Selection of earthquake ground motions for multiple objectives using genetic algorithms

Existing earthquake ground motion (GM) selection methods for the seismic assessment of structural systems focus on spectral compatibility in terms of either only central values or both central values and variability. In this way, important selection criteria related to the seismology of the region, local soil conditions, strong GM intensity and duration as well as the magnitude of scale factors are considered only indirectly by setting them as constraints in the pre-processing phase in the form of permissible ranges. In this study, a novel framework for the optimum selection of earthquake GMs is presented, where the aforementioned criteria are treated explicitly as selection objectives. The framework is based on the principles of multi-objective optimization that is addressed with the aid of the Weighted Sum Method, which supports decision making both in the pre-processing and post-processing phase of the GM selection procedure. The solution of the derived equivalent single-objective optimization problem is performed by the application of a mixed-integer Genetic Algorithm and the effects of its parameters on the efficiency of the selection procedure are investigated. Application of the proposed framework shows that it is able to track GM sets that not only provide excellent spectral matching but they are also able to simultaneously consider more explicitly a set of additional criteria

Introducing Adaptive Incremental Dynamic Analysis: A New Tool for Linking Ground Motion Selection and Structural Response Assessment

Adaptive Incremental Dynamic Analysis (AIDA) is a novel ground motion selection scheme that adaptively changes the ground motion suites at different ground motion intensity levels to match hazardconsistent properties for structural response assessment. Incremental DynamicAnalysis (IDA), a current dynamic response history analysis practice in Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE), uses the same suite of ground motions at all Intensity Measure (IM) levels to estimate structural response. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) deaggregation tells us, however, that the target distributions of important ground motion properties change as the IM levels change. To match hazard-consistent ground motion properties, ground motions can be re-selected at each IM level, but ground motion continuity is lost when using such “stripes” (i.e., individual analysis points at each IM level). Alternatively, the data from the same ground motions in IDA can be re-weighted at various IM levels to match their respective target distributions of properties, but this implies potential omission of data and curse of dimensionality. Adaptive Incremental Dynamic Analysis, in contrast, gradually changes ground motion records to match ground motion properties as the IM level changes, while also partially maintaining ground motion continuity without the omission of useful data. AIDA requires careful record selection across IM levels. Potential record selection criteria include ground motion properties from deaggregation, or target spectrum such as the Conditional Spectrum. Steps to perform AIDA are listed as follows: (1) obtain target ground motion properties for each IM level; (2) determine “bin sizes” (i.e., tolerance for acceptable ground motion properties) and identify all candidate ground motions that fall within target bins; (3) keep ground motions that are usable at multiple IM levels, to maintain continuity; (4) use each ground motion for IDA within its allowable IM range. As a result, if we keep increasing the “bin sizes”, AIDA will approach IDA asymptotically; on the other hand, if we decrease the “bin sizes”, AIDA will approach the other end of “stripes”. This paper addresses the challenges of changing records across various IM levels. Different ground motion selection schemes are compared with AIDA to demonstrate the advantages of using AIDA. Example structural analyses are used to illustrate the impact of AIDA on the estimation of structural response in PBEE. By combining the benefits of IDA and PSHA without the omission of useful data, AIDA is a promising new tool for linking ground motion selection and structural response assessment

Seismic Hazard Assessment For Peninsular Malaysia Using Gumbel Distribution Method

This Paper Presents The Preliminary Study On Seismic Hazard Assessment Which Involved Developing Macrozonation Map For Two Hazard Levels, I.E. 10% And 2% Probabilities Of Exceedance In 50 Years For Bedrock Of Peninsular Malaysia. The Analysis Was Performed Using Statistic Theory Of Extreme Values From Gumbel. The Analysis Covered The Earthquake Data Processing (Such As Choosing A Consistent Magnitude To Be Used In The Analysis And Identifying Main Shock Events), And Selection Of Appropriate Attenuation Relationship. Results Showed That The Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) Across The Peninsular Malaysia Range Between 10 And 25 Gal For 10% Probability Of Exceedance, And Between 15 And 35 Gal For 2% Probability Of Exceedance In 50 Years Hazard Levels. These Values Were Lower By About 50 To 65% Than Those Obtained From Deterministic Analysis

