This article concentrates on the interplay between structural damage and risk assessment on one hand and numerical techniques, especially for uncertainty quantification, on the other hand. It shows the connection between damage assessment and risk quantification, touching on the methods of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). It then details on how to initially asses the damage, which by necessity will involve some uncertainty, and how to update that initial assessment through additional testing. This is essential a statistical system identification process. The decision making process of finding whether the structure should be repaired or demolished is also mentioned shortly. It should involve a cost/benefit appraisal in the light of the information gained on the extent of the damage. Especially if the damage was caused by environmental forces, e.g. such as seismic action, it may be advantageous to determine the characteristic of this external action which caused the damage. This is a similar problem to the system identification of the structure, only that the testing is purely computational. Having identified the cause and the extent of the damage, one may want to draw lessons as to mitigate the hazard due future extreme environmental effect, in the form of robust design, minimizing vulnerability of life-lines and the fragility of structures.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Augusti, G., Baratta, A., and Casciati, F. (1984) Probabilistic Methods in Structural Engineering, Chapman&Hall, London.
Ben-Haim, Y. and Elishakoff, I. (1990) Convex Models of Uncertainty in Applied Mechanics, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Box, G. E., William, G. and Hunter, J. S. H. (2005) Statistics for Experimenters: Design, Innovation, and Discovery, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Caflisch, R. E. (1998) Monte Carlo and quasi-Monte Carlo methods, Acta Numer.7, 1–49.
Chernoff, H. (1972) Sequential Analysis and Optimal Design, SIAM, Philadelphia, PA.
Dempster, A. P. (1968) A generalization of Bayesian inference, J. Royal Stat. Soc.—SerB 30, 205–247.
Ditlevsen, O. and Madsen, H. O. (1996) Structural Reliability Methods, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Douglas, J. (2007) Physical vulnerability modelling in natural hazard risk assessment, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.(http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/7/283/2007/) 7, 283–288.
Elishakoff, I. (1999) Whys and Hows in Uncertainty Modelling—Probability, Fuzziness, and Anti-optimization, Springer, Berlin.
FEMA (2004) HAZUS-MH Technical Manual, Washington, DC http://www.fema.gov/hazus/dl-sr2.shtm.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) From Nobel Prize to project management: Getting risks right, Proj. Manage.J. 37, 5–15.
Ghanem, R. and Spanos, P. (1991) Stochastic Finite Elements — A Spectral Approach, Springer, Berlin.
Hubbard, D. (2007) How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. in Engineering, Uncertainly (2000) (http://www.uncertainty-in-engineering.net/).
Jaynes, E. T. (2003) Probability Theory, The Logic of Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kaplan, S. and Garrick, B. J. (1981) On the quantitative definition of risk, Risk Anal. 1, 11–37.
Khuri, A. and Cornell, J. (1987) Response Surfaces: Designs and Analyses, Marcel Dekker, New York.
King, A., Kiremidjian, S., Basöz, N., Law, K., Vučetić, M., Doroudian, M., Olson, R., Eidinger, J., Goettel, K., and Horner, G. (1997) Methodologies for evaluating the socio-economic consequences of large earthquakes, Earthq. Spect. 13, 565–584.
Kleiber, M. and Hien, T. D. (1992) The Stochastic Finite Element Method. Basic Perturbation Technique and Computer Implementation, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Knight, F. H. (1921) Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit, Hart, Schaffner&Marx; Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Krée, P. and Soize, C. (1986) Mathematics of Random Phenomena — Random Vibrations of Mechanical Structures, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Kumamoto, H. and Henley, E. J. (1996) Probabilistic risk assessment and management for engineers and scientists, IEEE Press, New York.
Lindley, D. V. (1972) Bayesian Statistics, a Review, SIAM, Philadelphia PA.
Lindley, D. V. (2006) Understanding uncertainty, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Ljung, L. (1999) System Identification — Theory for the User, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Loève, M. (1977) Probability Theory, Springer, Berlin.
Matthies, H. G. (2007a) Quantifying uncertainty: Modern computational representation of probability and applications. In A. Ibrahimbegovíc and I. Kožar (Eds.), Extreme Man-Made and Natural Hazards in Dynamics of Structures, NATO-ARW, Springer, Verlag, Berlin.
Matthies, H. G. (2007b) Uncertainty quantification with stochastic finite elements. In E. Stein, R. de Borst, and T. J. R. Hughes, (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Computational Mechanics. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Matthies, H. G. and Bucher, C. (1999) Finite elements for stochastic media problems, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 168, 3–17.
Matthies, H. G. and Keese, A. (2005) Galerkin methods for linear and nonlinear elliptic stochastic partial differential equations, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 194, 1295–1331.
Matthies, H. G, Brenner, C.E. and Soares, C. G. B. (1997) Uncertainties in probabilistic numerical analysis of structures and solids — stochastic finite elements, J. Stuct. Safety 19(3), 283–336.
Möller, B. and Beer, M. (1998) Safety assessment using fuzzy theory, In: Proceedings of the 1998 International Computing Congress in Civil EngineeringASCE, Boston, MA.
Möller, B. and Beer, M. (2004) Fuzzy Randomness, Springer, Berlin.
Möller, B. and Reuter, U. (2007) Uncertainty Forecasting in Engineering, Springer, Berlin.
Natke, H. G. and Ben-Haim, Y. (1997) Uncertainty: Models and Measures, Akademie, Berlin.
Natke, H. G. and Cempel, C. (1997) Model-Aided Diagnosis of Mechanical Systems, Springer, Berlin.
Net, F. R. (2000) http://www.floodrisknet.org.uk/.
Pearl, J. (2000) Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Revadigar, S. and Mau, S. T. (1999) Automated multi-criterion building damage assessment from seismic data, J. Struct. Eng. 125(2), 211–217.
Schueller, G. (1997) A state of the art report on computational stochastic mechanics, Prob. Eng. Mech. 12(4), 197–321.
Shafer, G. (1976) A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Starr, C. (1969) Social benefit versus technological risk, Science 165(3899), 1232–1238.
Tannert, C., Elvers, H.-D., and Jandrig, B. (2007) The ethics of uncertainty, EMBO Rep. 8(10), 892–896.
Wilson, R. and Crouch, E. (2001) Risk/Benefit Analysis, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Xiu, D. and Karniadakis, G. E. (2002) Modeling uncertainty in steady state diffusion problems via generalized polynomial chaos, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 191, 4927– 4948.
Yao, J. T. P. and Kawamura, H. (2001) On structural reliability, J. Temporal Des. Arch. Environ. 12, 34–48.
Zimmermann, H. (1992) Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applications, Kluwer, Boston London.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Matthies, H.G. (2009). Structural Damage and Risk Assessment and Uncertainty Quantification. In: Ibrahimbegovic, A., Zlatar, M. (eds) Damage Assessment and Reconstruction after War or Natural Disaster. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2386-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2386-5_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-2384-1
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-2386-5
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)