International Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 163–174 | Cite as

Correlation Between Ground Motion Parameters and Target Displacement of Steel Structures

  • Alireza HabibiEmail author
  • Ehsan Jami
Research Paper


The observation of building damage during strong-motion earthquakes showed that correlation of structural damage with a single parameter such as peak ground acceleration or the total seismic duration is low, while peak ground acceleration is often used as a main seismic parameter to evaluate seismic performance of structures. The main objective of this study is to determine the relationship between several seismic acceleration parameters and the target displacement (TD) of steel frame structures, which is an important parameter to identify performance levels. For this purpose, first, nonlinear analysis is performed on the SAC 3- and 9-story frames subjected to several far-field earthquakes, and then, target displacements and seismic parameters are calculated for each structure. The relationship between the target displacement and seismic parameters is evaluated in the form of correlation coefficient. It is shown that PGA has poor correlation with the target displacement, whereas Housner intensity, spectral pseudo-acceleration, spectral pseudo-velocity and peak ground velocity exhibit strong correlation with TD. The best and the weakest correlation are related to the spectral pseudo-velocity and significant duration of the earthquake, respectively. On the other hand, the parameters directly or indirectly dependent on velocity of earthquake and structure can be proper parameters to reflect demand displacement.


Correlation coefficient Nonlinear analysis Seismic parameters Target displacement Steel structure 


