Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 20 (2000) 93100

www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Correlation between seismic acceleration parameters and overall structural

damage indices of buildings
A. Elenas*
Democritus University of Thrace, Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Structural Mechanics and Earthquake Engineering, GR-67100 Xanthi, Greece

Abstract
This article describes the interdependency between several seismic acceleration parameters and the behavior of the reinforced concrete
frame structures in the form of correlation coefcients. The structural behavior is expressed in form of overall structural damage indices.
After the numerical evaluation of several seismic parameters, a nonlinear dynamic analysis is carried out to provide the total damage status of
a structure. The aim is to select those, which have drastic inuence on structural damage. Furthermore, the design philosophy of aseismic
codes can be veried. The attention is focussed on the earthquake acceleration time histories of the worldwide well-known sites with a strong
seismic activity. q 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ground motion; Acceleration parameter; Damage potential; Damage index; Reinforced concrete

1. Introduction are selected among the several structural response charac-

teristics to represent the structural response. Finally, corre-
It is well known that earthquake accelerograms possess lation coefcients are evaluated to express the grade of
inherent information which can be extracted either directly, interdependency between seismic acceleration parameters
like the peak ground acceleration (PGA) and the total dura- and the structural damage. The proposed methodology is
tion, or indirectly using a computer supported analysis. The applied to an eight storey reinforced concrete frame build-
results of such an analysis can be classied in peak para- ing and several strong seismic acceleration records.
meters (e.g. peak ground velocity (PGV), peak ground
displacement (PGD)), spectral parameters (e.g. response-,
energy-, Fourier-spectra) and energy parameters (e.g.
2. Seismic acceleration parameters
ARIAS intensity, HUSID diagram, strong motion duration
(SMD) after Trifunac/Brady, power P0.90). The denitions of
According to the rst step of the methodology presented
these parameters have been presented in the literature [18].
in the introduction section, here the following seismic para-
The observation of building damages after severe earth-
meters are evaluated: PGA amax, PGV vmax, PGD dmax, the
quakes, as well as the numerical elaboration of structural
term amax/vmax, central period (CP) T0, ARIAS intensity,
systems exhibit a more or less interdependency between the
SMD after Trifunac/Brady T0.90, power P0.90, spectral abso-
aforementioned parameters and the structural response
lute seismic input energy Einp, spectral pseudo-acceleration
[913].
(SA), spectral pseudo-velocity (SV), spectral displacement
This article provides a methodology to quantify the inter-
(SD), effective peak acceleration EPA, maximum effective
relationship between the seismic parameters and the struc-
peak acceleration EPAmax and HUSID diagram.
tural damage. First, a computer supported elaboration of the
The CP T0 is dened as the reciprocal value of the number
timeacceleration histories provides several peak, spectral
of positive zero-crossings per time unit of the seismic accel-
and energy seismic parameters. Then, a nonlinear dynamic
eration [1].
analysis is carried out to provide the structural response of a
The ARIAS intensity [2] is a measure of the total energy
given seismic excitation. Owing to the fact that most of the
content of a seismic excitation and is dened by the follow-
seismic acceleration parameters are characterized by a
ing relation
single numerical value, the overall structure damage indices
Zte
* Tel.: 130-541-79626; fax: 130-541-26943. I0  2 dt:
x 1
0
E-mail address: elenas@demo.cc.duth.gr (A. Elenas).

0267-7261/00/$ - see front matter q 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0267-726 1(00)00041-5
94 A. Elenas / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 20 (2000) 93100

