Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 698–704

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Correlation study between seismic acceleration parameters and

damage indices of structures
a,* b
A. Elenas , K. Meskouris
a
Democritus University of Thrace, Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Structural Mechanics and Earthquake Engineering, GR-67100,
Xanthi, Greece
b
RWTH Aachen, Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Structural Mechanics and Structural Dynamics, Mies van der Rohe Str. 1,
D-52074, Aachen, Germany

Received 20 September 1999; received in revised form 19 June 2000; accepted 20 June 2000

Abstract

This study describes numerically, the interdependency between several seismic acceleration parameters and diverse structural
damage indices. Peak ground motion, spectral and energy parameters are used for characterising the seismic excitation. On the
other hand both, structural and nonstructural damage is considered, expressed by the modified Park/Ang overall structural damage
index (OSDI), the maximum interstory drift (ISD) and the maximum floor acceleration. After the numerical evaluation of several
seismic parameters, nonlinear dynamic analyses are conducted to furnish the structural damage status. The degree of the interrelation-
ship between the seismic parameters and the damage indices is provided by correlation coefficients. The investigation is carried
out for a reinforced concrete plane frame system designed after Eurocodes 2 and 8 (EC2, EC8) and the aim is to determine the
characteristics of the accelerograms that exhibit the strongest influence on structural and nonstructural damages. The numerical
results have shown, that peak ground motion seismic parameters provide poor or fair correlation with the OSDI, whereas the spectral
and energy parameters provide good correlation. Furthermore, the central period and the strong motion duration after Trifunac/Brady
exhibit poor correlation with the OSDI. All these results give reason to recommend the spectra and energy related seismic intensity
parameters as reliable descriptors of the seismic damage potential.  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ground motion; Acceleration parameter; Damage potential; Damage indices; Reinforced concrete

1. Introduction nitions of these parameters have been presented in the

It is well known that the inherent information of earth-
quake accelerograms can be extracted either directly or
indirectly. Directly extracted parameters are e.g. the peak
ground acceleration (PGA) and the total (nominal) dur-
ation. Indirectly extracted parameters are usually evalu-
ated by computer analyses of the seismic acceleration
time histories. The corresponding results of such analy-
ses can be classified in: peak ground motion parameters
[e.g. peak ground velocity (PGV), peak ground displace-
ment (PGD)], spectral parameters (e.g. response, energy,
Fourier spectra) and energy parameters [e.g. ARIAS
intensity, HUSID diagram, strong motion duration
(SMD) after Trifunac/Brady, power P0.90]. The defi-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +30-541-79626; fax: +30-541-26943.
E-mail address: elenas@demo.cc.duth.gr (A. Elenas).
literature [1–6]. Observations of building structural and
nonstructural damage after severe earthquakes, as well
as numerical investigations of structural systems exhibit
a more or less marked interdependency between the
above-mentioned parameters and the structural response
[7–10].
This article provides a method for quantifying the
interrelationship between the seismic parameters and
several damage types. First, a computer analysis of the
accelerograms provided several peak ground motion,
spectral and energy seismic parameters. After that, non-
linear dynamic analyses were carried out to provide the
structural response for a given seismic excitation and a
given reinforced concrete frame structure. Keeping in
mind that most of the seismic loading parameters are
characterised by a single numerical value, single-value
indicators have also been selected to represent the struc-
tural response. The attention is focussed on response

0141-0296/01/$ - see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 7 4 - 2
 A. Elenas, K. Meskouris / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 698–704 699

parameters which can be used to characterise the differ-
ent forms of damage usually encountered. These damage
indicators are presented in Section 2. Finally, correlation
coefficients are evaluated to express the grade of interde-
pendency between seismic acceleration parameters and
several damage indices. The correlation coefficients
between the different damage indices have also been
evaluated. The presented methodology is applied to an
eight storey reinforced concrete frame building subjected
to several well-known acceleration records.
Table 2 shows the seismic parameters for all seismic
excitations which are described in Table 1. These para-
meters are: PGA (amax), PGV (vmax), PGD (dmax), SA,
SV, SD, CP T0, seismic input energy Einp, ARIAS inten-
sity, SMD T0.90 and power P0.90. The spectral values SA,
SV, SD and Einp are given for the period of 1.18 s, which
is identical with the first eigenperiod of the investigated
frame structure, as presented in the Section 3.
3. Dynamic analysis of a frame structure

