Background and objectives
Over the past couple of decades, response history aim:Seismic response analysis of structural and geotechnical systems is has become increasingly prevalent in both earthquake engineering research and practice as an increasing emphasis is placed on . This development could be attributed to the shift in emphasis from prescriptive to performance-based earthquake engineering.Despite this, there is a general lack of validation of these analysis models (and their constituent components), which results in an inability design and assessment principles. The results of response history analyses are currently used as the basis for a number of important design decisions, especially for important facilities like tall buildings, bridges, dams, and levee embankments. Proportionately little attention has, however, been paid to the verification and validation of commonly employed modelling techniques and numerical solution procedures. Hence, we are presently unable to provide quantitative estimates of the predictive capabilities of different forms of analysis, including uncertainty estimates. The aim accuracy and precision of our simulation results. The objective of this cross-technology-TP project platform initiative is to accelerate the validation of seismic improve confidence in the predictive capabilities of response history analysis models procedures through a systematic improvement in the underpinning research infrastructure that feed into this multi-heirarchial problem.
Specific research thrusts:
1. Experimental inputs to analysis validation: Under the auspices of TP1 (Laboratory Facilities), this thrust will focus on improving the connection between laboratory experimental work and analysis validation. This includes: (i) increasing the frequency of prospective prediction efforts prior to significant laboratory experimental tests ('blind prediction efforts'); and (ii) ensuring that laboratory experimental testing (loading) protocols and instrumentation are consistent with the needs for analysis validation at multiple scales (overall vs. localised response).
2. Field instrumentation and monitoring for analysis validation: Under the auspices of TP2 (Field testing and monitoring), this thrust will focus on improvements in the acquisition and utilization of field instrumentation for analysis validation. This includes: (i) growing the number of NZ-based structural and geotechnical systems which field instrumentation, for both ambient and large-amplitude vibrations, in collaboration with GeoNet; (ii) obtain and collate characterisation information for geotechnical and structural arrays (i.e. site response characterization and building plans, respectively).
3. Collection, curation and utilization of validation datasets: Under the auspices of TP3 (Community data and models), this thrust will focus on the collection, curation and utilization of validation datasets. This includes: (i) working with the DesignSafe-CyberInfrastructure for the storage of experimental and field validation datasets, as well with GeoNet for geotechnical and structural array data; (ii) the development of scripts to improve the ease at which validation datasets can be pulled through to the locations of computational pathways which can be used to undertake validation analyses.
4. Validation of seismic response analysis methods: Under the auspices of TP4 (Computational simulation and data visualisation), this thrust will undertake validation of geotechnical and structural analysis models (and their constitutive components). This includes: (i) developing a multi-tiered heirarchy for validation activities (ranging from simple SDOF models, through to 3D analyses with numerous DOF and advanced constitutive models); (ii) performing validation studies on specific analysis approaches against existing validation data from laboratory and field instrumental array datasets (both NZ and overseas); (iii) quantification of the accuracy and precision (i.e. uncertianties) that different analysis approaches entail as evident through such validation analyses, and how the prediction capability varies as a function of ground motion amplitude (among other parameters).
5. Collaboration with international efforts: This thrust is focused on coordination with international activities in the above four thrust areas.
validation exercise.
Key thrust areas
Achieving this objective would require concerted efforts in the following four key thrust areas:
- Inputs from laboratory experiments: TP1 (laboratory facilities)
- Guidelines for loading protocols and instrumentation schemes to be used in experimental tests that are consistent with the needs for validation of local and global system response
- Best practices for the documentation of experimental test setups and boundary conditions in a format that enables use in future analysis validation efforts
- Promote prospective (blind) prediction efforts prior to conducting experimental tests
- Inputs from field instrumentation and monitoring: TP2 (field testing and monitoring)
Widen the network of instrumented structural and geotechnical systems in the field, in collaboration with GeoNet, with ambient vibration and strong motion recording capabilities
Recommendations for optimal sensor distribution so as to adequately capture important response modes with minimal instrument density
Collation of structural and geotechnical system characterisation information (e.g., structural drawings, site characterisation data) in conjunction with GeoNet to facilitate model creation for analysis validation
Work with GeoNet to enable free dissemination of system characterisation information for research
- Collection and curation of recorded datasets: TP3 (community data and models)
Uniform standards for the presentation of experimental and field monitoring datasets
Collation of data from previous experimental tests and field monitoring efforts in New Zealand and overseas
Storage and dissemination of validation datasets via cyber-infrastructures like DesignSafe
Tools to streamline access to the compiled datasets for analysis validation studies
- Analysis validation methodology: TP4 (computational simulation and data visualisation)
Examination of the scope and objectives of previous analysis validation efforts, and the tools and methods they adopted
Verification of nonlinear models and solution techniques using different analysis software
Multi-tiered hierarchical framework for validation of structural and geotechnical models, ranging from simple SDOF models to large, complex 3D models with advanced constitutive models
Evaluation of various modelling and analysis techniques using the collected datasets
Quantification of the accuracy and precision (uncertainty) of simulation results using various modelling approaches
- Collaboration with international efforts
- Coordination with international activities in the above thrust areas
Project oversight group
...
QuakeCoRE: Brendon Bradley (Lead; UC), Ken Elwood (TP1; UA), Liam Wotherspoon (TP2; UA), Nick Horspool (TP3; GNS), Chris McGann (TP4; UC)
...
Please get in contact with any of the above personnel to express your interest in contributing to this project, all contributions welcome!
Milestones:
- 1 Dec 2016 - Contributions of each technology platform to RAV workplan to be identified
- Feb 2016 (specific date to be finalised) - community workshop to discuss scope, directions, community involvement. To register your interest at this early stage, please email brendon.bradley[at]canterbury.ac.nz
Interested participants (who have registered their interest so far):
Reagan Chandramohan, Chris McGann, Seokho Jeong, Karim Tarbali, Chris de la Torre, Kevin Foster (UC)
Quincy Ma, Max Stephens, Hannah Dawson (UA)
RHAV Workshop
An international workshop to address the issue of Response History Analysis Validation (RHAV) will be held on 4 September 2017 at Wairakei, Taupo, in conjunction with the 2017 QuakeCoRE Annual Meeting. The objective of this workshop is to bring together researchers and practitioners in order to collate ideas, identify priorities, and foster collaborative efforts to move forward with the validation exercise. Additional information regarding the workshop can be found in Workshop Information.pdf. The following template is to be used to submit an extended abstract to the workshop: Extended Abstract Template.docx.James Kaklamanos (Merrimack College)