Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 97–112

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

The importance of non-spectral intensity measures on the risk-based T

structural responses
⁎
Jalal Kiani, Charles Camp, Shahram Pezeshk
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study examines the impact of neglecting non-spectral parameters of ground motions (GMs), particularly GM
Risk-based seismic assessment duration, on the structural responses using a risk-based seismic assessment framework, which measures the
Non-spectral intensity measure annual rates of exceedance for a specified amplitude of structural response. This study gives a special attention to
Ground motion duration the role of the primary intensity measure (IM) that used to characterize the severity of GM (i.e., known as the
Conditioning intensity measure
conditioning IM) on the degree to which GM duration affects the risk-based structural responses. For this pur-
Generalized conditional intensity measure
(GCIM)
pose, the responses of three steel moment resisting frame buildings are compared when subjected to different
Ground motion selection ensembles of GMs selected based on the generalized conditional intensity measure (GCIM). The GCIM framework
can include different features of GMs in the GM selection process through constructing their conditional dis-
tributions given a specified conditioning IM. However, the conditional distributions of GM features change as the
conditioning IM changes. The results demonstrate that for all considered conditioning IMs in this study, except
spectrum intensity (SI), it is nearly impossible to select a set of as-recorded GMs with the unbiased distributions
for all considered IMs, particularly over rare hazard levels. In addition, the results indicate that neglecting non-
spectral IMs, when the conditioning IM is SI, could overestimate (up to 50% over rare earthquake intensity
levels) the MIDR risk-based structural responses with respect to a reference structural response, which resulted
from a set of GMs with the unbiased distributions for all considered IMs, for the considered buildings and site.
Furthermore, the findings confirm that GM duration in terms of significant duration even in case of shallow
events could be an important parameter to be incorporated in GM selection. For the present case study structures
and considered site, the induced bias in structural responses due to neglecting GM duration could vary up to
about 40% over the rare hazard levels depending on the applied conditioning IM.

1. Introduction features of GMs or intensity measures (IMs). To be specific, GM selec-

The choice of seismic input is one of many challenges facing per-
formance-based earthquake engineering for predicting the accurate
structural responses. Numerous research studies (e.g.,
[3,13,19,31–33,36,38,41,47,51]) have focused on ground motion (GM)
selection as a tool for providing the seismic input for nonlinear dynamic
analysis (NDA). The objective of GM selection is to provide a set of GMs
that are consistent with the seismic hazard of the considered site for
performing nonlinear dynamic analysis. A rigorous GM selection
method should provide an ensemble of GMs that represents the severity
of the expected earthquakes in terms of amplitude, cumulative effects,
frequency contents, and duration. However, a review of the technical
literature reveals that most GM selection methods (e.g.,
[3,19,31,47,51]) only consider frequency contents of GMs in the form
of spectral accelerations (SAs); whereas no attention is given to other
tion methods based on the conditional mean spectrum (CMS) (e.g.,
[3,31]) and uniform hazard spectrum (e.g., [47]) just focus on SA or-
dinates and do not explicitly incorporate in non-SA IMs. As also ad-
dressed by Bradley [13], the justification for ignoring non-SA IMs in
these GM selection methods rests on the results of several research
studies claiming that non-SA features of GMs are unimportant or of
secondary importance in comparison to SA IMs in predicting the
structural responses. For example, earlier studies such as Shome et al.
[49], Iervolino and Cornell [28], and Baker and Cornell [2] have de-
monstrated that SA features of GMs are very important when predicting
maximum inter-story drift ratio (MIDR). The conclusions of these stu-
dies have been stretched as a justification for ignoring non-SA features
of GMs when predicting MIDR. Despite the findings of these studies,
several recent studies (e.g., [20,24,37]) would suggest that non-SA
features of GMs should be incorporated into GM selection when

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: spezeshk@memphis.edu (S. Pezeshk).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.01.036
Received 7 December 2018; Received in revised form 28 January 2019; Accepted 29 January 2019
Available online 07 February 2019
0267-7261/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Kiani et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 97–112

predicting MIDR, though non-SA IMs might be considered as of sec- have been applied for evaluating structural seismic demand (e.g.,
ondary importance IMs with respect to SA ones. Specifically, Kiani and [8,16,38,40,42,44,49,52]). Intensity-based methods quantify the
Pezeshk [37] have observed that ignoring non-SA aspects of GMs in the structural responses given a specific earthquake IM level; whereas risk-
GM selection process leads to significant bias in the structural re- based methods measure the distribution of the structural responses over
sponses. More importantly, several studies (e.g., [11,17,18,20,24,37]) a specified time period. In other words, risk-based methods provide the
have explained that the relative importance of SA IMs decrease when probability of exceeding a specific structural seismic demand in terms
measuring metrics of structural responses other than MIDR. Obviously, of the annual rate of exceedance considering all possible earthquake
capturing a complete picture from the structural damage involves events that affect the seismic hazard of the site. The annual rate of
considering different damage indices (e.g., peak-, energy-, and cumu- exceeding a particular structural seismic demand λEDP(edp) is de-
lative-based indices) rather than just focusing on MIDR [39]. In addi- termined using
tion, duration, as a non-SA feature of GMs, is usually neglected in GM
selection, particularly for predicting peak-based damage metrics such as
λEDP (edp) = ∫IM P (EDP > edp|IM = im) ∙|dλIM (im)| (1)
lateral displacement and MIDR. The ignorance of GM duration is based
Where EDP is the engineering demand parameter, P(EDP > edp |
on the outcomes of earlier studies (e.g., [5,26,49]) and those reported
IM=im) is the probability that structural seismic demand exceeds edp at
by Hancock and Bommer [25] supporting that GM duration does not
the earthquake intensity level of im, and λIM(im) is the annual rate of IM
have a considerable effect on the peak-based structural responses.
exceeding im , which is obtained using the results of probabilistic
Nonetheless, recent studies [4,14,15,18,37,48] have emphasized on the
seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). In addition, |dλIM(im)| is the slope or
importance of GM duration on the structural responses depending on
the derivative of the IM hazard curve at IM =im. Several studies (e.g.,
considering strength and stiffness deterioration as well as the P-delta
[16,42]) have proposed a simplified closed form solution of the risk
effects in the structural modelling. In conclusion, there are many evi-
equation. As outlined in [12], the closed form solution is prone to in-
dences supporting the idea that non-SA characteristics of GMs are im-
duce a bias in the estimated risk-based results. Therefore, a discrete
portant in predicting the structural responses and they should be con-
form of Eq. (1) is usually implemented for computing λEDP(edp) (e.g.,
sidered in the GM selection process.
[8,40,44]). In the discrete form, a limited number of earthquake in-
The generalized conditional intensity measure (GCIM) methodology
tensity levels is employed for computing the risk-based structural re-
[13] is a framework that allows the incorporation of non-SA features
sponses. The discrete formulation has the potential to introduce an
into the GM selection process. The GCIM framework is based on the
error in the seismic demand hazard curve (SDHC), which represents the
assumption that different features of GMs follow a multivariate log-
annual rates of exceedance for different levels of seismic demand, de-
normal distribution (e.g., [7,30]). For constructing the GCIM target, the
pending on the number of considered earthquake IM levels; however,
distributions of GM parameters are determined given one parameter of
Bradley [8,10] has clarified that this does not induce a significant error
GM, known as the conditioning IM (hereafter called IMj like Bradley
in the SDHCs.
[13]. Remarkably, the choice of IMj has a significant impact on the
Simply stated, Eq. (1) demonstrates that a risk-based seismic as-
selected GMs and, consequently, on the intensity-based structural re-
sessment combines the results of structural seismic demand analysis
sponses due to the contribution of different earthquakes in the seismic
with GM hazard curves from PSHA. Furthermore, the main advantage
hazard of the site given different IMjs [8,44]. On the other hand, the
of risk-based results is that they are expected to be theoretically in-
choice of IMj does not affect the risk-based structural responses if GMs
dependent of the IMj. However, as elaborated upon by [8,44], the
are selected appropriately [8,44]. With this information as a back-
empirical risk-based structural results are sensitive to the appropriate
ground, the prudent question about the choice of IMj is: to what degree
GM selection. In fact, the distributions of the selected GMs for all-im-
does an improper GM selection, in the form of neglecting non-SA IMs,
portant IMs should be the same as those for the GCIM target to reach
affect the structural responses for various choice of IMjs. Kiani et al.
the unbiased risk-based structural responses. As will be discussed later,
[34] have investigated the influence of incorporating non-SA IMs (in
selecting an appropriate set of GMs over high-intensity IM levels might
terms of GM duration) using different IMjs on the intensity-based
be impossible in some cases due to scarcity of as-recorded GMs.
structural responses. Results revealed that the impact of GM duration
on the probability of collapse depends on the applied IMj. However, it is
3. GM selection
unclear what role GM duration and other non-SA IMs has on the risk-
based structural responses when considering different IMjs.
3.1. GCIM framework
This study attempts to examine the impact of improper GM selec-
tion, in terms of ignoring non-SA IMs and particularly GM duration, on
The GCIM approach, a generalization of the CMS [3,31], has been
the response of structures located at a site where the seismic hazard is
introduced by Bradley [13] as a tool for GM selection. The GCIM fra-
dominated by shallow crustal events. Specifically, a risk-based seismic
mework employs the same concept as the CMS but it is able to over-
assessment context is applied to investigate to what degree unsuitable
come the CMS shortcoming (i.e., neglecting the non-SA IMs) by ex-
GM selections, based on only SA IMs, produce a bias in the structural
tending the assumption of multivariate distributions for SA IMs to other
responses. The key issue considered in this study is evaluating the role
parameters characterizing the severity of GMs (e.g., [7,30]). The de-
of the primary IM used for characterizing the severity of GMs or the
tailed procedure of GM selection based on the GCIM framework is
conditioning IM on the degree of bias that improper GM selection in-
provided by [13], the following steps, however, briefly demonstrate
duced on the structural responses. In general, the objectives are to, first,
this procedure:
establish a benchmark set of GMs, which well represents the seismic
hazard of the interest site, to be used as a basis for comparison of the
I. Find the relative importance, W = {WIM1, …, WIMi, …, WIMN } , of all
results; second, examine the effect of ignoring all non-SA IMs on the
those IMs, i.e., IM = {IM1, …, IMi, …, IMN } , that may affect the struc-
risk-based structural responses; and, third, focus on GM duration and its
tural response of interest.
role on the risk-based structural responses considering various choice of
II. Construct the multivariate distribution of all IMs in IM conditioned
IMjs.
on the IMj, f(IM|IMj), considering the relative importance of all
rapture scenarios contributing the seismic hazard of the site based
2. Risk-based seismic demand
on their relative contributions using the following equations (from
Bradley [9]).
Risk-based seismic assessment methods, as counterparts for well-
known and widely used intensity-based seismic assessment methods,

