See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232949966

Vulnerability of Structural Systems, Part 1: Rings and Clusters

Article · October 1993

DOI: 10.1080/02630259308970130

CITATIONS READS

23 79

3 authors, including:

David Ian Blockley

University of Bristol
208 PUBLICATIONS   1,723 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Book Title: Turning Dreams into Reality View project

Very Short Introduction to Engineering View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David Ian Blockley on 26 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Bristol Library]
On: 10 September 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 794745855]
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713455031

VULNERABILITY OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS PART 1: RINGS AND

CLUSTERS
Xin Wua; David I. Blockley Head of Department of Civil Engineeringb; Norman J. Woodman Senior
Lecturerc
a
Noble Denton Consultants and Service Ltd, London, UK b University of Bristol, Bristol, UK c
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

To cite this Article Wu, Xin , Blockley Head of Department of Civil Engineering, David I. and Woodman Senior Lecturer,
Norman J.(1993) 'VULNERABILITY OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS PART 1: RINGS AND CLUSTERS', Civil Engineering
and Environmental Systems, 10: 4, 301 — 317
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/02630259308970130
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02630259308970130

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Civil. Eng. Sysr.. Vol. 10, pp. 301-317 (O 1993 Gordon and Breach Science Publishm S. A.
Reprints available directly from the publisher Rintcd in the Unitcd Kingdom
Photocopyingw i t t e d by liccnw only

VULNERABILITY OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

PART 1: RINGS AND CLUSTERS

XIN WU*, DAVID I. BLOCKLEY~and NORMAN J. WOOD MAN^

Downloaded By: [University of Bristol Library] At: 19:07 10 September 2010

*Noble Denton Consultants and Service Ltd, London, UK; 'Head ofDepartment of Civil
Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 I TR, UK; :senior ~ecturer,Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
(Received, 22 October 1992: in$nolJorm, 2 April 1993)

A theory of structural vulnerability is developed and presented in two linked papers, initially for two dimensional
frame structures. The purpose of the theory is to enable the identification of the most vulnerable parts of a structural
system so that they may be suitably protected and monitored. In Part I a graph model is used to analyse various
load paths and loops within a structure. The most important new concept presented is that of a structural ring. A
structural system is represented at various hierarchical levels of definition in terms of clusters of structural rings.
A measure of the quality of well-formedness of structural rings and clusters is developed which in Part 2 will be
used as a quantitative estimate of structural vulnerability.

KEY WORDS: Vulnerability, failure, structures, structural rings, systems engineering, robustness, hierarchy,
clusters, damage.

One important characteristic of good structural design, which has not in the past perhaps
received sufficient theoretical attention, is that of robustness. The tern implies strength and
sturdiness in all possible limit states and in a given set of circumstances. It is not the purpose
of this paper to develop the concept of robustness fully. However one insight into the lack
of robustness of a structural system would be gained if it were possible to identify how a
system is vulnerable since this would indicate how it is weakest.
In this paper a theory is presented through which the form of a structure can be
characterised rather than its strength and regardless of its loading. It is a theory about the
geometricwell formedness ofa structureand the identification ofparticular ways (scenarios)
in which it might fail. The purpose is to identify the most vulnerable parts of a structural
system so that they may be suitably protected and monitored. The emphasis of structural
vulnerability analysis is not the usual one of analysing a structure under some given loading
condition. Rather it is to examine the vulnerability of a structure to any possible loading
action. In many structures the possible combinations of loadings are difficult to predict and
it is important to identify and understand the major potential weaknesses of the structure. In
30 1
 302 X. WU, D. 1. BLOCKLEY and N. J. WOODMAN

this paper we will discuss only two dimensional framed structures. A graph model (Williams
1973) of a structure will be developed in order to analyse the various load paths and loops.
The model includes some new concepts, the single most important of which is that of a
structural ring. A structirral ring is a load path which, by its configuration, is capable of
resisting an arbitrary equi libriurn set of applied forces.
Tn brief the analysis consists of identifying "primitive" structural rings made up ofjoints
and members at the first and familiar level of definition of the structure. Clusters of these
rings are then formed according to their well formedness and degree of connectivity. A new
set of rings of clusters and joints are identified to form the second level of description. This
process of clustering is then repeated at higher levels of description until one single cluster,
the whole structure, remains. The analysis then continues by "unzipping" the rings to find
Downloaded By: [University of Bristol Library] At: 19:07 10 September 2010

particularly interesting failure scenarios.

