Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
One-Day Research ShowcaseNovember 14th 2006
MultiMulti--Criteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Criteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting ProjectsRetrofitting Projects
Nicola Caterino
Universitàdi Napoli
Federico II
Nicola CaterinoNicola CaterinoMultiMulti--Criteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting ProjectsCriteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting Projects
Complex problem
e.g. economic problems (marketing, resources allocation), natural and environmental resources management (plant location, disposal of dangerous waste), medical choices (optimal therapy strategy for a patient), etc.
Several solutionsSeveral objectives
MULTIMULTI--CRITERIA DECISION MAKING (MCDM)CRITERIA DECISION MAKING (MCDM)
SEISMIC RETROFIT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS: USE OF MCDMSEISMIC RETROFIT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS: USE OF MCDMSeismic Capacity ≥ Seismic
demand
Several feasible interventions
Many judgement criteria
Conflicting criteria
Best retrofit alternativeBest retrofit alternativeMCDM
Best solutionBest solutionMCDM
Nicola CaterinoNicola CaterinoMultiMulti--Criteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting ProjectsCriteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting Projects
DECISION MAKING PROCEDURE FOR SEISMIC DECISION MAKING PROCEDURE FOR SEISMIC RETROFIT OF A BUILDINGRETROFIT OF A BUILDING
2.2. SET OF ALTERNATIVES DEFINITION
4.4. CRITERIA SELECTION
5.5. CRITERIA “WEIGHTS”
7.7. MCDM (TOPSIS) METHOD APPLICATION: BEST ALTERNATIVE
1.1. BUILDING ASSESSMENT
STEPSSTEPS
6.6. EVALUATION OF SOLUTIONS
3.3. RETROFIT INTERVENTIONS DESIGN
Nicola CaterinoNicola CaterinoMultiMulti--Criteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting ProjectsCriteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting Projects
3 storeys
Smooth bars
Designed for gravity loads only
Largely spaced stirrups
Irregular in plan
CASE STUDY: GRAVITY ONLY DESIGNED RC BUILDINGCASE STUDY: GRAVITY ONLY DESIGNED RC BUILDING
Nicola CaterinoNicola CaterinoMultiMulti--Criteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting ProjectsCriteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting Projects
Demand > Capacity !
(a) GFRP confinement
(c) Concrete jacketing of columns(b) Steel bracing
Strategy selection
Retrofit system
CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTCAPACITY IMPROVEMENT DEMAND REDUCTIONDEMAND REDUCTION
Base isolation
Seismic retrofit
selection
0
0,3
0,6
0,9
0 1 2 3 4T(s)Sa
(g)
x =5%
x=10%
SET OF ALTERNATIVE INTERVENTIONSSET OF ALTERNATIVE INTERVENTIONS
Originalstate
Stre
ngth
Ductility
(b)
(c)
(a)
Requiredseismicperformance
UNSAFEREGION
REGIONSAFE
Nicola CaterinoNicola CaterinoMultiMulti--Criteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting ProjectsCriteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting Projects
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Roof displacement (cm)
Bas
e sh
ear (
kN)
Original stateGFRPConcrete jacketingSteel bracing
Original stateGFRPConcrete jacketingSteel bracing
As built structure / GFRP (A1) / Steel bracing (A2) / Concrete jacketing (A3):pushover curves comparison
Originalstate
Stre
ngth
Ductility
(b)
(c)
(a)
Requiredseismicperformance
UNSAFEREGION
REGIONSAFE
Nicola CaterinoNicola CaterinoMultiMulti--Criteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting ProjectsCriteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting Projects
C8 (14.1%)
C7 (3.5%)
C6 (20.1%)
C5 (2.6%)C4 (28%)
C3 (7.3%)
C2 (17.2%)
C1 (7.3%)
SOCIAL / ECONOMICAL CRITERIA TECHNICAL CRITERIA
C1: Installation cost
C2: Maintenance cost
C3: Duration of works / disruption of use
C4: Functional compatibility
C5: Skilled labour requirement / needed technology level
C6: Size of the needed intervention at foundation
C7: Significant Damage riskC8: Limited Damage risk
SELECTION OF THE EVALUATION CRITERIASELECTION OF THE EVALUATION CRITERIA
DEFINITION OF THE CRITERIA WEIGHTSDEFINITION OF THE CRITERIA WEIGHTSWeight wwii of criterion Ci (i=1,2,…,8) measures its relative importance (%)relative importance (%) to the final decision.
Nicola CaterinoNicola CaterinoMultiMulti--Criteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting ProjectsCriteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting Projects
CC11 CC22 CC33 CC44 CC55 CC66 CC77 CC88
AA11 23 096 23 206
115 037 - -
AA33 11 174 40 353 34 - - 2.97 0.040 0.172
--97 884
33 - - 2.90 0.022 0.311
AA22 53 979 122 15.18 0.024 0.002
AA44 74 675 119 2.65 0.020 0.000
(€)
EVALUATION OF ALL ALTERNATIVESEVALUATION OF ALL ALTERNATIVESIN RESPECT OF ALL CRITERIAIN RESPECT OF ALL CRITERIA
Install.cost
Mainten.cost
Works’duration
Functionalcompatib.
Skilledlabour
requirem.