2. Seismic acceleration parameters
In the first step of the method just mentioned, the fol-
lowing seismic parameters are evaluated: peak ground
acceleration, velocity and displacement (PGA, PGV,
PGD), spectral pseudo-acceleration (SA), spectral
pseudo-velocity (SV), spectral displacement (SD), cen-
tral period (CP), seismic input energy Einp, ARIAS inten-
sity, SMD, power P0.90 and the HUSID diagram. The
definition of each parameter is presented in the literature
[1–6,11] and will not be repeated here. Table 1 shows
the data of the acceleration time histories which have
been selected for use in the present analysis. The events
have been chosen from worldwide well known sites with
strong seismic activity. The primary aspect which has
been taken into consideration was to relate structural
damage to the damage potential of seismic excitations
recorded at different soil conditions and source dis-
tances. The seismic parameters of the accelerograms
have been evaluated by computer [4,11].
The reinforced concrete frame structure shown in Fig.
1 has been designed according to the rules of the current
Eurocodes for concrete structures and aseismic design
(EC2 and EC8 respectively). The cross sections of the
beams are T-shapes with 40 cm width, 20 cm plate thick-
ness, 60 cm total beam height and 1.45 m effective plate
width. The distance between frames in the three dimen-
sional structure has been chosen to be 6 m. The building
has been considered as an ‘importance class III, ductility
class L’-structure according to Eurocode 8, with subsoil
of type B and regional seismicity of category 3.
Additionally to the dead weight and the seismic loading,
snow, wind and live loads have been taken into account,
as well as lateral loads due to column sway. The first
natural period of the frame was 1.18 s. The ordinate of
the used elastic response spectrum after EC8 was 0.20
g. After designing and detailing the reinforced concrete
frame structure, a nonlinear dynamic analysis was car-
ried out for the evaluation of the structural seismic
response. For this purpose the computer program

Table 1
Input ground motions

Earthquake Country Date Station Component

Alkion Greece 24.02.81 OTE Corinth Longitudinal

Alkion Greece 24.02.81 OTE Corinth Transverse
Big Bear USA 28.06.92 No. 22561 270°
Big Bear USA 28.06.92 No. 22561 360°
Erzincan Turkey 13.03.92 Erzincan North–South
Erzincan Turkey 13.03.92 Erzincan East–West
Izmir Turkey 16.12.77 Izmir North–South
Izmir Turkey 16.12.77 Izmir East–West
Hyogo-Ken Nanbu Japan 17.01.95 Kobe North–South
Kalamata Greece 13.09.86 Kalamata East–West
Montenegro Yugoslavia 15.04.79 Petrovac North–South
Landers USA 28.06.92 No. 22170 0°
Landers USA 28.06.92 No. 22170 90°
Cape Mendocino USA 25.04.92 No. 89005 0°
Cape Mendocino USA 25.04.92 No. 89005 90°
Naghloo Iran 06.04.77 Naghan Longitudinal
San Salvador El Salvador 10.10.86 No. 90014 0°
San Salvador El Salvador 10.10.86 No. 90014 90°
Strazhitsa Bulgaria 17.12.86 Strazhitsa Transverse
Whittier USA 01.10.87 Whittier 90°
700 A. Elenas, K. Meskouris / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 698–704

Table 2
Strong motion parameters

Earthquake PGA PGV PGD amax/vmax CP T0 ARIAS SMD Power Einp SA (g) SV SD (cm)
amax (g) vmax dmax (m) (g/m/s) (s) Intensity T0.90 (s) P0.90 (m2/s2) (cm/s)
(m/s) [m2/s3] (m2/s4)

