Performance-Based Seismic Assessment for Loss Estimation of Isolated Bridges
1. 1
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Ph.D. Student Paolo Emidio Sebastiani Advisors Prof. Franco Bontempi Dr. Francesco Petrini
a.a. 2014/2015 â Seminario intermedio XXVIII Ciclo
2. 2
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
1.1 â TOPICS, KEYWORDS AND TOOLS
īˇ Topics
īSeismic vulnerability assessment (design, retrofitting)
īStrategic structures: bridges, (demand, performance, capacity, loss)
īSeismic retrofitting (aging, life-cycle cost)
īModern technologies (bearings, isolation devices) īˇ Tools
īFull probabilistic approach (uncertainties, flexibility)
īFinite element modelling (nonlinear analysis, no time consuming)
3. 3
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
1.2 â STATE OF ART AND MOTIVATIONS
īˇ References on lifecycle costs (LCC) and aging
īâThe time-dependency of risk (seismic) in a lifecycle context is a quite new area to be explored. In seismic analysis, aging consideration has started to be included in seismic performance prediction modelsâ (DecÃ˛ and Frangopol 2013, Ghosh and Padgett 2010)
DecÃ˛ A. and Frangopol D.M. (2013). Life-Cycle Risk Assessment of Spatially Distributed Aging Bridges under Seismic and Traffic Hazards. Earthquake Spectra: February 2013, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 127-153. Ghosh J. and Padgett J.E. (2010). Aging considerations in the development of time-dependent seismic fragility curves, Journal of Structural Engineering 136, 1497â1511
4. 4
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it
Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
1.3 â FULL PROBABILISTIC APPROACHES IN THE PERFORMANCE-BASED EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING (PBEE) FRAMEWORK
Franchin P. (2009) Research Within The Framework Of Performance-based Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering by the Beach Workshop, July 2-4, 2009, Capri, Italy Cornell C.A. and Krawinkler H. (2000). Progress and Challenges in Seismic Performance Assessment. PEER Center News Spring 2000, 3(2).
īˇ Unconditional probabilistic methods
īFORM, SORM
īSimulation methods (Monte Carlo, Subset Simulation) īˇ Conditional probability methods (IM-based)
īSAC/FEMA
īPEER method (Cornell, 2000)
īrandom vibration problem
īclassical structural reliability methods
īclosed-form
īmore flexible
īdecomposition in conditional probabilities
īnot closed-form
5. 5
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Structural Engineers Assn. of California (SEAOC), (1995) Vision 2000 Committee. April 3, 1995. Performance Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings. J. Soulages, ed. 2 vols. [Sacramento, Calif.] Pinto P.E., Bazzurro P., Elnashai A., Franchin P., Gencturk B., Gunay S., Haukaas T., Mosalam K. & Vamvatsikos, D. (2012). Probabilistic Performance-Based Seismic Design. fib Bulletin 68
1.4 â STATE OF PRACTICE AND MOTIVATIONS
īˇ Italian and european codes
īDM 14-01-08, Eurocodes īˇ Other codes
īSEAOC Vision 2000 (1995), FEMA273 (1997)
īATC-40 (1989)
īˇ References on PBEE for the state of practice
īâThe (conditional probability approaches) have a distinct practice-oriented character, they are currently employed as a standard tool in the research community and are expected to gain ever increasing acceptance in professional practiceâ (Pinto et al., 2012)
īSemi-probabilistic approach
īSafety coefficient â limit states
īQuantifiable confidence
īMany performance levels
6. 6
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Cornell C.A. and Krawinkler H. (2000) Progress and Challenges in Seismic Performance Assessment. PEER Center News Spring 2000, 3(2).
