Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Modelling structural performance and risk for enhanced building resilience and reliability

  • Practice-oriented papers
  • Published:
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Amongst the numerous challenges faced by the Architecture, Engineering, Construction and Operation (AECO) sector, there is the need to fulfil the requirements from a wide range of increasingly demanding stakeholders, which are usually seeking for some sort of demonstration of the degree to which their needs are fulfilled (e.g. certification of building performance), together with an effective protection against the risk of nonconformities or defective buildings (e.g. financial warranties or insurance covering the risks of various kinds of building failures). Performance-based regulations and standards that are progressively being adopted by the AECO sector in general and the building subsector in particular are including the risk information, following what other sectors and industries have done since the 1970s. The needs and expectations of the AECO sector stakeholders are more sophisticated and include future-proofing methodologies and provisions that anticipate the future events, the changes, the needs or the uses to prepare adequately, minimizing impacts and capitalizing on opportunities leading to business continuity throughout the whole building projects life cycle. Within the realms of building design and construction quality control (e.g. the Consortium of European Building Control) and of building political–regulatory environments (e.g. the Inter-jurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration Committee), it has been argued that there is a need to balance the relative importance of different performance requirements and prioritize actions in face of limited resources for planning and controlling the building structures resilience and reliability. The present paper covers physical, political–regulatory and organizational aspects, seeking to contribute with a suggested correspondence and calibration of performance and risk metrics for building. Building structures are used as an empirical case study to show how technical performance and risk engineering can be programmed defensively towards higher resilience and reliability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The effect of exceeding a limit state may be irreversible, in which case the resulting damage or malfunction remains until the structure is repaired, or reversible, in the event that damage or malfunction remains only as a reason for exceeding the limit state when it is present (and because the cessation of the cause allows the transition from the unwanted state back to the desired state) (ISO 2394).

  2. In addition to the limit states presented, the following could also be mentioned: (i) reparability limit states, which correspond to the impairment of the repair facility of damages caused by external agents (ISO 22111 and [47]); (ii) fire resistance limit states, which correspond to the compromise of structural sufficiency during and after a fire (ISO 19338 and [50]); and (iii) fatigue limit states, which correspond to the commitment of the other limit states due to fatigue (ISO 19338). The attributes corresponding to these boundary states are outside the scope of the present investigation. Its consideration, together with the qualitative attribute of constant robustness in the norm ISO 22111, will be object of future studies.

  3. This example focuses on buildings with normal consequences in case of structural failure (buildings of relative importance II corresponding to CC2 in the Eurocodes, such as residential and small office buildings). It is worth noting that A+ corresponds to the same adequate reliability of buildings with high consequences in case of structural failure (buildings of relative importance III corresponding to CC3 in the Eurocodes, such as hospitals, schools and the like).

References

  1. Cerѐ G, Rezgui Y, Zhao W (2017) Critical review of existing built environment resilience frameworks: directions for future research. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 25:173–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.09.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Roostaie S, Nawari N, Kibert C (2019) Sustainability and resilience: a review of definitions, relationships, and their integration into a combined building assessment framework. Built Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.02.042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Saunders W, Becker J (2015) A discussion of resilience and sustainability: land use planning recovery from the Canterbury earthquake sequence, New Zealand. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 14:73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.01.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Almeida N, Sousa V, Alves Dias L, Branco F (2015) Managing the technical risk of performance-based building structures. J Civil Eng Manag 21(3):384–394. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2014.893921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Preiser W, Hardy A, Schramm U (2018) From linear delivery process to life cycle phases: the validity of the concept of building performance evaluation. Build Perform Eval 3:18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56862-1_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Almeida N (2011). Technical model of building management performance and risk based: design, development and example of application to structures. Ph.D. in Civil Engineering, IST-ULisboa (in portuguese)

  7. ITIC (2006) Construção: Uma Visão do Futuro. Instituto Técnico para a Indústria da Construção, Associação das Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas. Lisboa : AECOPS, 2006

  8. Huovila P (2005) Performance based performance based building combining forces-advancing facilities management and construction through innovation series. www.ril.fi

  9. Salvado F, Almeida N, Vale e Azevedo A (2018) Toward improved LCC-informed decisions in building management. Built Environ Proj Asset Manag 8(2):114–133. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-07-2017-0042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Preiser W, Hardy A, Schramm U (eds) (2018) Building performance evaluation. Springer, Berlin. ISBN 978-3-319-56862-1

