Ranking method of the severest input ground motion for underground structures based on composite ground motion intensity measures

Chen, Zhiyi; Wei, Yu; Zhu, Hehua; Xie, Lili

doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.107828

Cited by 10 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Subsequently, hybrid IMs were developed by Ozmen [31] to measure the damage potential of ground motion. Chen et al [32] adopted the composite IM to select the severest input ground motion for underground structures by the rank method. Liu et al [33] proposed a compound IM by a partial least square regression model, which evaluated the compound IM based on probabilistic seismic demand analysis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Ground Motion Damage Potential with Consideration of Compound Intensity Measures Using Principal Component Analysis and Canonical Correlation Analysis

Liu,

2024

Buildings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary motivation of this study is to develop a compound intensity measure (IM) to evaluate ground motion damage potential based on principal component analysis (PCA) and canonical correlation analysis (CCA). To illustrate this, this study examines the correlation among intragroup IMs and intergroup IMs, as well as the correlation between various IMs and response variables. A compound IM, which can be obtained by a linear combination of ten IMs in the log-scale, is utilized to measure the ground motion damage potential. Elastoplastic, bilinear and hysteretic models are utilized to determine peak deformation and hysteretic energy as the response variables of Single-Degree-of-Freedom (SDOF) systems. On the basis of the SDOF systems, the overall structural damage index is obtained by a nonlinear time–history analysis for two reinforced concrete moment frame systems. It is clear that the developed compound IM shows significantly high-level correlation with structural response. The better the correlations, the more one can measure the earthquake damage potential. A single IM alone inadequately characterizes structural damage, highlighting the necessity of multiple IMs to estimate the possibility of structural damage.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Ground Motion Damage Potential with Consideration of Compound Intensity Measures Using Principal Component Analysis and Canonical Correlation Analysis

Liu,

2024

Buildings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The concept of the severest seismic motion has been applied to earth dams as well [10,11]. Chen et al [12] proposed a ranking method based on a composite intensity indicator for the severest input ground motion for underground structures. The results show that the proposed composite ground motion intensity indicators have a higher correlation with the seismic dynamic responses than a single indicator with respect to effectiveness, practicability, and proficiency.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods of Assessing the Damage Capacity of Input Seismic Motions for Underground Structures

Li,

Wei

2024

Buildings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates a method for improving the selection of seismic motions for designing earthquake-resistant underground structures. It is found that PGV alone is unreliable as a predictor of structural damage with increasing earthquake intensity. Therefore, based on characterizing seismic intensity by using PGV, another parameter, referred to here as “the severest parameter”, is introduced to distinguish potential damage capacity for different seismic motions. A numerical model of a soil–underground structure system was established using the finite element software OpenSees. A total of 120 real ground motions were selected for the model, considering the influences of eight different site groups on the underground station and the rupture distances of the input seismic motions. The results show that as seismic intensity increases, substantial variability in the response of underground structures emerges under the same amplitude of PGV, diminishing the effectiveness of the relationship between PGV and structural damage. When assessing the potential damage capacity of seismic motions with similar or close amplitudes of PGV, VSI is an appropriate severest parameter for Class III sites and ASI is suitable for Class II sites. When the correlation coefficient between the severest parameter and the structural response is greater than 0.8, it can be used to reliably assess seismic damage capacity based on the size of the severest parameter.

show abstract

Selection of the structural severest design ground motions based on big data and random forest

Long,

Lu,

et al. 2024

Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ranking method of the severest input ground motion for underground structures based on composite ground motion intensity measures

Cited by 10 publications

References 27 publications

Evaluation of Ground Motion Damage Potential with Consideration of Compound Intensity Measures Using Principal Component Analysis and Canonical Correlation Analysis

Evaluation of Ground Motion Damage Potential with Consideration of Compound Intensity Measures Using Principal Component Analysis and Canonical Correlation Analysis

Methods of Assessing the Damage Capacity of Input Seismic Motions for Underground Structures

Selection of the structural severest design ground motions based on big data and random forest

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About