Probabilistic Seismic Loss Analysis for the Design of Steel Structures: Optimizing for Multiple-Objective Functions

Abstract

An optimized seismic performance-based design (PBD) methodology considering structural and nonstructural system performance and seismic losses is considered to optimize the design of a steel structure. Optimization objectives are to minimize the initial construction cost associated with the weight of the structural system and the expected annual loss (EAL), considering direct economic losses. A non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm method is implemented for the multi-objective optimization. Achieving the desired confidence levels in meeting performance objectives of interest are set as constraints of the optimization problem. Inelastic time history analysis is used to evaluate structural response under different levels of earthquake hazard to obtain engineering demand parameters. Hazus fragility functions are employed for obtaining the damage probabilities for the structural system and nonstructural components. The optimized designs and losses are compared for the structure located in two geographic locations: one in the central United States and another in the western United States.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alimoradi

2004. Probabilistic Performance-Based Seismic Design of Nonlinear Steel Structures Using Genetic Algorithm, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Memphis.

Alimoradi

Pezeshk

and Foley

2007. Probabilistic performance-based optimal design of steel moment-resisting frames. II: Applications, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:6(767).

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2009. AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, Washington, D.C.

American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), 2011. Seismic Design Manual, Second Edition, Chicago, IL.

American Society for Testing and Material (ASTM), 2007. Standard Guide for Seismic Risk Assessment of Buildings, E2026-07, Torrance, CA.

Applied Technology Council (ATC), 2007. Guidelines for Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, ATC-58 35% Draft, Redwood City, CA.

Augusti

and Ciampoli

2008. Performance-based design in risk assessment and reduction, Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 23, 496–508.

Bachman

R. E.

2004. The ATC-58 Project plan for nonstructural components, in PEER Report 2004/05, Performance-Based Seismic Design Concepts and Implementation Proceedings of the International Workshop, Bled, Slovenia, 28 June–1 July 2004, 125–136.

Baker

J. W.

2008. An Introduction to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA), available at https://web.stanford.edu/∼bakerjw/Publications/Baker_(2008)_Intro_to_PSHA_v1_3.pdf.

10.

Bazeos

2009. Comparison of three seismic design methods for plane steel frames, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29, 553–562.

11.

Beck

J. L.

Irfanoglu

Papadimitriou

and Au

S. K.

2000. A performance-based optimal design methodology incorporating multiple criteria, in 12^th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 314, Auckland, New Zealand.

12.

Boore

D. M.

2000. SMSIM—Fortran Programs for Simulating Ground Motions from Earthquakes: Version 2.0—a Revision of OFR 96–80–A, available at http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of00-509/.

13.

Deb

Pratap

Agarwal

and Meyarivan

2002. A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6, 182–197.

14.

Deierlein

G. G.

2004. Overview of a framework methodology for earthquake performance assessment. performance-based seismic design: concepts and implementation, in PEER Report 2004/05, Performance-Based Seismic Design Concepts and Implementation Proceedings of the International Workshop, Bled, Slovenia, 28 June–1 July 2004, 15–26.

15.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 1993. Guidelines for Determining Design Basis Ground Motions, Volume 2: Appendices for Ground Motion Estimation, TR-102293 Project 3302 Final Report, Palo Alto, CA.

16.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2000a. Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, FEMA 350, Washington, D.C.

17.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2000b. State of the Art Report on Systems Performance of Steel Moment Frames Subject to Earthquake Ground Shaking, FEMA 355C, Washington, D.C.

18.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2006. Next-Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines-Program Plan for New and Existing Buildings, FEMA-445, Washington, D.C.

19.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2008. HAZUS MH Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States, FEMA 366, Washington, D.C.

20.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2012. Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, FEMA-P-58-1, Washington, D.C.

21.

Foley

Pezeshk

and Alimoradi

2007. Probabilistic performance-based optimal design of steel moment-resisting frames. I: Formulation, J. Struct. Eng. 133, 757–766.

22.

