Structural Engineering & Mechanics

Research focus

My doctoral and follow-on research addresses a practical question in moderate-seismic steel design: can low-ductility concentrically braced frame systems reliably protect life safety, and if not, what design choices improve performance without abandoning economic viability?

Across full-scale and component-level experiments, nonlinear collapse simulation, and parametric reliability studies, the recurring conclusion is that performance improves when failure hierarchy and reserve capacity are designed intentionally rather than assumed. The output is not only academic interpretation, but engineering guidance aimed at reducing collapse risk with buildable, cost-conscious decisions.

This research program was supported by the National Science Foundation (Award #1207976, total award amount $716,451).

Graduate training context

Master’s and doctoral preparation sat in the same structural-mechanics lane as the NSF program: experimentation at building scale, advanced steel behavior, composite and inelastic material systems, reliability methods, and probabilistic interpretation of structural response. The M.S. also included visiting graduate coursework at Northeastern University and Lehigh University (fire and steel emphasis) with credit applied toward Tufts—not a parallel degree path, but breadth that reinforced the experimental and computational strands of my dissertation work.

How the program progressed

The work evolved from mechanism identification to design synthesis: early studies established baseline behavior and reserve-system concepts; experimental campaigns characterized frame and connection response under cyclic loading; numerical studies quantified probabilistic collapse behavior across broad parameter spaces; and integrated publications translated those findings into practical design philosophy for moderate-seismic regions.

Read more: technical expansion

The integrated research program combines laboratory evidence and computational evidence so each checks the other. Experiments identify governing inelastic mechanisms and degradation trends; nonlinear models test those mechanisms across large design spaces and hazard demand sets; and synthesis papers convert that evidence into recommendations for safer low-ductility CBF design.

• Problem addressed: common moderate-seismic low-ductility systems were widely used without equivalent confidence in collapse performance.
• Method/data/model: full-scale cyclic testing, component-level bolted-angle testing, nonlinear simulation pipelines, and probabilistic collapse interpretation.
• Key findings: reserve-capacity-oriented and hierarchy-aware design choices can materially reduce collapse probability.
• Limits/caveats: conclusions are strongest for low-ductility CBF families and are interpreted with explicit model and parameter assumptions.
• Practice impact: a rigorous but socioeconomically viable design framework for moderate-seismic steel buildings.

This research training carries forward into software leadership: frame ambiguous problems early, test assumptions with evidence, make trade-offs explicit, and communicate complex models in language useful to non-specialists.

Peer-reviewed footprint

For titles, venues, coauthors, and DOI links, see the publications index.

For a quick visual summary of the full Ph.D. research arc, see my doctoral defense presentation (PDF).