An Assessment to Benchmark the Seismic Performance of a Code-Conforming Reinforced-Concrete Moment-Frame Building

This report describes a state-of-the-art performance-based earthquake engineering methodology that is used to assess the seismic performance of a four-story reinforced concrete (RC) office building that is generally representative of low-rise office buildings constructed in highly seismic regions of California. This “benchmark” building is considered to be located at a site in the Los Angeles basin, and it was designed with a ductile RC special moment-resisting frame as its seismic lateral system that was designed according to modern building codes and standards. The building’s performance is quantified in terms of structural behavior up to collapse, structural and nonstructural damage and associated repair costs, and the risk of fatalities and their associated economic costs. To account for different building configurations that may be designed in practice to meet requirements of building size and use, eight structural design alternatives are used in the performance assessments. Our performance assessments account for important sources of uncertainty in the ground motion hazard, the structural response, structural and nonstructural damage, repair costs, and life-safety risk. The ground motion hazard characterization employs a site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and the evaluation of controlling seismic sources (through disaggregation) at seven ground motion levels (encompassing return periods ranging from 7 to 2475 years). Innovative procedures for ground motion selection and scaling are used to develop acceleration time history suites corresponding to each of the seven ground motion levels. Structural modeling utilizes both “fiber” models and “plastic hinge” models. Structural modeling uncertainties are investigated through comparison of these two modeling approaches, and through variations in structural component modeling parameters (stiffness, deformation capacity, degradation, etc.). Structural and nonstructural damage (fragility) models are based on a combination of test data, observations from post-earthquake reconnaissance, and expert opinion. Structural damage and repair costs are modeled for the RC beams, columns, and slabcolumn connections. Damage and associated repair costs are considered for some nonstructural building components, including wallboard partitions, interior paint, exterior glazing, ceilings, sprinkler systems, and elevators. The risk of casualties and the associated economic costs are evaluated based on the risk of structural collapse, combined with recent models on earthquake fatalities in collapsed buildings and accepted economic modeling guidelines for the value of human life in loss and cost-benefit studies. The principal results of this work pertain to the building collapse risk, damage and repair cost, and life-safety risk. These are discussed successively as follows. When accounting for uncertainties in structural modeling and record-to-record variability (i.e., conditional on a specified ground shaking intensity), the structural collapse probabilities of the various designs range from 2% to 7% for earthquake ground motions that have a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (2475 years return period). When integrated with the ground motion hazard for the southern California site, the collapse probabilities result in mean annual frequencies of collapse in the range of [0.4 to 1.4]x10 -4 for the various benchmark building designs. In the development of these results, we made the following observations that are expected to be broadly applicable: (1) The ground motions selected for performance simulations must consider spectral shape (e.g., through use of the epsilon parameter) and should appropriately account for correlations between motions in both horizontal directions; (2) Lower-bound component models, which are commonly used in performance-based assessment procedures such as FEMA 356, can significantly bias collapse analysis results; it is more appropriate to use median component behavior, including all aspects of the component model (strength, stiffness, deformation capacity, cyclic deterioration, etc.); (3) Structural modeling uncertainties related to component deformation capacity and post-peak degrading stiffness can impact the variability of calculated collapse probabilities and mean annual rates to a similar degree as record-to-record variability of ground motions. Therefore, including the effects of such structural modeling uncertainties significantly increases the mean annual collapse rates. We found this increase to be roughly four to eight times relative to rates evaluated for the median structural model; (4) Nonlinear response analyses revealed at least six distinct collapse mechanisms, the most common of which was a story mechanism in the third story (differing from the multi-story mechanism predicted by nonlinear static pushover analysis); (5) Soil-foundation-structure interaction effects did not significantly affect the structural response, which was expected given the relatively flexible superstructure and stiff soils. The potential for financial loss is considerable. Overall, the calculated expected annual losses (EAL) are in the range of $52,000 to$97,000 for the various code-conforming benchmark building designs, or roughly 1% of the replacement cost of the building ($8.8M). These losses are dominated by the expected repair costs of the wallboard partitions (including interior paint) and by the structural members. Loss estimates are sensitive to details of the structural models, especially the initial stiffness of the structural elements. Losses are also found to be sensitive to structural modeling choices, such as ignoring the tensile strength of the concrete (40 EAL) or the contribution of the gravity frames to overall building stiffness and strength (15 change in EAL). Although there are a number of factors identified in the literature as likely to affect the risk of human injury during seismic events, the casualty modeling in this study focuses on those factors (building collapse, building occupancy, and spatial location of building occupants) that directly inform the building design process. The expected annual number of fatalities is calculated for the benchmark building, assuming that an earthquake can occur at any time of any day with equal probability and using fatality probabilities conditioned on structural collapse and based on empirical data. The expected annual number of fatalities for the code-conforming buildings ranges between 0.05*10 -2 and 0.21*10 -2 , and is equal to 2.30*10 -2 for a non-code conforming design. The expected loss of life during a seismic event is perhaps the decision variable that owners and policy makers will be most interested in mitigating. The fatality estimation carried out for the benchmark building provides a methodology for comparing this important value for various building designs, and enables informed decision making during the design process. The expected annual loss associated with fatalities caused by building earthquake damage is estimated by converting the expected annual number of fatalities into economic terms. Assuming the value of a human life is$3.5M, the fatality rate translates to an EAL due to fatalities of $3,500 to$5,600 for the code-conforming designs, and $79,800 for the non-code conforming design. Compared to the EAL due to repair costs of the code-conforming designs, which are on the order of$66,000, the monetary value associated with life loss is small, suggesting that the governing factor in this respect will be the maximum permissible life-safety risk deemed by the public (or its representative government) to be appropriate for buildings. Although the focus of this report is on one specific building, it can be used as a reference for other types of structures. This report is organized in such a way that the individual core chapters (4, 5, and 6) can be read independently. Chapter 1 provides background on the performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) approach. Chapter 2 presents the implementation of the PBEE methodology of the PEER framework, as applied to the benchmark building. Chapter 3 sets the stage for the choices of location and basic structural design. The subsequent core chapters focus on the hazard analysis (Chapter 4), the structural analysis (Chapter 5), and the damage and loss analyses (Chapter 6). Although the report is self-contained, readers interested in additional details can find them in the appendices

