See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281212369

Normalized Response Spectrum of Ground Motion

Article · March 2015

CITATIONS READS

3 3,097

1 author:

Praveen K. Malhotra
StrongMotions Inc.
74 PUBLICATIONS   1,521 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Performance-based seismic design of a liquid nitrogen tank in California. View project

Ground Motion Analysis and Interpretation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Praveen K. Malhotra on 25 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Normalized Response Spectrum of Ground Motion

Praveen K. MALHOTRA
StrongMotions Inc.
Praveen.Malhotra@StrongMotions.com
www.StrongMotions.com

Praveen K. Malhotra, Ph.D., P.E. is a Principal at StrongMotions Inc. in the Boston Area. He has more
than 25 years of experience in practice and research of structural and geotechnical earthquake engineering,
including teaching multiple short-courses throughout the United States and abroad. He specializes in
transparent assessment and cost-effective mitigation of risk. He provides consulting services related to
hazard analysis, risk analysis and performance-based engineering. He is often consulted to peer-review
major projects.

Summary Keywords: strong-motion, response spectrum,

The peak ground acceleration PGA, peak ground
velocity PGV and peak ground displacement PGD are
the fundamental strong-motion parameters (intensity
measures). The response spectrum of ground motion
relative to PGA, PGV and PGD is known as the
normalized response spectrum (NRS). In the past,
the number of records has not been sufficient to
conclusively establish the shape of the NRS and to
study its sensitivity to various factors. In this study, the
NRS is derived from 13,192 strong-motion records. It
is shown that the shape of the NRS is sensitive only to
the normalized velocity PGVn = PGV/(PGA•PGD)1/2.
For the same PGVn, earthquake magnitude, distance
and local soil conditions have insignificant effect on
the NRS. For the same PGVn, the direction of motion
(horizontal or vertical) has insignificant effect on the
NRS. The shape of the NRS is rooted in structural
dynamics; thus it should be preserved in predicting
ground motions for future earthquakes. It is found
that the latest empirical ground motion prediction
equations do not always preserve the shape of the
NRS. Therefore, it is recommended that ground
motion prediction models should only be developed
for PGA, PGV and PGD and that the response spectra
for various damping ratios should be generated from
PGA, PGV and PGD by using the NRS.
normalized response spectrum, ground motion
prediction equations, damping. 
Introduction
The response spectrum provides valuable information
regarding the ground motion. It allows an engineer
to estimate forces and deformations in structures
due to ground shaking. The spectral values at short-,
intermediate- and long-periods correlate well with
PGA, PGV and PGD, respectively. Numerous
studies1-6 have shown that a smooth response
spectrum of ground motion can be constructed from
PGA, PGV and PGD. The response spectrum relative
to PGA, PGV and PGD is known as the normalized
response spectrum (NRS). The attractiveness of
the NRS is that it reduces the number of intensity
measures to just three: PGA, PGV and PGD. In
the past, the ground motion records have not been
sufficient to conclusively establish the shape of the
NRS and to study its sensitivity to various factors. In
this study 13,192 strong-motion records are used to
establish the NRS and to examine its sensitivity to
earthquake magnitude, distance, local soil conditions
and the direction of motion. This study also examines
the shape of the response spectra generated by latest
ground motion prediction equations (GMPE).

The Bridge and Structural Engineer Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015  1

