Response of Seismic-Isolated Bridges in Relation to Intensity

Measures of Ordinary and Pulselike Ground Motions

Özgür Avşar, Ph.D.1; and Gökhan Özdemir, Ph.D.2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This study concentrates on the efficiency of numerous ground motion intensity measures (IMs) to be used in estimating the response
of seismic-isolated bridges (SIBs). Efficiency of commonly used IMs was investigated through their correlation with maximum isolator dis-
placement (MID) obtained from nonlinear dynamic analyses. Two sets of ground motions (GMs), classified as ordinary and pulse-like, were
used in nonlinear dynamic analyses of SIBs. In the analyses, varying isolation parameters, such as the isolation period, T, and the characteristic
strength of the isolator, Qd =W, were studied. Sensitivity to varying T and Qd =W and the effect of ground motion type on the correlation of IMs
with MID of SIBs were examined. To improve the correlation of existing IMs, modified IMs were proposed. The results revealed that
the isolation period has a pronounced effect on the correlation of IMs with MID of SIBs, especially for pulse-like GMs. Among the investigated
IMs, modified velocity spectrum intensity appears to have the strongest correlation with MID of SIBs for a wide range of isolation parameters
and ground motion type. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000340. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Bridges; Ground motion; Seismic analysis; Isolation; Correlation.
Author keywords: Bridges; Ground motion; Seismic analysis; Isolation; Correlation.

Introduction Various aspects of a proper IM were defined in detail by Mackie and

Seismic isolation of bridges is a very effective way of protecting
bridges from the damaging effects of earthquakes in seismically
active regions. A seismic-isolated bridge (SIB) is designed to control
its seismic response through the yielding of isolation units placed
between the superstructure and substructure. Hence, behavior of a
SIB is generally dominated by response quantities of employed
isolation systems, such as maximum isolator displacement (MID)
(Dicleli 2006; Ozdemir et al. 2011). Calculation of the MID is
essential for a SIB, because it is generally used to determine the
isolator size as well as the width and type of the expansion joints. In
some cases, the widths of the substructures may also be governed by
the MID. This is the reason why calculation of the MID is one of
the most important steps in performance-based seismic design of
SIBs, as well as their seismic performance assessment. Tothong and
Cornell (2008) defined performance-based seismic evaluation as “a
process that results in realistic understanding of the quantified risk
due to future earthquakes for a proposed new structure or the upgrade
of an existing structure.” Performance-based seismic evaluation
can be performed through probabilistic seismic demand analysis
(PSDA), where response of the considered structure from nonlinear
dynamic analyses is combined with a proper ground motion intensity
measure (IM). There are basically three aspects of a proper IM,
namely, efficiency, sufficiency, and scaling robustness (Tothong and
Cornell 2008).
1 _
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Anadolu Univ., Iki
Eylül Kampüsü, Eskişehir 26555, Turkey (corresponding author). E-mail:
ozguravsar@anadolu.edu.tr
2
Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Kocaeli Univ., Umut-
tepe Yerleşkesi, Kocaeli 41380, Turkey. E-mail: gokas3050@yahoo.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 30, 2011; approved on
November 17, 2011; published online on November 19, 2011. Discussion
period open until August 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engi-
neering, Vol. 18, No. 3, March 1, 2013. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2013/
3-250–260/$25.00.
Stojadinovic (2005) and Mehanny (2009). Efficiency was defined as
the amount of variability of a response quantity given an IM. The
measure used to evaluate efficiency is the dispersion. An efficient
demand model requires a smaller number of nonlinear dynamic
analyses to achieve a desired level of confidence. This study con-
centrates on the efficiency of several IMs by comparing their correlation
with the seismic response of SIBs. However, definitions of sufficiency
and scaling robustness of a proper IM are also given for completeness of
the subject. Tothong and Cornell (2008) defined a sufficient IM as the
one that renders structural responses conditionally independent of
ground motion properties (e.g., earthquake moment magnitude [Mw ],
distance, epsilon, pulse period) at a given intensity level. Hence, se-
lection of a sufficient IM makes selection of ground motion records
more simple. Finally, scaling robustness is desired in order not to bias
the results with scaling compared with the ones obtained by
employing as-recorded ground motions (Tothong and Luco 2007).
In the light of previous studies, it is evident that selection of
a proper IM results in a great computational saving together with an
increased confidence level. However, there is a lack of agreement on
selection of a proper IM, which serves as a link between the seismic
hazard of the bridge site and the seismic response of SIBs. To in-
vestigate the correlation between seismic damage of structures
and various IMs, numerous research studies have been conducted
(Giovenale et al. 2004; Riddell 2007; Tothong and Luco 2007;
Padgett et al. 2008; Narasimhan et al. 2009). Giovenale et al. (2004)
carried out studies to investigate the efficiency of different IMs with
the response variables based on single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF)
systems with various periods in the range of 0.25–1.0 s. Giovenale
et al. (2004) excluded ground motion records with near-field effects.
In his rigorous study, Riddell (2007) investigated the correlation
between various IMs and response quantities of SDOF systems. He
investigated the correlation of IMs with response quantities in three
spectral regions, namely, acceleration-sensitive, velocity-sensitive,
and displacement-sensitive. Riddell (2007) showed that no single IM
correlates satisfactorily with response quantities in these three spectral
regions simultaneously by stating that “acceleration related indices

