Final-Defense of the Thesis for the Completion of Master’s

Degree
School of Civil Engineering

RADIAL BASIS FUNCTION NEURAL NETWORK-BASED METHOD

FOR SEISMIC FRAGILITY ANALYSIS OF STEEL FRAMES
 MAIN CONTENTS OF RESEARCH
• Background
Background and • Aim of research
Significance • Methodology

• Selection of Parameter & Uncertainty

Sampling, Distribution and • Uniform Design Method(UDM)
Model Setup • G. M. parameters selection
• ANSYS Workbench Model Setup

• 3D-time history analysis(FEA)

Time History Analysis • Park-Ang Damage Index(DPA)
and Fragility Curve • Cloud Analysis
• Fragility Curve

• Design of RBFNN
RBFNN prediction and • Training, testing and validation
verification • Prediction & comparison of Fragility Curves
• Discussion and Conclusion
 Part-1 BACKGROUND AND
SIGNIFICANCE

Late
1900’s
 1.1BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCH

 “Artificial Neural Network Based Method for

Seismic Fragility Analysis of steel frame”

performed by Zhen Liu* and Zhe Zhang from

Korean Society of Civil Engineers.

 Time consumption of FEA analysis is huge.

 Role of ANN in civil engineering

 1.2 AIM OF RESEARCH

AIM of fragility analysis using RBFNN?

 Faster Seismic Damage Parameter Prediction.

 Finding efficient ANN architecture.

 Influence of different numbers of input variable.

 Quantification and Reduction of Seismic Risk .

1.3 METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH
Part-2 SAMPLING, DISTRIBUTION AND
MODEL SETUP
2.1 Selection of parameters for uncertainty

Source of earthquake(M)

Demand Uncertainity Path and Site(R)

Ground Excitation and

System Response(Sa)
Total System Uncertainity

Material
Uncertainty(E&Fy)
Capacity Uncertainty

Geometric
Uncertainty(L,W,H)

Local and Global

Damage of
structure(DI&DG)
2.1 Selection of parameters for uncertainty
 Selection of parameters

 Selection of uncertainty for material properties

BEAM COLUMN
 2. 2 Uniform Design Method(UDM-sampling method)
 UDM is selected having 10 different sample numbers and 8 factors with 10 levels Un(nm) =

U10(108) and distributed. Factors

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Uniform
Distribution
Samples

SPACE Better
FILLIN UDM Represent
G ativeness

Fewer
Number of
runs
 2. 3 Selection of Ground Motion Parameter
Data taken from the official website of the PEER ground motion database (http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu) is used.
An example below:

GM Parameter selection criteria

 Unscaled Ground Motion

Wide range of Spectra Acceleration

coverage

 Only 10% of G.M. from same source.

Selection Parameters
Sample Magnitude Distance  25% of selected data should have D/C
Cloud Analysis - 1 6.6-7 10-200km
      ratio>1
 2. 3 Selection of Ground Motion Parameter

50 samples

Sa

Sd

E
Sa vs T plot shows Sd vs T plot shows the Distribution of
the peak acceleration
PGA
peak displacement for earthquake in
for SDOF system at SDOF system at different Magnitude(M) and
M&R
different periods. periods. Source to site distance.
(R)
 2. 3 Selection of Ground Motion Parameter

