Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10286608.2021.1980556
D. Elms
ABSTRACT Carmichael's discussion considers whether the discipline of Civil Engineering Systems can develop, and whether such development depends on a clear and agreed terminology. The answer to the first point is ‘yes,’ but though clear and well-agreed terminology is desirable, it is not strictly necessary because the underlying issue is the need for mutual understanding of and within the discipline rather than for agreed terminology. Restricting language could have undesirable side-effects.
{"title":"Response to BOK special issue discussion: ‘BOK and terminology’, by David Carmichael","authors":"D. Elms","doi":"10.1080/10286608.2021.1980556","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2021.1980556","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Carmichael's discussion considers whether the discipline of Civil Engineering Systems can develop, and whether such development depends on a clear and agreed terminology. The answer to the first point is ‘yes,’ but though clear and well-agreed terminology is desirable, it is not strictly necessary because the underlying issue is the need for mutual understanding of and within the discipline rather than for agreed terminology. Restricting language could have undesirable side-effects.","PeriodicalId":50689,"journal":{"name":"Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73701343","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10286608.2021.1980560
A. Mijić, J. Whyte, Rupert J. Myers, Pangiotis Angeloudis, M. Cardin, M. Stettler, Washington Ochieng
ABSTRACT We thank Prof Elms for his insightful comments and suggestions. The paper was indeed aimed at setting the future direction for the Centre for Systems Engineering and Innovation (CSEI) at Imperial College London, with the hope that the ideas will inspire others who work in the same or similar area of research. We are pleased to see that Prof Elms enjoyed reading our paper.
{"title":"Reply to a discussion of ‘a research agenda on systems approaches to infrastructure’ by david elms","authors":"A. Mijić, J. Whyte, Rupert J. Myers, Pangiotis Angeloudis, M. Cardin, M. Stettler, Washington Ochieng","doi":"10.1080/10286608.2021.1980560","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2021.1980560","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We thank Prof Elms for his insightful comments and suggestions. The paper was indeed aimed at setting the future direction for the Centre for Systems Engineering and Innovation (CSEI) at Imperial College London, with the hope that the ideas will inspire others who work in the same or similar area of research. We are pleased to see that Prof Elms enjoyed reading our paper.","PeriodicalId":50689,"journal":{"name":"Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80226262","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10286608.2021.1980549
D. Carmichael
I read Professor Elms’ contribution to the Special Issue (Elms, 2020) several times. It contains a lot of food for thought. Of particular interest is Table 1 ‘Commentary onmodels and modelling’ of that paper. What Professor Elmswrites is compatible with the BOK Framework in Carmichael (2020). To understand the compatibility introduces a level of trickiness, something that is difficult to explain to students and for students to understand because of a sort of circularity it introduces. The level of trickiness is like saying that ‘a model is a representation of a system, yet a model is a system’, and ‘models may model models’ (at which point students say that they wanted to become engineers not philosophers, and they head instead towards the laboratories to do some less-challenging breaking of concrete). The following is not a criticism of Elms (2020), because by and large I do not disagree with his views; rather it is an attempt at a reconciliation. Some of the differences between Professor Elms’ work and mine comes down to terminology – I comment on terminology in Carmichael (2020) and in a discussion piece to this Special Issue. It is my belief that agreement on terminology is a large factor in holding back the development of a Civil Engineering Systems BOK. I always attempt to be disciplined in the use of terminology; I always try to use terms, for example, ‘system’, ‘model’, ‘problem’, ‘uncertainty’, ‘risk’ and so on, in a consistent way and with only one meaning each. In the Elms (2020) paper Table 1, many issues are discussed regarding the choice or aide memoire for models and model building, and also in the Elms discussion piece, the terms ‘purpose’, ‘situation’ etc. are raised. The trickiness that throws students is that Professor Elms, when talking about selecting a model, is in fact performing what is referred to as ‘synthesis’ or ‘design’ (Part F) in the proposed BOK Framework in Carmichael (2020). Professor Elms is ‘designing’ the model. This is separate to systems design which I raise at Part F of the proposed BOK Framework. In effect, a fully developed Part F of the BOK Framework would cover all design issues which could be applied to any system (including a model if it is interpreted as a system). This includes issues about iterations in design, creativity, uncertainty and so on. The intangibles and subjectivity spoken of by Elms could also be incorporated. (But thinking of the necessary background to ‘designing’ a model only hastens the students to the concrete laboratory because of the logic loops that it introduces.)