Strong-Motion Data 18.5 cm/s. Figure 3 shows the processed displacement
histories in two horizontal directions. The PGD in
The strong-motion data from 599 earthquakes in
two horizontal directions are indicated in Figure 3.
seismically active regions around are world7 are used
The rotated-median PGD is 1.39 cm.
in this study. The same data have been used to develop
GMPE for shallow crustal earthquakes in seismically
active regions.8-12 The data consist of 21,335 mostly
tri-axial ground motions. The earthquake magnitude
ranges from M 3 to M 7.9, closest distance R ranges
from 50 m to 1,533 km and the average shear-wave
velocity in top 30 m of the site (VS30) ranges from 94
m/s to 2,100 m/s.7 The response spectra of horizontal Fig. 1: Processed acceleration histories at strong-motion
and vertical ground motions were read from ‘flat- station CSMIP # 68206 during the 2014 M 6 South Napa
files’ released by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Earthquake in California14
Research (PEER) Center.7 The response spectra in Figure 4 shows a tripartite plot of the 5% damping
PEER flat-files were for natural periods between 0 and rotated-median response spectrum. In this plot, the
20 s. The histories of ground motion in three directions peak pseudo-velocity PPV is shown along the vertical
were not available for this study. Nearly 40% of the axis; the peak pseudo-acceleration PPA is shown
response spectra in PEER flat-files could not be used along the -450 (counter-clockwise) axis; the peak
because they did not show the correct asymptotic deformation PD is shown along the 450 (clockwise)
behavior in the long-period (low-frequency) region. axis; and the natural period T is shown along the
This will become clear later in this paper. horizontal axis. PPA, PPV, PD and period T are
related to each other as follows:5,15
Rotated-Median Response Spectrum
PPA × T/(2π) = PPV = PD×2π/T (1)
The horizontal response spectra in PEER flat-files7
are rotated-median. The definition of rotated-median Note in Figure 4 that the PPA at short-periods
response spectrum is discussed here. approaches PGA and the PD at long-periods
approaches PGD. This response spectrum was
The horizontal ground motion at a site is typically generated by simultaneously using the processed
recorded in two orthogonal directions, say north and acceleration, velocity and displacement histories
east. The responses of a single-degree-of-freedom (Figures 1, 2 and 3).16 Therefore, it shows the correct
(SDOF) system can be computed in two orthogonal asymptotic behavior at both short- and long-periods.15
directions by solving the equation of motion. From
the responses in two orthogonal directions, the
responses in numerous other horizontal directions
can be calculated by using vector-geometry. The
median (50th percentile) of the calculated responses
in numerous horizontal directions gives the rotated-
median response spectrum; it is usually denoted as
RotD50.13 Fig. 2: Processed velocity histories at strong-motion
station CSMIP # 68206 during the 2014 M 6 South Napa
Figure 1 shows the processed acceleration histories in Earthquake in California14
two orthogonal horizontal directions at strong-motion
station CSMIP #68206 during the 2014 magnitude M
6 South Napa Earthquake in California.14 The PGA
in two horizontal directions are indicated in Figure 1.
The rotated-median PGA is 0.693 g, where g = 9.81
m/s2 = acceleration due to gravity. Figure 2 shows
the processed velocity histories in two horizontal Fig. 3: Processed displacement histories at strong-motion
directions. The PGV in two horizontal directions are station CSMIP # 68206 during the 2014 M 6 South Napa
indicated in Figure 2. The rotated-median PGV is Earthquake in California14

2  Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015 The Bridge and Structural Engineer

