Influence of Dominant Response Modes on Structural Seismic Demand Modeling

被引:2
|
作者
Ahmadi, Amin [1 ]
Kunnath, Sashi K. [1 ]
Abrahamson, Norman [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Davis, Civil & Environm Engn, Davis, CA 95616 USA
[2] Pacific Gas & Elect Co, Dept Geosci, San Francisco, CA 94106 USA
关键词
Conditional demand model; Dominant response mode; Ridge regression; Generalized cross-validation; Coefficient of partial determination; Ground motion selection; Seismic effects; REGULARIZATION PARAMETER; GROUND MOTIONS; BUILDINGS; PREDICTION; INTENSITY;
D O I
10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001354
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
A seismic demand model attempts to describe the behavior of a structure in terms of a set of predictor variables that represents the loading. For buildings, the most frequently used demand parameter and predictor variables are the maximum interstory drift ratio (MIDR) and the spectral accelerations of the ground motion at various modal periods, respectively. An adequate and optimal demand model should be independent of the suite of records that is used to calibrate it. It is shown that this is not the case with currently used demand models and that the dominant dynamic modes imposed by the ground motion suite have a significant effect on the model predictions. In this study, this influence is quantified in terms of the coefficient of partial determination. It is shown that the marginal contribution of the included variables in the demand model is dependent on the response mode that yields the MIDR. An alternative method of estimating the regression coefficients via Ridge estimation is discussed as an approach that minimizes the influence of the dominant mode on the demand model. The performance of the Ridge estimation is compared with the least squares (unbiased) counterpart using the cross-validation method. These findings have a major impact on the selection of ground motions for seismic assessment of structures. (C) 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Influence of seismic ground motions with different frequency on super high-rise building structural seismic response
    Tan, Qian
    Li, Yingmin
    Wei, Junbiao
    Han, Jun
    Luo, Wenwen
    Journal of Information and Computational Science, 2015, 12 (05): : 1831 - 1843
  • [32] STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO UNCERTAIN SEISMIC EXCITATIONS
    GRIGORIU, M
    JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING-ASCE, 1986, 112 (06): : 1355 - 1365
  • [33] COMPUTATION OF SEISMIC RESPONSE FROM HIGHER FREQUENCY MODES
    VASHI, KM
    JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY-TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASME, 1981, 103 (01): : 16 - 19
  • [34] Modeling of unforced demand response programs
    Jalili, Hassan
    Siano, Pierluigi
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EMERGING ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS, 2021, 22 (02) : 233 - 241
  • [35] Seismic risk Structural response of constructions
    Mazars, Jacky
    Grange, Stephane
    Desprez, Cedric
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING, 2011, 15 : 223 - 246
  • [36] The influence of substructure modeling on the structural-acoustic response of a plate system
    Shepard W.S., Jr.
    Cunefare, K.A.
    1600, Acoustical Society of America (109):
  • [37] The influence of substructure modeling on the structural-acoustic response of a plate system
    Shepard, WS
    Cunefare, KA
    JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 2001, 109 (04): : 1448 - 1455
  • [38] Influence of homoschedasticity hypothesis of structural response parameters on seismic reliability of CB-frames
    Giugliano, M. T.
    Longo, A.
    Montuori, R.
    Piluso, V.
    GEORISK-ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS, 2011, 5 (02) : 120 - 131
  • [39] Influence of seismic incident angle on response uncertainty and structural performance of tall asymmetric structure
    Alam, Zeshan
    Zhang, Chunwei
    Samali, Bijan
    STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS, 2020, 29 (12):
  • [40] MODELING THE SEISMIC RESPONSE OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS
    KING, JL
    BRUNE, JN
    BULLETIN OF THE SEISMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 1981, 71 (05) : 1469 - 1487