Sizeinterventionfoundation
S.D. risk
D.L. risk
GFRP
STEEL
R.C
BASE
(days)(€) (qualitative) (qualitative)
Conversion of qualitative evaluations into quantitative variables
BRACING
JACKETS
ISOLATION
Nicola CaterinoNicola CaterinoMultiMulti--Criteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting ProjectsCriteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting Projects
CC11 CC22 CC33 CC44 CC55 CC66 CC77 CC88
AA11 23 096 23 206
115 037
AA33 11 174 40 353 34 2.97 0.040 0.172
97 884
33 2.90 0.022 0.311
AA22 53 979 122 15.18 0.024 0.002
AA44 74 675 119 2.65 0.020 0.000
(€)
EVALUATION OF ALL ALTERNATIVESEVALUATION OF ALL ALTERNATIVESIN RESPECT OF ALL CRITERIAIN RESPECT OF ALL CRITERIA
Install.cost
Mainten.cost
Works’duration
Functionalcompatib.
Skilledlabour
requirem.
Sizeinterventionfoundation
S.D. risk
D.L. risk
(days)(€) (qualitative) (qualitative)
DECISION MATRIXDECISION MATRIX DD=[=[xxijij]]
0.5380.538 0.4140.414
0.0740.074 0.1200.120
0.2740.274 0.0520.052
0.4140.4140.1140.114
GFRP
BRACING
JACKETS
STEEL
R.C
BASEISOLATION
Nicola CaterinoNicola CaterinoMultiMulti--Criteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting ProjectsCriteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting Projects
…normalized… …weighted…
“IDEAL” SOLUTION
RR=[=[rrijij]]
“NEGATIVE” SOLUTION
CC11 CC22 CC33 CC44 CC55 CC66 CC77 CC88
AA44 0,057 0,107 0,049 0,052 0,018 0,033 0,013 0,000
AA11 0,018 0,025 0,014 0,243 0,018 0,037 0,014 0,123
AA22 0,041 0,125 0,050 0,033 0,005 0,191 0,015 0,001
AA33 0,009 0,044 0,014 0,124 0,002 0,037 0,025 0,068
VV=[v=[vijij]=[]=[wwjjrrijij]]Decision matrix DD=[=[xxijij]]
A*A* [0,009 0,025 0,014 0,243 0,002 0,033 0,013 0,000]
AA-- [0,057 0,125 0,050 0,033 0,018 0,191 0,025 0,123]
SELECTION OF THE SELECTION OF THE BEST ALTERNATIVEBEST ALTERNATIVEMCDM METHOD APPLICATION: MCDM METHOD APPLICATION: TOPSISTOPSIS (Yoon(Yoon--Hwang 1980)Hwang 1980)
GFRPSTEEL BRACING
R.C. JACKETSBASE ISOLATION
Nicola CaterinoNicola CaterinoMultiMulti--Criteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting ProjectsCriteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting Projects
−
−
+=
ii
ii SS
SC*
* 4,3,2,1=i
CC88CC66
CC44
AA11 (GFRP(GFRP))
AA22 (BRACING)(BRACING)
AA33 (RC jackets)(RC jackets)
AA44 (ISOL.)(ISOL.)
AA**
AA--SSii
--
Si*
The best solutionbest solution, having the minimum
relative distance from ideal solution A*, has
the maximum value of the ratio Ci*
Si- : distance of alternative Ai from A-
(compatibility)
(intervention at foundation)(LD risk)
MCDM METHOD APPLICATION: MCDM METHOD APPLICATION: TOPSISTOPSIS (Yoon(Yoon--Hwang 1980)Hwang 1980)SELECTION OF THE SELECTION OF THE BEST ALTERNATIVEBEST ALTERNATIVE
Si* : distance of alternative Ai from A*
Nicola CaterinoNicola CaterinoMultiMulti--Criteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting ProjectsCriteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting Projects
SSi*i* SSii-- CCi*i*
AA11 0.125 0.285
0.125
AA33 0.139 0.213 0.600.60
0.202
0.700.70
AA22 0.285 0.300.30
AA44 0.217 0.480.48
MCDM METHOD APPLICATION: MCDM METHOD APPLICATION: TOPSISTOPSIS (Yoon(Yoon--Hwang 1980)Hwang 1980)SELECTION OF THE SELECTION OF THE BEST ALTERNATIVEBEST ALTERNATIVE
GFRP
STEEL
R.C
BASE
BRACING
JACKETS
ISOLATION
DISCUSSION OF RESULTSDISCUSSION OF RESULTS- The ranking results to be: 1) Confinement by GFRP
2) RC jacketing3) Base isolation4) Steel bracing
- Small dimensions (plan)- Residential destination- Decision maker profile (owner)
- Influence of the building’s peculiarities:
Nicola CaterinoNicola CaterinoMultiMulti--Criteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting ProjectsCriteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting Projects
- MCDM procedures, applied to the specific case of interest, may represent an effective support to this selection, allowing to take into account simultaneously and in a concise, quantitative manner all the different points of view by which each alternative has to be evaluated.
- A best seismic retrofit solution in absolute terms does not exist. The selection of the best intervention strictly depends on the particular case under exam.
CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS- Given a building to be seismically upgraded, the selection of the “best” (more suitable) retrofit alternative among the several ones available can be not a trivial task.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTSFUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
- Close the case study (useful to define the procedure) and apply the decision method to other structures.
- Compare other type of interventions.
- Compare also different management strategies.i.e. Phased retrofit (for economic constraints or to not disturb certain activities or for other particular reasons, the retrofit can be organized in subsequent phases)
- Extend the decisional procedure from the single building to a group of existing structures to be upgraded: territorial scale.
i.e. Adding damping by passive or semi-active devices.
Nicola CaterinoNicola CaterinoMultiMulti--Criteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting ProjectsCriteria Decision Analysis in Seismic Retrofitting Projects
One-Day Research ShowcaseNovember 14th 2006
Universitàdi Napoli
Federico II
THANK YOU