On Ground Motion Intensity Indices

The characterization of strength of earthquake demands for seismic analysis or design requires the specification of a level of intensity. Numerous ground motion intensity indices that have been proposed over the years are being used for normalizing or scaling earthquake records regardless of their efficiency. An essential point of this study is that a ground motion index is appropriate, or efficient, as long as it can predict the level of structural response. This study presents correlations between 23 ground motion intensity indices and four response variables: elastic and inelastic deformation demands, and input energy and hysteretic energy; nonlinear responses are computed using elastoplastic, bilinear, and bilinear with stiffness degradation models. As expected, no index is found to be satisfactory over the entire frequency range. Indeed, indices related to ground acceleration rank better in the acceleration-sensitive region of the spectrum; indices based on ground velocity are better in the velocity-sensitive region and, correspondingly, generally occur in the displacement-controlled region. Despite frequent criticism, the peak ground motion parameters passed the test successfully. A ranking of indices is presented, thus providing a choice of the most appropriate one for a particular application in the frequency range of interest.

[1]  Kenneth T. Farrow,et al.  Ground motion scaling methods for different site conditions and structure characteristics , 2003 .

[2]  Thomas H. Heaton,et al.  Relationships between Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Modified Mercalli Intensity in California , 1999 .

[3]  Mihailo D. Trifunac,et al.  On the correlation of seismic intensity scales with the peaks of recorded strong ground motion , 1975 .

[4]  Charles F. Richter,et al.  Earthquake magnitude, intensity, energy, and acceleration , 1942 .

[5]  Mario Ordaz,et al.  Exact computation of input‐energy spectra from Fourier amplitude spectra , 2003 .

[6]  秋山 宏,et al.  Earthquake-resistant limit-state design for buildings , 1985 .

[7]  Hiroshi Akiyama,et al.  ENERGY INPUT AND DAMAGES IN STRUCTURES SUBJECTED TO SEVERE EARTHQUAKES , 1975 .

[8]  A. Ang,et al.  Mechanistic Seismic Damage Model for Reinforced Concrete , 1985 .

[9]  Nathan M. Newmark,et al.  Force-Deformation Models for Nonlinear Analyses , 1979 .

[10]  P. C. Jennings,et al.  Earthquake Design Criteria , 1982 .

[11]  Jaime E. Garcia,et al.  Hysteretic energy spectrum and damage control , 2001 .

[12]  A. Arias A measure of earthquake intensity , 1970 .

[13]  W. J. Hall,et al.  An Evaluation of Scaling Methods for Earthquake Response Spectra , 1982 .

[14]  A. Ang,et al.  Seismic Damage Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Buildings , 1985 .

[15]  George W. Housner,et al.  Generation of Artificial Earthquakes , 1964 .

[16]  George W. Housner,et al.  Spectrum Intensities of Strong-Motion Earthquakes , 1952 .

[17]  Peter Fajfar,et al.  A measure of earthquake motion capacity to damage medium-period structures , 1990 .

[18]  S. Akkar,et al.  Effect of peak ground velocity on deformation demands for SDOF systems , 2005 .

[19]  W. J. Hall,et al.  Seismic energy absorption in simple structures , 1982 .

[20]  A. G. Brady,et al.  A STUDY ON THE DURATION OF STRONG EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTION , 1975 .

[21]  L. G. Jaeger,et al.  Dynamics of structures , 1990 .

[22]  R. Sharpe Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings , 1994 .

[23]  R. Clough,et al.  Dynamics Of Structures , 1975 .