2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2016.12.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Structural fragility of T-joint connections in large-scale piping systems using equivalent elastic time-history simulations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…During the past three decades, various experimental projects (ANCO, 1983;Badillo-Almaraz et al, 2007;Blasi et al, 2018Blasi et al, , 2021Brandolese et al, 2019;Fiorin et al, 2021;Gilani et al, 2013;Jenkins et al, 2017;Ju and Gupta, 2015;Rahmanishamsi et al, 2014;Ryu and Reinhorn, 2013;Soroushian et al, 2012Soroushian et al, , 2016cTadinada and Gupta, 2017;Tian et al, 2014;Zaghi et al, 2012;Zhou et al, 2021) and multiple numerical works (Echevarria et al, 2012;Fiorin et al, 2021;Perrone et al, 2020;Ryu and Reinhorn, 2017;Soroushian et al, 2014cTian et al, 2015;Zaghi et al, 2016) were performed on CP systems. However, because of the complexity of these two systems, previous numerical studies were found to be less reliable compared to full-scale experiments.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…During the past three decades, various experimental projects (ANCO, 1983;Badillo-Almaraz et al, 2007;Blasi et al, 2018Blasi et al, , 2021Brandolese et al, 2019;Fiorin et al, 2021;Gilani et al, 2013;Jenkins et al, 2017;Ju and Gupta, 2015;Rahmanishamsi et al, 2014;Ryu and Reinhorn, 2013;Soroushian et al, 2012Soroushian et al, , 2016cTadinada and Gupta, 2017;Tian et al, 2014;Zaghi et al, 2012;Zhou et al, 2021) and multiple numerical works (Echevarria et al, 2012;Fiorin et al, 2021;Perrone et al, 2020;Ryu and Reinhorn, 2017;Soroushian et al, 2014cTian et al, 2015;Zaghi et al, 2016) were performed on CP systems. However, because of the complexity of these two systems, previous numerical studies were found to be less reliable compared to full-scale experiments.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among the various other methods not mentioned in this short introduction, the Bayesian framework has recently become increasingly popular in seismic fragility analysis (see e.g. [7,16,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28]). It actually allows to solve irregularity issues encountered in the estimation of the parametric fragility curves.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In earthquake engineering, Bayesian inference is often used to update log-normal fragility curves obtained beforehand by various approaches, by assuming independent distributions for the prior values of α and β such as log-normal distributions (see e.g. [11,16,22,25,26]).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the problem arises that a piping seismic fragility analysis based on the nonlinear seismic response analysis of the building-piping coupled numerical model requires a number of nonlinear analyses to be performed to take into account the uncertainty of the earthquake and the model, which results in a large computational cost. Accordingly, Tadinada and Gupta [24] proposed the equivalent elastic limit state (ELS) concept and related closed-form equation and developed a seismic fragility analysis method based on linear seismic response analysis and this ELS equation. Recently, Kwag and Gupta [25] proposed a novel closed-form equation by improving the accuracy of the existing ELS equation and developed an effective seismic fragility analysis method that is suitable for the secondary structural system.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%