Dynamic analysis of single-degree-of-freedom systems (DYANAS): A graphical user interface for OpenSees

Abstract Non-linear dynamic response of SDOF systems enjoys widespread application in earthquake engineering, sometimes as a testing ground for cumbersome analytical procedures, but often as a direct proxy of first-mode-dominated structures, within the family of simplified, pushover-based methods for seismic structural assessment and/or design. This article presents DYANAS, a MATHWORKS-MATLAB®-based graphical user interface that uses the OpenSees finite element platform to perform nonlinear dynamic analysis of single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) oscillators. The scope of this open-source, freely distributed software is to serve as a tool for earthquake engineering research. The main advantages offered by the DYANAS interface are ease in the definition of the required analysis parameters and corresponding seismic input, efficient execution of the analyses themselves and availability of a suite of convenient, in-built post-processing tools for the management and organization of the structural responses. The types of dynamic analysis frameworks supported are incremental, multiple-stripe and cloud. Simultaneous consideration of pairs of uncoupled dynamic systems gives the possibility for intensity measures to refer to bidirectional ground motion. In the paper, an outline of the types of dynamic analysis frameworks typically used in performance-based earthquake engineering is provided, followed by a detailed description of the software and its capabilities, that include an array of post-processing tools. In order to properly place this software tool within its natural performance-based earthquake engineering habitat, some example applications are provided at the end of the paper.

[1]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  Displacement-based seismic design of structures, M. J. N. Priestley, G. M. Calvi, and M. J. Kowalsky, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy. ISBN: 978-88-6198-0006, 721 pp , 2008 .

[2]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Applied Incremental Dynamic Analysis , 2004 .

[3]  Helmut Krawinkler,et al.  Deterioration Modeling of Steel Components in Support of Collapse Prediction of Steel Moment Frames under Earthquake Loading , 2011 .

[4]  P. Franchin,et al.  Seismic Reliability Analysis of Structures , 2004 .

[5]  Christoph Adam,et al.  Seismic collapse capacity of basic inelastic structures vulnerable to the P‐delta effect , 2012 .

[6]  Fatemeh Jalayer,et al.  Alternative non‐linear demand estimation methods for probability‐based seismic assessments , 2009 .

[7]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  Conditional spectrum‐based ground motion selection. Part I: Hazard consistency for risk‐based assessments , 2013 .

[8]  C. Cornell,et al.  Record Selection for Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of Structures , 2005 .

[9]  Peter Fajfar,et al.  THE N2 METHOD FOR THE SEISMIC DAMAGE ANALYSIS OF RC BUILDINGS , 1996 .

[10]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Direct estimation of the seismic demand and capacity of oscillators with multi‐linear static pushovers through IDA , 2006 .

[11]  Terje Haukaas,et al.  Modules in OpenSees for the Next Generation of Performance-Based Engineering , 2006 .

[12]  C. Allin Cornell,et al.  Probabilistic Basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management Agency Steel Moment Frame Guidelines , 2002 .

[13]  Iunio Iervolino,et al.  Markovian modeling of seismic damage accumulation , 2016 .

[14]  Nicolas Luco,et al.  Structure-Specific Scalar Intensity Measures for Near-Source and Ordinary Earthquake Ground Motions , 2007 .

[15]  E. Miranda.  Estimation of Inelastic Deformation Demands of SDOF Systems , 2001 .

[16]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Fast performance uncertainty estimation via pushover and approximate IDA , 2009 .

[17]  L. Lowes,et al.  A Beam-Column Joint Model for Simulating the Earthquake Response of Reinforced Concrete Frames , 2004 .

[18]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Implications of Intensity Measure Selection for Seismic Loss Assessment of 3-D Buildings , 2016 .

[19]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Incremental dynamic analysis , 2002 .

[20]  Luis Ibarra,et al.  Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration , 2005 .

[21]  John K. Ousterhout,et al.  Tcl and the Tk Toolkit , 1994 .

[22]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  Efficient Analytical Fragility Function Fitting Using Dynamic Structural Analysis , 2015 .

[23]  I. Iervolino,et al.  A LOOK AT THE SEISMIC RISK OF ITALIAN CODE-CONFORMING RC BUILDINGS , 2018 .

[24]  A S Veletsos,et al.  Deformation Spectra for Elastic and Elastoplastic Systems Subjected to Ground Shock and Earthquake Motions , 1965 .

[25]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Direct Estimation of Seismic Demand and Capacity of Multidegree-of-Freedom Systems through Incremental Dynamic Analysis of Single Degree of Freedom Approximation , 2005 .

[26]  W. Silva,et al.  NGA-West2 Database , 2014 .

[27]  Gerardo M. Verderame,et al.  RINTC PROJECT: NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSES OF ITALIAN CODE-CONFORMING REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS FOR RISK OF COLLAPSE ASSESSMENT , 2017 .

[28]  Fatemeh Jalayer,et al.  Bayesian Cloud Analysis: efficient structural fragility assessment using linear regression , 2014, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[29]  Frank McKenna,et al.  OpenSees: A Framework for Earthquake Engineering Simulation , 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering.

[30]  Mervyn J. Kowalsky,et al.  Displacement-based seismic design of structures , 2007 .

[31]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  SPO2FRAG: software for seismic fragility assessment based on static pushover , 2017, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[33]  L. Ibarra.  Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations , 2003 .

[34]  Peter Fajfar,et al.  Consistent inelastic design spectra: Strength and displacement , 1994 .

[35]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  A framework for the evaluation of ground motion selection and modification procedures , 2015 .

[36]  Guido Magenes,et al.  A nonlinear SDOF model for the simplified evaluation of the displacement demand of low-rise URM buildings , 2016, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[37]  Anastasios G. Sextos,et al.  Build-X: Expert system for seismic analysis and assessment of 3D buildings using OpenSees , 2018, Adv. Eng. Softw..

[38]  P. Bazzurro,et al.  RINTC project: Assessing the (Implicit) Seismic Risk of Code-Conforming Structures in Italy , 2017 .

[39]  Iunio Iervolino,et al.  Assessing uncertainty in estimation of seismic response for PBEE , 2017 .

[40]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Intensity measure selection for vulnerability studies of building classes , 2015 .

[41]  T. Takeda,et al.  Reinforced Concrete response to simulated earthquakes , 1970 .

[42]  C. Allin Cornell,et al.  An Empirical Ground-Motion Attenuation Relation for Inelastic Spectral Displacement , 2006 .

[43]  C. Allin Cornell,et al.  Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures , 1999 .

[44]  Andreas J. Kappos,et al.  Extension of direct displacement-based design methodology for bridges to account for higher mode effects , 2013 .

[45]  P. Bazzurro,et al.  DYNAMIC VERSUS STATIC COMPUTATION OF THE RESIDUAL CAPACITY OF A MAINSHOCK-DAMAGED BUILDING TO WITHSTAND AN AFTERSHOCK , 2002 .

[46]  P. Perzyna.  Thermodynamic Theory of Viscoplasticity , 1971 .

[47]  Guido Magenes,et al.  Improved evaluation of inelastic displacement demands for short‐period masonry structures , 2017 .

[48]  R. Goel,et al.  Capacity-Demand-Diagram Methods Based on Inelastic Design Spectrum , 1999 .

[49]  R. Mcguire.  Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: Closing the loop , 1995, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[50]  Nicolas Luco,et al.  Aftershock collapse vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete frame structures , 2015 .