250 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013

J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(3): 250-260

 are best for rigid systems, velocity related indices are better for
intermediate-frequency systems, and displacement related indices
are better for flexible systems.” However, Riddell (2007) did not
classify the considered ground motions as ordinary or pulse-like, and
instead employed a single heterogeneous set of ground motions
composed of both ordinary and pulse-like records. Tothong and
Luco (2007) investigated the correlation of numerous IMs with
response quantities of reinforced concrete buildings with different
story numbers (3–15) and periods (0.3–3.0 s). They explicitly
differentiate pulse-like ground motions from the ordinary ones by
considering two different ground motion bins. Tothong and Luco
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(2007) pointed out that inelastic spectral displacement, Sdi , exhibits
all of the three desirable aspects of a proper IM, namely, efficiency,
sufficiency, and scaling robustness for both ordinary and pulse-like
ground motion records for fixed-based moment-resisting frames
with a variety of structural properties. Another study conducted by
Padgett et al. (2008) focused on assessing the characteristics of
optimal IMs for portfolios of bridges that exhibit considerable
nonlinearity under seismic loading. The periods of the investigated
bridges ranged from 0.17 to 0.32 s. The authors considered both
synthetic and recorded motions but excluded the ones with near-field
characteristics. Padgett et al. (2008) revealed that peak ground
acceleration (PGA) is the optimal IM for the considered bridge
portfolios. The study carried out by Narasimhan et al. (2009) differs
from the previously discussed research studies in terms of the
structural type considered, base-isolated buildings. In their study, the
authors did not seek the best IM, but rather focused on the potential
efficiency of existing IMs by employing a combination of several
IMs. However, Narasimhan et al. (2009) did not address the dif-
ference between ordinary and pulse-like ground motions, because
a single heterogeneous ground motion bin was considered.
Most of the previous studies concentrated on conventional fixed-
base structures, whereas few research studies exist regarding the
seismic-isolated systems. Furthermore, studies that considered the
seismic-isolated systems did not address the difference between or-
dinary and pulse-like ground motions explicitly. This may not be an
issue for fixed-base buildings where periods under investigation are
generally less than 1 s. However, for seismic-isolated systems, where
isolation periods are greater than 2 s, near-field characteristics are
especially pronounced (Bommer and Ruggeri 2002). Hence,
the correlation of IMs with response quantities of seismic-isolated
systems should be investigated separately for ordinary and pulse-like
ground motions. However, it should not be forgotten that the
earthquake hazard at any site cannot be associated purely with pulse-
like or ordinary ground motions. Thus, any IM that works well only
for pulse-like motions but not for ordinary motions (and vice versa)
can be misleading in probabilistic seismic analysis. Therefore, it is
meaningful to differentiate two types of motions in studying the MID-
IM correlation with the emphasis on the IMs that work for both types
of ground motions. For this purpose, the study presented herein in-
vestigated the correlation between existing various IMs and MIDs of
SIBs subjected to near-field records clustered as ordinary and pulse-
like ground motions. Moreover, an improved IM has been suggested
to provide higher correlation between IMs and MIDs. The results are
believed to be useful for future studies, which aim to provide elaborate
methodologies for reliable seismic performance assessment of SIBs.
Research Objectives and Methodology
The main objective of the research presented herein was to in-
vestigate the correlation between MID of SIBs with existing ground
motion IMs and to recommend an improved IM especially for SIBs.
Hence, numerous nonlinear dynamic analyses were conducted where
J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(3): 250-260
isolator parameters, such as isolation period (T) and characteristic
strength to weight ratio (Qd =W), were varied widely. Analyses were
performed with near-field records with and without a pulse-like feature,
named as pulse-like and ordinary records, respectively. The results
enlighten the efficiency of ground motion IMs in predicting the seismic
response of SIBs as a function of isolation parameters and ground motion
characteristics. Identification of the optimal IMs was performed through
various previously defined IMs, as well as an improved IM, by con-
sidering the procedure followed in the scaling of ground motions defined
in building codes (ASCE 2005). The MID was the considered response
quantity of SIBs obtained from analyses and was used to investigate the
correlation of ground motion IMs with the seismic response of SIBs.
Description of Seismic-Isolated Bridges and
Analytical Model
The investigated bridge geometry is identical to the one studied by
Ozdemir et al. (2011). It is a continuous, three-span, cast-in-place
concrete box girder structure with a 30
skew. The two intermediate
bents consist of two circular columns with a cap beam [Fig. 1(a)]. Two
isolators are placed at each abutment, and each isolator is assumed
to carry half of the tributary weight of the deck, which is 8,335 kN
(4,167.5 kN per isolator). The idealized bridge model was analyzed in the
OpenSees platform (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center
2009), as described in detail by Ozdemir et al. (2011). Fig. 1(b) sche-
matically shows the employed analytical model of the isolated bridge.
Considered Isolation Systems
The isolation systems are represented by a generic bilinear hysteretic
representation without considerations for cycle-to-cycle deterioration
of properties. Fig. 2 illustrates the idealized force-deformation re-
lationship in which Qd is the characteristic strength, kd is the postelastic
stiffness, and ke is the elastic stiffness. Fy and Dy are the yield force
and yield displacement, respectively. The isolation period, T, is
related to postelastic stiffness, kd , through Eq. (1). W is the weight
acting on an isolator, and g is the gravitational acceleration
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
T ¼ 2p W ð1Þ
kd g
The MID, Dmax in Fig. 2, is determined following an iterative
procedure in compliance with the code (ASCE 2005) requirements
for stability and strength. Detailed information about the iterative
procedure can be found Ozdemir et al. (2011). In the analyses,
various T and Qd =W values are employed to cover a wide range of
probable cases representative of typical bridge isolation systems
(Warn and Whittaker 2004). For this purpose, four different isolator
periods, T (2.5, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 s), and four different characteristic
strengths, Qd =W (0.03, 0.05, 0.07, and 0.09), are considered for SIBs
with a total of 16 individual cases. In all of these 16 cases, a constant
value is assumed for Dy, which is equal to 25 mm.
Description of Ground Motion Data
All of the ground motions considered are near-field records having
a closest source-to-site distance of less than 20 km. Selected near-
field records are classified into two sets, depending on whether
they contain a distinguishable velocity pulse or not. Records with a
pulse are named pulse-like, while the rest are called ordinary records. In
the literature, to capture the pulse-like features of near-field ground
motions, several pulse models have been proposed and various pulse
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013 / 251
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Bent elevation and analytical model of a seismic-isolated bridge in the transverse direction
Fig. 2. Idealized bilinear hysteretic loop of a typical isolator
identification methods have been employed (He and Agrawal 2008;
Tang and Zhang 2011). In this study, pulse-like records were recog-
nized by observing a pulse signal in the velocity time history, following
Akkar et al. (2005). Ordinary and pulse-like ground motions differ from
each other in terms of seismic demands imposed on the structure (Alavi
and Krawinkler 2004; Dicleli 2006). Because of the forward directivity
effect, pulse-like ground motions represent larger-level seismic in-
tensity resulting in higher structural demands. Ground motion sets are
composed of 93 pulse-like and 48 ordinary records and are taken from
Günay (2008). Properties of selected pulse-like and ordinary ground
motions are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Fig. 3 dem-
onstrates the difference between the two ground motion sets by
showing their mean response spectra in each bin.
Definition of Ground Motion Intensity Measures
Although simple and common IMs, such as peak ground accel-
eration (PGA) and peak ground velocity (PGV), are generally
employed in earthquake engineering, numerous ground motion IMs
have been proposed in the literature for seismic response estimation
of different structures. Detailed review of GM IMs and their effi-
ciency have been investigated by Ridell (2007) and Yakut and
252 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013
J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(3): 250-260
Yilmaz (2008). Because it is not the main purpose of the current
study to discuss the IMs in detail, definitions of IMs employed and
relevant references are given in Table 3. Period-independent and
period-dependent GM IMs are the two main categories employed
for classifying IMs. Period-independent IMs can be obtained directly
from time series of ground motions or computed by doing simple
calculations with available time series. These IMs are further classified
into three groups as acceleration-related, velocity-related, and
displacement-related GM IMs. Among these IMs, the estimation of
displacement-related IMs is highly sensitive to the parameters em-
ployed during record processing, such as filtering and baseline cor-
rection (Yang et al. 2009; Narasimhan et al. 2009). Therefore, great
care should be given when using displacement-related IMs. Despite
the drawback in the reliability of calculation of displacement-related
IMs, the two most common are investigated. There are some other
period-independent IMs that can fall in any of the three groups. IMs
that are in the same group have very strong correlations with each
other (Riddell 2007; Yakut and Yilmaz 2008; Narasimhan et al. 2009).
Therefore, only the most common ones are investigated for the
sake of brevity.
The response spectra of ground motion records are used together
with the period of structure under investigation to determine period-
dependent IMs. Although period-dependent IMs are considered to be
effective IMs that show good correlation with the structural damage,
the answer to the question of which period or period range is to be used
for calculations plays a very important role for the reliability of these
IMs. Spectral acceleration (SA), which is obtained from the accelera-
tion response spectrum of ground motion at certain periods as well as at
the fundamental period of structures, is extensively used as an IM in the
literature (FEMA 2003; Luco and Cornell 2007; Padgett et al. 2008). In
this study, SA is calculated from the 5% damped acceleration response
spectrum at the isolation period of the SIBs, which are specified as 2.5,
3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 s. Rather than dealing with a single period to determine
spectral values, a period range is assumed for various period-dependent
IMs to consider the higher mode effects as well as the period
elongation as a result of structural softening. Acceleration spec-
trum intensity (ASI) was first introduced by Von Thun et al. (1988)
for the analysis of concrete dams, whose fundamental period generally
 Table 1. Properties of Pulse-Like GMs
Earthquake Station Mw d (km) Component PGA (g) PGV (cm/s) PGD (cm)
Cape Mendocino Petrolia 7.0 8.2 0 0.590 48.1 21.9
Cape Mendocino FF 7.0 14.3 270 0.385 43.8 21.6
Chi-Chi CHY006 7.6 9.8 E 0.364 55.4 25.6
Chi-Chi CHY028 7.6 3.1 N 0.822 67.0 23.3
Chi-Chi CHY035 7.6 18.1 W 0.252 45.6 12.0
Chi-Chi CHY080 7.6 2.7 N 0.902 102.5 34.0
Chi-Chi CHY080 7.6 2.7 W 0.968 107.6 18.6
Chi-Chi CHY101 7.6 10.0 N 0.440 115.0 68.8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Chi-Chi CHY101 7.6 10.0 W 0.353 70.7 45.3