1.5 â PEER FORMULATION
īˇ Random variables
īDecision Variable DV (repair cost, down time)
īDamage Measure DM (cracking)
īEngineering Demand Parameter EDP (drift)
īIntensity Measure IM (Peak ground acceleration) īˇ Probabilistic models
īG(DV|DM) loss or performance model
īG(DM|EDP) capacity model
īG(EDP|IM) demand model
īl(x) mean annual frequency of x
7. 7
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
*
STATE OF ART
1.6 â PEER FRAMEWORK
Krawinkler H. and Miranda E. (2004) Chapter 9: Performance-based earthquake engineering. In: Bertero V.V., Bozorgnia Y.(eds) Earthquake engineering: from engineering seismology to performance-based engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton
8. 8
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
2.1 â THE CASE STUDY âMALA RIJEKA VIADUCTâ
9. 9
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
īˇ Bridge data
īThe bridge was built in 1973 as the highest railway bridge in the World
ī It has a continuous five-span steel frame carried by six piers of which the middle ones have heights ranging from 50 to 137.5 m
ī The main steel truss bridge structure consists in a continuous girder with a total length L=498.80 m. Static truss height is 12.50 m
Andrews M. (2008) Analysis of the Mala Rijeka viaduct. Proceedings of Bridge Engineering 2nd Conference 2008, 16 April 2008, University of Bath, Bath, UK
10. 10
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
2.2 â OTHER SIMILAR CASES
VIADOTTO âRAGOâ - A3 SA-RC â MORANO CALABRO (CS) 1969
VIADOTTO âVACALEâ - GIOIA TAURO (RC) 2011
VIADOTTO âCATTINARAâ CATTINARA (TS) 2005
AUTOSTRADA SALERNO-REGGIO, POLLA (SA) 2006
11. 11
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
VIADOTTO âMUCCIAâ ASSE VIARIO MARCHE-UMBRIA (MC)
VIADOTTO âFORNELLOâ S.G.C. ORTE-RAVENNA E45 2003
VIADOTTO IALLÃ AUTOSTRADA MONTE BIANCO-AOSTA 1992
VIADOTTO FRAGNETO - S.S. N.95 "DI BRIENZA"(PZ). 1990
12. 12
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
The seismic hazard can be quantified in terms of an intensity measure (IM) which should define the seismic input to the structure.
īWhat is the best IM in case of isolated system?
īDoes one have hazard data for that IM?
*
3.1 â HAZARD ANALYSIS
13. 13
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
īˇ IM selection
īType of variable (scalar, vector)
īNature of variable (structure dependent)
īLinear equivalent model to approximate the nonlinear behavior of the structure īˇ Type of isolation
īElastomeric bearings (ERB), Friction pendulum system (FPS)
īPGA
īSa(T1)*
* Issue on the evaluation of T1 in case of complex structure with nonlinear devices
14. 14
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
īˇ Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA)
īH(a) is the annual probability of exceeding a seismic hazard intensity measure âaâ in a given seismic hazard environment
Field E.H., Jordan T.H. and Cornell C.A. (2003) âOpenSHA: A Developing Community-Modeling Environment for Seismic Hazard Analysisâ. Seismological Research Letters, 74, no. 4, p. 406-419
15. 15
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
īˇ Ground Motion selection
īNature of the signal (Simulated, recorded, spectrum-compatible
īElaboration of the signal (bin groups, scaled or unscaled)
Baker, J.W., Lin, T., Shahi, K.S. and Jayaram, N. (2011). New ground motion selection procedures and selected motions for the PEER Transportation Research Program. PEER Report 2011/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California, USA. 106 pp.
First set 40 recorded GMs, Magnitude = 6 Source-to-site distance = 25 km Range of Sa is between 0 to 0.6 g
Second set 40 recorded GMs, Magnitude =7 Source-to-site distance = 10 km Range of Sa is up to 1.5g
16. 16
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
*
3.2 â STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
īˇ Inputs
īSignals
īHazard curve
17. 17 P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it
Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
ÎģīE0 Ets
ft
(īĨU, fpcU)
(īĨc0, fpc)
E0=2īfpc/īĨc0
Ep
f Ets y
16.5 m
16.5 m
cross section
of the pier
materials
īˇ Computational F.E. model
ī Material and geometric nonlinearities
ī Specific elements for device modelling
ī Element with fiber section
ī Deck mass (120 m for the 3th pier) : 870 kNs2/m
ī Pier mass (distributed along the pier) : 7166 kNs2/m
18. 18
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
INITIAL STIFFNESS k1
STRENGTH fy
POST-YIELDING STIFFNESS k2
FPS
k1=75 k2=160000 kN/m
fy=mW= 256.1 kN
k2=W/R=2134.5 kN/m
ERB
k1=10 k2=50200 kN/m
fy= k1dy =301.2 kN
k2=5020 kN/m
īˇ Computational F.E. model
Zhang J. and Huo Y. (2009) Evaluating effectiveness and optimum design of isolation devices for highway bridges using the fragility function method. Engineering Structures, 31, 1648-1660
