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

net/publication/368389270

Report on pulse-like ground motions in the Feb 2023 Turkey earthquakes

Research · February 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31375.25767

CITATIONS READS
0 630

1 author:

Guan Chen
Leibniz Universität Hannover
21 PUBLICATIONS   140 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Special Issue "Marine Geotechnical Engineering and Marine Civil Engineering Construction" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Guan Chen on 09 February 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 cite as: G. Chen. (2023) Report on pulse-like ground motions in the Feb. 2023 Turkey earthquakes.

Report on pulse-like ground motions in the Feb 2023 Turkey

earthquakes
Guan Chena
a
Institute for Risk and Reliability Leibniz Universitt Hannover Hannover 30167 Germany

Abstract

The near-fault pulse-like ground motion, characterized by its long period and high amplitude in
velocity, is of practical significance as it tends to cause more severe damage to structures than
ordinary ground motion in engineering, and it also helps to characterize the seismic source and
the kinematic properties of the geological fault in seismology. In order to effectively and efficiently
analyze the Turkey earthquake, this study identified pulse-like ground motions in the Feb. 2023
Turkey earthquakes based on the method of Chen et al. [1].
The ground motions used in this study are from three earthquakes, that is the Mw7.7 earth-
quake occurred in Pazarcık (Kahramanmaraş) at 01:17:32AM (UTC+3), the Mw6.6 earthquake in
Nurdağı (Gaziantep) at 01:28:16AM, and the Mw7.6 earthquake in Elbistan (Kahramanmaraş) at
10:24:47AM. The general information and seismic records of earthquakes are from AFAD, Turkey
(https://tadas.afad.gov.tr/list-event).

1. Introduction of identification method

The generalized continuous wavelet transform (GCWT) method proposed by Chen et al. [1]
is applied to identify pulse-like ground motions in the February 2023 earthquakes in Turkey.
This method detects the pulse-like ground motion by combining the convolution analysis between
ground motion and pulse model and the evaluation parameters.
In this study, a refined wavelet basis ’db4’ was adopted as the pulse model. The energy ratio
between the pulse component and the ground motion was used to classify ordinary and pulse-like

Email address: guan.chen@irz.uni-hannover.de (Guan Chen)

Preprint submitted to Elsevier February 9, 2023

ground motions, as a high energy ratio is a common characteristic for a pulse and is widely used
as an evaluation parameter in identification. To avoid false identifications caused by the trend
term or long periods with low amplitudes, the Pearson correlation coefficient between the pulse
component and pulse model was introduced.
The basic identification procedure of this method involves applying the maximum absolute
value of the convolution results between the pulse model and the ground motion to locate potential
pulses, followed by evaluating whether the pulse meets the energy ratio requirement. Finally,
false identifications are excluded using the correlation coefficient. This method can ensure that
each pulse in the pulse-like ground motion meets the long-period and high-amplitude criteria. A
schematic diagram of the proposed method for pulse-like ground motion identification is shown in
Figure 1.

Identification criteria:
(i) PGV > 20 cm/s
(ii) Energy ratio (Er): E(Sp)/E(So) > 0.25
(iii) Pearson correlation coefficient: r(Sp,P) > 0.6

Figure 1: Identification criteria of the method.

The convolution analysis is used to detect potential pulses because the maximum absolute value
can effectively capture the peak value and shape features of a pulse. From a signal processing
perspective, the convolution (as shown in Eq. (1)) can be viewed as a Linear Time-Invariant
(LTI) system, where g(t) represents the unit impulse response, f (t) represents the input signal,
and (f ∗ g)(t) represents the output signal.

Z
(f ∗ g)(t) = ⟨f (t), g(t)⟩ = f (τ ) · g(t − τ )dτ (1)

(f ∗ g)(t) is the integral of products between the ’unit’ of the input signal and the unit impulse
response algebraically. As the unit impulse response is confirmed (i.e., pulse model in the method),

