Plus-Cloud and Cloud with limited single stripe analyses: Two new methodologies for efficient and accurate estimation of fragility curves

IF 6.4 1区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, CIVIL Engineering Structures Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-06 DOI:10.1016/j.engstruct.2025.119950
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 ,&nbsp;Gholamreza Ghodrati Amiri ,&nbsp;Morteza Raissi Dehkordi ,&nbsp;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":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","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":"2025/3/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Plus-Cloud和Cloud with limited single stripe analysis:两种有效和准确估计脆弱性曲线的新方法
脆弱性曲线的生成通常涉及三种主要方法:云分析、增量动态分析(IDA)和多条带分析(MSA)。MSA和IDA分析需要耗时的非线性分析才能准确估计脆性曲线。相比之下,云分析需要较少的计算工作量,但在选择适当的记录进行结构分析方面面临挑战。最近的研究引入了一些方法,如Pushover分析和记录选择的补充规则,以解决现有方法的局限性并降低计算成本。第一种新方法旨在通过对记录应用比例因子来克服云分析在崩溃性能水平上的局限性。这种方法允许以前在云分析期间不符合崩溃性能水平的数据有效地包含在该范围内。尽管如此,为了提高回归数据的准确性,实现了一个约束,很容易通过所使用的比例因子实现。第二种方法将Cloud和SSA方法相结合,利用Cloud的计算效率和SSA的准确性。这两种方法消除了在记录选择或Pushover分析中对补充标准的需要,避免了对常数参数或校准相关方程的依赖。这些方法被命名为Plus-Cloud (PC)和Cloud with Limited SSA (CLS)。利用优化结构的易损性曲线对这些方法进行了评价。结果表明,这些方法生成的脆性曲线与MSA分析结果吻合较好。两种方法的脆性曲线与MSA分析的中位数差约为0.1 g。此外,与MSA分析相比,这些方法减少了四到五倍的计算工作量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Engineering Structures
Engineering Structures 工程技术-工程:土木
CiteScore
10.20
自引率
14.50%
发文量
1385
审稿时长
67 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Steel plate-UHPC composite strengthening method for large-span prestressed concrete box girder bridges: Simulation, optimization, and case study Nonlinear model updating framework for shear walls based on seismic monitoring and capacity behavior features A direct floor-response spectrum generation method for multiple degree-of-freedom structures Interference effects of aerodynamic forces for high-rise buildings with different side ratios Performance-based evaluation of large-span soil-steel bridges during construction using a FE-AI hybrid technique
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1