Chi-Chi NSY 7.6 13.2 E 0.145 47.5 50.7
Chi-Chi NSY 7.6 13.2 N 0.128 41.9 28.7
Chi-Chi TCU036 7.6 16.7 W 0.139 59.7 63.6
Chi-Chi TCU052 7.6 0.7 N 0.419 118.5 246.3
Chi-Chi TCU052 7.6 0.7 W 0.348 159.0 184.5
Chi-Chi TCU053 7.6 6.0 N 0.140 41.1 48.1
Chi-Chi TCU057 7.6 11.8 N 0.093 42.6 56.3
Chi-Chi TCU059 7.6 17.8 W 0.165 59.4 63.7
Chi-Chi TCU060 7.6 9.5 W 0.201 36.3 51.9
Chi-Chi TCU063 7.6 9.8 N 0.134 73.2 59.3
Chi-Chi TCU064 7.6 16.6 N 0.117 54.1 59.1
Chi-Chi TCU068 7.6 0.3 N 0.462 263.2 430.2
Chi-Chi TCU068 7.6 0.3 W 0.566 176.7 324.3
Chi-Chi TCU084 7.6 11.2 W 1.157 114.8 31.4
Chi-Chi TCU087 7.6 3.2 N 0.122 37.1 25.6
Chi-Chi TCU087 7.6 3.2 W 0.128 40.8 62.7
Chi-Chi TCU101 7.6 2.9 W 0.202 67.9 75.4
Chi-Chi TCU102 7.6 1.5 N 0.169 77.2 44.9
Chi-Chi TCU103 7.6 4.0 W 0.134 61.9 87.6
Chi-Chi TCU104 7.6 12.9 N 0.085 47.2 52.7
Chi-Chi TCU122 7.6 9.4 W 0.220 42.5 43.0
Chi-Chi TCU128 7.6 13.2 N 0.170 68.8 41.9
Chi-Chi TCU128 7.6 13.2 W 0.139 73.1 90.7
Chi-Chi WGK 7.6 10.0 E 0.334 69.0 35.7
Chi-Chi WGK 7.6 10.0 N 0.484 74.5 67.0
Duzce Bolu 7.1 12.0 90 0.822 62.1 13.6
Duzce Duzce 7.1 8.2 180 0.348 60.0 42.1
Duzce Duzce 7.1 8.2 270 0.535 83.5 51.6
Erzincan Erzincan 6.9 4.4 EW 0.496 64.3 21.9
Imperial Valley EC Meloland 6.5 0.5 270 0.296 90.4 31.7
Imperial Valley Brawley Airport 6.5 10.4 225 0.160 35.9 22.4
Imperial Valley El Centro Array No. 4 6.5 7.1 140 0.485 37.4 20.1
Imperial Valley El Centro Array No. 4 6.5 7.1 230 0.360 76.5 59.1
Imperial Valley El Centro Array No. 5 6.5 4.0 140 0.519 46.9 35.4
Imperial Valley El Centro Array No. 5 6.5 4.0 230 0.379 90.5 63.1
Imperial Valley El Centro Array No. 6 6.5 1.4 140 0.411 64.9 27.6
Imperial Valley El Centro Array No. 6 6.5 1.4 230 0.439 109.8 65.8
Imperial Valley El Centro Array No. 7 6.5 0.6 230 0.463 109.3 44.7
Imperial Valley El Centro Array No. 8 6.5 3.9 230 0.454 49.1 35.6
Imperial Valley El Centro Array No. 10 6.5 6.2 50 0.171 47.5 31.1
Imperial Valley El Centro Array No. 10 6.5 6.2 320 0.224 41.0 19.5
Imperial Valley EC County Center 6.5 7.3 92 0.235 68.8 39.4
Imperial Valley El Centro Differential 6.5 5.1 270 0.352 71.2 45.8
Imperial Valley El Centro Differential 6.5 5.1 360 0.480 40.8 14.0
Imperial Valley EC Meloland 6.5 0.5 0 0.314 71.8 25.6
Imperial Valley Holtville Post Office 6.5 7.7 225 0.253 48.8 31.6
Imperial Valley Holtville Post Office 6.5 7.7 315 0.221 49.8 31.9
Kobe Kobe University 6.9 0.9 0 0.290 54.8 13.5
Kobe KJMA 6.9 1.0 0 0.821 81.3 17.7
Kobe KJMA 6.9 1.0 90 0.599 74.4 20.0
Kobe Takatori 6.9 1.5 0 0.611 127.2 35.8

