In order to make the most of the advantages of probabilistic model and non-probabilistic model, a hybrid earthquake loss assessment method based on convex model and probabilistic model was proposed. The exceeding probability of earthquake loss bounds within convex model was derived based on the probabilistic earthquake loss assessment model proposed by PEER. Moreover, the uncertainties of repair cost and collapse probability in the complete damage state were modeled by the envelope bound convex model, and the bounds of exceeding probability of earthquake loss were obtained by the hybrid earthquake loss model. The loss results of a hotel indicate that non-collapse parts mostly contribute to economic loss, and earthquake loss is more sensitive to repair cost than collapse probability. The presentation form of earthquake loss results is enhanced by the hybrid loss method and is also easier for owners and decision-makers to understand and accept.
Ben-HaimY. and ElishakoffI. (1990). Convex Models of Uncertainty in Applied Mechanics, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
2.
Ben-HaimY. (2006). Info-Gap Decision Theory: Decisions under Severe Uncertainty, Academic Press, New York, USA.
3.
BurattiN.FerracutiB. and SavoiaM. (2010). “Response surface with random factors for seismic fragility of reinforced concrete frames”, Structural Safety, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 42–51.
4.
ChandlerA.M. and LamN.T.K. (2001). “Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: A multi-disciplinary review”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 23, No. 12, pp. 1525–1543.
5.
ChenP. and CollinsK.R. (2001). “Some observations on performance-based and reliability-based seismic design of asymmetric building structures”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 23, No. 8, pp.1005–1010.
6.
CornellA. (2004). “Hazard, ground and probabilistic assessments for PBSD”, Performance-Based Seismic Design Concepts and Implementation Proceedings of an International Workshop, Bled, Slovenia, June 28-July 1, pp. 39–52.
7.
CrowleyH.PinhoR. and BommerJ.J. (2004). “A probabilistic displacement-based vulnerability assessment procedure for earthquake loss estimation”, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 173–219.
8.
EllishakoffI. (1995). “Essay on uncertainties inelastic and viscoelastic structures: From A M Freudenthal's criticisms to modern convex modeling”, Computers & Structures, Vol. 56, No. 6, pp. 871–895.
9.
EllishakoffI. and OhsakiM. (2010). Optimization and Anti-optimization of Structures under Uncertainty, Imperial College Press, London, UK.
10.
GB 50011 (2010). Code for Seismic Design of Buildings, Ministry of Construction of the People's Republic of China, China, pp.1–35. (in Chinese)
11.
HamburgerR.RojahnC.MoehleJ.BachmanR.ComarttinC. and WhittakerA. (2004). “The ATC-58 project: Development of next-generation performance-based earthquake engineering design criteria for buildings”, The 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, pp. 1–15.
12.
JiaL.Z.LiH. and DuanZ.D. (2010). “Convex model for earthquake damage and loss estimation of individual buildings”, Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 537–549.
13.
KafaliC. and GrigoriuM. (2007). “Seismic fragility analysis: Application to simple linear and nonlinear systems”, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, Vol. 36, No. 13, pp. 1885–1900.
14.
KoutsourelakisP.S. (2010). “Assessing structural vulnerability against earthquake using multi-dimensional fragility surfaces: A Bayesian frame”, Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 49–60.
15.
KrawinklerH. (2005). Van Nuys Hotel Building Tested Report: Exercising Seismic Performance Assessment, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA, pp. 1–264.
16.
KrawinklerH. (2006). “Performance assessment of an old RC building- a PEER tested study”, Proceedings of the 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, California, USA, Paper No. 1845, pp. 1–10.
17.
National Institute of Building Science (NIBS) (2002). HAZUS99-SR2 Advanced Engineering Building Module Technical and User's Manual, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C, USA, pp. 1–32.
18.
National Institute of Building Science (NIBS) (2003). HAZUS-MH MR1 Technical Manual, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C, USA, pp. 1–22.
19.
PorterK.A.KiremidjianA.S. and LeGrueJ.S. (2001). “Assembly-based vulnerability of buildings and its use in performance evaluation”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 291–312.
20.
SinghalA. and KeremidjianA.S. (1996). “Method for probabilistic evaluation of seismic structural damage”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 122, No. 12, pp. 1459–1467.
21.
UnnikrishnanV.U.PrasadA.M. and RaoB.N. (2013). “Development of fragility curves using high-dimensional model representation”, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 419–430.
22.
WenY.K. and EllingwoodB.R. (2005). “The role of fragility assessment in consequence-based engineering”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 861–877.
23.
YinZ.Q. (1996). Earthquake Disaster and Loss Prediction Method, Earthquake Press, Beijing, China. (in Chinese)
