4.7 Article

A unified framework for performance-based wind engineering of tall buildings in hurricane-prone regions based on lifetime intervention-cost estimation

Journal

STRUCTURAL SAFETY
Volume 73, Issue -, Pages 75-86

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2018.02.003

Keywords

Performance-based wind engineering; Tall building aerodynamics; Wind tunnel; Experimental load errors; Hurricane wind directionality; Lifetime intervention cost

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) of the United States of America under CAREER grant [CMMI-0844977]
  2. NSF [CMMI-1434880]
  3. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  4. Directorate For Engineering [1434880] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Accurate evaluation of structural performance is necessary in modern tall building design. In wind engineering, the current approach employed by researchers is the Monte-Carlo sampling method. Structural failure probability is calculated by combining structural fragility curves with the random variability of wind speed and direction, depending on local wind climate. In the hurricane-prone regions of the USA, wind climate and its effects on building response require accurate assessment of wind-induced structural performance. This paper proposes a simulation framework for tall buildings that combines fragility analysis with local wind climate information to evaluate structural vulnerability. Hurricane wind climate information directly considers maximum wind speed, wind direction along with their correlation at hurricane landfall. Consequently, structural fragility surfaces will be generated, conditional on these two variables. This result will be used to examine lifetime intervention cost accumulation, associated with nonstructural damage on the building facade, and to determine an optimal wind-direction-dependent building orientation. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available