Smart Structures and Systems

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Accelerated Monte Carlo analysis of flow-based system reliability through artificial neural network-based surrogate models

  • Yoon, Sungsik (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) ;
  • Lee, Young-Joo (School of Urban and Environmental Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology) ;
  • Jung, Hyung-Jo (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology)
  • Received : 2019.10.04
  • Accepted : 2020.04.19
  • Published : 2020.08.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Conventional Monte Carlo simulation-based methods for seismic risk assessment of water networks often require excessive computational time costs due to the hydraulic analysis. In this study, an Artificial Neural Network-based surrogate model was proposed to efficiently evaluate the flow-based system reliability of water distribution networks. The surrogate model was constructed with appropriate training parameters through trial-and-error procedures. Furthermore, a deep neural network with hidden layers and neurons was composed for the high-dimensional network. For network training, the input of the neural network was defined as the damage states of the k-dimensional network facilities, and the output was defined as the network system performance. To generate training data, random sampling was performed between earthquake magnitudes of 5.0 and 7.5, and hydraulic analyses were conducted to evaluate network performance. For a hydraulic simulation, EPANET-based MATLAB code was developed, and a pressure-driven analysis approach was adopted to represent an unsteady-state network. To demonstrate the constructed surrogate model, the actual water distribution network of A-city, South Korea, was adopted, and the network map was reconstructed from the geographic information system data. The surrogate model was able to predict network performance within a 3% relative error at trained epicenters in drastically reduced time. In addition, the accuracy of the surrogate model was estimated to within 3% relative error (5% for network performance lower than 0.2) at different epicenters to verify the robustness of the epicenter location. Therefore, it is concluded that ANN-based surrogate model can be utilized as an alternative model for efficient seismic risk assessment to within 5% of relative error.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The research described in this paper was financially supported by the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) and the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea (No. 20181510102410). This work was also financially supported by the National Research Foundation Korea (NRF) Grant funded by the Korean government (MSIP) (No. 2017R1A5A1014883).

References

  1. Abrahamson, N.A. and Youngs, R. (1992), "A stable algorithm for regression analyses using the random effects model", Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 82, 505-510.
  2. Akin, O. and Sahin, M. (2017), "Active neuro-adaptive vibration suppression of a smart beam", Smart Struct. Syst., Int. J., 20(6), 657-668. https://doi.org/10.12989/sss.2017.20.6.657
  3. Ambraseys, N., Douglas, J., Sarma, S. and Smit, P. (2005a), "Equations for the estimation of strong ground motions from shallow crustal earthquakes using data from Europe and the Middle East: horizontal peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 3, 1-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-005-0183-0
  4. Ambraseys, N.N., Douglas, J., Sarma, S.K. and Smit, P.M. (2005b), "Equations for the Estimation of Strong Ground Motions from Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Using Data from Europe and the Middle East: Vertical Peak Ground Acceleration and Spectral Acceleration", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 3, 55-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-005-0186-x
  5. Bonneau, A.L. and O'Rourke, T.D. (2009), "Water supply performance during earthquakes and extreme events", MCEER Technical Report-MCEER-09-0003.
  6. Boore, D.M., Gibbs, J.F., Joyner, W.B., Tinsley, J.C. and Ponti, D.J. (2003), "Estimated ground motion from the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake at the site of the Interstate 10 and La Cienega Boulevard bridge collapse, West Los Angeles, California", Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 93, 2737-2751. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120020197
  7. Cerchiello, V., Ceresa, P., Monteiro, R. and Komendantova, N. (2018), "Assessment of social vulnerability to seismic hazard in Nablus, Palestine", Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct, 28, 491-506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.12.012
  8. Dueñas‐Osorio, L. and Rojo, J. (2011), "Reliability assessment of lifeline systems with radial topology", Comput. Aided Civil Infrastruct. Eng., 26, 111-128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8667.2010.00661.x
  9. Duenas‐Osorio, L., Craig, J.I. and Goodno, B.J. (2007), "Seismic response of critical interdependent networks", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 36, 285-306. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.626
  10. Esposito, S. and Iervolino, I. (2012), "Spatial correlation of spectral acceleration in European data", Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 102, 2781-2788. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120068
  11. Esposito, S., Iervolino, I., d'Onofrio, A., Santo, A., Cavalieri, F. and Franchin, P. (2015), "Simulation-based seismic risk assessment of gas distribution networks", Comput. Aided Civil Infrastruct. Eng., 30, 508-523. https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12105
  12. Farahmandfar, Z. and Piratla, K.R. (2017), "Comparative evaluation of topological and flow-based seismic resilience metrics for rehabilitation of water pipeline systems", J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., 9, 04017027. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000293
  13. FEMA (2003), Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology Earthquake Model, HAZUS-MH MR3 Technical Manual; United States Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA.
