An entropy-based multi-criteria approach for intensity measure selection in seismic resilience of structures

Abstract

Seismic resilience (SR) has emerged as a critical focus in earthquake engineering to evaluate the ability of structures to endure, recover from, and adapt to seismic events. This study presents an entropy-based multi-criteria approach for selecting optimal intensity measures (IMs) to assess SR of structures. Eight representative IMs, derived from time histories and response spectrum are evaluated. Incremental dynamic analysis is conducted on a reinforced concrete structure, using engineering demand parameters such as the maximum inter-story drift and floor acceleration to generate fragility curves via a probabilistic seismic demand model. The optimal IMs are identified through a multi-criteria decision-making process, with scores calculated using the entropy weight method to incorporate factors such as efficiency, proficiency, and uncertainty based on information entropy. An effective SR framework is derived from fragility results. The findings indicate that peak ground velocity and spectral IMs are the most effective, while energy-related IMs underestimate SR. The study highlights the importance of optimizing IMs for more accurate seismic resilience assessments. The proposed entropy-based multi-criteria approach is shown to be both reliable and effective for selecting optimal IMs in this context.

Keywords

Intensity measure / Seismic resilience / Multi-criteria decision making / Probabilistic seismic demand model / Entropy / Uncertainty quantification

References

[1] Feng K, Wang N, Li Q, Lin P. Measuring and enhancing resilience of building portfolios considering the functional interdependence among community sectors. Struct Saf 2017; 66: 118-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2017.02.006.

[2] Du A, Wang X, Xie Y, Dong Y. Regional seismic risk and resilience assessment: methodological development, applicability, and future research needs - An earthquake engineering perspective. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2023; 233: 109104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2023.109104.

[3] Hosseini S, Barker K, Ramirez-Marquez JE. A review of definitions and measures of system resilience. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2016; 145: 47-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.08.006.

[4] Burton HV, Deierlein G, Lallemant D, Lin T. Framework for incorporating probabilistic building performance in the assessment of community seismic resilience. J Struct Eng 2016; 142: C4015007. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001321.

[5] Cimellaro GP, Reinhorn AM, Bruneau M. Framework for analytical quantification of disaster resilience. Eng Struct 2010; 32: 3639-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.08.008.

[6] Baker JW, Cornell CA. Uncertainty propagation in probabilistic seismic loss estimation. Struct Saf 2008; 30: 236-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2006.11.003.

[7] Padgett JE, Nielson BG, DesRoches R. Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2008; 37: 711-25. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.782.

[8] Tothong P, Luco N. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2007; 36: 1837-60. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.696.

[9] Bayat M, Daneshjoo F, Nisticò N. A novel proficient and sufficient intensity measure for probabilistic analysis of skewed highway bridges. Struct Eng Mech 2015; 55: 1177-202.

[10] De Biasio M, Grange S, Dufour F, Allain F, Petre-Lazar I. A simple and efficient intensity measure to account for nonlinear structural behavior. Earthq Spectra 2014; 30: 1403-26.

[11] Forcellini D. An expeditious framework for assessing the seismic resilience (SR) of structural configurations. Structures 2023; 56: 105015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.105015.

[12] Forcellini D. Seismic resilience of bridges isolated with traditional and geotechnical seismic isolation (GSI). Bull Earthq Eng 2023; 21: 3521-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01662-6.

[13] Forcellini D. Seismic fragility of tall buildings considering soil structure interaction (SSI) effects. Structures 2022; 45: 999-1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.09.070.

[14] Pinzón LA, Hidalgo-Leiva DA, Alva RE, Mánica MA, Pujades LG. Correlation between seismic intensity measures and engineering demand parameters of reinforced concrete frame buildings through nonlinear time history analysis. Structures 2023; 57: 105276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.105276.

[15] Yazdani A, Yazdannejad K. Estimation of the seismic demand model for different damage levels. Eng Struct 2019; 194: 183-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.05.071.

[16] Ebrahimian H, Jalayer F. Selection of seismic intensity measures for prescribed limit states using alternative nonlinear dynamic analysis methods. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2021; 50: 1235- 50. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3393.

[17] Jalayer F, Beck JL, Zareian F. Analyzing the sufficiency of alternative scalar and vector intensity measures of ground shaking based on information theory. J Eng Mech 2012; 138: 307-16. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000327.

