Evaluation of scalar structure-specific ground motion intensity measures for seismic response prediction of earthquake resistant 3D buildings

  • Kostinakis, Konstantinos G. (Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Aristotle University Campus) ;
  • Athanatopoulou, Asimina M. (Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Aristotle University Campus)
  • Received : 2015.02.02
  • Accepted : 2015.06.15
  • Published : 2015.11.25


The adequacy of a number of advanced earthquake Intensity Measures (IMs) to predict the structural damage of earthquake resistant 3D R/C buildings is investigated in the present paper. To achieve this purpose three symmetric in plan and three asymmetric 5-storey R/C buildings are analyzed by nonlinear time history analysis using 74 bidirectional earthquake records. The two horizontal accelerograms of each ground motion are applied along the structural axes of the buildings and the structural damage is expressed in terms of the maximum and average interstorey drift as well as the overall structural damage index. For each individual pair of accelerograms the values of the aforementioned seismic damage measures are determined. Then, they are correlated with several strong motion scalar IMs that take into account both earthquake and structural characteristics. The research identified certain IMs which exhibit strong correlation with the seismic damage measures of the studied buildings. However, the degree of correlation between IMs and the seismic damage depends on the damage measure adopted. Furthermore, it is confirmed that the widely used spectral acceleration at the fundamental period of the structure is a relatively good IM for medium rise R/C buildings that possess small structural eccentricity.