 A normalized plot of the response spectrum is
obtained in two steps:6
1. The natural period along the horizontal axis is
divided by the central period Tc to obtain the
normalized period Tn = T/Tc. This causes the
PGA to become PGA•Tc and the PGD to become
PGD/Tc. The PGV is not affected by normalizing
the period.
2. The peak pseudo-velocity PPV along the vertical
axis is divided by (PGA•PGD)1/2 to obtain the
normalized peak pseudo-velocity PPVn = PPV/
(PGA•PGD)1/2. This causes the PGA to become
PGA•Tc/(PGA•PGD)1/2 = 2π, PGD to become
Fig. 4: Five percent of critical damping rotated-median
response spectrum of horizontal ground motion at strong-
PGD/Tc/(PGA•PGD)1/2 = 1/(2π) and PGV to
motion station
Normalized CSMIP
Response # 68206ofduring
Spectrum 2014 M 6 South
theMotion
Ground become PGVn = PGV/(PGA•PGD)1/2.
Normalized Response Spectrum of Ground Motion
Napa Earthquake
Figure 5 shows the normalized plot of the 5% damping
Normalized
Normalized Response Spectrum
Response Spectrum
Normalized Response Spectrum response spectrum shown in Figure 4. The normalized
From
, PGV and PGD, twoPGA, PGVparameters
additional and PGD,can twobeadditional parameters
determined,which plot emphasizes the shape of the response spectrum
provide further
can be determined,
o the ground motion. These are thewhich
centralprovide
period Tfurther insight relative to PGA, PGV and PGD. Next, the smooth
, PGV and PGD, two additional parameters can be determined,which provide further
into velocity
c, and the normalized
o the ground motion. Thesemotion.
the ground are the central
These period
are theTccentral
, and theperiod
normalized shape of the NRS will be generated by considering
Tc velocity
and the normalized velocity PGV : 6 numerous ground motion records.
n
T� � ���PGD/PGA (2)
T� � ���PGD/PGA (2) Smooth
(2) Normalized Response Spectrum
PGV� � PGV/√PGA · PGD (3) (3)5% damping response spectra in PEER flat-file7
The(3)
PGV� � PGV/√PGA · PGD
A ground motion is composed of many different were normalized with respect to the PGA, PGV and
motion is composed of many different frequencies (or periods). Tc can be thought of as
frequencies (or periods). Tc can be thought
motion is composed of many different frequencies (or periods). T c canof as
be PGD
thought of asvalues in the PEER flat-file. Figure 6 shows the
period of the ground motion.66PGVn is indicative of the band-width of frequencies
period of thethe central
ground period
motion. PGVofn isthe groundof motion.
indicative 6 plots of 21,335 NRS. Note that for many of these
PGVnofisfrequencies
the band-width
a ground motion.66A higher value of PGVn implies a narrower band-width.PGV n
indicative
a ground motion. of the
A higher band-width
value of PGVn of frequencies
implies present
a narrower in response
band-width.PGV n spectra, the peak deformation PD does not
alue of 1 when the ground motion 6consists of a single frequency of period Tc.
alue of 1 whenathe
ground
groundmotion. A higher
motion consists of avalue
single of PGVn of
frequency period aTc. approach PGD at long-periods. In other words, many
implies
narrower band-width. PGVn reaches a value of 1 when of the response spectra in PEER flat-file do not show
the ground motion consists of a single frequency of the correct asymptotic behavior at long-periods. This
period Tc.

