Incremental dynamic analysis with consideration of modeling uncertainties

Abstract

SUMMARYIncremental dynamic analysis (IDA) has been extended by introducing a set of structural models in addition to the set of ground motion records which is employed in IDA analysis in order to capture record-to-record variability. The set of structural models reflects epistemic (modeling) uncertainties, and is determined by utilizing the latin hypercube sampling (LHS) method. The effects of both aleatory and epistemic uncertainty on seismic response parameters are therefore considered in extended IDA analysis. The proposed method has been applied to an example of the four-storey-reinforced concrete frame, for which pseudo-dynamic tests were performed at the ELSA Laboratory, Ispra. The influence of epistemic uncertainty on the seismic response parameters is presented in terms of summarized IDA curves and dispersion measures. The results of extended IDA analysis are compared with the results of IDA analysis, and the sensitivity of the seismic response parameters to the input random variable using the LHS method is discussed. It is shown that epistemic uncertainty does not have significant influence on the seismic response parameters in the range far from collapse, but could have a significant influence on collapse capacity.

Probabilistic Evaluation of Seismic Performance for a Steel Moment Frame Using Damage Indices

“…Compared to some other studies in this area [24,25], this number of realizations seems to be sufficient.…”

“…This technique uses a constrained sampling scheme instead of random sampling utilized by direct Monte Carlo method, and consequently will need significantly fewer simulations to cover desired probability space [24,25]. This property can become very helpful to decrease the high computational costs usually associated with uncertainty studies.…”

Modelling Uncertainty in Existing Italian Rc Frames

“…As such, the number of realisations was chosen here to be 40. This number was selected based on the parametric study by [13] who noted that 20 appeared to be a reasonable value. Also of note are the correlations assumed between different RVs, which were assumed to be independent and uncorrelated for simplicity of analysis.…”

Component correlations in structure‐specific seismic loss estimation

“…38,39]. Because of the likely dependence on model configuration it is suggested that correlation between EDP|IM epistemic uncertainties is also handled in a non-parametric logic tree format.…”