  14. Goda, K. and Hong, H.-P. (2008), "Spatial correlation of peak ground motions and response spectra", Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 98, 354-365. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120070078
  15. Guidotti, R., Chmielewski, H., Unnikrishnan, V., Gardoni, P., McAllister, T. and van de Lindt, J. (2016), "Modeling the resilience of critical infrastructure: The role of network dependencies", Sustain. Resilient Infrastruct., 1, 153-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2016.1254999
  16. Gupta, R. and Bhave, P.R. (1996), "Comparison of methods for predicting deficient-network performance", J. Water Resour. Plan Manag., 122, 214-217. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1996)122:3(214)
  17. Hakim, S.,and Razak, H.A. (2014), "Modal parameters based structural damage detection using artificial neural networks-a review", Smart Struct. Syst., Int. J., 14(2), 159-189. https://doi.org/10.12989/sss.2014.14.2.159
  18. Hwang, H.H., Lin, H. and Shinozuka, M. (1998), "Seismic performance assessment of water delivery systems", J. Infrastruct. Syst., 4, 118-125. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(1998)4:3(118)
  19. Isoyama, R., Ishida, E., Yune, K. and Shirozu, T. (2000), "Seismic damage estimation procedure for water supply pipelines", Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (WCEE), Auckland, New Zealand, p. 1762.
  20. Jeon, S.-S. and O'Rourke, T.D. (2005), "Northridge earthquake effects on pipelines and residential buildings", Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 95, 294-318. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120040020
  21. Joyner, W.B. and Boore, D.M. (1993), "Methods for regression analysis of strong-motion data", Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 83, 469-487.
  22. Kang, W.-H., Song, J. and Gardoni, P. (2008), "Matrix-based system reliability method and applications to bridge networks", Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 93, 1584-1593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2008.02.011
  23. Kang, W.-H., Lee, Y.-J. and Zhang, C. (2017), "Computer-aided analysis of flow in water pipe networks after a seismic event", Mathe. Probl. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2017046
  24. Kim, J.-T., Park, J.-H., Koo, K.-Y. and Lee, J.-J. (2008), "Acceleration-based neural networks algorithm for damage detection in structures", Smart Struct. Syst., Int. J., 4(5), 583-603. https://doi.org/10.12989/sss.2008.4.5.583
  25. Kim, J., Deshmukh, A. and Hastak, M. (2018), "A framework for assessing the resilience of a disaster debris management system", Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 28, 674-687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.01.028
  26. Lee, D.H., Kim, B.H., Lee, H. and Kong, J.S. (2009), "Seismic behavior of a buried gas pipeline under earthquake excitations", Eng. Struct., 31, 1011-1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.12.012
  27. Lee, Y.-J., Song, J., Gardoni, P. and Lim, H.-W. (2011), "Posthazard flow capacity of bridge transportation network considering structural deterioration of bridges", Struct. Infrastruct. Eng., 7, 509-521. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2010.493338
  28. Li, P.H.., Zhu, H.P., Luo, H. and Weng, S. (2015), "Structural damage identification based on genetically trained ANNs in beams", Smart Struct. Syst., Int. J., 15(1), 227-244. https://doi.org/10.12989/sss.2015.15.1.227
  29. Lim, H.W. and Song, J. (2012), "Efficient risk assessment of lifeline networks under spatially correlated ground motions using selective recursive decomposition algorithm", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 41, 1861-1882. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2162
  30. Mangalathu, S., Heo, G. and Jeon, J.-S. (2018), "Artificial neural network based multi-dimensional fragility development of skewed concrete bridge classes", Eng. Struct., 162, 166-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.01.053
  31. Nguyen, D.H., Bui, T.T., De Roeck, G. and Wahab, M.A. (2019), "Damage detection in Ca-Non Bridge using transmissibility and artificial neural networks", Struct. Eng. Mech., Int. J., 71(2), 175-183. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2019.71.2.175
  32. O'Rourke, M. and Ayala, G. (1993), "Pipeline damage due to wave propagation", J. Geotech. Eng., 119, 1490-1498. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:9(1490)
  33. Okumura, T. and Shinozuka, M. (1991), "Serviceability analysis of Memphis water delivery system", Proceedings of the 3rd US Conference on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
  34. Onat, O. and Gul, M. (2018), "Application of artificial neural networks to the prediction of out-of-plane response of infill walls subjected to shake table", Smart Struct. Syst., Int. J., 21(4), 521-535. https://doi.org/10.12989/sss.2018.21.4.521
  35. PAHO (2002), Emergencies and Disasters in Drinking Water Supply and Sewage Systems: Guidelines for Effective Response; Pan American Health Organization (PAHO).
