Li Et Al 2020 Comparison of Macroseismic Intensity Scales by Considering Empirical Observations of Structural Seismic

Research Paper
Earthquake Spectra
Comparison of macroseismic- 2021, Vol. 37(1) 449–485
Ó The Author(s) 2020
intensity scales by considering Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
empirical observations of DOI: 10.1177/8755293020944174

journals.sagepub.com/home/eqs
structural seismic damage
Siqi Li1 , Yongsheng Chen2, and Tianlai Yu1
Abstract
In practice, seismic intensity is evaluated in accordance with a macroseismic-intensity
scale recognized in the field of seismic engineering globally. The application of differ-
ent seismic-intensity scales to evaluate the seismic damage of a specific structure due
to an earthquake yields diverse results. On this basis, this study compared a few
extensively used macroseismic-intensity scales. The results can be used as a reference
to develop an international intensity scale. According to empirical structural-damage
survey data from the Wenchuan earthquake (Mw = 8.0) that occurred on 12 May
2008 in China, the European Macroseismic Scale (EMS)-98, Medvedev, Sponheuer,
and Karnik (MSK)-81, and Chinese Seismic Intensity Scale (CSIS)-08 intensity scales
were utilized to evaluate the resulting damage. This study carried out a vulnerability
analysis of typical structures, established vulnerability seismic-damage matrices, and
mapped out vulnerability curves under different intensities. Our objective is to
demonstrate that the use of multiple intensity scales can lead to very different inten-
sity levels. The differences in the damage of typical structures under different inten-
sity levels were obtained from an evaluation using the three aforementioned intensity
scales. As a result, a calculation model of the mean damage index is proposed herein.
Ultimately, this article conducted an analysis on the failure characteristics of typical
structures in an earthquake and provided effective measures to improve seismic per-
formance for future reference.
Keywords
Seismic intensity, seismic intensity scale, empirical seismic field observation, seismic
vulnerability, structural seismic damage
Date received: 10 September 2019; accepted: 25 June 2020
1
School of Civil Engineering, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, China
2
Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration (CEA), Harbin, China
Corresponding author:
Siqi Li, School of Civil Engineering, Northeast Forestry University, No. 26, Hexing Road, Harbin 150040, China.
Email: 79654127@qq.com
450 Earthquake Spectra 37(1)
Introduction
History of macroseismic scales
The occurrence of earthquakes has significant impacts on the natural ecological environ-
ment and on human activities and lives, particularly in regard to the destruction of building
structures. Since the eighteenth century, seismologists have continuously studied the dam-
age caused by earthquakes. To investigate the intensity of ground motion closely and
appropriately, seismologists have proposed the concept of ‘‘macroseismic intensity.’’
Currently, this concept is extensively used in the fields of seismic engineering, seismic geol-
ogy, and engineering seismology, among others. The evaluation of seismic intensity is
based on the macroseismic-intensity scale. More than 40 different intensity scales have
been developed around the world since the eighteenth century. In 1786, Domenico
Pignataro proposed the earliest macroseismic-intensity scale based on 1186 shocks on 1
January 1783, and 1 October 1786. This scale is divided into five grades per the correlation
between the scale and intensity: slight, moderate, strong, very strong, or violent (Davison,
1927). Jared Brooks proposed a six-grade seismic intensity scale in 1812 based on an
empirical investigation of seismic damage along the New Madrid fault in the United
States. This scale is the only one among all the early scales that takes into account the
duration of motion and thus boasts of a more detailed description than the Domenico
Pignataro criterion (Davison, 1921). In 1828, Egen proposed the ‘‘Egen Scale of Intensity’’
based on the seismic damage that occurred as a result of an earthquake in the Netherlands.
This intensity scale was employed to describe a diversity of observations and to evaluate
what would ensue in residential areas (Davison, 1927). Built upon the characteristics of dif-
ferent intensity regions, a variety of colors were used to label regions in maps; in this way,
early macroseismic intensity distribution maps were formed. In 1858, John Mallet formally
proposed the first edition of the macroseismic-intensity scale, which divided earthquakes
into three categories according to their intensity: great, mean, and minor. These categories
were labeled and coded on maps with different colors covering their respective ranges
(Davison, 1921). Based on the above theory, John Mallet put forward the second version
of the macroseismic-intensity scale in 1862 and applied it to assess the damage of the
Neapolitan earthquake of 1857. A spatial distribution map illustrating the intensity of a
fourth category was obtained for regions with serious seismic damage. However, although
the abovementioned macroseismic-intensity scale could be used to assess the intensities of
ground motion during earthquakes in certain areas, the damages inflicted by the ground
motion during an earthquake did not lend themselves to a careful evaluation because of
the existing limitation in terms of ambiguity and uncertainty of the damage degree. A
macroseismic-intensity scale with practical application value was not compiled until the
first one was introduced by Michele Stefano De Rossi in 1874; nondestructive earthquakes
were divided into seven grades, destructive earthquakes were divided into three grades, and
the seismic intensity was categorized into ten grades. From 1874 to 1878, with further addi-
tions to seismic empirical observation data, the intensity scale was reformulated in terms of
evaluating the grade and other aspects. In 1881, Francois Alphonse Forel proposed a scale
for assessing the seismic intensity similar to the one De Rossi proposed in 1878. In 1883,
De Rossi and Forel jointly published a new scale known as the Rossi–Forel (R–F) scale of
intensity (De Rossi, 1883). The R–F intensity scale was the first to be widely used to evalu-
ate and report the macroseismic-intensity throughout the world. Moreover, Giuseppe
Mercalli compiled a 6° intensity scale; to identify and categorize high-intensity seismic
damage more accurately and meticulously, the seismic intensity was reclassified in refer-
ence to the R–F scale. This 6° standard was later extended to a 10° standard and translated
Li et al. 451
in 1902. In 1900, Fusakichi Omori compiled a 7° scale based on the Mino–Owari earth-
quake investigation in 1891. Subsequently, the relationship between acceleration and seis-
mic damage was proposed based on the displacement of structures in the epicenter region
(Aptikaev et al., 2008; Davison, 1921), and a peak-acceleration calculation model for mul-
tiple regions in the initial stage of intensity study using instruments was put forward. The
Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) has since improved and extended this scale. In 1996,
an instrument intensity scale based on the analysis of empirical observation data that per-
tained to an actual damage was proposed (Campbell and Bozorgnia, 2011). In 1904, A.
Cancani compiled a 12° seismic intensity standard (Davison, 1921) based on the Mercalli
criterion and considered the accelerated ground-motion parameters at various intensity
levels according to the principle of interpolation and proportional series arrangement.
Ground motion (peak ground acceleration, (PGA)) to intensity conversion equation
(GMICE) was implemented (Cancani, 1904). In 1912, the Mercalli scale was further
revised by Sieberg by considering the correlation between the seismic intensity and ground
motion (absolute acceleration response), and the Mercalli–Cancani–Sieberg (MCS) scale
was accordingly proposed (Davison, 1921). Davison (1921) elaborated that this scale was
distinct from the original in that it included observation data at all levels and took into
account actual survey data of seismic damage, particularly with regard to the seismic dam-
age of building structures. In 1931, Harry Wood and Frank Neumann revised the MCS
scale to better assess the seismic damage suffered by American buildings and compiled the
12° Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931 (MMI-1931) (Zobin et al., 2007). By consid-
ering the characteristics of seismic damage exhibited by four masonry and brick (MS)
structures using GMICE (Gutenberg and Richter, 1956), Charles Richter revised the 1931
version of the modified Mercalli intensity (MMI-1931) and proposed the 1956 version of
the MMI scale, namely, MMI-56 (Richter, 1958). Moreover, Dowrick et al. (2008) pro-
posed an MMI scale specifically for New Zealand. In 1957, Xie Yushou compiled the first
Chinese Seismic Intensity Scale (CSIS-57) based on the former Soviet Union’s seismic dam-
age records and the structural characteristics of Chinese buildings. CSIS-57 plays an
important role in the study of modern seismic intensity assessment standards and in-situ
seismic damage investigations in China. In 1964, Medvedev, Sponheuer, and Karnik com-
piled the 12-level intensity standard known as MSK-64 (Medvedev et al., 1965) based on
the MCS and MMI-56 intensity standards; this standard included relatively detailed
descriptions for providing qualitative assessments using the scale, especially for evaluating
the seismic damage of typical types of structures from different perspectives, such as the
definition of quantity, the classification of damage to buildings, and the arrangement of
the scale. Subsequently, numerous minor revisions were made on this standard. The final
product was the 1981 version known as MSK-81, and the structure classification of this
version was provided (Aptikaev and Erteleva, 2017; Karnik et al., 1984; Lapajne, 1984). In
the 1970s, Liu Huixian summarized the data of seismic damage inflicted by major destruc-
tive earthquakes throughout the world and analyzed the relationship among ground-
motion parameters and seismic intensity obtained from observations of strong earthquakes
(Hu, 2006). He revised CSIS-57 directly on the basis of the forms of main building struc-
tures; in addition, categories of building structures were extended to low-rise buildings,
which were extensively used in adobe and brick–wood mixtures. The damage index (DI)
was presented, and the peak ground acceleration (PGA) and peak ground velocity (PGV)
were selected as intensity evaluation indices. CSIS-80 was compiled and extensively used in
the seismic damage evaluation of structures. In 1988, the European Seismological
Commission began working on MSK-81; after more than 5 years, based on seismic damage
analysis parameters and data from seismic damage investigations and analyses, the
European seismic intensity scale known as MSK-93 was elaborately compiled. After a trial
implementation period, extensive comments and supplementary amendments were added,
and ultimately, the scale was adopted after discussion and renamed the 1998 European
Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98) (Grünthal, 1998). EMS-98 introduces the concept of vulner-
ability classes and earthquake-resistant design (ERD) into the intensity criterion and pro-
vides the typical failure characteristics and vulnerability of reinforced concrete (RC) and
mild steel (MS), steel, and timber structures, and includes visual pictures of structural seis-
mic damage to improve its functionality, However, there was no damage grade descrip-
tions for the steel and timber structure, which should be considered in future revision. This
scale has been widely used by seismologists, seismic geologists, seismic engineers, and seis-
mic damage investigators in empirical field engineering projects not only in Europe but
also across the world (Mariano et al., 2019). In 1999, Chen Dasheng made minor revisions
to CSIS-80 and developed CSIS-99 (GB/T 17742, 1999). In 2007, Mohammadioun com-
piled a special intensity scale (ESI-2007) (McCalpin et al., 2007) to assess environmental
seismic damages based on the number of surface and ecological environmental damage
data. In 2008, Sun Jingjiang compiled an updated China Seismic Intensity Scale, CSIS-08
(GB/T 17742, 2008), by dividing housing types into three categories (A, B, and C) accord-
ing to newly added types of building structures from China and around the world; in addi-
tion, the mean DI ranges for these three types of buildings were provided. Multiple
intensity scales were commonly created for specific regions. Foulser-Piggott and Spence
(2013a, 2013b) and Spence et al. (2014) attempted to develop an international intensity
scale based on EMS-98 and expanded the vulnerability classes to represent other regions
(e.g. adding timber buildings).
Purpose and significance

