Predictive Equations to Estimate Arias Intensity

and Cumulative Absolute Velocity As A

Function of Housner Intensity
J. Enrique Martinez-Ruedaa, Giannis Moutsokapasa and
Evdokia Tsantalia
a
Civil Engineering and Geology Division, School of Environment and Technology,
University of Brighton, Lewes Rd, Cockcroft Bldg, Brighton BN24GJ, UK.
Email: jem 11 @bton. ac. uk
Abstract. This paper deals with the development of empirical relationships for the estimation of
Arias Intensity and Cumulative Absolute Velocity as a function of Housner Intensity. These
ground motion parameters are evaluated for a data set of natural accelerograms previously used
in the calibration of attenuation equations in Europe and the Middle East. The family of the
predictive equations proposed account for different combinations of seismic site (rock, stiff soil,
or soft soil) and fault mechanism (normal, strike-slip, or thrust). Once the target Housner
Intensity has been defined in frequency domain, the proposed equations can be applied to
estimate the target instrumental intensity of the seismic input in time domain.
Keywords: Housner Intensity, Arias Intensity, Cumulative Absolute Velocity.

INTRODUCTION
In an attempt to define a numerical indicator of earthquake damage potential a
number of ground motion parameters have been proposed in the past. Peak ground
acceleration is now generally considered as a poor indicator of earthquake damage
potential. Accordingly, the evolution of ground motion parameters has been motivated
by the search of better predictors of damage. And this has lead to a collection of
indicators of damage that account for duration, amplitude and frequency content of the
seismic input. Because some of these parameters have practical application in the
definition of seismic input or in the estimation of damage potential, studies on the
derivation of attenuation relationships for ground motion parameters have began to
gradually appear in the literature [e.g. 1,2].
A number of ground motion parameters belong to the time domain; hence they may
have limited application, unless a direct link with seismic code design provisions can
be established. Over the years the scaling of natural accelerograms has been adopted
as a practical way to estimate the seismic input for nonlinear analysis [3-6]. Scaling
criteria that can be directly associated with a design spectrum have a good balance
between simplicity (in the definition of the scaling factor to match a property of the
design spectrum) and applicability (favoring a rational use of scaled natural
accelerograms).

CP1020, 2008 Seismic Engineering Conference Commemorating the 1908 Messina and Reggio Calabria Earthquake,
edited by A. Santini and N. Moraci
© 2008 American Institute of Physics 978-0-7354-0542-4/08/$23.00
309
 The main objective of this paper is to derive empirical equations to estimate ground
motion parameters of the time domain as a function of a ground motion parameter of
the frequency domain. The proposed equations are assumed to be applicable for
Europe and the Middle East as they are calibrated for ground motion recorded in this
region.

DEVELOPMENT OF PREDICTIVE EQUATIONS TO ESTIMATE

GROUND MOTION PARAMETERS
To visualize the interdependence between the frequency and the time domains in
terms of ground motion parameters, a number of these were evaluated for an extensive
dataset of natural accelerograms. Each pair of numerical values of the parameters
under study is considered here as an observation. As explained in more detail below,
empirical relationships were then obtained by identifying first trends in the
observations, followed by the fitting of analytical expressions by nonlinear regression.

Ground Motion Parameters

The ground motion parameters selected for the study were the Housner Intensity
SIH, the Arias Intensity IA and the Cumulative Absolute Velocity CAV. The
adequacy of these parameters to assess both instrumental earthquake intensity and
earthquake damage potential is well documented in the literature as summarized
below.

Housner Intensity SIH

This parameter is defined in frequency domain (period domain more precisely). It
was introduced by Housner [7] to measure the instrumental intensity of an earthquake
at a given site. Housner Intensity is defined as the mean value of the elastic velocity
spectrum between the periods 0.1 and 2.5 sees, in mathematical form:

SIH=j-A^V{T,^)dT (1)

where SV(T,<^)is the spectrum velocity curve, T is the natural period of a SDOF
system and £is the damping ratio of the system.
It has been shown that there is a good correlation between Housner Intensity and
displacement ductility demand [5]; particularly for structures with fundamental period
greater than 0.2 sees [6]. This correlation is meaningful as ductility demand is an
effective damage index that characterizes damage potential once ductility capacity is
has been estimated.

