Influence of Ground Motion Duration on the Structural Response at Multiple Seismic Intensity Levels

Document Type : Research


1 Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Science and Culture, Rasht, Iran.

2 Research Associate, Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.

3 MSc graduate, Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.

4 Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.


This paper aims to investigate the effects of motion duration on the structural seismic demands, seeking potential correlations between motion durations and structural responses at several seismic intensity levels. Three seismic intensity levels with 100years, 475years, and 2475years earthquake return periods (RPs) are first considered for correlation computations. Spectrally matched ground motions are employed to isolate the contribution of duration from the effects of ground motion amplitudes and response spectral shape. Four single degree of freedom systems derived from four real reinforced concrete structures are studied, where both degrading and non-degrading equivalent SDOF systems are included for structural modeling. Results show a low positive correlation between motion duration and structural displacement demand, but this correlation increases with an increase in earthquake RP. It is also investigated whether or not this insignificant positive correlation has an impact on the incremental dynamic analysis curves. The spectrally matched ground motions are divided into two distinct groups in this case: short  and long duration ground motions. The comparison of incremental dynamic analysis of these two groups at the collapse limit reveals that long-duration ground motions can cause up to a 20 percent decrease in the spectral acceleration demand of considered structural systems.


1. J. Han, X. Sun, Y. Zhou, Duration effect of spectrally matched ground motion records on collapse resistance capacity evaluation of RC frame structures, Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 26 (2017) 1-12. [DOI:10.1002/tal.1397.]
2. M. Raghunandan, A.B. Liel, Effect of ground motion duration on earthquake-induced structural collapse, Struct. Saf. 41 (2013) 119-133. [DOI:10.1016/j.strusafe.2012.12.002.]
3. A. Belejo, A.R. Barbosa, R. Bento, Influence of ground motion duration on damage index-based fragility assessment of a plan-asymmetric non-ductile reinforced concrete building, Eng. Struct. 151 (2017) 682-703. [DOI:10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.08.042.]
4. R. Chandramohan, J. Baker, W, J. Deierlein J, Quantifying the influence of ground motion duration on structural collapse capacity using spectrally equivalent records, Earthq. Spectra. 32 (2016) 927-950. [DOI:10.1193/122813eqs298mr2]
5. J. Hancock, J.J. Bommer, Using spectral matched records to explore the influence of strong-motion duration on inelastic structural response, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 27 (2007) 291-299. [DOI:10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.09.004.]
6. G. Wang, S. Zhang, C. Zhou, W. lu, Correlation between strong motion durations and damage measures of concrete gravity dams, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 69 (2015) 148-162. [DOI:10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.11.001.]
7. S. Zhang, G. Wang, B. Pang, C. Du, The effects of strong motion duration on the dynamic response and accumulated damage of concrete gravity dams, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 45 (2013) 112-124. [DOI:10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.11.011.]
8. C. Wang, H. Hao, S. Zhang, G. Wang, Influence of Ground Motion Duration on Responses of Concrete Gravity Dams, J. Earthq. Eng. 2469 (2018) 1-25. [DOI:10.1080/13632469.2018.1453422.]
9. M. Molazadeh, H. Saffari, The effects of ground motion duration and pinching-degrading behavior on seismic response of SDOF systems, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 114 (2018) 333-347. [DOI:10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.06.032.]
10. J.J. Bommer, G. Magenes, J. Hancock, P. Penazzo, The influence of strong-motion duration on the seismic response of masonry structures, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2 (2004) 1-26. [DOI:10.1023/]
11. Y. Pan, C.E. Ventura, W.D. Liam Finn, Effects of Ground Motion Duration on the Seismic Performance and Collapse Rate of Light-Frame Wood Houses, J. Struct. Eng. 144 (2018) 4018112. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002104.]
12. R. Chandramohan, J. Baker, W, J. Deierlein J, Impact of hazard-consistent ground motion duration in structural collapse risk assessment, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 45(8): (2016) 1357-1379. [DOI:10.1002/eqe.2711]
13. M. Mashayekhi, H.E. Estekanchi, Significance of effective number of cycles in Endurance Time analysis, Asian J. Civ. Eng. (Building Housing). 13 (2012) 647-657.
14. Y. Park, A.H. ‐S. Ang, Mechanistic Seismic Damage Model for Reinforced Concrete, J. Struct. Eng. 111 (1985) 722-739. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1985)111:4(722).]
