Abstract
A mixture model approach is presented for combining the results of different models or analysis methods into a single probabilistic demand model for seismic assessment. In general, a structure can be represented using models of different type or different number of degrees of freedom, each offering a distinct compromise in computational load versus accuracy; it may also be analysed via methods of different complexity, most notably static versus dynamic nonlinear approaches. Employing the highest fidelity options is theoretically desirable but practically infeasible, at best limiting their use to calibrating or validating lower fidelity approaches. Instead, a large sample of low fidelity results can be selectively combined with sparse results from higher fidelity models or methods to simultaneously capitalize on the frugal nature of the former and the low bias of the latter to deliver fidelity at an acceptable cost. By employing a minimal 5 parameter power-law-based surrogate model we offer two options for forming mixed probabilistic seismic demand models that (i) can combine different models with varying degree of fidelity at different ranges of structural response, or (ii) nonlinear static and dynamic results into a single output suitable for fragility assessment.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and material
The stripe analysis results of both Applications are available on GitHub: https://github.com/TheLambdaLab/MixedModels_paper.git, while the 2D models of the 4-story MRF are available at http://users.ntua.gr/divamva/RCbook.html
Code availability.
The code needed to replicate Applications 1 and 2 is available on GitHub: https://github.com/TheLambdaLab/MixedModels_paper.git.
References
ASCE 41-13 (2014) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA
Aschheim M, Hernández-Montes E, Vamvatsikos D (2019) Design of reinforced concrete buildings for seismic performance: practical, deterministic and probabilistic approaches. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Baker JW (2015) Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq Spec 31(1):579–599. https://doi.org/10.1193/021113EQS025M
Baltzopoulos G, Vamvatsikos D, Iervolino I (2016) Analytical modelling of near-source pulse-like seismic demand for multi-linear backbone oscillators. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45(11):1797–1815. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2729
Baltzopoulos G, Baraschino R, Iervolino I, Vamvatsikos D (2017) SPO2FRAG: software for seismic fragility assessment based on static pushover. Bull Earthq Eng 15(10):4399–4425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0145-3
Baltzopoulos G, Baraschino R, Iervolino I, Vamvatsikos D (2018) Dynamic analysis of single-degree-of-freedom systems (DYANAS): a graphical user interface for OpenSees. Engin Struct 177:395–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.09.078
Chatzidaki A, Vamvatsikos D (2021) Reinforced concrete building seismic design examples. http://users.ntua.gr/divamva/RCbook.html
Chi W, El-Tawil S, Deierlein GG, Abel JF (1998) Inelastic analyses of a 17 story framed building damaged during Northridge. Eng Struct 20(4–6):481–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00036-9
Cornell CA, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News 2000, 3(2): 1–4. https://apps.peer.berkeley.edu/news/2000spring/performance.html. Accessed 12 Dec 2020.
De Luca F, Vamvatsikos D, Iervolino I (2013) Near-optimal piecewise linear fits of static pushover capacity curves for equivalent SDOF analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(4):523–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2225
Elkady A, Lignos D (2018) II-DAP: interactive interface for dynamic analysis procedures (Version 1.1). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1480341
Elnashai AS (2001) Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for earthquake applications. Struct Eng Mechanics 12(1):51–69. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2001.12.1.051
EN1998-3 (2005) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
Fajfar P (2000) A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthq Spec 16(3):573–592. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586128
FEMA (2009) FEMA P695 Far field ground motion set. http://users.ntua.gr/divamva/RCbook/FEMA-P695-FFset.zip. Accessed 27 Jan 2019
Fernández-Godino MG, Park C, Kim NH, Haftka RT (2019) Issues in deciding whether to use multifidelity surrogates. AIAA J. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J057750
Fragiadakis M, Vamvatsikos D, Aschheim M (2014) Application of nonlinear static procedures for seismic assessment of regular RC moment frame buildings. Earthq Spectra 30(2):767–794. https://doi.org/10.1193/111511EQS281M
Haselton CB (2008) Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford, CA
Haselton CB, Liel AB, Dean BS, Chou JH, Deierlein GG (2007) Seismic collapse safety and behavior of modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings. Res Front Struct Cong. https://doi.org/10.1061/40944(249)22
Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2009) The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. Springer, New York
Ibarra L, Krawinkler H (2011) Variance of collapse capacity of SDOF systems under earthquake excitations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 40(12):1299–1314. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1089
Jalayer F (2003) Direct probabilistic seismic analysis: implementing nonlinear dynamic assessments, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford: Stanford University
Jalayer F, Cornell CA (2009) Alternative non-linear demand estimation methods for probability-based seismic assessments. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(8):951–972. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.876
Jalayer F, Iervolino I, Manfredi G (2010) Structural modeling uncertainties and their influence on seismic assessment of existing RC structures. Struct Saf 32(3):220–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.02.004