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013 / 253

J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(3): 250-260

 Table 1. (Continued.)

Earthquake Station Mw d (km) Component PGA (g) PGV (cm/s) PGD (cm)
Kobe Takatori 6.9 1.5 90 0.616 120.7 32.7
Kocaeli Duzce 7.4 15.4 180 0.312 58.9 44.1
Kocaeli Duzce 7.4 15.4 270 0.358 46.4 17.6
Kocaeli Gebze 7.4 10.9 0 0.244 50.3 42.8
Kocaeli Yarimca 7.4 4.8 60 0.268 65.7 57.0
Kocaeli Yarimca 7.4 4.8 330 0.349 62.2 51.0
Landers Lucerne 7.3 1.1 275 0.721 97.7 70.3
Loma Prieta Corralitos 7.0 3.9 90 0.479 45.2 11.3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Loma Prieta Gilroy Array No. 2 7.0 13.7 90 0.322 39.1 12.1
Loma Prieta Gilroy Array No. 3 7.0 13.0 90 0.367 44.7 19.3
Loma Prieta Los Gatos Lexington Dam 7.0 5.0 0 0.420 73.5 20.0
Loma Prieta Los Gatos Lexington Dam 7.0 5.0 90 0.433 86.3 30.1
Loma Prieta Saratoga-Aloha Ave 7.0 8.5 90 0.324 42.6 27.6
Loma Prieta Saratoga-W Valley Coll. 7.0 9.3 0 0.255 42.4 19.5
Morgan Hill Coyote Lake Dam (SW Abut) 6.1 0.5 285 1.298 80.8 9.6
North Palm Springs North Palm Springs 6.2 4.0 210 0.594 73.2 11.5
Northridge Canoga Park-Topanga Can 6.7 14.7 196 0.420 60.7 20.3
Northridge Canyon Country-W Lost Cany 6.7 12.4 270 0.482 44.9 12.5
Northridge Newhall-Fire Sta 6.7 5.9 360 0.590 96.9 38.1
Northridge Rinaldi Receiving Sta 6.7 7.1 228 0.838 166.0 28.1
Northridge Sylmar-Converter Sta 6.7 5.4 52 0.613 117.4 54.3
Northridge Sylmar-Converter Sta 6.7 5.4 142 0.897 102.2 45.1
Northridge Sepulveda VA 6.7 8.9 270 0.753 84.5 18.7
Northridge Sylmar-Olive View Med FF 6.7 5.3 90 0.605 78.1 16.8
Northridge Sylmar-Olive View Med FF 6.7 5.3 360 0.843 129.4 31.9
Northridge Tarzana-Cedar Hill A 6.7 15.6 90 1.779 109.6 32.9
Northridge Newhall-W Pico Canyon Road 6.7 5.5 46 0.455 92.8 56.6
Northridge Newhall-W Pico Canyon Road 6.7 5.5 316 0.325 67.4 16.1
San Fernando Pacoima Dam 6.6 2.8 164 1.226 112.5 35.4
San Fernando Pacoima Dam 6.6 2.8 254 1.160 54.1 11.8
Superstition Hills ElCentro Imp. Company Cent 6.6 18.2 90 0.258 40.9 20.1
Superstition Hills Parachute Test Site 6.6 1.0 225 0.455 112.0 52.8
Tabas-Iran Tabas 7.5 2.1 LN 0.836 97.8 38.7
Note: Mw 5 moment magnitude; d 5 depth; PGD 5 peak ground displacement; E 5 east; W 5 west; N 5 north; EW 5 east-west; LN 5 longitudinal.

ranges between 0.1 and 0.5 s. The ASI has a strong correlation with the
structural damage for short-period structures. A different period range
is suggested to calculate the ASI for different types of structures
having an intermediate fundamental period (Yakut and Yilmaz
2008). Similar to ASI, constant period ranges were suggested for
the velocity spectrum intensity (VSI) and the Housner intensity
(HI), as given in Table 3.
Proposed Period-Dependent Ground Motion
Intensity Measures
Period-dependent IMs, namely, ASI, VSI, and HI are highly sen-
sitive to the definitions of Ti and Tf (Table 3), which are specified for
the period ranges of structures for which they are considered to be
effective. When using ASI, VSI, and HI, structure-specific period
ranges need to be employed to obtain a higher correlation with the
seismic response of the structure. In this section, an effective period
range for SIBs is defined in a similar way as specified in the pro-
cedure followed by AASHTO (1999) and ASCE (2005) to scale
as-recorded ground motions to be used in nonlinear dynamic analyses
of seismic isolated systems. It ensures that for each period between
0:5TD and 1:25TM , the average of the square root sum of the squares
spectra from all ground motion pairs does not fall below 1.3 times the
corresponding ordinate of the target response spectrum by more
than 10%. TD and TM are the effective periods of the isolated
structure at the design displacement and maximum displacement,
respectively (ASCE 2005). A similar consideration is followed to
define Ti and Tf for ASI, VSI, and HI. It is assumed that Ti 5 0:5T
and Tf 5 1:25T (e.g., Ti 5 1:5 s and Tf 5 3:75 s for a system with an
isolation period T 5 3:0 s.) to represent the period range for SIBs,
where T is the isolation period. IMs denoted as modified accel-
eration spectrum intensity (MASI), modified velocity spectrum
intensity (MVSI), and modified Housner intensity (MHI) are
specified in a similar way to the ASI, VSI, and HI, respectively. The
only difference between ASI, VSI, and HI and their modified
counterparts (MASI, MVSI, and MHI) is the period range defined
by Ti and Tf , at which the SIBs are considered to be effective.
Discussion and Results
The MIDs of the SIBs, as a structural response parameter, are ob-
tained from the results of the nonlinear dynamic analyses of the SIB
models in OpenSees (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center 2009). To quantify the correlation between the MID and
IMs for each ground motion set and the isolation parameters, best-
fitted curves of the form given in Eq. (2) are utilized. The form of the