98
J. Kiani et al.
μlnIMi | Rup, IMj (rupk , imj ) = μlnIMi | Rup (rupk )
+ σlnIMi | Rup (rupk ) ρ lnIMi, lnIMj ϵlnIMj
σlnIMi | Rup, IMj (rupk , imj ) = σlnIMi | Rup (rupk ) 1−ρln2 IMi, lnIMj
Where μlnIMi |Rup, IMj (rupk ,imj ) and σlnIMi |Rup, IMj (rupk ,imj ) are, respec-
tively, the mean and the standard deviation of the natural logarithm
of an IM, ln IMi, given a specific value of IMj, IMj=imj for a specific
earthquake rupture, Rup=rupk. In addition, μlnIMi |Rup (rupk ) and
σlnIMi |Rup (rupk ) are the mean and standard deviation of ln IMi given
Rup =rupk, respectively. ρ lnIMi, lnIMj is the correlation between the
epsilon-values of lnIMi and lnIMj and ϵlnIMj is the epsilon-value of
lnIMj .
The conditional distribution of each IM given IMj=imj and
Rup=rupk, fIMi |Rup, IMj (imi rupk ,imj ),can be computed using
μlnIMi |Rup, IMj (rupk ,imj ) and σlnIMi |Rup, IMj (rupk ,imj ) assuming that all
IMs follow a log-normal distribution. Finally, fIMi |IMj (imi,imj ) , which
considers all earthquake scenarios affecting the seismic hazard of
the site, can be computed as follows:
NRup
fIMi | IMj (imi |imj ) = ∑ fIMi | Rup, IMj (imi |rupk , imj ) PRup | IM (rupk |imj )
j unbiased distributions for all IMs. It is worth to mention that there is no
k=1
Where NRup is the number of possible earthquake scenario and
PRup|IMj (rupk |imj ) is the relative contribution of Rup=rupk given
IMj=imj.
III. Obtain N random realizations from f(IM|IMj) in terms of lnIMinsim
and σlnIMi |Rupnsim , IMj , which are defined as the value and the condi-
tional standard deviation of lnIMi given IMj=imj for the randomly
drawn rupture of the nth simulation.
IV. Select GMs based on the minimizing the following cost function:
N 2
⎡ lnIMinsim − lnIMim ⎤
rm, nsim = ∑ WIMi ⎢ ⎥ vibration mode SAT3, and SA at the lengthened vibration period (simply
σ nsim
i=1 ⎣ lnIMi | Rup , IMj ⎦
Where lnIMim
is the value of lnIMi for mth prospective GM.
V. Different ensembles of GMs may be selected if different random
realizations of f(IM|IMj) are implemented. Hence, the GM set with
the minimum overall residual (R) should be finally chosen.
N by shallow events and the average shear wave velocity over the top
R= ∑ Wi (DIMi)2
i=1
Where DIMi is the difference between the empirical distribution of
selected GMs for IMi and a sample set from the GCIM target derived
using Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) statistical test.
VI. Compare the empirical distribution of the selected GMs with the
theoretical distribution from the target GCIM using the KS test
considering upper and lower bounds for a specified confidence
level. If the empirical distribution of the selected GMs for an IM lies
between the computed upper and lower bounds for the target dis-
tribution, the distribution of the selected GM is unbiased for that
IM. Otherwise, the distribution of the selected GMs for that IM is
biased with respect to the target.
3.2. Assumptions and GM database
In this study, the GCIM framework is implemented for GM selection
considering 20 different hazard levels with the exceedance probabilities
from 50% to 0.005% over a period of 50 years. The choice of 20 dif-
ferent hazard levels is based on the opinion that the structural responses
produced using GMs selected in these levels can cover a wide range of
structural damage from elastic to dynamic instability. In addition, this
large number of hazard levels is utilized to minimize the error due to
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 97–112
the interpolation of the structural responses over different IM levels as
discussed earlier.
(2) One challenge with GM selection for a risk-based assessment is the
number of applied GMs. Using a large number of GMs that are con-
sistent with the seismic hazard of the site might not be possible due to
the limitation in the number of as-recorded GMs. As elaborated upon by
(3)
Kiani et al. [35], in most cases, it is not possible to select a large en-
semble of GMs with the unbiased distributions of all important IMs with
respect to the target over the rare earthquake intensity levels because of
the scarcity of as-recorded events. On the other hand, using a limited
number of GMs is one of the most important sources of error in a risk-
based assessment [8]. In this trade off situation, for the purpose of this
study, a set of 25 g for each IM level based on the suggestions of Kiani
et al. [35] are selected from PEER NGA-West2 library [1], which con-
tains GMs from shallow crustal events.
In addition, GM prediction equations and empirical equations used
by Bradley [8] are implemented for computing the multivariate dis-
tribution of IMs. GCIM enabled hazard curve calculator from open-
source seismic hazard analysis software, OpenSHA [22], is employed
for computing the multivariate distribution of IMs. Furthermore, the
maximum scale factor is limited to four to minimize the bias that
scaling of GMs may induce in the structural responses [45]. Using a
narrow range of scale factors may help to obtain a set of GMs with
a unique threshold for the scale factor. For example, in case of con-
(4)
sidering the effect of near-fault forward directivity, smaller scale factors
have been suggested to avoid bias in the structural responses.
3.3. Conditioning IMs (IMjs)
For GM selection, this study considers nine different IMjs including:
spectrum intensity SI [27], peak ground acceleration PGA, peak ground
velocity PGV, cumulative absolute velocity CAV [21], acceleration
spectrum intensity ASI [50], SA at the fundamental period of the
structure SAT1, SA at the second vibration mode SAT2, SA at the third
(5) assumed as two times of the fundamental period of structure) SATH.
The objective from selection of these nine different IMjs is to consider a
range of different characteristics of GM severity.
The GM hazard curves for a site located in Los Angeles are presented
in Fig. 1 for four of considered IMjs including SI, PGV, CAV, and
SA(T = 2.3 s). For the considered site, the seismic hazard is dominated
30 m depth of the soil profile, Vs30, is 760 m/s. The values of considered
(6)
IMjs at the hazard levels of 2%-in-50-years (i.e., return period of 2475
years) are also presented in Fig. 1. As seen, the considered hazard level
is equivalent with the earthquake intensity levels with SI= 144 cm s/s,
PGV= 44 cm/s, CAV= 1.16 g s, and SA(T = 2.3 s)= 0.23 g. In addition,
the corresponding disaggregation plots, provided in Fig. 2, show the
characteristics associated with the occurrence of given GM intensity
levels. The disaggregation plots indicate that different seismic sources
contribute to the seismic hazard of the site when considering different
IMjs.
3.4. Weight vectors
As discussed earlier, the GCIM approach can consider all features of
GMs that have impacts on structural responses through a normalized
weight vector. GM selection using the GCIM framework leads to dif-
ferent ensembles of GMs for different weight vectors and, therefore,
different structural responses. Hence, it is critical to assign proper
weights to IMs that are deemed important for estimating the seismic
demand. In this study, for GM selection, weights are initially assigned to
24 different IMs, which are appropriately able to characterize the se-
verity of GMs, based on recommendations of Bradley [9] and Kiani and
Pezeshk [37]. These IMs are SA at 15 different periods including 0.05,
99
J. Kiani et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 97–112

Fig. 1. Seismic hazard curves for (a) SI, (b) PGV, (c) CAV, and (d) SA(T = 2.3 s).