Alkion (L) 0.240 0.225 0.099 1.067 0.422 4.334 15.660 0.249 0.001 0.034 0.550 0.100
Alkion (T) 0.296 0.253 0.071 1.170 0.381 5.326 13.990 0.343 0.001 0.218 37.550 6.642
Big Bear (270°) 0.472 0.282 0.046 1.674 0.130 19.963 9.720 1.848 0.055 0.096 15.710 2.926
Big Bear (360°) 0.534 0.344 0.043 1.552 0.128 17.154 10.360 1.490 0.824 0.172 29.727 5.278
Erzincan (N–S) 0.399 0.976 1.360 0.409 0.479 9.729 10.450 0.839 2.280 0.799 147.004 27.608
Erzincan (E–W) 0.501 0.829 0.908 0.605 0.339 11.381 7.470 1.372 0.959 0.527 96.480 18.089
Izmir (N–S) 0.417 0.123 0.084 3.401 0.194 2.168 0.830 2.364 0.004 0.019 3.441 0.644
Izmir (E–W) 0.139 0.068 0.031 2.050 0.158 0.406 1.590 0.229 0.002 0.017 3.152 0.589
Hyogo-Ken Nanbu 0.837 0.924 0.469 0.905 0.302 50.735 8.320 5.556 3.713 0.987 179.040 33.310
Kalamata 0.273 0.231 0.056 1.183 0.322 4.585 6.370 0.652 0.275 0.231 42.470 8.002
Montenegro 0.459 0.432 0.758 1.063 0.267 27.864 10.600 2.375 0.973 0.322 57.910 10.682
Landers (0°) 0.268 0.271 0.010 0.990 0.408 10.106 30.840 0.295 1.960 0.458 80.800 14.660
Landers (90°) 0.278 0.427 0.157 0.651 0.351 14.461 28.220 0.461 2.079 0.537 93.940 16.904
Cape Mendocino 1.468 1.261 0.360 1.164 0.177 36.242 13.540 2.448 1.320 0.630 106.475 19.215
(0°)
Cape Mendocino 1.019 0.405 0.150 2.517 0.221 14.481 13.920 0.937 0.315 0.292 50.562 8.997
(90°)
Naghloo 0.710 0.859 0.451 0.826 0.172 17.750 2.200 7.406 0.350 0.368 63.250 11.186
San Salvador (0°) 0.421 0.455 0.134 0.925 0.300 5.369 3.960 1.238 0.435 0.422 73.318 13.095
San Salvador (90°) 0.339 0.323 0.042 1.050 0.300 5.866 2.760 1.959 0.146 0.260 44.291 7.758
Strazhitsa 0.362 0.632 0.122 0.572 0.168 1.420 3.220 0.402 0.005 0.034 5.753 1.010
Whittier 0.607 0.277 0.025 2.191 0.137 7.881 2.665 2.661 0.076 0.125 21.548 3.826

dation, strength deterioration, non-symmetric response,

Fig. 1. Reinforced concrete frame structure.
IDARC 4.0 [12] has been used. The hysteretic behaviour
of the beams and columns has been specified at both
ends of each member using a three parameter Park model
[12]. This hysteretic model incorporates stiffness degra-
slip-lock and a trilinear monotonic envelope. The para-
meter values which specify the above degrading para-
meters, have been chosen from experimental results of
cyclic force–deformation characteristics of typical
components of the studied structure. Thus, the nominal
parameter for stiffness degradation and strength deterio-
ration have been chosen. On the other hand, no pinching
has been taken into account. Among the several response
parameters, the focus is on the overall structural damage
index (OSDI). This is due to the fact that this parameter
summarises all the existing damages on columns and
beams in a single value, which can be easily correlated
with single value seismic parameters. The accelerograms
of all seismic excitations given in Table 1 were used as
input for the nonlinear dynamic analyses. A scaling of
the original seismic acceleration records, which modifies
the nonlinear and the damage effects, has been not car-
ried out. Scaling a record, we obtain some seismic para-
meters to have modified values (e.g. PGA, PGV, PGD),
while other values remain the same (e.g. SMD after
Trifunac/Brady, central period) compared to the values
of the original records. Thus, scaled records would give
a falsified value of the correlation between the seismic
parameters and structural damage.
The used accelerograms have been considered as input
signals disregarding the properties of the recording sites,
to let the damage potential of strong motion records act
on the structure, providing a wide spectrum of damage.
 A. Elenas, K. Meskouris / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 698–704 701