{"title":"Author’s reply to: David Elms’ discussion of ‘a framework for a civil engineering BOK’","authors":"D. Carmichael","doi":"10.1080/10286608.2021.1980549","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2021.1980549","url":null,"abstract":"I read Professor Elms’ contribution to the Special Issue (Elms, 2020) several times. It contains a lot of food for thought. Of particular interest is Table 1 ‘Commentary onmodels and modelling’ of that paper. What Professor Elmswrites is compatible with the BOK Framework in Carmichael (2020). To understand the compatibility introduces a level of trickiness, something that is difficult to explain to students and for students to understand because of a sort of circularity it introduces. The level of trickiness is like saying that ‘a model is a representation of a system, yet a model is a system’, and ‘models may model models’ (at which point students say that they wanted to become engineers not philosophers, and they head instead towards the laboratories to do some less-challenging breaking of concrete). The following is not a criticism of Elms (2020), because by and large I do not disagree with his views; rather it is an attempt at a reconciliation. Some of the differences between Professor Elms’ work and mine comes down to terminology – I comment on terminology in Carmichael (2020) and in a discussion piece to this Special Issue. It is my belief that agreement on terminology is a large factor in holding back the development of a Civil Engineering Systems BOK. I always attempt to be disciplined in the use of terminology; I always try to use terms, for example, ‘system’, ‘model’, ‘problem’, ‘uncertainty’, ‘risk’ and so on, in a consistent way and with only one meaning each. In the Elms (2020) paper Table 1, many issues are discussed regarding the choice or aide memoire for models and model building, and also in the Elms discussion piece, the terms ‘purpose’, ‘situation’ etc. are raised. The trickiness that throws students is that Professor Elms, when talking about selecting a model, is in fact performing what is referred to as ‘synthesis’ or ‘design’ (Part F) in the proposed BOK Framework in Carmichael (2020). Professor Elms is ‘designing’ the model. This is separate to systems design which I raise at Part F of the proposed BOK Framework. In effect, a fully developed Part F of the BOK Framework would cover all design issues which could be applied to any system (including a model if it is interpreted as a system). This includes issues about iterations in design, creativity, uncertainty and so on. The intangibles and subjectivity spoken of by Elms could also be incorporated. (But thinking of the necessary background to ‘designing’ a model only hastens the students to the concrete laboratory because of the logic loops that it introduces.)","PeriodicalId":50689,"journal":{"name":"Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76386059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10286608.2021.1980552
D. Blockley
ABSTRACT The history and philosophy of the growth of engineering knowledge is under-developed – the nearest one can get is the progress of science. That history shows the falsity of Carmichael’s assertion that the absence of an agreed set of meanings for systems terms will hold-back the development of Civil Engineering Systems.
{"title":"Reply to Carmichael on BOK and terminology","authors":"D. Blockley","doi":"10.1080/10286608.2021.1980552","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2021.1980552","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The history and philosophy of the growth of engineering knowledge is under-developed – the nearest one can get is the progress of science. That history shows the falsity of Carmichael’s assertion that the absence of an agreed set of meanings for systems terms will hold-back the development of Civil Engineering Systems.","PeriodicalId":50689,"journal":{"name":"Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81349200","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10286608.2021.1980546
Rod Cameron
ABSTRACT Much engineering work requires an outlook which must deal with technical detail within a wider framework of societal and environmental complexities. This calls for multiple points of view ranging from a broad context to localised detail, analogous to the use of a zoom lens. The paper ‘The Systems Stance’ provides an excellent practical way of handling complex system problems needing a range of viewpoints.
{"title":"Discussion of ‘The systems stance’ by David Elms","authors":"Rod Cameron","doi":"10.1080/10286608.2021.1980546","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2021.1980546","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 Much engineering work requires an outlook which must deal with technical detail within a wider framework of societal and environmental complexities. This calls for multiple points of view ranging from a broad context to localised detail, analogous to the use of a zoom lens. The paper ‘The Systems Stance’ provides an excellent practical way of handling complex system problems needing a range of viewpoints.","PeriodicalId":50689,"journal":{"name":"Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88107424","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10286608.2021.1980557
D. Elms
ABSTRACT Carmichael’s discussion focusses on the education of Civil Engineering Systems practitioners, but any such aim requires a clear idea of the end product. There is an analogy between systems work and creativity. Do they rely on innate skill or can they be taught? I believe they can be taught, but the thinking processes needed require an approach radically different from the normal technique- and knowledge-focussed methods of most engineering teaching. A practice-focussed formality is required.