0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 10 s, PGA, PGV, PGD,
ASI, SI, DSI, CAV, and significant duration (i.e., Ds5–75 and Ds5–95 [6]).
After performing numerous trials for GM selection, it is found that for
most of considered IMjs, except IMj=SI, selecting suitable ensembles of
GMs is not possible due to the scarcity of as-recorded GMs. In other
words, for most of IMjs selecting a set of GMs with the unbiased dis-
tribution with respect to the target GCIM is impossible, particularly
over rare earthquake intensity level. For example, Fig. 3 presents the
distribution of the selected GMs based on IMj=SA(T = 1.1 s) at the
hazard level of 0.005%-in-50-years, or at the intensity level with
SA(T = 1.1 s)= 1.06 g. As shown, the empirical distributions of the
selected GMs fall outside of the theoretical KS bounds considering the
significance level of 10%. Hence, the distribution of the selected GMs is
biased with respect to the target with 90% confidence level. This issue,

Fig. 2. Disaggregation of the seismic hazard for the hazard level of 2%-in-50-years for (a) SI= 144 cm.s/s, (b) PGV= 44 cm/s, (c) CAV= 1.16 g s, and (d)
SA(T = 2.3 s)= 0.23 g.

100
J. Kiani et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 97–112

Fig. 3. The empirical distributions of the selected GMs associated with the theoretical GCIM target at the hazard level 0.005%-in-50-years (i.e., SA(T = 1.1 s)
= 1.06 g).

biased distributions of the selected GMs with respect to the target, are
observed for the rest of IMjs, but not for IMj = SI, over the rare IM
levels.
To deal with this problem, some aspects of GMs, including PGA,
PGV, PGD, DSI, SI, and CAV, are ignored in matching their distributions
with the target GCIM distribution. In other words, weights are
specifically prescribed to SA IMs and GM duration; whereas no atten-
tion is devoted to other characteristics of GM. Specifically, as shown in
Table 1, two different weight vectors are applied for GM selection to
examine the effect of GM duration including:
Method 1: This method assigns weights to only SA ordinates with
no consideration given to other GM features (i.e., IM={SA(T = 0.05,

Table 1
GM selection methods.
Method Name IMj Weights assigned to different IMs

SA(T)i PGA PGV PGD DSI SI ASI CAV DS5–75 DS5–95

1 IMjSAT1M1 SAT1 1 – – – – – – – – –
IMjSAT2M1 SAT2 1 – – – – – – – – –
IMjSAT3M1 SAT3 1 – – – – – – – – –
IMjSATHM1 SATH 1 – – – – – – – – –
IMjPGAM1 PGA 1 IMj – – – – – – – –
IMjPGVM1 PGV 1 – IMj – – – – – – –
IMjSIM1 SI 1 – – – – IMj – – – –
IMjASIM1 ASI 1 – – – – – IMj – – –
IMjCAVM1 CAV 1 – – – – – – IMj – –
2 IMjSAT1M2 SAT1 0.6 – – – – – – – 0.2 0.2
IMjSAT2M2 SAT2 0.6 – – – – – – – 0.2 0.2
IMjSAT3M2 SAT3 0.6 – – – – – – – 0.2 0.2
IMjSATHM2 SATH 0.6 – – – – – – – 0.2 0.2
IMjPGAM2 PGA 0.6 IMj – – – – – – 0.2 0.2
IMjPGVM2 PGV 0.6 – IMj – – – – – 0.2 0.2
IMjSIM2 SI 0.6 – – – – IMj – – 0.2 0.2
IMjASIM2 ASI 0.6 – – – – – IMj – 0.2 0.2
IMjCAVM2 CAV 0.6 – – – – – – IMj 0.2 0.2
3 IMjSIM3 (Benchmark) SI 0.6 0.04 –ii 0.04 0.04 IMj 0.04 0.14iii 0.05 0.05
4 IMjSIM4 SI 0.66 0.05 –ii 0.05 0.05 IMj 0.05 – 0.07iii 0.07iii
5 IMjSIM5 SI 0.8 0.05 –ii 0.05 0.05 IMj 0.05 – – –

i
Weights are equally assigned to SA IMs at T = 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, and 10 s.
ii
No weight is assigned to PGV due to its strong correlation with SI.
iii
More weight is assigned to CAV, Ds5-75, and Ds5-95 by trial and error to reach unbiased distribution of these IMs.

101
J. Kiani et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 97–112

0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 10 s)}). It should be
noted that, as also shown in Table 1, nine different IMjs and, conse-
quently, nine different cases are considered for GM selection based on
Method 1. For example, IMjSAT1M1 and IMjPGVM1, respectively, use
SAT1 and PGV as the IMj and allocate weight to only SA IMs.
Method 2: This method allocates weights to SA ordinates and
duration in terms of Ds5–75 and Ds5–95 with no consideration given to
other GM features (i.e., IM = {SA(T = 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.75,
1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 10 s), Ds5–75, Ds5–95}). Like Method 1, nine dif-
ferent IMjs are utilized for GM selection based on Method 2.
In both Method 1 and Method 2, the distributions of the selected
GMs for SA IMs statistically match with those for the theoretical GCIM
target. However, the distributions of GM duration in the form of Ds5–75
and Ds5–95 for the selected GMs based on Method 1, unlike Method 2, is
biased with respect to the target distribution. Hence, any difference
between the risk-based structural responses resulted from these
methods can be attributed to the impact of GM duration. In addition,
the aim of using nine different IMjs is to evaluate the effect of GM
duration on the risk-based structural responses considering the role of
IMj.
As mentioned earlier, using SI as IMj allows to select GMs with the
unbiased distributions for all considered IMs in IM over all earthquake
intensity levels. SI, by definition, is the integral of pseudo spectral ve-
locity over a period range from 0.1 to 2.5 s [27]. In fact, SI combines
different IMs or pseudo spectral velocity at different periods. Therefore,
unlike single IMs, it contributes different casual earthquakes from all
possible scenarios to the seismic hazard. Furthermore, SI is a very ef-
ficient IM in predicting the structural responses in terms of MIDR and is
also moderately well correlated with maximum floor acceleration
(MFA) [11,37]. Because of the mentioned advantages associated with
IMj=SI, three other methods for GM selection based on IMj=SI are
considered as follows:
Method 3 (IMjSIM3): This method is based on IMj=SI and allocates
weights to IM= {SA(T = 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 3,
4, 5, 7.5, 10 s), PGA, PGD, ASI, SI, DSI, CAV, Ds5–75, Ds5–75}. As shown
in Table 1, in IMjSIM3, 60% of weights are equally allocated to SA IMs
and the rest 40% are prescribed to the rest of IMs. Weight are assigned
by trial and error and also based on the recommendations available in
[9,37] to reach the unbiased distribution of all IMs in IM. Table 2 lists
the P-values for the KS tests compering the empirical distributions of
the selected GMs based on IMjSIM3with the theoretical GCIM target
distribution. The null hypothesis in the KS test is that the empirical
distribution of the selected GMs is the same with the theoretical target
distribution. For this purpose, a cut-off P-value of 10% is adopted
herein. P-values less than 10% indicate, with 90% confidence, that the
distribution of the selected GMs is biased with respect to the target
GCIM. As seen, the P-values for all considered IMs in IM are greater
than 10% over 20 considered hazard levels meaning that the distribu-
tion of the selected GMs falls between the KS bounds. Hence, the dis-
tribution of the selected GMs based on IMjSIM3 is unbiased with respect
to the GCIM target.
Method 4 (IMjSIM4): This method is the same as Method 3
(IMjSIM3) but assigns no weight to CAV when selecting GMs to examine
its effect on the risk-based structural responses. Hence, any difference
between the risk-based structural responses resulted from IMjSIM4 and
those resulted from IMjSIM3 can be attributed to the effect of CAV.
Method 5 (IMjSIM5): This method is also the same as Method 3
(IMjSIM3) but devotes no attention to cumulative- and duration-based
IMs in terms of CAV, Ds5–75, and Ds5–75. Comparison between the
structural responses resulting from IMjSIM3 and IMjSIM5 provides a
basis for understanding the impacts of cumulative- and duration-based
IMs on the risk-based structural responses.
It is worth to mention that there is a possibility that one sample set
of GMs does not produce stable structural responses. In other words,
structural responses might change as the selected sample set of GMs,
given the same multivariate GCIM distribution, changes. Hence, in this
study, the average structural responses resulted from 10 different
sample ensembles of GMs are considered for each method. This helps to
improve the reliability and stability of the estimated structural re-
sponses and produce true structural responses.
4. Seismic demand analysis
4.1. Considered structural systems
This study analyzes the structural response of three plan-symmetric
special steel moment resisting buildings with reduced beam section
connections. As shown in Fig. 4(a), the buildings include a 4-story with
the fundamental period of 1.1 s (i.e., representative of a low-rise
building), an 8-story with the fundamental period of 2.3 s (i.e., re-
presentative of a mid-rise building), and a 16-story with the funda-
mental period of 3.15 s (i.e., representative of a high-rise building),

