Investigating the Correlation between the Parameters of Ground Motion Intensity Measures for Iran's Data

Document Type : Regular Article


1 Ph.D. Student, School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran



This paper presents a statistical correlation analysis of peak ground acceleration to peak ground velocity ratio (A/V) and other ground motion intensity measures (IMs) for Iran’s data. A/V is an important parameter that can significantly affect nonlinear structural responses. Findings from this study provide beneficial insights into selecting suitable parameters for characterizing earthquake ground motions. The studied database included 2053 strong ground motion records with the moment magnitude from 4.5 to 7.8 MW, rupture distance from 1 to 600 km, and average shear wave velocity from 155 to 1594 m/s. Correlation coefficients between A/V and several IMs were obtained for near-field and far-field records at three A/V levels, low A/V, middle A/V, and high A/V. Regression analyses for predicting A/V from the IMs were also conducted for near-field and far-field records. The results showed that the mean period (Tm) has the highest correlation with A/V at all A/V levels and for both far-field and near-field earthquakes compared to the other IMs. Therefore, this parameter can be employed for record selection as a frequency content-based parameter. Finally, current results showed that the accuracy of the Artificial Neural Network (ANN) models are more than the regression models for predicting A/V.


Main Subjects

[1]     Hassanzadeh R. Earthquake population loss estimation using spatial modelling and survey data: The Bam earthquake, 2003, Iran. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2019;116:421–35.
[2]     Xu R, Fatahi B. Novel application of geosynthetics to reduce residual drifts of mid-rise buildings after earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2019;116:331–44.
[3]     Ghaedi Vanani AA, Shoaei G, Zare M. Statistical analyses of landslide size and spatial distribution triggered by 1990 Rudbar-Manjil (Mw 7.3) earthquake, northern Iran: revised inventory, and controlling factors. Bull Eng Geol Environ 2021;80:3381–403.
[4]     Harati M, Mashayekhi M, Estekanchi HE. Correlation of Ground Motion Duration with Its Intensity Metrics: A Simulation Based Approach. J Soft Comput Civ Eng 2020;4:17–39.
[5]     Du W. Empirical Correlations of Frequency-Content Parameters of Ground Motions with Other Intensity Measures. J Earthq Eng 2019;23:1073–91.
[6]     Zhu TJ, Tso WK, Heidebrecht AC. Effect of Peak Ground a/v Ratio on Structural Damage. J Struct Eng 1988;114:1019–37.
[7]     Garg R, Vemuri JP, Subramaniam KVL. Correlating Peak Ground A/V Ratio with Ground Motion Frequency Content, 2019, p. 69–80.
[8]     Tso WK, Zhu TJ, Heidebrecht AC. Engineering implication of ground motion A/V ratio. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 1992;11:133–44.
[9]     Rezaee Manesh M, Fattahi S, Saffari H. Investigation of earthquake significant duration on the seismic performance of adjacent steel structures in near-source. J Rehabil Civ Eng 2021;9:84–101.
[10]   Rezaeimanesh M, Saffari H. Relationships Between Significant, Bracketed and Uniform Durations with Earthquake Indices and Site Conditions Using Iranian Seismic Data. Sharif J Civ Eng 2021;37:95–103.
[11]   Ale Saheb Fosoul S, Tajmir Riahi H, Hatami N. A New Ground Motion Record Selection Procedure Based on The Effects of Spectral Shape and Period Elongation. Sci Iran 2019:0–0.
[12]   Harati M, Mashayekhi M, Ashoori Barmchi M, Estekanchi H. Influence of Ground Motion Duration on the Structural Response at Multiple Seismic Intensity Levels. Numer Methods Civ Eng 2019;3:10–23.
[13]   Kostinakis K, Fontara I-K, Athanatopoulou AM. Scalar Structure-Specific Ground Motion Intensity Measures for Assessing the Seismic Performance of Structures: A Review. J Earthq Eng 2018;22:630–65.
[14]   Wei B, Hu Z, He X, Jiang L. Evaluation of optimal ground motion intensity measures and seismic fragility analysis of a multi-pylon cable-stayed bridge with super-high piers in Mountainous Areas. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2020;129:105945.
