Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 11, pp 5987–6008 | Cite as

Introducing a response-based duration metric and its correlation with structural damages

  • Mohammadreza MashayekhiEmail author
  • Mojtaba Harati
  • Morteza Ashoori Barmchi
  • Homayoon E. Estekanchi
Original Research


This study proposes a response-based parameter for strong motion duration which is computed for structures and is the total time they are nonlinear during an earthquake. Correlation between structural response and duration for structures, subjected to a set of spectrum matched ground motions, is employed to examine the efficiency of the proposed method. The spectral matching procedure ensures that the influence of amplitude and frequency content of motions on structural response variability is significantly removed. Four concrete building type systems are studied and correlation coefficients of structural response with the proposed duration definition are examined. Comparison of the proposed method with other existing definitions—the record-based and response-based metrics—shows about 15–20% improvement in the correlation values.


Strong ground motion duration Nonlinear dynamic analysis Reinforced concrete structures Park–Ang damage index Spectral matching Wavelet analysis 



The authors do thank Professor Julian J Bommer and another anonymous reviewer for meticulous review comments on an earlier version of this article. The authors would also like to thank all the efforts accomplished by the staffs working in the center of High-Performance Computing (HPC) at Sharif University of Technology for providing a reliable and fast platform for the required computational analyses of this project. It is worth mentioning that the first two authors of this paper have contributed equally to the work.