To better apply a variety of intensity scales to assess disasters, comparison of the different
intensity scales is necessary. However, a number of practical issues must be considered to
establish a conversion relationship among the different intensity scales. Lekkas employed
EMS-98 and ESI-2007 (McCalpin et al., 2007) to assess the intensity of seismic damages
to buildings and the environment, respectively, and concluded that the evaluation intensity
grades of the two were similar (Lekkas, 2010). In this study, the quantitative evaluation
methods in the literature on the provisions in multiple intensity scales are employed for
comparative analysis to establish such relationship. An in-depth study is conducted to
analyze the relationship among the discrete intensity scales and to define and consider one
intensity criterion as superior to the others. Based on this, this study implements compari-
son and analysis of several typical intensity scales used worldwide and evaluates the dam-
ages suffered by tens of thousands of buildings in China devastated by the Wenchuan
earthquake on 12 May 2008 using various intensity scales. According to the combination
of the statistics of the survey data of the empirical seismic-damage samples and the theory
of numerical analysis and probability model, the vulnerability matrices of various typical
structures under various intensity scales in multiple intensity zones are provided.
According to the established damage-probability matrix (DPM) models of empirical
seismic-damage observation, the vulnerability of the structure under several intensity
scales is compared by considering a typical structure as an example.
Li et al. 453
Quantitative comparison among macroseismic-intensity scales

To better analyze and evaluate the seismic intensities in different regions, global seismic
engineering experts have spent many years formulating and revising of seismic intensity
standards. In their efforts, experts in seismic engineering and civil engineering have found
that different intensity scales produce notable differences in their disaster and structural
damage assessments in the wake of an earthquake (Shi et al., 1990). This issue has become
a practical problem that must be addressed to establish the transformation relationship
among different intensity scales and to compare and analyze the discrepancies in the appli-
cation of different intensity scales.
Previous comparisons of macroseismic-intensity scales

According to the GMICE theory (Cancani, 1904), Wong and Trifunac (1979) and
Shabestari and Yamazaki (2001) analyzed the PGA observed in actual seismic stations.
The relationship between the JMA and MMI intensity criteria based on the PGA linear-
regression model in specific intensity regions (IV–VIII) was established, and a comparative
analysis chart between the two scales was obtained. Molin (1995) performed a compara-
tive analysis of the provisions of the MCS, MSK, and EMS scales by focusing on the
seismic-damage assessment of building structures. According to the assessment standard
of structural damage under these three intensity scales, the seismic damage was divided
into four grades: undamaged, slightly damaged, heavily damaged, and collapsed or
destroyed. On this basis, vulnerability analysis was carried out, and an actual seismic vul-
nerability matrix was established; the intensity evaluation was carried out by virtue of the
MCS, MSK, and EMS intensity scales. A comparison among the distinctions of the differ-
ent intensity scales was drawn, and the vulnerabilities of multiple structural types were
analyzed. Ferrari and Guidoboni (2000) quantitatively evaluated the provision of the
MCS intensity scale and compared different intensity scales that had been applied world-
wide from 1811 to 1998 with the MCS scale as a reference. Tobita et al. (2007) investigated
the damage suffered by buildings (adobe, unreinforced masonry (URM), reinforced
masonry (RM), steel, and RC houses) during the 2003 earthquake in Bam, Iran. They uti-
lized the JMA and MMI scales and analyzed the vulnerability of structures and the char-
acteristics of seismic damage to structures in multiple-intensity zones. Hofer et al. (2016)
conducted a seismic damage investigation of the M6.0 Amatrice earthquake event that
struck Central Italy on 24 August 2016. The predicted intensity under the MCS scale and
the observed intensity from the EMS evaluation were analyzed and compared using the
recorded PGA values of the seismic event that struck Central Italy, and the linear correla-
tions corresponding to the different models were reported. A regression curve was
obtained using the EMS-98 scale. Musson et al. (2010) described the development of sev-
eral intensity scales in different periods and compared the provisions of two intensity
scales (scales A and B). Based on EMS-98, the differences in the evaluation results of the
R–F, MCS, MMI-56, MSK, and JMA-96 intensity scales were compared and analyzed.
Zucconi et al. (2017) selected URM buildings devastated during the L’Aquila earthquake
in 2009 as the object of an earthquake damage investigation to assess the actual on-site
seismic damage by virtue of the EMS intensity scale. Combining the EMS-98 and MCS
intensity scales, a structural vulnerability analysis was carried out on a diverse range of
building structures according to actual empirical damage evaluation results, and a damage
matrix of buildings based on actual seismic damage was established. Subsequently, Amini
et al. (2017) used the EMS-98 intensity scale and the Environmental Seismic Intensity
(ESI-2007) scale (Serva et al., 2015) to assess the seismic intensity of Iranian earthquakes;
the relationships between these intensity scales and the frequency were obtained, and
quantitative statistics of the maximum intensity was established in conjunction with a
probability matrix of seismic damage based on both intensity scales.
Through the above review of intensity scales, it is found that the provisions of most
intensity scales can be roughly divided into the following three aspects: ‘‘human sensation
and object response,’’‘‘structural seismic damage,’’‘‘and lifeline engineering damage and
surface earthquake damage.’’ However, to date, relatively few detailed comparative studies
have been performed on the comparison of these essential factors, and thus, the damage
caused by earthquakes and their impacts could differ to varying degrees. Therefore, it is
necessary to conduct a detailed comparative study of these intensity scales from various
perspectives on different scales. In the United States, Dewey et al. (1995) used and updated
the criteria that are now used by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) for MMI
assignments based on the works of Stover and Coffman (1993), and MMI for intensities
lower than VIII are now routinely assigned by the USGS ‘‘Did You Feel It?’’ system
(Wald et al., 2011). In addition, EMS-98, MSK-81, and CSIS-08 are extensively employed
worldwide to assess seismic intensity. In particular, they are widely used in the assessment
of seismic intensity and vulnerability of engineering structures in Western Europe, Eastern
Europe, and China, respectively.
Comparative analysis of intensity scales

Musson et al. (2010) used EMS-98 as the base intensity scale to compare several intensity
scales used globally and suggested that the best practice is to assess the intensity in each
scale using the original data. Graziano and Guidoboni (2000) collected and collated partial
seismic data from 1811 to 1998 and used the MCS scale to evaluate the seismic damage
inflicted on multiple regions based on the integer intensity. However, it is worth noting that
although the approach of evaluating the macroseismic-intensity by integers (Roman
numerals) is generally employed worldwide, the boundary between a high or low impact
degree of earthquake damage within the same intensity grade or between different intensity
grades, for example, the boundaries between 8.1° and 8.9° and between 7.9° and 8.1°,
respectively, is often blurred (Musson, 2005). Wong and Trifunac (1979) and Shabestari
and Yamazaki (2001) applied GMICE to perform a regression analysis of actual ground-
motion parameters, established a linear regression model between the MMI and JMA
scales, and provided a comparative analysis map of the intensity (exhibiting a direct non-
integer correspondence). In this article, the CSIS-08, EMS-98, MSK-81, MMI-56, JMA-
96, and R–F scales have been selected from among the various available intensity scales for
quantitative and comparative analyses of these intensity scales based on non-integer inten-
sity values. The comparative analysis of these intensity scales is carried out step-by-step in
light of the human sensation and objects response, structural earthquake damage, and life-
line engineering (including seismic damage of electric power, water supply engineering,
transportation, gas, water conservancy, and communication system engineering) earth-
quake damage, and surface earthquake damage, as summarized in Tables 1 to 3, respec-
tively. Table 4 displays a comparison analysis of the recommended intensity scale with
regard to the overall results of these comprehensive factors (considering the coupling com-
prehensive factors of the human sensations and object responses, structural seismic dam-
age, and the lifeline engineering damage and surface earthquake damage). The results
highlight the fact that researchers commonly refer to the theory of instrument intensity to
evaluate the grade of seismic intensity. Caprio et al. (2015) and Worden et al. (2012)
derived GMICEs from regional data (PGA). Regional correction factors need to be added
Li et al. 455
Table 1. Comparison of human sensation and object responses under different seismic intensity scales
CSIS-08 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
EMS-98 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX
MSK-81 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
MMI-56 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
JMA-96 0 I II III IV V(L) V(U) VI(L) VI(U) VII
R–F I II III IV V VI VIII
CSIS: Chinese Seismic Intensity Scale; EMS: European Macroseismic Scale; MSK: Medvedev, Sponheuer, and Karnik;
MMI: Modified Mercalli Intensity; JMA: Japan Meteorological Agency; R–F: Rossi–Forel.
to the GMICE derived by Caprio et al. for application to other regions. Punctual measure-
ment of the instrument intensity (PGA) and intensity grade obtained from the evaluation
of macrointensity should be comprehensively considered. The relationship between the
PGA interval and intensity grade has been established in CSIS-08. To evaluate the intensity
grade more accurately, in terms of field observations and visual inspections, detection of
the ground-motion parameters for actual stations is combined with seismic damage survey
data for specific analysis. Low-intensity regions often result in cases of inadequate descrip-
tions of intensity scales. For instance, people experience different sensations when out-
doors versus indoors during earthquakes, as well as when they are located on lower and
versus higher stories. In medium-intensity regions, most intensity scales consider the degree
of structural damage as the focus of the analysis, but some of the intensity criteria are tex-
tually vague. However, EMS-98 takes into account factors such as the structural classifica-
tion and damage degree, among others; to date, EMS-98 is still one of the most extensively
used intensity scales for assessing structural seismic damage. In high-intensity regions, the
assessment of intensity generally takes into account lifeline engineering damage and surface
damage (McCalpin, 2007), but the descriptions in the intensity scales remain incomplete.
For example, there are no descriptions of the environmental damage in EMS-98; neverthe-
less, many intensity assessors use this scale in combination with ESI-2007 or the New
Zealand MMI scale (Dowrick et al., 2008). As is commonly known, differences in intensity
assessments made with the same scale by different seismologists are greater than the differ-
ences in intensity assessments made through different scales by the same seismologist (Shi
et al., 1990); meanwhile, similar results come when the same researcher assigns an intensity
using different scales. Therefore, in the application of Tables 1 to 4 (see Appendix 1) for
intensity assessment, we need to reasonably combine the analysis of actual seismic-damage
survey data and the seismic parameters obtained from operating seismic stations as a refer-
ence for auxiliary evaluation.
Comparison among intensity scales considering empirical field

