Two‐Stage Seismic Resilience Enhancement for Frame–Core Tube Structures Based on Performance Loss and Repair Paths in Complex Networks

ABSTRACT The frame–core tube structure is a network system formed by the interconnection of thousands of different components. To enhance the seismic resilience of structural networks, a structural complex network model is developed. The concept of independent paths is introduced in network efficiency and closeness centrality. Then, a structural network performance (SNP) index is proposed that can reflect the force transmission paths. Based on the structural seismic damage and its repair process, the SNP is updated. Additionally, a resilience index is proposed, which is derived from the SNP curve. Finally, a two‐stage resilience enhancement (TSRE) method is proposed. In the first stage, before the earthquake, the structural network damage mode is improved to reduce the performance loss of the structural network. In the second stage, after the earthquake, the component repair sequence is optimized to accelerate the recovery speed of the SNP. The TSRE method is applied to real engineering cases. A comparative analysis is conducted to evaluate the seismic resilience of different structural network damage modes and repair paths. The results indicate that the proposed TSRE method achieves the highest structural seismic resilience. The resilience is continuously enhanced by improving the structural network damage modes and repair paths. The resilience of the top to bottom repair path for typical damage mode (Case 2) is the lowest. Case 3 replaces the repair path of Case 2 with a linear function, improving resilience by about 7.68% compared with Case 2. Case 8 replaces the damage mode of Case 2 with an improved one, improving resilience by about 166.02% compared with Case 3 in the later damage stage. Case 6 replaces the repair path of Case 2 with an optimal one, improving resilience by about 9.78% compared with Case 8 in the early damage stage. Case 9 replaces the repair path of Case 8 with a linear function, improving resilience by about 139.63% compared with Case 6 in the later damage stage. Case 12 replaces the repair path of Case 8 with an optimal one, improving resilience by about 9.48% compared with Case 9.