4.7 Article

Prediction of seismic-induced structural damage using artificial neural networks

期刊

ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
卷 31, 期 2, 页码 600-606

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.11.010

关键词

Damage prediction; Structural vulnerability; Seismic damage; Artificial neural networks

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Contemporary methods for estimating the extent of seismic-induced damage to structures include the use of nonlinear finite element method (FEM) and seismic vulnerability curves. FEM is applicable when a small number of predetermined structures is to be assessed, but becomes inefficient for larger stocks. Seismic vulnerability curves enable damage estimation for classes of similar structures characterised by a small number of parameters, and typically use only one parameter to describe ground motion. Hence, they are unable to extend damage prognosis to wider classes of structures, e.g. buildings with a different number of storeys and/or bays, or capture the full complexity of the relationship between damage and seismic excitation parameters. Motivated by these shortcomings, this study presents a general method for predicting seismic-induced damage using Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs). The approach was to describe both the structure and ground motion using a large number of structural and ground motion properties. The class of structures analysed were 2D reinforced concrete (RC) frames that varied in topology, stiffness, strength and damping, and were subjected to a suite of ground motions. Dynamic structural responses were simulated using nonlinear FEM analysis and damage indices describing the extent of damage calculated. Using the results of the numerical simulations, a mapping between the structural and ground motion properties and the damage indices was than established using an ANN. The performance of the ANN was assessed using several examples and the ANN was found to be capable of successfully predicting damage. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据