Cumulative Structural Damage Due to Low Cycle Fatigue: An Energy-Based Approximation

Quinde, Pablo; Terán‐Gilmore, Amador; Reinoso, Eduardo

doi:10.1080/13632469.2019.1692736

Cited by 9 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there exists a stable, pseudoparabolic relationship between peak deformation and hysteretic energy. This was confirmed by numerical dynamic analyses of single degree of freedom (SDoF) systems subjected to ground motions [13][14][15] and quasi-static, cyclic experimental tests on single members [16][17][18][19] . It is worth stressing that the above statement refers to the cumulative definition of hysteretic energy for dynamic actions, calculated over the force-displacement time history (due to a given ground-motion record).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…There exists a stable, pseudoparabolic relationship between the peak global displacement (Δ ) and the hysteretic energy of a system, [13][14][15] herein called , for consistency with the subsequent sections. To qualitatively confirm this trend, an illustrative SDoF system is analyzed via an incremental dynamic analysis, IDA 23 .…”

Section: Single Ground-motion Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hysteretic energy‐based state‐dependent fragility for ground‐motion sequences

Gentile

Galasso

2020

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A framework to derive state‐dependent fragility relationships of structures subjected to ground‐motion sequences (e.g. mainshock‐aftershock (MS‐AS) or triggered earthquakes) is proposed. The hysteretic energy dissipated in the sequence is adopted as the main demand parameter, as it is a cumulative measure monotonically increasing with the length of the excitation. For a structure subjected to earthquake‐induced ground motions, it is not possible to define a closed‐form representation of the hysteretic energy as a function of the peak deformation. However, based on theoretical considerations, the hysteretic energy‐peak deformation trend is discussed, highlighting that (a) the significant duration of the ground motion explains the variability of the hysteretic energy for a given peak deformation; (b) the hysteretic energy dissipated in an AS decreases (for a given AS peak displacement) if the peak displacement in the MS increases. A vector‐valued probabilistic seismic demand model consistent with these considerations is proposed in the form of a surface relating the hysteretic energy in the sequence to the peak deformation in the MS and a ground‐motion intensity measure of the AS. This is calibrated via sequential cloud‐based time‐history analyses. The framework is demonstrated for 14 reinforced concrete frame buildings with different height, plastic mechanisms, and infill distributions. The results show the feasibility of the proposed approach, effectively capturing damage accumulation without inconsistencies in the obtained statistical model. The framework may be used for risk‐assessment applications explicitly incorporating ground‐motion sequences. The hysteretic energy versus peak deformation relationship may also be exploited in problems involving long‐duration ground motions or soft soils.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Single Ground-motion Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hysteretic energy‐based state‐dependent fragility for ground‐motion sequences

Gentile

Galasso

2020

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The values of γ , α , and β for sites 22 , SCT , and CDAO are shown in Table 3. An in-depth discussion on how to establish values for these three parameters for any location in the lakebed zone of Mexico City can be found in the work of Quinde et al (2019b).…”

Section: Post-earthquake Assessment Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results of the m e model can be considered reasonable in an ample range of seismic intensities. An in-depth discussion on the m e model and its accuracy can be found in the work of Quinde et al (2019b).…”

Section: Relationship Between Dissipated Plastic Energy and Maximum Displacementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Post-earthquake fast damage assessment using residual displacement and seismic energy: Application to Mexico City

Quinde¹,

Terán‐Gilmore²,

Reinoso³

2021

Earthquake Spectra

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The simplicity, timeliness, and reliability of a post-earthquake assessment are fundamental for decision-makers in emergency management. An adequate risk assessment will help during the recovery and, therefore, increases the resilience of the community. Although within this context, the walk-down damage survey with the correct filling of evaluation forms and use of processing-data tools make possible a pertinent post-earthquake assessment, it is desirable to have measurable parameters that can complement the visual field evaluation with quantitative information. In some cases, basic quantitative measures, such as crack width, are not enough to make pertinent structural damage assessments. This article presents a fast and simple methodology to estimate the median maximum displacement and plastic energy demands on simple single-degree-of-freedom systems from the residual displacement they exhibit after being subjected to ground motions generated in the lakebed zone of Mexico City. Based on this, a discussion is offered on how a post-earthquake assessment can be improved by complementing the visual and measured information gathered on an existing structural system after an intense ground motion, with estimates of its maximum and cumulative plastic deformation demands derived from its residual deformation.

show abstract

“…Particularly, As was written in comment 2, Quinde et al (2020), but also Quinde et al (2019), have cited most of the papers mentioned by Ruiz-Garcı´a and Miranda: Christopoulos et al (2003), Ruiz-Garcı´a and Miranda (2004, 2006a, 2006b, 2007, Ruiz-Garcı´a and Aguilar (2015), Guerrero et al (2017), Ruiz-Garcı´a and , Liossatou and Fardis (2015), Macrae and Kawashima (1997), Ramirez and Miranda (2012), Ji et al (2018), Yazgan and Dazio (2011). The discussions offered in these two papers (Quinde et al, 2019(Quinde et al, , 2020 on residual displacements, maximum displacements, and dissipated plastic energy, within a carefully delineated scope, were considered sufficient and are the backbone of the main idea discussed in the paper. Ruiz-Garcı´a and Miranda (2005) was not cited in the paper since recent work carried out by the same authors, referenced in Quinde et al (2019Quinde et al ( , 2020, covers most of the topics discussed in that reference.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%