Cloud to IDA: A Very Efficient Solution for Performing Incremental Dynamic Analysis

  • A. Miano
  • F. Jalayer
  • A. Prota
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 10)


Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is a procedure in which a structure is subjected to a suite of ground motion records, scaled to multiple levels of intensity and leading to corresponding curves of response versus intensity. However, implementation of IDA usually involves a significant computational effort. In this work, a simple and efficient solution for IDA analysis with only few points, based on the structural response to un-scaled records (a.k.a the “cloud”), has been implemented. The transverse frame of a shear-critical seven-storey older RC building in Van Nuys, CA, which is modeled in Opensees with fiber-section considering the flexural-shear-axial interactions and the bar slip, is employed. It is demonstrated that the simplified IDA, obtained based on a significantly lower computational effort with respect to the full IDA, provides reliable results in terms of the statistics of structural response (e.g., mean and mean plus/minus one standard deviation) versus intensity and structural fragility.


Seismic fragility Existing RC frames Non-linear dynamic analysis procedures 



This work is supported in part by the executive Project ReLUIS-DPC 2014/2016. This support is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Ancheta TD et al (2014) NGA-West2 Database. Earthq Spectra 30(3):989–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bazzurro P, Cornell CA, Shome N, Carballo JE (1998) Three proposals for characterizing MDOF nonlinear seismic response. J Struct Eng 124(11):1281–1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cornell CA, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Cent News 3(2):1–3Google Scholar
  4. Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA (2002) The probabilistic basis for the 2000 SAC/FEMA steel moment frame guidelines. ASCE J Struct Eng 128:526–533 Special Issue: Steel Moment Resisting Frames after Northridge Part IICrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ditlevsen O, Madsen HO (1996) Structural reliability methods. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Elwood KJ, Moehle JP (2005) Axial capacity model for shear-damaged columns. ACI Struct J 102:578–587Google Scholar
  7. Galanis PH, Moehle JP (2015) Development of collapse indicators for risk assessment of older-type reinforced concrete buildings. Earthq Spectra 31(4):1991–2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gerin M, Adebar P (2004) Accounting for shear in seismic analysis of concrete structures. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  9. Jalayer F (2003) Direct Probabilistic seismic analysis: implementing non-linear dynamic assessments. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  10. Jalayer F, Cornell CA (2003) A technical framework for probability-based demand and capacity factor design (DCFD) seismic formats. Technical report PEER 2003/08, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  11. Jalayer F, Franchin P, Pinto PE (2007) A scalar damage measure for seismic reliability analysis of RC frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(13):2059–2079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jalayer F, Cornell CA (2009) Alternative non-linear demand estimation methods for probability-based seismic assessments. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(8):951–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jalayer F, De Risi R, Manfredi G (2015) Bayesian cloud analysis: efficient structural fragility assessment using linear regression. Bull Earthq Eng 13(4):1183–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jalayer F, Ebrahimian H (2017) Seismic risk assessment considering cumulative damage due to aftershocks. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46:369–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jalayer F, Ebrahimian H, Miano A, Manfredi G, Sezen H (2017) Analytical fragility assessment using unscaled ground motion records. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, pp 1–25. Scholar
  16. Krawinkler H (2005): Van Nuys hotel building testbed report: exercising seismic performance assessment. Technical report PEER 2005/11, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  17. Islam MS (1996) Analysis of the Northridge earthquake response of a damaged non-ductile concrete frame building. Struct Des Tall Build 5(3):151–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miano A, Jalayer F, Ebrahimian H, Prota A (2017) Cloud to IDA: Efficient fragility assessment with limited scaling. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamic, pp 1–24. Scholar
  19. Scott MH, Fenves GL (2006) Plastic hinge integration methods for force-based beam–column elements. J Struct Eng 132(2):244–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Setzler EJ, Sezen H (2008) Model for the lateral behavior of reinforced concrete columns including shear deformations. Earthq Spectra 24(2):493–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sezen H, Moehle JP (2003) Bond-slip behavior of reinforced concrete members. In: Proceedings of fib symposium on concrete structures in seismic regionsGoogle Scholar
  22. Sezen H, Moehle JP (2004) Shear strength model for lightly reinforced concrete columns. J Struct Eng 130(11):1692–1703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sezen H (2008) Shear deformation model for reinforced concrete columns. Struct Eng Mech 28(1):39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shome N, Cornell CA (1999) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. RMS Program, Stanford University 1999; Report No. RMS35, 320 pGoogle Scholar
  25. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2004) Applied incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Spectra 20(2):523–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Structures for Engineering and ArchitectureUniversity “Federico II”NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations