1
Uncertainty Quantification (quoFEM) / Re: using uq module as a standalone tool
« on: October 17, 2022, 11:41:35 PM »
To follow up, Adam provided me with a notebook to use pelicun's uq module and it worked perfectly. Thanks all.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Uncertainty Quantification (quoFEM) / Re: using uq module as a standalone tool
« on: October 12, 2022, 11:30:44 PM »
Thanks, Sang-ri! I will check in with Adam as well but this seems like a good solution. Much appreciated.
3
Uncertainty Quantification (quoFEM) / Re: using uq module as a standalone tool
« on: October 12, 2022, 08:10:20 PM »
Hi Sang-ri, thanks for the quick response!
1. I handle the uncertainty in my own way and do not intend to use uq's functionality for that. The only reason I would add the module (for my current project, at any rate) is to sample a truncated lognormal distribution in place of the standard lognormal distribution. I would like to see the difference in annual risk when convoluting the two fragility curves with a hazard curve.
2. I don't think this is applicable, as I am not using the tools at all, except for this purpose. I would need to be able to use it in a Jupyter Notebook.
Adam seemed to think this was possible. Unfortunately my timeframe is very short. If I can't get this working by the end of the week, I will have to come up with a different solution.
Thanks,
Anne
1. I handle the uncertainty in my own way and do not intend to use uq's functionality for that. The only reason I would add the module (for my current project, at any rate) is to sample a truncated lognormal distribution in place of the standard lognormal distribution. I would like to see the difference in annual risk when convoluting the two fragility curves with a hazard curve.
2. I don't think this is applicable, as I am not using the tools at all, except for this purpose. I would need to be able to use it in a Jupyter Notebook.
Adam seemed to think this was possible. Unfortunately my timeframe is very short. If I can't get this working by the end of the week, I will have to come up with a different solution.
Thanks,
Anne
4
Uncertainty Quantification (quoFEM) / using uq module as a standalone tool
« on: October 12, 2022, 09:23:04 AM »
Hello. I would like to use the uq module to create a truncated lognormal fragility curve. I currently use stats.lognorm(beta, scale=median).pdf(x) to get a lognormal fragility curve so I'm hoping for something that could give me a similar result but with a truncation. Any suggestions?
5
Regional Hazard Simulation (R2D, rWhale) / openquake selection widget
« on: February 07, 2022, 10:46:56 PM »
Many thanks to Steve for implementing the openquake selection widget in R2D and to Adam for recognizing how useful it would be to me and coordinating the effort. I appreciate the proactive attentiveness to both user needs and the underlying details.
https://nheri-simcenter.github.io/R2D-Documentation/common/user_manual/usage/desktop/R2DTool/HAZ.html#openquake-selection-widget
https://nheri-simcenter.github.io/R2D-Documentation/common/user_manual/usage/desktop/R2DTool/HAZ.html#openquake-selection-widget
6
Earthquake Engineering (EE-UQ) / Re: record max base shear for AutoSDA
« on: October 08, 2021, 07:28:03 PM »
Thanks, Kuanshi, this worked perfectly! I really appreciate the effort and the scripts were also helpful for learning a little more about working with OpenSees (I am still new to it).
7
Earthquake Engineering (EE-UQ) / record max base shear for AutoSDA
« on: October 07, 2021, 09:03:44 PM »
Hello,
I want to check whether each AutoSDA gm causes yield in the building. (I am using it to cross-check the Taghavi-Miranda modal approximation, which is limited to linear responses.) The best way I can think of is to compare the max base shear to the pushover curve. Is it possible to include max base shear as an output?
Thanks,
Anne
I want to check whether each AutoSDA gm causes yield in the building. (I am using it to cross-check the Taghavi-Miranda modal approximation, which is limited to linear responses.) The best way I can think of is to compare the max base shear to the pushover curve. Is it possible to include max base shear as an output?
Thanks,
Anne
8
Earthquake Engineering (EE-UQ) / Re: number of records for AutoSDA
« on: October 07, 2021, 08:47:16 PM »
Thanks, Kuanshi.
1) Worked great.
2) Thanks for pointing me to the other tabs, which I never look at. I ended up writing a new Example to autopopulate all the tabs as necessary for 1gm. (And will soon do the same for 30 and 100 gms.) Now that I see how versatile the load Example is, I would suggest including some documentation to make it clear that the user can take advantage of this feature.
3) Still not working. A remote run with 30 gm failed with no record of why. Then a run with 11gm had the same behavior as before (seems to load the results but the Data Values page is empty).
Thanks,
Anne
1) Worked great.
