Comparison of Two Mechanics-Based Methods for Simplified Structural Analysis in Vulnerability Assessment
Analytical vulnerability assessment methods should ideally be validated or verified by comparing their damage predictions with actual observed damage data. However, there are a number of difficulties related to the comparison of analytical damage predictions with observed damage; for example, there...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2008-01-01
|
| Series: | Advances in Civil Engineering |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2008/438379 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832547436993708032 |
|---|---|
| author | H. Crowley B. Borzi R. Pinho M. Colombi M. Onida |
| author_facet | H. Crowley B. Borzi R. Pinho M. Colombi M. Onida |
| author_sort | H. Crowley |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Analytical vulnerability assessment methods should ideally be validated or verified by comparing their damage predictions with actual observed damage data. However, there are a number of difficulties related to the comparison of analytical damage predictions with observed damage; for example, there are large uncertainties related to the prediction of the ground motions to which the damaged buildings have been subjected. Until such problems can be resolved, it is worthwhile considering the mechanics of simplified analytical vulnerability assessment methods and validating this part of the methodology through comparisons with detailed structural models. This paper looks at two mechanics-based vulnerability assessment methods (DBELA and SP-BELA) and compares the nonlinear static response predicted with these methods with finite elements-based nonlinear analyses of prototype buildings. A comparison of the predicted response of urban populations of buildings using the two methods is then carried out, and the influence of these differences on vulnerability curves is studied. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-6640a0fbed224895a7b7a885b97a687b |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1687-8086 1687-8094 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2008-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Advances in Civil Engineering |
| spelling | doaj-art-6640a0fbed224895a7b7a885b97a687b2025-02-03T06:44:49ZengWileyAdvances in Civil Engineering1687-80861687-80942008-01-01200810.1155/2008/438379438379Comparison of Two Mechanics-Based Methods for Simplified Structural Analysis in Vulnerability AssessmentH. Crowley0B. Borzi1R. Pinho2M. Colombi3M. Onida4European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering (EUCENTRE), Via Ferrata 1, 27100 Pavia, ItalyEuropean Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering (EUCENTRE), Via Ferrata 1, 27100 Pavia, ItalyDipartimento di Meccanica Strutturale, Università degli Studi di Pavia, Via Ferrata 1, 27100 Pavia, ItalyEuropean Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering (EUCENTRE), Via Ferrata 1, 27100 Pavia, ItalyEuropean Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering (EUCENTRE), Via Ferrata 1, 27100 Pavia, ItalyAnalytical vulnerability assessment methods should ideally be validated or verified by comparing their damage predictions with actual observed damage data. However, there are a number of difficulties related to the comparison of analytical damage predictions with observed damage; for example, there are large uncertainties related to the prediction of the ground motions to which the damaged buildings have been subjected. Until such problems can be resolved, it is worthwhile considering the mechanics of simplified analytical vulnerability assessment methods and validating this part of the methodology through comparisons with detailed structural models. This paper looks at two mechanics-based vulnerability assessment methods (DBELA and SP-BELA) and compares the nonlinear static response predicted with these methods with finite elements-based nonlinear analyses of prototype buildings. A comparison of the predicted response of urban populations of buildings using the two methods is then carried out, and the influence of these differences on vulnerability curves is studied.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2008/438379 |
| spellingShingle | H. Crowley B. Borzi R. Pinho M. Colombi M. Onida Comparison of Two Mechanics-Based Methods for Simplified Structural Analysis in Vulnerability Assessment Advances in Civil Engineering |
| title | Comparison of Two Mechanics-Based Methods for Simplified Structural Analysis in Vulnerability Assessment |
| title_full | Comparison of Two Mechanics-Based Methods for Simplified Structural Analysis in Vulnerability Assessment |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Two Mechanics-Based Methods for Simplified Structural Analysis in Vulnerability Assessment |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Two Mechanics-Based Methods for Simplified Structural Analysis in Vulnerability Assessment |
| title_short | Comparison of Two Mechanics-Based Methods for Simplified Structural Analysis in Vulnerability Assessment |
| title_sort | comparison of two mechanics based methods for simplified structural analysis in vulnerability assessment |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2008/438379 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hcrowley comparisonoftwomechanicsbasedmethodsforsimplifiedstructuralanalysisinvulnerabilityassessment AT bborzi comparisonoftwomechanicsbasedmethodsforsimplifiedstructuralanalysisinvulnerabilityassessment AT rpinho comparisonoftwomechanicsbasedmethodsforsimplifiedstructuralanalysisinvulnerabilityassessment AT mcolombi comparisonoftwomechanicsbasedmethodsforsimplifiedstructuralanalysisinvulnerabilityassessment AT monida comparisonoftwomechanicsbasedmethodsforsimplifiedstructuralanalysisinvulnerabilityassessment |