observations
To analyze in detail to profoundly study the differences among the intensity scales in the
assessment of structural seismic damage, the China Earthquake Administration (CEA)
organized a team to conduct postearthquake field observations of the empirical structural
damage inflicted by the M8.0 Wenchuan earthquake on 12 May 2008 in Sichuan Province,
China, and to perform an intensity assessment. The author and hundreds of engineering
seismologists were put together to form a structural earthquake damage investigation team
to conduct field inspections for more than 2 months. They also conducted evaluations
based on visual inspection data using a variety of intensity scales. The evaluation of
Table 2. Comparison of the structural seismic damage among different seismic intensity scales
CSIS-08 III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII
EMS-98 III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII
MSK-81 III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII
MMI-56 III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII
JMA-96 II III IV V(L) V(U) VI(L) VI(U) VII
R–F III–VII VIII IX X
Table 3. Comparison of the lifeline engineering damage and surface earthquake damage among different
seismic intensity scales
CSIS-08 VI VII VIII IX X XI XII
EMS-98
MSK-81 V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII
MMI-56 VII VIII IX X XI XII
JMA-96 V(L) V(U) VI(L) VI(U) VII
R–F
Table 4. Comparison of the seismic intensity scales considering the comprehensive factors
CSIS-08 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII
EMS-98 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII
MSK-81 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII
MMI-56 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII
JMA-96 0 I II III IV V(L) V(U) VI(L) VI(U) VII
R–F I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
seismic intensity depends on a variety of factors (such as geological data and urban expan-
sion (number of residents)), which need to be collected and sorted out. Owing to the con-
straints of the conditions, this article only considers the use of typical intensity scales to
assess the intensity grade. Based on the empirical survey data samples of seismic damage,
it attempts to compare and analyze the differences of the multiple intensity scales in the
assessment of intensity grade.
According to the five-damage levels used extensively worldwide, the structural damage
is divided into the following five categories: basically intact (D1), slightly damaged (D2),
moderately damaged (D3), seriously damaged (D4), and destroyed (D5). With regard to
the EMS-98, MSK-81, CSIS-08, and MMI-56 intensity scales, a sample survey was con-
ducted to assess the requirements of structural damage. Sampled survey points were dis-
tributed in Sichuan, Shaanxi, Chongqing, Gansu, Yunnan, and other places in China.
More than 100 seismic damage investigation teams were organized by local governments
and relevant departments to perform seismic damage investigations of more than 100,000
buildings in disaster-stricken cities, counties, and districts. The empirical field
Li et al. 457
Figure 1. Distribution of field inspection points in the Wenchuan earthquake (Yuan, 2008): (a) entire
reconnaissance regions and (b) local observation regions of Sichuan Province.
reconnaissance sample data consisted of 244 affected regions and 2240 investigation points
in six provinces of China, as presented in Figure 1a (Yuan, 2008), Figure 1b displays the
local observation regions of seismic damage. The main types of investigated structures
were as follows: MS, RC, bottom frame-seismic wall masonry (BFM), rural and urban
brick–wood composite (BWR and BWU, respectively), rural and urban brick–concrete
composite (BCR and BCU, respectively), RC frame shear wall (RCW), workshops (W
(large-span brick buildings, large-span concrete frame buildings and steel)), and bunga-
lows (B) and timber (T). According to the abovementioned intensity scales, the structures
in the seismic-damage investigation regions could be generally divided into 11 categories,
as listed in Table 5. The field investigation revealed that the structural types of the seismic
design should be considered in the macrointensity scales (EMS-98, MSK-81, CSIS-08, and
MMI-56), which basically achieved different expected seismic performance in Wenchuan
earthquake. However, the composite structures (BFM, BCR, BCU, BWR, and BWU)
were not classified in EMS-98 and MMI-56. The empirical field-damage reconnaissance in
Wenchuan earthquake revealed that the number of these structural samples is relatively
large. To evaluate the intensity grade of these types of structures, this article comprehen-
sively considers the evaluation criteria of RC, MS, T, and adobe structure to evaluate the
intensity. Due to the tremendous number of samples, only the discrete survey points of
Mianzhu, Anxian, Jiangyou, Shifang, Chongzhou, Chengdu, Mianyang, Deyang, and
Dujiangyan were selected for statistical analysis in this study.
Appendix 2 demonstrates the evaluation and analysis results of multiple intensity scales
for typical visual field inspection points. It is found that a portion of the buildings in the
BCR, BCU, BWR, and BWU points are building structures without seismic fortification.
Some of the structural categories are not listed in A–F of EMS-98 in the Wenchuan earth-
quake during the vulnerability assessment. We thus refer to similar structure categories in
this intensity scale. The intensity grade of these buildings evaluated by different intensity
scales is greater than that of other types of buildings. Due to the influence of different
regional economic and cultural factors, the spatial distributions of the various types of
building structures are unbalanced and relatively separate, failing to better reflect the char-
acteristics of seismic damage and the differences in the evaluation results of intensity scales
for diverse structural types subject to seismic damage in a certain region. Therefore, the
investigation team selected Dujiangyan city with more types of structures and concen-
trated, discrete investigation points for the seismic damage investigation. Appendix 3
Table 5. Classification of structures in the Wenchuan earthquake

MS RC BFM BWR BWU BCR BCU T RCW W B
EMS-98 D D C/D B/C B/C B/C B/C D E E B

MSK-81 B C B/C A/B A/B A/B A/B C C C B
CSIS-08 B/C C B/C A/B A/B A/B A/B C C C B
MMI-56 B A A/B C C C C A A A C
EMS: European Macroseismic Scale; MSK: Medvedev, Sponheuer, and Karnik; CSIS: Chinese Seismic Intensity Scale;
MMI: Modified Mercalli Intensity; MS: masonry and brick; RC: reinforced concrete; BFM: bottom frame-seismic wall
masonry; BWR: rural brick–wood composite; BWU: urban brick–wood composite; BCR: rural brick–concrete
composite; BCU: urban brick–concrete composite; RCW: RC frame shear wall.
shows that 1865 buildings in the city were randomly selected and classified according to
the structural classification and damage-grade requirements of the different intensity scales
(GB/T 17742, 2008; Grünthal, 1998; Karnik et al., 1984; Richter, 1958). The intensity
grades of these investigated samples were evaluated in strict compliance with the articles
on the quantitative rules of EMS-98, MSK-81, CSIS-08, and MMI-56. Due to limits on
the length of this article, the codes of the structure types evaluated in the intensity scales
are used directly in Appendix 3. The destructive characteristics of the sampled BFM and
T were the results of local peculiarities and their large proportion among all types of struc-
tures, as additional structure types are used in CSIS-08 (additional categories are referred
to as AC) for the statistical analysis of the intensity. In this article, ‘‘ + ’’ and ‘‘–’’ in the
table represent intensity grades above and below the corresponding level, respectively.
The different classifications of structural types in different intensity scales lead to evi-
dent anomalies in the evaluation results, as the structural building types in different coun-
tries and regions are inevitably diverse. On this basis, a structural classification in EMS-98
is more rigorous. Through a statistical analysis of data and an intensity evaluation of each
scale, the results of EMS-98 are slightly higher than those of CSIS-08, MMI-56 and MSK-
81 in the same intensity grade. The results of CSIS-08 are close to those of MMI-56, and
the results of MSK-81 are lower than those of MMI-56. It is worth noting that the inten-
sity scales have repetitive descriptions of the different intensity grades, and a certain inten-
sity grade could be higher or lower than the adjacent intensity grade without exceeding it
(e.g. VIII + and VIII2); thus, the evaluation results are not integers and correspond better
with the situation.
Vulnerability analysis
Field observations of structural seismic damage were carried out by randomly selecting
some of the inspection points to represent all the buildings in the disaster-stricken regions
(Lagomarsino and Giovinazzi, 2006). In this manner, the intensity scale could be effectively
utilized to evaluate the intensity in different regions, and the overall damage in a certain
region could be better measured. However, according to the results of visual inspection,
there was a remarkable discrepancy in the structural damage throughout the same region.
This could have been the result of the existence of multiple intensities in individual regions,
which was not sufficiently comprehensive. In July 2008, the CEA reorganized the investiga-
tion of seismic damage in typical regions. Considering that the structural damage of
Dujiangyan City was in accordance with the diverse structural types, the investigation team
carried out a comprehensive investigation of seismic damage in the area. The investigation
Li et al. 459
Figure 2. Structural types in the Dujiangyan region: (a) quantitative distribution and (b) proportional
distribution.
team was composed of nearly 30 people, including researchers from major research insti-
tutes, universities, and other institutions related to structural seismic resistance in China,
and the investigation lasted for over 2 months. A total of 8625 structures were investigated
by means of comprehensive sampling of the buildings in the region. Dujiangyan City is
located 21 km southeast of Chengdu, Sichuan Province, and approximately 5 km of the
Wenchuan earthquake fault zone. The majority of the city is situated on a large alluvial
fan formed by the Min River, which drains a wide mountainous domain, while some of its
branches run through the city (Lekkas, 2010). The types of building structures in this area
include BFM, MS, multistory reinforced concrete (RC) structures, single-story reinforced
concrete bent workshops (SSB), and other mixed structures (OS). Figure 2a shows the
number and classification of all inspected samples in Dujiangyan City. Distribution maps
are drawn according to the respective proportion of the number of different structural
types investigated, as shown in Figure 2b. It can be seen that BFM, MS, and RC are widely
used, accounting for more than 80% of the total number of structures investigated.
Therefore, this article focuses on the vulnerability and damage characteristics of these three
structures.
The word ‘‘vulnerability’’ is utilized throughout this study to express differences in the
way that buildings respond to earthquake tremor (Grünthal, 1998). In the intensity scales
mentioned in the previous chapters, EMS-98, MSK-81, and CSIS-08 have relatively
detailed classification of structural categories, and have a clear description of structural
vulnerability levels within each intensity grade, and the same number of seismic damage
grades. Therefore, this article selects them to assess and compare with the empirical struc-
tural seismic damage. The level of structural seismic damage is divided into 5°, and the
intensity of structural seismic damage is evaluated by virtue of the EMS-98, MSK-81, and
CSIS-08 seismic intensity scales (considering that EMS-98 is the most widely used intensity
scale worldwide, it is compared with MSK-81 and CSIS-08). Appendix 4 displays the
descriptions of the three intensity scales, each with 5° of seismic damage. To collect and
summarize the data, the principle of mathematical statistics was employed, statistical anal-
ysis of visual inspection data was carried out, and the empirical seismic vulnerability
matrix was established based on multiple structural types.
Table 6. Number and proportion (%) of seismic damage exhibited by MS, RC, and BFM in Dujiangyan
based on the EMS-98, MSK-81, and CSIS-08 macroseismic intensity scales
EMS-98 MSK-81 CSIS-08
MS RC BFM MS RC BFM MS RC BFM
D1 2017 488 1060 2131 528 1118 2102 528 1097

(50) (51) (49) (54) (55) (51) (53) (55) (50)
D2 378 172 266 371 162 231 349 151 227
(9) (18) (12) (9) (17) (11) (9) (16) (11)
D3 632 161 402 598 149 352 592 158 378
(16) (17) (19) (15) (16) (16) (15) (17) (17)
D4 741 113 382 689 101 408 698 97 396
(19) (12) (17) (17) (11) (19) (7) (10) (18)
D5 223 15 68 202 9 69 250 15 80
(6) (2) (3) (5) (1) (3) (6) (2) (4)
MS: masonry and brick; RC: reinforced concrete; BFM: bottom frame-seismic wall masonry.
Statistical analysis of data

