İnşaat Mühendisliği Bölümü Yayın Koleksiyonu

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12416/395

Browse

Filters

2014 - 201912020 - 20241

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Damage

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Article
    Citation - WoS: 10
    Citation - Scopus: 8
    Predicting Seismic Damage on Concrete Gravity Dams: a Review
    (Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2024) Arici, Yalin; Soysal, Berat Feyza
    The seismic assessment of concrete gravity dams is a problem of prediction of cracking and the corresponding consequences. With the widespread use of general-purpose finite element programs, the work in the field has shifted towards quantifying the behaviour in a framework for assessment. The nonlinear analysis and coupling with foundation-reservoir interaction, conversely, is still a challenging task. The modelling approach has significant effects on the analysis results and the assessment framework. The field remains an active area for research with many outstanding issues regarding damage quantification and assessment compared to any other major infrastructure component. A comprehensive overview of the seismic assessment of gravity dams is presented in this work with the goal to outline the issues in the field. Different models and modelling choices are compared in the context of damaged state assessment of gravity dams. The links between practical difficulties and theoretical issues are critically discussed. The aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties in the field, and their sources, are presented. Areas of future work are identified for improvement in seismic assessment as well as reducing and quantifying the uncertainties in the prediction of damaged states for concrete gravity dams.
  • Article
    Citation - WoS: 1
    Persisting Challenges for Performance-Based Building Assessment
    (Springer, 2014) Bayhan, B.; Kazaz, I.; Gulkan, P.
    Intense research and refinement of the tools used in performance-based seismic engineering have been made, but the maturity and accuracy of these methods have not been adequately confirmed with actual data from the field. The gap between the assumed characteristics of actual building systems and their idealized counterparts used for analysis is wide. When the randomly distributed flaws in buildings as they exist in urban areas and the extreme variability of ground motion patterns combine, the conventional procedures used for pushover or dynamic response history analyses seem to fall short of reconciling the differences between calculated and observed damage. For emergency planning and loss modeling purposes, such discrepancies are factors that must be borne in mind. Two relevant examples are provided herein. These examples demonstrate that consensus-based analytical guidelines also require well-idealized building models that do not lend themselves to reasonably manageable representations from field data. As a corollary, loss modeling techniques, e.g., used for insurance purposes, must undergo further development and improvement.