2
the value of (f ∗ g)(t) can reflect two characteristics of the ’unit’ of the input signal, i.e., the
amplitude and the shape. Moreover, the absolute value of (f ∗ g)(t) increases with the amplitude
value and the similarity in shape between the unit impulse response and the ’unit’ of the input
signal. Hence, the maximum absolute value of (f ∗ g)(t) is obtained on conditions that the ’unit’
of the input signal contains the local peak amplitude and is similar to the unit impulse response in
the period. In other words, the maximum absolute convolution result is obtained as the identified
pulse containing the local peak ground velocity and similar to the pulse model in the period. This
is the theoretical core of the proposed method to identify multi-pulse ground motions.
This method addresses the limitations of the classical CWT-based identification approach
[2], which requires a specific wavelet basis, and provides a flexible and practical framework for
identifying pulse-like ground motion. These advantages open up the possibility for further research
into the impact of the pulse model on identification, as well as the integration of signal processing
techniques and seismological mechanisms. Additionally, the proposed method can be applied to
the identification of multi-pulse ground motions. Compared with other methods in multi-pulse
ground motion identification, this method features each pulse in the multi-pulse ground motions
to satisfy the same criteria and excludes the effects of the attenuation part that includes in other
methods. More details about the method can be found in Chen et al. [1].

2. General information of pulse-like ground motions

The AFAD database has a total of 402, 474, and 795 ground-motion records for earthquakes
with magnitudes of Mw6.6, Mw7.6, and Mw7.7, respectively. It should be noted that each station
has recorded three ground motions in different directions. The spatial distribution of the epicenters
and monitoring stations of these earthquakes is depicted in Figure 2.
Table 1 provides detailed information on the identified pulse-like ground motions, including
ID, pulse period (Tp ), energy ratio (Er ) between the pulse part and the whole signal, peak ground
acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), energy-frequency parameter (h), and epicenter
distance. It shows that a total of 99 pulse-like ground motions were detected in the Feb. 2023
Turkey earthquake. Of note, numbers 1 and 2 in the table have been classified as multi-pulse
ground motions based on the identification method in this study.
Besides, this study is solely focused on the identification process and does not delve into the
underlying seismological mechanisms responsible for the generation of pulse-like ground motions.

3
For further information on the earthquakes, you can refer to the report by Baltzopoulos et al. [3].

Mw7.7 earthquake in Pazarcık (Kahramanmaraş) at 01:17:32AM

Mw6.6 earthquake in Nurdağı (Gaziantep) at 01:28:16AM

Mw7.6 earthquake in Elbistan (Kahramanmaraş) at 10:24:47AM

Figure 2: Epicenter and monitoring stations distribution of the earthquakes (from AFAD).