Table 2
The P-values for Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for all non-SA IMs based on IMjSIM3.
Probability of exceedance in 50 years Sa(T)i PGA ASI DSI CAV DS5–75 DS5–95

T = 0.1 s T = 0.5 s T=1s T=2s T=3s T=5s

50% 0.93 0.98 0.91 0.43 0.30 0.80 0.38 0.62 0.90 0.97 0.47 0.35
30% 0.70 0.99 0.80 0.58 0.49 0.93 0.45 0.90 0.77 0.54 0.39 0.38
20% 0.86 1.00 0.39 0.62 0.67 0.85 0.47 0.90 0.57 0.94 0.30 0.98
10% 0.33 0.35 0.38 0.67 0.95 0.94 0.40 0.67 0.73 0.56 0.53 0.82
5% 0.39 0.65 0.86 0.23 0.37 0.64 0.38 0.57 0.52 0.85 0.55 0.96
3% 0.73 0.67 0.57 0.93 0.78 0.81 0.94 0.95 0.98 0.67 0.70 0.72
2% 0.69 0.97 0.50 0.64 0.65 0.97 0.93 0.88 0.90 0.99 0.13 0.42
1.5% 0.55 0.56 0.67 0.44 0.99 0.51 0.91 0.73 0.66 0.90 0.83 0.59
1% 0.87 0.90 0.82 0.39 0.48 0.57 0.94 0.83 0.59 0.14 0.97 0.65
0.5% 0.42 0.25 0.51 0.69 0.53 0.84 0.96 0.99 0.82 0.46 0.34 0.90
0.25% 0.76 0.70 0.19 0.72 0.88 0.35 1.00 0.88 0.58 0.11 0.34 0.77
0.2% 0.72 0.36 0.56 0.23 0.89 0.91 0.73 0.37 0.61 0.29 0.51 0.71
0.15% 0.75 0.94 0.24 0.67 0.99 0.96 0.96 0.89 0.98 0.40 0.34 0.95
0.1% 0.64 0.90 0.11 0.95 0.81 0.68 0.40 0.35 0.55 0.24 0.88 0.44
0.05 0.91 0.93 0.77 0.42 0.48 0.43 0.54 0.85 0.47 0.24 0.88 0.97
0.025 0.32 0.76 0.23 0.49 0.75 0.93 0.61 0.54 0.75 0.15 0.91 0.85
0.015 0.55 0.83 0.48 0.57 0.39 0.56 0.16 0.83 0.76 0.28 0.33 0.18
0.01 0.77 0.42 0.73 0.29 0.38 0.75 0.29 0.90 0.35 0.10 0.28 0.50
0.007 0.22 0.30 0.38 0.42 0.25 0.13 0.10 0.46 0.18 0.38 0.24 0.64
0.005 0.19 0.15 0.45 0.44 0.11 0.79 0.14 0.88 0.12 0.19 0.11 0.18

i) For the rest of Sa(T) and non-SA IMs, the observed P-values are greater than 10%, but not presented here.

102
J. Kiani et al.
Fig. 4. (a) Plan and elevation view of the employed buildings and (b) nonlinear
static pushover capacity curves in terms of normalized based shear (V/W) vs
roof drift angle.
designed for a site located in Los Angeles. Ghassemieh and Kiani [23]
modeled the buildings as 2-D centerline models using the lumped
plasticity models in OpenSees [46] to increase the computation speed
and to improve the numerical convergence in case of large deforma-
tions. The models account for both strength and stiffness deterioration
using Modified Ibarra-Medina-Krawinkler Deterioration model [43] as
well as the P-delta effects using the lean-on columns. Ghassemieh and
Kiani [23] provide more descriptive information on the structural
models and the building properties including size and arrangement of
beam and columns, the height of stories, the modified Rayleigh
Fig. 5. Empirical distribution of MIDR and MFA resulted from IMjSIM3 for the 8-story building over the hazard level of 2%-in-50-years associated with lognormal
cumulative distribution.
103
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 97–112
damping, the detailing of panel zones, and connections. Nonlinear
static analysis (pushover) is conducted for three considered frame
buildings using a first mode lateral load pattern. Moreover, Fig. 4(b)
presents the global pushover curves for three frame buildings in terms
of the normalized base shear V/W (i.e., where V is the base shear and W
is the weight of structure) versus roof drift angle using a first mode
lateral load pattern.
4.2. Estimating distribution of structural responses
NDA was accomplished using multiple strip analysis, which allows
the use of hazard-consistent GMs over different earthquake IM levels
[29]. Overall, 315,000 NDAs were performed (3 structures × 20 IM
levels × 25 g × 21 wt vectors ×10 sets) to derive the SDHCs using a
discrete form of Eq. (1) for two different structural responses: MIDR and
MFA. Additionally, for the computation P(EDP > edp|IM=im) in Eq.
(1), dynamic instability (or collapse) is assumed when MIDR= 10%. As
noted by Lin et al. [44], P(EDP > edp|IM=im) for each GM intensity
level can be computed as:
lnedp − μlnEDP ⎞ ⎞
P (EDP > edpIM = im) = P (C ) + (1−P (C )) ⎛⎜1−Φ ⎛ ⎜ ⎟ ⎟
⎝ ⎝ σlnEDP ⎠⎠
(7)
where P(C) is the probability that MIDR exceeds 10% at the considered
earthquake intensity level and Φ(∙) is the cumulative distribution
function for the commonly used standard normal distribution. In ad-
dition, µlnEDP and σlnEDP are the median and standard deviation of the
non-collapsed structural responses, respectively. When computing P
(EDP > edp|IM=im) for the case of MFA, the last term of Eq. (7) is only
employed as outlined in Lin et al. [44].
4.3. Verifying the log-normality assumption
Eq. (7) assumes that the considered EDPs follow a lognormal dis-
tribution. The KS test is implemented to check if samples of structural
responses come from a population with lognormal distribution (i.e., the
null hypothesis). For this purpose, the empirical distribution of sample
structural responses resulted from IMjSIM3 for the 8-story building over
the hazard level of 2%-in-50-years associated with lognormal cumula-
tive distribution are presented in Fig. 5. As seen, the empirical dis-
tributions of the structural responses lie between the KS bounds con-
sidering a significance level of 10%. In addition, the computed P-value
for testing the null hypothesis is 100% for both considered EDPs. This
means that if the data is considered to statistically follow a log-normal
distribution by rejecting the null hypothesis, there is a 100% of doing so
J. Kiani et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 97–112

wrongly. Hence, it can be concluded that the samples structural re- Table 3
sponses come from a population with lognormal distribution. This The P-values resulted from the test examining the sufficiency of SI with respect
process is performed for other structural systems over all earthquake Mw, R, Vs30, and SF based on GMs selected using IMjSIM3.
intensity levels and it is found that the assumption of log-normality is EDP Building Mw R Vs30 SF
reasonable and valid.
MIDR 4-story 0.4 0.1 0.86 0.62
8-story 0.53 0.23 0.28 0.45
5. Point of comparison (Benchmark) 16-story 0.38 0.33 0.9 0.27
MFA 4-story 0.74 0.15 0.61 0.90
8-story 0.8 0.15 0.15 0.20
To derive a reference SDHC, Bradley [8] has implemented the ar- 16-story 0.32 0.61 0.38 0.68
ithmetic mean of the SDHCs resulted from different IMjs. This approach
has its basis on the assumption that the arithmetic mean of the SDHCs
based on different IMjs represents a unique SDHC equivalent to the one discussed earlier, for IMjSIM3, the selected GMs are unbiased with re-
that is expected theoretically. However, there are several important spect to all considered IMs over all earthquake intensity levels. In ad-
problems with using the arithmetic mean of the SDHCs. First, this ap- dition, Table 3 presents the P-values for a statistical test examining the
proach is of little practical appeal since its application would require independence of the distribution of the structural responses given SI on
deriving the SDHCs for different IMjs involving GM selection and per- earthquake magnitude (Mw), source-to-site distance (R), Vs30, and the
forming seismic demand analysis for each of them. Second, the accu- applied scale factor (SF). To perform sufficiency test, a linear regression
racy of the arithmetic mean of the SDHCs depends on the number of is typically fitted between the properties of GMs (i.e. Mw, R, Vs30, and
applied IMjs; as the number of employed IMjs increases so does the SF) and the observed non-collapsed EDPs over each stripe or each
accuracy of the reference SDHC, and vice versa. Third, the arithmetic earthquake intensity level. Then, the sufficiency is examined by testing
mean of the SDHCs is sensitive to the appropriate GM selection in some the null hypothesis that the slope of the fitted linear regression is zero.
cases. In this regard, Fig. 6 presents the SDHCs for nine considered IMjs The statistical significance of the slope of the fitted linear regression is
based on Method 1 and Method 2 and their arithmetic mean. It can be measured using the P-value resulted from the F-test. The null hypoth-
seen that there is a considerable difference between the means of the esis is rejected if the P-value is less than the cut-off P-value. The re-
SDHCs resulting from Method 1 and Method 2 for the 16-story building. sulted P-values demonstrate that the record-to-record variability of the
As mentioned earlier, Method 1, unlike Method 2, ignores GM duration structural responses resulted from IMjSIM3 is independent of Mw, R,
in terms of significant duration in the process of GM selection. Thus, Vs30, and SF assuming a 10% significance level over the hazard level of
improper GM selection, in the form of neglecting a GM feature, can 0.005%-in-50-years as well as the rest of hazard levels, which are not
even induce a bias in the arithmetic mean of SDHCs. Recall that for presented herein. In other words, the findings demonstrate that SI is a
most IMjs neglecting some features of GMs over high earthquake in- sufficient IM with respect to Mw, R, Vs30, and SF. For the rest of con-
tensity is unavoidable. Therefore, it seems that the arithmetic mean of sidered IMjs, the null hypothesis of the sufficiency test is rejected over
the SDHCs is not a proper reference SDHC in some cases. some earthquake intensity levels but not all of them. The sufficiency of
Because of the mentioned problems with the arithmetic mean of the SI, the efficiency of SI [37], and the unbiased distribution of the se-
SDHCs, an alternative method is required for establishing a reference lected GMs based on IMjSIM3 with respect to the target GCIM ensure
SDHC. To this end, this study considers the resulted SDHC based on that the resulted EDPs are representative of those that the structure
IMjSIM3 as the reference SDHC because GMs selected based on this might experience in the future. As the unbiased structural responses for
method are unbiased with respect to the target GCIM and also the IMjSIM3 is expected, the results of this approach are considered as the
conditioning IM used in this method (i.e., SI) is a sufficient and efficient benchmark hereafter. Finally, it should be noted that only those
IM. As mentioned earlier, when using IMj = SI for GM selection, sets of structural responses from IMjSIM1, IMjSIM4, and IMjSIM5 will be
GMs with the unbiased distributions for all considered IMs even over compared with those from the benchmark (IMjSIM3) as all of them
rare earthquake intensity levels can be achieved. Specifically, as implement SI as the IMj.