254 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013

J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(3): 250-260

 Table 2. Properties of Ordinary GMs
Earthquake Station Mw d (km) Component PGA (g) PGV (cm/s) PGD (cm)
Cape Mendocino Rio Dell Overpass 7.0 14.3 360 0.549 41.9 19.5
Chi-Chi CHY006 7.6 9.8 N 0.345 42.8 15.2
Chi-Chi CHY028 7.6 3.1 W 0.653 72.8 14.7
Chi-Chi TCU084 7.6 11.2 N 0.417 45.6 21.3
Chi-Chi TCU122 7.6 9.4 N 0.261 34.1 36.1
Chi-Chi WNT 7.6 1.8 E 0.958 68.8 31.1
Chi-Chi WNT 7.6 1.8 N 0.626 42.0 18.8
Duzce Bolu 7.1 12.0 0 0.728 56.4 23.1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Imperial Valley Bonds Corner 6.5 2.7 140 0.588 45.2 16.8
Imperial Valley Bonds Corner 6.5 2.7 230 0.775 45.9 15.0
Imperial Valley Brawley Airport 6.5 10.4 315 0.220 38.9 13.5
Imperial Valley Calexico Fire Station 6.5 10.5 225 0.275 21.2 9.0
Imperial Valley Calexico Fire Station 6.5 10.5 315 0.202 16.0 9.2
Imperial Valley El Centro Array No. 2 6.5 15.3 140 0.315 31.5 14.3
Imperial Valley El Centro Array No. 7 6.5 0.6 140 0.338 47.6 24.7
Imperial Valley El Centro Array No. 8 6.5 3.9 140 0.602 54.2 32.3
Imperial Valley El Centro Array No. 11 6.5 12.5 140 0.364 34.4 16.1
Imperial Valley El Centro Array No. 11 6.5 12.5 230 0.380 42.1 18.6
Imperial Valley EC Country Center FF 6.5 7.3 2 0.213 37.5 16.0
Imperial Valley Parachute Test Site 6.5 12.7 315 0.204 16.1 10.0
Kobe Kobe University 6.9 0.9 90 0.311 34.2 7.2
Kocaeli Izmit 7.4 7.2 90 0.220 29.8 17.1
Kocaeli Izmit 7.4 7.2 180 0.152 22.6 9.8
Landers Lucerne 7.3 1.1 0 0.785 31.9 16.4
Loma Prieta Corralitos 7.0 3.9 0 0.644 55.1 10.8
Loma Prieta Gilroy Array No. 2 7.0 13.7 0 0.367 32.9 7.2
Loma Prieta Gilroy Array No. 3 7.0 13.0 0 0.555 35.7 8.3
Loma Prieta Gilroy Array No. 4 7.0 14.3 0 0.417 38.8 7.1
Loma Prieta Gilroy Array No. 4 7.0 14.3 90 0.212 37.9 10.1
Loma Prieta UCSC Lick Observatory 7.0 18.4 0 0.450 18.7 3.8
Loma Prieta UCSC Lick Observatory 7.0 18.4 90 0.395 17.5 5.0
Loma Prieta Saratoga-Aloha Avenue 7.0 8.5 0 0.513 41.2 16.2
Loma Prieta Saratoga-W Valley Coll. 7.0 9.3 270 0.332 61.5 36.3
Morgan Hill Anderson Dam (downstream) 6.1 3.3 250 0.423 25.3 4.6
Morgan Hill Anderson Dam (downstream) 6.1 3.3 340 0.289 27.6 6.3
Morgan Hill Coyote Lake Dam (SW Abut) 6.1 0.5 195 0.711 51.6 12.0
Morgan Hill Gilroy Array No. 4 6.1 5.7 270 0.224 19.3 4.3
Morgan Hill Gilroy Array No. 4 6.1 5.7 360 0.348 17.4 3.1
Morgan Hill Gilroy Array No. 6 6.1 9.9 0 0.222 11.4 2.5
Morgan Hill Gilroy Array No. 6 6.1 9.9 90 0.292 36.7 6.1
North Palm Springs North Palm Springs 6.2 4.0 300 0.694 33.8 3.9
Northridge Canoga Park-Topanga Can 6.7 14.7 106 0.356 32.1 9.1
Northridge Canyon Country-W Lost Cany 6.7 12.4 0 0.410 43.0 11.7
Northridge Newhall-Fire Sta 6.7 5.9 90 0.583 74.9 17.7
Northridge Pacoima Kagel Canyon 6.7 7.3 90 0.301 31.3 11.2
Northridge Pacoima Kagel Canyon 6.7 7.3 360 0.433 51.2 8.0
Superstition Hills El Centro Imp. Comoany Cent 6.6 18.2 0 0.358 46.4 17.6
Superstition Hills Parachute test site 6.6 1.0 315 0.377 43.9 15.3
Note: Mw 5 moment magnitude; d 5 depth; PGD5 peak ground displacement; E 5 east; W 5 west; N 5 north; EW 5 east-west; LN 5 longitudinal.