Detailed Data of Selected Seismic Records

Peak Ground Energy in Rupture Sample PGAx PGAy PGAz Ex Ey Ez M R
Acceleration each direction Distance 1 0.0597 0.0635 0.0536 0.0154 0.0224 0.0126 6.19 17.64
2 0.0116 0.0150 0.0077 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.05 37.00
3 0.0360 0.0497 0.0277 0.0020 0.0018 0.0008 6.00 73.35
• Unit: (g) • Unit:m2/s • Unit:Km 4 0.1080 0.1635 0.0349 0.0344 0.0464 0.0043 6.32 60.77
5 0.0391 0.0341 0.0143 0.0545 0.0394 0.0139 6.20 88.27
6 0.0244 0.0208 0.0098 0.0088 0.0093 0.0014 6.20 105.29
7 0.0047 0.0053 0.0030 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 6.20 147.02
  8 0.0274 0.0333 0.0105 0.0237 0.0180 0.0045 6.20 124.39
9 0.0080 0.0078 0.0037 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 6.23 171.54
10 0.0008 0.0007 0.0006 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 6.00 192.50
11 0.1827 0.1431 0.0605 0.0251 148.6788 0.0068 6.36 26.20
Where: 12 0.0473 0.0576 0.0494 0.0038 0.0063 0.0014 6.46 44.00
13 0.0292 0.0298 0.0146 0.0007 0.0003 0.0001 6.50 49.13
= Amplitude of earthquake signal 14 0.0404 0.0281 0.0314 0.0089 0.0022 0.0008 6.60 69.28
15 0.0316 0.0385 0.0219 0.0003 0.0005 0.0001 6.61 96.81
= time interval 16 0.0180 0.0145 0.0069 0.0043 0.0045 0.0007 6.52 119.82
17 0.0263 0.0256 0.0118 0.0016 0.0018 0.0005 6.46 144.92
18 0.0226 0.0362 0.0085 0.0001 0.0004 0.0001 6.63 158.18
19 0.0251 0.0165 0.0139 0.0112 0.0164 0.0023 6.63 196.37
20 0.0060 0.0041 0.0021 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 6.52 166.95
21 0.1168 0.1136 0.0487 0.1369 0.1124 0.0143 7.01 15.97
22 0.0970 0.1348 0.0467 0.0045 0.0066 0.0017 6.69 47.72
24 0.2525 0.2139 0.0599 0.2144 0.0842 0.0033 6.93 76.87
25 0.0156 0.0155 0.0074 0.0038 0.0023 0.0007 6.90 112.78
2. 4 Model Setup in ANSYS Workbench

Rigid joints Elasto-Plastic

ANSYS
Behavior of
Workbench-16.0
steel

User- BEAM189
Friendly

10 different
steel models MASS21
 2. 4 Modeling and Analysis Of Structure
Modal Analysis Results
Dimension
Sample Length Breadth Height
 To find Natural Frequency and Time Period(Tn)
1 4m 4m 2.65m
 Assist in the selection of variety of earthquake data.
Element Selection Mode
Component Element Type Density(kg/m3) 1 1.203 1.269 1.329 1.531 1.586 1.947 2.023
7850+(added 2 1.075 1.098 1.192 1.285 1.459 1.625 1.815
Beam BEAM189 mass/volume)
3 0.881 0.895 0.966 1.038 1.189 1.300 1.479
7850kg/m3
 Column  BEAM189   4 1.386 1.386 1.474 1.489 1.654 1.654 1.880

5 1.103 1.103 1.165 1.178 1.297 1.297 1.465

6 0.951 1.025 1.035 1.184 1.281 1.424 1.704

Element Mesh 7 0.795 0.844 0.849 0.969 1.001 1.143 1.334
Component Element Size 8 1.269 1.304 1.324 1.417 1.421 1.561 1.619
Beam 1000mm 9 0.984 1.007 1.029 1.093 1.114 1.237 1.255
 Column 662.5mm 10 0.882 0.895 0.926 0.964 1.015 1.094 1.142

Elasto-plastic behavior(Bilinear
Isotropic Hardening)
Part-3 TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS AND
FRAGILITY CURVE
3.1 Time History Analysis Of Structure
 Load Steps and settings in time history analysis
 Results obtained from analysis for one member
 Maximum deformation obtained at the end of analysis(NLEPEQ(mm/mm)

 Maximum strain energy density obtained at the end of analysis(NLPLWK(mJ/mm3))

 Earthquake Acceleration applied in analysis

NLPLWK*volume =hysteretic energy

 3.2 Park-Ang Damage Index(DPA)

• Park-Ang double parameters failure local damage index

DI (first floor for 1st sample)
Line NLPLWK( Eh(mJ)
  mJ/mm3)
1 5.18E-03 8.91E+06 0.760 2.68E+07
0.55 0.044
2 5.18E-03 8.91E+06 0.316 1.11E+07
0.55 0.044
where: = maximum deformation 3 6.12E-03 8.91E+06 0.517 1.82E+07
0.43 0.034
= Ultimate deformation 4 6.00E-03 8.91E+06 1.694 5.97E+07
0.41 0.032
= Cyclic Coefficient 5 6.00E-03 8.91E+06 0.705 2.49E+07
0.41 0.032
Qy = Fy x A 6 7.06E-03 8.91E+06 1.069 3.77E+07
0.39 0.031
= Hysteretic Energy 7 6.52E-03 8.91E+06 2.883 1.02E+08
0.40 0.032
…………. ………….
.
……..…….
……..
…….