Choosing spectrum compatible artificial accelerograms Table 3

would lead only to no or low damage level, which is Damage indices
not representative for statistical use. Scaling of spectrum Earthquake OSDI Max. ISD Max. floor
compatible artificial accelerograms would lead to a wide (%) acceleration (g)
spectrum of damage, but in this case the correlation
study between the seismic parameters and structural Alkion (L) 0.081 0.56 0.603
damage would be falsified for the reasons previously Alkion (T) 0.082 0.51 0.575
Big Bear (270°) 0.071 0.51 0.702
explained. Big Bear (360°) 0.103 0.68 0.799
The design procedure used in this study is forced- Erzincan (N–S) 0.397 2.78 0.991
based after the Eurocode 8 [13]. Given the strong interest Erzincan (E–W) 0.169 1.09 0.834
in displacement-based design procedures [13] further Izmir (N–S) 0.000 0.14 0.309
studies are under way, combined with an extended set Izmir (E–W) 0.000 0.09 0.140
Hyogo-Ken Nanbu 0.550 5.55 1.149
of seismic and response parameters which are of special Kalamata 0.094 0.53 0.582
interest in this design procedure. Montenegro 0.198 1.57 1.049
Landers (0°) 0.129 0.67 0.622
Landers (90°) 0.151 0.90 0.714
4. Seismic damage indices Cape Mendocino (0°) 0.222 2.01 1.476
Cape Mendocino (90°) 0.098 0.61 0.757
Naghloo 0.150 1.09 0.963
Among the many structural response parameters, San Salvador (0°) 0.106 0.90 0.794
attention is focussed on these which are able to mirror San Salvador (90°) 0.096 0.98 0.889
the seismic damage. Damage, in this context, means not Strazhitsa 0.000 0.16 0.298
only structural damage but also nonstructural damage, Whittier 0.116 0.78 0.945
the latter including the case of architectural damage,
mechanical, electrical and plumbing damage (MEP
damage) and also the damage of furniture, equipment
accelerations of the seismic excitations (SA) of Table 2,
and other contents.
with the column of the overall structural damage indices
The parameters available in the literature which quan-
(OSDI) of Table 3, it is recognised that accelerograms
tify the structural damage can be classified into ductility
with spectral acceleration values, at the eigenperiod of
based [14], modal [15] and energy based [16] damage
the frame, less than about 0.20 g, give as expected, an
indices. The attention is focussed on overall structural
OSDI of less than 0.10 in their majority.
damage indices due to the fact that these parameters
summarily lump all existing damage in columns and
beams in a single value, which can be easily correlated
5. Correlation study of the results
to single-value seismic parameters. The program IDARC
4.0 [12] utilises for this purpose the modified damage
To emphasise the grade of interrelation between seis-
index after Park and Ang [17].
mic acceleration parameters and the OSDI, the corre-
The interstory drift (ISD) has been selected as the
lation coefficient after Pearson [19] as well as the rank
response parameter which best characterises the archi-
correlation coefficient after Spearman [19] have been
tectural (and generally nonstructural) damage. This has
calculated. The first correlation coefficient shows how
been done because this value correlates well with
well the data fit a linear relationship, while the second
observed architectural damage after severe earthquakes
coefficient shows how well the data agree with mono-
[18]. The same parameter (ISD) also characterises the
tonic ranking.
MEP damage [18]. On the other hand, the response fac-
The Pearson correlation coefficient between two vari-
tor which has been associated with furniture and equip-
ables X and Y, is given by the relation:
ment damage is the response floor acceleration [18].
Table 3 shows the overall structural damage index
冘
N

(OSDI), the maximum interstory drift (max. ISD, nor- (Xi−X̄)(Yi−Ȳ)

malised by the story height) and the maximum floor rPearson⫽
i⫽1
(1)

