Performance-based post-earthquake decision making for instrumented buildings

Abstract

This paper develops a decision making framework for post-earthquake assessment of instrumented buildings in a manner consistent with performance-based design criteria. This framework is achieved by simultaneously combining and advancing existing knowledge from seismic structural health monitoring and performance-based earthquake engineering paradigms. The framework consists of (1) measurement, (2) uncertainty modeling, (3) dynamic response reconstruction, (4) damage estimation, and (5) performance-based assessment and decision making. In particular, the main objective is to reconstruct inter-story drifts with a probabilistic measure of exceeding performance-based acceptance limits and determine the post-earthquake re-occupancy classification of the instrumented building of interest. Since the proposed framework is probabilistic, the outcome can be used to obtain the probability of losses based on the defined decision variables and be integrated into a risk-based decision making process by city officials, building owners, and emergency managers. The framework is illustrated using data from the Van Nuys hotel testbed, a seven-story reinforced concrete building instrumented by the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP Station 24386).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Abbreviations

\(\mathrm{arg}\,\mathrm{min}\) :

Argument of the minimum

\(\mathbf {b}_1\) :

Spatial distribution of excitation

\(\mathbf {b}_2\) :

Spatial distribution of process noise

\(c_2\) :

Output location matrix

\(\mathbf {C}_\xi\) :

Damping matrix

e :

State error

\({\mathbb {E}}\) :

Expected value

E :

Viscous damping coefficient

\(\mathbf {E}\) :

Feedback matrix

\(\mathbf {E}_{\text {opt}}\) :

Optimal feedback matrix

F(t):

Corrective force

\(f'_{\text {c}}\) :

Compressive strength of concrete

\(f_{\text {R}}(.)\) :

Restoring force function

\(G_0\) :

Constant power spectral density intensity

\(h_k\) :

Height of the kth story

I(t):

Non-negative envelope function

\(\mathbf {K}\) :

Stiffness matrix

\(\mathbf {M}\) :

Mass matrix

n :

Number of degrees-of-freedom

p[.]:

Probability

\(\mathbf {P}\) :

State error covariance

\(\mathbf {{P}}_{\mathrm{ISD}}\) :

Inter-story drift error covariance

q(t):

Displacement vector

\(\hat{q}(t)\) :

Displacement vector estimate

\(\dot{q}(t)\) :

Velocity vector

\(\ddot{q}(t)\) :

Acceleration vector

\(S_{\ddot{u}^*\ddot{u}^*(\omega )}\) :

Kanai–Tajimi power spectral density

t :

Time

\({\text {tr}}(.)\) :

Trace

\(\ddot{u}_{\text {g}}(t)\) :

Ground acceleration vector

v(t):

Measurement noise

w(t):

Process noise

z(t):

Vector of auxiliary variables

y(t):

Measured displacement vector

\(\dot{y}(t)\) :

Measured velocity vector

\(\ddot{y}(t)\) :

Measured acceleration vector

\(\xi _{\text {g}}\) :

Site dominant damping coefficient

\(\sigma\) :

Standard deviation

\(\sigma ^2\) :

Variance

\(\varvec{\varPhi }(\omega )\) :

Power spectral density

\(\varvec{\varPhi }_{ee}(\omega )\) :

Error spectral density matrix

\(\varvec{\varPhi }_{vv}(\omega )\) :

Power spectral density of measurement noise

\(\varvec{\varPhi }_{ww}(\omega )\) :

Power spectral density of uncertain inputs

\(\omega\) :

Frequency

\(\omega _{\text {g}}\) :

Site dominant frequency

\({\mathcal {N}}\) :

Normal distribution

ASCE:

American Society of Civil Engineers

ATC:

Applied Technology Council

C:

Collapse

CP:

Collapse prevention

CSMIP:

California Strong Motion Instrument Program

DM:

Damage measure

DoF:

Degree of freedom

DV:

Decision variable

EDP:

Engineering demand parameter

EKF:

Extended Kalman filter

FE:

Finite element

FEMA:

Federal emergency management agency

IO:

Immediate occupancy

ISD:

Inter-story drift

KF:

Kalman filter

LS:

Life safety

M:

Measurement

NMBO:

Nonlinear model-based observer

PBA:

Performance-based assessment

PBEE:

Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering

PBM:

Performance-based monitoring

PEER:

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research

PF:

Particle filters

PL:

Performance level

PSD:

Power spectral density

RC:

Reinforced concrete

RMS:

Root-mean-square

UKF:

Unscented Kalman filter

References

  1. 1.

    ATC (1989) Procedures for postearthquake safety evaluations of buildings, report ATC-20. Technical report, Applied Technology Council (ATC), Redwood City, CA

  2. 2.