Table 1 Here, Es is the input seismic energy of an one degree of

Data of the examined accelerograms freedom system, te the total seismic duration, c the damping
Event Country Date Station Component coefcient, k the stiffness coefcient, u the relative
displacement to the ground of the system and x the ground
Alkion Greece 240281 OTE Corinth Longitudinal displacement.
Alkion Greece 240281 OTE Corinth Transversal
The EPA [7,8] is the average of the spectral ordinates of
Big Bear USA 280692 No. 22561 2708
Big Bear USA 280692 No. 22561 3608 the elastic acceleration response spectrum SA (for 5% criti-
Erzincan Turkey 130392 Erzincan NorthSouth cal damping) in the period interval [0.1 s, 0.5 s], divided by
Erzincan Turkey 130392 Erzincan EastWest a standard value 2.5. It is dened by the following relation
Izmir Turkey 161277 Izmir NorthSouth
Izmir Turkey 161277 Izmir EastWest SA0:1 s0:5 s j 0:05
Hyogo-Ken Nanbu Japan 170195 Kobe NorthSouth EPA : 6
2:5
Kalamata Greece 130986 Kalamata EastWest
Montenegro Jugoslavia 150479 Petrovac NorthSouth Owing to the fact that the maximum EPA-value occurs not
Landers USA 280692 No. 22170 08 unconditional in the period interval [0.1 s, 0.5 s], a 0.4 s
Landers USA 280692 No. 22170 908
Cape Mendocino USA 250492 No. 89005 08
sliding window over the period axis of a linear elastic
Cape Mendocino USA 250492 No. 89005 908 pseudo-acceleration response spectrum with 5% critical
Naghloo Iran 60477 Naghan Longitudinal damping is used, until the maximum value of the effective
San Salvador El Salvador 101086 No. 90014 08 peak acceleration (EPAmax) is achieved [8].
San Salvador El Salvador 101086 No. 90014 908 Table 1 shows several event data of the seismic accelera-
Strazhitsa Bulgaria 171286 Strazhitsa Transversal
Whittier USA 11087 Whittier 908
tion time histories which has been selected to be used in the
present analysis. The events have been chosen from world-
wide well-known sites with strong seismic activity. A
Here, I0 is the ARIAS intensity, te the total seismic duration further aspect which has been taken into consideration is
and x the ground acceleration. the expected damage potential of the seismic excitation on
The HUSID diagram [3] is the time history of the seismic the structure to be analyzed. Seismic excitations which
energy content scaled to the total energy content and it is provide a wide spectrum of structural damage, from negli-
dened by the following relation gible to severe, are taken into account due to statistical
Zt reasons. Table 2 shows the numerical values of all the
 2 dt
x above-mentioned seismic parameters for all the examined
0
Ht ; 2 seismic excitations. The spectral values SA, SV, SD and Einp
I0
are given for the period of 1.18 s, which is identical with the
where H(t) is the HUSID diagram as a function of time t, x rst eigenperiod of the examined frame structure as
the seismic ground acceleration and I0 the ARIAS intensity. described, and numerically analyzed in the next section.
The SMD after Trifunac/Brady [4] is dened as the time
elapsed between 5 and 95% of the HUSID diagram and is
dened by the following relation 3. Dynamic analysis of a frame structure
T0:90 T0:95 2 T0:05 ; 3 The reinforced concrete frame structure shown in Fig. 1
where T0.90 is the SMD, T0.95 the time elapsed at the 95% of has been designed according to the rules of the recent Euro-
the HUSID diagram and T0.05 the time elapsed at the 5% of codes for structural concrete and aseismic structures, EC2
the HUSID diagram. and EC8. The cross sections of the beams are considered as
The power P0.90 [5] is a measure of the energy content per T-beams with 40 cm width, 20 cm plate thickness, 60 cm
time unit of the seismic excitation and is dened by the total beam height and 1.45 m effective plate width. The
following relation distances between each frame of the structure have been
chosen to be 6 m. According to the EC8 Eurocode the struc-
H0:95 2 H0:05 ture has been considered as an importance class III, ducti-
P0:90 : 4
T0:90 lity class L-structure. Furthermore, the subsoil was of type
B and the region seismicity of category 3 after the Eurocode
Here, P0.90 is the power of the seismic excitation, H0.95 the
EC8. In this procedure apart from the self weight and seis-
energy level at 95% of the HUSID diagram, H0.05 the energy
mic loads, the snow, the wind and the live loads have been
level at 5% of the HUSID diagram and T0.90 the SMD after
taken into account, as well as the horizontal loads due to
Trifunac/Brady.
inclined positions of columns according to the codes
The input seismic energy [6] is dened by the following
requirements. The eigenperiod of the frame was 1.18 s.
relation
After the design procedure of the reinforced concrete
Zte frame structure, a nonlinear dynamic analysis has been
Es _ 1 kutx_ dt:
2 cut 5
0 carried out for the evaluation of the structural seismic
Table 2
Seismic parameters