冪冘 冘
N N
acceleration for all excitations. The degree of damage
can be classified according to the criteria presented in (Xi−X̄) 2
(Yi−Ȳ) 2

Table 4 [18]. An OSDI equal zero denotes that the struc-
ture remains in the elastic region during the excitation.
As mentioned in the previous section, the ordinate of
the used elastic response spectrum after EC8 was 0.20
g for the design of the frame. Taking this value as a
threshold and comparing the column with the spectral
i⫽1 i⫽1
where: X̄ and Ȳ are the mean values of Xi and Yi data
respectively and N is the number of pairs of values
(Xi,Yi) in the data.
The Spearman rank correlation coefficient between
two variables X and Y, is given by the relation:
702 A. Elenas, K. Meskouris / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 698–704

Table 4
Damage classification limits

Damage

Low Medium Great Total

OSDI ⱕ0.3 0.3⬍OSDIⱕ0.6 0.6⬍OSDIⱕ0.8 ⬎0.8

ISD (%) ⱕ0.5 0.5⬍ISDⱕ1.2 1.2⬍ISDⱕ1.7 ⬎1.7
MEP DI (g) ⱕ0.5 0.5⬍MEP DIⱕ1.2 1.2⬍MEP DIⱕ1.7 ⬎1.7
Contents DI (g) ⱕ0.2 0.2⬍Contents DIⱕ0.8 0.8⬍Contents DIⱕ1.25 ⬎1.25