  1. 1.
    Vision SEAOC (2000) Performance based seismic engineering of buildings. California, USA, p 1995Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1997) FEMA-273, HEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildingsGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mahmoudi M, Teimoori T, Kozani H (2015) Presenting displacement-based nonlinear static analysis method to calculate structural response against progressive collapse. IJCE 13(4):478–485Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Araya R, Saragoni GR (1990) Capacity of strong ground motion to cause structural damage. In: Seventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Saragoni R (1991) Influence of maximum ground acceleration, duration and frequency content in the earthquake damage. Boletin de Information del Laboratorio de Carreteras y Geotecnia, Madrid, Spain (in Spanish) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meskouris K, Kratzig WB, Hanskotter U (1999) Nonlinear computer simulations of seismically excited wall-stiffened reinforced concrete buildings. In: Moan (ed) Structural dynamics EURODYN’93. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 49–53Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alvanitopoulos PF, Elenas A (2010) Interdependence between damage indices and ground motion parameters based on Hilbert–Huang transform. Meas Sci Technol 21(2):71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elenas A (2013) Intensity parameters as damage potential descriptors of earthquakes. In: Computational methods in stochastic dynamics. Springer, pp 327–334Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alvanitopoulos PF, Papavasileiou M, Elenas A (2012) Seismic intensity feature construction based on the Hilbert-Huang transform. IEEE Instrument Measure Soc 61(2):326–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arias A (1970) A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Hansen R (ed) Seismic design for nuclear power plants. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Trifunac MD, Brady AG (1975) A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65:581–626Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Trifunac MD, Novikova EI (1994) State of the art review on strong motion duration. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol I, pp 131–140Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elenas A (2010) Correlation between seismic acceleration parameters and overall structural damage indices of buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 93–100Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mohammad SS, Sasan M, Ali K-C (2013) Interrelation between time-frequency domain parameters of earthquake records and structural damage index for medium height RC frames. Tech J Eng Appl Sci 3-20/2734-2742Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Safi M, Soleymani A (2014) Investigation of correlations between seismic parameters and damage indices for earthquakes of Iran Region. Int J Eng 27(2):283–292Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maniyar M, Khare R (2012) Selection of ground motion for performing incremental dynamic analysis of existing reinforced concrete buildings in India. Curr Sci (Bangalore) 100(5):701–713Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lieping Y, Qianli M, Zhiwei M, Hong G, Yan Z (2011) Numerical and comparative study of earthquake intensity indices in seismic analysis. Struct Des Tall Spec Build. doi: 10.1002/tal.693 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hao M, Xie LL, Xu LJ (2008) Some considerations on the physical measure of seismic intensity. Acta Seismol Sin 27(2):230–234Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Riddell R, Garcia EJ (2001) Hysteretic energy spectrum and damage control. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 30(12):1791–1816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kermani E, Jafarian Y, Baziar MH (2009) New predictive models for the v max/a max ratio of strong ground motions using genetic IJCE. 7(4):236–247Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) (2001) Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design, university of california, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rathje EM, Abrahamson NA, Bray JD (2000) Simplified frequency content estimates of earthquake ground motions. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124(2):150–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peter J, John B, Jarg R (2009) New predictive equations for Arias intensity from crustal earthquake in New Zealand. J Seismol 13(1):31–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maniyar MM, Khare RK (2012) Selection of ground motion for performing incremental dynamic analysis of existing reinforced concrete buildings in India. Curr Sci 100(5):701–713Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Housner GW (1975) Measures of severity of earthquake ground shaking. In: Proceedings of the US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Housner GW, Jennings, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Applied Technology Council: ATC-40 (1997) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. California Seismic Safety CommissionGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK (1998) Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Eng Struct 20(4-6):452–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saiidi M, Sozen MA (1981) Simple nonlinear seismic analysis of R/C structures. J Struct Div ASCE 107(ST5):937–952Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lawson RS, Vance V, Krawinkler H (1994) Nonlinear static push-over analysis-why, when, and how? In: Proceedings of 5th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Chicago, Illinois, EERI, vol. 1, pp. 283–292Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Biddah AC, Naumoski N (1995) Use of pushover test to evaluate damage of reinforced concrete frame structures subjected to strong seismic ground motions. In: Proceedings of 7th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moghadam AS, Tso WK (1995) 3-D pushover analysis for eccentric buildings. In: Proceedings of 7th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ferhi A, Truman KZ (1996) Behaviour of asymmetric building systems under a monotonic load—I. Eng Struct 18(2):133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ferhi A, Truman KZ (1996) Behaviour of asymmetric building systems under a monotonic load—II. Eng Struct 18(2):142–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bracci JM, Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM (1997) Seismic performance and retrofit evaluation of reinforced concrete structures. J Struct Eng ASCE 123(1):3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kilar V, Fajfar P (1997) Simple pushover analysis of asymmetric buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26:233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gupta A, Krawinkler H (1999) Seismic demands for performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frame structures (SAC 5.4.3), Report No. 132, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Foutch DA, Yun SY, Lee K (2000) Performance prediction for steel moment frames, advanced technology in structural engineering. In: Proceedings of the Structures Congress and Exposition, ACSE, May 2–10, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USAGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kunnath SK, John A, Jr (2000) Validity of static procedures in performance-based seismic design. In: Proceedings of the 2000 Structures Congress and Exposition, ACSE, May 2–10, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USAGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Skokan MJ, Hart GC (2000) Reliability of nonlinear static methods for the seismic prediction of steel frame buildings. In: Proceedings of the 2000 Structures Congress and Exposition, ACSE, May 2–10, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USAGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS (2001) Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings. Eng Struct 23:407–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Silvia M, Frank M, Michael H, Scott Gregory L, Fenves (2007) OpenSees command language manual. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 356 (2000) Pre standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Reyes-Salazar E, Bojorquez JL, Rivera-Salas A, Lopez-Barraza HE, Rodriguez L (2015) Seismic demands of steel buildings with perimeter and spatial moment resisting frames. IJCE 13(3):289–304Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dowdy S, Wearden S (1983) Statistics for research. Wiley, p 230Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Luco N (2013) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis, SMRF connection fractures, and near source effects. Submitted to the department of civil engineering of Standford university in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of philosophyGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yanglin G, Lei X, Don EG (2009) Performance-based design sensitivity analysis of steel moment frames under earthquake loading. Int J Numer Meth Eng 63:1229–1249zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Chopra AK, Goel RK (2004) A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan building. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 33:903–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of Kurdistan SanandajIran

Personalised recommendations