  36. Park, S., Choi, C.L., Kim, J.H. and Bae, C.H. (2010), "Evaluating the economic residual life of water pipes using the proportional hazards model", Water Resour. Manag., 24, 3195-3217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-010-9602-3
  37. Puchovsky, M.T. (1999), Automatic sprinkler systems handbook, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
  38. Rizzo, P. and Lanza, D.S. (2006), "Wavelet-based feature extraction for automatic defect classification in strands by ultrasonic structural monitoring", Smart Struct. Syst., Int. J., 2(3), 253-274. https://doi.org/10.12989/sss.2006.2.3.253
  39. Rokneddin, K., Ghosh, J., Duenas-Osorio, L. and Padgett, J.E. (2013), "Bridge retrofit prioritisation for ageing transportation networks subject to seismic hazards", Struct. Infrastruct. Eng., 9, 1050-1066. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2011.654230
  40. Seo, J. and Linzell, D.G. (2013), "Use of response surface metamodels to generate system level fragilities for existing curved steel bridges", Eng. Struct., 52, 642-653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.03.023
  41. Seo, J., Duenas-Osorio, L., Craig, J.I. and Goodno, B.J. (2012), "Metamodel-based regional vulnerability estimate of irregular steel moment-frame structures subjected to earthquake events", Eng. Struct., 45, 585-597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.07.003
  42. Shahbazi, Y., Delavari, E. and Chenaghlou, M.R. (2014), "Predicting the buckling load of smart multilayer columns using soft computing tools", Smart Struct. Syst., Int. J., 13(1), 81-98. https://doi.org/10.12989/sss.2013.13.1.081
  43. Shi, P. and O'Rourke, T.D. (2006), "Seismic response modeling of water supply systems", MCEER Technical Report-MCEER-08-0016.
  44. Sokolov, V., Wenzel, F., Jean, W.-Y. and Wen, K.-L. (2010), "Uncertainty and spatial correlation of earthquake ground motion in Taiwan", Terr. Atmos. Ocean. Sci., 21(6), 905-921. https://doi.org/10.3319/TAO.2010.05.03.01(T)
  45. Stern, R.E., Song, J. and Work, D.B. (2017), "Accelerated Monte Carlo system reliability analysis through machine-learningbased surrogate models of network connectivity", Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 164, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.01.021
  46. Wagner, J.M., Shamir, U. and Marks, D.H. (1988), "Water Distribution Reliability: Simulation Methods", J. Water Resour. Plan Manag., 114, 276-294. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1988)114:3(276)
  47. Wagener, T., Goda, K., Erdik, M., Daniell, J. and Wenzel, F. (2016), "A spatial correlation model of peak ground acceleration and response spectra based on data of the Istanbul Earthquake Rapid Response and Early Warning System", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 85, 166-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.03.016
  48. Wang, Y. and O'Rourke, T.D. (2006), "Seismic performance evaluation of water supply systems", MCEER Technical Report-MCEER-08-0015.
  49. Wang, M. and Takada, T. (2005), "Macrospatial correlation model of seismic ground motions", Earthq. Spectra, 21, 1137-1156. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2083887
  50. Wang, Y., Au, S.-K. and Fu, Q. (2010), "Seismic risk assessment and mitigation of water supply systems", Earthq. Spectra, 26, 257-274. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3276900
  51. Yoon, S., Lee, Y.-J. and Jung, H.-J. (2018), "A comprehensive framework for seismic risk assessment of urban water transmission networks", Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 31, 983-994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.09.002
  52. Yoon, S., Lee, Y.-J. and Jung, H.-J. (2020), "A comprehensive approach to flow-based seismic risk analysis of water transmission network", Struct. Eng. Mech., Int. J., 73(3), 339-351. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2020.73.3.339