Fig. 6. Comparison between the arithmetic mean of SDHCs of Method 1 and Method 2.

104
J. Kiani et al.
5.1. True bias or estimation noise?
It was shown in Fig. 6 that there is a significant difference between
the means of SDHCs resulted from Method 1 and Method 2 for the 16-
story building. The question that might come up is whether the com-
puted differences in the MIDR SDHCs in Fig. 6 are true bias due to
improper GM selection or they are just estimation noise. To answer this
question, bootstrapping method, which uses random sampling with
replacement to estimate the distribution of a statistic, is implemented
herein. For the present case, bootstrapping allows to compute the dis-
tribution of errors in the SDHCs based on resampling of the original
structural responses, which are obtained using the MSA analyses over
each earthquake intensity level, forming a new sample database
(bootstrap sample) of structural responses with the same size as the
original data. The new bootstrap samples of structural responses are
utilized to compute SDHCs (bootstrap SDHCs) for different methods
listed in Table 1. Then, the bootstrap SDHCs are employed to compute
the arithmetic means of SDHCs based on Method 1 and Method 2. In
addition, the error ratio, which is defined as the ratio of the MIDR value
obtained using Method 1 to that resulted from Method 2 for a given
value of the annual rate of exceedance, is calculated. This process is
repeated 10,000 times to finally find the distribution of errors in the
SDHCs. Fig. 7 presents the distribution of errors induced in the MIDR
SDHCs for all considered buildings over the hazard level with the ex-
ceedance probability of 10−5. Notably the error ratio of 1 indicates that
the SDHC for Method 1 is unbiased with respect to the benchmark
SDHC. Fig. 7 clearly shows that an error ratio of 1 is a usual outcome for
the 4- and 8-story buildings; whereas it is quite unlikely to obtain such
an error ratio for the 16-story building. In addition, from Fig. 6 it can be
observed that the observed value of the error ratio is approximately 0.5
for the 16-story building over the hazard level with the exceedance
probability of 10−5. A hypothesis test (i.e., with the null hypothesis that
error ratio is equal to the observed one from Fig. 6; e.g., 0.5 for the 16-
story building) is used to investigate whether this observed value for
the error ratio follow the estimated distribution using bootstrapping.
The empirical P-value for the null hypothesis, which is the shaded area
under histogram in Fig. 7 or the fraction of all simulated error ratios
that are less than 0.5, is computed as 35% for the 16-story building that
is higher than the confidence level considered for this study (i.e., 10%).
This indicates that there is no enough evidence to reject the null hy-
pothesis (i.e., error ratio is equal to 0.5) and, hence, the data is con-
sistent with the null hypothesis. Therefore, the results of bootstrapping
express that the difference in the SDHCs for the 16-story building is due
Fig. 7. The distribution of bootstrap estimates of the induced error in the MIDR
SDHCs over the hazard level with the exceedance probability of 10−5.
105
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 97–112
to improper GM selection rather than being estimation noise.
6. Effects of Non-SA IMS on the risk-based EDPS
The effects of non-SA IMs in terms of PGA, PGV, PGD, ASI, SI, DSI,
CAV, and significant duration on the risk-based EDPs are examined by
comparing the results of IMjSIM1 with the benchmark. Both methods
implement IMj=SI; however, the benchmark prescribes weights to a
wide variety of GM features; while in IMjSIM1 the distributions of non-
SA IMs are biased. Therefore, the difference between the risk-based
EDPs resulting from these methods is due to ignoring non-SA IMs. This
study uses an error term defined as “the ratio of the EDP value obtained
using the benchmark to that resulted from IMjSIM1 for a given value of
the annual rate of exceedance” for the purpose of comparison. Fig. 8
presents the SDHCs for the benchmark and IMjSIM1 methods and the
associated error ratios in MIDR for all considered buildings. As seen, the
risk-based results for the 4-story building (representative of a short-
period building) are approximately similar for both the benchmark and
IMjSIM1. In addition, the error ratio for the 4-story building demon-
strates that the biased distributions of non-SA IMs introduce an error
less than 10% in the risk-based MIDR. When considering the 8- and 16-
story buildings, the risk-based results of the benchmark and IMjSIM1
are noticeably different over the rarer hazard levels. For example, the
difference in the risk-based results for both the 8- and 16-story build-
ings is more than 50% for the IM level with the annual exceedance rate
of about 10−5. This clearly indicates the importance of non-SA IMs in
terms of PGA, PGV, PGD, ASI, SI, DSI, CAV, and significant duration in
capturing the accurate risk-based structural responses in case of
medium- and high-rise buildings. In addition, the results presented in
Fig. 8 demonstrate that ignoring non-SA IMs in GM selection over-
estimates MIDR hazard for the medium- and high-rise buildings.
From observing Fig. 8, the obvious question is whether differences
between the SDHCs of the benchmark and IMjSIM1 are due to the effect
of non-SA IMs. One may claim that this difference is due to errors that
might exist in the seismic demand-risk assessment, as addressed by
Bradley [8]. However, it is important to note that identical values are
used for both the benchmark and IMjSIM1 for the following conditions:
(i) the selected IMj; (ii) the number of applied GMs over each level; (iii)
the number of earthquake intensity levels; and (iv) the SA ordinates
used for matching their distributions with the target. In fact, the only
difference between the benchmark and IMjSIM1 is that the distributions
of non-SA features of GMs are biased in IMjSIM1. As the dissimilarity in
the mentioned items can only introduce an error in the risk-based re-
sults, the observed difference in the risk-based MIDRs is due to the ef-
fect of non-SA IMs.
Fig. 9 compares the SDHCs for MFA and presents the error ratio in
the risk-based MFAs for all considered buildings. A comparison between
the risk-based results for MIDR and MFA, shown in Figs. 8 and 9, de-
monstrates that the impact of non-SA IMs in MFA is not as significant as
that for MIDR. Specifically, the difference between the risk-based
structural response as measured by MFA for the benchmark and IM-
jSIM1 is less than 3% in the case of 4-story building. When considering
the 8- and 16-story buildings, the maximum error ratio increases to
about 10%. In addition, non-SA IMs influence the SDHCs differently
depending on the considered EDP. For the risk-based MFAs, unlike the
risk-based MIDRs, the maximum error ratio due to ignoring non-SA IMs
occurs at the annual exceedance rate of approximately 10−3. On the
other hand, the maximum bias in the MIDR SDHCs occurs over rare
hazard levels with the return periods beyond 10,000 years. In fact, the
error induced in the MIDR SDHCs, unlike MFA SDHCs, because of
disregarding non-SA IMs increases as the intensity of earthquake in-
creases.
In conclusion, the findings indicate that GM selection based on only
SA ordinates is not accurate in predicting the risk-based EDPs, parti-
cularly when estimating the risk-based MIDRs in medium and high-rise
buildings. Notably, non-SA IMs have been neglected in many studies for
J. Kiani et al.
Fig. 8. SDHCs for MIDR for all considered buildings subjected to two sets of GMs from the benchmark and IMjSIM1 (left figures) and the error ratio in MIDR due to
the biased distribution of non-SA IMs (right figures).
estimating the risk-based structural responses such as Kohrangi et al.
[38], Lin et al. [44], and Kwong et al. [40]. The bias in the risk-based
structural responses due to neglecting non-SA IMs initially comes back
to the importance of these GM features in predicting the structural re-
sponses [37]. In general, if the structural responses are not sensitive to
non-SA IMs, two different sets of GMs that have the same spectral
shape, but different distributions of non-SA IMs produce statistically
identical estimates of the structural responses. However, if the struc-
tural responses are sensitive to SA-IMs, attentions should be given in
selecting a proper set of GMs with the unbiased distribution of SA- and
non-SA IMs with respect to the target.
7. Impact of GM duration on the risk-based EDPS based on IMj=SI
To examine the effect of GM duration on the risk-based EDPs, a
comparison is made between the structural responses resulting from
methods with IMj=SI including the benchmark, IMjSIM4, and IMjSIM5.
Fig. 10 presents the SDHCs for MIDR obtained based on these three
methods. Unlike the benchmark, IMjSIM4, ignores CAV in GM selection
leading to the biased distribution of CAV with respect to the target for
almost all considered earthquake intensity levels. Therefore, any dif-
ference in the risk-based MIDRs resulted from the benchmark and IM-
jSIM4 is due to the impact of CAV. However, the similarity between the
SDHCs, shown in Fig. 10, demonstrates that CAV does not have a
substantial impact on the risk-based MIDRs for all considered buildings,
if significant duration is taken into account. It is noteworthy to mention
that the same results are observed in an intensity-based context [34].
Hence, neglecting CAV in GM selection does not result in any bias in the
structural responses as measured by MIDR.
106
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 97–112
Fig. 10 also compares the IMjSIM5 case, of which no weight is al-
located to significant duration, with the benchmark. The resulting
SDHCs indicate that significant duration has no considerable influences
on the risk-based MIDRs for the 4- and 8-story buildings, which are,
respectively, known as short- and medium-period buildings. However,
for the 16-story building, the SDHCs are not similar for the benchmark
and IMjSIM5 over rare hazard levels with the return periods beyond
100,000 years showing the importance of Ds5–75 and Ds5–95 on the risk-
based MIDR. In this case, as shown in Fig. 10, significant duration is
approximately not important in case of small drift values. Kiani et al.
[34] have also demonstrated that, in case of using SI as the IMj, sig-
nificant duration does not have a considerable influence in the para-
meters of fragility curves of three different limit states including im-
mediate occupancy, life safety, and collapse prevention, which are
equivalent to MIDR thresholds of 0.7%, 2.5%, and 5%, respectively.
This is consistent with the results of present study showing that sig-
nificant duration does not have a considerable effect on the MIDR ha-
zard curves over the mentioned MIDR thresholds. On the other hand,
significant duration has a substantial effect on the MIDR hazard curves
of the considered tall building (i.e., the 16-story building) over large
levels of MIDR such as MIDR = 10% that is equivalent to collapse or
global dynamic instability. In fact, Fig. 10 explains that the biased
distribution of significant duration leads to the underestimation of risk-
based EDPs as compared to the case where the distribution of sig-
nificant duration is unbiased.
One more important observation from the risk-based results for
the16-story building is that GMs with the longer duration under-
estimate MIDR over rare hazard levels with the return periods beyond
100,000 years. Fig. 11 displays the distributions of Ds5–75 for the
J. Kiani et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 97–112