2) Thanks for pointing me to the other tabs, which I never look at. I ended up writing a new Example to autopopulate all the tabs as necessary for 1gm. (And will soon do the same for 30 and 100 gms.) Now that I see how versatile the load Example is, I would suggest including some documentation to make it clear that the user can take advantage of this feature.
3) Still not working. A remote run with 30 gm failed with no record of why. Then a run with 11gm had the same behavior as before (seems to load the results but the Data Values page is empty).
Thanks,
Anne
9
Earthquake Engineering (EE-UQ) / Re: AutoSDA results for 10+ stories
« on: October 07, 2021, 08:19:07 PM »
Heads up - the new main_program.py was not included in the most recent EE-UQ release. I've replaced it again in my local copy but wanted to highlight this, in case it was unintentional.
10
Earthquake Engineering (EE-UQ) / Re: upload PEER download folder to EVT with scale factors
« on: October 06, 2021, 07:45:23 PM »
Perfect. Thanks!
11
Earthquake Engineering (EE-UQ) / Re: saving results from EE-UQ
« on: October 06, 2021, 07:19:40 PM »
Excellent. Thank you!
12
Earthquake Engineering (EE-UQ) / Re: number of records for AutoSDA
« on: October 06, 2021, 05:18:35 PM »
Update: I tested the default AutoSDA example on DesignSafe, using 11gms and H1. It also produced a blank page in the Data Values tab.
13
Earthquake Engineering (EE-UQ) / upload PEER download folder to EVT with scale factors
« on: October 06, 2021, 05:06:40 PM »
Hello,
I would like to be able to upload a downloaded PEER gm folder to EE-UQ without having to manually enter the scale factors. There is currently an option to include a .txt file (https://nheri-simcenter.github.io/EE-UQ-Documentation/common/user_manual/usage/desktop/earthquake/multiplePEER.html) but this would need me to run a script to create the file, every time I download the folder.
Could you make the upload search for a _SearchResults.csv file and include the scale factors automatically? I think this is better than automatically including the .txt file when downloading via EE-UQ, since that would mean that only folders downloaded via EE-UQ could be uploaded in this way.
I would like to be able to upload a downloaded PEER gm folder to EE-UQ without having to manually enter the scale factors. There is currently an option to include a .txt file (https://nheri-simcenter.github.io/EE-UQ-Documentation/common/user_manual/usage/desktop/earthquake/multiplePEER.html) but this would need me to run a script to create the file, every time I download the folder.
Could you make the upload search for a _SearchResults.csv file and include the scale factors automatically? I think this is better than automatically including the .txt file when downloading via EE-UQ, since that would mean that only folders downloaded via EE-UQ could be uploaded in this way.
14
Earthquake Engineering (EE-UQ) / number of records for AutoSDA
« on: October 06, 2021, 04:39:16 PM »
Hello,
I've gotten some surprising results when changing the number of records for the AutoSDA analysis.
1) I tried to run 1 gm so that I could get the design/model files stored locally before running more gms on DesignSafe. This caused an error.
2) 2 gms ran locally but sampled from the same two records to populate 11 rows in the results.
3) I tried to run 16 gms on DesignSafe to see if it only sampled 11 of them. The job says it finished but when I retrieve the results I get a blank table in the Data Values tab. This might be because I accidentally selected SRSS instead of H1 but I'm having a hard time testing it because my jobs are getting stuck in a queue. I'm attaching the log file. The zipped tmp folder is too big and looks like it's just input files anyway.
I've gotten some surprising results when changing the number of records for the AutoSDA analysis.
1) I tried to run 1 gm so that I could get the design/model files stored locally before running more gms on DesignSafe. This caused an error.
2) 2 gms ran locally but sampled from the same two records to populate 11 rows in the results.
3) I tried to run 16 gms on DesignSafe to see if it only sampled 11 of them. The job says it finished but when I retrieve the results I get a blank table in the Data Values tab. This might be because I accidentally selected SRSS instead of H1 but I'm having a hard time testing it because my jobs are getting stuck in a queue. I'm attaching the log file. The zipped tmp folder is too big and looks like it's just input files anyway.
15
Earthquake Engineering (EE-UQ) / Re: saving results from EE-UQ
« on: October 06, 2021, 04:13:55 PM »
Thanks for the new release! I'm getting the record identifiers, which is great.
Could you set up the default .csv extension as well? Actually, if the default could be a full name (e.g. response.csv) that would be even more convenient.
Could you set up the default .csv extension as well? Actually, if the default could be a full name (e.g. response.csv) that would be even more convenient.