The ensemble of samples from the urban regions of Dujiangyan affected by the Wenchuan
earthquake was investigated and evaluated. Among the types of structures, MS, RC, and
BFM are extensively used in the investigated region and have abundant survey data for
statistical analysis. The reconnaissance teams investigated 7118 buildings under these three
typical structures, including 3991 MS, 949 RC, and 2178 BFM buildings, which accounted
for 82.53% of the total survey samples (8625 buildings). Table 6 lists the number of struc-
tural types and their levels of structural damage based on the EMS-98, MSK-81, and
CSIS-08 intensity scales. The MS, RC, and BFM buildings exhibited multiple damage lev-
els. According to the numerical analysis, which considered the discreteness, variance, and
robustness of the data, regression analysis was performed on the data using the functional-
model analysis. The regression curve continuously approximated the discrete points. The
sample data were processed using the theory of numerical analysis and smoothing-spline
model (Mariano et al., 2019; Zanini et al., 2019). Figure 3 shows the regression curves
between the damage grade and seismic-damage ratio based on the different intensity scales.
At the D1 and D2 levels, there are slight differences among the three intensity scales.
However, at the D3 and D4 levels, the level of structural damage assessed by EMS-98 is
slightly higher than that assessed by MSK-81 and CSIS-08, which may be due to the fact
that EMS-98 is a more detailed description of the assessment of moderate and high damage
levels. In the ensemble regression analysis, discrepancies are inapparent for all the grades
for RC. This indicates that the seismic damage assessment criteria for RC structures are
reasonable, which is also in line with the expected results of the comparative analysis con-
sistent for the different intensity scales. For BFM, the damage grades to the different build-
ings of EMS-98 in D2 and D3 are higher than those of MSK-81 and CSIS-08, while those
in D4 and D5 are lower. From the analysis results in Table 6 and Figure 3, the medium
and high seismic damage grades of EMS-98 are generally higher than those of the other
two intensity scales.
Vulnerability matrix
During the Wenchuan earthquake that occurred on 12 May 2008, the CEA has demar-
cated the intensity regions in the earthquake zones. Among others, Dujiangyan City spans
Li et al. 461
Figure 3. Comparison of different structural types in evaluating seismic damage under the EMS98,
MSK-81, and CSIS-08 macroseismic intensity scales: (a) MS, (b) RC, and (c) BFM.
the VI–XI intensity zones (CSIS-99) (Yuan, 2008). According to the related principle of
statistical analysis and probability model, vulnerability analysis of the seismic-damage
observation data was performed, and the DPM model based on the empirical seismic dam-
age was established. These (Appendices 5 to 7) show the empirical vulnerability matrices of
MS, RC, and BFM based on field observations of seismic damage in Dujiangyan seismic
region assessed by the EMS-98, MSK-81, and CSIS-08 intensity scales (Eleftheriadou and
Karabinis, 2011; Lagomarsino and Giovinazzi, 2006; Zobin et al., 2007). Based on these
field seismic vulnerability matrices, this study carried out numerical and model regression
analyses of different intensity scales for structures in multiple-intensity regions. Figures 4
to 6 demonstrate the results of the seismic damage analyses of MS, RC, and BFM, respec-
tively, in regions with various different intensities (Zhou et al., 2013; Zobin et al., 2007).
Comparing the regression curves of MS in the VI intensity zone, the damage evaluated
by MSK-81 is slightly higher than that evaluated by EMS-98 and CSIS-08 at the D2 seis-
mic damage grade. The level of structural damage evaluated by EMS-98 at D3 and D4 in
the VIII intensity zone is higher than that evaluated by the other intensity scales. The RC
regression curves show that the evaluation results of EMS-98 in the VIII and IX intensity
zones are significantly higher than those of the other intensity scales at the D2 and D4
grades, respectively, as well as for intensity VII between D2 and D4. The seismic damage
Figure 4. Comparison of the assessed seismic damage of MS with the EMS-98, MSK-81, and CSIS-08
intensity scales in regions with an intensity of (a) VI, (b) VII, (c) VIII,(d) IX, (e) X, and (f) XI, respectively.
Figure 5. Comparison of the assessed seismic damage of RC with the EMS-98, MSK-81, and CSIS-08
intensity scales in regions with an intensity of (a) VI, (b) VII, (c) VIII, (d) IX, (e) X, and (f) XI, respectively.
assessment results of EMS-98 for the BFM regression curve in the VII intensity zone are
lower than those of the other intensity scales at D4, but stronger at D3. The ensemble
analysis results show more detailed description of the various types of EMS-98 structures
Li et al. 463
Figure 6. Comparison of the assessed seismic damage of BFM with the EMS-98, MSK-81, and CSIS-08
intensity scales in regions with an intensity of (a) VI, (b) VII, (c) VIII, (d) IX, (e) X, and (f) XI, respectively.
Table 7. Interval and median values of the DI (Sun and Zhang, 2018)
Damage grade DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4 DS5
Interval of DI ½0, 0:1) ½0:1, 0:3) ½0:3, 0:55) ½0:55, 0:85) ½0:85, 1
Median of DI 0.05 0.2 0.43 0.7 0.93
DI: damage index.
and seismic damage grades, and provide relatively tangible structural damage assessment
results that are more accurate than the results obtained by virtue of MSK-81 and CSIS-08
combined.
Mean damage index

