Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Structural seismic damage and loss assessments using a multi-conditioning ground motion selection approach based on an efficient sampling technique

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The application of Latin Hypercube and Monte Carlo (MC) sampling techniques for ground motion selection purposes is investigated. Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) works by first stratifying a probability distribution domain into multiple equally spaced and non-overlapping stripes and then by permutationally drawing samples from those stripes. To examine the efficiency of these two distinct sampling methods, a set of conditional multivariate distributions was fit to an intensity measure vector based on a single, two, or average of more-than-two (average) conditioning intensity measure. LHS was then utilized for sampling purposes from the conditional multivariate distributions, which in turn demonstrated superiority over MC given the same number of realization samples. Accordingly, it was utilized as an underlying peace of a broader ground motion selection framework to facilitite the selection of a number of ground motion suites based on different methods of conditioning. Using the selected suites, response history and subsequent damage/loss analyses were conducted on a generic 4-story non-ductile reinforced concrete building. The outcomes of these latter studies demonstrated that the ground motion suite selected based on an average-intensity-measure conditioning criterion performed better than those selected through single- and two-intensity-measure conditioning criteria.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker JW (2015) Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq Spectra 31(1):579–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baradaran Shoraka M, Yang TY, Elwood KJ (2013) Seismic loss estimation of non-ductile reinforced concrete buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42:297–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bommer JJ, Stafford JP, Alarcón EJ (2009) Empirical equations for the prediction of the significant, bracketed, and uniform duration of earthquake ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(6):3217–3233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore MD, Atkinson AG (2008) Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 and 10.0 s. Earthq Spectra 24(1):99–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozorgnia Y, Abrahamson AA, Atik AL et al (2014) NGA-West2 research project. Earthq Spectra 30(3):973–987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley AB (2010) A generalized conditional intensity measure approach and holistic ground-motion selection. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39:1321–1342

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley AB (2011) Empirical equations for the prediction of displacement spectrum intensity and its correlation with other intensity measures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(8):1182–01191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley AB (2012) A ground motion selection algorithm based on the generalized conditional intensity measure approach. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 40:48–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucher C (2009) Probability-based optimal design of friction-based seismic isolation devices. Struct Saf 31:500–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell WK, Bozorgnia Y (2010) A ground motion prediction equation for the horizontal component of cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) based on the PEER-NGA strong motion database. Earthq Spectra 26(3):635–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell WK, Bozorgnia Y (2012) A comparison of ground motion prediction equations for arias intensity and cumulative absolute velocity developed using a consistent database and functional form. Earthq Spectra 28(3):931–941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celarec D, Dolšek M (2013) The impact of modelling uncertainties on the seismic performance assessment of reinforced concrete frame buildings. Eng Struct 52:340–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chouna Y-S, Elnashai SA (2010) A simplified framework for probabilistic earthquake loss estimation. Probab Eng Mech 25:355–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decò A, Frangopol MD (2013) Life-cycle risk assessment of spatially distributed aging bridges under seismic and traffic hazards. Earthq Spectra 29(1):127–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decò A, Bocchini P, Frangopol MD (2013) A probabilistic approach for the prediction of seismic resilience of bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42:1469–1487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolsek M (2009) Incremental dynamic analysis with consideration of modeling uncertainties. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38:805–825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elwood KJ (2004) Modelling failures in existing reinforced concrete columns. Can J Civ Eng 32:846–859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galanis P (2014) Probabilistic methods to identify seismically hazardous older-type concrete frame buildings. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California Berkeley

  • Ghotbi A (2018) Resilience-based seismic evaluation and design of reinforced concrete structures. Ph.D. Dissertation, Unversity of California Los Angeles

  • Ghotbi A, Taciroglu E (2020a) Ground motion selection based on a multi-intensity-measure conditioning approach with emphasis on diverse earthquake contents. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3383

  • Ghotbi A, Taciroglu E (2020b) Effects of conditioning criteria for ground motion selection on the probabilistic seismic responses of reinforced concrete buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3380

  • Higham JN (2002) Computing the nearest correlation matrix-A problem for finance. IMA J Numer Anal 22:329–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra FL, Medina AR, Krawinkler H (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(12):1489–1511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosič M, Fajfar P, Dolšek M (2014) Approximate seismic risk assessment of building structures with explicit consideration of uncertainties. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(10):1483–1502

  • Kwong NS (2015). Selection and scaling of ground motions for nonlinear response history analysis of buidlings in performance-based earthquake engineering. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California Berkeley

  • McKenna F, Fenves LG, Scott MH (2000) OpenSees: a framework system for earthquake engineering simulation. Comput Sci Eng 13(4):58–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miano A, Jalayer F, Ebrahimian H, Prota A (2018) Cloud to IDA: efficient fragility assessment with limited scaling. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(5):1124–1147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miano A, Sezen H, Jalayer F, Prota A (2019) Performance-based assessment methodology for retrofit of buildings. ASCE J Struct Eng 145(12):04019144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan Y, Agrawal KA, Ghosn M (2007) Seismic fragility of continuous steel highway bridges in New York State. ASCE J Bridge Eng 12(6):689–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarbali K, Bradley BA (2015) Ground motion selection for scenario ruptures using the generalised conditional intensity measure (GCIM) method. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44:1601–1621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarbali K, Bradley BA (2016) The effect of causal parameter bounds in PSHA-based ground motion selection. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45(9):1515–1535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarbali K, Bradley AB, Baker WJ (2018) Consideration and propagation of ground motion selection epistemic uncertainties to seismic performance metrics. Earthq Spectra 34(2):587–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tubaldi E, Barbato M, Dall’Asta A (2012) Influence of model parameter uncertainty on seismic transverse response and vulnerability of steel-concrete composite bridges with dual load path. ASCE J Struct Eng 138(3):363–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vamvatsikos D (2014a) Seismic performance uncertainty estimation via IDA with progressive accelerogram-wise latin hypercube sampling. ASCE J Struct Eng 140(8):A4014015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vamvatsikos D (2014b) Seismic performance uncertainty estimation via IDA with progressive accelerogram-wise latin hypercube sampling. ASCE J Struct Eng. 140(8):A4014015

    Google Scholar 

  • Vamvatsikos D, Fragiadakis M (2010) Incremental dynamic analysis for estimating seismic performance sensitivity and uncertainty. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39:141–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorechovsky M, Novák D (2009) Correlation control in small-sample Monte Carlo type simulations I: a simulated annealing approach. Probab Eng Mech 24:452–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang TY, Moehle J, Stojadinovic B, Der Kiureghian A (2009) Seismic performance evaluation of facilities: methodology and implementation. ASCE J Struct Eng 135(10):1146–1154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y, Pinder G (2003) Latin hypercube lattice sample selection strategy for correlated random hydraulic conductivity fields. Water Resour Res 39(8):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhongxian L, Yang L, Ning L (2014) Vector-intensity measure based seismic vulnerability analysis of bridge structures. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 13:695–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, 5731E Boelter Hall, Los Angeles, CA, 90025, USA

    Abdoul R. Ghotbi & Ertugrul Taciroglu

Authors
  1. Abdoul R. Ghotbi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ertugrul Taciroglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdoul R. Ghotbi.

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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ghotbi, A.R., Taciroglu, E. Structural seismic damage and loss assessments using a multi-conditioning ground motion selection approach based on an efficient sampling technique. Bull Earthquake Eng 19, 1271–1287 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-01016-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-01016-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation