Recent earthquakes have highlighted additional losses due to the lack of resilience of damaged structures. Environmental impact, as performance indicator, has also received increased attention within performance-based earthquake engineering. In this article, a combined probabilistic framework is proposed to assess seismic risk, sustainability, and resilience of a non-ductile reinforced concrete frame structure. The framework utilizes three-dimensional inelastic fiber-based numerical modeling approach to develop limit states associated with performance levels. The decision variables (i.e. repair cost, downtime, and equivalent carbon emissions) are quantified at both component level and system level and are compared considering seismic risk, sustainability, and resilience. In addition, the proposed approach considers uncertainties in the building performance and consequence functions of structural and non-structural components. Fast-track and slow-track schemes are utilized as a repair strategy and probabilistic resilience is quantified given the investigated time period. The proposed approach can aid the development of the next generation of performance-based engineering incorporating both resilience and sustainability.
AmbraseysNSmitPDouglasJ, et al. (2004) European strong-motion data. Bollettino di geofisica teorica ed applicata45(3): 113–129
4.
ASCE (2013) Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. Reston, VA: ASCE.
5.
AsproneDManfrediG (2015) Linking disaster resilience and urban sustainability: a glocal approach for future cities. Disasters39(s1): s96–s111.
6.
BocchiniPFrangopolDMUmmenhoferT, et al. (2014) Resilience and sustainability of civil infrastructure: toward a unified approach. Journal of Infrastructure Systems20(2): 04014004. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000177.
7.
BroccardoMGalanisPEspositoS, et al. (2015) Probabilistic resilience assessment of civil systems: analysis and validity of the PEER framework. In: Safety and reliability of complex engineered systems: ESREL, Zürich, 7−10 September, p. 331. CRC Press.
BruneauMChangSEEguchiRT, et al. (2003) A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra19(4): 733–752.
10.
BurtonHVDeierleinGLallemantD, et al. (2015) Framework for incorporating probabilistic building performance in the assessment of community seismic resilience. Journal of Structural Engineering142(8): C4015007.
11.
CardoneDPerroneG (2017) Damage and loss assessment of pre-70 RC frame buildings with FEMA P-58. Journal of Earthquake Engineering21(1): 23–61.
12.
CarvalhoRBuznaLBonoF, et al. (2014) Resilience of natural gas networks during conflicts, crises and disruptions. PLoS ONE9(3): e90265.
13.
ChauCHuiWNgW, et al. (2012) Assessment of CO2 emissions reduction in high-rise concrete office buildings using different material use options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling61: 22–34.
14.
DongYFrangopolDM (2016) Performance-based seismic assessment of conventional and base-isolated steel buildings including environmental impact and resilience. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics45(5): 739–756.
15.
DongYFrangopolDM (2017) Probabilistic assessment of an interdependent healthcare–bridge network system under seismic hazard. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering13(1): 160–170.
16.
DongYFrangopolDMSaydamD (2013) Time-variant sustainability assessment of seismically vulnerable bridges subjected to multiple hazards. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics42(10): 1451–1467.
17.
DuPontWIVNoyI (2015) What happened to Kobe? A reassessment of the impact of the 1995 earthquake in Japan. Economic Development and Cultural Change63(4): 777–812.
18.
EllingwoodBR (2006) Mitigating risk from abnormal loads and progressive collapse. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities20(4): 315–323.
19.
FEMA (2012) Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings: Vol. 1—Methodology. Report no. FEMA P-58-1, September. USA: Federal Emergency Management Agency. Available at: https://www.fema.gov›FEMA_P-58-1-SE_Volume1_Methodology
FrangopolDMDongYSabatinoS (2017) Bridge life-cycle performance and cost: analysis, prediction, optimisation and decision-making. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering13(10): 1239–1257.
22.
GencturkBHossainKLahourpourS (2016) Life cycle sustainability assessment of RC buildings in seismic regions. Engineering Structures110: 347–362.
23.
HashemiMJAl-AttraqchiAYKalfatR, et al. (2019) Linking seismic resilience into sustainability assessment of limited-ductility RC buildings. Engineering Structures188: 121–136.
24.