[15]   Elhout EA. The correlation between the ground motion intensity measure parameters of earthquakes. Asian J Civ Eng 2020;21:829–40.
[16]   Hui S, Tang L, Zhang X, Wang Y, Ling X, Xu B. An investigation of the influence of near-fault ground motion parameters on the pile’s response in liquefiable soil. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2018;17:729–45.
[17]   Kiani A, Torabi M, Mirhosseini SM. Intensity measures for the seismic response evaluation of buried steel pipelines under near-field pulse-like ground motions. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2019;18:917–31.
[18]   Kamgar R, Dadkhah M, Naderpour H. Seismic response evaluation of structures using discrete wavelet transform through linear analysis. Structures 2021;29:863–82.
[19]   Kamgar R, Rahgozar P. Optimum location for the belt truss system for minimum roof displacement of steel buildings subjected to critical excitation. Steel Compos Struct An Int J 2020;37:463–79.
[20]   Dadkhah M, Kamgar R, Heidarzadeh H. Reducing the Cost of Calculations for Incremental Dynamic Analysis of Building Structures Using the Discrete Wavelet Transform. J Earthq Eng 2022;26:3317–42.
[21]   Kamgar R, Tavakoli R, Rahgozar P, Jankowski R. Application of discrete wavelet transform in seismic nonlinear analysis of soil–structure interaction problems. Earthq Spectra 2021;37:1980–2012.
[22]   Dadkhah M, Kamgar R, Heidarzadeh H, Jakubczyk-Gałczyńska A, Jankowski R. Improvement of Performance Level of Steel Moment-Resisting Frames Using Tuned Mass Damper System. Appl Sci 2020;10:3403.
[23]   Salimi M, Kamgar R, Heidarzadeh H. An evaluation of the advantages of friction TMD over conventional TMD. Innov Infrastruct Solut 2021;6:95.
[24]   Dadkhah M, Kamgar R, Heidarzadeh H. Improving the nonlinear seismic performance of steel moment-resisting frames with minimizing the ductility damage index. SN Appl Sci 2021;3:86.
[25]   Zhu TJ, Heidebrecht AC, Tso WK. Effect of peak ground acceleration to velocity ratio on ductility demand of inelastic systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1988;16:63–79.
[26]   Sawada T, Hirao K, Yamamoto H, Tsujihara O. Relation between maximum amplitude ratio (a/v, ad/v2) and spectral parameters of earthquake ground motion. Earthq. Eng. Tenth World Conf., vol. 2, 1992, p. 617.
[27]   Rathje EM, Abrahamson NA, Bray JD. Simplified Frequency Content Estimates of Earthquake Ground Motions. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 1998;124:150–9.
[28]   Rathje EM, Faraj F, Russell S, Bray JD. Empirical Relationships for Frequency Content Parameters of Earthquake Ground Motions. Earthq Spectra 2004;20:119–44.
[29]   Bommer JJ, Hancock J, Alarcón JE. Correlations between duration and number of effective cycles of earthquake ground motion. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2006;26:1–13.
[30]   Tavakoli HR, Gilani H, Abdollahzadeh GR. Comparative evaluation of seismic parameters for near-fault and far-fault earthquakes. 15th World Conf. Earthq. Eng., 2012, p. 24–8.
[31]   Mashayekhi M, Estekanchi HE, Vafai H. A method for matching response spectra of endurance time excitations via the Fourier transform. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2020;19:637–48.
[32]   Oliveira CS, Gassol G, Goula X, Susagna T. A European digital accelerometric database: statistical analysis of engineering parameters of small to moderate magnitude events. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2014;13:583–97.
[33]   Huang C, Galasso C. Ground‐motion intensity measure correlations observed in Italian strong‐motion records. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2019;48:1634–60.
[34]   Naumoski N, Tso WK, Heidebrecht AC. A selection of representative strong ground motion earthquake records having different A/V ratios. Report No. EERG 88/01, Earthquake Engineering Research Group, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario 1988.
[35]   Building and Housing Research Center (BHRC). last accessed 2021, n.d.
[36]   Rezaee Manesh M, Saffari H. Empirical equations for the prediction of the bracketed and uniform duration of earthquake ground motion using the Iran database. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2020;137:106306.