{"title":"Reply to discussion ‘At one with systems' by D. Carmichael: why systems education is different","authors":"D. Elms","doi":"10.1080/10286608.2021.1980557","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2021.1980557","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Carmichael’s discussion focusses on the education of Civil Engineering Systems practitioners, but any such aim requires a clear idea of the end product. There is an analogy between systems work and creativity. Do they rely on innate skill or can they be taught? I believe they can be taught, but the thinking processes needed require an approach radically different from the normal technique- and knowledge-focussed methods of most engineering teaching. A practice-focussed formality is required.","PeriodicalId":50689,"journal":{"name":"Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82845762","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10286608.2021.1980551
D. Blockley
I thank David Elms for his thoughtful and extensive comments on my paper ‘Practical wisdom in an age of computerization’. His comments deserve a full reply. He is right to highlight that that major challenges face everyone on the planet. The rise in global population and massive inequalities are equally important to us all. My choice to focus on three particular challenges does not imply that I consider the others to be of lesser importance. The points made in the paper are relevant, in my view, to all. He perceives a lack of clarity in the paper. My purpose was clearly set out, as he acknowledges, to identify threats and opportunities, to re-evaluate the service we provide as civil engineers, to suggest ways of improving that service and to understand better what it is that we provide that cannot be turned into algorithms of AI. Perhaps his perceived lack of clarity in the paper derives from his thinking that the threats and opportunities fit well with what we do and why we do it – but that increased efficiency and quality (including safety) and the effects of computerisation are somehow subsidiary. The reason I put them together is because quality and safety are paramount in our work and we are often rightly criticized for failures on time and budget as well as loss of life. That is why the section on the interacting objects process model (IOPM) is included. That model is about enabling joined-up systems thinking. It is about getting the right information (what) to the right people (who) at the right time (when) for the right purpose (why) in the right form (where) and in the right way (how). The effectiveness of the IOPM could be transformative if it is developed into servicing worldwide project intra-networks. I think Elms is also a bit dismissive of the loss and changing nature of engineering jobs. The lack of understanding by non-technically qualified decisions makers (politician and business-people) and opinion formers of what engineers ‘bring to the party’ is already leading, in some cases, to inappropriate and harmful decisions about the roles of engineers. These dangers could become even more serious in future projects where AI is used extensively. The distinction between routine work that can be covered by algorithms and that which requires practical intelligence and wisdom is crucial. I agree entirely that we cannot base our decisions about the future on the past alone. Of course, we must learn lessons from the past and our theories do depend on testing in the past and present. We agree that a major concern is how we deal with unknown unknown surprises and that designing for resilience is key.
{"title":"Author’s reply to David Elms’ discussion of ‘Practical wisdom in an age of computerization'","authors":"D. Blockley","doi":"10.1080/10286608.2021.1980551","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2021.1980551","url":null,"abstract":"I thank David Elms for his thoughtful and extensive comments on my paper ‘Practical wisdom in an age of computerization’. His comments deserve a full reply. He is right to highlight that that major challenges face everyone on the planet. The rise in global population and massive inequalities are equally important to us all. My choice to focus on three particular challenges does not imply that I consider the others to be of lesser importance. The points made in the paper are relevant, in my view, to all. He perceives a lack of clarity in the paper. My purpose was clearly set out, as he acknowledges, to identify threats and opportunities, to re-evaluate the service we provide as civil engineers, to suggest ways of improving that service and to understand better what it is that we provide that cannot be turned into algorithms of AI. Perhaps his perceived lack of clarity in the paper derives from his thinking that the threats and opportunities fit well with what we do and why we do it – but that increased efficiency and quality (including safety) and the effects of computerisation are somehow subsidiary. The reason I put them together is because quality and safety are paramount in our work and we are often rightly criticized for failures on time and budget as well as loss of life. That is why the section on the interacting objects process model (IOPM) is included. That model is about enabling joined-up systems thinking. It is about getting the right information (what) to the right people (who) at the right time (when) for the right purpose (why) in the right form (where) and in the right way (how). The effectiveness of the IOPM could be transformative if it is developed into servicing worldwide project intra-networks. I think Elms is also a bit dismissive of the loss and changing nature of engineering jobs. The lack of understanding by non-technically qualified decisions makers (politician and business-people) and opinion formers of what engineers ‘bring to the party’ is already leading, in some cases, to inappropriate and harmful decisions about the roles of engineers. These dangers could become even more serious in future projects where AI is used extensively. The distinction between routine work that can be covered by algorithms and that which requires practical intelligence and wisdom is crucial. I agree entirely that we cannot base our decisions about the future on the past alone. Of course, we must learn lessons from the past and our theories do depend on testing in the past and present. We agree that a major concern is how we deal with unknown unknown surprises and that designing for resilience is key.","PeriodicalId":50689,"journal":{"name":"Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89652134","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10286608.2021.1980548
D. Elms
ABSTRACT Research focussing on urban infrastructure is much needed. The original paper reviews a number of initiatives for this. The discussion suggests possible additions such as inclusion of network theoretic ideas, a focus on the importance of clearly defined system boundaries, further developments of resilience theory, and issues related to recovery from, rather than response to, major natural disasters, where intertwined physical and management issues can lead to significant system problems.
