can't Define New Parameters / Development Issue

[ahmed_ma]

I am working to extend some feature on PBE, some functions should written in the backend packages,

the main logic requires defining new EDP

I added the defemination of this parameter in:
createEDP\standardEarthquakeEDP\StandardEarthquakeEDP.cpp
performUQ\dakota\preprocessJSON.py

Also, I added some codes on to reflect this new EDP on the the system:   
performSIMULATION\openSees\OpenSeesPostprocessor.cpp
performSIMULATION\openSees\OpenSeesPreprocessor.cpp,
createSAM\mdofBuildingModel\MDOF_BuildingModelToSAM.cpp

When I test each file individually, I got the expected result
however when I run the CMake to get new executable files
and run an entire example, this parameter isn't exist in the run Folder

So There are any other components in the workflow are overwriting that logic ?

[adamzs]

Hi Ahmed,

Thank you for reaching out to us.

Please tell me more about the extension you are working on.

I see that you have modified the response estimation parts of the workflow, but you will also need to edit pelicun (in the performDL folder) to make sure your new EDP is properly considered in the damage and loss assessment. Except if you are adding an EDP that is already handled by pelicun (you can see the list of EDPs pelicun currently supports here: https://nheri-simcenter.github.io/pelicun/common/user_manual/usage/pelicun/res_data.html).

Can you share more information on how you tested each modification you made individually; and what example you are trying to run when you assemble the entire workflow?

Thank you,
Adam

[ahmed_ma]

Thank you for your reply

Basically I am extending an option to define Base Isolator or Base Isolator + Dampers system
to implement all three cases in the attached figure

The new EDP is the forces absorbed throw the damper in the third option if a damper is used.

for testing in the BackEnd :
I made a remote solution for every module, test the source code with Static Files, then I pushed any changes
to the origin folder and execute the CMAKE to get updated executable files, then testing the workflow again form the GUI

I wish to join the office hours for more discussions.

[adamzs]

Thank you for the additional information.

As far as I see, you are interested in structural response estimation. The extensions you propose to the StandardEarthquakeEDP and MDOF tools are great and they would be appreciated by other members of the research community.

I have a few suggestions:

- As long as you focus on EDPs, it would probably be easier to use the EE-UQ tool instead of PBE. PBE adds an extra step to the workflow that you don't seem to use now. Once you have the extension with the new EDPs and base isolator added, you will be able to return to PBE and take advantage of those changes.

- Our office hours have been superseded by live expert tips that we hold every Friday. They include a presentation (the tips) and an open discussion around that topic afterward. Our next EE-UQ presentation is a few weeks out, so I suggest continuing the discussion here and perhaps setting up a Zoom call if needed.

First, I suggest you look at EE-UQ, try to run the workflow there, and let me know how that goes. If the individual modules work, EE-UQ should also run well.

Adam

[ahmed_ma]

thank you for your reply,

We decided to use PBE to investigate the effect of isolator on the overall
probability of collapse and also to UQ engine

the Backward compatibility and keeps old files works is also a priority.

Anyway, I figured out the solution of my question,
it was simply to set a bool variable out of (if --getRV) scope not inside in MDF_SAM script

after few weeks I will finish all required extensions,
Organizing a Zoom meet to hear a feedback could be great.

Thank you again,
Ahmed Maky