Fragiadakis

Lagaros

N. D.

and Papadrakakis

2006. Performance-based multiobjective optimum design of steel structures considering life-cycle cost, Struct Multidisc Optim 32, 1–11.

23.

Gen

and Cheng

2000. Genetic Algorithms and Engineering Optimization, Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ, 512 pp.

24.

Ganzerli

Pantelides

C. P.

and Reaveley

L. D.

2000. Performance-based design using structural optimization, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 29, 1677–1690.

25.

Gencturk

and Elnashai

A. S.

2011. Multi-Objective Optimal Seismic Design Of Buildings Using Advanced Engineering Materials, Mid-America Earthquake (MAE) Center Report No. 11-01, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

26.

Hamburger

Rojahn

Moehle

Bachman

Comartin

and Whittaker

2004. The ATC-58 Project: Development of next-generation performance-based earthquake engineering design criteria for buildings, in 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 1819, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

27.

Hazus-MH, 2003a. Hazus-MH MR1 Technical and User's Manual, Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, FEMA, Washington, D.C.

28.

Hazus-MH, 2003b. Hazus-MH MR4 Technical Manual- Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, FEMA, Washington, D.C.

29.

Krawinkler

2005. Van Nuys Hotel Building Testbed Report: Van Nuys Hotel Building Testbed Report, PEER Report 2005/11, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.

30.

Liu

Burns

S. A.

and Wen

Y. K.

2005. Multiobjective optimization for performance-based seismic design of steel moment frame structures, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 34, 289–306.

31.

Miranda

Aslani

and Taghavi

2004. Assessment of seismic performance in terms of economic losses, in PEER Report 2004/05, Performance-Based Seismic Design Concepts and Implementation Proceedings of the International Workshop, Bled, Slovenia, 28 June–1 July 2004, 149–160.

32.

Moehle

and Deierlein

2004. A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering, in 13^th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

33.

Powell

G. H.

1993. DRAIN-2DX, Element Description and user guide for element Type01, Type02, Type04, Type06, Type09, And Type15, version 1.10, Report No. UCB/SEMM-93/18, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1993-12, 68 pp.

34.

Porter

K. A.

2003. An overview of PEER's performance-based earthquake engineering methodology, in Proceedings, Ninth International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, San Francisco, CA.

35.

Porter

K. A.

Beck

J. L.

and Shaikhutdinov

2004. Simplified estimation of economic seismic risk for buildings, Earthquake Spectra 20, 1239–1263.

36.

Prakash

Powel

G. H.

and Campbell

1993. DRAIN-2DX base program description and user guide, Report No. UCB/SEMM-93/17, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.

37.

Shahbazian

and Pezeshk

2010. Improved velocity and displacement time histories in frequency-domain spectral-matching procedures, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 100, 3213–3223.

38.

Ramirez

C. M.

Liel

A. B.

Mitrani-Reiser

Haselton

C. B.

Spear

A. D.

Steiner

Deierlein

G. G.

and Miranda

2012. Expected earthquake damage and repair costs in reinforced concrete frame buildings, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 41, 1455–1475.

39.

Rojas

H. A.

2008. Automating the Design of Steel Moment-Frames Using a Probabilistic Performance-Based Approach and Evolutionary Computation, Ph.D. Dissertation, Memphis State University, 124 pp.

40.

Rojas

H. A.

Foley

and Pezeshk

2011. Risk-based seismic design for optimal structural and nonstructural system performance, Earthquake Spectra 27, 857–880.

41.

Romero

and Rix

G. J.

2001. Regional variations in near surface shear wave velocity in greater Memphis area, Engineering Geology 62, 137–158.

42.

Somerville

P. G.

Smith

N. F.

Graves

R. W.

and Abrahamson

N. A.

1997. Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity, Seismological Research Letters 68, 199–222.

43.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2008. Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps, Open-File Report 2008-1128, Reston, VA.

44.

Yanglin

and Grierson

D. E.

2006. Seismic design optimization of steel building frameworks, Journal of Structural Engineering 132, 277–286.