best-fitted curves is a power function, as considered by Riddell
(2007), to represent the nonlinear relationship between the response
parameter and the IMs through nonlinear regression parameters a
and b. Eq. (2) can be rearranged to perform linear regression between
logarithms of the variables. In this case, Pearson’s linear correlation
coefficients (r) can be applied, as shown in Eq. (3), to quantify the
correlation between the IMs and the MIDs of the SIBs, where n is the
number of data points. Pearson’s linear correlation coefficient (r) is a
dimensionless index that ranges from 21.0 to 1.0, reflecting the extent
of a linear relationship between the two data sets. Values equal to 1.0
indicate a positive linear relationship, and 21.0 indicates a negative
linear relationship between the investigated IM and MID. Values
close to or equal to zero suggest that there is no linear relationship
between the IM and the MID. For the sake of completeness, it
is assumed that r . 0:80 indicates a strong correlation, 0:80 .
r . 0:50 indicates a medium correlation, and 0:50 . r indicates
a poor correlation to quantify the correlation between the IMs and the
MID. In the following sections, Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) of

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013 / 255

J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(3): 250-260

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Comparison of mean and 61 SD of response spectra

Table 3. Definition of GM Intensity Measures Used in This Study

Type of intensity measure Intensity measure
Acceleration-related Peak ground acceleration
(PGA)
Arias intensity (AI)
Cumulative absolute
velocity (CAV)
IC
Ia
Velocity-related Peak ground velocity
(PGV)
IF
Iv
Displacement-related Peak ground displacement
(PGD)
Id
Existing Spectral acceleration (SA)
Effective peak acceleration
(EPA)
Acceleration spectrum
intensity (ASI)
Velocity spectrum intensity
(VSI)
Housner intensity (HI)
Proposed Modified acceleration Modified acceleration spectrum intensity
spectrum intensity (MASI)
Modified velocity spectrum Modified velocity spectrum intensity
intensity (MVSI)
Modified Housner intensity Modified Housner intensity
(MHI)
Name Definition
Period-independent GM intensity measures
Peak ground acceleration maxjaðtÞj; aðtÞ5 acceleration time series
Ðt
Arias intensity for undamped case ðp=2gÞ 0f aðtÞ2 dt; tf 5 total duration
(Arias 1970) Ð tf
Cumulative absolute velocity (Electrical 0 jaðtÞjdt; tf 5 total duration
Power Research Institute 1988)
pffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ðt
Characteristic intensity (Park et al. 1985) Ic 5 ðarms Þ3=2 td ; arms 5 ð1=td Þ t12 aðtÞ2 dt ;
arms = root-mean-square of acceleration
td 5 t2  t1 ; t1 5 t (5% AI); t2 5 t (95% AI)
[significant duration; Trifunac and Brady (1975)]
1=3
Compound acceleration-related intensity PGA 3 td
measure (Riddell and Garcia 2001)
Peak ground velocity maxjvðtÞj; vðtÞ5 velocity time series
Compound velocity-related intensity PGV 3 td0:25
measure (Fajfar et al. 1990)
1=3
Compound velocity-related intensity PGV2=3 3 td
measure (Riddell and Garcia 2001)
Peak ground displacement maxjdðtÞj; dðtÞ5 displacement time series
1=3
Compound displacement-related intensity PGD 3 td
measure (Riddell and Garcia 2001)
Period-dependent GM intensity measures
Spectral acceleration PSAðTÞ;
h T 5 isolation
i. period; PSA 5 pseudoacceleration
Tf 50:5s
Effective peak acceleration (Applied avg ðPSAÞj T 50:1s
2:5; PSA 5 pseudoacceleration
i
Technology Council 1978) Ð Tf 5 0:5s
Acceleration spectrum intensity Ti 5 0:1s PSAðj 5 5%, TÞdT; PSA 5 pseudoacceleration
(Von Thun et al. 1988) Ð Tf 5 2:5s
Velocity spectrum intensity Ti 5 0:1s SVðj 5 5%, TÞdT; SV 5 actual velocity
(Von Thun et al. 1988) Ð Tf 5 2:5s
Housner intensity (Housner 1952). Ti 5 0:1s PSVðj 5 5%, TÞdT; PSV 5 pseudovelocity
Ð Tf 5 1:25T
Ti 5 0:5T PSAðj 5 5%, TÞdT;
PSA 5 pseudoacceleration
Ð Tf 5 1:25T
Ti 5 0:5T SVðj 5 5%, TÞdT; SV 5 actual velocity
Ð Tf 5 1:25T
Ti 5 0:5T PSVðj 5 5%, TÞdT; PSV 5 pseudovelocity

various IMs is presented in a graphical manner to compare the ef- P P P

n ðln IM  ln MIDÞ 2 ln IM ln MID
ficiency of each IM to relate the seismic response of the SIBs r ¼ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
h P P 2 ih P P 2 i
n ðln IMÞ2 2 ln IM n ðln MIDÞ2 2 ln MID

