To retrofit or not to retrofit?

Nuti, Camillo; Vanzi, Ivo

doi:10.1016/s0141-0296(02)00190-6

Cited by 46 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As illustrated in previous studies [19][20][21] earthquake occurrence is assumed to follow a Poisson process in the present analysis of the expected life-cycle cost. It is acknowledged that in certain regions characterized by large infrequent earthquakes non-Poissonian time dependent models may represent earthquake occurrences more accurately [22][23][24], and that the Poisson assumption herein is adopted for the sake of modeling simplicity.…”

Section: Seismic Life-cycle Costingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk-based seismic life-cycle cost–benefit (LCC-B) analysis for bridge retrofit assessment

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Seismic Life-cycle Costingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk-based seismic life-cycle cost–benefit (LCC-B) analysis for bridge retrofit assessment

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As a final notice, the structural failure process in time is governed by an exponential distribution. See [9,10] for details on the model.…”

Section: Probabilistic Model Of Local Seismic Hazard and Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

A synthetic formulation for the Italian seismic hazard and code implications for the seismic risk

Vanzi

Marano

Monti

et al. 2015

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Since it falls outside the scope of this paper to discuss computational techniques for the construction of fragility curves for all the possible elements involved, the interested reader is invited to refer to specific literature, for example (Donferri et al 1998, Nuti andVanzi 2003) for Italian highway bridges. It might suffice to say here that the damaged structures along the road reduces its capacity, c, to let the traffic (expressed in terms of vehicles) flow.…”

Section: Fragility Of Componentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic safety of network structures and infrastructures

Nuti

Rasulo

Vanzi

2010

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Realistic assessment of network structural safety requires modelling of a reasonably large part of the network itself. Although this statement may appear too demanding, both for modelling and computing reasons, there are clear motivations and technological possibilities to do complex network analyses. In this paper, the safety analyses of three infrastructures that have been shaken by an earthquake are described, modelled and computed: the electric power, water and road systems. For each network, results extracted from real networks, some of which have been studied in the past by the authors, are presented and discussed. No inter-network analysis is carried out, although it is recognised that this would be the most complete approach. The common parts in the procedure to model and analyse each network, via Monte Carlo simulations, are detailed at the beginning of the paper, thus showing the many common points that show up in any network analysis.

show abstract

To retrofit or not to retrofit?

Cited by 46 publications

References 9 publications

Risk-based seismic life-cycle cost–benefit (LCC-B) analysis for bridge retrofit assessment

Risk-based seismic life-cycle cost–benefit (LCC-B) analysis for bridge retrofit assessment

A synthetic formulation for the Italian seismic hazard and code implications for the seismic risk

Seismic safety of network structures and infrastructures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About