The State of State Science Standards 2012

American science performance is lagging as the economy becomes increasingly high tech, but our current science standards are doing little to solve the problem. Reviewers evaluated science standards for every state for this report and their findings were deeply troubling: The majority of states earned Ds or Fs for their standards in this crucial subject, with only six jurisdictions receiving As. Explore all the state report cards and see how your state performed

Seismic Vulnerability of the Italian Roadway Bridge Stock

This study focuses on the seismic vulnerability evaluation of the Italian roadway bridge stock, within the framework of a Civil Protection sponsored project. A comprehensive database of existing bridges (17,000 bridges with different level of knowledge) was implemented. At the core of the study stands a procedure for automatically carrying out state-of-the-art analytical evaluation of fragility curves for two performance levels – damage and collapse – on an individual bridge basis. A webGIS was developed to handle data and results. The main outputs are maps of bridge seismic risk (from the fragilities and the hazard maps) at the national level and real-time scenario damage-probability maps (from the fragilities and the scenario shake maps). In the latter case the webGIS also performs network analysis to identify routes to be followed by rescue teams. Consistency of the fragility derivation over the entire bridge stock is regarded as a major advantage of the adopted approach

Aerospace Medicine and Biology: A continuing bibliography, supplement 191

A bibliographical list of 182 reports, articles, and other documents introduced into the NASA scientific and technical information system in February 1979 is presented