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lützkendorf T (2018) Assessing the environmental performance of buildings: trends, lessons and tensions. Build Res Inf 46(5):594–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1356126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Almeida N, Sousa V, Alves Dias L, Branco F (2010) A framework for combining risk-management and performance-based building approaches. Build Res Inf 38(2):157–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210903516719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Almeida N, Sousa V, Alves Dias L, Branco F (2015) Engineering risk management in performance-based building environments. J Civil Eng Manag 21(2):218–230. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2013.802740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Masood T, McFarlane D, Parlikad AK, Dora J, Ellis A, Schooling J (2016) Towards the future-proofing of UK infrastructure. Infrastruct Asset Manag 3(1):28–41. https://doi.org/10.1680/jinam.15.00006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kohler N (2018) From the design of green buildings to resilience management of building stocks. Build Res Inf 46(5):578–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1356122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wilkinson S, Osmond P (2018) Building resilience in urban settlements. Int J Build Pathol Adapt 36(4):334–336. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-08-2018-066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ismail FZ, Halog A, Smith C (2017) How sustainable is disaster resilience? Int J Disaster Resil Built Environ 8(5):555–572. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-07-2016-0028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mehmood A (2016) Of resilient places: planning for urban resilience. Eur Plan Stud 24(2):407–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1082980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Meacham BJ (2016) Sustainability and resiliency objectives in performance building regulations. Build Res Inf 44(5–6):474–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2016.1142330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Vale L (2014) The politics of resilient cities: whose resilience and whose city? Build Res Inf 42(2):191–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.850602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hassler U, Kohler N (2014) Resilience in the built environment. Build Res Inf 42(2):119–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.873593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hollnagel E (2014) Resilience engineering and the built environment. Build Res Inf 42(2):221–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.862607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Burroughs S (2017) Development of a tool for assessing commercial building resilience. Procedia Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wholey F (2015) Building resilience: a framework for assessing and communicating the costs and benefits of resilient design strategies. Perkins Res J 7:1

    Google Scholar 

  25. Francis R, Bekera B (2014) A metric and frameworks for resilience analysis of engineered and infrastructure systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 121:90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESS.2013.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rececconi F, Moretti N, Maltese S, Dejaco MC, Kamara JM, Heidrich O (2018) Un rating system per la resilienza degli edifici. TECHNE J Technol Archit Environ 15:358–365. https://doi.org/10.13128/Techne-22119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Proverbs D, Lamond J (2017) Flood resilient construction and adaptation of buildings. In: Cutter S (ed) Oxford research encyclopedia of natural hazard science. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  28. Reckien D, Creutzig F, Fernandez B, Lwasa S, Tovar-Restrepo M, Mcevoy D, Satterthwaite D (2017) Climate change, equity and the sustainable development goals: an urban perspective. Environ Urban 29(1):159–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247816677778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Adedeji T, Proverbs D, Xiao H, Oladokun V (2018) Towards a conceptual framework for property level flood resilience. Int J Saf Secur Eng 8(4):493–504. https://doi.org/10.2495/SAFE-V8-N4-493-504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Burroughs S (2017) Development of a tool for assessing commercial building resilience. Procedia Engineering 180:1034–1043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Achour N, Pantzartzis E, Pascale F, Price A (2015) Integration of resilience and sustainability: from theory to application. Int J Disaster Resil Built Environ 14:347–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Meacham B, Van Straalen J (2018) A socio-technical system framework for risk-informed performance-based building regulation. Build Res Inf 46(4):444–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1299525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lützkendorf T, Speer T, Szigeti F, Davis G, Le Roux P, Kato A, Tsunekawa K (2005) A comparison of international classifications for performance requirements and building performance categories used in evaluation methods, Helsinki. In: Proceedings CIB 2005 advancing facilities management and construction through innovation

  34. Lützkendorf T, Lorenz D (2006) Using an integrated performance approach in building assessment tools. Build Res Inf 34(4):334–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Bukowski R, Hirano Y, Rackliffe T (2001) Standards linkages to a performance-based regulatory framework. Performance in Product and Practice. CIB WBC. Wellington, New Zealand, pp 1–9

  36. IRCC (2010) Performance-based building regulatory systems: principles and experiences, Report, Inter-jurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration Committee (IRCC)

  37. Meacham B (2010) Performance-based building regulatory systems—principles and experiences. A Report of the Inter-jurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration Committee. s.l.: IRCC

  38. Spekkink D (2005) Performance based design of buildings. PeBBu Domain 3 Final Report. s.l.: CIBdf

  39. Meacham B (2004) Performance based-building regulatory system: structure, hierarchy and linkages. J Struct Eng Soc New Zealand 17(1):37–51

    Google Scholar 

  40. O’Brien M, Wakefield R (2005) Developing a calculator for evaluating physical design characteristics and whole house performance: a preliminary method. Washington: US Department of Housing and Urban Development

  41. Lützkendorf T, Speer T (2004) Building performance or product quality: What information should be signalled in consumer markets?. CIB World Building Congress, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  42. ISO Guide 67 (2004) ISO/IEC Guide 67:2004 Conformity assessment—Fundamentals of product certification, ISO Central Secretariat