 
• Global Damage Index() & Weight() 62 1.12E-02 2.19E+07 0.025 1.15E+06
0.01 0.001
          0.01 0.001
  ;           Dtotal= 0.376
Dtotal= 0.376
 FLOOR DAMAGE INDEX DISTRIBUTION

Overall damage
  = 0.627

𝑆𝑎
  𝑆𝑎
 

 
BOTH EARTHQUAKES AND STRUCTURES are DIFFERENT
 FLOOR Max Inter-storey Drift Ratio(MIDR)

𝑆𝑎
  𝑆𝑎
 

 
BOTH EARTHQUAKES AND STRUCTURES are DIFFERENT
 3.3 Cloud Analysis

Earthquake records and spectral acceleration(T,5%)

Reference Results for Sa My results for Sa

Linear Regression in natural logarithm

  E[logY| Sa] = log(a) + blog Sa

My results for Sd
 Fragility Curves for 4 damage level
3.4 Fragility Curve based on cloud analysis

• Conditional Probability of exceedence

 ; = min. value in a damage index; = log standard deviation of damage index

• Damage Index(DPA) AND RANGE

Part-4 RBFNN PREDICTION AND
VERIFICATION

SOFT COMPUTING

MACHINE LEARNING
ARTIFICIA
L NEURAL
NETWORK
Why is RBFNN chosen??
Saves
computing
Self Organizing time High
Capability efficiency

Adaptive Cheap
Learning

Parallel
Processing Reliable
 4.1 Design of RBFNN

10 10 ground
Steel frame X motion
sample = 100 sample
data

50%
45% training
validation

5% testing
Common Neural Network Architecture

The samples contain input parameters=(Sa,Sd,E,PGA,M&R)

The samples contain output parameter=(DPA)

4.1 Design of RBFNN

4-Different RBFNN
Structures Considered
Number of
  Spread
Neurons
RBFN RBFNN-1 1.4 24
RBFN
N-1 RBFNN-2 0.7 18
N-2
RBFNN-3 10 21
RBFNN-4 0.4 26

TRIAL AND ERROR

METHOD WAS
FOLLOWED
RBFN RBFN
N-3 N-4
4.1 Design of RBFNN

• Error Functions • Effect of No. of neurons in training

 MSE(Mean Squared Error)

 
MSE =

 MAE(Mean Absolute Error)

Minimum for RBFNN-4 with most number of input

parameters
4.2 Training, Testing and Validation
• Comparison with reference
 
  RBFNN-1 RBFNN-2

       

ValidationM Original 0.151 0.143

AE Reference 0.1344 0.1340

Least validation error

Least traininng error

Maximum validation error

4.3Prediction and Comparison of Fragility Curves

RBFNN-1 RBFNN-3

RBFNN-2 RBFNN-4
 4.4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

• Discussion
 Comparision of median and beta with reference results
 Minimum difference on
    Slight Moderate Extensive Collapse
results from RBFNN
    Median Beta Median Beta Median Beta Median Beta
and FEA is in RBFNN-2.
0.198 0.601 1.008
Best = RBFNN-2
RBFNN- FEA 0.760 0.760 0.760 - -
1 0.073 0.411 0.931
 Difference in median =
NN 0.619 0.619 0.619 - -
0.022
RBFNN- FEA 0.028 0.414 0.163 0.414 0.371 0.414 - -
2
 Difference in beta =
NN 0.006 0.378 0.092 0.378 0.347 0.378 - -
0.036
RBFNN- FEA 0.214 0.68 0.6 0.68 0.969 0.68 - -
3 NN 0.076 0.64 0.416 0.64 0.917 0.64 - -
RBFNN- FEA 0.196 0.981 0.593 0.981 0.993 0.981 - -
4 NN 0.088 0.677 0.437 0.677 0.923 0.677 - -
 3. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

• Conclusion • Challenges • Future Work

• Fragility Curves can be predicted
by RBFNN . It saves computing
time.
• Both validationMAE and comparison
of median and beta shows RBFNN-
2 as best RBFNN.
• RBFNN = not an analytical
method
• Neural Network as a black box
• Requirement of more number
of data for higher precision.
• RBFNN method for seismic
fragility analysis of steel
frames damaged by past
earthquakes

• RBFNN-4 (in this case 6 input

parameters) over-fit the neural
network. Less training error, but
more validation error.