    ATC (1995) Addendum to the ATC-20 postearthquake building safety evaluation procedures. Technical report, Applied Technology Council (ATC), Redwood City, CA

  3. 3.

    Bernal D (2006) Flexibility-based damage localization from stochastic realization results. J Eng Mech 132(6):651–658

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Sadeghi Eshkevari S, Heydari N, Nathan Kutz J, Pakzad SN, Diplas P, Sadeghi Eshkevari S (2019) Operational vision-based modal identification of structures: a novel framework. Struct Health Monit. https://doi.org/10.12783/shm2019/32502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Roohi M, Hernandez EM, Rosowsky D (2019) Nonlinear seismic response reconstruction and performance assessment of instrumented wood-frame buildings—validation using NEESWood capstone full-scale tests. Struct Control Health Monit 26(9):e2373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Roohi M, Erazo K, Rosowsky D,  Hernandez EM (2020) An extended model-based observer for state estimation in nonlinear hysteretic structural systems. Mech Syst Signal Process. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107015

  7. 7.

    Erazo K, Hernandez EM (2016) Uncertainty quantification of state estimation in nonlinear structural systems with application to seismic response in buildings. ASCE-ASME J Risk Uncertain Eng Syst Part A: Civ Eng 2(3):B5015001

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Ching J, Beck JL, Porter KA, Shaikhutdinov R (2006) Bayesian state estimation method for nonlinear systems and its application to recorded seismic response. J Eng Mech 132(4):396–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Hu RP, Xu YL (2019) Shm-based seismic performance assessment of high-rise buildings under long-period ground motion. J Struct Eng 145(6):04019038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Şafak E (1999) Wave-propagation formulation of seismic response of multistory buildings. J Struct Eng 125(4):426–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Todorovska MI, Trifunac MD (2010) Earthquake damage detection in the imperial county services building II: analysis of novelties via wavelets. Struct Control Health Monit 17(8):895–917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Roohi M, Hernandez EM, Rosowsky D (2020) Reconstructing element-by-element dissipated hysteretic energy in instrumented buildings: application to the Van Nuys Hotel testbed. ASCE J Eng Mech. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.12426(under review)

  13. 13.

    Hernandez EM, May G (2012) Dissipated energy ratio as a feature for earthquake-induced damage detection of instrumented structures. J Eng Mech 139(11):1521–1529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Simoen E, De Roeck G, Lombaert G (2015) Dealing with uncertainty in model updating for damage assessment: a review. Mech Syst Signal Process 56:123–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Astroza R, Ebrahimian H, Conte JP (2019) Performance comparison of kalman-based filters for nonlinear structural finite element model updating. J Sound Vib 438:520–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Naeim F, Hagie S, Alimoradi A, Miranda E (2006) Automated post-earthquake damage assessment of instrumented buildings. In: Wasti ST, Ozcebe G (eds) Advances in earthquake engineering for urban risk reduction. Nato science series: IV: Earth and environmental sciences, vol 66. Springer, Dordrecht

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Lenjani A, Bilionis I, Dyke SJ, Yeum CM, Monteiro R (2020) A resilience-based method for prioritizing post-event building inspections. Nat Hazards 100(2):877–896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-019-03849-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Mohsen A, Pekcan G (2020) Structural health monitoring using extremely compressed data through deep learning. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 35:597–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Pan H, Azimi M, Gui G, Yan F, Lin Z (2017) Vibration-based support vector machine for structural health monitoring. In: International conference on experimental vibration analysis for civil engineering structures, pp 167–178. Springer, Dordrecht

  20. 20.

    Mangalathu S, Sun H, Nweke CC, Yi Z, Burton HV (2020) Classifying earthquake damage to buildings using machine learning. Earthq Spectra 36(1):183–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Zhang Y, Burton HV, Sun H, Shokrabadi M (2018) A machine learning framework for assessing post-earthquake structural safety. Struct Saf 72:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Lenjani A, Dyke SJ, Bilionis I, Yeum CM, Kamiya K, Choi J, Liu X, Chowdhury AG (2020) Towards fully automated post-event data collection and analysis: pre-event and post-event information fusion. Eng Struct 208:109884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Roohi M (2019) Performance-based seismic monitoring of instrumented buildings. PhD thesis, Graduate College Dissertations and Theses. 1140. University of Vermont

  24. 24.

    Wu RT, Jahanshahi MR (2020) Data fusion approaches for structural health monitoring and system identification: past, present, and future. Struct Health Monit 19(2):552–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Sohn H, Farrar CR, Hemez FM, Shunk DD, Stinemates DW, Nadler BR, Czarnecki JJ (2003) A review of structural health monitoring literature: 1996–2001. Los Alamos National Laboratory, USA, pp 1–7

  26. 26.

