Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 398

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of the seismic performance of a code‐conforming reinforced‐concrete frame building—from seismic hazard to collapse safety and economic losses

Goulet, Christine A., Haselton, Curt B., Mitrani‐Reiser, Judith, Beck, James L., Deierlein, Gregory G., Porter, Keith A., Stewart, Jonathan P.·2007·Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics

Abstract

A state‐of‐the‐art seismic performance assessment is illustrated through application to a reinforced‐concrete moment‐frame building designed per current (2003) building code provisions. Performance is quantified in terms of economic losses and collapse safety. The assessment includes site‐specific seismic hazard analyses, nonlinear dynamic structural response simulations to collapse, damage analyses, and loss estimation. When selecting ground motion records for nonlinear dynamic analyses that are consistent with a target hazard level expressed in terms of a response spectral value at the building's fundamental period, it is important to consider the response spectral shape, especially when considering higher hazard levels. This was done through the parameter commonly denoted by ε. Neglecting these effects during record selection is shown to lead to a factor of 5–10 overestimation of mean annual collapse rate. Structural response simulations, which properly account for uncertainties in ground motions and structural modelling, indicate a 2–7% probability of collapse for buildings subjected to motions scaled to a hazard level equivalent to a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years. The probabilities of component damage and the means and coefficients of variation of the repair costs are calculated using fragility functions and repair‐cost probability distributions. The calculated expected annual losses for various building design variants range from 0.6 to 1.1% of the replacement value, where the smaller losses are for above‐code design variants and the larger losses are for buildings designed with minimum‐code compliance. Sensitivity studies highlight the impact of key modelling assumptions on the accurate calculation of damage and the associated repair costs. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.694

Cites

4 of 4 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 398

Metadata

Authors
Goulet, C. A., Haselton, C. B., Mitrani‐Reiser, J., Beck, J. L., Deierlein, G. G., Porter, K. A., & Stewart, J. P.
Venue
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-06-15
Volume
36
Issue
13
Pages
1973-1997
ISSN
  • 0098-8847 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9845
OpenAlex
W2169971590
Cited by
398
References
4
FWCI
58.23
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.