310
 Arias Intensity IA
This is defined in time domain and it was introduced by Arias [8] to define the
damage potential of earthquake records. In mathematical form IA is given as:

f
I I-2,
A=y \ug(t)dt (2)
s
Jo
Jo
where ug (t) is the ground acceleration at a given time t and td is the total duration of
the ground motion.
In terms of damage potential assessment IA appears to be of limited application for
structural design as it correlates well with seismic demands but mainly for short period
structures; however, IA finds application in geotechnical problems such us the
estimation of liquefaction potential and slope instability triggered by earthquake
ground motion [1]

Cumulative Absolute Velocity (CAV)

Defined as the area under the absolute ground acceleration curve this parameter of
the time domain is given as:

td
CAV=
i
I
o'
\us(t) dt (3)

CAV was originally introduced by Kennedy and Reed [9] to set an exceedance
criterion for the operating basis earthquake of nuclear power plants.

Earthquake Ground Motion

The strong motion data set used here consists of 866 accelerograms of horizontal
ground motion and were downloaded from the European Database of Strong Motion
Data Site [10]. Table 1 summarizes the main characteristics of the strong motion data
set. The seismological parameters of the accelerograms including site-to-source
distance d, moment magnitude Mm seismic site and fault mechanism are those
reported by Ambraseys et al. [11] in connection with the calibration of empirical
equations to predict spectral acceleration in Europe and the Middle East.

311
 TABLE 1. Summary of properties of the strong motion database used in this study
property Range Mean S.D.
d [km] [0;100] 33.58 25.37
Mw [5:7.6] 5.90 0.69
PGA[m/sQC2] [0.01; 10.81] 0.97 1.15
S/„[m/sec] [7E-4;1.38] 0.11 0.16
/Jm/sec] [1E-5; 15.49] 0.24 0.93
CAV [m/sec] [0.013; 34.82] 2,57 3A2

In terms of seismic site, the number of records classified according to the categories
rock, stiff soil and soft soil are: 242, 376 and 248, respectively. However, for the
current study the soils classified in [11] as soft soil and very soft soil were considered
as a single category denoted here as soft soil. In terms of fault mechanism, the number
of records classified according to the categories normal, strike-slip, thrust and odd are:
310, 162, 152 and 242, respectively. Note that the category odd corresponds to fault
mechanisms reported in [11] as mixed or uncertain. Therefore, while studying the
influence of fault mechanism all the accelerograms within the 'category' odd were
ignored.

Correlation between ground motion parameters

The degree of association between ground motion parameters was first assessed
graphically by producing scatter plots of the observations. These plots showed the
observed relationships between Housner intensity and either Arias intensity or
Cumulative absolute velocity. Different types of observed relationships were plotted
for different combinations of seismic site and faulting mechanism. This allowed the
study of the influence of seismological parameters on the degree of association
between ground motion parameters. In general, it was observed that the overall trend
of the observed relationships between ground motion parameters was nonlinear. To
derive predictive equations to estimate either IA or CAV as a function of SIH the
observations were fitted to the power equations:

IA=Al(SIH)Ai (4)

CAV = Bx{SIHfi (5)

where Ax, A2,Bl &B2 are fitting constants.

The fitting model used in equations (4) and (5) has a good balance between
simplicity and accuracy as it realistically predicts nil values of IA or CAV when
SIH = 0. The goodness of fit of the predictive equations (4) and (5), as well as, the
degree of correlation between pairs of ground motion parameters was assessed by the
coefficient of determination R .
The power eqs. (4) & (5) were adopted as an alternative to the truncated second-
degree polynomials (y = Clx + C2x2) used by the authors in a previous study [12].

312
This past study relied on a reduced data set of 478 accelerograms recorded in the
Greco-Italian region. For the current study, preliminary comparisons with linear as
well as the truncated polynomials indicated that equations (4) and (5) fitted better the
observations as indicated by consistently higher R2 values. No attempt was made to
fictitiously reduce the scatter of the observations by working with the logarithm of the
ground motion parameters.

:y«3tS0Sx , S M
I R2 - 0 6121
•

5
:
\rk^^^^7^\*'** ^ ~ ~ ~
0 02 94 «L« 0,*. 1 04 04 03 r

SI H [m/seej

FIGURE 1. Observed relationships between ground motion parameters for the whole of the strong
motion data set.

Figure 1 shows an example of observed relationships between ground motion

parameters as well as the calibrated predictive equations
(x = SIH&y = IA or CAV). In this example all accelerograms are being
analyzed as a single group; hence the influence of seismic site or fault mechanism is
neglected. Despite this limitation a good correlation is observed between the ground
motion parameters. Figure 2 illustrates the correlation between ground motion
parameters when the fault mechanism is accounted for. There are changes in the R
values but these do not appear to be drastic.