As stated earlier attention is initially focused on two dimensional frame structures with
the aim of finnly establishing the basic theoretical foundation for structural vulnerability
analysis before moving on to a consideration of three dimensional fiame structures or other
types of structures. Formal detinitions are presented in the next section.

1 . A graph model of a structural system S = (M, J) consists of two sets: a finite set of
member objects Mand a finite set ofjoint or node objectsJ. Each member object is associated
with at least hvo joint objects.
2. A structural cluster 9,at a level of definition I is a sub-set Yi = (MI,),) of S in which
the objects are, in some sense, more tightly connected (Elms 1983) to each other within the
cluster than to other objects outside the cluster.
3. A primitive structural cluster contains only one member object and two end joint
objects and is the lowest level of hierarchical description.
4. Two structural clusters are said to be connected when one or more joint objects are
contained in both clusters.
5 . A complex joint is the intersection of any two mutually connected clusters. It may
be either (i) a set of primitive clusters, and/or (ii) a set of joints not directly connected but
indirectly connected through the clusters which form the intersection.
6. A structural path is a sequence of connected clusters. The number of clusters is the
length of the path and if the clusters are all primitive this will be the number of members.
7. A structural ring is a structural path which is either open or closed and either statically
indeterminate (over-stiff) or statically determinate (just-stiff). It is therefore capable of
resisting an arbitrary equilibrium set of applied forces.
8. A closed structural ring is a self connecting structural path. It is a sequence of
connected clusters which starts and ends with the same cluster. An open structural ring is
not self connected.
9. A statically indeterminate ring R' at a level of definition I is one where if any one of
the degrees of freedom is released, either adjacent to a complex joint or in a cluster contained
in the ring, then the ring remains stiff.
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS PT.1 m G S AND CLUSTERS 303

10. A structurally just-stiff ring R' at a level of definition 1 is one where if any one of
the degrees of freedom is released, either adjacent to a complex joint or in a cluster contained
in the ring, then the ring becomes a mechanism. A just stiff ring is a primitive ring.
11. The well-formedness of a structural ring is an indicator of its ability to resist damage
or loading from any arbitrary direction.
12. (i) A structural system may be represented by successively subordinate structural
rings R' at a level of definition I in a hierarchy. (ii) A structural ring ma^ contain clusters
which are themselves sets of structural rings at lower levels of definition and which may be
itself a part of a structural ring at a higher level of definition. (iii) Structural rings at lower
levels of the hierarchy are a more detailed description of a structure than those at higher
levels of the hierarchy.
Downloaded By: [University of Bristol Library] At: 19:07 10 September 2010

13. A deteriorating event is the result of actions which would cause the loss, by a
structural ring, of the capacity to transmit a force.
14. A failure scenario is a sequence ofdeteriorating events which transforms a structural
ring into a mechanism.
15. The damage demand is a measure of the effort which is required for a deteriorating
event. The damage demand of a failure scenario is equal to the sum of the damage demands
of all deteriorating events contained in that failure scenario.
16. The minimal failure scenario of a structural ring at level of definition I is the one in
which the damage demand required to transform the structural ring into a mechanism is a
minimum. The minimal failure scenario for a whole structure is the one in which the damage
demand is the smallest over all levels of definition I.
17. The separateness of a structural ring at a level of definition I is a description of the
consequence of a failure scenario. It is the number of structural clusters structurally
disconnected from a reference cluster contained in that ring.
18. A reference cluster at a level of definition I may be any cluster chosen for its
importance or because it is the most tightly connected. On earth a reference cluster would
normally be the ground cluster SGor a cluster which contains SG.
19. The effective consequence of a failure scenario at level of definition 1 is measured
by the ratio of the separateness of a structural ring caused by that failure scenario to the total
required damage demand.
20. The maximal failure scenario of a structural ring at level of definition I is one in
which the effective consequence is maximal. The maximal failure scenario of a whole
structure is that for which the effective consequenceover all levels ofdefinition is the largest.
21. Structural vulnerability analysis is concerned with the identification of: (i) the
minimal failure scenario; (ii) the maximal failure scenario; (iii) any particular interesting
failure scenarios with respect to a given reference cluster; for the structural rings at various
hierarchical levels of definition.
22. A partial measure of the robustness of a structural ring is the size of the damage
demand. The measure is partial since whilst these considerations are necessary for robustness
they are not sufficient. The most robust ring under these circumstances is the one with
maximal damage demand. In this paper the robustness of a structural ring is the same as the
damage demand and for a structure it is the minimal damage demand over all levels of
definition, i.e. there is one level of definition at which the ring is the weakest.
 304 X. WU, D. I. BLOCKLEY and N. J. WOODMAN
Downloaded By: [University of Bristol Library] At: 19:07 10 September 2010