4
 Table 1: Information of identified pulse-like ground motions in Turkey Earthquakes †

No. ID Tp Er PGA PGV h R

1 ’M7.7 TK 0120 E’ 16, 8.9 0.51, 0.40 0.12 23.45 5.27E+11 125.25
2 ’M7.7 TK 4412 E’ 9.3;5.6 0.29, 0.36 0.07 47.45 2.08E+13 176.6
3 ’M6.6 TK 2708 E’ 1.1 0.59 0.36 33.33 1.33E+12 33.12
4 ’M6.6 TK 2708 N’ 1.6 0.56 0.32 33.50 1.21E+12 33.12
5 ’M6.6 TK 2708 U’ 1.9 0.53 0.21 21.11 6.74E+11 33.12
6 ’M6.6 TK 2712 E’ 0.7 0.43 0.34 29.06 1.15E+12 21.27
7 ’M6.6 TK 2712 N’ 0.8 0.61 0.45 40.50 4.67E+12 21.27
8 ’M6.6 TK 2712 U’ 1.9 0.78 0.33 22.94 9.97E+10 21.27
9 ’M6.6 TK 2718 E’ 2.1 0.80 0.31 33.26 8.53E+11 41.97
10 ’M6.6 TK 2718 N’ 1.2 0.59 0.22 27.15 2.33E+11 41.97
11 ’M6.6 TK 3139 N’ 1.4 0.68 0.16 23.91 5.74E+11 91.82
12 ’M6.6 TK 4615 E’ 1.9 0.74 0.11 20.36 2.46E+11 21.36
13 ’M6.6 TK 4616 E’ 0.8 0.44 0.26 22.17 3.55E+11 10.74
14 ’M6.6 TK 4616 N’ 0.8 0.40 0.24 22.79 1.34E+12 10.74
15 ’M6.6 TK 4624 N’ 1.2 0.60 0.15 22.16 3.49E+11 25.81
16 ’M7.6 TK 0130 N’ 4.1 0.45 0.08 22.13 1.32E+12 166.46
17 ’M7.6 TK 0213 N’ 5.2 0.42 0.12 23.32 2.31E+12 68.73
18 ’M7.6 TK 0720 E’ 16 0.54 0.02 23.02 1.84E+12 472.58
19 ’M7.6 TK 0720 U’ 16 0.56 0.06 82.44 1.35E+15 472.58
20 ’M7.6 TK 3802 E’ 2.4 0.33 0.22 27.78 7.70E+12 77.41
21 ’M7.6 TK 4406 E’ 4.5 0.44 0.38 31.24 2.52E+12 70.17
22 ’M7.6 TK 4611 E’ 7.9 0.75 0.14 24.46 1.00E+12 38.21
23 ’M7.6 TK 4612 E’ 1.8 0.33 0.53 67.57 6.08E+13 66.68
24 ’M7.6 TK 4612 N’ 2 0.66 0.65 154.49 3.26E+14 66.68
25 ’M7.6 TK 4612 U’ 3.6 0.90 0.38 52.16 1.98E+12 66.68
26 ’M7.7 TK 0120 N’ 6.9 0.44 0.11 31.91 1.72E+12 125.25
27 ’M7.7 TK 0123 N’ 8.8 0.50 0.04 24.76 1.98E+11 153.9
28 ’M7.7 TK 0125 N’ 15.6 0.56 0.13 31.73 4.92E+12 114.62
29 ’M7.7 TK 0201 E’ 1.3 0.51 0.38 22.12 1.07E+11 120.12
30 ’M7.7 TK 0201 N’ 1.8 0.91 0.28 38.28 2.66E+11 120.12
31 ’M7.7 TK 0213 E’ 3.5 0.60 0.17 52.82 2.31E+14 96.48
32 ’M7.7 TK 0213 N’ 3 0.73 0.24 98.84 5.59E+14 96.48
33 ’M7.7 TK 0213 U’ 4.5 0.95 0.23 30.30 2.31E+11 96.48
34 ’M7.7 TK 0720 E’ 16 0.67 0.02 26.50 3.72E+11 428.19
35 ’M7.7 TK 0720 U’ 16 0.65 0.06 100.17 1.56E+15 428.19
36 ’M7.7 TK 1213 E’ 13.5 0.69 0.34 24.37 6.74E+11 369.54
37 ’M7.7 TK 2104 N’ 9.4 0.62 0.07 20.04 1.59E+11 262.22
38 ’M7.7 TK 2107 N’ 7.1 0.46 0.08 26.06 2.93E+11 234.92
39 ’M7.7 TK 2716 N’ 0.8 0.35 0.17 22.26 1.41E+12 57.38
40 ’M7.7 TK 3115 N’ 1.4 0.37 0.14 20.73 2.14E+11 113.57
41 ’M7.7 TK 3116 E’ 8.2 0.83 0.16 35.08 7.51E+11 105.38
42 ’M7.7 TK 3116 N’ 14.4 0.95 0.16 39.79 2.34E+12 105.38

