Closed-form fragility analysis of the steel moment resisting frames
Source abstract
Abstract
Seismic fragility analysis is a probabilistic decision-making framework which is widely implemented for evaluating vulnerability of a building under earthquake loading. It requires ingredient named probabilistic model and commonly developed using statistics requiring collecting data in large quantities. Preparation of such a data-base is often costly and time-consuming. Therefore, in this paper, by developing generic seismic drift demand model for regular-multi-story steel moment resisting frames is tried to present a novel application of the probabilistic decisionmaking analysis to practical purposes. To this end, a demand model which is a linear function of intensity measure in logarithmic space is developed to predict overall maximum inter-story drift. Next, the model is coupled with a set of regression-based equations which are capable of directly estimating unknown statistical characteristics of the model parameters.To explicitly address uncertainties arise from randomness and lack of knowledge, the Bayesian regression inference is employed, when these relations are developed. The developed demand model is then employed in a Seismic Fragility Analysis (SFA) for two designed building. The accuracy of the results is also assessed by comparison with the results directly obtained from Incremental Dynamic analysis.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Seismic Performance and Analysis · Structural Response to Dynamic Loads · Fire effects on concrete materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (24)
Show source-provided references
1. Scientia Iranica · 2011 · 18 · 88510.1016/j.scient.2011.07.019 ↗
2. Int. J. Civil Eng. · 2011 · 9 · 145
3. Struct. Safe. · 2011 · 33 · 9610.1016/j.strusafe.2010.09.002 ↗
4. Comput. Concrete · 2015 · 16 · 72310.12989/cac.2015.16.5.723 ↗
5. Struct. Eng. Mech., Int. J. · 2015 · 55 · 117710.12989/sem.2015.55.6.1177 ↗
6. Steel Compos. Struct., Int. J. · 2015 · 19 · 23710.12989/scs.2015.19.1.237 ↗
7. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. · 2003 · 32 · 41710.1002/eqe.232 ↗
8. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe. · 2008 · 93 · 38310.1016/j.ress.2006.12.015 ↗
9. J. Struct. Eng. · 1989 · 115 · 26810.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1989)115:2(268) ↗
10. J. Eng. Mech. · 2002 · 128 · 102410.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2002)128:10(1024) ↗
11. Steel Compos. Struct., Int. J. · 2015 · 19 · 17310.12989/scs.2015.19.1.173 ↗
12. J. Struct. Eng. · 1997 · 123 · 145410.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:11(1454) ↗
13. Scientia Iranica · 2012 · 19 · 2710.1016/j.scient.2011.11.036 ↗
14. J. Struct. Eng. · 2010 · 137 · 1291
15. Eartq. Struct., Int. J. · 2016 · 10 · 367
16. J. Struct. Eng. · 2006 · 132 · 156310.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:10(1563) ↗
17. Eng. Struct. · 2010 · 32 · 1110.1016/j.engstruct.2009.08.010 ↗
18. Eng. Struct. · 2014 · 74 · 8610.1016/j.engstruct.2014.05.017 ↗
19. Eng. Struct. · 2014 · 74 · 1310.1016/j.engstruct.2014.05.005 ↗
20. Eng. Struct. · 2011 · 33 · 21810.1016/j.engstruct.2010.10.011 ↗
21. Bull. Earthq. Eng. · 2012 · 10 · 145510.1007/s10518-012-9362-y ↗
22. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. · 2002 · 31 · 49110.1002/eqe.141 ↗
23. J. Struct. Eng. · 2005 · 131 · 58910.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:4(589) ↗
24. J. Struct. Eng. · 2007 · 133 · 131610.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:9(1316) ↗