1999
DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1096-9845(199901)28:1<79::aid-eqe805>3.0.co;2-j
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Response-based damage assessment of structures

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
138
0
2

Year Published

2000
2000
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 300 publications
(144 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
4
138
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…It has been suggested that inter-storey drift alone may not be necessarily the best performance parameter to assess global damage, and that lateral stiffness is a more reliable measure of the likely damage to be experienced by a building [28]. Hence, recent studies have proposed to relate building damage with a change in the dynamic properties of RC frame buildings [28,29].…”
Section: Performance Levels and Global Damagementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It has been suggested that inter-storey drift alone may not be necessarily the best performance parameter to assess global damage, and that lateral stiffness is a more reliable measure of the likely damage to be experienced by a building [28]. Hence, recent studies have proposed to relate building damage with a change in the dynamic properties of RC frame buildings [28,29].…”
Section: Performance Levels and Global Damagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hence, recent studies have proposed to relate building damage with a change in the dynamic properties of RC frame buildings [28,29]. Based on this approach, the following equation can be used to relate damage of an RC frame at a given roof displacement as a function of its structural period at damage condition state (i.e.…”
Section: Performance Levels and Global Damagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is recognized a direct relationship between the number of inelastic cycles and damage (Krawinkler et al 1983), (Stephens & Yao 1987). Various models have been developed to quantify this relationship (Cosenza et al 1993) (Ghobarah et al 1999); two well-known relationships describing the cumulative damage are the normalized cumulative ductility and the Coffin-Manson law for low-cycle fatigue in conjunction with the Miner's rule of linear damage accumulation. Both models show a direct relationship between structural damage and the number and amplitude of damaging cycles.…”
Section: Generalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A direct relationship between the number of inelastic cycles and damage can be assumed (Krawinkler et al 1983), (Stephens and Yao 1987). Various models have been developed to quantify this relationship (Cosenza et al 1993) (Ghobarah et al 1999). In order to capture the behavior under ground motion excitations, most of current testing protocol developments and experimental studies have been conducted based on a general cumulative damage concept using the CoffinMason model and the Miner's rule of linear damage accumulation as a baseline (Krawinkler et al 1983).…”
Section: Cumulative Damagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Various damage indices have been proposed using different parameters such as drift, natural period of structure, energy absorption and cyclic fatigue such as Bozorgnia-Bertero [1], Park-Ang [2], Krawinkler-Zohrei [3], Roufaiel-Meyer [4], Dipasquale-Cakmak [5], and Ghobara [6] indices. They are divided into two broad categories: noncumulative and cumulative damage indices.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%