Dr.

Mukesh Kumar
Department of Earthquake Engineering,
NED University, Karachi
Ground Motion Intensity Measures
Available Options
Damage Data of Past Earthquakes
Comparison with Existing Models
Results and Conclusion
 Amplitude Parameters
 Response Spectrum
 Frequency Content Parameters
 Duration
 Other Parameters
 Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)
It is simply the largest absolute amplitude value of the
acceleration time history. This measure is very useful for stiff
structures.
Peak vertical acceleration is generally assumed to 2/3rd of the
horizontal acceleration. The peak vertical acceleration can be
significantly large for at times.
 Peak Ground Velocity (PGV)
It is simply the largest absolute amplitude value of the velocity
time history. This measure is very useful for structures in
intermediate frequency range, such as: bridges, tall buildings..
 Peak Ground Displacement (PGD)
It is the largest absolute amplitude value of the
displacement time history, associated to low-frequency
ground motion.
 The response spectrum provides a detailed picture of
the linear response of SDF systems to a given seismic
excitation.
1.4

1.3
Damp. 5.0%
1.2 Damp. 5.0%

1.1

1
Response Acceleration [g]

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 1 2 3 4
Period [sec]
 It is an equation that helps predict the selected
intensity measure for future earthquake if the required
parameters such as: magnitude, distance, site
conditions etc. are given.
 The equation is developed using past earthquake data
and modelling it against the known parameters.
 Download Earthquake Ground Motions from NGA
website.
 Process the data to calculate IM, say PGA, using
Seismosignal for instance.
 Conduct parametric sensitivity analysis to identify the
influence of various parameters such as distance,
magnitude, site conditions etc.
 Develop Regression Model
 +
ln 𝑌 = 𝐶1 + 𝐶2𝑀 + 𝐶3 𝑀 𝐶4 𝐶5 lnሾ𝑅
Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994)

ln 𝑃𝐻𝐴(𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑠) = −3.512 + 0.904𝑀𝑤 − 1.328 ln 𝑅2 + 0.149𝑒𝑥𝑝 0.647𝑀𝑤 2

+ (1.125-0.112lnR-0.0957Mw)F +(0.440-0.171lnR)SSR +
(0.405-0.222lnR)SHR

Mw is the local magnitude or surface wave magnitude for magnitudes lesser

or greater than 6, respectively and R is the closest distance to the fault
rupture (≤60 km). F is the source term which is 0 for strike-slip and normal
faulting, and 1 for reverse, reverse-oblique, and thrust faulting; SSR = 1 for
soft rock sites and SHR is 1 for hard-rock sites and both are zero for alluvium
sites.
 Acquire the MMI intensity data from the recent past
earthquakes using various sources
 Convert the data to ground motion intensity measures
 Compare with the GMPEs from other parts of the
world
 Select the best fit GMPE for future predictions
 Date: 24th September, 2013
 Location: South-central, Pakistan
 Magnitude: 7.7
 Fault Type: oblique-strike-slip type
 Depth: Shallow
 Date: 16th April, 2013
 Location: Iran
 Magnitude: 7.8
 Fault Type: Normal Faulting type
 Depth: Deep – 82 km
 Date: 19th January, 2011
 Location: Baluchistan, Pakistan
 Magnitude: 7.2
 Fault Type: Normal Faulting type
 Depth: Deep – 70 km
 Date: 29th October, 2008
 Location: Baluchistan, Pakistan
 Magnitude: 6.4
 Fault Type: Strike Slip
 Depth: Shallow – 15 km
S.NO GMPE CV ( Khash, Iran) CV (Dalbandin)
1. Stacey Martin 2010 0.23 0.6
2. Young et al 1997 0.48 0.87
3. Atkinson and Wald 2007 0.57 0.65
4. Nath et al 2009 0.69 0.7

5. Campbell & Bozorgnia 2003 & 2006 0.81 0.44

6. Jain et al 2000: 0.91 0.6

7. Ambraseys and Douglas 2004 0.58 1.15

8. Shiuly& Narayan 2012 1.13 0.52

9. Iyengar and RaghuKanth 2004 0.63 2.99

S.NO GMPE CV (Awaran) CV (Ziarat)

1. Atkinson and Wald 2007 0.15 0.43

2. Stacey Martin 2010 0.5 0.49

3. Shiuly and Narayan 2012 0.51 0.33

4. Campbell &Bozorgnia 2003 & 2006 0.54 0.87

5. Jain et al 2000 0.6 0.6

6. Young et al 1997 0.70 0.84

7. Ambraseys and Douglas 2004 0.42 1.22

8. Nath et al 2009 0.6 1.5

9. Iyengar and RaghuKanth 2004 0.91 1.15

 Khash earthquake

Awaran earthquake
 Ziarat earthquake

Dalbandin earthquake
 Ziarat earthquake

Dalbandin earthquake
On the basis of analysis and comparison method
(Coefficient of Variation) used, it has been concluded that
the two most suitable GMPEs found for the region of
Pakistan are Stacey Martin’s Intensity Relationship and
Atkinson and Wald 2007 for predicting the PGA.