Event PGA PGV PGD amax/vmax CP T0 ARIAS SMD Power Einp SA SV SD EPA EPAmax
amax (g) vmax (m/s) dmax (m) (g/m/s) (s) Intensity (m 2/s 3) T0.90 (s) P0.90 (m 2/s 2) (g) (cm/s) (cm) (g) (g)
(m 2/s 4)

Alkion (L) 0.240 0.225 0.099 1.067 0.422 4.334 15.660 0.249 0.001 0.034 0.550 0.100 0.197 0.228
Alkion (T) 0.296 0.253 0.071 1.170 0.381 5.326 13.990 0.343 0.001 0.218 37.550 6.642 0.257 0.259
Big Bear (2708) 0.472 0.282 0.046 1.674 0.130 19.963 9.720 1.848 0.055 0.096 15.710 2.926 0.454 0.461
Big Bear (3608) 0.534 0.344 0.043 1.552 0.128 17.154 10.360 1.490 0.824 0.172 29.727 5.278 0.551 0.554
Erzincan (NS) 0.399 0.976 1.360 0.409 0.479 9.729 10.450 0.839 2.280 0.799 147.004 27.608 0.289 0.348
Erzincan (EW) 0.501 0.829 0.908 0.605 0.339 11.381 7.470 1.372 0.959 0.527 96.480 18.089 0.415 0.429
Izmir (NS) 0.417 0.123 0.084 3.401 0.194 2.168 0.830 2.364 0.004 0.019 3.441 0.644 0.250 0.274
Izmir (EW) 0.139 0.068 0.031 2.050 0.158 0.406 1.590 0.229 0.002 0.017 3.152 0.589 0.113 0.120
Hyogo-Ken Nanbu (NS) 0.837 0.924 0.469 0.905 0.302 50.735 8.320 5.556 3.713 0.987 179.040 33.310 0.723 0.826
Kalamata (EW) 0.273 0.231 0.056 1.183 0.322 4.585 6.370 0.652 0.275 0.231 42.470 8.002 0.303 0.327
Montenegro (NS) 0.459 0.432 0.758 1.063 0.267 27.864 10.600 2.375 0.973 0.322 57.910 10.682 0.470 0.592
Landers (08) 0.268 0.271 0.010 0.990 0.408 10.106 30.840 0.295 1.960 0.458 80.800 14.660 0.226 0.257
Landers (908) 0.278 0.427 0.157 0.651 0.351 14.461 28.220 0.461 2.079 0.537 93.940 16.904 0.213 0.283
Cape Mendocino (08) 1.468 1.261 0.360 1.164 0.177 36.242 13.540 2.448 1.320 0.630 106.475 19.215 0.942 1.010
Cape Mendocino (908) 1.019 0.405 0.150 2.517 0.221 14.481 13.920 0.937 0.315 0.292 50.562 8.997 0.463 0.543
Naghloo (L) 0.710 0.859 0.451 0.826 0.172 17.750 2.200 7.406 0.350 0.368 63.250 11.186 0.609 0.667
San Salvador (08) 0.421 0.455 0.134 0.925 0.300 5.369 3.960 1.238 0.435 0.422 73.318 13.095 0.310 0.358
San Salvador (908) 0.339 0.323 0.042 1.050 0.300 5.866 2.760 1.959 0.146 0.260 44.291 7.758 0.376 0.429
A. Elenas / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 20 (2000) 93100

Strazhitsa (T) 0.362 0.632 0.122 0.572 0.168 1.420 3.220 0.402 0.005 0.034 5.753 1.010 0.181 0.204
Whittier (908) 0.607 0.277 0.025 2.191 0.137 7.881 2.665 2.661 0.076 0.125 21.548 3.826 0.519 0.520
95
96 A. Elenas / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 20 (2000) 93100

results of cyclic force-deformation characteristics of typical

components of the studied structure. Thus, the nominal
parameter for stiffness degradation and strength deteriora-
tion has been chosen. On the other hand, no pinching has
been taken into account. Among the several response para-
meters, the focus is on the overall structural damage index
(OSDI). This is due to the fact that this parameter
summarizes all the existing damages on columns and
beams in a single value, which can be easily, correlated
with single value seismic parameters. Two kinds of damage
indices have been considered: weighted averages of the
local damage indices [14] and global damage indices
based on the vibrational parameters of the structures
[15,16].
The modied damage index after Park/Ang [17] has been
selected as representative for the rst kind of OSDI. In this
model the global damage is obtained as a weighted average
of the local damage at the ends of each element, with the
dissipated energy as the weighting function. The local
damage index is given by the following relation:
um 2 ur b
DI L 1 E ; 7
uu 2 ur My uu T
Fig. 1. Reinforced concrete frame structure.
where DIL is the local damage index, u m the maximum
rotation attained during the load history, u u the ultimate
response. For this purpose the computer program IDARC rotation capacity of the section, u r the recoverable rotation
4.0 [14] has been used. The hysteretic behavior of beams at unloading, b a strength degrading parameter, My the yield
and columns has been specied at both ends of each member moment of the section and ET the dissipated hysteretic
using a three parameter Park model. This hysteretic model energy.
incorporates stiffness degradation, strength deterioration, In the present case, the global damage index is a weighted
non-symmetric response, slip-lock and a trilinear monotonic average of the local damage indices and the dissipated
envelope. The parameter values, which specify the above energy is chosen as the weighting function. The global
degrading parameters, have been chosen from experimental damage index is given by the following relation:
X
n
Table 3 DIL Ei
Overall structural damage indices of the structure i1
DIG X
n ; 8
Event OSDI Ei
i1
Park/Ang DiPasquale/Cakmak
where DIG is the global damage index, DIL the local damage
Alkion (L) 0.081 0.002
Alkion (T) 0.082 0.001 index after Park/Ang, Ei the energy dissipated at location i
Big Bear (2708) 0.071 0.001 and n the number of locations at which the local damage is
Big Bear (3608) 0.103 0.006 computed.
Erzincan (NS) 0.397 0.490 The maximum softening index after DiPasquale/Cakmak
Erzincan (EW) 0.169 0.093 [16] has been selected as representative for the second kind
Izmir (NS) 0.000 0.000
Izmir (EW) 0.000 0.000
of OSDI, which is based on the vibrational parameters of the
Hyogo-Ken Nanbu (NS) 0.550 0.559 structures. It is given by the following expression:
Kalamata (EW) 0.094 0.001
T0
Montenegro (NS) 0.198 0.289 dM 1 2 ; 9
Landers (08) 0.129 0.060 Tmax
Landers (908) 0.151 0.083
Cape Mendocino (08) 0.222 0.113 where d M is the maximum softening, T0 the initial natural
Cape Mendocino (908) 0.098 0.017 period and Tmax the maximum natural period of an equiva-
San Salvador (08) 0.106 0.040 lent linear system.
San Salvador (908) 0.096 0.028 Both overall damage indices are calculated using the
Strazhitsa (T) 0.000 0.000
program IDARC 4.0 [14]. As seismic input for the nonlinear
Whittier (908) 0.116 0.017
dynamic analysis and the calculation of the overall damage
Table 4
Linear Pearson correlation matrix

PGA 1.000
PGV 0.674 1.000
PGD 0.170 0.669 1.000
SA 0.417 0.754 0.630 1.000
CP 20.362 0.079 0.397 0.448 1.000
Einp 0.244 0.553 0.484 0.899 0.411 1.000
ARIAS 0.680 0.615 0.306 0.672 20.119 0.683 1.000
SMD 20.031 0.001 20.040 0.308 0.504 0.460 0.171 1.000
P0.90 0.471 0.459 0.206 0.338 20.283 0.246 0.587 20.362 1.000
amax/vmax 0.117 0.528 20.456 20.526 20.520 20.434 20.190 20.285 20.013 1.000
EPA 0.888 0.658 0.204 0.467 0.379 0.324 0.815 20.104 0.663 20.023 1.000
EPAmax 0.890 0.684 0.258 0.529 0.319 0.389 0.858 20.067 0.676 20.061 0.989 1.000
OSDI (Park/Ang) 0.384 0.679 0.648 0.910 0.373 0.878 0.753 0.154 0.445 20.432 0.512 0.570 1.000
OSDI (DiPasquale/Cakmak) 0.218 0.581 0.735 0.871 0.387 0.829 0.642 0.076 0.332 20.381 0.319 0.398 0.937 1.000
PGA PGV PGD SA CP Einp ARIAS SMD P0.90 amax/vmax EPA EPAmax OSDI (Park/Ang) OSDI (DiPasquale/C
akmak)