  43. Duncan J (2005) Performance-based building: lessons from implementation in New Zealand. Build Res Inf 2(33):120–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. ISO Guide 31 (2015) ISO Guide 31:2015 Reference materials—Contents of certificates, labels and accompanying documentation, ISO Central Secretariat

  45. Meacham B (2016) Sustainability and resiliency objectives in performance building regulations. Build Res Inf. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2016.1142330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Patil R, Naringe A, Kalyana-Rama J (2018) Novel techniques for seismic performance of high rise structures in 21st century: state-of-the art review. In: IOP conference series: materials science and engineering, vol 330, no 1. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/330/1/012126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Fujitani H, Teshigawara M, Gojo W, Hirano Y, Saito T, Fukuyama H (2005) Framework for performance-based design of building structures. In: Computer-aided civil and infrastructure engineering, vol 20. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-8667.2005.00377.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. MBIE (2017) Building regulations 1992—Reprint as at 1 January 2017. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1992/0150/latest/DLM162570.html

  49. ENISA (2011) Measurement frameworks and metrics for resilient networks and services. Eur Netw Inf Secur Ag. https://doi.org/10.2495/SI080261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Deierlein G, Hamilton S (2003) Framework for structural fire engineering and design methods. In: SFPE-NIST Workshop—National R&D Roadmap for fire safety design and retrofit of structures. Baltimore, USA: s.n

  51. Akiyama H, Teshigawara M, Fukuyama H (2000) A framework of structural performance evaluation system for buildings in Japan. In: Proceedings of the 12WCEE, Paper 2171

  52. Yamawaki K, Kitamura H, Tsuneki Y, Mori N, Fukai S (2000) Introduction of a performance based design. In: Proceedings of the 12WCEE, Paper 1511

  53. EN 1990/A1:2005/AC:2010 (2010) Eurocode—basis of structural design, European Union Per Regulation 305/2011, Directive 98/34/EC, Directive 2004/18/EC, ISBN 0 580 40186 3

  54. Vanier D, Lacasse M, Parsons A (1996) Using product models to represent user requirements. Construction on the Information Highway. In: Proceedings of CIB Workshop W78. Bled, Slovenia: National Research Council Canada, June 10-12 de 1996, pp 511–524

  55. ICC (2006) International code council performance code for buildings and facilities. IL: Internacional Code Council

  56. Meacham B (2007) Using risk as a basis for establishing tolerable performance: an approach for building regulation. Special workshop on risk acceptance and risk communication. Stanford University, Palo Alto

    Google Scholar 

  57. IRCC & ARUP (2006) Report of the IRCC workshop on the use of risk in regulation. ARUP & IRCC, San Francisco, p 2006

    Google Scholar 

  58. Menezes H, Eloy S (2009) Segurança das crianças nos ambientes construídos. Os Dez Anos do Regime Jurídico da Urbanização e da Edificação. Lisboa: LNEC

  59. Becker R (2008) Fundamentals of performance-based building design. Build Simul 1:356–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. ISO Guide 73 (2009) ISO Guide 73:2009 risk management—vocabulary, ISO Central Secretariat

  61. SEAOC (1999) Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  62. Foley C (2002) Chapter 8: Optimized performance-based design for buildings. In: Burns SA (ed.) Recent advances in optimal structural design. SEI: ASCE

  63. Holický M, Vrouwenvelder T (2005) Chapter I—basic concepts of structural reliability. Handbook 2-Reliability Backgrounds: Guide to the basis of structural reliability and risk engineering related to Eurocodes, supplemented by practical examples. s.l.: Leonardo Da Vinco Pilot Project CZ/02/B/f/PP-134007

  64. Gulvanessian H, Calgaro J, Holický M (2002) Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design. Designer’s Guide to EN 1990. London: Thomas Telford

  65. JCSS (1996) Background documentation. Part 1 of EC1 Basis of design. s.l.: JCSS, 1996

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Building Economy, Management and Technology Unit, Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil (LNEC), Avenida do Brasil, 101, 1700-066, Lisbon, Portugal

    Maria João Falcão Silva & Filipa Salvado

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture and GeoResources, University of Lisbon, Instituto Superior Técnico (IST), Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001, Lisbon, Portugal

    Nuno Marques de Almeida

  3. Civil Engineering Department, School of Technology and Management - Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Rua General Norton de Matos, Apartado 4133, 2411-901, Leiria, Portugal

    Hugo Rodrigues

Authors
  1. Maria João Falcão Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nuno Marques de Almeida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Filipa Salvado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hugo Rodrigues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria João Falcão Silva.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Falcão Silva, M.J., de Almeida, N.M., Salvado, F. et al. Modelling structural performance and risk for enhanced building resilience and reliability. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 5, 26 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-020-0277-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-020-0277-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation