A Comparison of Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Arias Intensity and Cumulative Absolute Velocity Developed Using a Consistent Database and Functional Form
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online August, 2012
A Comparison of Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Arias Intensity and Cumulative Absolute Velocity Developed Using a Consistent Database and Functional Form
Arias intensity (AI) and cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) have been proposed as instrumental intensity measures that can incorporate the cumulative effects of ground motion duration and intensity on the response of structural and geotechnical systems. In this study, we have developed a ground motion prediction equation (GMPE) for the horizontal component of AI in order to compare its predictability to a similar GMPE for CAV. Both GMPEs were developed using the same strong motion database and functional form in order to eliminate any bias these factors might cause in the comparison. This comparison shows that AI exhibits significantly greater amplitude scaling and aleatory uncertainty than CAV. The smaller standard deviation and less sensitivity to amplitude suggests that CAV is more predictable than AI and should be considered as an alternative to AI in engineering and geotechnical applications where the latter intensity measure is traditionally used.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamsonN. A.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.2007. Correlation of ground motion intensity parameters used for predicting structural and geotechnical response, Proc. 10th International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, Tokyo, KandaJ.TakadaT.FurutaH. (eds.), Taylor & Francis, London, 7 pp.
BommerJ. J.AbrahamsonN. A.2006. Why do modern probabilistic seismic-hazard analyses often lead to increased hazard estimates?, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96, 1967–1977.
6.
BozorgniaY.CampbellK. W.2004. Engineering characterization of ground motion, in Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering, BozorgniaY.BerteroV. V. (eds.), CRC Press, Boca Rotan, FL, pp. 5-1–5-74.
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC),2009. NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA P-750), 2009 edition, National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C.
9.
CabañasL.BenitoB.HerráizM.1997. An approach to the measurement of the potential structural damage of earthquake ground motions, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 26, 79–92.
10.
CampbellK. W.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.
11.
CampbellK. W.BozorgniaY.2010. A ground motion prediction equation for the horizontal component of cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) using the PEER-NGA database, Earthq. Spectra26, 635–650.
12.
CampbellK. W.BozorgniaY.2011a. A ground motion prediction equation for JMA instrumental seismic intensity for shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regimes, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 40, 413–427.
13.
CampbellK. W.BozorgniaY.2011b. Predictive equations for the horizontal component of standardized cumulative absolute velocity as adapted for use in the shutdown of U.S. nuclear power plants, Nucl. Eng. Des. 241, 2558–2569.
14.
CampbellK. W.BozorgniaY.2012. Empirical correlation of standardized cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) and seismic intensity based on the PEER-NGA database, Earthq. Spectra, in press.
15.
CampbellK. W.DukeM.1974. Bedrock intensity attenuation and site factors from San Fernando earthquake records, Bull Seismol. Soc. Am. 64, 173–185.
16.
ChiouB.DarraghR.GregorN.SilvaW.2008. NGA project strong-motion database, Earthq. Spectra24, 23–44.
17.
CohenJ.1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Lawrence Erbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI),1988. A Criterion for Determining Exceedance of the Operating Basis Earthquake, Report No. EPRI NP-5930, Palo Alto, CA.
20.
EvansJ. D.1996. Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., Pacific Grove, CA, 624 pp.
21.
Foulser-PiggottR.StaffordP. J.2011. A predictive model for Arias intensity at multiple sites and consideration of spatial correlations, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., DOI: 10.1002/eqe.1137.
KayenR. E.MitchellJ. K.1997. Assessment of liquefaction potential during earthquakes by Arias intensity, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE123, 1162–1174.
MackieK.StojadinovicB.2001. Probabilistic seismic demand model for California highway bridges, J. Bridge. Eng., ASCE6, 468–481.
26.
PousseG.BonillaL. F.CottonF.MargerinL.2006. Nonstationary stochastic simulation of strong ground motion time histories including natural variability: application to the K-Net Japanese Database, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96, 2103–2117.
27.
SabettaF.PuglieseA.1996. Estimation of response spectra and simulation of nonstationary earthquake ground motions, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 86, 337–352.
28.
StaffordP. J.BerrillJ. B.PettingaJ. R.2009. New predictive equations for Arias intensity from crustal earthquakes in New Zealand, J Seismol. 13, 31–52.
