Optimal Allocation of Available Resources to Improve the Reliability of Building Systems
This paper deals with structural optimization under limited resources. As a first relevant example, the problem of reduction of seismic risk in a built environment is tackled. Following other recent researches [1–3], three alternative “types” of retrofitting (upgrading intervention) of known cost per unit volume are considered; it is also assumed that the “vulnerability” of each building, the “losses” under an earthquake of given magnitude and their possible reduction thanks to an upgrading intervention are known. Such “losses” can be either (i) the direct and/or indirect “economical” costs of construction damage, or (ii) the non-monetary losses related to the number of “victims”, i.e. of persons physically affected by the ruin of a building. Use is made of “dynamic programming” in order to allocate the total available resources among the buildings, in such a way that the expected cost reduction is maximized; in these calculations, “economical” and non-monetary losses are considered separately; the possibility of taking both into account is also discussed. Numerical examples are presented.
KeywordsExpected Utility Vulnerability Index Seismic Risk Probability Mass Function Structural Safety
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- G.Augusti, A.Borri, E.Speranzini: Seismic vulnerability data and optimum allocation of resources for risk reduction; Proc. 5.th Internat. Conf. on Structural Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR’89), S.Francisco, August 1989, pp. 1, 645–652.Google Scholar
- G.Augusti, A.Borri, E.Speranzini: Allocazione ottimale delle risorse per gli interventi di riduzione del rischio sismico; 4.th Italian Nat. Conf. Erthquake Engineering, Milano, 1989.Google Scholar
- G.Augusti, A.Borri, E.Speranzini: Optimum allocation of resources for seismic risk reduction: economical return and “intangible” quantities; 9.th European Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Moscow, September 1990.Google Scholar
- G.Augusti, F.Casciati: Multiple modes of structural failure: probabilities and expected utilities; Proc. 2.d Internat. Conf. on Structural Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR’77), Munich; Werner-Verlag, Dusseldorf, 1977, pp. 39–57.Google Scholar
- G.Augusti, D.Benedetti. A.Corsanego: Investigations on seismic risk and seismic vulnerability in Italy; Proc. 4.th Internat. Conf. on Structural Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR’85), Kobe, Japan, 1985; Vol. 2, pp. 267–276.Google Scholar
- G.Augusti, A.Borri: Generazione automatica di mappe del rischio sismico e dei possibili interventi; Univ. Firenze, Civil Engineering Dept., Structures Division, Publ.No.3/86.Google Scholar
- G.Augusti, A.Borri, T.Crespellani: Dynamic maps for seismic risk reduction and effects of soil conditions; Univ. Firenze, Civil Engineering Dept., Geotechnical Division, Publ.No.5/88.Google Scholar
- G.Augusti, A.Borri, F.Casciati: Structural design under random uncertainties: economical return and “intangible” quantities; Proc. 3.d Internat. Conf. on Structural Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR’81), Trondheim, 1981; pp. 483–494.Google Scholar
- R.E.Bellman, S.E.Dreyfuss: “Applied Dynamic Programming”; Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1962.Google Scholar
- V. Pareto, Cours d’economie politique, Paris, 1896–97.Google Scholar