(b)
Figure l Examplcs of Structural Rings

STRUCTURAL RINGS

A structural ring has been defined as a closed loop or sequence of structural clusters. In its
most elementary form it can consist of a series of structural members such as the pin-jointed
triangle of Figure l(a) or the portal frame of Figure l(b) which includes the ground SGas a
special cluster linking the bases of the frame. Figure l(c) illustrates two pin-jointed clusters
again linked by the ground. Figure 1 also shows an abstract representation of a structural
ring as a circle with joints and with arcs representing the structural clusters.
The well-formedness of a structural ring is a measure of its ability to resist loading from
any arbitrary direction. In other words it is a measure ofthe capability ofthe ring to be strong
in all possible directions. To illustrate one aspect of this property a necessary but not
sufficient condition for the well formedness of a pin-jointed triangle is that it is well
conditioned. Thus the best form is equilateral and the worst is when one angle becomes very
small. The well-fomedness of a structural ring also depends on other characteristics. In
general it depends on (i) the orientation and stiffness of the members within the clusters
h m i n g in to the joints within the ring; (ii) the stiffnessesofthe joints connecting the clusters
within the ring.
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS PT.1 RINGS AND CLUSTERS

It will be assumed here that a measure of well-formedness should

(i) increase with increasing resistance to loads along principal axes,
(ii) increase with joint stiffnesses,
(iii) increase with member stiffnesses,
(iv) be independent of the chosen co-ordinate system.
The quality of well-formedness of a structuraljoint contained in a ring is here defined as

where D,iis the stiffness sub matrix associated with members in the ring at joint Iand det(Dii)
Downloaded By: [University of Bristol Library] At: 19:07 10 September 2010

is the determinant of the matrix Dii.qiwill be used to develop a measure of the well-formed-
ness of a structural ring, the properties of which will be tested against the above criteria. The
measure is not dimensionless but could be made so, for a given joint, by normalising it with
respect to the optimum configuration for the joint. This will not however be considered in
this paper.
The stiffness sub matrix Diiis the sum of the sub matrices kiiof all members contained in
the ring which meet at joint I. In general for a two dimensional structure Di, is a 3*3
symmetric matrix with 3 eigenvalues h, (j= 1,.. . .3) and the characteristic equation of D,, is
denoted as

det (Dii - W,) = 0

where I, is a unit matrix.

The determinant of Diiis thus equal to the products of all eigenvalues which satisfy Equation 2.

Eigenvalues h ~12, of Di, are called principal translational stiffness coefficients of a joint
I and hj is the rotational stifhess coeff~cient.The eigenvectorscorrespondingto XI, h2define
the directions of the principal displacement axes. The principal translational stiffness
coefficients of D,i indicate the ability of joint I to resist loading along the corresponding
principal displacement axes. The value of a principal stiffness coefficient is equal to the
value of the force required when the displacement along the corresponding principal
displacement axis is given the value unity and all other forces and displacements have the
value zero. For a given set of members at a joint hj is a constant for all orientations. The
well-formedness of a joint is a maximum, for given member stiffnesses, when the joint has
a maximum stiffness along all principal translational displacement axes. This will occur
when the eigenvalues hi^, h~are equal since the sum of the eigenvalues is a constant. h, is a
maximum when the joint is fixed. We then define, assuming additivity for simplicity, the
quality of well-formedness of a structural ring R, as

where N R is~the total number of all joints in the ring R,.

 306 X. WU, D.I . BLOCKLEY and N.J. WOODMAN

The quality ofthe well-formedness of a structural ring described in Eq. 4 meets the criteria
set earlier. It can be improved by increasing the stifkesses of the joints or the members
contained in the ring or by changing the orientation of the members making up the ring so
that stiffnesscs in the principal displacement axes are increased. Sincc the measure is a
function of eigenvalues then it is independent ofthe coordinate system used. It will be noted
that the dimensions of q, may vary for different joint stiffnesscs and this pre5ents a difficulty
in interpreting q(R,,,)since the units arc not consistent. At this stage in the development of

Table 1 A Deteriorating Struct~~lal

Ring
Downloaded By: [University of Bristol Library] At: 19:07 10 September 2010

I I
Rm Ring q(Rm)