Fig. 5: Normalized
Figure 5. Normalized plot of the plot of thespectrum
response responseshown
spectrum shown 4.
in Figure in Fig. 6: Normalized plots of 21,335 five-percent damping
Figure 5. Normalized plot of the response spectrum
Figure 4 shown in Figure 4. response spectra in PEER flat-file7
6
zed plot of the response spectrum is obtained in two steps:6
zed plot of the response spectrum is obtained in two steps:
tural period along the horizontal axis is divided by the central period Tc to obtain the
tural period along the horizontal axis is divided by the central period Tc to obtain the
ized period TThe Bridge
n = T/T c.Thisand Structural
causes the PGA Engineer
to becomePGA·Tc, and the PGD to Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015  3
ized period Tn = T/Tc.This causes the PGA to becomePGA·Tc, and the PGD to
e PGD/Tc. The PGV is not affected by normalizing the period.
e PGD/Tc. The PGV is not affected by normalizing the period.
trongMotions Inc. ●www.StrongMotions.com● (781) 363-3003 ● 4/6/15 ● Page 8 of 29
trongMotions Inc. ●www.StrongMotions.com● (781) 363-3003 ● 4/6/15 ● Page 8 of 29
is because the response spectra were generated from
acceleration histories with low-frequency ‘noise’.
Had they been generated from acceleration, velocity
and displacement histories simultaneously,14 they
would have shown the correct asymptotic behavior at
both short- and long-periods.
The response spectra which do not show the correct
asymptotic behavior at long-periods were removed
from the data set so that the shape of the smooth
NRS is not corrupted by the long-period ‘noise’. The
undesirable response spectra were removed with the
help of the 30% damping response spectra in PEER
flat-file because 30% damping peak deformation
PD approaches peak ground displacement PGD at a
much faster rate than the 5% damping PD. Response
spectra for which 30% damping PD(20 s) > 1.05 PGD
or < 0.95 PGD were removed from the data set. This
reduced the number of ‘clean’ usable response spectra
to 13,192. Figure 7 shows the normalized plots of
Fig. 7: Normalized plots of 13,192‘clean’ 5% of critical
damping response spectra in PEER flat-file
Fig. 8: Normalized plots of 380 5% damping response
spectra with median PGVn = 0.4
4  Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015 The Bridge and Structural Engineer
13,192 ‘clean’ response spectra. These response
spectra show the correct asymptotic behavior at both
short - periods and long-periods.
The NRS in Figure 7 have the same normalized PGA
= 2π and the same normalized PGD = 1/(2π), but they
have different normalized velocities PGVn, ranging
from 0.13 to 1.1. The NRS were sorted by their
normalized velocity PGVn and placed in different bins
with specified normalized velocities. Figure 8 shows
380 NRS with median normalized velocity of PGVn =
0.4. The median (50th percentile) of these 380 NRS is
shown by thick red lines in Figure 9; this is the smooth
5% damping NRS for PGVn = 0.4. The uncertainty
in normalized values is indicated by thin blue lines
representing 16th and 84th percentile values. Figure 9
also shows maximum spectral values relative to PGA,
PGV and PGD. The maximum pseudo-acceleration is
2.46 PGA; maximum pseudo-velocity is 1.82 PGV;
and maximum deformation is 1.86 PGD. For PGVn
= 0.4, the maximum dynamic amplifications relative
to PGA, PGV and PGD are 2.46, 1.82 and 1.86,
respectively.
Fig. 9: Smooth 5% damping median, 16th and 84th percentile
NRS for PGVn = 0.4
Smooth NRS were also generated for PGVn = 0.6 and
PGVn = 0.8. They are shown in Figures 10 and 11,
respectively. For PGVn = 0.6, the maximum dynamic
amplifications relative to PGA, PGV and PGD
are 2.7, 2.26 and 2.1, respectively (Figure 10). For
PGVn = 0.8, the maximum dynamic amplifications
relative to PGA, PGV and PGD are 2.78, 2.67 and
2.39, respectively (Figure 11). With increase
in the normalized velocity PGVn, the dynamic
amplifications increase but the response spectrum
becomes narrower. This is expected because higher
values of PGVn imply narrower band of frequencies
in ground motion leading to resonance-like response
of the single-degree-of-freedom system.
Fig. 10: Smooth 5% damping median, 16th and 84th
percentile NRS for PGVn = 0.6
Fig. 11: Smooth 5% damping median, 16th and 84th
percentile NRS for PGVn = 0.8
Notice in Figures 9, 10 and 11 that the uncertainty
is highest in the velocity-sensitive region of the
normalized spectrum. As PGVn increases, the
velocity-sensitive region becomes smaller and the
uncertainty reduces. Figure 12 compares the median
NRS for three different values of PGVn = 0.4, 0.6 and
0.8.
The Bridge and Structural Engineer Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015  5
Fig. 12: Smooth 5% damping median NRS for PGVn = 0.4,
0.6 and 0.8
Parametric Study
The smooth NRS in Figure 12 were generated
from ground motions due to different magnitude
earthquakes, at different distances and at different
soil conditions. The effects of magnitude, distance
and local shear-wave velocity on the smooth NRS are
examined in this section.
To determine if the magnitude of the earthquake
has any significant effect on the shape of the NRS,
the data were sorted in terms of the earthquake
magnitude and split into two nearly equal parts.
The NRS were separately generated from each part.
They are shown in Figure 13. Note that the smooth
NRS are not significantly affected by the earthquake
magnitude. It is more likely for a bigger earthquake to
generate ground motions with wider frequency-band
(or smaller normalized velocity PGVn), but for the
same PGVn, the shape of the NRS is not significantly
affected by the earthquake magnitude. The effect of
magnitude on the NRS is further diminished by the
fact that the site-specific response spectrum is not
determined by a single magnitude earthquake but by
earthquakes of many different magnitudes. Therefore,
it is considered appropriate to ignore the effect of
magnitude on the NRS.
Fig. 13: Effect of magnitude M on the smooth NRS for 5%
damping
Next, the data were sorted in terms of the distance R
and split into two nearly equal parts. The NRS were
generated from each part. They are shown in Figure
14. Note that the smooth NRS are not significantly
affected by the distance from the source of the
earthquake. Although, distance from the source can
affect the frequency-band (or PGVn), for the same
PGVn, distance has insignificant effect on the shape of
the NRS. The effect of distance on the NRS is further
diminished by the fact that the site-specific response
spectrum is determined by earthquakes that could
occur at various distances from the site. Therefore,
it is considered appropriate to ignore the effect of
distance on the NRS.
Fig. 14: Effect of distance R on the smooth NRS for 5%
damping
6  Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015 The Bridge and Structural Engineer
Fig. 15: Effect of VS30 on the smooth NRS for 5% damping
Next, the data were sorted in terms of the average
shear-wave velocity in top 30 m VS30 and split into
two nearly equal parts. The normalized response
spectra were generated from each part. They are
shown in Figure 15. Note that the smooth NRS are
not significantly affected by the average shear-wave
velocity VS30. Although, local soil conditions can
affect the frequency-band (or PGVn), for the same
PGVn, local soils have insignificant effect on the
shape of the NRS.
In this section the median NRS are shown to depend
only on the normalized velocity PGVn; they do not
additionally depend on the earthquake magnitude,
distance and local shear-wave velocity. Due to space
limitation, the results for 16th and 84th percentile NRS
could not be shown in this section. But those NRS
also depend only on the normalized velocity PGVn;
they do not additionally depend on the earthquake
magnitude, distance and local shear-wave velocity.
Smooth NRS of Vertical Ground Motion
The smooth NRS were also generated for vertical
ground motions. In Figure 16, the NRS of horizontal
and vertical motions are compared with each other.
Note that there is no significant difference between
the shapes of NRS of horizontal and vertical motions.
This should not be misunderstood. Only the NRS of
horizontal and vertical motions are nearly identical.
Since PGA, PGV and PGD of vertical motion are
significantly different from those of horizontal motion,
the actual response spectrum of vertical motion is
generally quite different from that of horizontal
motion. Response spectra of vertical motions tend to
have wider frequency band (smaller PGVn), but for
the same PGVn, the NRS of vertical and horizontal
motions are almost identical.
Figure 20 shows a plot between damping and PPVn
for three selected values of normalized period T/Tc
= 0.3, 1 and 3. The damping along the horizontal
axis is shown on a logarithmic scale and PPVn along
the vertical axis is shown on a linear scale. The
open circles in Figure 20 are the actual values of PPVn
for different values of damping. The straight-lines
in Figure 20 pass through the PPVn values for 0.5,
5 and 20% damping. Figure 20 shows that the PPVn
values for damping other than 0.5, 5 and 20% can be
obtained by assuming a piece-wise linear relationship
between log(ζ) and PPVn.

Fig. 16: Smooth NRS of horizontal and vertical ground

motions for 5% damping
Smooth NRS for Different Values of Damping
Smooth NRS were generated for different values of
damping. Figures 17, 18 and 19 show the effect of
damping on the smooth NRS of horizontal ground
motion for PGVn = 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8, respectively.
Table 1 lists the smooth NRS for PGVn = 0.4, 0.6 and
Fig. 18: Effect of damping on NRS of horizontal ground
0.8 and damping ζ = 0.5, 5 and 20% of critical. NRS motion for PGVn = 0.6
for any other value of PGVn between 0.4 and 0.8 can
be generated through interpolation. NRS for PGVn =
0.4 can also be used for PGVn< 0.4. NRS for PGVn =
0.8 can also be used for PGVn> 0.8.

Fig. 17: Effect of damping on NRS of horizontal ground Fig. 19: Effect of damping on NRS of horizontal ground
motion for PGVn = 0.4 motion for PGVn = 0.8

The Bridge and Structural Engineer Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015  7

 Fig. 20: Normalized peak pseudo-velocity PPVn versus
damping for three different values of normalized period T/Tc
and normalized velocity PGVn = 0.6

Table 1. Normalized response spectra of horizontal motion for different damping ζ and normalized velocities.
Damping values are percentage of critical
PPVn = PPV/(PGD•PGA)1/2
Tn = T/Tc

PGVn = 0.4 PGVn = 0.6 PGVn = 0.8

0.5% ζ = 5% 20% 0.5% ζ = 5% 20% 0.5% ζ = 5% 20%

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.0147 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0148 0.0148 0.0148
0.0215 0.0222 0.0222 0.0221 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218
0.0316 0.0341 0.0332 0.0329 0.0323 0.0323 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0321
0.0464 0.0600 0.0523 0.0500 0.0478 0.0478 0.0476 0.0473 0.0473 0.0472
0.0681 0.134 0.0915 0.0792 0.0731 0.0718 0.0711 0.0703 0.0701 0.0697
0.1 0.331 0.183 0.130 0.131 0.115 0.110 0.111 0.106 0.105
0.147 0.642 0.329 0.208 0.324 0.217 0.180 0.219 0.175 0.162
0.215 1.026 0.529 0.310 0.811 0.454 0.302 0.550 0.338 0.267
0.316 1.323 0.688 0.385 1.56 0.828 0.48 1.25 0.68 0.45
0.464 1.357 0.727 0.401 2.30 1.20 0.65 2.29 1.22 0.72
0.681 1.242 0.673 0.392 2.55 1.35 0.74 3.52 1.87 1.02
1 1.148 0.632 0.365 2.45 1.31 0.73 3.96 2.12 1.13
1.47 1.068 0.599 0.347 2.09 1.17 0.67 2.90 1.63 0.95
2.15 0.952 0.562 0.333 1.60 0.940 0.55 1.78 1.07 0.68
3.16 0.794 0.509 0.313 1.05 0.661 0.41 0.94 0.62 0.44
4.64 0.567 0.395 0.259 0.573 0.391 0.280 0.462 0.337 0.272
6.81 0.351 0.264 0.187 0.282 0.221 0.178 0.228 0.190 0.170
10 0.189 0.158 0.121 0.137 0.125 0.114 0.119 0.113 0.109
14.7 0.0987 0.0918 0.0777 0.0778 0.0760 0.0732 0.0728 0.0721 0.0712
21.5 0.0573 0.0553 0.0504 0.0492 0.0490 0.0483 0.0478 0.0478 0.0476
31.6 0.0361 0.0354 0.0335 0.0327 0.0326 0.0325 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322

8  Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015 The Bridge and Structural Engineer

 PPVn = PPV/(PGD•PGA)1/2
Tn = T/Tc
PGVn = 0.4 PGVn = 0.6 PGVn = 0.8

0.5% ζ = 5% 20% 0.5% ζ = 5% 20% 0.5% ζ = 5% 20%

46.4 0.0235 0.0233 0.0225 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218
68.1 0.0156 0.0156 0.0152 0.0149 0.0149 0.0149 0.0148 0.0148 0.0148
100 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Response Spectra of Predicted Ground The shape of the response spectrum in Figure 21 is
Motions not consistent with the shape of the NRS derived
The response spectra of predicted ground motions from recorded ground motions. Specifically, the
should be consistent with the normalized response amplification of pseudo-velocities relative to peak
spectrum (NRS) derived from recorded ground ground velocity is too low. Next, a 5% damping
motions. response spectrum is generated from PGA, PGV and
PGD by using the following steps:
Figure 21 shows a plot of the predicted 5% damping
median response spectrum of ground motion at a 1. The central period of the predicted ground
‘firm-rock’ site due to a magnitude M 6.8 earthquake motion is calculated from Equation 2 to be Tc =
at distance R = 10 km. This response spectrum is 2π•(0.0783/0.2025)1/2 = 1.125 s.
an average of the response spectra predicted by 5
GMPE.8-12 Figure 21 also shows the predicted median
values of PGA, PGV and PGD. PGA is average of 5
GMPE. PGV is average of 4 GMPE because one of
the equations20 does not predict PGV. PGD is inferred
from the spectral values at long periods since none
of the GMPE8-12 predicts PGD directly due to lack
of confidence in low-frequency content of recorded
ground motions. PGD was assumed equal to the
maximum spectral deformation divided by 2, on the
basis of Figures 9 and 10.