TABLE 2. Fitting constants and R2 associated with equation (4)

Case Seismic Fault Ai Rz
No. Site Mechanism
1 All combined All combined 866 3.1509 1.5097 0.8121
2 Rock All combined 242 5.4407 1.5961 0.7826
3 Stiff soil All combined 376 3.6825 1.5630 0.8346
4 Soft All combined 248 2.1075 1.4565 0.8353
5 All combined Normal 310 3.7777 1.5497 0.7739
6 All combined Strike-slip 162 2.6399 1.464 0.8703
7 All combined Thrust 152 2.8177 1.3488 0.7610
8 Rock Normal 102 4.9855 1.485 0.6792
9 Rock Strike-slip 50 2.8049 1.5231 0.7489
10 Rock Thrust 40 5.2619 1.608 0.9341
11 Stiff soil Normal 136 4.6458 1.6595 0.8270
12 Stiff soil Strike-slip 62 2.7753 1.4558 0.9091
13 Stiff soil Thrust 86 2.9953 1.3493 0.7797
14 Soft soil Normal 72 2.3441 1.5473 0.8918
15 Soft soil Strike-slip 50 2.189 1.3669 0.9192
16 Soft soil Thrust 26 0.8571 0.891 0.4165

313
 TABLE 3. Summary of fitting constants and R2 values associated with equation (5)
Case Seismic Fault Bi Rz
No. Site Mechanism
1 All combined All combined 866 14.461 0.7684 0.8076
2 Rock All combined 242 16.236 0.7908 0.7484
3 Stiff soil All combined 376 14.835 0.7819 0.8356
4 Soft All combined 248 13.346 0.7468 0.8158
5 All combined Normal 310 15.177 0.7682 0.8261
6 All combined Strike-slip 162 15.832 0.7925 0.8426
7 All combined Thrust 152 15.089 0.7922 0.7488
8 Rock Normal 102 19.268 0.7905 0.7857
9 Rock Strike-slip 50 7.8761 0.652 0.6591
10 Rock Thrust 40 21.18 0.9117 0.8929
11 Stiff soil Normal 136 14.108 0.7688 0.8251
12 Stiff soil Strike-slip 62 16.678 0.803 0.8463
13 Stiff soil Thrust 86 15.339 0.779 0.831
14 Soft soil Normal 72 14.652 0.7908 0.9242
15 Soft soil Strike-slip 50 18.699 0.7978 0.9298
16 Soft soil Thrust 26 8.8044 0.6435 0.3872

zu
ie i , * ^ ? ? * 0 * * 1 •

w ! R* = 0 8201
u Norrrai Fauftmg
¥
48 12
£io
-9 '• >^""~
CAV

*
4
&8r* *

S( H [m/sec] SfH [m/sec]

[ y * t 5 8J2<* 7,M
R : * 0.8703 R-« 0 8426
Stfsk<MSi<p ,. ^
JE. 10

S: ^ •

0 0.2 0,4 1 1.2 14 0.2 94 0,6 0,8 1 1.2 14 IS

S1N [m/secl Si H fm/sec]

40
14 461 x07*84
y * 2 ai77« t M8* - •JS
y i
R : * 0.8076 •
R**Q761G
30 Thm&t
Thrust
1 *
&».
>

<
• •

15
. V V V*
»• * ' * * ^j^u-^"7*"
* ^^-—"^"^
o 10 *•

^_^-^^"^^» » %a£&$$i!i^
*.
i^ife**^ e
94 fit.6 3.* 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

SI H [m/sec] SI H (m/sec]

FIGURE 2. Observed relationships between ground motion parameters when the

influence of the fault mechanism is taken into account.

314
 Tables 2 and 3 summarize the coefficients of the predictive eqs. (4) and (5) for
different combinations of seismic site and fault mechanism. In general there seems to
be a good correlation between the parameters under study, except for case 16 (ground
motion recorded on soft soil due to thrust faulting) where R is rather low; however
R2 in this case relies on 26 records only (i.e. the smallest number of records from all
the 16 case studies). Hence, the collection of a larger number of records for case 16 to
arrive at more reliable predictive equations is recommended for further studies.
Each case study i in Tables 2 and 3 is associated with a data subset with a different
number of observations Nt. Hence, to compare the influence of seismic site and fault
mechanism on the correlation between ground motion parameters a weighted average
value 7? of coefficient of determination was defined as:

p = W (6)
Z*i
where R2 is the coefficient of determination of the nonlinear regression under study.

