Assessment of first generation performance-based seismic design methods for new steel buildings, volume 4 :

Abstract

Certain commercial software, equipment, instruments, or materials may have been used in the preparation of information contributing to this report. Identification in this report is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by NIST, nor is it intended to imply that such software, equipment, instruments, or materials are necessarily the best available for the purpose.NIST policy is to use the International System of Units (metric units) in all its publications. In this report, however, information is presented in U.S. Customary Units (inch-pound), as this is the preferred system of units in the U.S. earthquake engineering industry.

Setting the Priority for Seismic Retrofit of Buildings using A Modified FEMA P-154 Procedure

“…If the issue is approached as how much the risk is in a given time frame for each building, one has a better measured consequence that is likely to be far less onerous than if the ASTM E2026 probable loss approach is used for the evaluation, which is what the P-155 assessment does. Thiel and Zsutty developed an approach to evaluating the safe interim use period for a known high hazard building to determine the time period that it could potentially be used before the risk becomes too high, as measured by the likelihood of the performance uncertainty a newly constructed building would pose Thiel and Zsutty [12]. But it can be expensive to apply and should be used principally for high to moderate risk buildings to determine when retrofit becomes, from a risk management standpoint, a prime concern for leased buildings [12,13].…”

“…Thiel and Zsutty developed an approach to evaluating the safe interim use period for a known high hazard building to determine the time period that it could potentially be used before the risk becomes too high, as measured by the likelihood of the performance uncertainty a newly constructed building would pose Thiel and Zsutty [12]. But it can be expensive to apply and should be used principally for high to moderate risk buildings to determine when retrofit becomes, from a risk management standpoint, a prime concern for leased buildings [12,13]. The approach developed herein is to determine those buildings whose risk of collapse exceeds a given rate in a time period, say 50-years, using a P-154 modified 2 L S score as the measure of the probable loss risk.…”

Life cycle cost‐based optimization framework for seismic design and target safety quantification of dual steel buildings with buckling‐restrained braces

“…Various approaches (e.g., force-based, [40][41][42][43] displacement-based, [44][45][46] energy-based, [47][48][49][50] and many more [51][52][53][54][55][56] ) have been proposed so far for the optimal design of building structures equipped with BRBs in the form of performance-based design methods. These approaches are often derived from the first generation of Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) 57,58 and evaluate the seismic performance of a building by defining limit states for different structural response parameters in a limited number of seismic hazard levels.…”