Introducing Adaptive Incremental Dynamic Analysis: A New Tool for Linking Ground Motion Selection and Structural Response Assessment

Adaptive Incremental Dynamic Analysis (AIDA) is a novel ground motion selection scheme that adaptively changes the ground motion suites at different ground motion intensity levels to match hazardconsistent properties for structural response assessment. Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA), a current dynamic response history analysis practice in Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE), uses the same suite of ground motions at all Intensity Measure (IM) levels to estimate structural response. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) deaggregation tells us, however, that the target distributions of important ground motion properties change as the IM levels change. To match hazard-consistent ground motion properties, ground motions can be re-selected at each IM level, but ground motion continuity is lost when using such “stripes” (i.e., individual analysis points at each IM level). Alternatively, the data from the same ground motions in IDA can be re-weighted at various IM levels to match their respective target distributions of properties, but this implies potential omission of data and curse of dimensionality. Adaptive Incremental Dynamic Analysis, in contrast, gradually changes ground motion records to match ground motion properties as the IM level changes, while also partially maintaining ground motion continuity without the omission of useful data. AIDA requires careful record selection across IM levels. Potential record selection criteria include ground motion properties from deaggregation, or target spectrum such as the Conditional Spectrum. Steps to perform AIDA are listed as follows: (1) obtain target ground motion properties for each IM level; (2) determine “bin sizes” (i.e., tolerance for acceptable ground motion properties) and identify all candidate ground motions that fall within target bins; (3) keep ground motions that are usable at multiple IM levels, to maintain continuity; (4) use each ground motion for IDA within its allowable IM range. As a result, if we keep increasing the “bin sizes”, AIDA will approach IDA asymptotically; on the other hand, if we decrease the “bin sizes”, AIDA will approach the other end of “stripes”. This paper addresses the challenges of changing records across various IM levels. Different ground motion selection schemes are compared with AIDA to demonstrate the advantages of using AIDA. Example structural analyses are used to illustrate the impact of AIDA on the estimation of structural response in PBEE. By combining the benefits of IDA and PSHA without the omission of useful data, AIDA is a promising new tool for linking ground motion selection and structural response assessment.