Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Assessment of Buildings and Marine structures
Typology: Thesis
1 / 544
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Risk, Resilience, and Sustainability-Informed Assessment and Management of Aging Structural Systems
Dong, You 2016
Find more at https://preserve.lib.lehigh.edu/
This document is brought to you for free and open access by Lehigh Preserve. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of Lehigh Preserve. For more information, please contact preserve@lehigh.edu.
Risk, Resilience, and Sustainability-Informed Assessment and Management of Aging Structural Systems
by
You Dong
Presented to the Graduate and Research Committee of Lehigh University in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in
Structural Engineering
Lehigh University
May 2016
iii
Approved and recommended for acceptance as a dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Date Dr. Dan M. Frangopol Dissertation Advisor Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering Lehigh University
Approved Date Committee Members:
Dr. John L. Wilson Committee Chairperson Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering Lehigh University
Dr. Ben T. Yen Member Emeritus Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering Lehigh University
Dr. Paolo Bocchini Member Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering Lehigh University
Dr. Liang Cheng Member Associate Professor of Computer Science and Engineering Lehigh University
iv
Foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to my advisor, Prof. Dan M. Frangopol
for his time, patience, assistance, contribution, and continuous support throughout my
Ph.D. program at Lehigh University. Prof. Frangopol is more than just a professor, he is a
teacher, a mentor, an inspiration, and a friend. I believe without doubt that this work
would not be completed without Prof. Frangopol’s guidance. As a result, I was able to co-
author with Prof. Frangopol 15 papers published in reputable peer-reviewed archival
journals, and 16 conference papers, including several keynotes. Additionally, I was
awarded the P.C. Rossin Fellowship of Lehigh University in 2014 and the International
Civil Engineering Risk and Reliability Association (CERRA) Student Recognition
Award in 2015.
Besides my advisor, I offer my sincere thanks to Prof. John L. Wilson, who serves as
the Chairperson of this committee, Prof. Ben T. Yen, Assistant Prof. Paolo Bocchini, and
Associate Prof. Liang Cheng, for their insightful comments and valuable suggestions on
my work.
I gratefully acknowledge the support of (a) the National Science Foundation (NSF)
through grants CMS-0639428 and CMMI-1537926, (b) the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Department of Community and Economic Development, through the
Pennsylvania Infrastructure Technology Alliance (PITA) through several contracts, (c)
the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Cooperative Agreement Award
xiii
xv
Table 7.4 Conditional probabilities of the hospital being in different functionality levels given the seismic damage of the link 1 considering the correlations among the ground motion intensities and damage indices of bridges and hospital .................................. 221
Table 8.1 Parameters of the random variables associated with the consequences. ................................................................................ 244
Table 9.1 Parameters of the random variables associated with the consequences ................................................................................. 277 Table 9.2 Information regarding sustainability sub-attributes for utility function formulation ...................................................................... 278
Table 9.3 Utility values associated with the bridge network without retrofit considering a 30-year interval ....................................................... 279
Table 9.4 Cost-benefit indicators resulting from the same retrofit option being applied to all bridges within the network ...................................... 280
Table 9.5 Expected values of the sub-attributes of sustainability and retrofit costs associated with solution A, B, C, and the case without retrofit ....................................................................................................... 281
Table 10.1 Downtime associated with different penetration area of ships ...... 313 Table 10.2 Comprehensive oil spill cost/gallon associated with oil spill ........ 314
Table 10.3 Parameters of the random variables associated with the consequences. The costs refer to year 2013................................... 315
Table 10.4 Expected value and standard deviation of the consequences ........ 316
Table 10.5 The expected value and probability of the economic loss associated with different risk intervals ............................................................ 317
Table 10.6 The expected utility associated with different risk intervals considering different attitudes ....................................................... 318
Table 11.1 Statistical information corresponding to sea states (based on information from Resolute Weather 2014) .................................... 357 Table 11.2 Multi-attribute utility values associated with Route 1, 2, and 3 considering equal weighting factors (0.25, 0.25, 0.25, 0.25) under different risk attitudes .................................................................... 358
Table 11.3 Information regarding the single attribute utility functions ........... 359
Table 11.4 Multi-attribute utility values associated with Routes 1, 2, and 3 considering different risk attitudes ρ and various weighting factors ....................................................................................................... 360
Table 12.1 Characteristics of the VLCC and parameters of random variables associated with ultimate bending moment assessment .................. 398
Table 12.2 Parameters associated with corrosion and fatigue crack assessment (based on Kwon and Frangopol, 2012).......................................... 399
Table 12.3 Parameters of the random variable associated with consequence evaluation; the costs in USD refer to the year 2014 ...................... 400
xvi
Table 13.1 Conseqences rating factors for structural detail failure associated with fatigue damage ....................................................................... 442
Table 13.2 Random variables associated with fatigue crack limit state and consequence assessment ................................................................ 443
