We updated our Next Generation Attenuation (NGA)-West1 ground motion models (GMMs) for the horizontal components of Arias intensity (AI) and cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) using the functional form and NGA-West2 database we used to develop GMMs for peak-amplitude and peak-spectral ground motion intensity measures (GMIMs). Our results show that CAV has the best goodness-of-fit statistics of all the GMIMs we have evaluated up to this time. Its relatively small between- and within-event standard deviations confirm its superior predictability. On the other hand, AI has the highest standard deviation of any GMIM we have studied thus far, which is approximately double that of CAV. Although either CAV or AI or a combination of both have been shown to meet various performance metrics proposed in the context of performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE), CAV's high level of predictability makes it superior to AI for use in engineering applications, such as PBEE, that involve probabilistic inference.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamsonC., ShiH. -J. M., and YangB., 2016. Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for Arias Intensity Consistent with the NGA-West2 Ground-Motion Models, PEER Report 2016/05, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
2.
AbrahamsonN. A., and YoungsR. R., 1992. A stable algorithm for regression analyses using the random effects model, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America82, 505–510.
3.
AkkarS., SandıkkayaM. A., and BommerJ. J., 2014a. Empirical ground-motion models for point- and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering12, 359–387.
4.
AkkarS., SandıkkayaM. A., and BommerJ. J., 2014b. Erratum to: Empirical ground-motion models for point- and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering12, 389–390.
5.
AllmondJ., KutterB. L., BrayJ., and HaydenC., 2015. New database for foundation and ground performance in liquefaction experiments, Earthquake Spectra31, 2485–2509.
6.
AnchetaT. D., DarraghR. B., StewartJ. P., SeyhanE., SilvaW. J., ChiouB. S. -J., WooddellK. E., GravesR. W., KottkeA. R., BooreD. M., KishidaT., and DonahueJ. L., 2014. NGA-West2 database, Earthquake Spectra30, 989–1005.
7.
AriasA., 1970. A measure of earthquake intensity, in Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants (HansenR. J., ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 438–483.
8.
ArmstrongR. J., 2016. Procedure for selecting and modifying earthquake motions to multiple intensity measures, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering89, 91–99.
9.
AwasthiA. K., and ChaudharyS., 2009. Correlation, in Engineering Mathematics, Chapter 8, Darbose Prentice-Hall, India, 119–142.
10.
BánZ., KatonaT. J., and MahlerA., 2016. Comparison of empirical liquefaction potential evaluation methods, Pollack Periodica11, 55–66.
11.
BaraniS., BazzurroP., and PelliF., 2010. A probabilistic method for the prediction of earthquake-induced slope displacements, Paper No. 4.31b, in Proceedings, 5th International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics and Symposium in Honor of Professor I. M. Idriss, 24–29 May, 2010, San Diego, CA.
BatesD., MächlerM., BolkerB., and WalkerS., 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4, Journal of Statistical Software67, 1–48.
14.
BeatyM. H., and PerleaV. G., 2012. Effect of ground motion characteristics on liquefaction modeling of dams, in GeoCongress 2012, 25–29 March, 2012, Oakland, CA.
15.
BooreD. M., 2010. Orientation-independent, nongeometric-mean measures of seismic intensity from two horizontal components of motion, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America100, 1830–1835.
16.
BozorgniaY., AbrahamsonN. A., Al AtikL., AnchetaT. D., AtkinsonG. M., BakerJ. W., BaltayA., BooreD. M., CampbellK. W., ChiouB. S. -J., DarraghR., DayS., DonahueJ., GravesR. W., GregorN., HanksT., IdrissI. M., KamaiR., KishidaT., KottkeA., MahinS. A., RezaeianS., RowshandelB., SeyhanE., ShahiS., ShantzT., SilvaW., SpudichP., StewartJ. P., Watson-LampreyJ., WooddellK., and YoungsR., 2014. NGA-West2 research project, Earthquake Spectra30, 973–987.
17.
BozorgniaY., and CampbellK. W., 2016a. Ground motion model for the vertical-to-horizontal (V/H) ratios of PGA, PGV, and response spectra, Earthquake Spectra32, 951–978.
18.
