Selection of earthquake ground motions for multiple objectives using genetic algorithms

Existing earthquake ground motion (GM) selection methods for the seismic assessment of structural systems focus on spectral compatibility in terms of either only central values or both central values and variability. In this way, important selection criteria related to the seismology of the region, local soil conditions, strong GM intensity and duration as well as the magnitude of scale factors are considered only indirectly by setting them as constraints in the pre-processing phase in the form of permissible ranges. In this study, a novel framework for the optimum selection of earthquake GMs is presented, where the aforementioned criteria are treated explicitly as selection objectives. The framework is based on the principles of multi-objective optimization that is addressed with the aid of the Weighted Sum Method, which supports decision making both in the pre-processing and post-processing phase of the GM selection procedure. The solution of the derived equivalent single-objective optimization problem is performed by the application of a mixed-integer Genetic Algorithm and the effects of its parameters on the efficiency of the selection procedure are investigated. Application of the proposed framework shows that it is able to track GM sets that not only provide excellent spectral matching but they are also able to simultaneously consider more explicitly a set of additional criteria.

[1]  Panagiotis E. Mergos,et al.  A combined local damage index for seismic assessment of existing RC structures , 2013 .

[2]  N. Abrahamson,et al.  Empirical Response Spectral Attenuation Relations for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes , 1997 .

[3]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[4]  S. Koutrakis,et al.  SEISMIC HAZARD IN GREECE BASED ON DIFFERENT STRONG GROUND MOTION PARAMETERS , 2002 .

[5]  Roberto Paolucci,et al.  Ground Motion Record Selection Based on Broadband Spectral Compatibility , 2014 .

[6]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  Conditional Mean Spectrum: Tool for Ground-Motion Selection , 2011 .

[7]  L. Reiter.  Earthquake Hazard Analysis: Issues and Insights , 1991 .

[8]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  A Computationally Efficient Ground-Motion Selection Algorithm for Matching a Target Response Spectrum Mean and Variance , 2011 .

[9]  Panagiotis E. Mergos,et al.  Loading protocols for European regions of low to moderate seismicity , 2014, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[10]  Anastasios Sextos,et al.  Structure-specific selection of earthquake ground motions for the reliable design and assessment of structures , 2018, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[11]  C. Allin Cornell,et al.  Earthquakes, Records, and Nonlinear Responses , 1998 .

[12]  K. Deb.  An Efficient Constraint Handling Method for Genetic Algorithms , 2000 .

[13]  Anastasios G. Sextos,et al.  ISSARS: An integrated software environment for structure-specific earthquake ground motion selection , 2013, Adv. Eng. Softw..

[14]  Farzad Naeim,et al.  Selection and Scaling of Ground Motion Time Histories for Structural Design Using Genetic Algorithms , 2004 .

[15]  Sang Whan Han,et al.  A Method for Selecting Ground Motions that Considers Target Response Spectrum Mean and Variance as Well as Correlation Structure , 2016 .

[16]  Farzad Naeim,et al.  On the Use of Design Spectrum Compatible Time Histories , 1995 .

[17]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  THE USE OF REAL EARTHQUAKE ACCELEROGRAMS AS INPUT TO DYNAMIC ANALYSIS , 2004 .

[18]  G. Atkinson,et al.  Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA at Spectral Periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s , 2008 .

[19]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  A ground motion selection procedure for enforcing hazard consistency and estimating seismic demand hazard curves , 2015 .

[20]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  Selection and Scaling of Real Accelerograms for Bi-Directional Loading: A Review of Current Practice and Code Provisions , 2007 .

[21]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  An Improved Algorithm for Selecting Ground Motions to Match a Conditional Spectrum , 2018 .

[22]  Achille Messac,et al.  Optimization in Practice with MATLAB®: For Engineering Students and Professionals , 2015 .

[23]  Sang Whan Han,et al.  An efficient method for selecting and scaling ground motions matching target response spectrum mean and variance , 2016 .

[24]  Kyriazis Pitilakis,et al.  Inelastic dynamic analysis of RC bridges accounting for spatial variability of ground motion, site effects and soil–structure interaction phenomena. Part 1: Methodology and analytical tools , 2003 .

[25]  S. Harmsen,et al.  Conditional Spectrum Computation Incorporating Multiple Causal Earthquakes and Ground-Motion Prediction Models , 2013 .

[26]  Ellen M. Rathje,et al.  A Semi-Automated Procedure for Selecting and Scaling Recorded Earthquake Motions for Dynamic Analysis , 2008 .

[27]  Iunio Iervolino,et al.  REXEL: computer aided record selection for code-based seismic structural analysis , 2010 .

[28]  Sotiria P. Stefanidou,et al.  Soil-structure interaction effects in analysis of seismic fragility of bridges using an intensity-based ground motion selection procedure , 2017 .

[29]  Agathoklis Giaralis,et al.  Wavelet-based response spectrum compatible synthesis of accelerograms—Eurocode application (EC8) , 2009 .

[30]  J. M. Castro,et al.  SelEQ: An advanced ground motion record selection and scaling framework , 2017, Adv. Eng. Softw..

[31]  A. Sextos,et al.  EC8-based earthquake record selection procedure evaluation: Validation study based on observed damage of an irregular R/C building , 2011 .

[32]  B. Bradley.  A generalized conditional intensity measure approach and holistic ground‐motion selection , 2010 .

[33]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design , 2002 .

[34]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[35]  Xin-She Yang,et al.  Nature-Inspired Optimization Algorithms: Challenges and Open Problems , 2020, J. Comput. Sci..

[36]  Reginald DesRoches,et al.  Sensitivity of Seismic Response and Fragility to Parameter Uncertainty , 2007 .

[37]  Anastasios Sextos,et al.  Selection of earthquake ground motion records: A state-of-the-art review from a structural engineering perspective , 2010 .

[38]  Kusum Deep,et al.  A real coded genetic algorithm for solving integer and mixed integer optimization problems , 2009, Appl. Math. Comput..

[39]  Panagiotis E. Mergos,et al.  Optimum seismic design of reinforced concrete frames according to Eurocode 8 and fib Model Code 2010 , 2017 .

[40]  null null,et al.  Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures , 2017 .

[41]  Christoph Adam,et al.  A Ground Motion Record Selection Approach Based on Multiobjective Optimization , 2019 .