ACI 318-1485ACI 318-1968ACI 318 for structural concrete4AISC Specification for steel structures4Alternative configurations233, 235–236Annual maximum series (AMS) wind speeds52Archetype buildings192ASCE 7-1085ASCE 7-164, 50, 74ASCE 24-1474ASHRAE 90.1 201376Assessment framework of resilience community19–24building and network modeling20direct damage assessment20–21functionality assessment21hazard modeling20indirect damage assessment21restoration analysis21–24AWC National Design Specification for Wood Construction4Bostonbuilding energy simulations for97–98building life span flood damage evaluation for96–97coastal hazard analyses for93–96coastal wind curve96flood hazard curve96stationary vs. nonstationary probability distributions93–95joint probability of wind and flood hazards for92–93copula92–93curves93envelopes93intensity measures, empirical and fitted distributions92Bounding models123, 126–127for capacity spectrum method129–132concavity to construct134–135Buildings1–2; See also residential buildings, life-cycle analysis for; See also individual buildings:codes and standards3–4earthquake-induced functionality51energy simulations for San Francisco, Boston, and Miami97–98hurricanes, performance during51–52life span flood damage evaluation for Boston and Miami96–97and network modeling20performance objectives4regulatory process in United States3–4Capacity spectrum methodbounding models for129–132interval dominance in132–133CBD. See code-based designCBECS. See Commercial Building Energy Consumption SurveyCBF. See concentrically braced frameCDF. See cumulative distribution functionChiller capacity76Civil infrastructure1–3; See also buildingsCode-based design (CBD)86, 88, 92, 100–103, 105–106Codes and standards of buildings3–4Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS)60Communityinfrastructure1–2resilience of1–3social well-being of1Community resilience–based design (CRBD)12, 22–23basic component of22–23overview of22–23Community Resilience Planning Guide (NIST 2015)4Concentrically braced frame (CBF)150Convergence criteria, MOO79Copula65, 92–93Crowding distance79Cumulative distribution function (CDF)144Damage measures (DMs)144, 162De-aggregation of resilience goals6, 12, 24–25, 38–42Decision-making61, 80–85building sustainability, preference weights for81–84, 110final design selection84resilience criteria, preference weights for81–84, 110stakeholder preference elicitation80–81Decision support systems (DSSs)177–222decision framing with simple-design184–186implementation186methodology185–186future work221–222illustrative example201building and site201decision-makers, framing, and metrics202life-cycle performance assessment206–212SFLE system202–206stakeholder preferences212–216life-cycle performance assessment195–198performance-based early design196–197routes for performance-based early design197–198literature survey on developed tools and methods to178–179methodologyframework objectives and value181–183framework overview183–184prerequisite, problem definition180–181; open performance data inventories186–192environmental impact data192inter-subsystem variability192intra-SFLE variability189multihazard vulnerability database187–189for SFLE systems186–187overview177, 180preference-based multiobjective ranking and optimization198–201results and discussion216–220SFLE generator module192–195Decision variables (DVs)162Deferring decisions133Design (resilience-based) framework49–112background51–54building life span flood damage evaluation for Boston and Miami96–97building resilience assessment60, 75building sustainability assessment60–61, 75–76decision-making for61, 80–85fragility and damage to building components, modeling offlood damage59, 74–75probability of failure75seismic damage58–59, 67–72wind damage59, 72–74; future building energy simulations for San Francisco, Boston, and Miami97–98joint probability of wind and flood hazards for Boston92–93copula92–93curves93envelopes93intensity measures, empirical and fitted distributions92literature review51–54MOO for61, 76–80, 98–107multihazard performance evaluation of buildings designed to current codes85–92envelope and roof covering systems85seismic fragility86seismic probability of failure88wind fragility for roof cover damage86–87wind probability of failure88–92natural hazard characterizationjoint wind and flood hazards57–58, 64–66, 92–93nonstationarities of wind and flood hazards58, 66–67, 93–96seismic hazard56–57, 62–64; obstacle to53–54optimal building designs and implications for building codes98–107, 111overview49–50, 54–56research significance50–51scope49WWR effect on energy consumption, investigation of98Design space147–149, 166–170constraints167–168design objectives167–168optimal sequence in sequential decision process methodology, comparison with169–170results168–169variables167–168Direct