4.5 Article

Minimal Building Fragility Portfolio for Damage Assessment of Communities Subjected to Tornadoes

期刊

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
卷 144, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002047

关键词

Building portfolio; Tornado; Spatial building damage; Tornado fragility; Centerville virtual community; Community resilience

资金

  1. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) [70NANB15H044]
  2. Colorado State University [70NANB15H044]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tornadoes are considered a low-probability high-consequence event that can cause significant damage to community infrastructure, resulting in injuries and fatalities and ultimately creating long-term socioeconomic losses. Community resilience requires not only that the performance level of individual facilities be modeled and understood, but also their synthesis in space and time. Fragilities are conditional statistical distributions that provide the probability of exceeding analyst-defined performance levels as a function of hazard (or loading) intensity. Fragilities are becoming a core component in community resilience studies and enable the analyst to model performance of individual components or a cluster of the infrastructure, thereby supporting risk-informed decision making at the community level. In this paper, tornado fragilities for a portfolio of nonresidential buildings are developed. These fragilities, combined with several existing tornado building fragilities from the literature, are proposed to represent a first comprehensive minimum size portfolio of tornado building fragilities needed to model a community. For illustration, they are then used in the Centerville virtual community to perform community-level building damage assessment. This minimal-level portfolio of building fragilities lays the foundation for post-tornado recovery and resilience studies of a community, which eventually requires inclusion of all physical and nonphysical infrastructure.

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

4.5
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