various assumptions regarding correlations are illustrated via application to a case-study office structure. It is observed that certain correlation assumptions can lead to errors in excess of 50% in the lognormal standard deviation in the loss given intensity and loss hazard relationships, while full consideration of partial correlations is 50-times more computationally expensive than other assumptions.

show abstract

“…The ABV method, introduced in Beck et al (1999) and detailed in Porter (2000) is summarized in Porter et al (2001). Very briefly, it involves selection of suite of ground-motion time histories, creation of a stochastic structural model, performance of nonlinear time-history structural analyses to determine structural response, assessment of probabilistic damage via component fragility functions, and assessment of loss via probabilistic construction cost-estimation.…”

Section: Sample Comparisons Of Exact and Approximate Ealmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simplified Estimation of Seismic Life-Cycle Costs

Beck¹,

Shaikhutdinov²

2003

Life-Cycle Performance of Deteriorating Structures

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most seismic risk assessments for economic decision-making of commercial buildings are based on a risk metric called probable maximum loss (PML) that is associated with losses from an earthquake shaking severity with a 500-year return period. For various reasons, PML is a poor metric for economic performance assessment. This paper introduces an analogous measure, the probable frequent loss (PFL), defined as the mean loss resulting from shaking with 10% exceedance probability in 5 years (an approximately 50-year event). It overcomes many of the problems of PML, and offers the advantage that expected seismic lifecycle costs and expected annualized loss are approximately proportional to PFL through a seismic hazard coefficient that depends on site characteristics, fundamental period, and damage shaking threshold, and can be tabulated for ready use. A brief review is given of a building-specific seismic vulnerability method that may be used to calculate PFL.

show abstract

Assembly-Based Vulnerability of Buildings and Its Use in Performance Evaluation

Cited by 239 publications

References 6 publications

Computational and rapid expected annual loss estimation methodologies for structures

Computational and rapid expected annual loss estimation methodologies for structures

Component correlations in structure‐specific seismic loss estimation

Simplified Estimation of Seismic Life-Cycle Costs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About