MID ¼ a IMb ð2Þ ð3Þ

256 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013

J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(3): 250-260

 Although the current study concentrates on finding the optimal IMs
for the response of the SIBs by comparing the correlation coef-
ficients between pulse-like and ordinary records, seismic response
of the SIBs in terms of the mean MIDs obtained from analyses is
also compared with the differences between the response of pulse-
like and ordinary records. Fig. 4 shows the variation of the mean
MIDs for pulse-like and ordinary records with a changing Qd =W
ratio and isolation period T. It is clear that pulse-like records result in
larger isolator displacements compared with ordinary ones.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Sensitivity to Varying Isolation Period, T
In this section, the sensitivity to the varying isolation period, T, of the
correlation of the MID with the considered IMs is studied. For this
Fig. 4. Mean maximum isolator displacement of seismic-isolated
bridges for pulse-like and ordinary records
Fig. 5. Sensitivity to varying isolation period, T, on the correlation of maximum isolator displacement and intensity measures: (a) pulse-like records;
(b) ordinary records
J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(3): 250-260
purpose, an isolation system with Qd =W 5 0:09 is selected and an-
alyzed for isolation periods of 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 s. Figs. 5(a and b)
display the variation of r as a function of the isolation period for
pulse-like and ordinary records, respectively. For the particular
isolators considered, the MVSI gives the best correlation with the
MID. However, the degree of correlation slightly decreases with
increasing isolation period, T, for the MVSI with pulse-like records
[Fig. 5(a)]. On the other hand, correlation of the MSVI is almost not
sensitive to any change in the isolation period for ordinary records.
Change in correlation of the MVSI with the MID can be negligible
under an increasing isolation period for ordinary records. The MVSI
is followed by the HI in terms of correlation with the MID among the
period-dependent IMs. The correlation coefficient of the PGV is not
affected by any change in the isolation period for both of the ground
motion bins. Fig. 5(b) also demonstrate that the PGD might be
considered a proper IM for predicting the MID of SIBs subjected to
ordinary records; however, it is the worst IM among the investigated
ones for pulse-like records [Fig. 5(a)]. A decrease in the correlation
of the MID with the MASI, MHI, and SA by increasing the isola-
tion period is more apparent. The EPA and ASI have a very close
correlation with the MID, which has a similar tendency with
acceleration-related IMs. This is an expected result because of their
perfect correlation among each other as well as the definitions
of EPA and ASI, whose effective period range (Ti 5 0:1 s and
Tf 5 0:5 s) is in the acceleration sensitive region. In Fig. 5(a), the
correlation of the MHI gets worse compared with the HI for pulse-
like GMs as the isolation period, T, increases. The period range
employed in calculating the MHI and the HI is the main reason for
the variation. Therefore, the period range used in the definition of the
MHI is ineffective for pulse-like GMs and higher isolation periods.
The SA has an acceptable level of correlation coefficients for
ordinary GMs. Although the SA results in a good correlation
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013 / 257
 coefficient for a smaller isolation period for pulse-like GMs, the
correlation of the SA with the MID of SIBs reduces sharply with the
increasing isolation period. Another inference from Fig. 5(a) is that
for all period-dependent and acceleration-related IMs, an increasing
isolation period results in a decreasing correlation with the MIDs of
SIBs for pulse-like records. However, the trend is just the opposite
for displacement-related IMs. Sensitivity to the varying isolation
period on the correlation coefficient for velocity-related IMs is
negligible, especially for PGV. On the other hand, Fig. 5(b) shows
that the change in the isolation period for ordinary records has almost
no effect on the correlation coefficient of IMs. This is because of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
negligible amount of variation in the spectral shape of ordinary GMs
in the long period range, at which SIBs are effective. As shown in
Fig. 3, the standard deviation of ordinary GMs is in the negligible
order in the long-period range.
Sensitivity to Varying Qd =W
In this section, the sensitivity to the varying characteristic strength of
isolator, Qd =W, on the correlation of the MID with the considered
IMs is studied. For this purpose, the isolation period, T, is kept
constant (T 5 0:3 s), while the Qd =W ratio varies from 0.03 to 0.09.
Figs. 6(a and b) show the variation of r as a function of the Qd =W
ratio for both pulse-like and ordinary records, respectively. Similar
to Fig. 5, the MVSI is the best IM that correlates well with the MID of
the SIBs under investigation, as shown in Figs. 6(a and b) for both
pulse-like and ordinary records, respectively. The MSVI is followed
by PGV for pulse-like records, while it is followed by PGD for
ordinary records among the period-independent IMs. Furthermore,
these IMs are almost not sensitive to any change in the Qd =W ratio,
Fig. 6. Sensitivity to varying Qd =W on the correlation of the maximum isolator displacement and intensity measures: (a) pulse-like records;
(b) ordinary records
258 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013
J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(3): 250-260
regardless of the ground motion bin. Variation in the correlation of
PGV, PGD, and MSVI because of change in the Qd =W ratio is
minimal, and therefore it can be considered negligible. Hence, the
sensitivity to varying the Qd =W ratio on the correlation of the IMs
with the MIDs is of less importance compared with that of the
isolation period.
Mean and standard deviation results of the correlation coefficient
of the IMs computed for the 16 SIBs with varying isolation period,
T, and characteristic strength, Qd =W are presented in Fig. 7 for both
ordinary and pulse-like records. There is a significant difference
between the results of ordinary and pulse-like records in terms of the
mean correlation coefficient of displacement-related IMs. Although
displacement-related IMs have an acceptable level of correlation
(r 5 0:650 for PGD) for ordinary records, they have the worst
correlation coefficient (r 5 0:275 for PGD) for pulse-like ones
among the other IMs. Although the mean correlation coefficient
of the EPA, ASI (r 5 0:452), and the acceleration-related IMs for
pulse-like records are better than the ones for ordinary records
(r 5 0:280), their overall correlation is not sufficient for estimating
the response of SIBs. This finding is consistent with the findings of
Riddell (2007), because IMs related to the acceleration sensitive
region of the spectrum does not correlate well with the response of
flexible systems, where SIBs are considered to be one of the flexible
systems. The PGV has the best mean correlation coefficient among
the velocity-related IMs, especially for pulse-like records (r 5 0:71).
The mean correlation coefficient of the MVSI has the highest
ranking when compared with the other IMs for both ordinary
(r 5 0:761) and pulse-like records (r 5 0:755). Although the VSI,
MHI, and SA have acceptable levels of mean correlation coefficients
for ordinary records, they are not satisfactory for pulse-like records,
especially for SA (r 5 0:50).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Effect of GM type on the mean correlation of maximum isolator displacement and GM intensity measures
Conclusions
This study investigated the correlation of widely used ground mo-
tion IMs with MIDs of SIBs. Hence, a series of nonlinear dynamic
analyses were conducted using near-field GMs classified as pulse-
like and ordinary GM records. Analyses were performed to iden-
tify the effects of a couple of isolation parameters, namely, isolation