analysis5–6Direct damage assessment20–21Direct loss ratio (DLR)38–42DLR. See direct loss ratioDMs. See damage measuresDowntime197DSSs. See decision support systemsDVs. See decision variablesEarthquake resilience of communities51Earthquakes1–2EBF. See eccentrically braced frameEccentrically braced frame (EBF)150Economic services5EDPs. See engineering demand parametersEnergy use intensity (EUI)97–98Engineering demand parameters (EDPs)144Envelope system85EUI. See energy use intensityExpected residential buildings damage repair cost18–19Extratropical cyclones (XC)52First-order reliability method (FORM)199–200Flood damage59, 74–75, 96–97Flood depth74Flood elevation52–53, 57, 64–65, 74, 92–96, 108–109Flood hazardjoint probability of64–66copula65wind and flood intensity measures, empirical and fitted distributions of65–66nonstationarities of58, 66–67, 93–96Florida Public Hurricane Loss Model52FORM. See first-order reliability methodFragilitydefinition10, 13, 71functions10–11, 13–15Functionality assessment21Gauss–Lobatta quadrature rule129Generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution52Genetic algorithms (gAs)54, 122Ground motions62–64Hazard modeling20Hazus-MH (FEMA)52Hurricanes1–2, 51–52IBC. See International Building CodeIndirect damage assessment21Individual buildings1–2; See also residential buildings, life-cycle analysis for:community resilience vs.5–6design of5, 49–112direct analysis of5–6inverse analysis of6performance of5level, de-aggregation of community goals to12objectives4portfolios6regulatory process in United States3–4International Building Code (IBC)4Interval dominance127–128Inventories39Inverse analysis6Iterative modal analysis69Joint probability of wind and flood hazards for Boston92–93copula92–93curves93envelopes93intensity measures, empirical and fitted distributions92Joint wind and flood hazards57–58, 64–66, 92–93Joplin Tornado5Katrina hurricane2, 5Keys186Lateral force resisting system (LFRS)67–68LCA. See life-cycle analysisLeveraging monotonicity134–135LFRS. See lateral force resisting systemLife-cycle analysis (LCA)53, 141–143illustrative example145–147phases143–145for residential buildings15–19ensemble of residential, illustration of27–32expected damage repair cost18–19life-cycle carbon footprint, assessment of19regular repair/maintenance cost17–18single-family residential building, illustration of25–27total life-cycle cost16–17for resilience9–10seismic hazard and environmental performance assessment of building designs, integrating143–145for sustainability9–10Life-cycle carbon footprint, assessment of19Limit-state functions198Markov decision process (MDP)124, 148–149Maximum–minimal tradeoff approach (MMTA)79–80, 102MDP. See Markov decision processMean-risk analysis137Metrics of resilience5MF. See moment frameMiamibuilding energy simulations for97–98building life span flood damage evaluation for96–97coastal hazard analyses for93–96coastal wind curve96flood hazard curve96stationary vs. nonstationary probability distributions93–95MMTA. See maximum–minimal tradeoff approachModern building codes22Moment frame (MF)150Monotonic bounds133–134Monte Carlo approach32Monte Carlo (MC) simulation144MOO. See multiobjective optimizationMultifidelity models128Multihazard performance evaluation of buildings designed to current codes85–92envelope and roof covering systems85seismic fragility86seismic probability of failure88wind fragility for roof cover damage86–87wind probability of failure88–92Multihazard vulnerability database187–189Multiobjective optimization (MOO)54, 61, 76–80, 98–107, 111–1123D moment frame structure100–1033D moment frame structure with structural walls103–107convergence criteria79post-pareto pruning79–80procedure78of structural– foundation–soil systems133–136, 154–161of structural frame systems129–133, 136–141, 149–154, 161–166Mutation79National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)4Natural hazard events1–2NIST. See National Institute of Standards and TechnologyNondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II)54Nonstationarities of wind and flood hazards58, 66–67, 93–96coastal hazard analyses for Boston and Miami93–96coastal wind curve96flood hazard curve96stationary vs. nonstationary probability distributions93–95return period67NSGA-II61, 76OpenStreetMap (OSM)29Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)76PACT. See Performance Assessment Calculation ToolPAPRIKA. See Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible AlternativesPareto optimal designs54, 99, 111PBD. See performance-based designPBED. See performance-based early designPBEE. See performance based earthquake engineeringPerformance assessment, fragility functions in10–11Performance Assessment Calculation Tool (PACT)60, 69, 72Performance-based design (PBD)24Performance-based early design (PBED)196–197routes