  1. Park, Y.J., Ang, A.H.-S. and Wen, Y.K. (1987), "Damage-limiting aseismic design of buildings", Earthq. Spectra, 3(1), 1-26.
  2. Penzien, J. and Watabe, M. (1975), "Characteristics of 3-D earthquake ground motions", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 3(4), 365-373.
  3. RA.F. (2012), Structural Analysis and Design Software v.3.3.2, Program ManualTOL, Engineering Software House, Iraklion, Crete, Greece.
  4. Riddell, R. (2007), "On ground motion intensity indices", Earthq. Spectra, 23(1), 147-173.
  5. Tothong, P. and Luco, N. (2007), "Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 36(13), 1837-1860.
  6. Tothong, P. and Cornell, C.A. (2008), "Structural performance assessment under near-source pulse-like ground motions using advanced ground motion intensity measures", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 37(7), 1013-1037.
  7. UBC Vol. 2 (1997), Structural Engineering Design Provisions, International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), Whittier, CA.
  8. Yahyaabadi, A. and Tehranizadeh, M. (2011), "New scalar intensity measure for near-fault ground motions based on the optimal combination of spectral response", Scientia Iranica, 18(6), 1149-1158.
  9. Yakut, A. and Yilmaz, H. (2008), "Correlation of deformation demands with ground motion intensity", J. Struct. Eng., 134(12), 1818-1828.
  10. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre (PEER) (2003), Strong Motion Database.
  11. Park, Y.J. and Ang, A.H.-S. (1985), "Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced-concrete", J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 111(4), 722-739.
  12. Kappos, A.J. (1990), "Sensitivity of calculated inelastic seismic response to input motion characteristics", Proceedings of 4th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Palm Springs, California, USA.
  13. Kostinakis, K., Papadopoulos, M. and Athanatopoulou, A. (2014), "Adequacy of advanced earthquake intensity measures for estimation of damage under seismic excitation with arbitrary orientation", Proceedings of International Conference on Civil, Structural and Earthquake Engineering, Paris, France.
  14. Kostinakis, K., Athanatopoulou, A. and Morfidis, K. (2015), "Correlation between ground motion intensity measures and seismic damage of 3D R/C buildings", Eng. Struct., 82, 151-167.
  15. Kunnath, S.K., Reinhorn, A.M. and Lobo, R.F. (1992), IDARC Version 3: A Program for the Inelastic Damage Analysis of R/C Structures, Technical Report NCEER-92-0022, National Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.
  16. Lin, L. (2008), "Development of improved intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand analysis" Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont., Canada.
  17. Lin, L., Naumoski, N., Saatcioglu, M. and Foo, S. (2011), "Improved intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand analysis, Part 1: development of improved intensity measures", Can. J. Civ. Eng., 38(1), 79-88.
  18. Luco, N. (2002), "Probabilistic seismic demand analysis, SMRF connection fractures, and near-source effects", Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, CA.
  19. Luco, N. and Cornell, C.A. (2007), "Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake motions", Earthq. Spectra, 23(2), 357-392.
  20. Masi, A., Vona, M. and Mucciarelli, M. (2011), "Selection of natural and synthetic accelerograms for seismic vulnerability studies on reinforced concrete frames", J. Struct. Eng., 137(3), 367-378.
  21. Matsumura, K. (1992), "On the intensity measure of strong motion related to structural failures", Proceedings. of 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
  22. Mehanny, S.S.F. (2009), "A broad-range power-law form scalar-based seismic intensity measure", Eng. Struct., 31(7), 1354-1368.
  23. Mori, Y., Yamanaka, T., Luco, N., Nakashima, M. and Cornell, C.A. (2004), "Predictors of seismic demand of SMRF buildings considering post-elastic mode shape", Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada.
  24. Naeim, F. (2001), The Seismic Design Handbook, Kluwer Academic, Boston.
  25. NEHRP (2003), Recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other Structures, FEMA450, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC.
  26. Otani, A. (1974), "Inelastic analysis of RC frame structures", J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 100(7), 1433-1449.
  27. ASCE/SEI 41-06 (2008), Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers. Reston, VA.
  28. Benjamin, J.R. and Cornell, C.A. (1970), Probability, Statistics and Decision for Civil Engineers, McGraw Hill, Inc., New York.
  29. Beyer, K. and Bommer, J. (2006), "Relationships between median values and between aleatory variabilities for different definitions of the horizontal component of motion", Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 96(4A), 1512-1522.
  30. Bojorquez, E. and Iervolino, I. (2011), "Spectral shape proxies and nonlinear structural response", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 31(7), 996-1008.
  31. Cantagallo, C., Camata, G., Spacone, E. and Corotis, R. (2012), "The variability of deformation demand with ground motion intensity", Prob. Eng. Mech., 28, 59-65.
  32. Carr, A. (2004), Ruaumoko - a Program for Inelastic Time-History Analysis, Program Manual, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
  33. Chopra, A.K. (2001), Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering (2nd edn), Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
  34. Cordova, P.P., Deierlein, G.G., Mehanny, SSF. and Cornell, C.A. (2000), "Development of a two-parameter seismic intensity measure and probabilistic assessment procedure", Proceedings of the 2nd US-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for RC Building Structures, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan.
  35. Cornell, C.A. and Krawinkler, H. (2000), Progress and Challenges in Seismic Performance Assessment, PEER Center News.
  36. Dimova, A.L. and Negro, P. (2005), "Seismic assessment of an industrial frame structure designed according to Eurocodes. Part 2: Capacity and vulnerability", Eng. Struct., 27(5), 724-735.
  37. Elenas, A. and Meskouris, K. (2001), "Correlation study between seismic acceleration parameters and damage indices of structure", Eng. Struct., 23(6), 698-704.
  38. EC2 (2004), Design of concrete structures, Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
  39. EC8 (2003), Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
  40. European Strong-Motion Database (2003),
  41. FEMA 356 (2000), Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
  42. Fontara, I.-K.M., Athanatopoulou, A.M. and Avramidis, I.E. (2012), "Correlation between advanced, structure-specific ground motion intensity measures and damage indices", Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
  43. Giovenale, P, Cornell, C.A. and Esteva, L. (2004), "Comparing the adequacy of alternative ground motion intensity measures for the estimation of structural responses", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 33(8), 951-979.
  44. Gunturi, S.K.V. and Shah, H.C. (1992), "Building specific damage estimation", Proceedings of 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain. Balkema, Rotterdam.
  45. Imbsen Software Systems (2006), XTRACT: Version 3.0.5. Cross-Sectional Structural Analysis of Component, Program Manual, Sacramento, CA.
  46. Kadas, K., Yakut, A. and Kazaz, I. (2011), "Spectral ground motion intensity based on capacity and period elongation", J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 137(3), 401-409.

Cited by

  1. Scalar Structure-Specific Ground Motion Intensity Measures for Assessing the Seismic Performance of Structures: A Review 2016,
  2. Investigation of earthquake angle effect on the seismic performance of steel bridges vol.22, pp.4, 2016,
  3. Ground-Motion Prediction Equations based on refined data for dynamic time-history analysis vol.11, pp.5, 2016,
  4. A dominant vibration mode-based scalar ground motion intensity measure for single-layer reticulated domes vol.11, pp.2, 2016,