REGIONAL-SCALE SEISMIC FRAGILITY ASSESSMENT BASED ON GAUSSIAN PROCESS REGRESSION

R. Gentile, C. Galasso
{"title":"REGIONAL-SCALE SEISMIC FRAGILITY ASSESSMENT BASED ON GAUSSIAN PROCESS REGRESSION","authors":"R. Gentile, C. Galasso","doi":"10.7712/120119.7032.19782","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Seismic fragility assessment of building portfolios usually involves empirical approaches, or \nnumerical, mechanics-based approaches applied to properly-sampled index buildings representative of defined structural classes. These approaches often neglect the effect of class variability on portfolio seismic risk estimates. Alternatively, metamodeling techniques can be \nadopted to surrogate complex mechanical analyses and to properly include class variability. \nHowever, commonly-used metamodels require the a priori definition of the functional form for \nthe fitting and they quantify the uncertainty on the predictions of the output (e.g., fragility as a \nfunction of the geometry of a building) based on simplifying assumptions. In this study, Gaussian process regression is adopted to address these limitations. The proposed method is demonstrated for seismically-deficient RC school buildings with construction details typical of some \ndeveloping countries (e.g., in Southeast Asia), for which real data is available. Gaussian processes estimating the fragility statistics of such schools are fitted based on thousands non-linear \ntime-history analyses for over 100 building realisations within the structural class. To further \nincrease the tractability of the methodology, alternative metamodels are defined based on numerical non-linear static (pushover) analyses or analytical “by hand pushover” through the \nSimple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA) method. Four validation structures (outside the \ntraining set) are defined and analysed through the same approaches. Preliminary results from \nthis study show predicted-to-“observed” errors below 10%, highlighting the accuracy of the \nfitted metamodels. Moreover, non-linear static approaches (SLaMA or numerical pushover), \ncoupled with the capacity spectrum method, produce sound results, drastically reducing the \ncomputational burden in the model calibration.","PeriodicalId":414988,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (COMPDYN 2015)","volume":"117 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (COMPDYN 2015)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7712/120119.7032.19782","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Seismic fragility assessment of building portfolios usually involves empirical approaches, or numerical, mechanics-based approaches applied to properly-sampled index buildings representative of defined structural classes. These approaches often neglect the effect of class variability on portfolio seismic risk estimates. Alternatively, metamodeling techniques can be adopted to surrogate complex mechanical analyses and to properly include class variability. However, commonly-used metamodels require the a priori definition of the functional form for the fitting and they quantify the uncertainty on the predictions of the output (e.g., fragility as a function of the geometry of a building) based on simplifying assumptions. In this study, Gaussian process regression is adopted to address these limitations. The proposed method is demonstrated for seismically-deficient RC school buildings with construction details typical of some developing countries (e.g., in Southeast Asia), for which real data is available. Gaussian processes estimating the fragility statistics of such schools are fitted based on thousands non-linear time-history analyses for over 100 building realisations within the structural class. To further increase the tractability of the methodology, alternative metamodels are defined based on numerical non-linear static (pushover) analyses or analytical “by hand pushover” through the Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis (SLaMA) method. Four validation structures (outside the training set) are defined and analysed through the same approaches. Preliminary results from this study show predicted-to-“observed” errors below 10%, highlighting the accuracy of the fitted metamodels. Moreover, non-linear static approaches (SLaMA or numerical pushover), coupled with the capacity spectrum method, produce sound results, drastically reducing the computational burden in the model calibration.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于高斯过程回归的区域尺度地震易损性评价
建筑物组合的地震易碎性评估通常涉及经验方法,或应用于定义结构类别的适当抽样指数建筑物的数值、基于力学的方法。这些方法往往忽略了类别可变性对投资组合地震风险估计的影响。另外,可以采用元建模技术来代替复杂的机械分析,并适当地包括类可变性。然而,常用的元模型需要对拟合的功能形式进行先验定义,并且它们基于简化的假设来量化输出预测的不确定性(例如,脆弱性作为建筑物几何形状的函数)。在本研究中,采用高斯过程回归来解决这些局限性。提出的方法在一些发展中国家(例如东南亚)具有典型建筑细节的地震缺陷RC学校建筑中得到了证明,这些建筑具有真实的数据。高斯过程估计这些学校的脆弱性统计数据是基于结构类中100多个建筑实现的数千个非线性时程分析而拟合的。为了进一步提高方法的可追溯性,可选择的元模型是基于数值非线性静态(推覆)分析或通过简单横向机制分析(SLaMA)方法的解析“手工推覆”来定义的。通过相同的方法定义和分析了四种验证结构(在训练集之外)。这项研究的初步结果表明,预测到“观察到”的误差低于10%,突出了拟合元模型的准确性。此外,非线性静态方法(SLaMA或数值推覆)与容量谱方法相结合,可以产生良好的结果,大大减少了模型校准的计算负担。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
OPTIMAL RETROFIT SELECTION FOR SEISMICALLY-DEFICIENT RC BUILDINGS BASED ON SIMPLIFIED PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MACROSCALE MODEL CALIBRATION FOR SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF BRICK/BLOCK MASONRY STRUCTURES ANALYSIS OF METAL CONNECTOR’S EFFECT ON SEISMIC RESISTANCE OF DRY STONE-MASONRY STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING STEEL FRAMES WITH INFILLS UNDER MULTIPLE EARTHQUAKES MANAGING EMERGENCY INTO HISTORIC CENTRES IN ITALY: SEISMIC VULNERABILITY EVALUATION AT URBAN SCALE
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1