TABLE 4. Summary of R values of the correlation study between ground motion parameters
accounting for the influence of different seismological parameters
Seismological parameters considered si vs. I SI„ vs.CAV
None 0.8121 0.8076
Seismic site 0.8027 0.8056
Fault mechanism 0.7958 0.8116
Seismic site and Fault mechanism 0.8028 0.7760

Table 4 summarizes the R2 values for different combinations of the seismic

parameters considered in the study of the correlation between ground motion
parameters. In general, this table suggests that on the average the goodness of fit of the
empirical relationships is not significantly different when seismological parameters are
taken into account. It is also evident that, in practical terms, the degree of correlation
between SIH& IA and between SIH& CAV is very similar. This suggests that one
could use indistinctly either eq. (4) or eq. (5) to estimate the intensity in time domain
of the seismic input for a given target Housner Intensity.

-ALL — ALL
'JCPMAl ROCK
STIFF SOIL
THRUST SOFT SOIL

SIH [m/sec) SIN |m/sec]

FIGURE 4. Predicted Arias Intensity for different considerations of seismological parameters.

315
 Figure 4 shows the prediction of IA when the seismic site or the fault mechanism is
accounted for. The plots reveal the influence of seismological parameters on the
estimation of instrumental intensity in time domain. For instance, if one neglects the
seismic site influence, then the ground motion intensity generated by normal faulting
can be underestimated. On the other hand, if one neglects the fault mechanism
influence, then the intensity predicted on rock can be largely underestimated.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
This paper introduced empirical SIHvs.IA and SIH vs.CAVrelationships for
ground motion recorded in Europe and the Middle East. Predictive equations for these
relationships were proposed. The influence of seismological parameters on the fitting
constants and on the degree of correlation between ground motion parameters was
accounted for. Overall comparisons of the goodness of fit of the predictive equations
revealed that the degree of correlation between the ground motion parameters is not
significantly influenced by the seismological parameters. On the other hand, the
predictive equations confirm the fact that a more reliable estimation of the seismic
input in time domain is obtained when the seismological parameters are accounted for.

REFERENCES
1. T. Travasarou, D.J. Bray & N.A.Abrahamson, "Empirical attenuation relationship for Arias
intensity", Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 32, 2003, pp. 1133-1155.
2. J.E. Martinez-Rueda, "Proposal of an attenuation relationship of Housner spectrum intensity in
Europe", Proceedings of the First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and
Seismology, Geneva, 2006, paper 1193.
3. S.K. Ghosh and M. Fintel, "Explicit inelastic design procedure for aseismic structures", Adjournal,
79, 1982, p.p. 110-118.
4. A.J. Kappos, "Analytical prediction of the collapse earthquake for R/C buildings: suggested
methodology", Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 20, 1991, p.p. 167-176.
5. J.E. Martinez-Rueda, "Scaling procedure for natural accelerograms based on a system of spectrum
intensity scales", Earthquake Spectra, 14, 1998, pp. 135-152.
6. J.E. Martinez-Rueda, "Proposal of a system of spectrum intensity scales for the scaling of natural
accelerograms accounting for hysteretic behaviour and local site conditions. A new system and its
application on displacement-based design", Proceedings of the First European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, 2006,paper 1196.
7. G.W. Housner, "Spectrum intensities of strong motion earthquakes", Proceedings of Symposium on
Earthquake and Blunt Effects on Structures, 1952, pp. 20-36.
8. A. Arias, "A measure of earthquake intensity", in Hansen, R.J.(ed.), in Seismic Design of Nuclear
Reactors, MIT Press, 1969, pp. 438-483.
9. EPRI, "A criterion for determining exceedance of the operating earthquake", EPRI NP-5930,
Electrical Power Research Institute, Palo Alto California, 1998.
10. www.isesd.cv.ic.ac.uk, The European Strong Motion Database.
11. N.N.Ambraseys, J. Douglas, J., K. Sarma, & P.M. Smit, P.M., "Equations for the Estimation of
Strong Ground Motions from Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Using Data from European and Middle
East", Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 3, 2005, pp. 1-53.
12. J.E. Martinez-Rueda and E. Tsantali, "Analysis of the correlation between instrumental intensities
of strong earthquake ground motion", paper submitted to 7th European Conference on Structural
Dynamics, 2008.

316