To provide a more comprehensive analysis of structural seismic damage, the DI and mean
damage index (MDI) are introduced in CSIS-08. The DI is a quantitative indicator of the
degree of seismic damage of a building and represents the degree of seismic damage to a
building from slight to damaging levels denoted by a non-integer number between 0 and
1.0. However, the value of the DI of building structures in a region with multiple intensities
is expressed in interval form, which could make it difficult to accurately measure a certain
type of structural damage. In response, seismologists and structural seismic experts put for-
ward the definition of the MDI (Lagomarsino and Giovinazzi, 2006). Table 7 shows the
values of the DI limits and MDI applicable to EMS-98, MSK-81, and CSIS-08. Based on
the numerical simulation analysis and considering the median value of the DI and a type
of observationally sampled structure as a function of model parameters, the MDI is calcu-
lated based on formula 1:
Figure 7. Relationships between the MDI and seismic intensity of (a) MS, (b) RC, and (c) BFM under
the EMS-98, MSK-81, and CSIS-08 scales, respectively.
X
5
Nij
MDI = Di ð1Þ
i=1
Nj
Di represents the median of the DI of the ith seismic damage grade, Nij denotes the level of
damage to a certain type of structure in the jth intensity region caused by the ith seismic
damage grade, and Nj represents the overall number of a certain type of structure sampled
during the seismic damage investigation in the jth intensity region.
An MDI analysis of MS, RC, and BFM in the seismic damage investigation of
Dujiangyan was carried out by virtue of the model function in formula 1. Figure 7 exhibits
the MDI regression curves of these three types of structures under EMS-98, MSK-81, and
CSIS-08 with different intensity grades (Rota et al., 2008; Sun and Zhang, 2018). On the
MS and RC vulnerability curves, the MDI with EMS-98 is slightly higher than those with
MSK-81 and CSIS-08, especially in Figure 7a. In the VII, X, and XI intensity zones the
distinction among these intensity scales on the BFM curve is not significant. The MDI val-
ues of MS, RC, and BFM are between 0.5 and 0.6 in the IX intensity zone, and the seismic
Li et al. 465
Figure 8. Vulnerability regression curves of (a) MS, (b) RC, and (c) BFM under the EMS-98, MSK-81,
and CSIS-08 scales, respectively.
intensity used for building design in this region is a degree of VII (GB/T 17742, 2008).
Through the comparative analysis results of Figure 7, this indicates that the seismic capac-
ity of these three structures has been adequately verified and that the anticipated seismic
effect of their structural seismic fortification has been achieved to a certain extent.
Nevertheless, civil engineering experts and engineers pay attention to the overall damage
of different structural types and on the regular pattern of empirical seismic damage of a
variety of structural types in the same intensity scale. The MDI can effectively measure
the seismic damage to a type of structure in a certain zone. Figure 8 shows the MS, RC,
and BFM vulnerability regression curves, demonstrating that the corresponding MDI val-
ues conform to the intensity grades of EMS-98, MSK-81, and CSIS-08. The vulnerability
curve analysis results with various intensity scales show that the levels of damage to BFM
and MS are more considerable than those to RC. The divergence between BFM and MS
is not significant in Figure 8a, but they have remarkable divergence from RC, as shown in
Figure 8b and c. Through these analyses of the seismic damage grades to a variety of
structural types on the same intensity scale, the discrepancies for multiple structural types
among various intensity scales are presented, thereby providing a necessary reference for
future field investigations of seismic damage and for revising intensity scales and seismic
codes.
Figure 9. Typical seismic damage characteristics of MS: (a) damage to the bottom story, (b) collapse, (c)
interwindow wall damage, and (d) damage to the wall under a window.
Failure characteristics
MS represents one of the most widely used types of structures around the world, but MS also
exhibits the highest levels of damage revealed through seismic damage field investigations.
MS mainly hinges on the walls as the focus of forces and the transmission of stresses. As the
wall material is brittle, the lack of ductility during an earthquake could easily lead to damage
to components. Seismic damage commonly begins at the ground floor and decreases gradu-
ally with the height, which coincides with the basic analytical idea derived from the bottom
shear method in structural seismic response analysis, especially in high-intensity zones (Rai
et al., 2016), as shown in Figure 9a. Figure 9b demonstrates that vertical cracking, pull-out,
and even local collapse occur at the joints of longitudinal and transverse walls as they fail to
sustain complex forces. Figure 9c and d shows that predominantly cross-horizontal cracks
occur in thin wall stacks, interwindow walls, or walls under windows due to bending and
shearing (Astroza et al., 2012). Due to the lack of sufficient tension at the ends, the roofs of
RC buildings (houses) with prefabricated slabs can be pulled apart and even collapse during
an earthquake, as displayed in Figure 10.
According to the overall field investigation and analysis, most newly constructed struc-
tures have been built to perform to an intensity degree of VII (GB 50011, 2001), most of
Li et al. 467
Figure 10. Local collapse of MS: (a) local collapse caused by insufficient end connections of
prefabricated stories and (b) local collapse due to insufficient integrity of prefabricated components.
them withstood the test and generally achieved the three-fortification objectives, namely,
‘‘easily withstanding small earthquakes, being repairable in medium earthquakes, and not
collapsing under large earthquakes.’’
RC represents an important type of building in the region affected by the Wenchuan
M8.0 earthquake, especially urban areas. RC composed a large part of the investigation of
structural earthquake damage. These structures also suffered widespread damage during
the earthquake. Nevertheless, RC boasts strong seismic resistance in regions with intensi-
ties ranging from VI to VII. The failure of the infilled wall constitutes the most marked
failure of RC in this earthquake. Connection failures between the infilled wall and its sur-
rounding beams and columns led to varying degrees of unidirectional oblique cracks or
intersecting oblique cracks; in more serious cases, these walls partially collapsed or wholly
collapsed (Zobin et al., 2006), as shown in Figure 11. However, due to the presence of
infilled walls, damage to the main framework of the damage could be delayed, thereby
ensuring the security of the whole building.
The functionality of a building is more important, especially in high-intensity zones.
The damage to beams and columns could be relatively high, and the damage to columns is
generally more serious than that to beams. The damage to columns manifests mainly in the
crushing of concrete at the ends of columns, the lantern buckling of reinforcing bars, and
the failure of stirrups. Comparatively speaking, the damage to beams is less severe and usu-
ally occurs at the mid-span and ends of beams, while the surface peeling of concrete, the
exposing of steel bars, and the occurrence of beam–column bending and bending-shear
damage often occur in high-intensity zones (GB 50011, 2001). Moreover, damage to
beam–column joints is also common in seismic damage investigation (Qu et al., 2015), as
shown in Figures 12 and 13. We consider that the function and layout of infilled walls
should be given reasonable thought in seismic design. To prevent the adverse effects associ-
ated with the sinking of frame columns due to improper foundations, the stiffness ratio of
each story should be reasonably calculated to avoid the weakness of the bottom story.
The large proportion of BFM in the region affected by the Wenchuan earthquake is
outstanding. Most BFM were constructed after 1990. The bottom story is an RC frame
Figure 11. Infilled wall damage of RC: (a) failure of infilled wall on the bottom story and (b) crushing
collapse of infilled wall.
Figure 12. Beam-column damage of RC: (a) beam-span neutral beam–column joint failure and (b)
beam–column bending and bending-shear failure.
structure, while the second story and above are masonry structures with ring beams and
RC tie columns. Due to these different structural forms, the stiffness distribution along
the vertical direction is inhomogeneous, and the lateral deformation of the frame on the
bottom story is generally more severe than the deformation of the upper stories.
Consequently, seismic damage to the frame on the bottom story is more serious than that
to the upper structures, and even the entire building has collapsed in some cases, as shown
in Figure 14a.
However, due to the needs posed by seismic design or actual use, some BFM install
infilled walls or seismic walls on the bottom story, which increases the stiffness of the bot-
tom story and shifts the weak story upward, resulting in serious damage to the second
Li et al. 469
Figure 13. Joint failure: (a) joint failure in construction and (b) side column joint failure.
story and even collapse of the entire second story in serious cases, as shown in Figure 14b.
In a high-intensity zone, the horizontal seismic action of BFM is greater, which causes the
partial collapse of structures, as shown in Figure 14c and d. The ratio of the stiffness of
the bottom frame to that of the transition story should be reasonably controlled, while the
lateral stiffness of the transition story should be properly strengthened by setting structural
columns and girders. In this way, the overall stiffness of the structure can be coordinated
and designed strictly in accordance with seismic design codes, ensuring the construction
quality and improving the integrity of the structure.
Summary
Macroseismic intensity scales are effective instruments for evaluating the intensity of
earthquake ground motion and through observing the damage grades of structures. With
the use of an intensity scale, it is possible to better evaluate the seismic intensity and accu-
rately determine the levels of seismic damage to buildings, to get an understanding of
macroseismic intensity scales. However, a variety of macroseismic intensity scales have
been developed in the past. Countries, regions, and numerous types of building structures
in different periods have stimulated the development and innovation of intensity stan-
dards. On this basis, this article has analyzed anomalies with regard to multiple intensity
scales and obtained comparison tables of parameters based on the human sensation and
objects response, structural earthquake damage, lifeline engineering damage and surface
damage, and the coupling comprehensive factors. The intensity of ground motion that
affected tens of thousands of buildings devastated by the M8.0 Wenchuan earthquake in
Sichuan Province on 12 May 2008 was evaluated by virtue of multiple intensity scales. In
addition, the discrepancies among different structural types under multiple intensity scales
were analyzed. Dujiangyan city, which spanned multiple-intensity zones during this earth-
quake, was selected as the sampling region for the overall observational investigation. The
seismic damage to a total of 8625 buildings was investigated. Among them, MS, RC, and
BFM accounted for more than 80% of all the structures under investigation. Vulnerability
analysis was carried out using the EMS-98, MSK-81, and CSIS-08 intensity scales, and a
regional vulnerability matrix based on a multitude of intensity scales and regression model
Figure 14. Typical seismic damage characteristics of BFM: (a) integral story collapse of bottom frame,
(b) overall seating collapse of transition story, (c) local upper masonry structure collapse, and (d) integral
collapse of offside structure.
curves between different seismic damage grades and the structural damage ratio were
established. Statistical analysis was carried out on the earthquake damage to MS, RC,
and BFM located in VI–XI intensity regions. Vulnerability matrices and regression model
curves of three structural types were evaluated with the EMS-98, MSK-81, and CSIS-08
intensity scales; comparing the three intensity scales, we found that they did not remark-
ably differ. The uncertainties in the assignments in both building classes and damage levels
might have caused this difference. EMS-98 more broadly divided the structure category
and in detail than CSIS-08 and MSK-81. The MS and RC building types were clearly clas-
sified in the three scales. We must emphasize that the BFM building was not described to
have a relevant structure because its structural form consisted of MS and RC composite.
Thus, we considered combining the MS and RC assessment criteria in each scale for their
vulnerability assessment, which could also be the influencing factor for the abovemen-
tioned comparison conclusion. The MDI calculation model was proposed for the purpose
of evaluating the damage to a certain type of structure. Combined with the vulnerability
matrices built upon the empirical seismic damage investigation data, the MDI regression
Li et al. 471
models of three structures were analyzed with the EMS-98, MSK-81, and CSIS-08 inten-
sity scales and different intensity zones. The seismic damage to MS, RC, and BFM was
compared under the same intensity scale and analyzed via numerical analysis. According
to the investigation of seismic damage in the field, the typical damage characteristics of
MS, RC, and BFM were summarized. The causes of seismic damage to these three kinds
of structures were analyzed in detail, and methods and measures to improve seismic per-
formance were proposed.
The purpose of comparing the different seismic intensity scales and establishing the
transformation relationship among them was to minimize or eliminate the differences
between multiple intensity scales. To some extent, the research and analytical results can
provide a necessary reference for creating an international intensity scale. However, the
differences obtained by seismologists in assessing the intensity using the same scale are
larger than those obtained by the same seismologist in assessing the intensity using differ-
ent scales (Hu, 2006). In addition to the several considerations discussed in this article, the
influences of ground-motion parameters, site characteristics, fault conditions, and direc-
tional characteristics of the ground motion should be addressed. Further studies should be
dedicated to these factors.
Acknowledgments
The data used in this paper are all sourced from the Wenchuan M8.0 earthquake structural damage
investigation team of IEM, CEA, particularly the Dujiangyan seismic damage investigation team,
and the China seismic intensity scale research subject team. The results are attributable to the on-site
structural seismic damage observation team and the research conducted on the Chinese Seismic
Intensity Scale by more than 100 scientific researchers from various universities and research insti-
tutes for nearly 4 months. The authors extend their greatest gratitude to their cooperative efforts in
the present study.
Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: We are grateful for the support of the National Natural Science
Foundation Youth Fund (51608494) and the Heilongjiang Science Foundation Face Project
(E2018060).
ORCID iD
Siqi Li https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2761-9116
References
Amini H, Zare M and Gasperini P (2017) Re-assessing the intensity values of Iranian earthquakes
using EMS and ESI scales. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 10: 504–529.
Aptikaev FF and Erteleva OO (2017) A new generation Russian seismic scale. Seismic Instruments
53(2): 146–154.
Aptikaev FF, Mokrushina NG and Erteleva OO (2008) The Mercalli family of seismic intensity
scales. Journal of Volcanology and Seismology 2(3): 210–213.
Astroza M, Ruiz S and Astroza R (2012) Damage assessment and seismic intensity analysis of the
2010 (Mw 8.8) Maule earthquake. Earthquake Engineering 28(S1): S145–S164.
Campbell KW and Bozorgnia Y (2011) A ground motion prediction equation for JMA instrumental
seismic intensity for shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regimes. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 40(4): 413–427.
Cancani M (1904) Sur l’emploi d’une double echelle sismique des intensitès, empirique et absolue.
Gerlands Beiträge zur Geophysik 2: 281–283.
Caprio M, Tarigan B, Worden CB, Wiemer S and Wald DJ (2015) Ground motion to intensity
conversion equations (GMICEs): A global relationship and evaluation of regional dependency.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 105(3): 1476–1490.
Davison C (1921) On scales of seismic intensity, and the construction and use of isoseismal lines.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 11: 95–129.
Davison C (ed.) (1927) The Founders of Seismology. London: Cambridge University Press.
De Rossi MS (1883) Programma dell’osservatorio ed archivio centrale geodinamico presso il R.
Comitato Geologico d’Italia. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 10: 1–128.
Dewey JW, Glen Reagor B, Dengler L and Moley K (1995) Intensity distribution and isoseismal maps
for the Northridge, California, Earthquake of January 17, 1994. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 95-92. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.
Dowrick DJ, Hancox GT, Perrin ND and Dellow GD (2008) The modified Mercalli intensity
scale—Revisions arising from New Zealand experience. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering 41(3): 193–205.
Eleftheriadou AK and Karabinis AI (2011) Development of damage probability matrices based on
Greek earthquake damage data. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 10: 129–141.
Ferrari G and Guidoboni E (2000) Seismic scenarios and assessment of intensity: Some criteria for
the use of the MCS scale. Annali di Geofisica 43(4): 707–720.
Foulser-Piggott R and Spence R (2013a) Extending EMS-98 for more convenient application outside
Europe I: Review of field experience using EMS-98. In: Proceedings of the Vienna congress on
recent advances in earthquake engineering and structural dynamics, paper no: 383, Vienna, 28–30
August.
Foulser-Piggott R and Spence R (2013b) Extending EMS-98 for more convenient application outside
Europe II: Development of the International Macroseismic Scale. In: Proceedings of the Vienna
congress on recent advances in earthquake engineering and structural dynamics, paper no: 382,
Vienna, 28–30 August.
GB/T 17742 (1999) The Chinese seismic intensity scale (in Chinese).
GB/T 17742 (2008) The Chinese seismic intensity scale (in Chinese).
GB 50011 (2001) Code for seismic design of building (in Chinese).
Graziano F and Guidoboni E (2000) Seismic scenarios and assessment of intensity: Some criteria for
the use of the MCS scale. Annali di Geofisica 43(4): 707–720.
Grünthal G (ed.) (1998) European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98). Luxembourg: Centre
Europèen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie.
Gutenberg B and Richter CF (1956) Earthquake magnitude, intensity, energy, and acceleration.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 46(2): 105–146.
Hofer L, Zanini MA and Faleschini F (2016) Analysis of the 2016 Amatrice earthquake
macroseismic data. Annals of Geophysics 59(5): 1–6.
Hu YX (2006) Earthquake Engineering. 2nd ed. Beijing, China: Earthquake press.
Karnik V, Schenkova Z and Schenk V (1984) Vulnerability and the MSK scale. Engineering Geology
20: 161–168.
Lagomarsino S and Giovinazzi S (2006) Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability
and damage assessment of current buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 4(4): 415–443.
Lapajne J (1984) The MSK-78 intensity scale and seismic risk. Engineering Geology 20: 105–112.
Li et al. 473
Lekkas EL (2010) The 12 May 2008 Mw 7.9 Wenchuan, China, Earthquake: Macroseismic Intensity
Assessment using the EMS-98 and ESI 2007 scales and their correlation with the geological
structure. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 100(5B): 2791–2804.
McCalpin J, Gurpinar A, Comerci V, Clague J, Azuma T, Audemard F, Vittori E, Tatevossian R,
Serva L, Porfido S, Guerrieri L, Esposito E, Michetti AM, Mohammadioun B, Morner NA, Ota
U and Roghozin E (2007) Intensity Scale ESI 2007 (ESI-2007). In: Guerrieri L and Vittori E (eds)
Memorie Descrittive Carta Geologica d’Italia-Dipartimento Difesa del Suolo. Roma: APAT.
Mariano S, Gaetano F and Aldo Z (2019) A probabilistic method for the estimation of earthquake
source parameters from spectral inversion: Application to the 2016-2017 Central Italy seismic
sequence. Geophysical Journal International 218(2): 988–1007.
Medvedev SV, Sponheuer W and Karnik V (1965) Seismic intensity scale version MSK1964.
Technical Report. Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Soviet Geophysical Committee, Moscow.
Molin D (1995) Considerations on the assessment of macroseismic intensity. Annali di Geofisica
38(5–6): 805–810.
Musson RMW (2005) Intensity attenuation in the U.K. Journal of Seismology 9: 73–86.
Musson RMW, Grünthal G and Stucchi M (2010) The comparison of macroseismic intensity scales.
Journal of Seismology 14: 413–428.
Qu Z, Dutu A, Zhong JR and Sun JJ (2015) Seismic damage of masonry infilled timber houses in the
2013 M7.0 Lushan Earthquake in China. Earthquake Spectra 31(3): 1859–1874.
Rai DC, Singhal V, Raj SB and Sagar SL (2016) Reconnaissance of the effects of the M7.8 Gorkha
(Nepal) earthquake of April 25, 2015. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk 7(1): 1–7.
Richter C (1958) Elementary Seismology. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Rota M, Penna A and Strobbia CL (2008) Processing Italian damage data to derive typological
fragility curves. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering 28: 933–947.
Serva L, Vittori E, Comerci V, Esposito E, Guerrieri L, Michetti AM, Mohammadioun B,
Mohammadioun GC, Porfido S and Tatevossian RE (2015) Earthquake hazard and the
Environmental Seismic Intensity (ESI) Scale. Pure and Applied Geophysics 173(5): 1479–1515.
Shabestari KT and Yamazaki F (2001) A proposal of instrumental seismic intensity scale compatible
with MMI evaluated from three-component acceleration records. Earthquake Spectra 17(4):
711–723.
Shi ZL, Zhang SQ, Zhao RG, Wu KT, Lu QH, Zhang MZ and Zhuo JR (1990) Earthquake Manual.
1st ed. Beijing, China: Earthquake Press.
Spence R, Foulser-Piggott R, Grünthal G, Musson R, Schwartz J and Wenk T (2014) The
International Macroseismic Scale—Extending EMS-98 for global application. In: Proceedings of
the 2nd European conference on earthquake engineering, paper no: 835, Istanbul, 25–29 August.
Stover CW and Coffman JL (1993) Seismicity of the United States, 1568-1989 (Revised). U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1527. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.
Sun BT and Zhang GX (2018) Study on vulnerability matrices of masonry buildings of mainland
China. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 17: 251–259.
Tobita T, Miyajima M, Fallahi A, Alaghebandian R and Ghayamghamian MR (2007) Seismic
intensity estimation through questionnaire survey and collapse rates of various building types in
the 2003 Ban, Iran, Earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 23(4): 841–865.
Wald DJ, Quitoriano V, Worden CB, Hopper M and Dewey JW (2011) USGS ‘‘Did You Feel It?’’
Internet-based macroseismic intensity maps. Annals of Geophysics 54(6): 688–709.
Wong HL and Trifunac MD (1979) A note on an instrumental comparison of the modified Mercalli
(MMI) and the Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA) intensity scales, based computed peak
accelerations. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 7: 75–83.
Worden CB, Gerstenberger DA, Rhoades DA and Wald DJ (2012) Probabilistic relationships
between ground-motion parameters and Modified Mercalli intensity in California. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America 102(1): 204–221.
Yuan YF (2008) Impact of intensity and loss assessment following the great Wenchuan Earthquake.
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 7: 247–254.
Zanini MA, Hofer L and Faleschini F (2019) Reversible ground motion-to-intensity conversion
equations based on the EMS-98scale. Engineering Structures 180: 310–320.
Zhou W, Zheng WZ and Pujol S (2013) Seismic vulnerability of reinforced concrete structures
affected by the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Bulletin Earthquake Engineering 11: 2079–2104.
Zobin VM and Pizano-Silva JA (2007) Macroseismic Study of the Mw 7.5 21 January 2003 Colima,
Mexico, Across-Trench Earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 97(4):
1221–1232.
Zobin VM, Ventura-Ramirez JF, Gutierrez-Andrade C, Cruz LH and Santibanez-Ibanez S (2006)
The Mw 7.4 Colima, Mexico, Earthquake of 21 January 2003: The observed damage matrix in
Colima City and its comparison with the damage probability matrix. Natural Hazards 38:
391–410.
Zucconi M, Ferlito R and Sorrentino L (2017) Simplified survey form of unreinforced masonry
buildings calibrated on data from the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Bulletin Earthquake Engineering
16(7): 2877–2911.
Appendix 1
(1) CSIS-08 (GB/T 17742, 2008)

