Quantification of Modeling Uncertainties Based on the Blind Prediction Contest Submissions

Sattar, Siamak; Liel, Abbie B.; Martinelli, Paolo

doi:10.1061/9780784412848.175

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Collapse modes not modeled herein (e.g., failures in the gravity framing system) would likely occur well before 20% is reached. The impact of modeling uncertainty (Sattar et al 2013, Ibarra and Krawinkler 2005a) is not considered in this study.…”

Section: Building Description and Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Common U.S. Ground Motion Selection Methods on the Structural Response of Steel Moment Frame Buildings

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study quantifies the impact of two common ground motion (GM) selection methods, included in U.S. standards, on the seismic performance evaluation of steel special moment frames. The methods investigated are a “traditional” approach, herein referred to as the target maximum considered earthquake (TMCE) method, and a newer approach known as the conditional mean spectrum (CMS) method. The TMCE method selects GMs using the risk-based maximum considered earthquake (MCER) spectrum as the target spectrum, while the CMS method uses the CMS that anchors the MCER at multiple conditioning periods. Three special steel moment frames of 4, 8, and 16 stories are designed in accordance with ASCE/SEI 7-10, and their seismic performance is assessed with the nonlinear dynamic procedure prescribed in ASCE/SEI 41-13 using GMs selected and scaled in accordance with the aforementioned methods. A comparison of statistical parameters for the reduced beam sections and column hinges is conducted using the normalized demand-to-capacity ratio ( DCR), as the output parameter. The buildings are evaluated at the collapse prevention performance level for a far-field site located in Los Angeles, CA. In general, the CMS method results in lower DCRs of the frame components and smaller output parameter dispersion. In addition to the spectral shape, the demands are largely influenced by the spectral accelerations prescribed for each evaluated method. The consideration of collapse realizations is also documented as well as the existing and proposed statistical methods to account for these realizations. The study shows that the GM selection process can cause significant differences in structural response that may lead to different retrofitting decisions.

show abstract

Section: Building Description and Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Common U.S. Ground Motion Selection Methods on the Structural Response of Steel Moment Frame Buildings

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, we do not account for aleatory or epistemic uncertainties in material properties, nonlinear component modeling parameters, element stiffness, or damping. Modeling uncertainties can significantly affect the results in some cases (Sattar et al, 2013). Uncertainties in the observed damage and measured response are not considered in this study and only best estimates and available data are used for comparison; omission of these uncertainties are justified as uncertainties in measured responses are difficult to quantify and expected to be relatively small compared to modeling and material uncertainties.…”

Section: Benchmark Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

ASCE/SEI 41 assessment of reinforced concrete buildings: Benchmarking nonlinear dynamic procedures with empirical damage observations

Cook,

Sen,

Liel

et al. 2023

Earthquake Spectra

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ASCE/SEI 41 is the consensus US standard for the seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. Although the performance-based engineering standard is based on decades of research and has been significantly vetted by ASCE and other committees, it is unclear how well the evaluations capture the seismic response of real building systems. This article examines six, primarily nonductile, reinforced concrete buildings, including four damaged in earthquakes and two experimental structures tested and damaged on shake tables, to compare the measured response and observed damage to simulated outcomes produced following ASCE/SEI 41 nonlinear dynamic procedure. The results show that the simulations are generally able to capture the story mechanism and peak transient story drift demands at the critical story (predicted values are typically within ±20% of the measured values). However, drifts at non-critical stories and floor accelerations at all stories show greater error relative to the measured responses. At the component level, the simulations, in most cases, correctly identify the location(s) of the critical component(s) and the failure mode (e.g. flexure vs shear). However, the extent of the damage is overestimated in some cases. These results form the basis for recommendations for column, beam, and wall modeling procedures that can be used to improve ASCE/SEI 41.

show abstract

“…TN.1992 drift is reached. The impact of modeling uncertainty is not considered in this study, but has been shown that it can influence results in other studies (e.g., Sattar et al (2013) ). Figure 2.…”

Section: Overview Of Perform-3d Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of ground motion selection methods on the seismic assessment of steel special moment frames

Uribe¹,

Sattar²,

Speicher³

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study quantifies the impact of different ground motion selection methods on the seismic performance evaluation of steel special moment frames. Two methods are investigated: a "traditional" approach, herein referred to as the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) method, and a newer approach known as the Conditional Mean Spectrum (CMS) method. The PEER method selects ground motions using the Riskbased Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) as the target spectrum, while the CMS method uses the conditional mean spectrum that anchor to the MCER at multiple conditioning periods. Three special moment frames of 4-, 8-, and 16-stories are designed in accordance with ASCE/SEI 7-10 to represent archetype steel frame buildings as found in regions of high seismicity. The seismic performance of these frames is assessed with the nonlinear dynamic procedure prescribed in ASCE/SEI 41-13, using ground motions selected and scaled in accordance with both methods. The performance of the buildings is evaluated at the Collapse Prevention (CP) performance level for a far-field site located in Los Angeles, CA. The CMS method results in lower mean and median response in terms of demand-to-capacity ratios in the reduced beam sections and column hinges. Ground motions selected and scaled using CMS result in a smaller dispersion of the output parameters in most of the beam and column elements, if the conditioning period that results in the highest mean demand-to-capacity ratio is the fundamental period, 1. The results of this study show that the ground motion selection process can cause significant differences in structural response that may lead to different retrofitting decisions. These results provide

show abstract

Quantification of Modeling Uncertainties Based on the Blind Prediction Contest Submissions

Cited by 9 publications

References 11 publications

Effect of Common U.S. Ground Motion Selection Methods on the Structural Response of Steel Moment Frame Buildings

Effect of Common U.S. Ground Motion Selection Methods on the Structural Response of Steel Moment Frame Buildings

ASCE/SEI 41 assessment of reinforced concrete buildings: Benchmarking nonlinear dynamic procedures with empirical damage observations

Impact of ground motion selection methods on the seismic assessment of steel special moment frames

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About