BozorgniaY., and CampbellK. W., 2016b. Vertical ground motion model for PGA, PGV, and linear response spectra using the NGA-West2 database, Earthquake Spectra32, 979–1004.
19.
BozorgniaY., HachemM. M., and CampbellK. W., 2010. Ground motion prediction equation (“attenuation relationship”) for inelastic response spectra, Earthquake Spectra26, 1–23.
20.
BradleyB. A., 2011. Correlation of significant duration with amplitude and cumulative intensity measures and its use in ground motion selection, Journal of Earthquake Engineering15, 809–832.
21.
BradleyB. A., 2012. Empirical correlations between cumulative absolute velocity and amplitude-based ground motion intensity measures, Earthquake Spectra28, 37–54.
22.
BrayJ. D., and MacedoJ., 2017. 6th Ishihara lecture: Simplified procedure for estimating liquefaction-induced building settlement, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering102, 215–231.
23.
BullockZ., DashtiS., LielA., PorterK., KarimiZ., and BradleyB., 2017. Ground-motion prediction equations for Arias intensity, cumulative absolute velocity, and peak incremental ground velocity for rock sites in different tectonic environments, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107, 2293–2309.
24.
BustosG. A., and StaffordP. J., 2012. On the use of Arias Intensity as a lower bound in the hazard integration process of a PSHA, in Proceedings, 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 24–28 September, 2012, Lisbon, Portugal.
25.
CampbellK. W., 2018. Engineering models of strong ground motion, in Earthquake Engineering Handbook, 2nd edition (ChenW. F. and ScawthornC., eds.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, Chapter 5, in press.
26.
CampbellK. W., and BozorgniaY., 2008. NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s, Earthquake Spectra24, 139–171.
27.
CampbellK. W., and BozorgniaY., 2010. A ground motion prediction equation for the horizontal component of cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) using the PEER-NGA strong motion database, Earthquake Spectra26, 635–650.
28.
CampbellK. W., and BozorgniaY., 2011. A ground motion prediction equation for JMA instrumental seismic intensity for shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regimes, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics40, 413–427.
29.
CampbellK. W., and BozorgniaY., 2012. A comparison of ground motion prediction equations for Arias intensity and cumulative absolute velocity developed using a consistent database and functional form, Earthquake Spectra28, 931–941.
30.
CampbellK. W., and BozorgniaY., 2014. NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra, Earthquake Spectra30, 1087–1115.
31.
ChenZ. -X., ChengY., XiaoY., LuL., and YangY., 2015. Intensity measures for seismic liquefaction hazard evaluation of sloping site, Journal of Central South University22, 3999–4018.
32.
ChiouB., DarraghR., GregorN., and SilvaW., 2008. NGA project strong-motion database, Earthquake Spectra24, 23–44.
33.
ChousianitisK., Del GaudioV., KalogerasI., and GanasA., 2014. Predictive model of Arias intensity and Newmark displacement for regional scale evaluation of earthquake-induced landslide hazard in Greece, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering65, 11–29.
34.
ChousianitisK., Del GaudioV., PierriP., and TselentisG. -A., 2018. Regional ground-motion prediction equations for amplitude-, frequency response-, and duration-based parameters for Greece, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics47, 2252–2274.
35.
ChousianitisK., Del GaudioV., SabatakakisN., KavouraK., DrakatosG., BathrellosG. D., and SkilodimouH. D., 2016. Assessment of earthquake-induced landslide hazard in Greece: From Arias intensity to spatial distribution of slope resistance demand, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America106, 174–188.
36.
CornellC. A., and LucoN., 2001. Ground motion intensity measures for structural performance assessment at near-fault sites, in Proceedings, U.S.–Japan Joint Workshop and Third Grantees Meeting, U.S.–Japan Cooperative Research on Urban Earthquake Disaster Mitigation, 15–16 August, 2001, Seattle, WA, 30–38.
37.
CosenzaE., and ManfrediG., 2000. Damage indices and damage measures, Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials2, 50–59.
38.
DanciuL., and TselentisG. -A., 2007. Engineering ground-motion parameters attenuation relationships for Greece, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America97, 162–183.
39.
DashtiS., BrayJ. D., PestanaJ. M., RiemerM., and WilsonD., 2010. Centrifuge testing to evaluate and mitigate liquefaction-induced building settlement mechanisms, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering136, 918–929.