Fig. 22: Comparison between the response spectrum derived

from GMPE (Figure 21) and the smooth response spectrum
derived from PGA, PGV and PGD using the NRS
2. The normalized velocity of the ground motion is
calculated from Equation 3 to be PGVn = 2.443/
(0.2025×0.0783)1/2 = 0.46.
3. From Table 1, the normalized peak pseudo-
velocities PPVn are read corresponding to PGVn
= 0.4 and PGVn = 0.6. The values for PGVn = 0.46
are obtained by linear-interpolation between the
values for PGVn = 0.4 and 0.6. The normalized
Fig. 21: Five-percent damping predicted median response pseudo-velocities PPVn are multiplied by
spectrum of horizontal ground motion at a ‘firm-rock’ site (PGA•PGD)1/2 = 0.437 m/s to obtain pseudo-
due to a magnitude M 6.8 earthquake at 10 km distance velocities PPV.

The Bridge and Structural Engineer Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015  9

4. The normalized periods are read from the 1st
column of Table 1; they are multiplied by Tc =
1.125 s to obtain natural periods T.
In Figure 22 the response spectrum derived from
the NRS (using PGA, PGV and PGD) is compared
with the response spectrum derived from GMPE. The
difference between the two response spectra is quite
significant in the velocity- and displacement-sensitive
regions. It is apparent that the response spectrum
derived from the GMPE8-12 is not consistent with
the recorded ground motions. Similar results were
also obtained for several other earthquake scenarios
defined by magnitude, distance and average shear-
wave velocity. There are at least two possible reasons
for the incorrect shapes of predicted response spectra:
 Many of the response spectra in the database, used
for developing empirical GMPE, do not show the
correct asymptotic behavior in the long-period
range (Figure 6). This might have corrupted the
shape of the predicted response spectrum.
 The form of the empirical GMPE is unsuitable to
capture the physics of a SDOF system responding
to seismic ground shaking.
In view of the unreasonable shape of the predicted
response spectrum, it is recommended that the
empirical GMPE should only be developed to predict
PGA, PGV and PGD and the response spectrum
should be generated from the predicted values of
PGA, PGV and PGD by using the NRS.
Conclusions
1. The peak values of ground acceleration, velocity
and displacement (PGA, PGV and PGD) are
the fundamental ground motion parameters.
Response spectrum for any damping ratio can be
generated from PGA, PGV and PGD by using the
normalized response spectrum (NRS) discussed
in this paper.
2. The shape of the NRS is sensitive only
to the normalized velocity PGVn = PGV/
(PGA•PGD)1/2. For the same PGVn, earthquake
magnitude, distance and local soil conditions
have insignificant effect on the NRS.
3. For the same PGVn, the direction of motion
(horizontal or vertical) has insignificant effect on
the NRS.
10  Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015 The Bridge and Structural Engineer
4. For the same PGVn, the damping adjustment
factors depend only on the normalized period.
They do not depend on the earthquake magnitude,
distance and local soil conditions.
5. The shape of the NRS is rooted in structural
dynamics; hence it should be preserved in
predicting ground motions for future earthquakes.
The response spectra derived from the latest
GMPE8-12 are inconsistent with the recorded
ground motions.
6. It is strongly recommended that prediction
models should only be developed for PGA, PGV
and PGD. Response spectrum for any damping
ratio should be generated from PGA, PGV and
PGD by using the NRS.
References
1. Newmark, N. M. and W. J. Hall (1969). Seismic
design criteria for nuclear reactor facilities,
in Proc. 4th World Conf. on Earthquake Eng.,
Santiago,Chile, B-4, 37–50.
2. Mohraz, B., W. J. Hall and N. M. Newmark
(1972). A study of vertical and horizontal
