4.7 Article

Vulnerability analysis of industrial RC precast buildings designed according to modern seismic codes

期刊

ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
卷 158, 期 -, 页码 67-78

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.12.005

关键词

Precast structures; Seismic safety; Fragility curves; Incremental N2 method; Multi-stripe analysis; Building collapse

资金

  1. Italian Department of Civil Protection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Seismic performance-based design approach is currently implemented in modern building codes. Design requirements and provisions ensure an adequate structural performance under different intensity levels of seismic action. However, the probability of attainment of a performance level is implicitly considered in the code design approach (provisions and requirements); for instance, the minimum requirements in concrete structures cannot be simply correlated to the probability of collapse of the building as well as to its overall structural response. The aim of this work is to assess the vulnerability with respect to the collapse limit state of industrial single story RC precast buildings designed according to the current Italian seismic code. The comparison between the Italian code and the Eurocodes is provided throughout the paper. A parametric study is performed by investigating the safety against the collapse of 40 RC single-story precast structures. Multi-stripe analyses are performed by non-linear dynamic analyses at 10 intensity levels. The fragility of the structures is defined by means of the incremental N2 method, which has been demonstrated to be a suitable method for evaluating the collapse capacity of single-story precast buildings. The results demonstrate that the buildings are safe against the collapse mainly because of the structural overstrength with respect to seismic actions. The modelling assumptions are also validated in order to demonstrate the negligible influence of the cracking on the collapse as well as the importance of the geometrical nonlinearities for precast buildings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据