Using model error in response history analysis to evaluate component calibration methods

Summary This research is part of a larger effort to better understand and quantify the epistemic model uncertainty in dynamic response‐history simulations. This paper focuses on how calibration methods influence model uncertainty. Structural models in earthquake engineering are typically built up from independently calibrated component models. During component calibration, engineers often use experimental component response under quasi‐static loading to find parameters that minimize the error in structural response under dynamic loading. Since the calibration and the simulation environments are different, if a calibration method wants to provide optimal parameters for simulation, it has to focus on features of the component response that are important from the perspective of global structural behavior. Relevance describes how efficiently a calibration method can focus on such important features. A framework of virtual experiments and a methodology is proposed to evaluate the influence of calibration relevance on model error in simulations. The evaluation is demonstrated through a case study with buckling‐restrained braced frames (BRBF). Two calibration methods are compared in the case study. The first, highly relevant calibration method is based on stiffness and hardening characteristics of braces; the second, less relevant calibration method is based on the axial force response of braces. The highly relevant calibration method consistently identified the preferable parameter sets. In contrast, the less relevant calibration method showed poor to mediocre performance. The framework and methodology presented here are not limited to BRBF. They have the potential to facilitate and systematize the improvement of component‐model calibration methods for any structural system.