Cumulative absolute velocity (CAV), defined as the integral of the absolute
acceleration time series, has been used as an index to indicate the possible
onset of structural damage to nuclear power plant facilities and liquefaction of
saturated soils. However, there are very few available ground motion prediction
equations for this intensity measure. In this study, we developed a new
empirical prediction equation for the horizontal component of CAV using the
strong motion database and functional forms that were used to develop similar
prediction equations for peak response parameters as part of the PEER Next
Generation Attenuation (NGA) Project. We consider this relationship to be valid
for magnitudes ranging from 5.0 up to 7.5–8.5 (depending on fault mechanism) and
distances ranging from 0–200 km. We found the interevent, intra-event, and
intracomponent standard deviations from this relationship to be smaller than any
intensity measure we have investigated thus far.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamsonN. A., and YoungsR. R., 1992. A stable algorithm for regression
analyses using the random effects model, Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am.82, 505–510.
2.
AriasA., 1970. A measure of earthquake
intensity, in Seismic Design for Nuclear Power
Plants, HansenR. J. (ed.), The MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA,
438–483.
3.
BakerJ. W., and CornellC. A., 2006. Which spectral acceleration are you
using?, Earthquake Spectra22, 293–312.
4.
BazzarroP., and CornellC. A., 2004. Nonlinear soil-site effects in
probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis, Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am.94, 2110–2123.
5.
BooreD. M., 2005. Erratum: equations for estimating
horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western North
American earthquakes: a summary of recent work,
Seismol. Res. Lett.76, 368–369.
6.
BooreD. M., Watson-LampreyJ., and AbrahamsonN., 2006. Orientation-independent measures of
ground motion, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.96, 1502–1511.
7.
BozorgniaY., HachemM. M., and CampbellK. W., 2010. Ground motion prediction equation
(“attenuation relationship”) for inelastic response spectra,
Earthquake Spectra, 26,
1–23.
8.
Building Seismic Safety Council
(BSSC), 2004. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA
450), 2003 edition, National
Institute of Building Sciences, Washington,
D. C.
9.
CabañasL., BenitoB., and HerráizM., 1997. An approach to the measurement of the
potential structural damage of earthquake ground motions,
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.26, 79–92.
10.
CampbellK. W., and BozorgniaY., 2006. Next generation attenuation (NGA)
empirical ground motion models: can they be used in Europe?,
in Proc., First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and
Seismology, Paper No. 458, Geneva, Switzerland, 10
pp.
11.
CampbellK. W., and BozorgniaY., 2007. Campbell-Bozorgnia NGA Ground Motion
Relations for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of Peak and Spectral
Ground Motion Parameters, PEER Report No. 2007/02,
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
of California, Berkeley,
238 pp.
12.
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.
13.
CampbellK. W., and BozorgniaY., 2010. Analysis of Cumulative Absolute Velocity
(CAV) and JMA Instrumental Seismic Intensity (IJMA) Using the
PEER-NGA Strong Motion Database, PEER Report No. 2010/01,
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
of California, Berkeley,
83 pp.
14.
ChiouB., DarraghR., GregorN., and SilvaW., 2008. NGA project strong-motion
database, Earthquake Spectra24, 23–44.
15.
DanciuL., and TselentisG., 2007. Engineering ground-motion parameters
attenuation relationships for Greece, Bull. Seismol.
Soc. Am.97, 162–183.
16.
Electrical Power Research
Institute (EPRI), 1988. A Criterion for
Determining Exceedance of the Operating Basis Earthquake, Report No. EPRI
NP-5930, Palo Alto,
California.
17.
Electrical Power Research
Institute, (EPRI), 1991. Standardization of
the Cumulative Absolute Velocity, Report No. EPRI
TR-100082-T2, Palo Alto,
California.
18.
Electrical Power Research
Institute, (EPRI), 2006. Program on Technology
Innovation: Use of Cumulative Absolute Velocity (CAV) in Determining Effects
of Small Magnitude Earthquakes on Seismic Hazard Analyses, Report
No. 1014099, Palo Alto,
California.
19.
HousnerG. W., 1959. Behavior of structures during
earthquakes, J. Eng. Mech. Div. ASCE85, 104–129.
20.
KlügelJ. U., MualchinL., and PanzaG. G., 2006. A scenario-based procedure for
seismic risk analysis, Eng. Geol.88, 1–22.
21.
KoliopoulosP. K., MargarisB. N., and KlimisN. S., 1998. Duration and energy characteristics
of Greek strong motion records, J. Earthquake
Eng.2, 390–417.
22.
KostovM., 2005. Site specific estimation of
Cumulative Absolute Velocity, in Proc., 18th
International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology
(SMiRT 18), Beijing, China,
3041–3050.
23.
KramerS. L., and MitchellR. A., 2006. Ground motion intensity measures for
liquefaction hazard evaluation, Earthquake
Spectra22, 413–438.
24.
LinP. S., 2007. A Comparison Study of Earthquake
Strong-Ground Motions in California and in Taiwan, PEER Report No.
2006/12, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley.
25.
Martinez-RuedaJ. E., MoutsokapasG., and TsantaliE., 2008. Predictive equations to estimate
Arias Intensity and Cumulative Absolute Velocity as a function of Housner
Intensity, in Proc., Seismic Engineering Conference
Commemorating the 1908 Messina and Reggio Calabria Earthquake,
Messina, Italy, 309–306.
26.
PerušI., and FajfarP., 2010. Ground-motion prediction by a
non-parametric approach, Earthquake Eng. Struct.
Dyn., in press.
27.
PetersenM., FrankelA., HarmsenS., MuellerC., HallerK., WheelerR., WessonR., ZengY., BoydO., PerkinsD., LucoN., FieldE., WillsC., and RukstalesK., 2008. Documentation for the 2008 Update of the
United States National Seismic Hazard Maps, U. S. Geol. Survey
Open-File Report 2008-1128.
28.
PowerM., ChiouB., AbrahamsonN., BozorgniaY., ShantzT., and RobleeC., 2008. An overview of the NGA
project, Earthquake Spectra24, 3–21.
29.
ScasserraG., StewartJ. P., BazzurroP., LanzoG., and MollaioliF., 2009. Comparison of NGA ground motion
prediction equations to Italian data, Bull. Seismol.
Soc. Am.99, 2961–2978.
30.
Shoja-TaheriJ., NaseriehS., and GhofraniH., 2010. A test of the applicability of NGA
models to the strong ground motion data in the Iranian
Plateau, J. Earthquake Eng.14, 278–292.
31.
ShomeN., and CornellC. A.1999, Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis of Nonlinear
Structures, Report No. RMS-35, Reliability
of Marine Structures Program, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University,
Stanford, California.
StaffordP. J., StrasserF. O., and BommerJ. J., 2008. An evaluation of the applicability of
the NGA models to ground-motion prediction in the Euro-Mediterranean
region, Bulletin Earthquake Engineering6, 149–177.
34.
TselentisG., and DanciuL., 2008. Empirical relationships between
Modified Mercalli Intensity and engineering ground motion parameters in
Greece, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.98, 1863–1875.
35.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (USNRC), 1997. Pre-Earthquake
Planning and Immediate Nuclear Power Plant Operator Postearthquake
Actions, Regulatory Guide 1.166, Washington, D.
C., 8 pp.
36.
Watson-LampreyJ. A., and AbrahamsonN. A., 2007. Use of minimum CAV in seismic hazard
analyses, in Proc., 9th Canadian Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Ottawa,
352–358.