40.
DashtiS., and KarimiZ., 2017. Ground motion intensity measures to evaluate I: The liquefaction hazard in the vicinity of shallow-founded structures, Earthquake Spectra33, 241–276.
41.
DazianoM. A., and PérezG. A., 2017. Intensity measure selection for dynamic analysis of earth dams, Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering22, 3751–3771.
42.
DuW., and WangG., 2013a. Intra-event spatial correlations for cumulative absolute velocity, Arias intensity, and spectral accelerations based on regional site conditions, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103, 1117–1129.
43.
DuW., and WangG., 2013b. A simple ground-motion prediction model for cumulative absolute velocity and model validation, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics42, 1189–1202.
44.
DuW., and WangG., 2014. Fully probabilistic seismic displacement analysis of spatially distributed slopes using spatially correlated vector intensity measures, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics43, 661–679.
45.
DuW., and WangG., 2018. Ground motion selection for seismic slope displacement analysis using a generalized intensity measure distribution method, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics47, 1352–1359.
46.
DuW., WangG., and HuangD., 2018. Evaluation of seismic slope displacements based on fully coupled sliding mass analysis and NGA-West2 database, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering144, 06018006-1–06018006-7.
47.
EbrahimianH., JalayerF., LucchiniA., MollaioliF., and ManfrediG., 2015. Preliminary ranking of alternative scalar and vector intensity measures of ground shaking, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering13, 2805–2840.
48.
ElenasA., 2013. Intensity parameters as damage potential descriptors of earthquakes, in Computational Methods in Stochastic Dynamics (PapadrakakisM., StefanouG., and PapadopoulosV., eds.), Vol. 2, Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 327–334.
49.
FahjanY. M., AlcikH., and SariA., 2011. Applications of cumulative absolute velocity to urban earthquake early warning systems, Journal of Seismology15, 355–373.
50.
FioreA., MollaioliF., QuarantaG., and MaranoG. C., 2018. Seismic response prediction of reinforced concrete buildings through nonlinear combinations of intensity measures, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering16, 6047–6076.
51.
FontaraI. -K., AthanatopoulouA. M., and AvramidisI., 2011. Correlation between ground motion intensity measures and damage indices in case of an asymmetric 3D R/C building, in 7th GRACM International Congress on Computational Mechanics, 30 June–2 July, 2011, Athens, Greece.
52.
FotopoulouS., and PitilakisK., 2015. Predictive relationships for seismically induced slope displacements using numerical analysis results, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering13, 3207–3238.
53.
Foulser-PiggottR., and GodaK., 2015. Ground-motion prediction models for Arias intensity and cumulative absolute velocity for Japanese earthquakes considering single-station sigma and within-event spatial correlation, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America105, 1903–1918.
54.
Foulser-PiggottR., and StaffordP. J., 2012. A predictive model for Arias intensity at multiple sites and consideration of spatial correlations, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics41, 431–451.
55.
GariniE., and GazetasG., 2013. Damage potential of near-fault records: Sliding displacement against conventional “Intensity Measures,”Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering11, 455–480.
56.
GülerceZ., and BalalO., 2017. Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for sliding displacement of slopes: An application in Turkey, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering15, 2737–2760.
57.
HadianiN., DavoodiM., and JafariM. K., 2013. Correlation between settlement of embankment dams and ground motion intensity indices of pulse-like records, Iranian Journal of Science and Technology – Transactions of Civil Engineering37, 111–126.
58.
HancilarU., and ÇaktiE., 2015. Fragility functions for code complying RC frames via best correlated IM-EDP pairs, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering13, 3381–3400.
59.
HsiehS. -Y., and LeeC. -T., 2011. Empirical estimation of the Newmark displacement from the Arias intensity and critical acceleration, Engineering Geology122, 34–42.
60.
JahangiriV., YazdaniM., and MarefatM. S., 2018. Intensity measures for the seismic response assessment of plain concrete arch bridges, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering16, 4225–4248.
61.
JalayerF., BeckJ. L., and ZareianF., 2012. Analyzing the sufficiency of alternative scalar and vector intensity measures of ground shaking based on information theory, Journal of Engineering Mechanics138, 307–316.
