current state of the art of the classical fragility contain epistemic uncertainty! That is because:
- Displacement depend on the direction and magnitude of the force, so displacement based fragility are not reliable!
- Defining fragility in terms of PGA or other characteristics of the hazard is another misunderstanding! and wrong conception!
- Each fragility curve is for all systems! Definition of a fragility curve for a system is a wrong concept!
- Fragility is the sole concept of the structure!
- There is only one fragility curve for all structures, the abscissa is a property of structures , such as relative slenderness ratio!
- Fragility and reliability (capacity) are two sides of a coin! Fragility curve at each point is equal to 1 minus the design (reliability) curve!
-This great misunderstanding should be corrected!
-For more info. look for Persian Curves in the literature!
A caution to the appropriate use of any model is always useful. But don't confuse (known) uncertainty with reliability or utility. Your statement would imply that there is no validity at all to any fragility curve. Maybe you are adding your own assumptions or conclusions to something that is not there in the intended usage. If "... all fragility curves... are not reliable.", none should be used, and the model abandoned. You may need better evidence to effect that change.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Microbiology
- Virology
- Virus