Comparison of Two Mechanics-Based Methods for Simplified Structural Analysis in Vulnerability Assessment
Analytical vulnerability assessment methods should ideally be validated or verified by comparing their damage predictions with actual observed damage data. However, there are a number of difficulties related to the comparison of analytical damage predictions with observed damage; for example, there...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Hindawi Limited
2008-01-01
|
| Series: | Advances in Civil Engineering |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2008/438379 |
| Summary: | Analytical vulnerability assessment methods should ideally be validated or verified by comparing their damage predictions with actual observed damage data. However, there are a number of difficulties related to the comparison of analytical damage predictions with observed damage; for example, there are large uncertainties related to the prediction of the ground motions to which the damaged buildings have been subjected. Until such problems can be resolved, it is worthwhile considering the mechanics of simplified analytical vulnerability assessment methods and validating this part of the methodology through comparisons with detailed structural models. This paper looks at two mechanics-based vulnerability assessment methods (DBELA and SP-BELA) and compares the nonlinear static response predicted with these methods with finite elements-based nonlinear analyses of prototype buildings. A comparison of the predicted response of urban populations of buildings using the two methods is then carried out, and the influence of these differences on vulnerability curves is studied. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1687-8086 1687-8094 |