5
No. ID Tp Er PGA PGV h R
43 ’M7.7 TK 3123 E’ 6.1 0.54 0.59 98.68 3.25E+14 143
44 ’M7.7 TK 3123 N’ 2.1 0.49 0.66 186.72 1.28E+15 143
45 ’M7.7 TK 3123 U’ 2.2 0.33 0.86 52.56 1.89E+13 143
46 ’M7.7 TK 3124 E’ 6.8 0.50 0.63 97.00 6.32E+14 140.11
47 ’M7.7 TK 3124 N’ 3 0.48 0.58 112.48 4.37E+14 140.11
48 ’M7.7 TK 3124 U’ 4.4 0.27 0.59 41.99 8.01E+12 140.11
49 ’M7.7 TK 3131 E’ 1.9 0.45 0.36 44.92 1.09E+13 144.98
50 ’M7.7 TK 3131 N’ 8.5 0.65 0.36 47.75 9.83E+12 144.98
51 ’M7.7 TK 3132 E’ 7.5 0.63 0.52 52.03 1.08E+14 143.12
52 ’M7.7 TK 3132 N’ 1.8 0.36 0.51 67.55 7.27E+13 143.12
53 ’M7.7 TK 3132 U’ 1.3 0.39 0.36 34.48 4.91E+12 143.12
54 ’M7.7 TK 3133 E’ 12.8 0.70 0.15 23.40 1.18E+12 123.47
55 ’M7.7 TK 3133 N’ 1.5 0.29 0.23 29.17 4.58E+12 123.47
56 ’M7.7 TK 3134 E’ 4.4 0.41 0.20 39.65 4.50E+12 90.29
57 ’M7.7 TK 3134 N’ 3.6 0.42 0.25 39.15 6.51E+12 90.29
58 ’M7.7 TK 3136 E’ 9.4 0.68 0.39 54.25 3.92E+13 148.38
59 ’M7.7 TK 3136 N’ 1.8 0.26 0.53 52.06 1.85E+13 148.38
60 ’M7.7 TK 3136 U’ 4.6 0.49 0.22 29.46 1.62E+12 148.38
61 ’M7.7 TK 3137 E’ 3.2 0.49 0.76 75.06 2.79E+13 82.48
62 ’M7.7 TK 3137 U’ 3.1 0.61 0.45 40.22 6.51E+12 82.48
63 ’M7.7 TK 3139 E’ 4.1 0.49 0.51 145.28 6.54E+14 96.19
64 ’M7.7 TK 3139 N’ 2.7 0.72 0.58 155.46 4.75E+14 96.19
65 ’M7.7 TK 3139 U’ 3.5 0.51 0.36 53.23 4.19E+13 96.19
66 ’M7.7 TK 3142 E’ 11.1 0.57 0.75 72.67 3.82E+13 106.49
67 ’M7.7 TK 3142 N’ 1.1 0.39 0.65 86.05 2.08E+13 106.49
68 ’M7.7 TK 3142 U’ 4.9 0.78 0.48 30.06 1.05E+12 106.49
69 ’M7.7 TK 3144 E’ 5.4 0.86 0.79 133.56 1.57E+14 77.04
70 ’M7.7 TK 3144 N’ 8.7 0.96 0.61 131.47 4.90E+13 77.04
71 ’M7.7 TK 3144 U’ 2.5 0.92 0.48 79.41 1.92E+13 77.04
72 ’M7.7 TK 3145 E’ 3.6 0.71 0.71 153.77 5.63E+14 91.13
73 ’M7.7 TK 3145 N’ 5.6 0.94 0.60 112.45 4.13E+13 91.13
74 ’M7.7 TK 3145 U’ 1.4 0.35 0.62 63.77 1.64E+13 91.13
75 ’M7.7 TK 3146 E’ 3.8 0.59 0.33 54.73 2.98E+12 114.57
76 ’M7.7 TK 3146 N’ 14.4 0.46 0.47 42.24 3.91E+12 114.57
77 ’M7.7 TK 3147 E’ 10.9 0.73 0.05 24.92 6.19E+11 177.12
78 ’M7.7 TK 4406 E’ 7.9 0.44 0.14 27.34 5.81E+11 143.07
79 ’M7.7 TK 4408 E’ 8.4 0.79 0.14 33.51 5.98E+11 116.59
80 ’M7.7 TK 4408 U’ 2.4 0.29 0.10 22.41 5.43E+11 116.59
81 ’M7.7 TK 4412 N’ 4.8 0.42 0.06 26.73 5.66E+12 176.6
82 ’M7.7 TK 4412 U’ 4 0.43 0.06 27.11 5.03E+12 176.6
83 ’M7.7 TK 4611 E’ 5.7 0.41 0.32 37.84 2.79E+12 55.32
84 ’M7.7 TK 4611 N’ 3.9 0.41 0.35 30.73 4.82E+12 55.32