冘
N Table 6
6 D2 Rank correlation coefficients after Spearman

rSpearman⫽1⫺
i⫽1
(2) Seismic parameter OSDI Max. ISD Max. floor
N(N −1)
2
acceleration
where D denotes the differences between the ranks of
PGA 0.482 0.515 0.695
corresponding values of Xi and Yi and N is the number PGV 0.752 0.801 0.749
of pairs of values (X,Y) in the data. PGD 0.623 0.645 0.531
Table 5 presents the correlation coefficients after Pear- SA 0.869 0.836 0.665
son between all seismic parameters presented in Table 2 CP 0.319 0.265 0.005
and the damage indices. Through the Pearson correlation Einp 0.897 0.810 0.700
ARIAS intensity 0.727 0.698 0.785
coefficient it can be seen that the OSDI and the max. SMD 0.331 0.188 0.099
ISD have the same grade of interrelation to the seismic Power P0.90 0.461 0.568 0.738
parameters. Both of them have the maximum correlation amax/vmax ⫺0.511 ⫺0.551 ⫺0.305
to SA and Einp, while minimum correlation occurs with
respect to SMD and CP. The maximum floor acceler-
ation exhibits best correlation with the ARIAS intensity,
lation to SA and Einp, while minimum correlation occurs
while minimum correlation is present, as in the case of
in respect to SMD and CP. The maximum floor acceler-
the OSDI and ISD before, with SMD and CP. It must
ation shows maximum correlation to the ARIAS inten-
be pointed out that the SMD as defined by Trifunac and
sity, PGV and power P0.90. Its minimum correlation
Brady shows very poor correlation with the damage indi-
occurs, as for OSDI and ISD before, for the SMD and
ces. This is due to the fact that its definition does not
CP values.
take into account the absolute seismic energy value,
Table 7 shows the correlation coefficients after Pear-
being based only on its temporal distribution.
son and the rank correlation coefficient after Spearman
By examining Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient
for the examined damage indices. Observing the corre-
in Table 6, we recognise that the OSDI and the max.
lation coefficients after Pearson, we recognise the strong
ISD have the same grade of interrelation to the seismic
correlation between OSDI and ISD and the fair corre-
parameters as in the case of the Pearson correlation coef-
lation between maximum floor acceleration and OSDI as
ficient. These two parameters exhibit maximum corre-
well as ISD. The rank correlation is marked for all three
damage indices.
Table 5 The quantities, which furnish a coefficient greater than
Correlation coefficients after Pearson 0.561 in Tables 5–7 exhibit a significant correlation at
Seismic parameter OSDI Max. ISD Max. floor
acceleration Table 7
Correlation coefficients between the damage indices
PGA 0.383 0.419 0.717
PGV 0.679 0.651 0.728 Pearson correlation OSDI 1.000
PGD 0.648 0.531 0.466 Max. ISD 0.970 1.000
SA 0.910 0.854 0.692 Max. acc. 0.695 0.652 1.000
CP 0.373 0.253 0.057
Einp 0.878 0.839 0.504 ODSI ISD Max. acc.
ARIAS intensity 0.753 0.802 0.752
SMD 0.154 0.038 0.119 Spearman correlation Max. acc. 0.870 0.943 1.000
Power P0.90 0.445 0.512 0.508 Max. ISD 0.944 1.000
amax/vmax ⫺0.432 ⫺0.354 ⫺0.341 OSDI 1.000
 A. Elenas, K. Meskouris / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 698–704
the 1% level (2-tailed). For a significant correlation at
the 0.1% level (2-tailed) in the same tables, the corre-
lation coefficient must be greater than 0.679.
The analysis has shown that the OSDI increases with
time from the original status with OSDI equal to zero
to its final (and maximum) value. If we set this final
value equal to 100% and plot the normalised OSDI over
time, we obtain the time history of the OSDI evolution
from the original to the final state. Since both the x-axis
(time) and the y-axis (%) are the same for the OSDI
time evolution and the HUSID diagram, which expresses
the time evolution of the seismic energy, both of them
can be plotted in the same diagram. Fig. 2 shows the
time evolution of OSDI for the Hyogo-Ken Nanbu earth-
quake and also the HUSID diagram of the same record.
The similarity between the two curves is obvious. By
extracting values of the HUSID diagram and the OSDI
time history (Fig. 2) at time intervals of 1 s and plotting
them in a new diagram, the relationship between seismic
energy and OSDI at time point can be investigated quan-
titatively. Fig. 3 presents the linear and second order
regression curves between damage rate and input energy
rate. The linear correlation coefficient is equal to 0.982,
while the second order nonlinear coefficient equals
0.990. Additionally, we observe in Fig. 2 that the
HUSID diagram is mostly to the left of the OSDI curve
for the same percentage level. This means that the seis-
mic energy input precedes the damage occurrence, as
could be expected. This fact is also illustrated in Fig. 3,
where most of the points lie in the area above the bisec-
tor of the angle between the x- and y-axis.
Thus, the HUSID diagram which provides the time
evolution of the seismic energy, also used in the defi-
Fig. 2. Structural damage rate time history and HUSID diagram of
the Hyogo-Ken Nanbu acceleration record.
703
Fig. 3. Structural damage rate and input energy rate of the Hyogo-
Ken Nanbu acceleration record.
nition of the SMD after Trifunac/Brady [3], is a struc-
ture-independent seismic parameter. On the other hand,
the HUSID diagram as a function of time cannot be cor-
related to the single value final OSDI, but it can be
related to the normalised OSDI time history. The results
have shown that the HUSID diagram provides a good
estimation of the overall structural damage evolution
time history, despite the fact that in most cases the final
damage state is most important in a damage analysis.