R i El (3 9.00 10l4

R:
7 8
1 6 - 1 4 x 10 14

4 1
7 ("-J 3.99 x 10 14

R:
7 0
1 1.65 x 10 14

6_1 0 3 . 0 0 ~ 1 010
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS PT.1 RINGS AND CLUSTERS 307

this theory it was deemed more important to adopt a measure which satisfies the criteria
given earlier and it is left for further work to produce a better and more consistent measure.
In this paper therefore the units of q(R,) will not be quoted.
To illustrate the use of this quality of well formedness, consider the application of
Equations 1-4 to the primitive structural rings R'I to R: shown in Table 1 from R1in Figure
2(b). The bending and axial rigidities of all members are: EI = 1.25 x 104k~m2, A E = 6.00
x lo5k ~ .
The structural ringkI isa fully fixed ring with valueq ( P I )= 9.00 x 10'~.1 f k Ideteriorates
through the release of one of the degrees of freedom in PI,then it degenerates into R ' 2 which
is a ring with one pinned joint and the value o f q ( ~becomes
\ 6.14 x 1 0 ' ~As
. the deterioration
progresses from R', to &, the value of q(Ri,,,)decreases from 9.00 x l0I4 to 1.65 x 1 0 ' ~and
Downloaded By: [University of Bristol Library] At: 19:07 10 September 2010

finally to 3.00 x 10'' for &.

STRUCTURAL CLUSTERS

A structural cluster is a set of members and joints which are more tightly connected to each
other than to other parts of the structure. At the first level of definition all members (ie
primitive clusters) and joints are individually defined and this is the conventional way of
describing a structure. If clusters of members and joints are formed, according to some
criteria, and the structural system is defined in terms of those clusters then that forms the
second level of definition. If clusters of the second level clusters are formed then this
becomes a third level of definition and this can be repeated for even higher levels until at
the top level there is but one cluster, the whole structure.
In this paper these levels of definition are built up from the set of structural rings at the
first level of description. The most tightly connected ring, which is a sequence of members
and joints, becomes a cluster and is then treated as a single concept which is part of another
ring at the second level of definition. The process is then repeated recursively so that at any
arbitrary level of definition a cluster is made up of rings defined at lower levels.
The structural tightness of a cluster is a measure of its internal connectivity. The greater
the number of members framing into a joint and connecting that joint to other joints, the
greater the connectivity of the joint. The internal connectivity of a cluster depends on the
number and well formedness ofthe structural rings within the cluster and the degree to which
their joints are connected, in other words the extent to which the rings overlap.
A cluster $i is the ith cluster at a level of definition I with a structural tightness defined as

where dsiis the total number ofjoints in ti and nisiis the total number of rings in sii, and q
(R',,,)is the quality of well-fomedness of a ring R', which is given by Eq. 4.
When a cluster S', contains only one structural ring R'I then nisi = 1, and Eq. 5 gives the
value of the structural tightness of that ring as,
 3 08 X. WU. D. I . BLOCKLEY and N. J . WOODMAN

Eq. 6 implies that if two structural rings R'I and R'z have the same values of q (Rim),m =
1,2 then the one with shorter path length, (i.e. the lesser number ofjointsds,), has the bigger
value ofstructural tightness. Thus, all other things being equal, a structural ring with a shorter
path length tends to be tighter.
A ring R' consists of clusters or arcs connected by joints. If there are n'R arcs 9,and n'R
joints J', then the structural ring R' can be represented by

which in set notation means that R' is a set of points (Yi,

J',) with I varying from 1 to nk.
Downloaded By: [University of Bristol Library] At: 19:07 10 September 2010

CLUSTER FORMATION

An algorithm for forming stnlctural clusters is as follows:

1. Start at hierarchical level I = 1, which is the level at which the members and joints
of the basic structure are described.
2. At level I of build-up identify all n's structural rings in the system $. If no structural
ring can be found then go to step 8, otherwise
3. Calculate Q (R',) for each of the m rings from 1 to n's according to Eq. 6.
4. Denote the ring with the highest value of Q (R',,,) as R'.
5. Replace R' by a single cluster $+11, so that Q (9+11)= Q (R!).
6. Set up to the next hierarchical level of definition I = 1+1.
7. Go to step 2.
8. Stop.
The process of cluster formation produces a hierarchical model of a structure which is a
set of structural rings at each level of definition.
Thus the model of S = ( M , J) can be described at a given level of definition 1 as

i.e. 9 is a set ofrings I?',,,where m varies between land n$. Now the total number of levels
of definition of S is n' or in other words there are n' different ways of defining S and I = 1 , 2
. . . . n'. It is dear from the above algorithm that n' = n's which is the total number of primitive
structural rings at I = 1.
Scan be represented by

S = u,(R'), 1 = l , 2 ... n') (9)

which is the union of all the highest ranked rings R' at each level of definition I.
Scan also be represented by
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS PT.1 RMGS AND CLUSTERS 309

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e).