6
 No. ID Tp Er PGA PGV h R
85 ’M7.7 TK 4615 E’ 2.9 0.44 0.57 127.75 1.02E+14 13.83
86 ’M7.7 TK 4615 N’ 4.8 0.78 0.60 125.74 8.45E+13 13.83
87 ’M7.7 TK 4615 U’ 5 0.75 0.68 66.90 7.97E+12 13.83
88 ’M7.7 TK 4617 N’ 3.4 0.32 0.15 25.38 2.16E+12 38.04
89 ’M7.7 TK 4620 N’ 4.3 0.25 0.30 25.92 2.72E+12 35.48
90 ’M7.7 TK 4624 N’ 4.8 0.25 0.36 55.52 7.40E+13 29.73
91 ’M7.7 TK 4632 E’ 1.1 0.30 0.29 33.95 1.11E+13 24.09
92 ’M7.7 TK 4632 N’ 1.2 0.37 0.36 43.29 3.15E+13 24.09
93 ’M7.7 TK 6303 E’ 1.5 0.28 0.12 21.74 1.11E+11 208.12
94 ’M7.7 TK 6304 N’ 6.7 0.44 0.22 20.28 9.33E+11 130.27
95 ’M7.7 TK 8002 E’ 9 0.69 0.20 22.65 1.08E+12 43.91
96 ’M7.7 TK 8002 N’ 2.8 0.53 0.24 37.19 5.86E+12 43.91
97 ’M7.7 TU NAR E’ 3.9 0.67 0.59 93.32 3.82E+13 15.35
98 ’M7.7 TU NAR N’ 3.3 0.68 0.66 81.62 1.17E+13 15.35
99 ’M7.7 TU NAR U’ 3.4 0.63 0.41 43.35 4.77E+12 15.35
† ID is the self-documenting identification for the ground motion in the AFAD database. For
example, in ’M7.7 TK 0120 E’, ’M7.7’ means the earthquake magnitude is Mw7.7, ’TK’ is the
name of the network, ’0120’ is the station code, and ’E’ ’N’, and ’U’ present the direction of the
ground motion. Tp - pulse period; Er - the energy ratio between the pulse part and the whole
signal; P GA - Peak Ground Acceleration (g); P GV - Peak Ground Velocity (cm/s); h - energy-
frequency parameter defined in Chen [4]; R - Epicenter distance.

3. Ground motion intensity measures

To describe the time- and frequency-domain characteristics of pulse-like and non-pulse ground
motions identified in earthquakes, four intensity measures, including the Arias intensity, normal-
ized cumulative Fourier spectra, 5%-damped pseudo-spectral velocity, and 5%-damped pseudo-
spectral acceleration, are provided (see Figure 3). The results indicate that the response spectra
of the pulse-like ground motions are larger than those of the non-pulse ground motions.
Besides, the correlations between the energy-frequency parameter (h) [4] and the logarithms of
peak ground acceleration (PGA) and peak ground velocity (PGV) values are analyzed, as depicted
in Figure 4. The pulse-like and non-pulse ground motions are separately analyzed. The statistics
and Gaussian fitting of the ground motion intensity measures are also provided. The results
indicate that the PGA, PGV, and h values of pulse-like ground motions are larger than those of
non-pulse ground motions.
Additionally, based on the study by Chen et al. [4], empirical relationships between the h and
the maximum inter-storey drift (d) of structures with varying fundamental periods are provided
in Figure 5. The d values are obtained from nonlinear dynamic analyses of frame structures that

7
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 3: (a) Normalized Arias intensity, (b) normalized cumulative Fourier spectra, (c) 5%-damped pseudo-
spectral velocity, and (d) 5%-damped pseudo-spectral acceleration of pulse-like and non-pulse ground motions in
Turkey earthquakes.

comply with the Code for Seismic Design of Buildings (GB 50011-2010) in China. The ground
motions used in this diagram are from three earthquakes in PEER NGA-Weat2 database, i.e.,
Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake (magnitude is Mw 7.62 and hypocenter depth is 8 km), Imperial
Valley-06 earthquake (6.53 Mw and 9.96 km), and EI Mayor-Cucapah earthquake (7.2 Mw and
5.5 km). Combining with Figures 4 and Figure 5 (c) which is the fragility function satisfied the
requirement of allowable maximum inter-storey drift in Eurocode8, we can conclude that buildings
with fundamental periods ranging from 0.3 s to 5 s will likely experience significant damage as the
energy-frequency parameters of the ground motions in the Feb. 2023 Turkey earthquake are much

8
higher than those from the Chi-Chi, Imperial Valley-06, and EI Mayor-Cucapah earthquakes. This
information can be used in preliminary seismic risk assessments of Turkey earthquakes.