period, T, and characteristic strength to weight ratio, Qd =W, on the
correlation of IMs with MIDs. Some modified IMs are also proposed
and evaluated together with existing ones in terms of correlation with
MIDs of SIBs. The following conclusions are drawn based on the
results.
• Acceleration-related IMs are not good indicators of estimating
the response of SIBs. The correlation of these IMs with MIDs of
SIBs becomes even worse for lower Qd =W and higher T.
•
Correlation of the MIDs with the displacement-related IMs of
pulse-like records is the worst. On the other hand, correlation of
the MIDs with displacement-related IMs of ordinary records is
much better compared with pulse-like GMs.
• PGV has a better correlation coefficient among the velocity-
related IMs, especially for pulse-like GMs. Moreover, the cor-
relation of the PGV with the MID is almost not influenced by any
change in isolation parameters. More emphasis should be given
to the PGV compared with the period-dependent IMs related with
spectral velocity, when both available attenuation relationships
for PGV and its acceptable level of correlation with the seismic
response of SIBs are concerned.
• The most reliable ground motion IM is found to be the proposed
MVSI for a wide range of isolation parameters with both pulse-
like and ordinary records. Although the correlation of the MVSI
reduces with an increasing isolation period, the MVSI has
a higher correlation than the PGV.
• Generally, the remaining period-dependent IMs, such as VSI, HI,
MASI, MHI, and SA, have good correlation with the MID of SIBs
for ordinary records following MVSI. For pulse-like records, their
correlations are negatively affected with the increasing isolation
period. Therefore, for higher isolation periods, the correlations of
the PGV and MVSI become superior compared with the remaining
period-dependent IMs for pulse-like GMs.
• The correlation of MIDs with IMs generally decreases with an
increasing isolation period for pulse-like records. However, the
correlation of IMs with MIDs is almost not affected by any
change in the isolation period for ordinary records.
J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(3): 250-260
• Although the sensitivity to varying Qd =W on correlation of IMs
and MIDs can be negligible, it is relatively more pronounced
when pulse-like records are of concern.
References
AASHTO. (1999). Guide specification for seismic isolation design.
Washington, DC.
Akkar, S., Yazgan, U., and Gulkan, P. (2005). “Drift estimates in frame
buildings subjected to near-fault ground motions.” J. Struct. Eng.,
131(7), 1014–1024.
Alavi, B., and Krawinkler, H. (2004). “Behavior of moment-resisting frame
structures subjected to near-fault ground motions.” Earthq. Eng. Struct.
Dynam., 33(6), 687–706.
Applied Technology Council.(1978). “Tentative provisions for the de-
velopment of seismic regulations for buildings.” ATC 3-06, Redwood
City, CA.
Arias, A. (1970). “A measure of earthquake intensity.” Seismic design for
nuclear power plants, R. J. Hansen, ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
438–483.
ASCE. (2005). “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.”
ASCE/SEI 7-05, Reston, VA.
Bommer, J. J., and Ruggeri, C. (2002). “The specification of acceleration
time-histories in seismic design codes.” Eur. Earthq. Eng., 16(1), 3–17.
Dicleli, M. (2006). “Performance of seismic-isolated bridges in relation to
near-fault ground-motion and isolator characteristics.” Earthq. Spectra,
22(4), 887–907.
Electrical Power Research Institute. (1988). “A criterion for determining
exceedence of the operating basis earthquake.” EPRI NP-5930, Palo
Alto, CA.
Fajfar, P., Vidic, T., and Fischinger, M. (1990). “A measure of earthquake
motion capacity to damage medium-period structures.” Soil. Dyn.
Earthq. Eng., 9(5), 236–242.
FEMA. (2003). HAZUS-MH MR1: Technical manual, Washington, DC.
Giovenale, P., Cornell, C. A., and Esteva, L. (2004). “Comparing the
adequacy of alternative ground motion intensity measures for the
estimation of structural responses.” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam.,
33(8), 951–979.
Günay, M. S. (2008). “An equivalent linearization procedure for seismic
response prediction of MDOF systems.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Middle East Technical Univ., Ankara, Turkey.
He, W.-L., and Agrawal, A. K. (2008). “Analytical model of ground motion
pulses for the design and assessment of seismic protective systems.”
J. Struct. Eng., 134(7), 1177–1188.
Housner, G. W. (1952). “Spectrum intensity of strong-motion earthquakes.”
Proc., Symp. Earthq. Blast Effects Struct., Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 20–36.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013 / 259
 Luco, N., and Cornell, C. A. (2007). “Structure-specific scalar intensity
measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions.”
Earthq. Spectra, 23(2), 357–392.
Mackie, K. R., and Stojadinovic, B. (2005). “Fragility basis for California
highway overpass bridge seismic decision making.” PEER Rep. 2005/
12, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
Mehanny, S. S. F. (2009). “A broad-range power-law form scalar-based
seismic intensity measure.” Eng. Struct., 31(7), 1354–1368.
Narasimhan, S., Wang, M., and Pandey, M. (2009). “Principal component
analysis for predicting the response of nonlinear base-isolated build-
ings.” Earthq. Spectra, 25(1), 93–115.
OpenSees, 2.1.0 [Computer software]. Berkeley, CA, Pacific Earthquake
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CRRI - Central Road Research Institute on 01/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Engineering Research Center.
Ozdemir, G., Avsar, O., and Bayhan, B. (2011). “Change in response of
bridges isolated with LRBs due to lead core heating.” Soil. Dyn. Earthq.
Eng., 31(7), 921–929.
Padgett, J. E., Nielson, B. G., and DesRoches, R. (2008). “Selection of optimal
intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway
bridge portfolios.” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam., 37(5), 711–725.
Park, Y. J., Ang, A. H.-S., and Wen, Y. K. (1985). “Seismic damage analysis
of reinforced concrete buildings.” J. Struct. Eng., 111(4), 740–757.
Riddell, R. (2007). “On ground motion intensity indices.” Earthq. Spectra,
23(1), 147–173.
Riddell, R., and Garcia, J. (2001). “Hysteretic energy spectrum and damage
control.” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam., 30(12), 1791–1816.
260 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2013
J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(3): 250-260
Tang, Y., and Zhang, J. (2011). “Response spectrum-oriented pulse iden-
tification and magnitude scaling of forward directivity pulses in near-
fault ground motions.” Soil. Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 31(1), 59–76.
Tothong, P., and Cornell, C. A. (2008). “Structural performance assessment
under near-source pulse-like ground motions using advanced ground
motion intensity measures.” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam., 37(7), 1013–
1037.
Tothong, P., and Luco, N. (2007). “Probabilistic seismic demand analysis
using advanced ground motion intensity measures.” Earthq. Eng. Struct.
Dynam., 36(13), 1837–1860.
Trifunac, M. D., and Brady, A. G. (1975). “A study on the duration of
strong earthquake ground motion.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 65(3),
581–626.
Von Thun, J. L., Roehm, L. H., Scott, G. A., and Wilson, J. A. (1988).
“Earthquake ground motions for design and analysis of dams.” Proc.,
Earthq. Eng. Soil Dynam. II—Rec. Adv. Ground Motion Eval., Vol. 20,
ASCE, Reston, VA, 463–481.
Warn, G. P., and Whittaker, A. S. (2004). “Performance estimates in
seismically isolated bridge structures.” Eng. Struct., 26(9), 1261–1278.
Yakut, A., and Yilmaz, H. (2008). “Correlation of deformation de-
mands with ground motion intensity.” J. Struct. Eng., 134(12), 1818–
1828.
Yang, D., Pan, J., and Li, G. (2009). “Non-structure-specific intensity
measure parameters and characteristic period of near-fault ground
motions.” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam., 38(11), 1257–1280.