Jalayer F, Elefante L, Iervolino I, Manfredi G (2011) Knowledge-based performance assessment of existing RC buildings. J Earthq Eng 15(3):362–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2010.501193
Jalayer F, De Risi R, Manfredi G (2015) Bayesian cloud analysis: efficient structural fragility assessment using linear regression. Bull Earthq Eng 13:1183–1203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9692-z
Kazantzi AK, Vamvatsikos D, Lignos DG (2014) Seismic performance of a steel moment-resisting frame subject to strength and ductility uncertainty. Eng Struct 78:69–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.06.044
Kohrangi M, Bazzurro P, Vamvatsikos D, Spillatura A (2017) Conditional spectrum-based ground motion record selection using average spectral acceleration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(10):1667–1685. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2876
Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK (1998) Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Eng Struct 20(4–6):452–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00092-8
Lachanas C, Vamvatsikos D (2020) Model type effects on the estimated seismic response of a 20-story steel moment resisting frame. J Struct Eng 147(6). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003010
Lin T, Haselton CB, Baker JW (2013b) Conditional spectrum-based ground motion selection. Part I: Hazard consistency for risk-based assessments. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(12):1847–1865. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2301
Lin T, Harmsen SC, Baker JW, Luco N (2013a) Conditional spectrum computation incorporating multiple causal earthquakes and ground-motion prediction models. Bull Seismolog Soc Am 103(2A):1103–1116. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120110293
Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114(8):1804–1826. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804)
Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott M, Fenves G (2000) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation: OpenSees command language manual, University of California, Berkeley, CA. http://opensees.berkeley.edu/
Miranda E (2001) Estimation of inelastic deformation demands of SDOF systems. J Struct Eng 127(9):1005–1012. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2001)127:9(1005)
Parr WC (1981) Minimum distance estimation: a bibliography. Commun Stat Theory Methods 10(12):1205–1224. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610928108828104
Patsialis D, Taflanidis AA (2020). Multi-fidelity Monte Carlo for seismic risk assessment applications. Struct Saf (in review).
Peherstorfer B, Willcox K, Gunzburger M (2018) Survey of multifidelity methods in uncertainty propagation, inference, and optimization. Siam Rev 60(3):550–591. https://doi.org/10.1137/16M1082469
Ruiz-García J, Miranda E (2007) Probabilistic estimation of maximum inelastic displacement demands for performance-based design. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(9):1235–1254. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.680
Shome N, Cornell CA (1999) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. Report No. RMS-35, RMS Program. Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Silva V, Akkar S, Baker JW, Bazzurro P, Castro JM, Crowley H, Dolsek M, Galasso C, Lagomarsino S, Monteiro R, Perrone D, Pitilakis K, Vamvatsikos D (2019) Current challenges and future trends in analytical fragility and vulnerability modelling. Earthq Spec 35(4):1927–1952. https://doi.org/10.1193/042418EQS101O
Sousa R, Almeida JP, Correia AA, Pinho R (2020) Shake table blind prediction tests: contributions for improved fiber-based frame modelling. J Earthq Eng 24(9):1435–1476. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2018.1466743
Tsioulou A, Galasso C (2018) Information theory measures for the engineering validation of ground-motion simulations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(4):1095–1104. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3015
Vamvatsikos D, Aschheim M (2016) Performance-based seismic design via yield frequency spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45(11):1759–1778. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2727
Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141
Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2006) Direct estimation of the seismic demand and capacity of oscillators with multi-linear static pushovers through IDA. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(9):1097–1117. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.573
Vamvatsikos D, Fragiadakis M (2010) Incremental dynamic analysis for estimating seismic performance sensitivity and uncertainty. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(2):141–163. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.935
Weisberg S (2005) Applied linear regression, 3rd edn. Hoboken NJ, Wiley
Acknowledgements
Financial support has been provided by the Eugenides Foundation in Greece (scholarship for doctoral studies in NTUA grant) and by the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) under the powers delegated by the European Commission through the Horizon 2020 program “PANOPTIS-development of a decision support system for increasing the resilience of transportation infrastructure based on combined use of terrestrial and airborne sensors and advanced modelling tools”, Grant Agreement number 769129.
Funding
EU Horizon2020, Grant Agreement number 769129. Eugenides Foundation, Doctoral Grant Scholarship 2018.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
A. Chatzidaki: Formal analysis and investigation; Methodology; Writing—original draft preparation. D. Vamvatsikos: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing—review and editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chatzidaki, A., Vamvatsikos, D. Mixed probabilistic seismic demand models for fragility assessment. Bull Earthquake Eng 19, 6397–6421 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01163-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01163-4