62.
JibsonR. W., 2011. Methods for assessing the stability of slopes during earthquakes—a retrospective, Engineering Geology122, 43–50.
63.
KadaşK., and YakutA., 2013. Utilization of alternative intensity measures in the formation of ground motion record sets for seismic demand analyses, in Proceedings, 2nd Turkish Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, 25–27 September, 2013, Antakya, Turkey, 8 pp.
64.
KarimiZ., and DashtiS., 2017. Ground motion intensity measures to evaluate II: The performance of shallow-founded structures on liquefiable ground, Earthquake Spectra33, 277–298.
65.
KatonaT. J., 2012. Modelling of fatigue-type seismic damage for nuclear power plants, Open Journal of Safety Science and Technology2, 41–46.
66.
KatonaT. J., and TóthL., 2013a. Damages indicators for post-earthquake condition assessment, Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica48, 333–345.
67.
KatonaT. J., and TóthL., 2013b. Earthquake damage indicators for nuclear power plants, Paper No. 0123456789, in Proceedings, 14th International Conference on Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, 3–6 September 2013, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy (ToppingB. H. V. and IványiP., eds.), Civil-Comp Press, Stirlingshire, Scotland.
68.
KayenR. E., and MitchellJ. K., 1997. Assessment of liquefaction potential during earthquakes by Arias intensity, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering123, 1162–1174.
69.
KhosravifarA., BoulangerR. W., and KunnathS. K., 2014. Effects of liquefaction on inelastic demands on extended pile shafts, Earthquake Spectra30, 1749–1773.
70.
KhoudiI., LaouamiN., and BaharR., 2015. Correlation between soil damage indicators and strong ground motion parameters, Paper No. 140, in Proceedings, International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, 12–16 May, 2015, Baltic Sea.
71.
KianiJ., CampC., and PezeshkS., 2018. Role of conditioning intensity measure in the influence of ground motion duration on the structural response, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering104, 408–417.
72.
KianiJ., and PezeshkS., 2017. Sensitivity analysis of the seismic demands of RC moment resisting frames to different aspects of ground motions, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics46, 2739–2755.
73.
KostinakisK., FontaraI. -K., and AthanatopoulouA. M., 2017. Scalar structure-specific ground motion intensity measures for assessing the seismic performance of structures: A review, Journal of Earthquake Engineering22, 630–665.
74.
KramerS. L., 2008. Performance-based earthquake engineering: Opportunities and implications for geotechnical engineering practice, in Proceedings, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV (ZengD., ManzariM. T., and HiltunenD. R., eds.), Geotechnical Special Publication GSP 181, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
75.
KramerS. L., and MitchellR. A., 2006. Ground motion intensity measures for liquefaction hazard evaluation, Earthquake Spectra22, 413–438.
76.
KwanW. S., 2015. Laboratory Investigation into Evaluation of Sand Liquefaction under Transient Loadings, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, TX, 479 pp.
77.
KrawinklerH., and MirandaE., 2004. Performance-based earthquake engineering, in Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering (BozorgniaY. and BerteroV. V., eds.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 9-1–9-59.
78.
LeeC. -T., HsiehB. -S., SungC. -H., and LinP. -S., 2012. Regional Arias intensity attenuation relationship for Taiwan considering VS30, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America102, 129–142.
79.
LiangX., MosalamK., and MuinS., 2018. Simulation-based data-driven damage detection for highway bridge systems, in Proceedings, 11th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 1258, 25–29 June, 2018, Los Angeles, CA, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 11 pp.
80.
LiuJ. M., WangT., WuS. R., and GaoM. T., 2016. New empirical relationships between Arias intensity and peak ground acceleration, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America106, 2168–2176.
81.
LucoN., and CornellC. A., 2007. Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions, Earthquake Spectra23, 357–392.
82.
MashayekhiM., EstekanchiH. E., VafaiA., and MirfarhadiS. A., 2018. Simulation of cumulative absolute velocity consistent endurance time excitations, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, in press.
83.
MassumiA., and GholamiF., 2016. The influence of seismic intensity parameters on structural damage of RC buildings using principal components analysis, Applied Mathematical Modelling40, 2161–2176.
84.
