Mohammad Salehi , Gholamreza Ghodrati Amiri , Morteza Raissi Dehkordi , Mahdi Eghbali
{"title":"Plus-Cloud and Cloud with limited single stripe analyses: Two new methodologies for efficient and accurate estimation of fragility curves","authors":"Mohammad Salehi , Gholamreza Ghodrati Amiri , Morteza Raissi Dehkordi , Mahdi Eghbali","doi":"10.1016/j.engstruct.2025.119950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The generation of fragility curves typically involves three primary methodologies: Cloud analysis, Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA), and Multiple-Stripe Analysis (MSA). MSA and IDA analyses require time-consuming nonlinear analyses to accurately estimate the fragility curve. In contrast, Cloud analysis requires less computational effort but faces challenges in selecting the appropriate record for structural analysis. Recent research have introduced methodologies, such as Pushover analysis and supplementary rules for record selection, to address the limitations of existing methods and reduce computational costs. The first novel method aims to overcome the limitations of cloud analysis at the collapse performance level by applying a scale factor to the records. This approach allows data that previously didn’t meet the collapse performance level during cloud analysis to be effectively included within that range. Nonetheless, to improve regression data accuracy, a constraint is implemented, easily attainable by the scale factor used. The second method integrates the Cloud and SSA approaches, making use of the computational efficiency of Cloud and the accuracy of SSA. these two methods eliminate the need for supplementary criteria in record selection or Pushover analysis and avoids reliance on constant parameters or calibration-dependent equations. The methods are introduced under the names Plus-Cloud (PC) and Cloud with Limited SSA (CLS). These approaches have been assessed using the fragility curves of optimized structures. The results indicate that the fragility curves generated by these proposed methods exhibit a satisfactory alignment with MSA analysis. The median difference between the fragility curves of the two proposed methods and MSA analysis is approximately 0.1 g. Moreover, these methods reduce computational efforts by four to five times compared to the MSA analysis.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11763,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Structures","volume":"332 ","pages":"Article 119950"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Engineering Structures","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029625003414","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The generation of fragility curves typically involves three primary methodologies: Cloud analysis, Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA), and Multiple-Stripe Analysis (MSA). MSA and IDA analyses require time-consuming nonlinear analyses to accurately estimate the fragility curve. In contrast, Cloud analysis requires less computational effort but faces challenges in selecting the appropriate record for structural analysis. Recent research have introduced methodologies, such as Pushover analysis and supplementary rules for record selection, to address the limitations of existing methods and reduce computational costs. The first novel method aims to overcome the limitations of cloud analysis at the collapse performance level by applying a scale factor to the records. This approach allows data that previously didn’t meet the collapse performance level during cloud analysis to be effectively included within that range. Nonetheless, to improve regression data accuracy, a constraint is implemented, easily attainable by the scale factor used. The second method integrates the Cloud and SSA approaches, making use of the computational efficiency of Cloud and the accuracy of SSA. these two methods eliminate the need for supplementary criteria in record selection or Pushover analysis and avoids reliance on constant parameters or calibration-dependent equations. The methods are introduced under the names Plus-Cloud (PC) and Cloud with Limited SSA (CLS). These approaches have been assessed using the fragility curves of optimized structures. The results indicate that the fragility curves generated by these proposed methods exhibit a satisfactory alignment with MSA analysis. The median difference between the fragility curves of the two proposed methods and MSA analysis is approximately 0.1 g. Moreover, these methods reduce computational efforts by four to five times compared to the MSA analysis.
期刊介绍:
Engineering Structures provides a forum for a broad blend of scientific and technical papers to reflect the evolving needs of the structural engineering and structural mechanics communities. Particularly welcome are contributions dealing with applications of structural engineering and mechanics principles in all areas of technology. The journal aspires to a broad and integrated coverage of the effects of dynamic loadings and of the modelling techniques whereby the structural response to these loadings may be computed.
The scope of Engineering Structures encompasses, but is not restricted to, the following areas: infrastructure engineering; earthquake engineering; structure-fluid-soil interaction; wind engineering; fire engineering; blast engineering; structural reliability/stability; life assessment/integrity; structural health monitoring; multi-hazard engineering; structural dynamics; optimization; expert systems; experimental modelling; performance-based design; multiscale analysis; value engineering.
Topics of interest include: tall buildings; innovative structures; environmentally responsive structures; bridges; stadiums; commercial and public buildings; transmission towers; television and telecommunication masts; foldable structures; cooling towers; plates and shells; suspension structures; protective structures; smart structures; nuclear reactors; dams; pressure vessels; pipelines; tunnels.
Engineering Structures also publishes review articles, short communications and discussions, book reviews, and a diary on international events related to any aspect of structural engineering.