Seismic intensity Description details of macro-quantitative provisions
I Non-inductance.
II Felt by stationary individuals in the buildings.
III A few people in the room can feel it. Doors and windows make slight noise, and
hanging objects slightly shake.
IV Felt by most people in a room and few people outside. A few people wake up
from their sleep. Doors and windows rattle, suspended objects visibly sway, and
utensils rattle.
V Felt by vast majority of people indoor and by most people outside. Most people
wake up from sleeping; hanging objects dramatically shake, and unstable vessels
shake or tip over.
VI Most people unsteadily stand, and a few people rush outdoor in panic. Furniture
and items move. A: A few buildings are moderately damaged, whereas most are
slightly damaged or basically remain intact. B: Individual buildings are moderately
damaged, a few incur minor damage, and most buildings basically remain intact. C:
Individual buildings incur minor damage, whereas most buildings basically remain
intact. Cracks appear on riverbanks and soft soil, sand blasting occurs in saturated
sand, and light cracks appear in individual and independent brick pipes.
VII Most people panic and flee outdoor. Cyclists feel shaking, and people in moving
car feel the vibrations. Objects drop from shelves. A: A few buildings are
damaged or seriously damaged, whereas most are moderately or slightly
damaged. B: A few buildings are moderately damaged, whereas most are slightly
damaged or remain basically intact. C: A few buildings are moderately or slightly
damaged, and most remain basically intact. Collapses occur on river banks,
saturated sand layers are commonly leveled, more cracks appear in soft land, and
moderate damage occur in many independent brick cigarette spouts.
VIII Most people wobble and have trouble walking. A: Few building destructions
occur, with most seriously or moderately damaged. B: Individual buildings
destroyed. Few are seriously damaged and most others are moderately or slightly
damaged. C: Few buildings are seriously or moderately damaged while most are
slightly damaged. Cracks appear on dry hard soil. Most saturated sand layers are
sprayed with water. Most independent brick pipes are severely damaged.
IX Moving people fall. A: Most buildings are seriously damaged or destroyed. B: Few
buildings are destroyed, with most being seriously or moderately damaged. C:
Few buildings are destroyed, and most are slightly or moderately damaged. Many
cracks appear in dry hard soil, and visible cracks appear in bedrock. Land
misalignment and landslides commonly occur. Independent brick smoke pipes
mostly collapse.
(continued)
Li et al. 475
(Continued)
X Cyclists fall, and people in unstable conditions fall to the ground or feel being
thrown up. A: Vast majority of buildings are destroyed. B: Most buildings are
destroyed. C: Most buildings are destroyed or seriously damaged. Landslides and
earthquake fractures occur. The foundation of stone arch bridges is damaged, and
many independent brick pipes collapse.
XI Vast majority of buildings under categories A, B, and C collapse. Continuous
earthquake fractures occur together with a large number of landslides.
XII Almost all buildings are completely destroyed.
Types of structures: Class A: wooden frame and old houses built of adobe, stone, and brick walls. Class B: single or
multistory structures without seismic design. Class C: single or multistory structures designed according to the
degree VII seismic code.
Quantifier restriction: ‘‘Individual’’ is less than 10%, ‘‘Few’’ is 10%–45%, ‘‘Most’’ is 40%–70%, and ‘‘Vast majority’’ is
60%–90%.
(2) EMS-98 (Grünthal, 1998)

Seismic intensity Description details of macro-quantitative provisions (abstracted)
I Not felt.
II Felt only by very few individuals at rest in houses.
III Felt by a few people indoor. People at rest feel swaying or light trembling.
IV Felt by many people indoor and by very few people outdoor. A few people are
awakened. Windows, doors, and dishes rattle.
V Felt by most people indoor and by a few people outdoor. Many sleeping people
awaken. A few are frightened. Buildings tremble. Hanging objects considerably
swing. Small objects shift. Doors and windows swing open or shut.
VI Many people are frightened and run outdoors. Some objects fall. Many houses
suffer slight nonstructural damage such as hairline cracks and falling of small
pieces of plaster.
VII Most people are frightened and run outdoors. Furniture moves, and objects fall
from shelves in large numbers. Many well-built ordinary buildings suffer moderate
damage: small cracks on walls, falling of plaster and chimney parts. Older buildings
may show large cracks on the walls and failure of fill-in walls.
VIII Many people have difficulty standing. Many houses experience large cracks on the
walls. A few well-built ordinary buildings show serious failure of walls, whereas
weak older structures may collapse.
IX General panic. Many weak constructions collapse. Even well-built ordinary
buildings incur very heavy damage: serious failure of walls and partial structural
failure.
X Many ordinary well-built buildings collapse.
XI Most ordinary well-built buildings collapse and even those with some good ERD
are destroyed.
XII Almost all buildings are destroyed.
ERD: earthquake-resistant design.
(3) MSK-81 (Karnik et al., 1984; Medvedev et al., 1965)

I The vibration intensity is below the limit of sensibility. The tremor is detected
and recorded by seismographs only.
II Vibration is felt only by individuals at rest in houses, especially at the upper floors
of buildings.
III The earthquake is felt indoors by a few people. People outdoor only feel it under
favorable circumstances. The vibration is similar to that of the passing of a light
truck. Attentive observers can notice slight swinging of hanging objects, which is
somewhat more pronounced in upper floors.
IV The earthquake is felt indoor by many people and outdoor by a few people.
People awaken but are not frightened. The vibration is similar to that of the
passing of a heavily loaded truck. Windows, doors, and dishes rattle. Floors and
walls creak. Furniture begins to shake. Hanging objects slightly swing. Liquids in
open vessels are slightly disturbed. In stationary motor cars, the vibration is
noticeable.
V The earthquake is felt indoor by all people and outdoor by many. Many sleeping
people awaken. A few people run outdoors. Animals become uneasy. Buildings
tremble. Hanging objects considerably swing. Picture frames are knocked against
walls or swing out of place. Occasionally, pendulum clocks stop. Unstable objects
may be overturned or shifted. Open doors and windows are thrust open and
slam back again. Liquids spill in small amounts from well-filled open containers.
The sensation of vibration is similar to that of a heavy object falling inside a
building. Slight damage in Type-A buildings occurs. Change in the flow of springs
sometimes occurs.
VI Felt by most people indoors and outdoors. Many people in the buildings are
frightened and run outdoors. A few people lose their balance. Domestic animals
run out of their stalls. In a few instances, dishes and glassware may break, and
books fall down. Heavy furniture may possibly move, and small steeple bells may
ring. D1 damage is sustained in Type-B buildings and in many of Type A buildings.
The damage in a few Type-A buildings is of the D2 category. In a few cases, cracks
up to 1 cm wide can possibly occur in wet grounds. Occasional landslips occur in
mountains. Change in spring flows and in level of well water can be observed.
VII Most people are frightened and run outdoors. Many people have difficulty
standing. The vibration is noticed by persons driving motor cars. Large bells ring.
In many Type-A buildings, damage belongs to the D3 category, and a few
experience D4 damage. Damage to many Type-B buildings belongs to the D2
category. Damage to many Type-C buildings is of the D1 category. In some
instances, landslips occur in roadways with steep slopes. Pipeline seams are
damaged, and cracks in roads and stone walls occur. Waves are formed on water
surface, and water is made turbid due to mud stirring. The water levels in wells
and the flow of springs change. In a few cases, dry springs experience restoration
of flow and existing springs stop flowing. In isolated instances, parts of sandy or
gravelly banks slip off.
VIII Fright and panic occur. Persons driving motor cars are disturbed. Branches of
trees break off. Even heavy furniture moves or is partially overturned. Hanging
lamps are partially damaged. The damage to many Type-A buildings is of category
D4, whereas a few experience D5 damage. The damage to many Type-B buildings
is of category D3. Many Type-C buildings suffer D2 damage, whereas a few suffer
D3 damage. Occasional breaking of pipe seams occurs. Memorials and
monuments move and twist. Tombstones are overturned. Stone walls collapse.
Small landslips in hollows and on banked roads with steep slopes occur. Cracks of
up to several centimeters wide appear on the ground. Water in lakes becomes
turbid. New reservoirs appear.
(continued)
Li et al. 477
(Continued)
IX General panic. Considerable damage to furniture occurs. Animals run to and