{"title":"Discussion of ‘A research agenda on systems approaches to infrastructure’ by Jennifer Whyte et al.","authors":"D. Elms","doi":"10.1080/10286608.2021.1980548","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2021.1980548","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Research focussing on urban infrastructure is much needed. The original paper reviews a number of initiatives for this. The discussion suggests possible additions such as inclusion of network theoretic ideas, a focus on the importance of clearly defined system boundaries, further developments of resilience theory, and issues related to recovery from, rather than response to, major natural disasters, where intertwined physical and management issues can lead to significant system problems.","PeriodicalId":50689,"journal":{"name":"Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72477090","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10286608.2021.1980555
D. Elms
ABSTRACT Addressing the process of doing systems engineering, Cameron suggests a zoom lens analogy, zooming in from a broad initial view to increasing attention to detail as the work progresses. The process requires a rigorous modelling process at all levels, with careful attention to clarity and balance and an equally careful attention to information quality.
{"title":"Response to discussion of ‘The Systems Stance’ by R. Cameron","authors":"D. Elms","doi":"10.1080/10286608.2021.1980555","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2021.1980555","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Addressing the process of doing systems engineering, Cameron suggests a zoom lens analogy, zooming in from a broad initial view to increasing attention to detail as the work progresses. The process requires a rigorous modelling process at all levels, with careful attention to clarity and balance and an equally careful attention to information quality.","PeriodicalId":50689,"journal":{"name":"Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89163014","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-19DOI: 10.1080/10286608.2021.1977798
D. de-León-Escobedo, E. Ismael-Hernández
ABSTRACT The paper proposes a formulation to select the optimal retrofit strategy for a damaged school under seismic hazard, by applying risk and reliability assessment techniques. The formulation considers the cost-effectiveness of alternative retrofit strategies, including failure consequences, to get adequate balance (CE: Balance is an uncountable noun) between the costs and the gains on reliability. The proposed alternatives should produce a failure probability below the target value, which is obtained by minimising the present value of the expected life-cycle cost. The failure consequences include the potential life loss, injuries, expenditures due to off-campus resumption of classes and loss/damage of contents. Exceedance of the shear force and bending moment capacities and the allowable inter-story drift are the considered limit states. A relationship between the cost and the increment on reliability is proposed and calibrated for the case study; MCS is applied to calculate the failure probabilities. An example of a two-story building is a school located in the Tlaxcala State; for this case, the target failure probability is 1.6 × 10−4. The optimal retrofit strategy is the one that corresponds to the minimum expected life-cycle cost. The proposal may serve to generate risk, reliability and resilience-based retrofit recommendations for schools under seismic hazard.
{"title":"Optimal retrofit for a school under seismic hazard including risk assessment","authors":"D. de-León-Escobedo, E. Ismael-Hernández","doi":"10.1080/10286608.2021.1977798","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2021.1977798","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The paper proposes a formulation to select the optimal retrofit strategy for a damaged school under seismic hazard, by applying risk and reliability assessment techniques. The formulation considers the cost-effectiveness of alternative retrofit strategies, including failure consequences, to get adequate balance (CE: Balance is an uncountable noun) between the costs and the gains on reliability. The proposed alternatives should produce a failure probability below the target value, which is obtained by minimising the present value of the expected life-cycle cost. The failure consequences include the potential life loss, injuries, expenditures due to off-campus resumption of classes and loss/damage of contents. Exceedance of the shear force and bending moment capacities and the allowable inter-story drift are the considered limit states. A relationship between the cost and the increment on reliability is proposed and calibrated for the case study; MCS is applied to calculate the failure probabilities. An example of a two-story building is a school located in the Tlaxcala State; for this case, the target failure probability is 1.6 × 10−4. The optimal retrofit strategy is the one that corresponds to the minimum expected life-cycle cost. The proposal may serve to generate risk, reliability and resilience-based retrofit recommendations for schools under seismic hazard.","PeriodicalId":50689,"journal":{"name":"Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2021-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89478030","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：