19. 19
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
īˇ EDP selection
īType of EDP
īLocal
īIntermediate
īGlobal īˇ Nonlinear Time-Hystory Analysis īˇ Probabilistic Seismic Demand Model (PSDM)
īStress and strain of concrete and steel
īColumn moment and curvature (mc)
īPierâs top displacement (dc)
Mosalam K.M. (2012) Probabilistic Performance-based Earthquake Engineering, University of Minho, GuimarÃŖes, Portugal, October 3-4, 2012
20. 20
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
NO ISOLATION
FPS
21. 21
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
īˇ Probabilistic Seismic Demand Model (PSDM) in all cases
22. 22
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
*
3.3 â DAMAGE ANALYSIS
Krawinkler H. and Miranda E. (2004) Chapter 9: Performance-based earthquake engineering. In: Bertero V.V., Bozorgnia Y.(eds) Earthquake engineering: from engineering seismology to performance-based engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton
23. 23
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
23
SEC 107
SEC 105
SEC 103
SEC 101
īˇ Capacity curves (pushover analysis)
īConcrete cracking achievement st = 5.2 N/mm2 is the ultimate tensile strength
24. 24
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
24
SEC 107
SEC 105
SEC 103
SEC 101
īˇ Capacity curves (pushover analysis)
īSteel yielding achievement ss = 440 N/mm2 is the steel yield strength
25. 25
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Choi E., DesRoches R., Nielson B. (2004) âSeismic fragility of typical bridges in moderate seismic zonesâ. EngStruct 2004;26:187
īˇ Limit states definition
ī Three damage states DS namely slight, moderate and complete damage are adopted in this study and their concerning limit values are shown above
īThrough the pushover analysis presented previously, the slight damage has been associated to the achievement of maximum tensile strength of concrete, while the moderate one to the yielding of the steel rebars
īA comparison between the values adopted by Choi et al. (2004) and the ductility factors defined in the EC8 for piers, provides the limit values referred to the collapse
26. 26
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
īˇ Fragility curves
27. 27
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
īˇ Annual probability of exceeding each damage state
īThe seismic fragility can be convolved with the seismic hazard in order to assess the annual probability of exceeding each damage state:
28. 28 P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it
Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
PTfí = 1 â 1 â PAí T
īˇ T-year probability of exceeding each damage state
ī T-year probability of exceeding a damage state
ī The probability of at least one event that exceeds design limits
during the expected life T (i.e. T=75 years) of the structure is the
complement of the probability that no events occur which exceed
design limits
Padgett J.E., Dennemann K. and Ghosh J. (2010) Risk-based seismic life-cycle costâbenefit
(LCC-B) analysis for bridge retrofit assessment. Structural Safety 2010; 32(3):165â173.
29. īˇ Benefits of isolation devices in terms of probability of damage
29
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
T-YEARS PROBABILITY OF DAMAGE
SLIGHT DAMAGE
MODERATE DAMAGE
NO ISOLATION
23%
1.3%
ERB
7%
0.3%
FPS
3%
0.04%
Sebastiani P.E., Padgett J.E., Petrini F., Bontempi F. (2014) Effectiveness Evaluation of Seismic Protection Devices for Bridges in the PBEE Framework. Proceedings of ASCE-ICVRAM-ISUMA 2014 - second International Conference on Vulnerability and Risk Analysis and Management (ICVRAM) Liverpool, 13th-17th July 2014
30. 30
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
* http://peer.berkeley.edu/publications/annual_report/old_ar/year6/yr6_projects/ta1/1222002.html
*
3.4 â LOSS ANALYSIS
īˇ Inputs
īT-year probability of exceeding a damage state
31. 31
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
īˇ Definition of the nominal cost of restoration
īType of repair strategy, nominal cost Ci of restoration īˇ Evaluation of life-cycle costs due to seismic damage
īThe expected value of the life-cycle costs due to seismic damage in present day dollars can be expressed as follows:
īWhere j is the damage state, T is the remaining service life of the bridge, Cj is the cost associated with damage state j, and PTfj is the T- year probability of exceeding damage state j
Slight damage
Moderate damage
Complete damage
Repair cost estimate ($)
2.00E05
5.00E05
2.00E06
Wen Y.K. and Kang Y.J. (2001) Minimum building life-cycle cost design criteria. I: methodology. J Struct Eng 2001;127(3):330â7.