from and cry in confusion. Many Type-A buildings suffer D5 damage. Many Type-B
buildings suffer D4 damage while a few suffer D5 damage. Many Type-C buildings
suffer D3 damage while a few suffer D4 damage. Monuments and columns fall.
Damage to reservoirs occurs, and pipes are partially broken. In individual cases,
railway lines are bent and roadways are damaged. On flat lands, water overflows.
Sand and mud are often observed. Ground cracks up to 10 cm wide. A large
number of slight cracks occur on the ground. Rock falls, many landslides, and
earth flows occur. Large waves appear in water.
X Most Type-A buildings are destroyed (D5). Many Type-B buildings suffer D5
damage. Many Type-C buildings suffer D4 damage. Critical damage occurs in dams
and dikes, and severe damage happens to bridges. Railway lines are slightly bent.
Road pavement and asphalt show waves-like movement. Underground pipes are
broken or bent. In the ground, cracks of up to several decimeters wide and
sometimes up to 1 m occur. Broad fissures occur parallel to water courses.
Loose ground slides from steep slopes. Considerable landslides can possibly
occur in river banks and steep coasts.
XI Severe damage even to well-built buildings. Bridges, railway lines, water dams, and
highways become useless. Ground pipes are destroyed. Grounds are considerably
destroyed by broad cracks and fissures as well as by movements in the horizontal
and vertical directions. Numerous landslips and rock falls occur.
XII Practically all structures above and below ground are greatly damaged or
destroyed. The surface of the ground is radically changed. Falling of rock and
slumping of riverbanks over wide areas occur.
Types of structures: Class A: Buildings made of field stone, rural structures, and adobe and clay buildings. Class B:
Ordinary brick building, building made of a large block, prefabricated-type building, half-timbered structures, and
buildings made of natural hewn stone. Class C: Reinforced buildings and well-built wooden structures.
Quantifier restriction: ‘‘Few’’ is approximately 5%, ‘‘Many’’ is approximately 50%, and ‘‘Most’’ is approximately 75%.
(4) MMI-56 (Richter, 1958)

I People do not feel any Earth movement.

II A few people might notice movement if they are at rest and/or at the upper
floors of tall buildings.
III Many people indoors feel movement. Hanging objects swing back and forth.
People outdoor might not realize that an earthquake is happening.
IV Most people indoors feel movement. Hanging objects swing. Dishes, windows,
and doors rattle. The earthquake feels like a heavy truck hitting the walls. A few
people outdoor may feel movement. Parked cars rock.
V Almost everyone feels movement. Sleeping people are awakened. Doors swing
open or close. Dishes are broken. Picture frames on the wall move. Small objects
move or are overturned. Trees might shake. Liquids might spill out of open
containers.
VI Everyone feels movement. People have trouble walking. Objects fall from shelves.
Picture frames fall. Furniture moves. Plaster in walls crack. Trees and bushes
shake. Damage is slight in poorly built buildings. No structural damage.
VII People have difficulty standing. Drivers feel their cars shaking. Some furniture
breaks. Loose bricks fall from buildings. Damage is slight to moderate in well-built
buildings and considerable in poorly built buildings.
(continued)
(Continued)
VIII Drivers have trouble steering. Houses that are not bolted down might shift from
their foundations. Tall structures such as towers and chimneys might twist and
fall. Well-built buildings suffer slight damage. Poorly built structures suffer severe
damage. Tree branches break. Hillsides might crack if the ground is wet. Water
levels in wells change.
IX Well-built buildings suffer considerable damage. Houses that are not bolted down
move off their foundations. Some underground pipes are broken. The ground
cracks. Reservoirs suffer serious damage.
X Most buildings and their foundations are destroyed. Some bridges are destroyed.
Dams are seriously damaged. Large landslides occur. Water is sprayed to the
banks of canals, rivers, and lakes. The ground cracks in large areas. Railroad
tracks are slightly bent.
XI Most buildings collapse. Some bridges are destroyed. Large cracks appear on the
ground. Underground pipelines are destroyed. Railroad tracks are badly bent.
XII Almost everything is destroyed. Objects are thrown into the air. The ground
moves in waves or ripples. Large amounts of rocks may move.
(5) JMA-96 (Campbell and Bozorgnia, 2011)

0 Not felt.
I Felt by a few people in the building.
II Felt by many people in the building. Some wake up from sleep. Objects hanging in
the house slightly shake.
III Felt by most people in the building. Some people are afraid. Plates in the
cupboard intermittently rattle, and wires slightly vibrate.
IV Most people panic, and some want to escape. Most people wake up from sleep.
Hanging objects slightly shake. Cups in cupboards tip over. Wires significantly
shake. Some people who drive or walk feel the tremors.
V(L) Most people want to escape. Some people have difficulty moving. Most unstable
decorations fall. Hanging objects violently shake. Hanging objects fall. Power poles
visibly move. Some windows are broken, and some brick walls collapse. Some
roads are damaged. Some less earthquake-resistant houses have their walls or
columns damaged, whereas walls of some less earthquake-resistant houses crack.
Some houses are automatically disconnected from gas supply. In exceptional
cases, some water pipes are damaged, and water facilities are disrupted with
some houses cut off from the supply. Small cracks appear in soft soil, and rocks
fall off in mountainous areas and in local slopes.
V(U) Many people feel very scared and experience difficulty in moving. Most of the
cups in the cupboards are overturned, and most books fall off the shelves.
Occasionally, television sets fall from the stands. Heavy furniture is overturned,
and some doors cannot be opened because of deformed door frames. Most brick
walls collapse and most tombstones are overturned. Many cars stop because of
driving difficulty, and some installed automated devices are damaged. Walls or
columns of some less earthquake-resistant houses are severely damaged and
tilted to one side. Some houses with poor seismic performance suffer large
cracks on the walls, large cracks in the beams and columns, and cracks in the
walls and columns. Some of the less earthquake-resistant house beams and
columns are completely destroyed, and some houses with better earthquake
resistance suffer large cracks in the walls, beams, and columns. Occasionally, gas
pipelines or main lines of water facilities are damaged (gas and water facilities are
(continued)
Li et al. 479
(Continued)
disrupted in some areas). A small number of cracks appear in soft soil, and in the
mountains, stone falls off and local slope instability occurs.
VI(L) People precariously stand. Heavy or unfixed furniture tips over, and in most
cases, doors cannot be opened. The walls and windows of many buildings are
shattered. Some houses with poor earthquake resistance collapse and some
houses with better earthquake resistance suffer from damaged walls and columns.
Some of the less earthquake-resistant house beams and columns are completely
destroyed, and some houses with better earthquake resistance suffer from large
cracks in the walls, beams, and columns. The main lines of gas pipelines or
water-conservation facilities are damaged. Stones may fall off and slopes in the
mountains are destabilized.
VI(U) People stand unsteadily or can only move by crawling. Heavy or unfixed furniture
is overturned. Some doors are thrown out, and many building-wall tiles and
windows suffer from broken or torn glasses. Some houses with poor earthquake
resistance collapse and some houses with better earthquake resistance
experience damage on walls and columns. Occasionally, gas pipeline trunks or
water mains are damaged (in some areas, power facilities are disrupted, and some
gas or water facilities are disrupted on a large scale). Stones may fall off, and
slopes in the mountains are destabilized.
VII People are shaken and cannot move at will. Furniture moves out to great
distances and even breaks. Most of the building walls and windows are shattered.
Some houses with better earthquake resistance are severely damaged and tilted
to one side. Power, water, and gas facilities are disrupted by huge cracks and
landslides on the surface over a wide range due to occasional landslides that alter
the local topography.
(6) R-F (De Rossi, 1883)

I Micro-seismic earthquake. Seismographs can be recorded. Earthquake can be felt

by people.
II Very weak earthquake. Different types of seismometers can record, and
earthquake can be felt by a few stationary people.
III Weak shock. Many stationary people can sense the earthquake vibration and
duration.
IV Weak shock. Can be felt by moving people. Things move, doors and windows
shake, and ceiling rattles.
V Stronger earthquakes and felt by the public in general, Furniture and beds move,
and some suspended bells ring.
VI Relatively strong earthquake. Sleeping people generally wake up. House bells ring,
chandeliers sway, trees shake visibly, and some people run outdoors.
VII Strong earthquake. Objects move, mud falls, church bells ring, and general panic
ensues. No damage to houses.
VIII Chimneys fall and walls crack.
IX Some houses are partially or completely destroyed.
X Houses are destroyed.
Appendix 2. Investigation and analysis of seismic damage and an intensity assessment of partial structures damage during the Wenchuan earthquake (%)
480
Survey region Type Total number D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 EMS-98 MSK-81 CSIS-08 MMI-56
Mianzhu (MZ) (G1) MS 516 27 21 25 25 2 IX VIII VIII + VIII +

BFM 58 29 28 23 14 6 VIII VIII VIII VIII
MS, BFM 172 28 24 24 20 4 IX VIII VIII VIII +
Mianzhu (MZ) MS 85 6 24 27 37 6 IX IX2 IX IX
(G2)
Mianzhu (MZ) MS 78 0 0 10 40 50 X X2 IX IX
(G3)
Mianzhu (MZ) MS 152 0 0 20 40 40 IX VIII IX IX2
(G4)
Sangzao (SZ) MS 62 0 0 66 21 13 IX2 VIII VIII + VIII +
BWU 78 0 0 46 0 54 X VIII VIII VIII
Xiaoba (XB) MS 96 0 0 48 28 24 IX VIII2 VIII2 VIII2
BWU 76 0 0 33 0 67 X+ X X X
Feishui (FS) MS 59 0 0 66 20 14 VIII VIII + VIII + VIII
BWU 60 0 0 44 0 56 IX X2 X X
Suishui (SS) MS 62 0 0 81 11 8 VIII VIII VIII + VIII +
BWU 85 0 0 45 0 55 IX X X X
Jiangyou (JY) RC 78 65 30 5 0 0 VII VII VII VIII2
MS 43 47 40 10 0 0 VIII VIII + VIII2 VIII2
Nanquan (NQ) BCR 151 25 10 30 29 6 VII VII + VIII VIII
BWR 93 15 20 25 30 10 VII VII + VIII VIII
BCU 101 30 25 15 26 4 VII2 VII + VIII VIII
BWU 236 15 26 29 25 5 VII VII + VIII VIII
Shifang (SF) BCU 142 65 10 15 9 1 VII2 VII2 VII VII
BWR 95 50 20 15 9 6 VII2 VII2 VII VII
BCU 99 75 15 5 5 0 VI VII2 VI2 VI2
BWU 136 55 25 10 9 1 VI + VIII2 VI + VIII2
Chongzhou (CZ) MS 247 15 20 45 20 0 VII VII2 VII2 VII2
(G1) BWU 315 14 0 76 0 10 VII VII + VII2 VII2
Chongzhou (CZ) MS 71 12 28 40 16 4 VII VII VII VII
(G1) BWU 303 20 0 60 0 20 VII VIII2 VIII2 VIII2
Chongzhou (CZ) MS 62 0 20 20 40 20 VII + VII + VII + VII +
(continued)
Earthquake Spectra 37(1)
Appendix 2. (Continued)
Li et al.
Survey region Type Total number D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 EMS-98 MSK-81 CSIS-08 MMI-56
(G1) BWU 298 0 0 60 0 40 VII VIII VIII VIII

