Relations between Some Horizontal‐Component Ground‐Motion Intensity Measures Used in Practice

Abstract

Various measures using the two horizontal components of recorded ground motions have been used in a number of studies that derive ground-motion prediction equations and construct maps of shaking intensity. We update relations between a number of these measures, including those in Boore et al. (2006) and Boore (2010), using the large and carefully constructed global database of ground motions from crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions developed as part of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center-Next Generation Attenuation-West2 project. The ratios from the expanded datasets generally agree to within a few percent of the previously published ratios. We also provide some ratios that were not considered before, some of which will be useful in applications such as constructing Shake-Maps. Finally, we compare two important ratios with those from a large central and eastern North American database and from many records from subduction earthquakes in Japan and Taiwan. In general, the ratios from these regions are within several percent of those from crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions. Electronic Supplement: Figures of ground-motion intensity measure (GMIM) ratios, and csv files with average ratios and the coefficients of fits to the ratios.

Do Directionality Effects Influence Expected Damage? A Case Study of the 2017 Central Mexico Earthquake

“…When we evaluated the ratio of RotD100 with respect to the Larger measure, we observed differences of 10%, on average. These trends in the ratios were compared with the ratio RotD100/Larger (for earthquakes with 0 km < R RUP ≤ 200 km and 7.0 ≤ M < 8.0) obtained by Boore and Kishida (2016) and the ratio RotD100/GM model proposed by Haji-Soltani and Pezeshk (2017). Very similar results were obtained for the ratio RotD100/Larger, while the ratios obtained herein for the RotD100/GM were slightly lower than that proposed by Haji-Soltani and Pezeshk.…”

“…The larger of the two horizontal components (Beyer and Bommer, 2006;Bradley and Baker, 2015;Boore and Kishida, 2016). This Appendix shows a summary of the results obtained from the analysis of the response spectra in Tables A1 to A6.…”

“…Conscientiousness and awareness of the influence of directionality effects on ground motions and ground motion prediction equations (GMPE) have increased in recent decades (see for instance Boore et al, 2006;Abrahamson et al, 2008;Boore, 2010;Shahi and Baker, 2014;Bradley and Baker, 2015;Boore and Kishida, 2016). The GMRotI50 Sensor-orientation-independent measure, as proposed by Bore et al 2006, was considered for the Next Generation Attenuation-West project (NGA-West, Abrahamson et al, 2008);…”

“…The influence of this on the ground-motion prediction equations (GMPE) and on the expected damage of a structure is well-known. A number of studies have analyzed these effects on seismic hazard (Watson-Lamprey andBoore, 2007;Boore and Kishida, 2016;Haji-Soltani and Pezeshk, 2017), on how the angle of incidence of the seismic action influences the performance of a structure(Lagaros, 2010;…”

Multivariate return period‐based ground motion selection for improved hazard consistency over a vector of intensity measures

“…For all of the three case-study structures, the EDPs are obtained via time history analyses using the selected ground motions. Because two horizontal components of each of the selected ground motion records are included, the EDPs corresponding to the two horizontal components are combined via geometric mean, to comply (though not perfectly 41 ) with the RotD50 IM value considered in later ground motion selection.…”