°ÇÃ൵½Ã°ø°£¿¬±¸¼Ò

Architecture & Urban Research Institute

pdf¿ø¹®º¸±â ¿¡·¯ ÇØ°á¹æ¹ý ¹Ù·Î°¡±â



¹®ÇåȨ > Àú³Î > »ó¼¼

[¿ø¹®º¸±â½Ã ¼ÒºñµÇ´Â Æ÷ÀÎÆ® : 50 Æ÷ÀÎÆ®] ¹Ì¸®º¸±â

Çѱ¹°ø°£±¸Á¶ÇÐȸ|Çѱ¹´ë°ø°£°ÇÃà³í¹®Áý 2025³â 9¿ù

±â»ç¸í ÀúÃþ ÇÊ·ÎÆ¼ ±¸Á¶¹°¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÁöÁøÃë¾àµµ ºÐ¼®¹ýÀÇ ºñ±³ Æò°¡ / Comparative Evaluations of Seismic Fragility Assessments for Low-Rise Piloti Structures
ÀúÀÚ¸í ¿°ÇüÈÆ(Yeom, Hyung-Hun) ; Á¶Ã¢±Ù(Cho, Chang-Geun)
¹ßÇà»ç Çѱ¹°ø°£±¸Á¶ÇÐȸ
¼ö·Ï»çÇ× Çѱ¹°ø°£±¸Á¶ÇÐȸÁö , Vol. 25, No. 3 (Åë±Ç 101È£)(2025-09)
ÆäÀÌÁö ½ÃÀÛÆäÀÌÁö(43) ÃÑÆäÀÌÁö(9)
ISSN 15984095
ÁÖÁ¦ºÐ·ù ±¸Á¶
ÁÖÁ¦¾î ; Fragility Curve; CSM; IDA; Maximum Likelihood Estimation; Method of Moments
¿ä¾à2 This study was intended to compare with seismic fragility assessments for a low-rise RC piloti structure using the Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) and the Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA). Distribution-parameters were estimated using the Method of Moments (MoM) and the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE). For given limit states defined by FEMA 356, two seismic fragility assessments yielded different medians and dispersions: the CSM produced steeper in the slopes of fragility curves with smaller dispersions, whereas the IDA captured wider response scatters and broader dispersions. When fitting the fragility curves, the MLE scheme provided to well match with the empirical cumulative distribution function(CDF) than the MoM scheme, which understated dispersions.
¼ÒÀåó Çѱ¹°ø°£±¸Á¶ÇÐȸ
¾ð¾î Çѱ¹¾î
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.9712/KASS.2025.25.3.43