HerreraMAbrahamEStoianovI (2016) A graph-theoretic framework for assessing the resilience of sectorised water distribution networks. Water Resources Management30(5): 1685–1699.
25.
HuttCMAlmuftiIWillfordM, et al. (2015) Seismic loss and downtime assessment of existing tall steel-framed buildings and strategies for increased resilience. Journal of Structural Engineering142(8): C4015005.
26.
KatsanosEISextosAGManolisGD (2010) Selection of earthquake ground motion records: a state-of-the-art review from a structural engineering perspective. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering30(4): 157–169.
27.
KishidaTContrerasVBozorgniaY, et al. (2018) NGA-Sub ground motion database. In: 11th U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering, Los Angeles, CA, 25–29 June.
28.
KoliouMVan de LindtJWMcAllisterTP, et al. (2018) State of the research in community resilience: progress and challenges. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure: 1–21. DOI: 10.1080/23789689.2017.1418547.
29.
LiYSongRVan de LindtJW (2014) Collapse fragility of steel structures subjected to earthquake mainshock-aftershock sequences. Journal of Structural Engineering140(12): 04014095.
30.
LinPWangN (2017a) Stochastic post-disaster functionality recovery of community building portfolios. I: modeling. Structural Safety69: 96–105.
31.
LinPWangN (2017b) Stochastic post-disaster functionality recovery of community building portfolios. II: application. Structural Safety69: 106–117.
32.
MarcheseDReynoldsEBatesME, et al. (2018) Resilience and sustainability: Similarities and differences in environmental management applications. Science of the Total Environment613–614: 1275–1283.
33.
MasoomiHvan de LindtJW (2018) Community-resilience-based design of the built environment. ASCE–ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering5(1): 04018044.
34.
MilesSBChangSE (2006) Modeling community recovery from earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra22(2): 439–458.
35.
MwafyAElkholyS (2017) Performance assessment and prioritization of mitigation approaches for pre-seismic code structures. Advances in Structural Engineering20(6): 917–939.
36.
PadgettJELiY (2014) Risk-based assessment of sustainability and hazard resistance of structural design. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities30(2): 04014208.
37.
PadgettJETapiaC (2013) Sustainability of natural hazard risk mitigation: life cycle analysis of environmental indicators for bridge infrastructure. Journal of Infrastructure Systems19(4): 395–408.
38.
QeshtaIMHashemiMJGravinaR, et al. (2019) Review of resilience assessment of coastal bridges to extreme wave-induced loads. Engineering Structures185: 332–352.
39.
Rodriguez-NiklT (2015) Linking disaster resilience and sustainability. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems32(1–2): 157–169.
40.
SabatinoSFrangopolDMDongY (2015) Sustainability-informed maintenance optimization of highway bridges considering multi-attribute utility and risk attitude. Engineering Structures102: 310–321.
41.
SfahaniMGuanHLooY-C (2015) Seismic reliability and risk assessment of structures based on fragility analysis—a review. Advances in Structural Engineering18(10): 1653–1669.
42.
SunWBocchiniPDavisonBD (2018) Resilience metrics and measurement methods for transportation infrastructure: the state of the art. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure. Epub ahead of print 30 April 2018. DOI: doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2018.1448663.
43.
UBC (1997) Uniform Building Code. Whittier, CA: International Conference of Building Officials.
WenWZhangMZhaiC, et al. (2019) Resilience loss factor for evaluation and design considering the effects of aftershocks. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering116: 43–49.
46.
ZhaiC-HWenW-PLiS, et al. (2015) The ductility-based strength reduction factor for the mainshock–aftershock sequence-type ground motions. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering13(10): 2893–2914.
47.
ZhaoXLiWStanbrookJ (2014) A framework for the integration of performance based design and life cycle assessment to design sustainable structures. Advances in Structural Engineering17(4): 461–470.
48.
ZhengYDongY (2019) Performance-based assessment of bridges with steel-SMA reinforced piers in a life-cycle context by numerical approach. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering17: 1667–1688.
49.
ZhengYDongYLiY (2018) Resilience and life-cycle performance of smart bridges with shape memory alloy (SMA)-cable-based bearings. Construction and Building Materials158: 389–400.