Fig. 9. SDHCs for MFA for all considered buildings subjected to two sets of GMs from the benchmark and IMjSIM1 (left figures) and the error ratio in MFA due to the
biased distributions of non-SA IMs (right figures).

selected GMs based on the benchmark and IMjSIM5. As seen, the se-
lected GMs based on IMjSIM5 have longer durations than those selected
based on the benchmark. This observation explains that the set of GMs
with longer duration leads to the lesser mean annual rate of exceedance
between two sets of GMs with equivalent response spectra. In the pre-
sent case, it can be seen from Fig. 10 that the annual rate of collapse or
global dynamic instability (i.e., MIDR = 10%) is smaller for IMjSIM5
(GMs with longer duration) than the benchmark method (GMs with
shorter duration). This is due to the fact that in case of shallow events,
unlike large magnitude subduction events, the greater damage, which
corresponds to the larger probability of collapse, is associated with
shorter duration GMs due to the rapid release of energy. Overall, in case
of shallow events and IMj=SI, neglecting GM duration in the GM se-
lection process leads to an ensemble of GMs with duration longer than
the expected one causing the underestimation of the mean annual ex-
ceedance rate of MIDR for the considered tall building over rare
earthquake intensity levels with the return periods beyond 100,000
years.

Fig. 10. SDHCs for MIDR for all considered buildings subjected to three sets of GMs from the benchmark, IMjSIM4, and IMjSIM5.

107
J. Kiani et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 97–112

Fig. 11. Distributions of the selected GMs for Ds5–75 at two different earthquake intensity levels.

Table 4
Structural responses for three different methods over two different earthquake levels when IMj=SI.
EDP MIDR (rad.) MFA (g)

Building 4-story 8-story 16-story 4-story 8-story 16-story

Return period (years) 475 2475 475 2475 475 2475 475 2475 475 2475 475 2475
Benchmark 0.008 0.014 0.01 0.017 0.008 0.013 0.63 0.94 0.51 0.77 0.52 0.79
IMjSIM4 0.008 0.014 0.009 0.017 0.008 0.013 0.60 0.93 0.46 0.76 0.48 0.81
IMjSIM5 0.008 0.014 0.009 0.016 0.008 0.013 0.62 0.96 0.47 0.76 0.49 0.81

Table 4 summarizes the MIDR values from three methods over two
earthquake IM levels of 2%- and 10%-in-50-years (i.e., corresponding to
the return periods of 475 and 2475 years, respectively), which are
commonly used by seismic design codes. As seen, the MIDR values over
these levels are approximately the same for all three methods. These
results indicate that the risk-based structural responses in terms of
MIDR are insensitive to GM duration over the two considered IM levels
when IMj=SI. As an example, MIDR for the 16-story buildings for an
earthquake with return period of 2475 years is approximately 1.3% for
these three methods. However, as discussed earlier, there are difference
between the risk-based MIDRs over rare hazard levels with the return
periods beyond 100,000 years (when the structural system experiences
high levels of nonlinearity) in the high-rise buildings, as discussed
above.
In addition to MIDR, the effect of GM duration on the risk-based
MFA is examined. Fig. 12 displays the risk-based MFAs for all con-
sidered buildings subjected to three sets of GMs including the bench-
mark, IMjSIM4, and IMjSIM5. As shown, the risk-based MFAs for the
three methods are appropriately consistent with just a small difference
between the annual rates of 10−2 and 10−3. For example, as also listed
in Table 4, at the 10%-in-50 years IM level, there is a difference be-
tween the MFA risk-based results with the maximum difference of 10%
between the benchmark and IMjSIM4 for the 8-story building. Never-
theless, the differences between the MFA risk-based results in most
other cases are negligible over these two earthquake IM levels.
8. Considering additional IMjS and the impact of GM duration
In this section, the effect of GM duration is examined on the risk-
based EDPs considering different IMjs. As discussed, Method 1, unlike
Method 2, considers significant duration in GM selection. Hence, any
difference in the risk-based EDPs resulting from the methods with the
same IMj can be attributed to the inclusion of significant duration in GM
selection. Figs. 13 and 14 present the risk-based structural responses for
MIDR and MFA using Method 1 and Method 2 with four different IMjs:
SAT1, PGA, SATH, and PGV. As seen, when IMj=SAT1 and IMj =SATH,

Fig. 12. SDHCs for MFA for all considered buildings subjected to three sets of GMs from the benchmark, IMjSIM4, and IMjSIM5.

108
J. Kiani et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 97–112

Fig. 13. Risk-based EDPs resulting from Method 1 and Method 2 considering SAT1 (top figures) and PGA (bottom figures) as IMjs.

there is a significant difference between the risk-based MFAs in most
considered buildings; while the difference between the MIDR SDHCs is
much smaller. On the other hand, when IMj=PGV and IMj=PGA, the
difference between the MFA SDHCs is not important. Hence, PGA and
PGV, unlike SAT1 and SATH, could be considered as sufficient IMs with
respect to significant duration when predicting MFA hazard curves.
This means that ignoring significant duration in the GM selection pro-
cess does not lead to a significant bias in the MFA structural responses
in case of using PGA, PGV, and SAs at higher modes (not presented
here) as the primary GM feature to link seismic demand responses to

Fig. 14. Risk-based EDPs resulting from Method 1 and Method 2 considering SATH (top figures) and PGV (bottom figures) as IMjs.

109
J. Kiani et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 97–112

the results of PSHA. In addition, none of the applied IMj are sufficient
with respect to GM duration to remove the induced error in the MIDR
hazard curves due to ignoring significant duration, particularly over
rare hazard levels with the return periods beyond 10,000 years. In
overall, the main observation from Figs. 13 and 14 is that the effect of
significant duration on the risk-based structural responses could be
considerable depending on the considered IMj and the hazard level.
It should be point out that for all considered IMjs (not presented
herein), GMs selected based on Method 2 have shorter duration than
those selected based on Method 1. Figs. 13 and 14 explain that for most
applied IMjs (but not all of them), the annual exceedance rate of MIDR
is larger for GMs with shorter duration (selected based on Method 2)
than that for GMs with longer duration (selected based on Method 1)
over rare earthquake hazard levels. As mentioned earlier, in case of
shallow events, unlike large magnitude subduction events, GMs with
shorter duration because of the rapid release of energy lead to greater
levels of damage in the structural systems than GMs with longer
durations.
ASCE/SEI 7 (2016) requires considering the spectral shape of GMs
for GM selection; while it gives no direct attention to GM duration.
Hence, it is required to examine the importance of ignoring GM dura-
tion in the GM selection process on the risk structural responses for
design purposes. In this regard, two hazard levels including the levels
with the return periods of 475 and 2475, which are commonly used for
seismic design purposes, are implemented in this section. The differ-
ences between the structural responses resulted from Method 2 and
Method 1 normalized by that for Method 2, are computed and pre-
sented in Table 5. It is obvious that the differences in the structural
responses will be non-zero in most cases to some level of precision.
Hence, this study considers a precision level of 10% for comparing the
structural responses. Furthermore, a controversial question is whether
these differences are real (i.e., due to GM duration) or they are just due
to chance. As discussed earlier, the only difference between GMs se-
lected based on Method 1 and Method 2 is that GMs for Method 2,
unlike those for Method 1, have statistically the same distributions as
the target for GM duration. Therefore, any differences in the risk-based
structural responses can be attributed to the effect of GM duration. Like
the process applied earlier, bootstrapping is implemented to compute
the distribution of the risk-based structural responses over the two
applied hazard levels. Then, the bootstrap results are employed for
performing a hypothesis test investigating whether the differences be-
tween the structural responses are due to chance or they are real bias
because of ignoring GM duration. For this hypothesis test, the null
hypothesis is that GM duration has an effect on the risk-based structural
responses (i.e., the risk-based structural responses resulted from
Method 1 and Method 2 are not the same). Thus, P-values greater than
the cut-off P-value of 10% indicate, with 90% confidence, that the
differences in the structural responses are due to GM duration. Table 5
just presents the differences that are greater than 10% and have a P-
value greater than 10% for different choices of IMjs. The following
findings can be observed from the results listed in Table 5:
➢ Over commonly used design hazard levels, the omission of GM
duration, even in case of shorter-duration shallow crustal seismic
events, can induce a bias in the structural responses depending on
the considered IMj and building. This explains that GM duration
should be considered for GM selection for seismic design and seismic
performance assessment.
➢ The positive signs indicate that the ignorance of GM duration leads
to the underestimation of the structural responses irrespective of the
considered EDP over the hazard levels used for design purposes. In
other words, the structural responses resulted from Method 2, which
considers the effect of GM duration, are larger than those resulted
from Method 1, which ignores GM duration. As discussed earlier,
GMs selected based on Method 2 have shorter duration in compar-
ison to those selected based on Method 1 (like the one presented in
Fig. 11). This explains that shorter duration GMs leads to the larger
structural responses than longer duration GMs. This is consistent
with the results of previous research studies on the effect of duration
of GMs from shallow events (e.g., [25,34]).
➢ When estimating MIDR, ignoring GM duration could lead to the
underestimation of the structural responses when using SAT1, SAT3,
SATH, and CAV as the primary IM for characterizing GM severity.
For the rest of considered IMjs, GM duration does not show sig-
nificant effect on MIDR over the hazard levels with the return per-
iods of 475 and 2475 years. In addition, the maximum bias in the
MIDR structural responses is about 24% (i.e. meaning that MIDR is
underestimated by 24%) for IMj= SAT3. It should be noted that, as
discussed earlier, the impact of GM duration on the structural re-
sponses might be more significant over very rare hazard levels than
the hazard levels used for seismic design purposes.
➢ With respect to MFA, the effect of GM duration on the structural
responses is considerable for three considered IMjs including SAT1,
SATH, and CAV; while ASI, PGA, PGV, SI, and SAs at higher modes
sufficient IMs with respect to GM duration. The maximum error in
the MFA structural responses due to neglecting GM duration could
be up to 40% when using SATH as the IMj over the commonly used
hazard levels for designing structural systems.
9. Conclusions
The objective of this study was to quantify the bias introduced on
the SDHCs due to unsuitable GM selection. To this end, the effect of
ignoring different parameters of GMs (e.g., PGA, PGV, PGD, ASI, SI, DSI,
CAV, and significant duration), which are not well characterized by SA
IMs, on the risk-based structural responses in terms of MIDR and MFA is

Table 5
Difference (in percent) between the risk-based structural responses from Method 1 and Method 2.
EDP Building Return periods IMj

SAT1 SAT2 SAT3 SATH PGA PGV SI ASI CAV

MIDR 4-story 475 – – – 15 – – – – 10

2475 – – – 19 – – – – 17
8-story 475 16 – 10 – 13 – – – 10
2475 17 – 16 – 14 – – – 10
16-story 475 10 – 24 19 – – – – 13
2475 12 – 24 15 – – – – 14
MFA 4-story 475 – – – – – – – – –
2475 – – – – – – – – –
8-story 475 12 – – – – – – – 11
2475 10 – – – – – – – 19
16-story 475 12 – – 35 – – – – 16
2475 27 – – 40 – – – – 24

