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

MUST-CNN: A Multilayer Shift-and-Stitch Deep Convolutional Architecture for Sequence-based Protein Structure Prediction

Predicting protein properties such as solvent accessibility and secondary structure from its primary amino acid sequence is an important task in bioinformatics. Recently, a few deep learning models have surpassed the traditional window based multilayer perceptron. Taking inspiration from the image classification domain we propose a deep convolutional neural network architecture, MUST-CNN, to predict protein properties. This architecture uses a novel multilayer shift-and-stitch (MUST) technique to generate fully dense per-position predictions on protein sequences. Our model is significantly simpler than the state-of-the-art, yet achieves better results. By combining MUST and the efficient convolution operation, we can consider far more parameters while retaining very fast prediction speeds. We beat the state-of-the-art performance on two large protein property prediction datasets.Comment: 8 pages ; 3 figures ; deep learning based sequence-sequence prediction. in AAAI 201

A Computationally Efficient Ground-Motion Selection Algorithm for Matching a Target Response Spectrum Mean and Variance

Dynamic structural analysis often requires the selection of input ground motions with a target mean response spectrum. The variance of the target response spectrum is usually ignored or accounted for in an ad hoc manner, which can bias the structural response estimates. This manuscript proposes a computationally efficient and theoretically consistent algorithm to select ground motions that match the target response spectrum mean and variance. The selection algorithm probabilistically generates multiple response spectra from a target distribution, and then selects recorded ground motions whose response spectra individually match the simulated response spectra. A greedy optimization technique further improves the match between the target and the sample means and variances. The proposed algorithm is used to select ground motions for the analysis of sample structures in order to assess the impact of considering ground-motion variance on the structural response estimates. The implications for code-based design and performance-based earthquake engineering are discussed

Conditional Spectrum-Based Ground Motion Selection. Part II: Intensity-Based Assessments and Evaluation of Alternative Target Spectra

In a companion paper, an overview and problem definition was presented for ground motion selection on the basis of the conditional spectrum (CS), to perform risk-based assessments (which estimate the annual rate of exceeding a specified structural response amplitude) for a 20-story reinforced concrete frame structure. Here, the methodology is repeated for intensity-based assessments (which estimate structural response for ground motions with a specified intensity level) to determine the effect of conditioning period. Additionally, intensity-based and risk-based assessments are evaluated for two other possible target spectra, specifically the uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) and the conditional mean spectrum (CMS, without variability).It is demonstrated for the structure considered that the choice of conditioning period in the CS can substantially impact structural response estimates in an intensity-based assessment. When used for intensity-based assessments, the UHS typically results in equal or higher median estimates of structural response than the CS; the CMS results in similar median estimates of structural response compared with the CS but exhibits lower dispersion because of the omission of variability. The choice of target spectrum is then evaluated for risk-based assessments, showing that the UHS results in overestimation of structural response hazard, whereas the CMS results in underestimation. Additional analyses are completed for other structures to confirm the generality of the conclusions here. These findings have potentially important implications both for the intensity-based seismic assessments using the CS in future building codes and the risk-based seismic assessments typically used in performance-based earthquake engineering applications

Conditional Spectrum-Based Ground Motion Selection. Part I: Hazard Consistency for Risk-Based Assessments

The conditional spectrum (CS, with mean and variability) is a target response spectrum that links nonlinear dynamic analysis back to probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for ground motion selection. The CS is computed on the basis of a specified conditioning period, whereas structures under consideration may be sensitive to response spectral amplitudes at multiple periods of excitation. Questions remain regarding the appropriate choice of conditioning period when utilizing the CS as the target spectrum. This paper focuses on risk-based assessments, which estimate the annual rate of exceeding a specified structural response amplitude. Seismic hazard analysis, ground motion selection, and nonlinear dynamic analysis are performed, using the conditional spectra with varying conditioning periods, to assess the performance of a 20-story reinforced concrete frame structure. It is shown here that risk-based assessments are relatively insensitive to the choice of conditioning period when the ground motions are carefully selected to ensure hazard consistency. This observed insensitivity to the conditioning period comes from the fact that, when CS-based ground motion selection is used, the distributions of response spectra of the selected ground motions are consistent with the site ground motion hazard curves at all relevant periods; this consistency with the site hazard curves is independent of the conditioning period. The importance of an exact CS (which incorporates multiple causal earthquakes and ground motion prediction models) to achieve the appropriate spectral variability at periods away from the conditioning period is also highlighted. The findings of this paper are expected theoretically but have not been empirically demonstrated previously

Conditional Spectrum Computation Incorporating Multiple Causal Earthquakes and Ground‐Motion Prediction Models

The Conditional Spectrum (CS) is a target spectrum (with conditional mean and conditional standard deviation) that links seismic hazard information with ground motion selection for nonlinear dynamic analysis. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) estimates the ground motion hazard by incorporating the aleatory uncertainties in all earthquake scenarios and resulting ground motions as well as the epistemic uncertainties in ground motion prediction models (GMPMs) and seismic source models. Typical CS calculations to date are produced for a single earthquake scenario using a single GMPM, but more precise use requires consideration of at least multiple causal earthquakes and multiple GMPMs that are often considered in a PSHA computation. This paper presents the mathematics underlying these more precise CS calculations. Despite requiring more effort to compute than approximate calculations using a single causal earthquake and GMPM, the proposed approach produces an exact output that has a theoretical basis. To demonstrate the results of this approach and compare the exact and approximate calculations, several example calculations are performed for real sites in the western U.S. (WUS). The results also provide some insights regarding the circumstances under which approximate results are likely to closely match more exact results. To facilitate these more precise calculations for real applications, the exact CS calculations can now be performed for real sites in the U.S. using new deaggregation features in the U.S. Geological Survey hazard mapping tools. Details regarding this implementation are discussed in this paper