Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 317

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Analytical fragility assessment using unscaled ground motion records

Jalayer, Fatemeh, Ebrahimian, Hossein, Miano, Andrea, Manfredi, Gaetano, Sezen, Halil·2017·Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics
DOI 10.1002/eqe.2922
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Summary: It is desirable that nonlinear dynamic analyses for structural fragility assessment are performed using unscaled ground motions. The widespread use of a simple dynamic analysis procedure known as Cloud Analysis, which uses unscaled records and linear regression, has been impeded by its alleged inaccuracies. This paper investigates fragility assessment based on Cloud Analysis by adopting, as the performance variable, a scalar demand to capacity ratio that is equal to unity at the onset of limit state. It is shown that the Cloud Analysis, performed based on a careful choice of records, leads to reasonable and efficient fragility estimates. There are 2 main rules to keep in mind for record selection: to make sure that a good portion of the records leads to a demand to capacity ratio greater than unity and that the dispersion in records' seismic intensity is considerable. An inevitable consequence of implementing these rules is that one often needs to deal with the so‐called collapse cases. To formally consider the collapse cases, a 5‐parameter fragility model is proposed that mixes the simple regression in the logarithmic scale with logistic regression. The joint distribution of fragility parameters can be obtained by adopting a Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation scheme leading directly to the fragility and its confidence intervals. The resulting fragility curves compare reasonably with those obtained from the Incremental Dynamic Analysis and Multiple Stripe Analysis with (variable) conditional spectrum–compatible suites of records at different intensity levels for 3 older reinforced concrete frames with shear‐, shear‐flexure‐, and flexure‐dominant behavior.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/eqe.2922

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 317

Metadata

Authors
Jalayer, F., Ebrahimian, H., Miano, A., Manfredi, G., & Sezen, H.
Venue
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-06-26
Volume
46
Issue
15
Pages
2639-2663
ISSN
  • 0098-8847 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9845
DOI
10.1002/eqe.2922
OpenAlex
W2730716427
Cited by
317
References
22
FWCI
17.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.