GNGTS 2023 - Atti del 41° Convegno Nazionale

Session 2.2 GNGTS 2023 values. The comparisons in Figure 3 underline the differences in terms of mass and stiffness between the single panel and the overall structure. It is worth to note that C#3 configuration (i.e., Figure 3 (b)) presents similar logarithmic standard deviations, that is proven by the slope of the central part of the fragility curves. On the contrary, a lower value of clearance implies a much more vulnerable system, whose behaviour significantly deviates from those of the panel (i.e., Figure 3(a)). The best solution in quantifying the differences between the curves related to the two applications (small-scale and full-scale versions) refers to comparing the parameters that characterize the probability curve as defined. The first central moment, or mean ϑ , represents the value of EDP corresponding to the 50% of probability of failure and derives from simple geometric considerations in the case of a rigid connection between the glazing facade and the steel primary building. For instance, if the maximum interstorey-drift for the overall structure is 0.01, the maximum in-plane drift for the glass panel is computed as a function of heights ratio (h storey /h panel ~0.6) and, thus, equals to 0.006m. Finally, the variability of the second central moment, or dispersion β , doubles for C#1 (i.e., Figure 3(a)) and remains unchanged for C#3 (i.e., Figure 3(b)). The former derives from simple geometric considerations in the case of a rigid connection between the glazing facade and the steel primary building; whereas the latter parameter doubles for C#1 (i.e., Figure 3(a)) and remains unchanged for C#3 (i.e., Figure 3(b)). Although the accuracy of the numerical procedure employed needs further validation by considering a wider suite of glazing system configurations, the results provided in this work prove the reliability of this type of approach. (a) (b)