2020
DOI: 10.1177/8755293020952445
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of traditional vs low-damage structural and non-structural building systems through a cost/performance-based evaluation

Abstract: Innovative damage-mitigation technologies have been recently developed to improve the seismic performance of structural and non-structural elements. The combination of these solutions can lead to a high-performance and cost-efficient building system, capable of sustaining earthquakes with limited damage and reduced socio-economic losses. This article investigates the convenience of implementing damage-control solutions through a cost/performance-based evaluation of multi-story-reinforced concrete buildings, co… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Tab. 1 indicates that SAPs may have different effectiveness depending on whether the building is designed with a system with low-damage nonskeletal elements (NSEs) (Bianchi et al, 2019) or not. As the shaking intensity increases above the SLS level it is expected that structural damage becomes possible (P) depending on the structural design considerations, and at very large shaking damage is likely as indicated by the (Y) indicating "Yes" in the table.…”
Section: Proposed Structural Inspection Schemementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Tab. 1 indicates that SAPs may have different effectiveness depending on whether the building is designed with a system with low-damage nonskeletal elements (NSEs) (Bianchi et al, 2019) or not. As the shaking intensity increases above the SLS level it is expected that structural damage becomes possible (P) depending on the structural design considerations, and at very large shaking damage is likely as indicated by the (Y) indicating "Yes" in the table.…”
Section: Proposed Structural Inspection Schemementioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a result, stakeholders may choose to forgo structural inspections after earthquakes to save money, especially when no apparent damage is observed. This decision is influenced by psychological confirmation bias, but it can create a significant safety hazard as some structural damage may be concealed behind apparently undamaged NSEs, particularly when low-damage NSEs are utilized (Bianchi et al, 2019). Even with the support of governmental bodies or emergency organizations for rapid structural assessment, the high post-event workload on the limited number of available engineers may result in only some locations being checked.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The case-study building is a 5-story reinforced concrete structure with global dimensions and plan geometry as presented in Figure 8. This structure is selected from a previous research work developed by Bianchi et al [38]. The structural skeleton consists of seismic resistant four-bay frames in one direction and seismic-resistant walls in the orthogonal direction.…”
Section: Description Of the Case-studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Overall, most of these studies have focused on assessing the direct and indirect losses resulting from earthquakes on buildings, rather than potential fatalities. The findings emphasize the importance of implementing measures to improve building resilience to earthquakes, and the need for effective policies and strategies to mitigate the impact of earthquakes on buildings, such the adoption of a damagecontrol philosophy and technologies [10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%