以损害为依据的地面运动和半经验脆性评估

IF 4.3 2区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, CIVIL
Iunio Iervolino, Annalisa Rosti, Andrea Penna, Massimiliano Giorgio
{"title":"以损害为依据的地面运动和半经验脆性评估","authors":"Iunio Iervolino,&nbsp;Annalisa Rosti,&nbsp;Andrea Penna,&nbsp;Massimiliano Giorgio","doi":"10.1002/eqe.4184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Calibrating parametric fragility curves via empirical damage data is one of the standard approaches to derive seismic structural vulnerability models. Fragilities based on empirical data require the characterization of the ground motion (GM) intensity at the building sites in the area affected by the earthquake producing the observed damages. This is commonly conducted via ShakeMap, that is, a map of the expected values of a Gaussian random field (GRF) of the logarithms of a GM intensity measure conditional to magnitude, location, and possibly a set of recordings of the earthquake. Once that intensity and damage data at the same sites are available, the typical approach calibrates a two-parameter fragility model. However, ShakeMap estimates are affected by uncertainty deriving from that of the GM model used to characterize it. Furthermore, such an uncertainty can be reduced by building damage data, which provide information on the shaking intensity at the sites where damage is observed. It is shown herein that if this uncertainty is not addressed, also considering the shaking information provided by damage, the estimates of the fragility parameters obtained using a median ShakeMap only can be biased, and a recommended maximum likelihood estimation procedure – which exploits the <i>expectation maximization algorithm</i> – is provided. These arguments are illustrated via an application considering damage data from the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake in central Italy.</p>","PeriodicalId":11390,"journal":{"name":"Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics","volume":"53 11","pages":"3514-3526"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Damage-informed ground motion and semi-empirical fragility assessment\",\"authors\":\"Iunio Iervolino,&nbsp;Annalisa Rosti,&nbsp;Andrea Penna,&nbsp;Massimiliano Giorgio\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eqe.4184\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Calibrating parametric fragility curves via empirical damage data is one of the standard approaches to derive seismic structural vulnerability models. Fragilities based on empirical data require the characterization of the ground motion (GM) intensity at the building sites in the area affected by the earthquake producing the observed damages. This is commonly conducted via ShakeMap, that is, a map of the expected values of a Gaussian random field (GRF) of the logarithms of a GM intensity measure conditional to magnitude, location, and possibly a set of recordings of the earthquake. Once that intensity and damage data at the same sites are available, the typical approach calibrates a two-parameter fragility model. However, ShakeMap estimates are affected by uncertainty deriving from that of the GM model used to characterize it. Furthermore, such an uncertainty can be reduced by building damage data, which provide information on the shaking intensity at the sites where damage is observed. It is shown herein that if this uncertainty is not addressed, also considering the shaking information provided by damage, the estimates of the fragility parameters obtained using a median ShakeMap only can be biased, and a recommended maximum likelihood estimation procedure – which exploits the <i>expectation maximization algorithm</i> – is provided. These arguments are illustrated via an application considering damage data from the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake in central Italy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11390,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics\",\"volume\":\"53 11\",\"pages\":\"3514-3526\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eqe.4184\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, CIVIL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eqe.4184","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

通过经验破坏数据校准参数脆性曲线是推导地震结构脆弱性模型的标准方法之一。基于经验数据的脆性要求对地震影响区域内建筑场地的地面运动(GM)烈度进行描述,从而产生观测到的破坏。这通常是通过 ShakeMap 来实现的,即根据震级、位置以及可能的地震记录,绘制一个 GM 烈度测量对数的高斯随机场 (GRF) 的预期值图。一旦有了同一地点的烈度和破坏数据,典型的方法就是校准双参数脆性模型。然而,ShakeMap 估算值会受到用于描述其特征的全球机制模型的不确定性的影响。此外,这种不确定性可以通过建筑物损坏数据来减少,这些数据提供了观测到损坏的地点的摇晃强度信息。本文表明,如果不解决这种不确定性,同时考虑到损坏所提供的摇晃信息,仅使用中位 ShakeMap 所获得的脆性参数估计可能会有偏差,并提供了一个建议的最大似然估计程序(利用期望最大化算法)。这些论点通过 2009 年意大利中部拉奎拉地震的破坏数据应用进行了说明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Damage-informed ground motion and semi-empirical fragility assessment

Calibrating parametric fragility curves via empirical damage data is one of the standard approaches to derive seismic structural vulnerability models. Fragilities based on empirical data require the characterization of the ground motion (GM) intensity at the building sites in the area affected by the earthquake producing the observed damages. This is commonly conducted via ShakeMap, that is, a map of the expected values of a Gaussian random field (GRF) of the logarithms of a GM intensity measure conditional to magnitude, location, and possibly a set of recordings of the earthquake. Once that intensity and damage data at the same sites are available, the typical approach calibrates a two-parameter fragility model. However, ShakeMap estimates are affected by uncertainty deriving from that of the GM model used to characterize it. Furthermore, such an uncertainty can be reduced by building damage data, which provide information on the shaking intensity at the sites where damage is observed. It is shown herein that if this uncertainty is not addressed, also considering the shaking information provided by damage, the estimates of the fragility parameters obtained using a median ShakeMap only can be biased, and a recommended maximum likelihood estimation procedure – which exploits the expectation maximization algorithm – is provided. These arguments are illustrated via an application considering damage data from the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake in central Italy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 工程技术-工程:地质
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
13.30%
发文量
180
审稿时长
4.8 months
期刊介绍: Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics provides a forum for the publication of papers on several aspects of engineering related to earthquakes. The problems in this field, and their solutions, are international in character and require knowledge of several traditional disciplines; the Journal will reflect this. Papers that may be relevant but do not emphasize earthquake engineering and related structural dynamics are not suitable for the Journal. Relevant topics include the following: ground motions for analysis and design geotechnical earthquake engineering probabilistic and deterministic methods of dynamic analysis experimental behaviour of structures seismic protective systems system identification risk assessment seismic code requirements methods for earthquake-resistant design and retrofit of structures.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信