4. Concluding remarks

The pulse-like ground motions in Feb. 2023 Turkey earthquake are identified from the perspec-
tive of signal processing. A total of 99 pulse-like ground motions are detected. The ground motion
intensity measures of pulse-like and non-pulse ground motions are also analyzed. Results show
that the spectral velocity and acceleration of identified pulse-like ground motions are generally
larger than that of non-pulse ground motions. Besides, based on the energy-frequency intensity
measure, the damage caused by the Turkey earthquakes is much greater than that caused by
the previous near-fault earthquakes of Chi-Chi, Imperial Valley-06, and EI Mayor-Cucapah (see
Figures 4 and 5).
The identification results can not only help to assess seismic risk more effectively, but also be
used to characterize seismic sources, since the occurrence of pulse-like ground motions is generally
associated with features of fault rupture, such as forward directivity effects [5] and fling-step
effects.

References

[1] G. Chen, Y. Liu, M. Beer, Identification of near-fault multi-pulse ground motion, Applied
Mathematical Modelling 117 (2023) 609–624.

[2] J. W. Baker, Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 97 (5) (2007) 1486–1501.

[3] G. Baltzopoulos, R. Baraschino, E. Chioccarelli, P. Cito, I. Iervolino, Preliminary engineering

report on ground motion data of the Feb. 2023 Turkey seismic sequence, 2023.

[4] G. Chen, J. Yang, Y. Liu, T. Kitahara, M. Beer, An energy-frequency parameter for earth-
quake ground motion intensity measure, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 52 (2)
(2023) 271–284.

[5] P. G. Somerville, N. F. Smith, R. W. Graves, N. A. Abrahamson, Modification of empirical

strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of
rupture directivity, Seismological Research Letters 68 (1) (1997) 199–222.

9
 Mu = 20.3
Sigma = 5.1

Mu = -4.4
Sigma = 1.6

Pearson correlation coefficient: 0.86

(a)

Mu = 20.3
Sigma = 5.1

Pearson correlation coefficient: 0.97

Mu = -1.2
Sigma = 1.4

(b)

Figure 4: Correlation between the energy-frequency parameter (h) and (a) PGA and (b) PGV. The statistics and
Gaussian fitting of the energy-frequency parameter, PGA, and PGV are also provided.

10
 Gaussian parameters
(a) 2 (b) 0
T = 0.3 s ρ03 = 0.96 T = 0.3 T μ σ
T = 0.6 s ρ06 = 0.96
-1

Residual value
T = 1 s ρ1 = 0.96 0.3 -2.34 0.30
T = 3 s ρ3 = 0.93 0.6 -1.08 0.50
0 T = 5 s ρ5 = 0.90 -2
Linear (T = 0.3 s) 1 -2.26 0.39
Linear (T = 0.6 s) -3 3 -2.55 0.35
Linear (T = 1 s) Histogram: Frequency
-2 Linear (T = 3 s) Curve: Gaussian fitting 5 -1.25 0.52
Linear (T = 5 s) -4
y5 = 0.28x5 - 2.22 -20 -10 0 10
ln(h)
ln(d)

-4 R²5 = 0.82 (c) 1

y3 = 0.30x3 - 2.63
R²3 = 0.87 T = 0.3 s

Probability of failure
0.8 T = 0.6 s
-6 T=1s
y1 = 0.30x1 - 4.00 0.6 T=3s
R²1 = 0.92 T=5s
y06 = 0.26x06 - 3.88 0.4
-8 R²06 = 0.93
y03 = 0.25x03 - 4.14 0.2
R²03 = 0.93
-10 0
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
ln(h) ln(h)

Figure 5: (a) The regression analysis between energy-frequency parameter h and the maximum inter-storey drift
d in natural logarithm. The Pearson correlation coefficient (ρ) between ln(h) and ln(d) is also provided. In the
regressive linear equation, x and y represent ln(h) and ln(d), respectively, and R2 is the coefficient of determination.
(b) An example for the scatter plots, frequency statistics (histogram), and Gaussian fitting (curve) of the residual
in fundamental period T = 0.3 s. The x-axis for the histogram and curve is not plotted. The normal distribution
parameters, the mean values µ, and the standard deviations σ, of the residuals in different fundamental periods
T are listed in the side table. (c) The h-based fragility function for structures with different fundamental periods.
(The diagram is from Chen et al.[4])

Appendix: Diagrams of pulse-like ground motions

The displacement, velocity, acceleration, 5%-damped displacement response spectra (Sd ), 5%-
damped pseudo-spectral velocity (Sv ), 5%-damped pseudo-spectral acceleration (Sa ), normalized
Arias intensity (Ia ), and Fourier spectra of all identified pulse-like ground motions are provided
separately.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
 61
View publication stats