Abstract | The overall seismic safety and operability of industrial building-type structures located in critical infrastructure facilities, largely depend on the seismic performance of their nested and/or supported ancillary elements, namely mechanical and electrical equipment, machinery, vessels, etc. Hence, on account that (a) no or minimal direct structural damages are anticipated in the equipment-supporting structures per se during moderate or even strong earthquake events since such structures are typically overdesigned and (b) the sustained structural damages are mostly due to the inferior seismic performance of the nested ancillary elements that could trigger a series of adverse cascading incidents (e.g., uncontrolled fires, explosions), significant effort has been
invested towards developing a design framework that could deliver safe designs for the latter. Despite the significant advancements in the relevant field, the development of a robust design framework is often undermined by several uncertainties that come into play in the evaluation of the capacity and demand of such nonstructural components. In particular, critical information that is needed for the design of the ancillary elements, such as the dynamic characteristics of the component and the supporting structure, are often abstract and/or require substantial effort for being retrieved with certain confidence. On that basis, the new Eurocode 8, offers three distinct design options that allow for adjustments in the conservatism that is induced in the design of the acceleration-sensitive ancillary elements according to the availability and reliability of information on the overall system. This study investigates, by means of a case study industrial structure, the extent to which the seismic reliability of an otherwise code-compatible component designed to comply with each one of the three alternative Eurocode design routes, is likely to be undermined for small discrepancies of the assumed properties from their actual values.