2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.01.059
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Damage and collapses in industrial precast buildings after the 2012 Emilia earthquake

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
86
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

4
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 148 publications
(88 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
(35 reference statements)
2
86
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This assumption is supported by the outcomes of field surveys [30,36]. This assumption is supported by the outcomes of field surveys [30,36].…”
Section: Definition Of Ground Motion Intensitymentioning
confidence: 69%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…This assumption is supported by the outcomes of field surveys [30,36]. This assumption is supported by the outcomes of field surveys [30,36].…”
Section: Definition Of Ground Motion Intensitymentioning
confidence: 69%
“…This assumption is supported by the outcomes of field surveys [30,36]. In spite of the similar PGA values, there were many cases of buildings totally undamaged after 20 May that collapsed on 29 May because of failures in friction-based connections; the most common of which were either the unseating of beams from columns or the roofing of elements from beams [30]. Even when mechanical connectors were present, their strength was insufficient because they were not designed for seismic actions, but only to facilitate the assembly of prefabricated structural members during construction [30].…”
Section: Definition Of Ground Motion Intensitymentioning
confidence: 77%
See 3 more Smart Citations