Figure 2 Formation of Structural Clusters

Downloaded By: [University of Bristol Library] At: 19:07 10 September 2010

which is the union of all clusters formed from the rings R'.
The structure of Figure 2 (a) will be used as an example to illustrate the procedure of
cluster formation. The ground or foundation of the structure is effectively a single cluster
very tightly self-connected and very well formed with an infinite structural tightness. In
more general terms the ground is called the reference cluster. For structures in space the
reference cluster might be that part of the structure containing living accommodation which
would have finite and calculable tightness. In the process of cluster formation the ground
cluster S G will swamp the other clusters and force the clustering always to start from the
ground. To overcome this the tightness of any cluster incorporating the ground is calculated
including the stifhesses the joints connecting the ground with the structure but not including
the infinite stiffness of the ground.
At the lowest level ofdescription the structure, S= (M, J),is composed ofmany connected
member objects and joint objects, where the member set M = {mi I i=l,. .. .8} and the joint
set J = (ik ( k = l , . .. -7). These members and joints connect to each other to form a set of
structural rings. Thus, at the first level of description-level 1, the structure is considered
as a system consisting of a set of three structural rings, one of which is

and the others are

lf is the highest ranked ring then denote it by

so that $1 = m4,1 1 =j 2 etc.

If the ring R' is replaced by a single structural cluster 91i.e. S ~=I R' then Figure 2(b)
becomes a new graph model at level 2, shown in Figure 2(c).
 310 X. WU,D.1. BLOCKLEY and N. J. WOODMAN

This newly-formed cluster, together with other primitives clusters, forms two structural
rings. The most tightly connected is

and which expanded for 91becomes

Downloaded By: [University of Bristol Library] At: 19:07 10 September 2010

Note that the structural tightness of the ground cluster SG is calculated including the
stifhesses of the jointsj., andj7 but does not include the infinite stiffness of the ground itself.
Replace R' by another single cluster PIand we get a new structured graph at level 3,
shown in Figure 2(d). At this stage the structured graph consists of only one structural ring,
denoted as

which can also be expanded in terms of the lower level clusters; however the power of the
definition lies in the recursive notation which is suitable for modem computational lan-
guages.
At the top level the ring R3 can be replaced by a single cluster S a t the highest level of
description which represents the whole structure and which consists of rings R 1 ,R ~R3. ,
The structural rings at each level have their own structural characteristics which are
peculiar to that level. For example the quality of well-formedness of the ring R~ is obviously
different from the qualities of R* and R1.
Generally speaking, for a complex structure, the number of structural rings at a low level
of description is large and the rings are highly interconnected. It is therefore very difficult
to recognise the organisation of the system. At a higher level of description, the structural
rings are subsumed into a structural cluster which indicates its more general attributes.
Within the hierarchy, a structural cluster at a given level of definition is a holon. A holon
is something which is both a whole and a part. A cluster is a complete system (a whole) and
consists of sets of rings (parts). The lower level rings are sub-systems but the cluster is a
part of a structural ring at a higher level of definition, a super-system. The structure of Figure
2(a) can be represented in a form of hierarchy of holons, shown in Table 2.
Figure 3 illustrates the procedure for a more complex two dimensional structure. The
members are denoted by italic numbers in Figure 3-1 and the detailed information about the
size and properties of the structure can be obtained from Wu (1991) The results of the first
three steps of the algorithm for level 1 (i.e. the identification of all stnlctural &gs and the
qualities of well-formedness and tightness for each ring) are shown in Table 3. The highest
ranked ring is Rl14with a value of ~ ( ~ ' 1=44.85 ) * lo5. It is therefore replaced by a single
cluster $1 and a new structured graph is generated, shown in Figure 3-2. The process is
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS PT. I RINGS AND CLUSTERS