Table 5
Linear Spearman rank correlation matrix

PGA 1.000
PGV 0.635 1.000
PGD 0.429 0.776 1.000
SA 0.367 0.761 0.625 1.000
CP 20.445 0.041 0.350 0.477 1.000
A. Elenas / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 20 (2000) 93100

Einp 0.370 0.710 0.546 0.903 0.275 1.000

ARIAS 0.720 0.627 0.458 0.641 20.135 0.689 1.000
SMD 20.357 0.319 0.197 0.405 0.549 0.347 0.349 1.000
P0.90 0.808 0.478 0.311 0.293 20.427 0.323 0.636 20.374 1.000
amax/vmax 0.081 0.671 20.592 20.612 0.483 20.529 0.138 0.167 0.006 1.000
EPA 0.820 0.544 0.292 0.432 20.366 0.432 0.812 20.057 0.857 20.099 1.000
EPAmax 0.887 0.612 0.398 0.497 20.333 0.513 0.866 20.012 0.861 20.033 0.980 1.000
OSDI (Park/Ang) 0.482 0.752 0.623 0.917 0.319 0.897 0.727 0.331 0.461 20.511 0.583 0.639 1.000
OSDI (DiPasquale/C
akmak) 0.402 0.736 0.630 0.924 0.405 0.888 0.698 0.377 0.399 20.559 0.499 0.577 0.969 1.000
PGA PGV PGD SA CP Einp ARIAS SMD P0.90 amax/vmax EPA EPAmax OSDI (Park/Ang) OSDI (DiPasquale/Cakmak)
97
98 A. Elenas / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 20 (2000) 93100
Fig. 2. HUSID diagram and structural damage evolution for the Hyogo-Ken Nanbu seismic excitation.
indices, the accelerograms of all the seismic excitations
presented in Table 1 have been used.
4. Results
After a dynamic nonlinear analysis of the structure for all
the examined accelerograms, the nal OSDI after Park/Ang
and DiPasquale/Cakmak have been computed for each seis-
mic excitation. Table 3 presents the nal overall structural
damage indices of the examined frame structure for each
seismic excitation used. An OSDI equal 0.0 denotes that the
structure remains in the elastic region during the excitation.
To emphasise the grade of interrelation between seismic
acceleration parameters and the OSDI, the linear correlation
coefcient after Pearson [18] as well as the linear rank
correlation coefcient after Spearman [18] have been calcu-
lated. The rst correlation coefcient shows how close is the
examined data to a linear function, whereas the second one
shows how close is the examined data to monotone ranking.
Owing to the fact that the Pearson correlation is valid for
normal distributions, a test of normal distribution is carried
out for all the seismic parameters and OSDI, which are
taken into account in the correlation study. This test after
Kolmogoroff/Smirnoff (K/S-test) with an error possibility of
less than 10%, showed that all the examined quantities obey
the rule of normal distribution.
Table 4 presents the linear Pearson correlation coef-
cients between all the seismic parameters presented in
Table 2, the OSDI after Park/Ang and DiPasquale/
C akmak. Among the parameters SA, SV and SD, only
the SA has been considered in Table 4, due to the fact
that they are linearly related. Therefore, it is obvious that
they have a Pearson correlation coefcient equal to 1.0
between each other and the same correlation coefcient
between them and the other parameters considered in the
table.
Through the Pearson correlation coefcient it can be seen
that the two considered OSDI after Park/Ang and after
DiPasquale/Cakmak are highly correlated (0.937). There-
fore, they have almost the same grade of correlation with
the examined seismic parameters. Thus, they have high
correlation with SA and Einp (0.8290.910), medium corre-
lation to PGV, PGD and ARIAS intensity (0.5810.753),
poor to medium correlation to EPA and EPAmax (0.319
0.570) and poor correlation with PGA, CP, SMD, P0.90
and amax/vmax, (0.0760.445). It must be pointed out that
the SMD as dened by Trifunac and Brady, has very poor
correlation with the OSDI. This is due to the fact that their
denition does not take into account the seismic energy
content. Considering the Pearson correlation coefcient in
Table 4 between the seismic parameters, it can be seen the
very poor correlation between SMD and the peak para-
meters PGA, PGV and PGD (20.040 to 0.001), between
amax/vmax and P0.90 (20.013) and between CP and PGV
(0.079). On the other hand, very high correlation can be
