A pre-posterior analysis framework for quantifying the value of seismic monitoring and inspections of buildings

Piotr Omenzetter, Maria Pina Limongelli, Ufuk Yazgan

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter (peer-reviewed)

3 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Adoption of a monitoring system should be based on sound appraisal of the likely economic benefits of such decisions. These benefits can be quantified in terms of the reduction of the risks posed by the failure of structural system to be monitored versus the cost of monitoring. Yet, there seems to be dearth of appropriate tools for such decisions. This factsheet discusses a framework for rationalising the adoption of monitoring for buildings subjected to seismic risks. This is cast in the theoretical rigour of the pre-posterior decision analysis. Two types of monitoring are considered, namely for quick appraisal of a single building state and damage following a seismic event, and for updating the seismic risk for a building or a larger stock of structures through long term monitoring. In the context of quick post-event condition assessment, methods for automatic damage detection and joint utilisation of monitoring and visual inspection data are considered from a point of view of how they can be used in the pre-posterior analysis. Modelling of the various consequences or costs of earthquakes, including damage to structural and non-structural components and content, human fatalities, injuries and trauma, and loss of building function are also discussed as an indispensable ingredient of modelling risk. Two numerical examples are included to illustrate the theory.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings of the 3rd Workshop, COST Action TU1402: Quantifying the Value of Structural Health Monitoring
Place of PublicationBarcelona
Number of pages15
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Fingerprint

Inspection
Monitoring
Decision theory
Damage detection
Costs
Earthquakes
Acoustic waves
Economics

Cite this

Omenzetter, P., Limongelli, M. P., & Yazgan, U. (2016). A pre-posterior analysis framework for quantifying the value of seismic monitoring and inspections of buildings. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop, COST Action TU1402: Quantifying the Value of Structural Health Monitoring Barcelona.

A pre-posterior analysis framework for quantifying the value of seismic monitoring and inspections of buildings. / Omenzetter, Piotr; Limongelli, Maria Pina; Yazgan, Ufuk.

Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop, COST Action TU1402: Quantifying the Value of Structural Health Monitoring. Barcelona, 2016.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter (peer-reviewed)

Omenzetter, P, Limongelli, MP & Yazgan, U 2016, A pre-posterior analysis framework for quantifying the value of seismic monitoring and inspections of buildings. in Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop, COST Action TU1402: Quantifying the Value of Structural Health Monitoring. Barcelona.
Omenzetter P, Limongelli MP, Yazgan U. A pre-posterior analysis framework for quantifying the value of seismic monitoring and inspections of buildings. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop, COST Action TU1402: Quantifying the Value of Structural Health Monitoring. Barcelona. 2016
Omenzetter, Piotr ; Limongelli, Maria Pina ; Yazgan, Ufuk. / A pre-posterior analysis framework for quantifying the value of seismic monitoring and inspections of buildings. Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop, COST Action TU1402: Quantifying the Value of Structural Health Monitoring. Barcelona, 2016.
@inbook{59cd3a0ab8894399babe40167f8b335c,
title = "A pre-posterior analysis framework for quantifying the value of seismic monitoring and inspections of buildings",
abstract = "Adoption of a monitoring system should be based on sound appraisal of the likely economic benefits of such decisions. These benefits can be quantified in terms of the reduction of the risks posed by the failure of structural system to be monitored versus the cost of monitoring. Yet, there seems to be dearth of appropriate tools for such decisions. This factsheet discusses a framework for rationalising the adoption of monitoring for buildings subjected to seismic risks. This is cast in the theoretical rigour of the pre-posterior decision analysis. Two types of monitoring are considered, namely for quick appraisal of a single building state and damage following a seismic event, and for updating the seismic risk for a building or a larger stock of structures through long term monitoring. In the context of quick post-event condition assessment, methods for automatic damage detection and joint utilisation of monitoring and visual inspection data are considered from a point of view of how they can be used in the pre-posterior analysis. Modelling of the various consequences or costs of earthquakes, including damage to structural and non-structural components and content, human fatalities, injuries and trauma, and loss of building function are also discussed as an indispensable ingredient of modelling risk. Two numerical examples are included to illustrate the theory.",
author = "Piotr Omenzetter and Limongelli, {Maria Pina} and Ufuk Yazgan",
year = "2016",
language = "English",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop, COST Action TU1402: Quantifying the Value of Structural Health Monitoring",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - A pre-posterior analysis framework for quantifying the value of seismic monitoring and inspections of buildings

AU - Omenzetter, Piotr

AU - Limongelli, Maria Pina

AU - Yazgan, Ufuk

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Adoption of a monitoring system should be based on sound appraisal of the likely economic benefits of such decisions. These benefits can be quantified in terms of the reduction of the risks posed by the failure of structural system to be monitored versus the cost of monitoring. Yet, there seems to be dearth of appropriate tools for such decisions. This factsheet discusses a framework for rationalising the adoption of monitoring for buildings subjected to seismic risks. This is cast in the theoretical rigour of the pre-posterior decision analysis. Two types of monitoring are considered, namely for quick appraisal of a single building state and damage following a seismic event, and for updating the seismic risk for a building or a larger stock of structures through long term monitoring. In the context of quick post-event condition assessment, methods for automatic damage detection and joint utilisation of monitoring and visual inspection data are considered from a point of view of how they can be used in the pre-posterior analysis. Modelling of the various consequences or costs of earthquakes, including damage to structural and non-structural components and content, human fatalities, injuries and trauma, and loss of building function are also discussed as an indispensable ingredient of modelling risk. Two numerical examples are included to illustrate the theory.

AB - Adoption of a monitoring system should be based on sound appraisal of the likely economic benefits of such decisions. These benefits can be quantified in terms of the reduction of the risks posed by the failure of structural system to be monitored versus the cost of monitoring. Yet, there seems to be dearth of appropriate tools for such decisions. This factsheet discusses a framework for rationalising the adoption of monitoring for buildings subjected to seismic risks. This is cast in the theoretical rigour of the pre-posterior decision analysis. Two types of monitoring are considered, namely for quick appraisal of a single building state and damage following a seismic event, and for updating the seismic risk for a building or a larger stock of structures through long term monitoring. In the context of quick post-event condition assessment, methods for automatic damage detection and joint utilisation of monitoring and visual inspection data are considered from a point of view of how they can be used in the pre-posterior analysis. Modelling of the various consequences or costs of earthquakes, including damage to structural and non-structural components and content, human fatalities, injuries and trauma, and loss of building function are also discussed as an indispensable ingredient of modelling risk. Two numerical examples are included to illustrate the theory.

M3 - Chapter (peer-reviewed)

BT - Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop, COST Action TU1402: Quantifying the Value of Structural Health Monitoring

CY - Barcelona

ER -