DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Application of meta-model based parameter identification of a seismically retrofitted reinforced concrete building

  • Yu, Eunjong (Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University)
  • Received : 2017.11.10
  • Accepted : 2017.12.23
  • Published : 2018.04.25

Abstract

FE models for complex or large-scaled structures that need detailed modeling of structural components are usually constructed using commercial analysis softwares. Updating of such FE model by conventional sensitivity-based methods is difficult since repeated computation for perturbed parameters and manual calculations are needed to obtain sensitivity matrix in each iteration. In this study, an FE model updating procedure avoiding such difficulties by using response surface (RS) method and a Pareto-based multiobjective optimization (MOO) was formulated and applied to FE models constructed with a commercial analysis package. The test building is a low-rise reinforced concrete building that has been seismically retrofitted. Dynamic properties of the building were extracted from vibration tests performed before and after the seismic retrofits, respectively. The elastic modulus of concrete and masonry, and spring constants for the expansion joint were updated. Two RS functions representing the errors in the natural frequencies and mode shape, respectively, were obtained and used as the objective functions for MOO. Among the Pareto solutions, the best compromise solution was determined using the TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) procedure. A similar task was performed for retrofitted building by taking the updating parameters as the stiffness of modified or added members. Obtained parameters of the existing building were reasonably comparable with the current code provisions. However, the stiffness of added concrete shear walls and steel section jacketed members were considerably lower than expectation. Such low values are seemingly because the bond between new and existing concrete was not as good as the monolithically casted members, even though they were connected by the anchoring bars.

Keywords

References

  1. ACI (2011), Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, 318-11.
  2. Architectural Institute of Korea (2016), Korea Building Code, Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.
  3. ASCE/SEI (2007), Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI 41-06, Reston.
  4. Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S.K., Yazdani, M. and Ignatius, J. (2012), "A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications", Exp. Syst. Appl., 39(17), 13051-13069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056
  5. Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S. and Meyarivan, T.A.M.T. (2002), "A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II", IEEE Tran. Evol. Comput., 6(2), 182-197. https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.996017
  6. Deng, L. and Cai, C.S. (2009), "Bridge model updating using response surface method and genetic algorithm", J. Bridge Eng., 15(5), 553-564. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000092
  7. Fang, S.E. and Perera, R. (2009), "A response surface methodology based damage identification technique", Smart Mater. Struct., 18(6), 065009. https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/18/6/065009
  8. Fang, S.E. and Perera, R. (2011), "Damage identification by response surface based model updating using D-optimal design", Mech. Syst. Signal Pr., 25(2), 717-733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2010.07.007
  9. Fang, S.E., Perera, R. and De Roeck, G. (2008), "Damage identification of a reinforced concrete frame by finite element model updating using damage parameterization", J. Sound Vib., 313(3), 544-559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2007.11.057
  10. Friswell, M. and Mottershead, J.E. (1995), Finite Element Model Updating in Structural Dynamics, Springer Science.
  11. Huang, J.J. and Yoon, K. (2011), Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Chapman and Hall.
  12. Jaishi, B. and Ren, W.X. (2006), "Damage detection by finite element model updating using modal flexibility residual", J. Sound Vib., 290(1), 369-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2005.04.006
  13. MIDAS IT (2004), MIDAS/GEN Version 6.3. 2 User's Manual.
  14. Montgomery, D.C. (2008), Design and Analysis of Experiments, John Wiley & Sons.
  15. Myers, R.H. and Montgomery, D.C. (2002), Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, 2nd Edition, Wiley
  16. Ren, W.X. and Chen, H.B. (2010), "Finite element model updating in structural dynamics by using the response surface method", Eng. Struct., 32(8), 2455-2465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.04.019
  17. Shahidi, S.G. and Pakzad, S.N. (2013), "Generalized response surface model updating using time domain data", J. Struct. Eng., 140(8), A4014001.
  18. Teughels, A., Maeck, J. and De Roeck, G. (2002), "Damage assessment by FE model updating using damage functions", Comput. Struct., 80(25), 1869-1879. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(02)00217-1
  19. Van Overschee, P. and De Moor, B. (1993), "N4SID: numerical algorithms for state space subspace system identification", Proceedings of the World Congress of the International Federation of Automatic Control.
  20. Yu, E. and Chung, L. (2012), "Seismic damage detection of a reinforced concrete structure by finite element model updating", Smart Struct. Syst., 9(3), 253-271. https://doi.org/10.12989/sss.2012.9.3.253
  21. Yu, E., Taciroglu, E. and Wallace, J.W. (2007), "Parameter identification of framed structures using an improved finite element model-updating method-Part I: formulation and verification", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 36(5), 619-639. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.646
  22. Zitzler, E. and Thiele, L. (1999), "Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach", IEEE Tran. Evol. Comput., 3(4), 257-271. https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.797969