earthquake spectra, AEC Report WASH-1255,
Nathan M. Newmark Consulting Engineering
Services, Urbana, Illinois.
3. Hall, W. J., B. Mohraz and N. M. Newmark
(1975). Statistical studies of vertical and
horizontal earthquake spectra, Nathan M.
Newmark Consulting Engineering Services,
Urbana, Illinois.
4. Mohraz, B. (1976). A study of earthquake
response spectra for different geological
conditions, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 66(3), 915–
935.
5. Newmark, N. M. and W. J. Hall (1982).
Earthquake Spectra and Design, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Oakland,
California.
6. Malhotra, P. K. (2006). Smooth spectra of
horizontal and vertical ground motions. Bull.
Seism. Soc. Am., 96(2), 506–518.
7. Seyhan, E., Stewart, J. P., Ancheta, T. D.,
Darragh, R. B., and Graves, R. W. (2014). NGA-
West2 site database, Earthquake Spectra, 30(3),
 1007–1024, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute.
8. Abrahamson, N. A., Silva, W. J. and Kamai, R.
(2014). Summary of the ASK14 ground motion
relation for active crustal regions, Earthquake
Spectra, 30(3), 1025–1055, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute.
9. Boore, D. M. Stewart, J. P., Seyhan, E., and
Atkinson, G. M. (2014). NGA-West2 equations
for predicting PGA, PGV and 5% damped PSA
for shallow crustal earthquakes, Earthquake
Spectra, 30(3), 1057–1085, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute.
10. Campbell, K. W., and Bozorgnia, Y. (2014).
NGA-West 2 ground motion model for the
average horizontal components of PGA, PGV,
and 5% damped linear acceleration response
spectra, Earthquake Spectra, 30(3), 1087–1115,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
11 Chiou, B. S.-J., and Youngs, R. R. (2014).
Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model
for the average horizontal component of peak
ground motion and response spectra, Earthquake
Spectra, 30(3), 1117–1153, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute.
12. Idriss, I. M. (2014). An NGA-West2 empirical
model for estimating the horizontal spectral
values generated by shallow crustal earthquakes,
Earthquake Spectra, 30(3), 1155–1177,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
13. Boore, D. M., 2010. Orientation-independent,
non geometric-mean measures of seismic
intensity from two horizontal components of
motion, Bull. Seismo. Soc. Am. 100, 1830–1835.
14. CESMD (2014). South Napa Earthquake of 24
August 2014, Center for Engineering Strong
Motion Data, http://strongmotioncenter.org/,
December 12, 2014.
15. Chopra, A. K. (2011). Dynamics of structures,
The Bridge and Structural Engineer Volume 45 Number 1 March 2015  11
View publication stats
4th edition, Prentice-Hall International Series in
Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics.
16. Malhotra, P. K. (2001). Response spectrum
of incompatible acceleration, velocity and
displacement histories. J. Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dyn.,30(2),279-286.
Nomenclature
ζ = Viscous damping (percent of critical)
g = Acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2)
GMPE = Ground motion prediction equation(s)
M = Moment magnitude of earthquake
NRS = Normalized response spectrum
PD = Peak deformation
PEER = Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center
PGA = Peak ground acceleration
PGD = Peak ground displacement
PGV = Peak ground velocity
PGVn = PGV/(PGA•PGD)1/2 = normalized peak
ground velocity (Equation 3)
PPA = Peak pseudo-acceleration
PPV = Peak pseudo-velocity
PPVn = PPV/(PGA•PGD)1/2 = normalized peak
pseudo-velocity
R = Distance from the source of earthquake
SDOF = Single-degree-of-freedom
T = Natural period of vibration
Tc = Central period of ground motion
(Equation 2)
Tn = T/Tc = normalized period
VS30 = Average shear-wave velocity in top 30 m
(100 ft)