rx
Downloaded By: [University of Bristol Library] At: 19:07 10 September 2010

Figure 3-1 A Structural System

repeated to identify a structural ring with the best quality of the well-fomedness at level 2.
Again this is replaced by a single cluster, and the new graph model of the structure at level
3 is shown in Figure 3-2(c). The whole process of the cluster formation is illustrated
pictorially by Figure 3-2(a) to Figure 3-2(s).
The basic definitions of vulnerability theory have been presented and the idea of
hierarchical clustering of structural rings developed. This hierarchical modelling of struc-
tures will be used in Part 2 as the basis for the identification of failure scenarios and hence
for structural vulnerability analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The foundations of structural vulnerability theory has been laid and linked to a theoret-
ical approach to robustness.
2. A structural ring is a closed loop or sequence of sub-structures and joints which is capable
of resisting an arbitrary equilibrium set of applied forces. A structural system can be
represented at various levels of definition in tenns of sets of interconnected structural rings.
 312 X.WU, D. I.BLOCKLEY and N. J. WOODMAN

Level I

1 i
0
-- -
1.:=.:
Downloaded By: [University of Bristol Library] At: 19:07 10 September 2010

.- ---.---.--.-....L.A.--

Level 2 II I s4
6 Led 6

Level 4

0 =9.91

(d)

Figure 3-2 Cluster Formation for Stwtural System of Figure 3-1

 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS PT. I RINGS AND CLUSTERS
Downloaded By: [University of Bristol Library] At: 19:07 10 September 2010

Level TO !
10 1
Sp i
I
7 j
4

0=11.2 j
I

(i) I
i
I

Figure >2 Cluster Formation for Structural System of Figure 3-1

 X. WU, D. I . BLOCKLEY and N. J. WOODMAN
Downloaded By: [University of Bristol Library] At: 19:07 10 September 2010

-1 8 Level 18

Figure 3-2 Cluster Formation for Structural System of Figure 3-1

3. Measures have been developed to evaluate the quality ofwell-fonnedness and tightness
o f structural rings which require further refinement.
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS PT. 1 RINGS AND CLUSTERS 315

Table 2 Hierarchy for Structure of Figure 2

Structural
Hierarchial Model Ring Level
Downloaded By: [University of Bristol Library] At: 19:07 10 September 2010

References
1. D. G. Elms (1983) 'From a Structure to a Tree', Civil Engg Systems, Vol 1.
2. H. Williams (1973) 'Graph Theory in Modem Engineering', Academic Press.
3. X. Wu (1991) 'Vulnerability Analysis of Structural Systems.' PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
4. X. Wu, D. I. Blockley, N. J. Woodman (1991) 'Vulnerability Analysis of Structural Systems, Part 2: Failure
Scenarios' (Civil Engg Systems Vol 10).

Notation

The following symbols are used in both parts of this paper:

~ 1 . A degree of freedom in ji
dj,k) Damage demand for a deteriorating event!. .,
Damage demand for a deteriorating event gYi j ,kk
e(s1iJd
t ij. k The kth deteriorating event cause the loss of a degree of freedom dij
gij.k The kth deteriorating event to cause the loss of the capacity s l i j of a cluster ti
to transmit a degree of fieedom.
kii Stiffness sub matrix of a member framing into joint I
n' Number of levels of definition
 316 X.WU,D.I. BLOCKLEY and N.J. WOODMAN
Table 3 Level 1 Rings for Structure of Figure 3

Ring R I
rn
Joints Structure Ring q ( ~ L ~(4)
) Rank
(x 10'0) (x lolo}
Downloaded By: [University of Bristol Library] At: 19:07 10 September 2010
 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS PT.1 RINGS AND CLUSTERS

Number of joints and arcs in R'

Number of rings in 9
Number of rings in $i
Quality of well-formedness ofjoint i
Quality of the well-formedness of a ring R',
The capacity of a cluster 9,to transmit a force
stiffness submatrix associated with a joint i
Damage demand for a failure scenario Fh (R')
A failure scenario of R'
A failure scenario set of R'
Joint (at level of definition 1
Downloaded By: [University of Bristol Library] At: 19:07 10 September 2010

Total number of primitive joints in R,

Total number of primitive joints in 9,
Structural tightness of a cluster $,
Structural ring at a level of definition I
A deteriorated ring of R'
Structural system
Structural cluster I at a level of definition I
A reference cluster at a level of definition I
Separateness of a ring R' with respect to FA(R')
Effective consequence of a failure scenario Fh (R')
Eigenvalue of Di,
stifhess coefficient of a joint in & in DOFj before the kth deteriorating event.

View publication stats