6. Conclusions
In this article a method for the value estimation of
the interrelation between seismic acceleration parameters
and expected seismic damage has been presented. Peak
ground motion, spectral and energy parameters have
been used for characterising the seismic excitation, and
both structural and nonstructural damage has been con-
sidered, with the latter being further subdivided into
architectural, MEP and contents damage. The structural
damage has been expressed by the modified Park/Ang
overall structural damage index (OSDI), the architectural
and the MEP damage has been given by the maximum
interstory drift (max. ISD), while the contents damage
has been quantified by the maximum floor acceleration.
The degree of the interrelationship has been expressed
by the Pearson correlation coefficient and by the Spear-
man’s rank correlation coefficient.
As the numerical results have shown, the peak ground
motion parameters provide poor or fair correlation with
the OSDI, whereas the spectral and energy parameters
provide good correlation. On the other hand, the central
704 A. Elenas, K. Meskouris / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 698–704
period and the strong motion duration after
Trifunac/Brady exhibited poor correlation with the
OSDI. Due to this, spectral and energy related para-
meters are believed to be better suited for the characteris-
ation of the seismic damage potential. The HUSID dia-
gram, although being a structure-independent seismic
parameter, provides a good estimation of the overall
structural damage evolution time history. The Pearson
correlation is strong between OSDI and max. ISD and
medium between max. acceleration and OSDI as well as
max. ISD. On the other hand, the rank correlation after
Spearman is strong for all three damage indices. While
these tendencies in the correlation study are deemed to
be quite well-established, further investigations utilising
a larger accelerogram database would lead to greater
statistical validity and also enhance the quantitative
aspects.
References
[1] Jennings PC. Engineering seismology. In: Proceedings of the
International School of Physics ‘Enrico Fermi’, Course LXXXV,
Earthquakes: Observation, Theory and Interpretation, Varenna
1982. Bologna: Italian Physical Society, 1982:138–73.
[2] Arias A. A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Seismic design
for nuclear power plants. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
1970:438–69.
[3] Trifunac MD, Brady AG. A study on the duration of strong earth-
quake ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 1975;65(3):581–626.
[4] Meskouris K. Structural dynamics. Berlin: Ernst and Sohn, 2000.
[5] Naeim F, Anderson JC. Classification and evaluation of earth-
quake records for design. EERI/FEMA NEHRP Fellowship
report PF-2/93. Berkeley: EERI, 1993.
[6] Trifunac MD, Novikova EI. State of the art review on strong
motion duration. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Confer-
ence on Earthquake Engineering, Vienna 1994. Rotterdam: Balk-
ema, 1995:131–40.
[7] Elenas A, Liolios A, Vasiliadis L. Earthquake induced nonlinear
behavior of structures in relation with characteristic acceleration
parameters. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vienna 1994. Rotterdam: Balkema,
1995:1011–6.
[8] Elenas A, Liolios A. Earthquake induced nonlinear behavior of
reinforced concrete frame structures in relation with characteristic
acceleration parameters. In: Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Seismic Zonation, Nice 1995. Nantes: Presses
Académiques, 1995:1013–20.
[9] Elenas A. Interdependency between seismic acceleration para-
meters and the behaviour of structures. Soil Dynam Earthq Engng
1997;16(5):317–22.
[10] Elenas A. Interrelation between seismic acceleration parameters
of European earthquakes and the structural behavior. Eur Earthq
Engng 1998;12(1):56–63.
[11] Mahin SA, Lin J. Construction of inelastic response spectra for
single-degree-of-freedom systems. Report no. UCB/EERC-83/17.
University of California at Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, 1983.
[12] Reinhorn AM, Kunnath SK, Valles-Mattox R. IDARC 2D ver-
sion 4.0: users manual. State University of New York at Buffalo:
Department of Civil Engineering, 1996.
[13] Priestley MJN. Displacement-based approaches to rational limit
states design of new structures. In: Proceedings of the 11th Euro-
pean Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Volume of invited
lectures, Paris 1998. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1998:317–35.
[14] Rodriguez-Gómez S, Çakmak AS. Evaluation of seismic damage
indices for reinforced concrete structures. Technical report
NCEER-90-0022. State University of New York at Buffalo:
Department of Civil Engineering, 1990.
[15] DiPasquale E, Çakmak AS. On the relation between local and
global damage indices. Technical report NCEER-89-0034. State
University of New York at Buffalo: Department of Civil Engin-
eering, 1989.
[16] Garstka B, Krätzig WB, Meskouris K, Meyer IF, Stangenberg
F. Damage assessment in cyclically loaded reinforced concrete
columns. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Struc-
tural Dynamics EURODYN’90, Bochum 1990. Rotterdam: Balk-
ema, 1991:551–6.
[17] Park YJ, Ang AH-S. Mechanistic seismic damage model for
reinforced concrete. J Struct Engng 1985;111(4):722–39.
[18] Gunturi SKV, Shah HC. Building specific damage estimation.
In: Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid
1992. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1992:6001–6.
[19] Spiegel MR. Theory and problems of statistics. London:
McGraw-Hill, 1992.