observed between EPA and EPAmax (0.989) and high corre-
lation between SA and Einp (0.899).
 A. Elenas / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 20 (2000) 93100
Fig. 3. Interrelation between damage and input energy evolutions for the Hyogo-Ken Nanbu excitation.
Table 5 presents the linear Spearman rank correlation
coefcients between all the seismic parameters presented
in Table 2, the OSDI after Park/Ang and DiPasquale/
Cakmak. Among the parameters SA, SV and SD, only the
SA has been considered in Table 5, for the same reason as it
was explained previously in the case of the Pearson correla-
tion coefcient in Table 4.
Through the Spearman rank correlation coefcient it can
be seen that the two considered OSDI after Park/Ang and
after DiPasquale/Cakmak are highly correlated (0.969).
Owing to this fact, as in the case of Pearson correlation,
they have almost the same grade of rank correlation with
the examined seismic parameters. Thus, they have high
correlation with SA and Einp (0.8880.924), medium corre-
lation with PGV, PGD, ARIAS intensity, amax/ vmax, EPA
and EPAmax (0.4990.752) and low correlation with PGA,
CP, SMD and P0.90 (0.3190.482). Considering the Spear-
man rank correlation coefcient in Table 5 between the
seismic parameters, it can be seen the very poor correlation
between amax/vmax and P0.90 (0.006), between amax/ vmax and
PGA (0.081), and between CP and PGV (0.041). On the
other hand, very high correlation can be observed between
EPA and EPAmax (0.980) and high correlation between SA
and Einp (0.903).
The numerical analysis has shown that the OSDI after
Park/Ang is an increasing function of time; its initial
value is zero and its nal is the maximum value. If we
normalise this nal value to be 100% and plot it against
time, then we obtain a time history of OSDI from the origi-
nal to the nal state. The x-axis (time) and y-axis (%) are the
99
same for both the previously mentioned OSDI time evolu-
tion history and the HUSID diagram which express the time
evolution history of the seismic energy and, therefore, both
of them can be presented in the same diagram. This is
clearly shown in Fig. 2, which presents the time evolution
of OSDI after Park/Ang produced by the Hyogo-Ken Nanbu
earthquake and the HUSID diagram of the same excitation.
As it was explained before, the nal total damage is scaled
to be 100%, in order to ensure that the y-axis has the same
scale for both curves. We observe the similarity between the
two curves.
By selecting the values of the HUSID diagram and the
Park/Ang OSDI time history (Fig. 2) at time intervals of a
second and plotting them in a new diagram, the interrela-
tionship between seismic energy and OSDI can be numeri-
cally evaluated. This can be realized by plotting the scatter
diagram of the points (damage rate value, input energy rates
value), taken from Fig. 2 at time intervals of a second (Fig.
3), and evaluating the correlation coefcients. The Pearson
correlation coefcient is equal to 0.961 and indicates
through the regression line, how close is the data to a linear
dependency. The Spearman rank correlation coefcient is
equal to 1.0, showing a monotonic dependency between
damage and input energy rates.
5. Conclusions
In this article a methodology for the value estimation of
the interrelation between seismic acceleration parameters
100 A. Elenas / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 20 (2000) 93100
and the structural damage has been presented. As seismic
acceleration parameters, the peak, spectral and energy para-
meters have been considered. The overall structural damage
has been quantied as the modied Park/Ang model and as
the maximum softening after DiPasquale/Cakmak. The
degree of the interrelationship has been expressed by the
linear Pearson correlation coefcient and by the linear
Spearman rank correlation coefcient.
As the numerical results have shown, the two kinds of
correlation coefcients, after Pearson and Spearman,