15. M. Sarieddine, L. Lin, Investigation Correlations between Strong-motion Duration and Structural Damage, Struct. Congr. (2013) 2926-2936. [DOI:10.1061/9780784412848.255.]
16. M. Mashayekhi, M. Harati, H.E. Estekanchi, Estimating the duration effects in structural responses by a new energy-cycle based parameter, in: 8th Int. Conf. Seismol. Earthq. Eng., International Institude of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (Submitted for publication)
17. E.I. Katsanos, A.G. Sextos, G.D. Manolis, Selection of earthquake ground motion records: A state-of-the-art review from a structural engineering perspective, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 30 (2010) 157-169. [DOI:10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.10.005.]
18. ASCE/SEI 7-10, Minimum design loads for building and other structures, American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, 2010.
19. ASCE/SEI 41-17, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings (41-17), (2017).
20. FEMA-356, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, (2000).
21. GB50011‐2010 Code, Code for Seismic Design of Buildings, Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People's Republic of China, 2010.
22. D. Vamvatsikos, C.A. Cornell, Incremental Dynamic Analysis, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 31 (2002) 491-514. [DOI:10.1002/eqe.141.]
23. BHRC Publication, Iranian Code of Practice For Seismic Resistant Design Of Buildings (Standard No. 2800), 2016.
24. ASCE/SEI 41-06, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings, (2006) 0-428.
25. D. Vamvatsikos, C.A. Cornell, Direct Estimation of Seismic Demand and Capacity of Multidegree-of-Freedom Systems through Incremental Dynamic Analysis of Single Degree of Freedom, J. Struct. Eng. 131 (2005) 589-599. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:4(589)]
26. J.J. Bommer, A. Martinez-Periera, The effective duration of earthquake strong motion, J. Earthq. Eng. 3 (1999) 127-172. [DOI:10.1080/13632469909350343.]
27. M. Mashayekhi, M. Harati, M. Ashoori Barmchi, H.E. Estekanchi, Introducing a response-based duration metric and its correlation with structural damages, Bull. Earthq. Eng. (Submitted for publication)
28. J.J. Bommer, A. Marytínezpereira, The effective duration of earthquake strong motion, J. Earthq. Eng. 3 (1999) 127-172. [DOI:10.1080/13632469909350343.]
29. EPRI, a criterion for determining exceedance of the operating basis earthquake, Report No. EPRI NP-5930, Palo Alto, California, 1988.
30. M. Cabañas, L., Benito, B., Herráiz, an approach to the measurement of the potential structural damage of earthquake ground motions, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 26 (1997) 79-92.<79::AID-EQE624>3.0.CO;2-Y [DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199701)26.]
31. Y. Heo, S.K. Kunnath, F. Asce, N. Abrahamson, Amplitude-scaled versus spectrum-matched ground motions for seismic performance assessment, J. Struct. Eng. 137 (2011) 278-288. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000340.]
32. Y. Heo, Framework for damage-based probabilistic seismic performance evaluation of reinforced concrete frames, University of California Davis, 2009.
33. J. Hancock, J. Watson-Lamprey, N. a. Abrahamson, J.J. Bommer, A. Markatis, E. McCOYH, R. Mendis, An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets, J. Earthq. Eng. 10 (2006) 67-89. [DOI:10.1080/13632460609350629.]
34. Seismosoft, "SeismoMatch 2016 - A computer program for spectrum matching of earthquake records," (2016).
35. S. Yaghmaei-sabegh, S. Makaremi, Development of duration-dependent damage-based inelastic response spectra, (2016). 2830 [DOI:10.1002/eqe.]
36. M.A. Bravo-Haro, A.Y. Elghazouli, Influence of earthquake duration on the response of steel moment frames, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 115 (2018) 634-651. [DOI:10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.08.027.]
37. Y. Pan, C.E. Ventura, W.D. Liam Finn, Effects of Ground Motion Duration on the Seismic Performance and Collapse Rate of Light-Frame Wood Houses, J. Struct. Eng. 144 (2018) 1-11. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002104.]
38. Y. Ou, J. Song, P. Wang, L. Adidharma, K. Chang, G.C. Lee, Ground Motion Duration Effects on Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns, J. Struct. Eng. 140 (2014) 1-14. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000856.]
39. Korkmaz A. Aktaş E., Probability based seismic analysis for r/c frame structures, J. Fac. Eng. Archit. Gazi Univ. 21 (2006) 55-64.
40. F. McKenna, Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees) version 2.4. 4 MP [Software], (2014).
41. L.F. Ibarra, R.A. Medina, H. Krawinkler, Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 34 (2005) 1489-1511. [DOI:10.1002/eqe.495.]
42. J. Moehle, G.G. Deierlein, A Framework Methodology for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering, in: 13th World Conf. Earthq. Eng. August 1-6, 2004, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2004.
43. S. Gunay, K.M. Mosalam, PEER Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology, Revisited PEER Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering, J. Earthq. Eng. 17 (2013) 37-41. [DOI:10.1080/13632469.2013.787377]