MollaioliF., LucchiniA., ChengY., and MontiG., 2013. Intensity measures for the seismic response prediction of base-isolated buildings, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering11, 1841–1866.
85.
MuinS., and MosalamK. M., 2017. Cumulative absolute velocity as a local damage indicator of instrumented structures, Earthquake Spectra33, 641–664.
86.
NakagawaS., and SchielzethH., 2013. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models, Methods in Ecology and Evolution4, 133–142.
87.
PadgettJ. E., NielsonB. G., and DesRochesR., 2008. Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics37, 711–725.
88.
PerraultM., and GuéguenP., 2015. Correlation between ground motion and building response using California earthquake records, Earthquake Spectra31, 2027–2046.
89.
PinheiroJ., BatesD., DebRoyS., SarkarD., and the R Core Team, 2019. nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models, R Package Version 3.1–140, software, available at https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme.
90.
PodiliB., and RaghukanthS. T. G., 2019. Ground motion parameters for the 2011 Great Japan Tohoku earthquake, Journal of Earthquake Engineering23, 688–723.
91.
ReedJ. W., AndersonN., ChokshiN. C., KennedyR. P., MeteviaW. J., OstromD. K., and StevensonJ. D., 1988. A Criterion for Determining Exceedance of the Operating Basis Earthquake, Tech. Report EPRI-NP–5930, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, CA.
92.
ReedJ. W., and KassawaraR. P., 1990. A criterion for determining exceedance of the operating basis earthquake, Nuclear Engineering and Design123, 387–396.
93.
RiddellR., 2007. On ground motion intensity indices, Earthquake Spectra23, 147–173.
94.
RoyR., ThakurP., and ChakrobortyS., 2014. Scaling of ground motions and its implications to plan-asymmetric structures, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering57, 46–67.
95.
SandıkkayaM. A., and AkkarS., 2017. Cumulative absolute velocity, Arias intensity and significant duration predictive models from a pan-European strong-motion dataset, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering15, 1881–1898.
96.
ShomeN., and CornellC. A., 1999. Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis of Nonlinear Structures, Report No. RMS-35, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
97.
SiderasS. S., and KramerS. L., 2012. Potential implications of long duration ground motions on the response of liquefiable soil deposits, in Proceedings, 9th International Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering and 4th Asia Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 6–8 March, 2012, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan.
98.
SpiessA. -N., and NeumeyerN., 2010. An evaluation of R2 as an inadequate measure for nonlinear models in pharmacological and biochemical research: A Monte Carlo approach, BMC Pharmacology10, 11 pp.
99.
TarbaliK., and BradleyB., 2015. Ground motion selection for scenario ruptures using the generalised conditional intensity measure (GCIM) method, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics44, 1601–1621.
100.
TothongP., and LucoN., 2007. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics36, 1837–1860.
101.
TravasarouT., and BrayJ. D., 2003. Optimal ground motion intensity measures for assessment of seismic slope displacements, Paper No. 093, in Proceedings, 2003 Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 13–15 February, 2003, Christchurch, New Zealand.
102.
TravasarouT., BrayJ. D., and AbrahamsonN. A., 2003. Empirical attenuation relationship for Arias intensity, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics32, 1133–1155.
103.
van der LindeA., 2005. DIC in variable selection, Statistica Neerlandica59, 45–56.
104.
WangG., and DuW., 2012. Empirical correlations between cumulative absolute velocity and spectral accelerations from NGA ground motion database, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering43, 229–236.
105.
WangX., ShafieezadehA., and YeA., 2018. Optimal intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand modeling of extended pile-shaft-supported bridges in liquefied and laterally spreading ground, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering16, 229–257.
106.
XuY, TangX. -S., WangJ. P., and Kuo-ChenH., 2016. Copula-based joint probability function for PGA and CAV: A case study from Taiwan, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics45, 2123–2136.
107.
YeL., MaQ., MiaoZ., GuanH., and ZhugeY., 2013. Numerical and comparative study of earthquake intensity indices in seismic analysis, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings22, 362–381.
108.
YeowT. Z., OrumiyeheiA., SullivanT. J., MacRaeG. A., CliftonG. C., and ElwoodK. J., 2018. Seismic performance of steel friction connections considering direct-repair costs, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering16, 5963–5993.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
