Correlation models for next‐generation amplitude and cumulative intensity measures using artificial neural networks

Various next‐generation intensity measures (IMs) have emerged in recent years. For instance, filtered incremental velocity, FIV 3, was shown to be efficient in predicting the collapse of structures, or average spectral acceleration, Sa avg , shown to be well‐correlated with a wide range of response, from initiation of structural damage yielding to structural collapse. Different ground motion models (GMMs) are available to predict the probabilistic distribution of these IMs, given a set of seismological parameters. Nonetheless, a few key correlation models are still missing in the literature, which are elemental for a more holistic approach to ground motion record selection. These models are vital when performing seismic hazard analysis and ground motion record selection using state‐of‐the‐art approaches like the conditional spectrum or generalized conditional intensity measure (GCIM) methods. This study uses a single machine‐learning‐based generalized ground motion model (GGMM) to estimate all the IMs. The model is based on the Next‐Generation Attenuation (NGA)‐West2 database and was utilized to quantify the correlations between the residuals. Correlations were calculated for intra‐ and inter‐event residuals, but only those for total residuals are presented here, given their utility. Since the calculation of residuals comes from the same GMM and the same database of ground motions, this produces more consistent correlation coefficients between all IMs. To facilitate the usage of these correlation coefficients, predictive models of the empirical data were developed using machine‐learning‐based techniques, namely artificial neural networks (ANNs). It was found that FIV 3 is strongly correlated with Sa (~1 s) and itself across all periods and has a weak negative correlation with duration at short periods and near‐zero correlation for longer periods. Also, a stronger negative correlation between Sa and significant duration was found, compared with other prominent existing models. Direct correlation models between Sa and Sa avg are also proposed.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Earthquake Spectra
Published
2024-10-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930241270563
Citations
8
Primary Topic
Structural Health Monitoring Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.09

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Correlation models for next‐generation amplitude and cumulative intensity measures using artificial neural networks

Gerard J. O’Reilly, Davit Shahnazaryan, Savvinos Aristeidou
8 citations
Earthquake Spectra
Structural Health Monitoring Techniques
2.09
article

Correlation models for next‐generation amplitude and cumulative intensity measures using artificial neural networks

Gerard J. O’Reilly, Davit Shahnazaryan, Savvinos Aristeidou
article en
8 citations

Abstract

Various next‐generation intensity measures (IMs) have emerged in recent years. For instance, filtered incremental velocity, FIV 3, was shown to be efficient in predicting the collapse of structures, or average spectral acceleration, Sa avg , shown to be well‐correlated with a wide range of response, from initiation of structural damage yielding to structural collapse. Different ground motion models (GMMs) are available to predict the probabilistic distribution of these IMs, given a set of seismological parameters. Nonetheless, a few key correlation models are still missing in the literature, which are elemental for a more holistic approach to ground motion record selection. These models are vital when performing seismic hazard analysis and ground motion record selection using state‐of‐the‐art approaches like the conditional spectrum or generalized conditional intensity measure (GCIM) methods. This study uses a single machine‐learning‐based generalized ground motion model (GGMM) to estimate all the IMs. The model is based on the Next‐Generation Attenuation (NGA)‐West2 database and was utilized to quantify the correlations between the residuals. Correlations were calculated for intra‐ and inter‐event residuals, but only those for total residuals are presented here, given their utility. Since the calculation of residuals comes from the same GMM and the same database of ground motions, this produces more consistent correlation coefficients between all IMs. To facilitate the usage of these correlation coefficients, predictive models of the empirical data were developed using machine‐learning‐based techniques, namely artificial neural networks (ANNs). It was found that FIV 3 is strongly correlated with Sa (~1 s) and itself across all periods and has a weak negative correlation with duration at short periods and near‐zero correlation for longer periods. Also, a stronger negative correlation between Sa and significant duration was found, compared with other prominent existing models. Direct correlation models between Sa and Sa avg are also proposed.

Earthquake SpectraVol. 41(1)
Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia (IT)
Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Structural Health Monitoring Techniques
2.09
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.