Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Deformation failure mode
Shear failure mode
0.3
t
= 0 years
t
= 0 years
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.2
0.1
0.0
t
= 150 years
t
= 150 years
ˆ
ˆ
t
= 150 years
G
Fy
(t)
t
= 150 years
G
Fy
(t)
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
S
a
S
a
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Deformation and shear failure mode
t
= 0 years
0.2
0.1
0.0
t
= 150 years
ˆ
t
= 150 years
G
F
(t)
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
S
a
19.7
Fragility estimates for the example RC bridge (Gardoni and
Rosowsky 2011). Reprinted by permission of the publisher (Taylor &
Francis Ltd, http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals).
marginal differences can be observed. In particular, is the range of interest
for civil engineering applications, which corresponds to small values of
demand, the fragility estimates are almost identical. These observations are
made considering 'worst case' scenario with
t
150 years. It is expected that
for smaller values of
t
the differences between the two approaches are even
smaller.
=
Model updating based on data from fi eld inspections
Fragility increment functions are valuable to capture the predicted deterio-
ration of bridges over time for a reliability-based design, life-cycle cost
analysis, or risk analysis conducted before the construction of a bridge.
However, for existing bridges, additional information might be available
from fi eld inspections. This section briefl y describes a methodology devel-
oped by Gardoni and Rosowsky (2011) to incorporate data from a fi eld
inspection at time
t
insp
to update the fragility estimates at
t
>
t
insp
. For brevity,
Search WWH ::
Custom Search