Chengdu (CD) MS 400 97 3 0 0 0 VI VI VI VI
RC 400 97 3 0 0 0 VI VI VI VI
RCW 800 99 1 0 0 0 VI VI VI VI
Mianyang (MY) MS 367 56 19 15 8 2 VII + VII VII VII
RC 187 69 18 12 1 0 VII VII VII VII
Deyang (DY) MS 1487 50 39 8 3 0 VII + VII2 VII VII
RC 330 75 19 3 3 0 VII VII VI + VI +
WS 19 72 25 1 2 0 VII VII VI + VI +
B 23 39 29 7 22 3 VIII VIII VIII VIII
481
Appendix 3
Quantities and percentages of structural types sampled during the seismic damage investigation and
intensity assessment of Dujiangyan
Intensity standards Total D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Intensity
and structural types number number number number number number grade
P (%) P (%) P (%) P (%) P (%)
CSIS-08 A 181 58 4 84 28 7 VII +

(32) (2) (46) (15) (4)
B 576 159 57 130 188 42 VIII +
(28) (10) (23) (33) (7)
C 1108 774 34 143 136 21 VII +
(70) (3) (13) (12) (2)
EMS-98 A 33 0 0 6 20 7 VIII
(0) (0) (18) (61) (21)
B 29 11 8 2 8 0 VII
(38) (27) (7) (28) (0)
C 576 159 55 131 189 42 VIII +
(28) (10) (23) (33) (7)
D 1222 818 38 209 136 21 VII +
(67) (3) (17) (11) (2)
E 1 0 0 1 0 0 –
(0) (0) (100) (0) (0)
F 4 1 0 3 0 0 –
(25) (0) (75) (0) (0)
MSK-81 A 176 56 1 84 28 7 VII
(32) (1) (48) (16) (4)
B 576 159 57 130 188 42 VII +
(28) (10) (23) (33) (7)
C 1113 779 34 143 136 21 VII
(70) (3) (13) (12) (2)
MMI-56 A 1182 774 34 217 136 21 VIII +
(65) (3) (18) (12) (2)
B 398 154 55 109 71 9 IX
(39) (14) (27) (18) (2)
C 178 5 2 21 117 33 VIII +
(3) (1) (12) (66) (19)
D 107 56 4 9 31 7 VIII
(52) (4) (8) (29) (7)
CSIS-08 A 105 48 4 18 28 7 VII +
AC (46) (4) (17) (27) (7)
B 384 129 43 97 99 16 IX
(34) (11) (25) (26) (4)
C 613 475 13 51 67 7 VII +
(77) (2) (8) (11) (1)
T 75 9 0 66 0 0 VIII
(12) (0) (88) (0) (0)
BFM 688 330 35 125 158 40 VII +
(48) (5) (18) (23) (6)
Li et al. 483
Appendix 4
Classification and quantitative description of scale Seismic Damage Levels for the EMS-98, MSK-81, and
CSIS-08 seismic intensity scales
Damage degrees Description of macroscopic seismic damage
EMS-98 MSK-81 CSIS-08
(Grünthal, 1998) (Karnik et al., 1984) (GB/T 17742, 2008)
D1 MS: undamaged load- Fine cracks in plaster; Intact bearing and non-
bearing structure and shedding of small pieces bearing components, or
minor damage to the of plaster. slight damage to individual
non-load-bearing non-bearing elements
structure. which can be used
RC: undamaged load- without being repaired.
bearing structure and
only slight damage to
non-structure.
D2 MS: slight damage to load- Small cracks in walls; Visible cracks in individual
bearing structures and shedding of fairly large bearing components and
moderate damage to non- pieces of plaster; slipping evident cracks in non-
load-bearing structures. of pantiles; cracks in bearing components.
RC: light damage to load- chimneys; collapse of Continuous use without
bearing structure, parts of chimney. repairs or minor repairs.
medium damage to non-
load-bearing structure.
D3 MS: medium damage to Large and deep cracks in Slight cracks in most load-
load-bearing structures walls; collapse of bearing components,
and severe damage to chimneys. some with obvious
non-load-bearing cracks, and severe
structures. damage to individual non-
RC: medium structural load-bearing components
damage and severe non- which can be used after
structural damage. general repair.
D4 MS: heavy damage to Gaps in walls; possible Serious damage to most
load-bearing structure collapse of parts of of the load-bearing
and serious damage to buildings; cohesion components, and local
non-load-bearing severed in separate parts collapse of the non-load-
structure. of the building; and bearing components
RC: heavy damage to collapse of inner walls rendering it difficult to
load-bearing structure and filled-in-walls of the repair the buildings.
and very serious damage frame.
to non-load-bearing
structure.
D5 MS: structural damage, Total collapse of buildings. Most load-bearing
total or almost total components were
collapse. seriously damaged and
RC: very serious the house structure was
structural damage. on the verge of collapse
or already collapsed.
MS: masonry and brick; RC: reinforced concrete.
Appendix 5
Empirical seismic vulnerability matrix of the EMS-98 intensity scale (%)

EMS-98
Type Intensity (number) D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
MS VI (452) 71.2 23.1 5.7 0 0

VII (1271) 41.4 32.3 22.1 4.2 0
VIII (1165) 15.2 24.2 38.4 21.5 0.7
IX (727) 9.3 11.2 29.2 37.2 13.1
X (217) 0.9 1.9 7.7 20.3 69.2
XI (159) 0.2 1.2 3.2 16.1 79.3
RC VI (221) 87.2 11.7 1.1 0 0
VII (182) 54.8 28.3 14.8 2.1 0
VIII (265) 19.3 46.2 25.3 9.2 0
IX (187) 8.2 14.1 19.3 45.2 13.2
X (62) 4.9 7.1 9.5 23.7 54.8
XI (32) 0.9 1.3 5.1 19.6 73.1
BFM VI (282) 63.4 30.2 5.8 0.6 0
VII (543) 36.7 38.2 19.4 5.7 0
VIII (735) 19.2 26.1 30.8 21.4 2.5
IX (386) 4.1 12.1 32.3 32.7 18.8
X (180) 0.6 3.2 6.8 20.3 69.1
XI (52) 0.1 0.7 6.1 14.5 78.6
Appendix 6
Empirical seismic vulnerability matrix of the MSK-81 intensity scale (%)

MSK-81
MS VI (431) 62.1 29.2 8.3 0.4 0

VII (1292) 39.8 32.8 21.4 6 0
VIII (1139) 25.7 25.1 28.2 20.1 0.9
IX (742) 9.8 10.7 31.9 32.3 15.3
X (223) 1.1 6.8 6.6 20.7 64.8
XI (164) 0.3 0.9 8.2 21.4 69.2
RC VI (213) 80.3 16.3 3.4 0 0
VII (186) 66.2 23.8 9.9 0.1 0
VIII (273) 25.2 41.3 23.4 10.1 0
IX (176) 9.4 18.3 20.1 42.3 9.9
X (65) 5.8 9.6 11.3 20.1 53.2
XI (36) 1.1 2.2 6.7 20.1 69.9
BFM VI (276) 62.9 29.3 6.3 1.5 0
VII (536) 35.8 36.7 17.7 9.8 0
VIII (745) 20.1 28.2 26.3 23.3 2.1
IX (392) 4.9 10.2 31.2 33.4 20.3
X (176) 0.5 6.8 7.2 18.3 67.2
XI (53) 0.3 2.4 6.2 13.9 77.2
Li et al. 485
Appendix 7
Empirical seismic vulnerability matrix of the CSIS-08 intensity scale (%)

CSIS-08
MS VI (446) 69.2 22.9 7.2 0.7 0

VII (1290) 40.3 33.2 19.2 7.3 0
VIII (1182) 31.2 21.3 26.6 19.5 1.4
IX (743) 10.7 9.6 32.2 30.1 17.4
X (192) 1.6 7.2 6.8 21.2 63.2
XI (138) 0.5 2.8 6.3 15.2 75.2
RC VI (235) 89.4 9.5 1.1 0 0
VII (197) 68.1 22.6 9.1 0.2 0
VIII (252) 24.8 40 24.7 10.5 0
IX (174) 9.8 16.1 21 41.6 11.5
X (60) 6.2 8.3 12.4 21.9 51.2
XI (31) 1.4 3.5 7.3 16.5 71.3
BFM VI (285) 62.2 29.9 6.9 1 0
VII (549) 35.3 35.5 18.8 10.4 0
VIII (732) 22 27.5 27.7 19.2 3.6
IX (388) 5.7 9.2 30 31.6 23.5
X (175) 0.6 5 6.5 19.9 68
XI (49) 0.3 2 5.9 13.7 78.1

Li Et Al 2020 Comparison of Macroseismic Intensity Scales by Considering Empirical Observations of Structural Seismic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Li Et Al 2020 Comparison of Macroseismic Intensity Scales by Considering Empirical Observations of Structural Seismic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Paper

empirical observations of DOI: 10.1177/8755293020944174

structural seismic damage

Siqi Li1 , Yongsheng Chen2, and Tianlai Yu1

Purpose and significance

Quantitative comparison among macroseismic-intensity scales

Previous comparisons of macroseismic-intensity scales

Comparative analysis of intensity scales

Comparison among intensity scales considering empirical field

Table 5. Classification of structures in the Wenchuan earthquake

EMS-98 D D C/D B/C B/C B/C B/C D E E B

D1 2017 488 1060 2131 528 1118 2102 528 1097

Statistical analysis of data

Mean damage index

Declaration of conflicting interests

(1) CSIS-08 (GB/T 17742, 2008)

Seismic intensity Description details of macro-quantitative provisions

(2) EMS-98 (Grünthal, 1998)

(3) MSK-81 (Karnik et al., 1984; Medvedev et al., 1965)

Seismic intensity Description details of macro-quantitative provisions

IX General panic. Considerable damage to furniture occurs. Animals run to and

(4) MMI-56 (Richter, 1958)

I People do not feel any Earth movement.

Seismic intensity Description details of macro-quantitative provisions

(5) JMA-96 (Campbell and Bozorgnia, 2011)

Seismic intensity Description details of macro-quantitative provisions

(6) R-F (De Rossi, 1883)

I Micro-seismic earthquake. Seismographs can be recorded. Earthquake can be felt

Survey region Type Total number D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 EMS-98 MSK-81 CSIS-08 MMI-56

Mianzhu (MZ) (G1) MS 516 27 21 25 25 2 IX VIII VIII + VIII +

Survey region Type Total number D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 EMS-98 MSK-81 CSIS-08 MMI-56

(G1) BWU 298 0 0 60 0 40 VII VIII VIII VIII

CSIS-08 A 181 58 4 84 28 7 VII +

Empirical seismic vulnerability matrix of the EMS-98 intensity scale (%)

MS VI (452) 71.2 23.1 5.7 0 0

Empirical seismic vulnerability matrix of the MSK-81 intensity scale (%)

MS VI (431) 62.1 29.2 8.3 0.4 0

Empirical seismic vulnerability matrix of the CSIS-08 intensity scale (%)

MS VI (446) 69.2 22.9 7.2 0.7 0

You might also like