|عنوان فارسی مقاله:||انتخاب روش های سیستم بهینه برای بهبود لرزه ای و افزودن عمودی ساختمان های موجود|
|عنوان انگلیسی مقاله:||On the selection by MCDM methods of the optimal system for seismic retrofitting and vertical addition of existing buildings|
|رشته های مرتبط:||مهندسی عمران، سازه، مدیریت ساخت و زلزله|
|فرمت مقالات رایگان||مقالات انگلیسی و ترجمه های فارسی رایگان با فرمت PDF میباشند|
|کیفیت ترجمه||کیفیت ترجمه این مقاله خوب میباشد|
|توضیحات||ترجمه این مقاله به صورت خلاصه انجام شده است.|
|نشریه||الزویر – Elsevier|
مقاله انگلیسی رایگان (PDF)
|دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی|
ترجمه فارسی رایگان (PDF)
|دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله|
خرید ترجمه با فرمت ورد
|خرید ترجمه مقاله با فرمت ورد|
|جستجوی ترجمه مقالات||جستجوی ترجمه مقالات مهندسی عمران|
بخشی از ترجمه فارسی مقاله:
3-4- جواب مساله تعمیم :
در این مقاله، گزینه جواب بهینه برای دو مداخله اصلاح سازه ای به نام های افزودن عمودی و بهسازی لرزه ای سازه های موجود بوسیله سه روش MCDM صورت گرفته که راه حل های متفاوتی توسط تصمیم گیرنده (DM) برمبنای چندین مقیاس مقایسه که پارامترهای محیطی و اقتصادی و سازه ای می باشند، انجام گرفته است. کار اخیر که در دو بررسی موردی صورت گرفته است، برای یافتن تمامی روشهای ارزیابی جواب های مساله MCDM می باشد و بنابراین به انتخاب های فردی تصمیم گیرنده بستگی ندارد.
بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:
4.3. Decisional problem solution
First, the TOPSIS method has been applied through the same phases already accomplished in the previous analyses. In particular, the following steps have been followed: (1) definition of the normalised decision matrix R (Table 15), considering that alternatives are judged on the basis of criteria involving different physical quantities; (2) calculation of the weighted normalised decision matrix V (Table 16), obtained by multiplying each column of the matrix R for the corresponding weight; (3) determination of virtual optimal and worst solutions (Table 17); (4) distance calculation among each alternative and virtual ones; (5) relative distance calculation from the optimal solution (Ci ⁄ ) and establishment of a consequent preference order ranking (Table 18). The applied method has shown that the cold-formed steel system is the optimal super-elevation solution. The results have also been validated through a sensitivity analysis, used to verify that the final results are not influenced by the DM judgments. In fact, by assessing the absolute (AT) and the percentage (PT) variation parameters of the criteria weight, it has been shown that the solution is stable. In fact, as shown in Table 19, C2, C3 and C5 are strong criteria, since S = 1/PT = 0 (that is the C2, C3 and C5 criteria weight change does not involve modifications in the preference order classification), while the influence of other criterion weight variation is quite modest, it producing only in few cases different preference order. Second, the ELECTRE method application has provided the matrixes R and V, reported respectively in Tables 20 and 21. From the analysis of the matrix E it is shown that the dominant alternatives for vertical addition are cold-formed steel and glued laminated timber structures, followed by masonry and hot-rolled steel systems (2nd place) and the reinforced concrete one (3rd place) (Table 22). Finally, from the VIKOR method, the scalar parameters Si and Ri have been firstly calculated, as shown in Table 23. Afterwards, the ranking of alternatives is established by means of the parameter Qi (Table 24). Analogously to the previous methods, the optimal solution is always represented by the cold-formed steel system, which has the lowest value of Qi.
In the current paper the choice of the optimal solution for two structural modification interventions, namely seismic retrofitting and vertical addition, of existing buildings has been individuated by means of three MCDM methods, where different alternatives are judged by a Decision Maker (DM) on the basis of several comparison criteria, that is structural, economic and environmental parameters. The novelty of the work, articulated into two case studies, is to find with all investigated methods impartial MCDM problem solutions, which, therefore, do not depend on the personal choices of the DM. The first intervention has been studied on the basis of the experimental campaign results performed on a real full-scale 3D RC structure upgraded with different seismic retrofitting devices. The MCDM analyses with all used methods have provided the same result, that is the dominating role exerted by aluminium shear panels. The same result has been confirmed also when more in depth investigations with the same three MCDM methods have been carried out. In these cases, where larger combination of criterion weights have been considered, it was shown that the optimal performances are provided by metal shear panels, which lead the final global ranking and are immediately followed by base isolation system and steel BRB and eccentric bracings. As a consequence, also the leading role occupied by metal devices as seismic retrofitting technique of existing RC frames has been proved. On the other hand, as second intervention typology, the vertical addition of an existing masonry structural unit by means of traditional and innovative technologies has been done. The study results, achieved by using the same three methods used for seismic retrofitting assessment of the examined RC structure, have provided as optimal solution the cold-formed steel systems thanks to their prerequisites, such as lightness, economy and sustainability. The reliability of the solution found has been validated from the performed sensitivity check, where three of five criteria are robust and the variation influence of other criterion weight is quite modest, it producing rarely the alternative position change within the ranking. Finally, the combined application of three investigated MCDM methods will allow the practitioners, dealing with structural modification interventions, to individuate with the highest probability an objective optimal solution for retrofitting and vertical addition purposes under the economic, structural and environmental points of view.