    Fan W, Qiao P (2011) Vibration-based damage identification methods: a review and comparative study. Struct Health Monit 10(1):83–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Azimi M, Eslamlou AD (2020) Data-driven structural health monitoring and damage detection through deep learning: state-of-the-art review. Sensors 20(10):2778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Celebi M, Sanli A, Sinclair M, Gallant S, Radulescu D (2004) Real-time seismic monitoring needs of a building owner—and the solution: a cooperative effort. Earthq Spectra 20(2):333–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Miranda E (2006) Use of probability-based measures for automated damage assessment. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 15(1):35–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Porter K, Mitrani-Reiser J, Beck JL (2006) Near-real-time loss estimation for instrumented buildings. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 15(1):3–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Mitrani-Resier J, Wu S, Beck JL (2016) Virtual inspector and its application to immediate pre-event and post-event earthquake loss and safety assessment of buildings. Nat Hazards 81(3):1861–1878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Hwang SH, Lignos DG (2018) Assessment of structural damage detection methods for steel structures using full-scale experimental data and nonlinear analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 16(7):2971–2999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Cremen G, Baker JW (2018) Quantifying the benefits of building instruments to FEMA p-58 rapid post-earthquake damage and loss predictions. Eng Struct 176:243–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Hernandez E, Roohi M, Rosowsky D (2018) Estimation of element-by-element demand-to-capacity ratios in instrumented SMRF buildings using measured seismic response. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(12):2561–2578

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    SEAOC (1995) Vision 2000: performance based seismic engineering of buildings. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    ATC (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. 2. Appendices. Applied Technology Council (ATC), Redwood City, CA

  37. 37.

    FEMA (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA-273, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC

  38. 38.

    FEMA (2000) Commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA-356, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC

  39. 39.

    ASCE (2013) ASCE/SEI 41-13: seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. Technical report, American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE/SEI 41–13, Reston, VA

  40. 40.

    Porter KA (2003) An overview of PEER’s performance-based earthquake engineering methodology. In: Proceedings of ninth international conference on applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering. Citeseer

  41. 41.

    Gelb A (1974) Applied optimal estimation. MIT press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Julier S, Uhlmann J, Durrant-Whyte HF (2000) A new method for the nonlinear transformation of means and covariances in filters and estimators. IEEE Trans Autom control 45(3):477–482

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Doucet A, Godsill S, Andrieu C (2000) On sequential monte carlo sampling methods for bayesian filtering. Stat Comput 10(3):197–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Hernandez EM (2011) A natural observer for optimal state estimation in second order linear structural systems. Mech Syst Signal Process 25(8):2938–2947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Hernandez EM (2013) Optimal model-based state estimation in mechanical and structural systems. Struct Control Health Monit 20(4):532–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Roohi M, Hernandez EM, Rosowsky D (2019) Nonlinear seismic response reconstruction in minimally instrumented buildings—validation Using Neeswood capstone full-scale tests. Structural health monitoring 2019. Presented at the structural health monitoring 2019. https://doi.org/10.12783/shm2019/32390

  47. 47.

    FEMA-356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Krawinkler H (2005) Van Nuys hotel building testbed report: exercising seismic performance assessment. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering of California

  49. 49.

    Trifunac MD, Ivanovic SS, Todorovska MI (1999) Instrumented 7-storey reinforced concrete building in Van Nuys, California: description of the damage from the 1994 Northridge earthquake and strong motion data. Report CE 99:2

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Trifunac MD, Ivanovic SS (2003) Analysis of drifts in a seven-story reinforced concrete structure. University of Southern California Report CE, pp 3–10

  51. 51.

    Frank M, Fenves GL, Scott MH et al (2000) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. University of California, Berkeley

  52. 52.

    Jalayer F, Ebrahimian H, Miano A, Manfredi G, Sezen H (2017) Analytical fragility assessment using unscaled ground motion records. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(15):2639–2663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Saiful Islam M (1996) Analysis of the northridge earthquake response of a damaged non-ductile concrete frame building. Struct Des Tall Build 5(3):151–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Support for this research provided, in part, by award No. 1453502 from the National Science Foundation is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Milad Roohi.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roohi, M., Hernandez, E.M. Performance-based post-earthquake decision making for instrumented buildings. J Civil Struct Health Monit 10, 775–792 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-020-00416-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Decision making
  • Performance-based earthquake engineering
  • Seismic structural health monitoring
  • Dynamic response reconstruction
  • Instrumented buildings
  • Real-world validation