32. 32
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
īˇ Time-dependent fragility curves īˇ Time-dependent mean annual rate of failure
īThe mean annual rate of failure, li,m(t), due to occurrence of a particular damage state i, can be approximated by the annual probability of damage due to damage state i as
Ghosh J. and Padgett J.E. (2010) Aging considerations in the development of time-dependent seismic fragility curves. Journal of Structural Engineering 2010
Melchers R.E. (1999) Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction (2nd edn). Wiley: New York
3.5 â AGING IN THE FRAGILITY STEP
33. 33
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
īˇ Non-homogeneous Poisson process
īIn probability theory, a counting process is called a non- homogeneous Poisson process with rate l(t) if the following relation holds for
īThe time between events in a non-homogeneous Poisson process with a time dependent rate can be modeled by an exponential distribution with the cumulative density function (CDF) and the probablity density function (PDF) following the equations
īCDF
īPDF
34. 34
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
īˇ Seismic losses corresponding to a damage state i
īThe present value of total seismic losses corresponding to a damage state i along the service life of the bridge is given by (Beck et al. 2002)
īWhere d is the discount ratio to convert future costs into present values and T is the service life of the bridge.
īThe present value of total seismic losses corresponding to a damage state i along the service life of the bridge is given by
Beck J.L., Porter K.A., Shaikhutdinov R.V., Au S.K., Mizukoshi K., Miyamura M. et al. (2002) Impact of seismic risk on lifetime property values. Monograph, Technical Report: CaltechEERL:2002.EERL-2002-04, California Institute of Technology, 2002.
3.6 â AGING IN THE LOSS STEP
35. 35
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
īˇ Expected cost value
īMoreover the expected value can be evaluated as
īWhere Ci,m is the nominal cost associated with damage state ith to restore the bridge and P[Ci,m(t)] is the probability of incurring the cost Ci,m
īThe probability can be approximated by the summation of its PDF values calculated from t=0 to t=T in the discrete space as follows
Ghosh, J. and Padgett, J.E. (2011) Probabilistic seismic loss assessment of aging bridges using a component-level cost estimation approach. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn.
36. 36
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
īˇ Expected cost and variance
īAssuming a damage state i, a nominal cost Ci,m=2.0E06 $, a discount factor 0.03, T=75 years
35%
37. 37
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
īˇ Flowchart of the loss estimation
Rate of failure li,m(t) due to occurrence of a damage state i
Probability of at least one event during {0,t}
Restoration cost Ci,m for the damage state i
Probability of incurring a hypothetical cost Ci,m in {0,t}
Expected seismic loss corresponding to a damage state i during {0,t}
Time-dependent cost C(t) formulation (discount)
Total expected cost across all damage states during {0,t}
38. 38
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
4 â CONCLUSIONS
īˇ Topic
īPBEE for loss estimation of isolated bridges with aging effects īˇ Contributions
īApplication to a real case study, implementing the whole PEER procedure in Matlab environment
īWorking on a recent formulation to evaluate expected cost and variance in case of aging effects, with a contribution in the discount factor implementation
39. 39
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it
Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
īˇ Works for the next year
īComplete results with the full model of the bridge (already done)
īEffectiveness evaluation of seismic protection devices in terms of LCC
īApplication to a second type of more common bridges
40. 40
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
41. 41
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
PBEE (PEER METHOD)
BRIDGES
ISOLATION
AGING
LCC
PBEE = PERFORMANCE-BASED EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING LCC = LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS ISOLATION = SEISMIC ISOLATION SYSTEMS AGING = EFFECTS OF AGING ON THE STRUCTURE
1.7 â TARGET AND CONTRIBUTION
42. 42
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Mosalam K.M. (2012) Probabilistic Performance-based Earthquake Engineering, University of Minho, GuimarÃŖes, Portugal, October 3-4, 2012
43. 43
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
44. 44
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
45. 45
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
46. 46
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
47. 47
P. E. SEBASTIANI - Ph.D. Student - paolo.sebastiani@uniroma1.it Dept. of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Ghosh J. and Padgett J.E. (2010) Aging considerations in the development of time-dependent seismic fragility curves. Journal of Structural Engineering 2010