Table 13.3 Risk ranking of deck, bottom, and side shell with different numbers of fatigue-sensitive details and correlation coefficients at t = 4 years ....................................................................................................... 444
xviii
Figure 3.8 Probability of the bridge being in different functionality levels ...... 90
Figure 3.9 (a) Expected functionality of the bridge from the recovery phase considering MS and MSAS; and (b) daily indirect loss with and without considering aftershock effects; and (c) daily indirect loss of the bridge given different flow capacities associated with weight restriction (first number in parentheses) and emergency cases(second number in parentheses) under MSAS ........................ 91
Figure 3.10 (a) Time-variant expected functionality, and mean plus and minus one standard deviation; and (b) PDF of functionality of the bridge at different points in time (days) under MSAS; (c) time-variant expected functionality, and mean plus and minus one standard deviation; and (d) PDF of functionality of the bridge at different points in time (days) under MS ....................................................... 92 Figure 4.1 (a) Probability density function associated with hazard recurrence interval using time-dependent hazard model and (b) schematic representation of qualitative time-dependent resilience of highway bridges under extreme events in a life-cycle context..................... 118
Figure 4.2 Elevation and cross-sectional view for the case study bridge piers (elevation of a typical bridge pier and cross-section) .................... 119
Figure 4.3 (a) Time-dependent fragility curves of the bridge under investigation and (b) probabilistic scour depth under 100 and 500-year floods. 120
Figure 4.4 (a) Time-dependent seismic expected annual repair loss, and mean plus and minus one standard deviation and (b) expected annual total and indirect seismic loss ................................................................ 121
Figure 4.5 (a) Expected functionality of highway bridge under given seismic scenario at t = initial, 25, 50, and 75 years and (b) expected resilience under the occurrence of earthquake............................... 122
Figure 4.6 Time-variant functionality of the bridge under 100, 200, and 500 years floods .................................................................................... 123
Figure 4.7 (a) Expected life-cycle total seismic loss under different time- intervals considering four different cases, (b) effect of discount rate of money on the expected total seismic loss, and (c) effect of te (time from last earthquake) on the total seismic loss .............................. 124 Figure 4.8 (a) Expected total life-cycle loss under different flood scenarios, (b) comparison of expected life-cycle flood loss considering climate change under different hazard intensities and frequencies, and (c) comparison of the expected total life-cycle loss associated with flood and earthquake...................................................................... 125 Figure 5.1 Methodology of assessing time-variant sustainability of transportation networks ................................................................. 153
Figure 5.2 Approach for the seismic performance analyses of bridges and links ....................................................................................................... 154
xix
Figure 5.3 Schematic layout of the transportation network ............................ 155
Figure 5.4 Major faults in San Francisco Bay region (based on USGS 2003) 156
Figure 5.5 Mean magnitudes and occurrence rates (/year) of rupture sources for the San Francisco Bay area (based on data from USGS 2003) ..... 157
Figure 5.6 Fragility curves for bridge types in the investigated network for (a) minor damage state, (b) moderate damage state, (c) major damage state, and (d) complete damage state ............................................. 158
Figure 5.7 Seismic fragility curves of a bridge type A for (a) minor damage state, (b) moderate damage state, (c) major damage state, and (d) complete damage state at different points in time ......................... 159
Figure 5.8 Time-variant probability of damage states for link 4 in Table 5. with and without correlated PGA s ................................................. 160
Figure 5.9 Probability density function of repair loss at t = 40 years with and without correlated PGA s ................................................................ 161
Figure 5.10 (a) Time-variant contributions of different types of losses to the expected total loss; and (b) time-variant of expected total loss, and mean plus and minus one standard deviation ................................ 162
Figure 5.11 PDF of total economic loss at t = 40 and t = 75 years ................... 163 Figure 6.1 (a) Flowchart for sustainability and resilience assessment of buildings under seismic hazard and (b) resilience under extreme event ............................................................................................... 190
Figure 6.2 (a) Plan and (b) elevation of conventional and (c) based-isolated buildings, (d) lateral, and (e) vertical force-displacement associated with isolation devices (adapted from Sayani 2009) ....................... 191
Figure 6.3 Inter-story drift of (a) first, (b) second, and (c) third story of conventional building under 1940 El Centro earthquake and total floor acceleration of (d) first, (e) second, and (f) third floor of base- isolated building under 1940 El Centro earthquake ...................... 192 Figure 6.4 Peak inter-story drift ratio of conventional and base isolated building under (a) 1940 El Centro and (b) 1995 Kobe earthquake, and peak floor acceleration of the conventional and base-isolated building under (c) 1940 El earthquake and (d) 1995 Kobe earthquake ....... 193
Figure 6.5 (a) PDF of structural component and non-structural component repair loss, (b) structural repair loss, (c) fatality loss, and (d) CO 2 emissions of conventional and base-isolated buildings under 1940 El Centro earthquake .......................................................................... 194
Figure 6.6 Downtime associated with the (a) conventional and (b) base-isolated buildings using fact-track and slow-track repair schemes under 1940 El Centro earthquake ..................................................................... 195
Figure 6.7 PDF of residual functionality of conventional and base-isolated building under (a) 1940 El Centro earthquake and (b) 1995 Kobe earthquake ...................................................................................... 196