provide almost the same interrelation grade between the
examined parameters. The two overall structural damage
indices exhibit strong interrelation and the same correlation
grade to the examined seismic parameters. Among the
examined seismic parameters, the SA and the spectral abso-
lute seismic input energy have the strongest correlation with
the overall structural damage indices. On the other hand the
PGA, the CP and the SMD dened after Trifunac/Brady
exhibit poor correlation with the overall structural damage
indices. Finally, the HUSID diagram, although a structure-
independent seismic parameter, provides a good estimation
of the overall structural damage evolution time history.
References
[1] Vanmarcke EH, Lai S-SP. Strong-motion duration and RMS ampli-
tude of earth-quake records. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America 1980;70:1293307.
[2] Arias A. In: Hansen R, editor. A measure of earthquake intensity,
Seismic design for nuclear power plants. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 1970.
[3] Husid RL. Analisis de terremoros: analisis general. Revista del
IDIEM 1969;8:2142.
[4] Trifunac MD, Brady AG. A study on the duration of strong earth-
quake ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of Amer-
ica 1975;65:581626.
[5] Jennings PC. Engineering seismology. In: Kanamori H, Boschi E,
editors. Earthquakes: observation, theory and interpretation, Varenna:
Italian Physical Society, 1982. p. 13873.
[6] Uang C-M, Bertero VV. Evaluation of seismic energy in structures.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1990;19:7790.
[7] Publication ATC 3-06. Tentative provisions for the development of
seismic regulations for buildings. Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Ofce, 1978.
[8] Lungu D, Aldea A, Zaicenco A, Cornea T. PSHA and GIS technol-
ogy-tools for seismic hazard macrozonation in Eastern Europe. CD-
ROM Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1998.
[9] Elenas A, Liolios A, Vasiliadis L. Earthquake induced nonlinear
behavior of structures in relation with characteristic acceleration para-
meters. In: Duma G, editor. Proceedings of the 10th European Confer-
ence on Earthquake Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam, vol. II. 1994.
p. 10116.
[10] Elenas A, Liolios A, Vasiliadis L, Tsalkatidis S. Nonlinear behavior
of reinforced concrete structures in relation with seismic acceleration
parameters. In: C akmak AS, Brebbia CA, editors. Proceedings of the
7th Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
Southampton: Computational Mechanics Publications, 1995. p.
61522.
[11] Elenas A, Liolios A. Earthquake induced nonlinear behavior of rein-
forced concrete frame structures in relation with characteristic accel-
eration parameters. In: Quest editions, editor. Proceedings of the Fifth
International Conference on Seismic Zonation, vol. II. Nantes:
Presses Academiques, 1995. p. 101320.
[12] Elenas A. Interdependency between seismic acceleration parameters
and the behaviour of structures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engi-
neering 1997;16:31722.
[13] Elenas A. Interrelation between seismic acceleration parameters of
European earthquakes and the structural behaviour. European Earth-
quake Engineering 1998;12:5663.
[14] Reinhorn AM, Kunnath SK, Valles-Mattox R. IDARC 2D Version
4.0: users manual. Department of Civil Engineering, State University
of New York at Bufallo, 1996.
[15] Rodriguez-Gomez S, C akmak AS. Evaluation of seismic damage
indices for reinforced concrete structures. Technical Report
NCEER-90-0022, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1990.
[16] DiPasquale, E., Cakmak AS. On the relation between local and global
damage indices. Technical Report NCEER-89-0034, State University
of New York at Buffalo, 1989.
[17] Park YJ, Ang AH-S. Mechanistic seismic damage model for
reinforced concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering
1985;111:72239.
[18] Hartung J. Statistik. Munchen: Oldenburg Verlag, 1995.