Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 5131–5150 | Cite as

Correlation of Ground Motion Intensity Measures and Seismic Damage Indices of Masonry-Infilled Steel Frames

  • Mohsen Shahaki KenariEmail author
  • Murude Celikag
Research Article - Civil Engineering


The main aim of this study was to analyze the response of structures with masonry infill walls to the intensity measure (IMs) parameters. Hence, two sets of earthquake ground motions, ordinary seismic records (OSR) and pulse-like seismic records (PLSR), were used for the nonlinear dynamic analysis of multi-story steel structures with masonry infill walls. Seismic performance was evaluated using the general indicators of damage (modified Park–Ang index), maximum inter-story drift ratio (MIDR) and roof drift ratio (RDR). The correlation between the multiple IM parameters with and without pulse-like ground motion and the damage indices of steel moment frames with and without masonry-infilled walls was determined using the Spearman correlation coefficient. Moreover, the correlation between the damage criteria and IMs was investigated. The results revealed that the spectral acceleration and velocity at the primary period of the structure and seismic parameters which are related to velocity have a strong relationship with MIDR and RDR. However, the correlations for PLSR and OSR were differed. The results indicated that the analysis of IMs with ground motion could help predict the parameters for building failure in various systems. The presence of masonry-infilled walls has changed the correlation coefficient for a fully infilled frame when compared with a bare frame.


Intensity measures Ordinary records Pulse-like records Damage index Steel frame with masonry infill 

List of Symbols

\(E_\mathrm{me} \)

Infill panel material expected elasticity coefficient

\(E_\mathrm{fe} \)

Frame material expected elasticity coefficient

\(t_\mathrm{inf} \)

Infill thickness

\(h_\mathrm{inf} \)

Infill height

\(\theta \)

Angle between diagonal and horizontal of infill

\(h_\mathrm{col} \)

Height of column

\(r_\mathrm{inf} \)

Diagonal length of infill panel

\(I_\mathrm{col} \)

Moment of inertia of column

\(f_\mathrm{tp} \)

Cracking stress of infill

\(\delta _\mathrm{m}\)

Maximum displacement

\(\delta _\mathrm{u}\)

Final deformation of building components

\(P_\mathrm{y} \)

Element yield strength

\(\mathrm{d}E_\mathrm{h} \)

Element hysteretic energy dissipation

\(\beta \)

Constant value for model

\(D_\mathrm{p} \)

Member/story damage index

\(E_i \)

Hysteretic energy


The equivalent strut width


Height of structure


Damage index







\(t_\mathrm{tot} \)

Total duration of ground motion

\(t_\mathrm{d} \)

Duration of strong motion


Ground acceleration

\(S_\mathrm{a} \)

Spectral acceleration

\(S_\mathrm{v} \)

Spectral velocity

\(S_\mathrm{d} \)

Spectral displacement

\(\mathrm{PS}_\mathrm{v} \)

Pseudospectral velocity

\(\mathrm{FA}_i \)

Fourier amplitude

\(f_i \)

Discrete frequency domain for \(\mathrm{FA}_i \)

\(\Delta f\)

Frequency distance


Difference between two databases


Number of observations

\(\lambda _i \)

Ratio of member/story hysteretic energy to total energy of story members or all stories of a structure

\(L_\mathrm{inf} \)

The length of the infill

\(\Delta _\mathrm{roof} \)