[37]   Heydari M, Mousavi M. The Comparison of Seismic Effects of Near-field and Far-field Earthquakes on Relative Displacement of Seven-storey Concrete Building with Shear Wall. Curr World Environ 2015;10:40–6.
[38]   Bhandari M, Bharti SD, Shrimali MK, Datta TK. Seismic Fragility Analysis of Base-Isolated Building Frames Excited by Near- and Far-Field Earthquakes. J Perform Constr Facil 2019;33:04019029.
[39]   Wang G-Q, Zhou X-Y, Zhang P-Z, Igel H. Characteristics of amplitude and duration for near fault strong ground motion from the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan Earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2002;22:73–96.
[40]   Li S, Xie L. Progress and trend on near-field problems in civil engineering. Acta Seismol Sin 2007;20:105–14.
[41]   Yadav KK, Gupta VK. Near-fault fling-step ground motions: Characteristics and simulation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2017;101:90–104.
[42]   Moniri H. Evaluation of seismic performance of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings under near-field earthquakes. Int J Adv Struct Eng 2017;9:13–25.
[43]   Gorai S, Maity D. Seismic response of concrete gravity dams under near field and far field ground motions. Eng Struct 2019;196:109292.
[44]   Kaklamanos J, Baise LG, Boore DM. Estimating Unknown Input Parameters when Implementing the NGA Ground-Motion Prediction Equations in Engineering Practice. Earthq Spectra 2011;27:1219–35.
[45]   Seismo Signal. Pavia, Italy: Seism soft Ltd. Retrieved from http://www.seism osoft .com/en/HomeP age.aspx. 2020.
[46]   Riddell R, Garcia JE. Hysteretic energy spectrum and damage control. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2001;30:1791–816.
[47]   Makris N, Black CJ. Evaluation of Peak Ground Velocity as a “Good” Intensity Measure for Near-Source Ground Motions. J Eng Mech 2004;130:1032–44.
[48]   Akkar S, Özen Ö. Effect of peak ground velocity on deformation demands for SDOF systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2005;34:1551–71.
[49]   Bianchini M, Diotallevi P, Baker JW. Prediction of inelastic structural response using an average of spectral accelerations. 10th Int. Conf. Struct. Saf. Reliab., vol. 1317, 2009.
[50]   Kohrangi M, Kotha SR, Bazzurro P. Ground-motion models for average spectral acceleration in a period range: direct and indirect methods. Bull Earthq Eng 2018;16:45–65.
[51]   Alavi B, Krawinkler H. Effects of near-fault ground motions on frame structures. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Stanford; 2001.
[52]   Chopra AK, Chintanapakdee C. Comparing response of SDF systems to near-fault and far-fault earthquake motions in the context of spectral regions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2001;30:1769–89.
[53]   Panella DS, Tornello ME, Frau CD. A simple and intuitive procedure to identify pulse-like ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2017;94:234–43.
[54]   Travasarou T, Bray JD, Abrahamson NA. Empirical attenuation relationship for Arias Intensity. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2003;32:1133–55.
[55]   Arias A. Measure of earthquake intensity. Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., Cambridge. Univ. of Chile, Santiago de Chile; 1970.
[56]   Sarma SK, Yang KS. An evaluation of strong motion records and a new parameterA95. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1987;15:119–32.
[57]   Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI). A criterion for determining exceedance of the operating basis earthquake. Report No. EPRI NP-5930, Palo Alto, CA. 1988.
[58]   Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y. A comparison of ground motion prediction equations for Arias intensity and cumulative absolute velocity developed using a consistent database and functional form. Earthq Spectra 2012;28:931–41.
[59]   Malhotra PK. Cyclic-demand spectrum. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2002;31:1441–57.
[60]   Hancock J, Bommer JJ. The effective number of cycles of earthquake ground motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2005;34:637–64.
[61]   Housner GW. Spectrum intensities of strong-motion earthquakes 1952.
  • Receive Date: 25 May 2022
  • Revise Date: 27 July 2022
  • Accept Date: 01 October 2022
  • First Publish Date: 01 October 2022