• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文会议>NATO science for peace workshop on seismic assessment and rehabilitation of existing buildings >JUST HOW PRESCIENT ARE OUR BUILDING DAMAGE PREDICTIONS?
【24h】

JUST HOW PRESCIENT ARE OUR BUILDING DAMAGE PREDICTIONS?

机译：正如我们的建筑物损伤预测是如何质疑？

获取原文
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Adapazari was the scene of spectacular structural damage as well as widespread liquefaction after the earthquake of August 17, 1999. Damage patterns observed are re-examined to investigate whether they are indicative of a consistent trend explicable in terms of the building attributes and/or site conditions. 301 buildings that had collapsed fully have been re-evaluated from their design blueprints. An examination based solely on structural attributes, including data from other sets of building assessment projects, leads us to believe that building collapse is perhaps just too involved to reduce to a few simple guilt pointers. Site effects might have played a major role in the observed damage, because only a conflicting trend between structural attributes and the actual damage can be established.
机译：Adapazari是1999年8月17日地震发生后壮观的结构损伤以及广泛的液化。重新检查伤害模式，以调查它们是否指示建筑物属性和/或网站方面可解析的一致趋势状况。已经完全崩溃的301座建筑物已经从他们的设计蓝图重新评估。完全基于结构属性的考试，包括来自其他建筑评估项目的数据，导致我们相信建筑崩溃可能只是涉及到几个简单的内疚指针。现场效应可能在观察到的损害中发挥了重要作用，因为结构属性之间只有相互冲突的趋势和实际损坏可以建立。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号