The maximum displacement of roof


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bertero, V.V.; Mahin, S.A.; Herrera, R.A.: Aseismic design implications of near-fault San Fernando earthquake records. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 6(1), 31–42 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker, J.W.: Identification of near-fault velocity pulses and prediction of resulting response spectra. In: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV, Sacramento, California, pp. 1–10 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arjomandi, K.; Estekanchi, H.; Vafai, A.: Correlation between structural performance levels and damage indices in steel frames subjected to earthquakes. Sci. Iran. 6(2), 147–155 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Krishnan, S.; Casarotti, E.; Goltz, J.; Ji, C.; Komatitsch, D.; Mourhatch, R.; Muto, M.; Shaw, J.H.; Tape, C.; Tromp, J.: Rapid estimation of damage to tall buildings using near real-time earthquake and archived structural simulations. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 102(6), 2646–2666 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kostinakis, K.; Athanatopoulou, A.; Morfidis, K.: Correlation between ground motion intensity measures and seismic damage of 3D R/C buildings. Eng. Struct. 82(1), 151–167 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kostinakis, K.: Impact of the masonry infills on the correlation between seismic intensity measures and damage of R/C buildings. Earthq. Struct. 14(1), 55–71 (2018)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yakut, A.; Yılmaz, H.: Correlation of deformation demands with ground motion intensity. J. Struct. Eng. 134(12), 1818–1828 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Perrault, M.; Guéguen, P.: Correlation between ground motion and building response using California earthquake records. Earthq. Spectra 31(4), 2027–2046 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cao, V.V.; Ronagh, H.R.: Correlation between seismic parameters of far-fault motions and damage indices of low-rise reinforced concrete frames. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 66, 102–112 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elenas, A.: Correlation between seismic acceleration parameters and overall structural damage indices of buildings. J. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 20, 93–100 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elenas, A.; Meskouris, K.: Correlation study between seismic acceleration parameters and damage indices of structures. J. Eng. Struct. 23(6), 698–704 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nanos, N.; Elenas, A.; Ponterosso, P.: Correlation of different strong motion duration parameters and damage indicators of reinforced concrete structures. In: Proceeding of the Conference on Earthquake Engineering, China, Beijing, pp. 12–17 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elenas, A.: Intensity parameters as damage potential descriptors of earthquakes. In: Proceeding of the Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Greece (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang, D.; Pan, J.; Li, G.: Non-structure-specific intensity measure parameters and characteristic period of near-fault ground motions. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 38(11), 1257–1280 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anderson, J.; Bertero, V.: Uncertainties in establishing design earthquakes. J. Struct. Eng. 113(8), 1709–1724 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Makris, N.; Black, C.: Evaluation of peak ground velocity as “good” intensity measure for near-source ground motions. J. Eng. Mech. 130(9), 1032–1044 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    FEMA-356: Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dolsek, M.; Fajfar, P.: The effect of masonry infills on the seismic response of a four storey reinforced concrete frame-a probabilistic assessment. Eng. Struct. 30(11), 1991–2001 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Road, Housing and Urban Development Research Center. Iranian codes of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings (Standard No. 2800). Fourth Edition, BHRC publication, Tehran, Iran (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    HAZUS-MH, MR5: Multi-Hazard loss Estimation Methodology, Earthquake Model. Department of Homeland security, FEMA, Washington, DC (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ANSI/AISC 360-10: Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. AISC, Chicago (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    OpenSees, Manual,, Web page.Version 2.4.6 (2013)
  23. 23.
    Ibarra, L.F.; Medina, R.A.; Krawinkler, H.: Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 34, 1489–1511 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paulay, T.; Priestley, M.: Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Structures. Wiley, Hoboken (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smith, S.: Behaviour of square infilled frames. ASCE J. Struct. Div. 92(1), 381–403 (1966)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Crisafulli, F.; Carr, A.: Proposed macro-model for the analysis of infilled frame structures. Bull. N. Z. Soc. Earthq. Eng. 40(1), 69–77 (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sattar, S.; Liel, A.: Seismic performance of reinforced concrete frame structures with and without masonry infill walls. In: Proceedings of the 9th US National and the 10th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering—Reaching Beyond Borders, Toronto, Canada, pp. 1–10 (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Žarnic, R.; Gostic, S.: Masonry infilled frames as an effective structural sub-assemblage. In: Fajfar, Krawinkler (ed.) Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, pp. 335–46. Balkema, Rotterdam (1997)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Manzouri, T.: Nonlinear finite element analysis and experimental evaluation of retrofitting techniques for unreinforced masonry structures. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Colorado-Boulder (1995)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sattar, S.; Liel, A.B.: Seismic performance of nonductile reinforced concrete frames with masonry infill walls–I: Development of a strut model enhanced by finite element models. Earthq. Spectra 32(2), 795–818 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Naseri, A.; Pahlavan, H.; Ghodrati, A.G.: Probabilistic seismic assessment of RC frame structures in North of Iran using fragility curves. J. Struct. Constr. Eng. 4, 58–78 (2018) (in Persian)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kramer, S.L.: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1996)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dobry, R.; Idriss, I.M.; Ng, E.: Duration characteristics of horizontal components of strong-motion earthquake records. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 68(5), 1487–1520 (1978)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Arias, A.A.: Measure of earthquake intensity. In: Hansen, R.J. (ed.) Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants, pp. 438–483. MIT Press, Cambridge (1970)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Park, Y.J.; Ang, A.H.S.; Wen, Y.K.: Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. J. Struct. Eng. 111(4), 740–757 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    EPRI.: A criterion for determining exceedance of the operating basis earthquake Report No. EPRI NP-5930. Palo Alto, California Electrical Power Research Institute (1988)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Housner, G.W.; Martel, R.R.; Alford, J.L.: Spectrum analysis of strong-motion earthquakes. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 43(2), 97–119 (1953)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nuttli, O.W.: The relation of sustained maximum ground acceleration and velocity to earthquake intensity and magnitude, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, the University of Michigan (1979)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Miranda, E.: Evaluation of site-dependent inelastic seismic design spectra. J. Struct. Eng. 119(5), 1319–1339 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rathje, E.M.; Abrahamson, N.A.; Bray, J.D.: Simplified frequency content estimates of earthquake ground motions. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 124(2), 150–159 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fajfar, P.; Vidic, T.; Fischinger, M.: A measure of earthquake motion capacity to damage medium-period structures. Soil. Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 9(5), 236–242 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Riddell, R.; Garcia, J.: Hysteretic energy spectrum and damage control. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 30(12), 1791–1816 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Applied Technology Council: Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for buildings, ATC 3–06. Redwood City, CA (1978)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vanmarcke, E.H.: Properties of spectral moments with applications to random vibrations. J. Eng. Mech. ASCE 98(2), 425–446 (1972)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Araya, R.; Saragoni, G.R.: Capacity of seismic motion to produce structural damage, Publicación SES I 7/80 (156). Departamento de Ingeniería Civil, Universidad de Chile, División Ingeniería Estructural (1980) (in Spanish) Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kramer, S.L.: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1996)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Akkar, S.; Sucuoglu, H.; Yakut, A.: Displacement-based fragility functions for low- and midrise ordinary concrete buildings. Earthq. Spectra 21(4), 901–927 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sang-Hoon, K.; Maria, Q.F.: Fragility analysis of bridges under ground motion with spatial variation. Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 38(5), 705–721 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Riddell, R.: On ground motion intensity indices. Earthq. Spectra 23(1), 147–173 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kramer, S.L.; Mitchell, R.A.: Ground motion intensity measures for liquefaction hazard evaluation. Earthq. Spectra 22(2), 413–43 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Massumi, A.; Gholami, F.: The influence of seismic intensity parameters on structural damage of RC buildings using principal components analysis. Appl. Math. Model. 40(3), 2161–2176 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
  53. 53.
    Abdollahzadeh, G.; Sazjini, M.; Shahaki, M.; Tajrishi, F.Z.; Khanmohammadi, L.: Considering potential seismic sources in earthquake hazard assessment for Northern Iran. J. Seismol. 18(3), 357–369 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Williams, M.S.; Sexsmith, G.S.: Seismic damage indices for concrete structures: A state-of-the-art review. Earthq. Spectra 11(2), 319–349 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Roufaiel, M.S.L.; Meyer, C.: Analysis of damaged concrete frame buildings. Technical Report No. NSF-CEE-81-21359-1, Columbia University, New York, NY (1981)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Park, Y.J.; Ang, A.H.S.: Seismic damage analysis of RC buildings. J. Struct. Eng. (ASCE) 111(4), 740–757 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Park, Y.J.; Ang, A.H.S.: Damage limiting: a seismic design of buildings. Earthq. Spectra 3(1), 1–25 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Amiri, J.V.; Jalali, S.G.: Park–Ang damage index for adjacent steel frames under pounding. GRADEVINAR 65(12), 1065–1077 (2013)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    FEMA 274:73: NEHRP, Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency (1997)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Park, Y.J.; Ang, A.H.S.: Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. J. Struct. Eng. 111, 722–739 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Naeim, F.: The Seismic Design Handbook. Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ruiz-Garcia, J.; Negrete-Manriquez, J.: Evaluation of drift demands in existing steel frames under as-recorded far-field and near-fault mainshock-aftershock seismic sequences. Eng. Struct. 33, 621–634 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringEastern Mediterranean UniversityGazimagusaTurkey

Personalised recommendations