110
J. Kiani et al.
examined while considering different conditioning IMs (known as IMj).
The important findings based on the considered structures and site are
listed below:
1. In most cases, not unexpectedly, it is found that selecting GMs with
the unbiased distributions for all considered IMs is nearly impossible
over high-intensity earthquake levels. However, when the IMj is SI,
unbiased distributions are possible for all considered IMs even over
rare earthquake intensity levels.
2. Depending on the considered structure and hazard level, GM se-
lection based only on SA ordinates leads to a significant bias in the
MIDR risk-based results. Specifically, when IMj = SI, the induced
bias in MIDR is less than 10% for the 4-story building (re-
presentative of a short-period building). For the 8- and 16-story
buildings, which are, respectively, known as medium- and high-rise
buildings, the induced bias in MIDR due to ignoring non-SA IMs is
more than 50% over very rare hazard levels (i.e., around the hazard
level with the return period of 100,000 years).
3. Neglecting non-SA IMs introduces a bias in the risk-based MFAs.
However, the induced bias in MFA is not as significant as that for
MIDR. For the 4-story building, the bias was minor, less than 5%.
For the 8- and 16-story buildings, the omission of non-SA IMs in-
duces a bias of about 10% in MFA.
4. Non-SA IMs influence the risk-based structural responses or SDHCs
differently depending on the considered EDP for measuring the
structural damage. In case of MIDR hazard curves, the maximum
bias due to ignoring Non-SA IMs occurs over very rare hazard levels.
However, the MFA SDHCs deviate from the reference SDHC over the
hazard levels with the probability exceedance around 10−3, which
are important from design prospective.
5. Selecting GMs just based on spectral shapes and assigning no weight
to GM duration in the GM selection process leads to a set of GMs
with longer duration in comparison to the expected one in case of
shallow events. Additionally, the results demonstrated that the ig-
norance of GM duration could result in the underestimation of the
structural responses in most cases. In fact, in case of shallow events
(unlike subduction events), the larger structural responses are due to
shorter duration GMs because the rapid release of energy.
6. When IMj=SI, CAV, as a cumulative-based IM, implies no effect on
the risk-based structural responses if significant duration is in-
corporated in the GM selection process. In addition, the effect of
significant duration on the risk-based MIDRs is negligible for the 4-
and 8-story buildings when IMj=SI. For the 16-story building, sig-
nificant duration has a considerable effect on the structural re-
sponses only over rare hazard levels with the return periods beyond
100,000 years; while no effect was observed over the design hazard
levels. Specifically, in case of IMj=SI, the annual exceedance rate of
collapse for GMs with longer duration is smaller than that for GMs
with the same spectral shape but with shorter duration.
7. The findings demonstrated that the effect of GM duration on the
risk-based structural responses significantly depends on the choice
of IMj. The effect of GM duration on the structural responses can
vary from 0% to 40% depending on the considered EDP and the
applied IMj over the hazard levels used for design purposes (i.e., the
hazard levels with return periods of 475 and 2475 years). In addi-
tion, in case of estimating MFA risk-based structural responses, it
was found that GM duration does not influence the structural re-
sponses when ASI, PGA, PGV, and SAs at higher modes are used as
the IMj. On other hand, no sufficient IM with respect to GM duration
is found when estimating MIDR over rare hazard levels with the
return periods beyond 10,000 years.
Although the findings are limited to the considered structural sys-
tems and site it is expected that the ignorance of non-SA IMs in GM
selection process leads to a considerable amount of bias in the structural
responses when using risk-based seismic assessment framework.
111
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 97–112
However, future research studies are required to examine the effect of
non-SA parameters on the structural responses for other types of
building and sites. In addition, future research studies are required to
examine the application of the energy-based GM features (which in-
cludes information about the amplitude, frequency content, and dura-
tion of GMs) as the IMj instead of SI (which just includes information
about the amplitude and frequency content of GMs).
References
[1] Ancheta TD, Darragh RB, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Silva WJ, Chiou BSJ, et al. PEER
NGA-West2Database. Technical Report PEER2013/03. Berkeley, CA: Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 2013.
[2] Baker JW, Cornell CA. A vector‐valued ground motion intensity measure consisting
of spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2005;34(10):1193–217.
[3] Baker JW. Conditional mean spectrum: tool for ground-motion selection. J Struct
Eng 2010;137(3):322–31.
[4] Barbosa AR, Ribeiro FL, Neves LA. Influence of earthquake ground‐motion duration
on damage estimation: application to steel moment resisting frames. Earthq Eng
Struct Dyn 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2769.
[5] Bommer JJ, Magenes G, Hancock J, Penazzo P. The influence of strong-motion
duration on the seismic response of masonry structures. Bull Earthq Eng
2004;2(1):1–26.
[6] Bommer JJ, Stafford PJ, Alarcón JE. Empirical equations for the prediction of the
significant, bracketed, and uniform duration of earthquake ground motion. Bull
Seismol Soc Am 2009;99(6):3217–33.
[7] Bradley BA. Empirical correlations between peak ground velocity and spectrum-
based intensity measures. Earthq Spectra 2012;28(1):17–35.
[8] Bradley BA. The seismic demand hazard and importance of the conditioning in-
tensity measure. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2012;41(11):1417–37.
[9] Bradley BA. A ground motion selection algorithm based on the generalized condi-
tional intensity measure approach. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2012;40:48–61.
[10] Bradley BA. Practice‐oriented estimation of the seismic demand hazard using
ground motions at few intensity levels. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2013;42(14):2167–85.
[11] Bradley BA, Dhakal RP, MacRae GA, Cubrinovski M. Prediction of spatially dis-
tributed seismic demands in specific structures: ground motion and structural re-
sponse. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2010;39(5):501–20.
[12] Bradley BA, Dhakal RP. Error estimation of closed‐form solution for annual rate of
structural collapse. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2008;37(15):1721–37.
[13] Bradley BA. A generalized conditional intensity measure approach and holistic
ground‐motion selection. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2010;39(12):1321–42.
[14] Chandramohan R, Baker JW, Deierlein GG. Quantifying the influence of ground
motion duration on structural collapse capacity using spectrally equivalent records.
Earthq Spectra 2016;32(2):927–50.
[15] Chandramohan R, Baker JW, Deierlein GG. Impact of hazard‐consistent ground
motion duration in structural collapse risk assessment. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2016.
[16] Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC
federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng
2002;128(4):526–33.
[17] De Biasio M, Grange S, Dufour F, Allain F, Petre‐Lazar I. Intensity measures for
probabilistic assessment of non‐structural components acceleration demand. Earthq
Eng Struct Dyn 2015;44(13):2261–80.
[18] Du W, Wang G. Ground motion selection for seismic slope displacement analysis
using a generalized intensity measure distribution method. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2018;47:1352–9.
[19] Ebrahimian H, Azarbakht A, Tabandeh A, Golafshani AA. The exact and approx-
imate conditional spectra in the multi-seismic-sources regions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2012;39:61–77.
[20] Ebrahimian H, Jalayer F, Lucchini A, Mollaioli A, Manfredi G. Preliminary ranking
of alternative scalar and vector intensity measures of ground shaking. Bull Earthq
Eng 2015;13(10):2805–40.
[21] EPRI. A criterion for determining exceedance of the operating basis earthquake.
Palo Alto, CA: EPRI NP-5930; 1988. p. 330.
[22] Field EH, Jordan TH, Cornell CA. OpenSHA: a developing community-modeling
environment for seismic hazard analysis. Seismol Res Lett 2003;74(4):406–19.
[23] Ghassemieh M, Kiani J. Seismic evaluation of reduced beam section frames con-
sidering connection flexibility. Struct Des Tal Spec Build 2013;22(16):1248–69.
[24] Hancilar U, Caktı E. Fragility functions for code complying RC frames via best
correlated IM–EDP pairs. Bull Earthq Eng 2015;13(11):3381–400.
[25] Hancock J, Bommer JJ. A state-of-knowledge review of the influence of strong-
motion duration on structural damage. Earthq Spectra 2006;22(3):827–45.
[26] Hancock J, Bommer JJ. Using spectral matched records to explore the influence of
strong-motion duration on inelastic structural response. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2007;27(4):291–9.
[27] Housner GW. Spectrum intensities of strong-motion earthquakes. In: Proceedings of
the symposium on earthquakes and blast effects on structures, Los Angeles,
California; 1952. p. 20–36.
[28] Iervolino I, Cornell CA. Record selection for nonlinear seismic analysis of structures.
Earthq Spectra2 2005;1(3):685–713.
[29] Jalayer F, Cornell CA. Alternative non‐linear demand estimation methods for
probability‐based seismic assessments. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2009;38(8):951–72.
[30] Jayaram N, Baker JW. Statistical tests of the joint distribution of spectral
J. Kiani et al.
acceleration values. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2008;98(5):2231–43.
[31] Jayaram N, Lin T, Baker JW. A computationally efficient ground-motion selection
algorithm for matching a target response spectrum mean and variance. Earthq
Spectra 2011;27(3):797–815.
[32] Kalkan E, Chopra AK. Evaluation of modal pushover–based scaling of one compo-
nent of ground motion: tall buildings. Earthq Spectra 2012;28(4):1469–93.
[33] Katsanos EI, Sextos AG, Manolis GD. Selection of earthquake ground motion re-
cords: a state-of-the-art review from a structural engineering perspective. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 2010;30(4):157–69.
[34] Kiani J, Camp C, Pezeshk S. Role of conditioning intensity measure in the influence
of ground motion duration on the structural response. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2018;104:408–17.
[35] Kiani J, Camp C, Pezeshk S. On the number of required response history analyses.
Bull Earthq Eng 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0381-1.
[36] Kiani J, Khanmohammadi M. New approach for selection of real input ground
motion records for incremental dynamic analysis (IDA). J Earthq Eng
2015;19(4):592–623.
[37] Kiani J, Pezeshk S. Sensitivity analysis of the seismic demands of RC moment re-
sisting frames to different aspects of ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2017;46(15):2739–55.
[38] Kohrangi M, Bazzurro P, Vamvatsikos D, Spillatura A. Conditional spectrum‐based
ground motion record selection using average spectral acceleration. Earthq Eng
Struct Dyn 2017.
[39] Krawinkler H. Cyclic loading histories for seismic experimentation on structural
components. Earthq Spectra 1996;12(1):1–12.
[40] Kwong NS, Chopra AK, McGuire RK. A framework for the evaluation of ground
motion selection and modification procedures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2015;44(5):795–815.
[41] Kwong NS, Chopra AK. A generalized conditional mean spectrum and its applica-
tion for intensity-based assessments of seismic demands. Earthq Spectra
112
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120 (2019) 97–112
2017;33(1):123–43.
[42] Lazar N, Dolšek M. Incorporating intensity bounds for assessing the seismic safety of
structures: does it matter? Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2014;43(5):717–38.
[43] Lignos DG, Krawinkler H. Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of
collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading. J Struct Eng
2010;137(11):1291–302.
[44] Lin T, Haselton CB, Baker JW. Conditional spectrum‐based ground motion selec-
tion. Part I: hazard consistency for risk‐based assessments. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2013;42(12):1847–65.
[45] Luco N, Bazzurro P. Does amplitude scaling of ground motion records result in
biased nonlinear structural drift responses? Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2007;36(13):1813–35.
[46] McKenna F, Fenves GL, Scott MH. Open system for earthquake engineering simu-
lation. Berkeley, CA: University of California; 2000.
[47] Naeim F, Alimoradi A, Pezeshk S. Selection and scaling of ground motion time
histories for structural design using genetic algorithms. Earthq Spectra
2004;20(2):413–26.
[48] Raghunandan M, Liel AB. Effect of ground motion duration on earthquake-induced
structural collapse. Struct Saf 2013;41:119–33.
[49] Shome N, Cornell CA, Bazzurro P, Carballo JE. Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear
responses. Earthq Spectra 1998;14(3):469–500.
[50] Von-Thun J, Roehm L, Scott G, Wilson J. Earthquake ground motions for design and
analysis of dams, earthquake engineering and soil dynamics II–recent advances in
ground-motion evaluation. Geotech Spec Publ 1988;20:463–81.
[51] Wang G. A ground motion selection and modification method capturing response
spectrum characteristics and variability of scenario earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq
Eng 2011;31(4):611–25.
[52] Zareian F, Krawinkler H. Assessment of probability of collapse and design for col-
lapse safety. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2007;36(13):1901–14.