[18] Wen T, Jiang L, Jiang L, Zhou W, Du Y. Optimal intensity measure selection in incremental dynamic analysis: methodology improvements and application to a high-speed railway bridge. Bull Earthq Eng 2024; 22: 2059-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01840-6.

[19] Du A, Padgett JE. Entropy-based intensity measure selection for site-specific probabilistic seismic risk assessment. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2021; 50: 560-79. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3346.

[20] Irslan Khalid M, Park D, Fei J, Nguyen VQ, Nguyen DD, Chen X. Selection of efficient earthquake intensity measures for evaluating seismic fragility of concrete face rockfill dam. Comput Geotech 2023; 163: 105721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2023.105721.

[21] Khosravikia F, Clayton P. Updated evaluation metrics for optimal intensity measure selection in probabilistic seismic demand models. Eng Struct 2020; 202: 109899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109899.

[22] Qian J, Dong Y. Multi-criteria decision making for seismic intensity measure selection considering uncertainty. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2020; 49: 1095-114. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3280.

[23] Zhou Y, Du K, Luo H. A maximum entropy-driven support vector classification model for seismic collapse fragility curves estimation of reinforced concrete frame structures. Structures 2024; 65: 106726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2024.106726.

[24] Zhou H, Chen S, Li H, Liu T, Wang H. Rockburst prediction for hard rock and deep-lying long tunnels based on the entropy weight ideal point method and geostress field inversion: a case study of the Sangzhuling Tunnel. Bull Eng Geol Environ 2021; 80: 3885-902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-021-02175-9.

[25] Qiu D, Chen J, Fu H. Research on the comprehensive evaluating index of seismic performance of underground large-scale frame structures. Structures 2022; 37: 645-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.01.032.

[26] Forcellini D. A new methodology to assess indirect losses in bridges subjected to multiple hazards. Innov Infrastruct Solut 2019; 4: 10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-018-0195-7.

[27] Mackie KR, Lu J, Elgamal A. Performance-based earthquake assessment of bridge systems including ground-foundation interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2012; 42: 184-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.05.023.

[28] Forcellini D. Quantification of the seismic resilience of bridge classes. J. Infrastruct. Syst. ASCE 2024; 30: 04024016. https://doi.org/10.1061/JITSE4.ISENG-237.

[29] Málaga-Chuquitaype C, Bougatsas K. Vector-IM-based assessment of alternative framing systems under bi-directional ground-motion. Eng Struct 2017; 132: 188-204.

[30] Kostinakis K, Athanatopoulou A, Morfidis K. Correlation between ground motion intensity measures and seismic damage of 3D R/C buildings. Eng Struct 2015; 82: 151-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.10.035.

[31] European Committee for Standardization EN 1992-1-1 (2004). Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures - part 1-1: general ruels and rules for buildings 2004.

[32] European Committee for Standardization EN 1998-1. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance-part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings 2004.

[33] Mazzoni S. OpenSees command language manual. Pac Earthq Eng Res PEER Cent 2006.

[34] Lucchini A, Franchin P, Mollaioli F. Uniform hazard floor acceleration spectra for linear structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2017; 46: 1121-40. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2847.

[35] ATC58-2. Preliminary evaluation of methods for defining performance. Washington D.C of USA: FEAM; 2006. 2006.

[36] Singh H, Misra N, Hnizdo V, Fedorowicz A, Demchuk E. Nearest neighbor estimates of entropy. Am J Math Manag Sci 2003; 23: 301-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/01966324.2003.10737616.

[37] Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng 2002; 128: 526-33.

[38] Ghimire S, Guéguen P, Astorga A. Analysis of the efficiency of intensity measures from real earthquake data recorded in buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2021; 147: 106751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106751.

[39] Kostinakis K, Fontara I-K, Athanatopoulou AM. Scalar structure-specific ground motion intensity measures for assessing the seismic performance of structures: a review. J Earthq Eng 2018; 22: 630-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1264323.

[40] Pinzón LA, Hidalgo-Leiva DA, Alva RE, Mánica MA, Pujades LG. Correlation between seismic intensity measures and engineering demand parameters of reinforced concrete frame buildings through nonlinear time history analysis. Structures 2023; 57: 105276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.105276.