for197–198tools and frameworks for197–198Performance based earthquake engineering (PBEE)121–122Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities (ICC)24Performance parameter (PP)195Physical infrastructure5Pinch-point analysis197PNNL. See Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryPost-pareto pruning79–80Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives (PAPRIKA)61, 80–81PP. See performance parameterProblem specific knowledge133Project objectives6–7Public safety5Q-learning124, 147–148RCP. See representative concentration pathwayRegular repair/maintenance cost of residential buildings17–18Reinforced concrete (RC) building51Reinforcement learning-based design (RL-D) methodology147–148Reinforcement learning (RL) algorithm147–148Representative concentration pathway (RCP)60Reproduction79Residential buildings, life-cycle analysis for15–19expected damage repair cost18–19life-cycle carbon footprint, assessment of19regular repair/maintenance cost17–18total life-cycle cost16–17Resilience197Resilience assessment, interdependencies in7–8, 32–38Resilience-based performance metrics50–51Resilience of community1–3assessment, interdependencies in7–8, 32–38assessment framework19–24building performance level, de-aggregation of community goals to12, 24–25, 38–42enhancement, building back better to12–13environment to3–4goals4–5vs. individual building performance5–6life-cycle analysis for9–10metrics5objectives4–5performance assessment, fragility functions in10–11project objectives6–7scenario-based hazard analysis, role of11–12sustainability and8–9Resilient and sustainable buildings (RSB)4, 14, 121, 123–124, 170–171, 229–231Restoration analysis21–24Return period (RP)67Risk Category IV structures50Roof cover damage, wind fragility for86–87Roof covering system85RP. See return periodRSB. See resilient and sustainable buildingsSandy hurricane2, 5San Francisco, building energy simulations for97–98Scenario-based hazard analysis11–12SDP. See sequential decision processSeismic fragility86Seismic hazard56–57design (resilience-based) framework56–57, 62–64environmental impacts and141–147and ground motions62performance evaluation, ground motion demand for62–64Seismic probability of failure88Sequential decision process (SDP)122–171, 229design as125–126design space147–149by reinforcement learning149SIMPLE-Design methodology185–186alternative SFLES, defining185building taxonomy, defining185decision-makers' preference186decision metrics185performance range185Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART)61, 80–81, 83–84Simulated binary crossover69Single-family residential building, LCA for25–27SMART. See Simple Multi-Attribute Rating TechniqueSocial services5Social well-being of community1Soil, foundation, lateral-resisting structural, and envelope (SFLE) system124, 180–181, 192–195comparison181framework components182framework overview183–184Soil–foundation–structural systems123applications154–161analysis method156–158constraints155–156description of model156–158design objectives155–156multifidelity parameters156–158results158–161variables155–156concavity to construct bounding models134–135dimensionality reduction through systematic deferring of subsets/design variables135–136leveraging monotonicity134–135multiobjective optimization of133–136Storm intensity measures (IM)52Structural frame systems, multiobjective design optimization of129–133, 149–154, 161–166applications149–154, 162–166analysis method150–153constraints150description of model150–153design objectives150multifidelity parameters150–153problem statement150results153–154variables150bounding models, development of137–138capacity spectrum methodbounding models for129–132interval dominance in132–133; illustrative example140–141parameters129precise values of decision criteria, performance comparison136–137sequential decision process with probabilistic decision criteria138–140Sustainability49life-cycle analysis for9–10resilience of community and8–9Sustainable building practices2–3Tornadoes1–2, 5, 26–27Total life-cycle cost of residential buildings16–17Tradespace121Tropical cyclones (TC)52UIR. See uninhabitable ratioULD. See upper-level de-aggregationUninhabitable ratio (UIR)38–42United Statesbuildings regulatory process in3–4flood damage in53Upper-level de-aggregation (ULD)24–25US Green Building Council's LEED system53Water tower (WT)22, 32–37Water treatment plant (WTP)22, 32–37Wind damage59, 72–74Wind fragility for roof cover damage86–87Wind hazardjoint probability of64–66copula65wind and flood intensity measures, empirical and fitted distributions of65–66nonstationarities of58, 66–67, 93–96Window-to-wall ratio (WWR)60, 98, 109–110Wind probability of failure88–92Wind speed7, 52, 57, 64–65, 86, 92–93, 95, 108WT. See water towerWTP. See water treatment plantWWR. See window-to-wall ratio