  1. ASCE/SEI 41-17 (2017) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings (41-17). American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonGoogle Scholar
  2. ASCE/SEI 7-10 (2010) Minimum design loads for building and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonGoogle Scholar
  3. Aschheim M, Black EF (2000) Yield point spectra for seismic design and rehabilitation. Earthq Spectra 16(2):317–336. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belejo A, Barbosa AR, Bento R (2017) Influence of ground motion duration on damage index-based fragility assessment of a plan-asymmetric non-ductile reinforced concrete building. Eng Struct 151:682–703. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biskinis D, Fardis MN (2009) Deformations of concrete members at yielding and ultimate under monotonic or cyclic loading (including repaired and retrofitted members). Report series in structural and earthquake engineering; report no. SEE 2009-01Google Scholar
  6. Bommer JJ, Martinez-Periera A (1999) The effective duration of earthquake strong motion. J Earthq Eng 3(2):127–172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bommer JJ, Magenes G, Hancock J, Penazzo P (2004) The influence of strong-motion duration on the seismic response of masonry structures. Bull Earthq Eng 2(1):1–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bravo-Haro MA, Elghazouli AY (2018) Influence of earthquake duration on the response of steel moment frames. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 115(July):634–651. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fardis MN, Panagiotakos TB (2002) Effect of immediate occupancy design on performance of RC frames at collapse prevention level. The third U.S.-Japan workshop on performance-based earthquake engineering methodology for reinforced concrete building structuresGoogle Scholar
  10. FEMA (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors, FEMAp695. Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. FEMA-356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency and Managment Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  12. Guo G, Yang D, Liu Y (2018) Duration effect of near-fault pulse-like ground motions and identification of most suitable duration measure. Bull Earthq Eng 16(11):5095–5119. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Han J, Sun X, Zhou Y (2017) Duration effect of spectrally matched ground motion records on collapse resistance capacity evaluation of RC frame structures. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 26(18):1–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hancock J, Bommer JJ (2006) A state-of-knowledge review of the influence of strong-motion duration on structural damage. Earthq Spectra 22(3):827–845. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hancock J, Bommer JJ (2007) Using spectral matched records to explore the influence of strong-motion duration on inelastic structural response. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27(4):291–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hancock J, Watson-Lamprey J, Abrahamson NA, Bommer JJ, Markatis A, McCoyh E, Mendis R (2006) An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets. J Earthq Eng 10(sup001):67–89. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heo Y (2009) Framework for damage-based probabilistic seismic performance evaluation of reinforced concrete frames. University of California Davis, DavisGoogle Scholar
  18. Heo Y, Kunnath SK, Asce F, Abrahamson N (2011) Amplitude-scaled versus spectrum-matched ground motions for seismic performance assessment. J Struct Eng 137(3):278–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kappos AJ (2005) Seismic damage indices for RC buildings: evaluation of concepts and procedures. Prog Struct Mater Eng 1(1):78–87. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Karimzada NA (2015) Performance-based seismic design of reinforced concrete frame buildings: direct displacement-based approach. İzmir Institute of Technology, UrlaGoogle Scholar
  21. Korkmaz A, Aktaş E (2006) Probability based seismic analysis for r/c frame structures. J Fac Eng Archit Gazi Univ 21(1):55–64Google Scholar
  22. Mahsuli M (2012) Probabilistic models, methods, and software for evaluating risk to civil infrastructure. Ph.D. thesis. The University of British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  23. Mashayekhi M, Estekanchi HE (2012) Significance of effective number of cycles in endurance time analysis. Asian J Civ Eng (Build Hous) 13(5):647–657Google Scholar
  24. Mashayekhi M, Estekanchi HE (2013) Investigation of strong-motion duration consistency in endurance time excitation functions. Sci Iran 20(4):1085–1093Google Scholar
  25. Mashayekhi M, Harati M, Estekanchi HE (2019) Estimating the duration effects in structural responses by a new energy-cycle based parameter. In: 8th International conference on seismology and earthquake engineering (SEE8), IIEES, May 16–17, TehranGoogle Scholar
  26. McKenna F (2014) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees) version 2.4. 4 MP [software]Google Scholar
  27. Miranda E, Bertero VV (1994) Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant design. Earthq Spectra 10(2):357–379. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nassar AA, Krawinkler H (1991) Seismic demands for SDOF and MDOF systems. Blume reportGoogle Scholar
  29. Newmark NM (1959) A method of computation for structural dynamics. J Eng Mech Div 85(3):67–94Google Scholar
  30. Pan Y, Ventura CE, Liam Finn WD (2018) Effects of ground motion duration on the seismic performance and collapse rate of light-frame wood houses. J Struct Eng 144(8):4018112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Park Y, Ang AH-S (1985) Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. J Struct Eng 111(4):722–739. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Park YJ, Ang AH, Wen YK (1987) Damage-limiting aseismic design of buildings. Earthq Spectra 3(1):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perez V (1980) Spectra of amplitudes sustained for a given number of cycles: an interpretation of response duration for strong-motion earthquake records. Bull Seismol Soc Am 70(5):1943–1954Google Scholar
  34. Priestley MJN, Grant DN (2005) Viscous damping in seismic design and analysis. J Earthq Eng 9(sup2):229–255. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reinhorn A, Roh H, Sivaselvan M, Kunnath SK, Valles R, Madan A et al (2009) IDARC2D version 7.0: a program for the inelastic damage analysis of structures. Technical report MCEER-09-0006.
  36. Rosenblueth E, Bustamante JI (1962) Distribution of structural response to earthquakes. J Eng Mech Div 88(3):75–106Google Scholar
  37. Rupakhety R, Sigbjörnsson R (2014) Rotation-invariant mean duration of strong ground motion. Bull Earthq Eng 12(2):573–584. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taflampas IM, Spyrakos CC, Koutromanos IA (2009) A new definition of strong motion duration and related parameters affecting the response of medium–long period structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29:752–763. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Trifunac MD, Brady AG (1975) A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65(3):581–626Google Scholar
  40. Wang G, Zhang S, Zhou C, Lu W (2015) Correlation between strong motion durations and damage measures of concrete gravity dams. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 69:148–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Xie L, Zhange X (1988) Engineering duration of strong motion and its effects on seismic damage. In: Proceeding of ninth world conference on earthquake engineering, pp 307–312Google Scholar
  42. Xua B, Wang X, Panga R, Zhoua Y (2018) Influence of strong motion duration on the seismic performance of high CFRDs based on elastoplastic analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 114(6):438–447. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zahrah TF, Hall WJ (1984) Earthquake energy absorption in SDOF structures. J Struct Eng 110(8):1757–1772. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zareian F, Medina RA (2010) A practical method for proper modeling of structural damping in inelastic plane structural systems. Comput Struct 88(1–2):45–53. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringSharif University of TechnologyTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of Science and CultureRashtIran

Personalised recommendations