Research Paper

Earthquake Spectra
Impact of ground-motion 1–29
Ó The Author(s) 2023
duration on nonlinear Article reuse guidelines:

structural performance: Part sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/87552930231155506
journals.sagepub.com/home/eqs
II: site- and building-specific
analysis

Kenneth Otárola, M.EERI1 , Luis Sousa, M.EERI2,

Roberto Gentile, M.EERI3 , and Carmine
Galasso, M.EERI1,4

Abstract
This study’s Part I proved that ground-motion duration could play an important role
when assessing the nonlinear structural performance of case-study inelastic single degree-
of-freedom systems. However, quantifying duration effects in many practical/more realis-
tic engineering applications is not trivial, given the difficulties in decoupling duration from
other ground-motion characteristics. This study’s Part II, introduced in this article,
explores the impact of duration on nonlinear structural performance by numerically
simulating the structural response of realistic case-study reinforced concrete bare and
infilled building frames. Advanced computational models incorporating structural compo-
nents’ cyclic and in-cycle strength and stiffness deterioration, and destabilizing P  D
effects are used. The proposed methodology relies on the generalized conditional inten-
sity measure approach to select ground motions. This allows selecting records consistent
with the seismic hazard at a target site, both in terms of spectral shape and duration.
Those are employed as input to cloud-based nonlinear structural response analyses.
Variance analysis is used to quantify the impact of duration on structural response.
Furthermore, vector-valued fragility and vulnerability models alternatively using peak- and
cumulative-based engineering demand parameters are derived. Results show that higher
damage/loss estimates can be attained as ground-motion duration increases. Relative dif-
ferences up to 44% are found in fragility median values for a pre-code reinforced concrete
infilled frame when comparing scalar and vector-valued fragility models conditioned on
average pseudo-spectral acceleration and significant durations up to 35 s.

1
Department of Science, Technology and Society, Scuola Universitaria Superiore IUSS Pavia, Pavia, Italy
2
Verisk—Extreme Event Solutions, London, UK
3
Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction, University College London, London, UK
4
Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, University College London, London, UK

Corresponding author:
Carmine Galasso, Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, University College London,
Bloomsbury Campus, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
Email: [email protected]
2 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

Keywords
Ground-motion duration, generalized conditional intensity measure approach, shal-
low-crustal earthquake events, multi-degree-of-freedom, dissipated hysteretic energy
Date received: 9 March 2022; accepted: 19 January 2023

Introduction
This study’s Part I (i.e. Otárola et al., 2023) presented a comprehensive parametric analy-
sis to quantitatively evaluate the impact of ground-motion duration on the nonlinear
structural performance of case-study inelastic single degree-of-freedom systems using spec-
trally equivalent long- and short-duration ground motions in comparative incremental
dynamic analyses. Overall, it provided the required tools to assess the impact of ground-
motion duration in large-scale (regional) seismic risk assessment exercises, as per current
practice (e.g. Martins and Silva, 2021; Villar-Vega et al., 2017). This study’s Part II,
described in this article, proposes an end-to-end seismic performance-based assessment
framework to account for spectral shape and duration effects in more practical/realistic
engineering applications, such as single-building loss assessments. Specifically, it considers
a site-specific seismic hazard analysis based on the generalized conditional intensity mea-
sure (GCIM) approach (Bradley, 2010) and a structure-specific seismic response modeling
based on cloud analyses (e.g. Jalayer and Cornell, 2009) of multi-degree-of-freedom
(MDoF) systems. The considered systems represent realistic reinforced concrete (RC) bare
and infilled building frames associated with different seismic design levels. In addition, this
study uses peak- and cumulative-based engineering demand parameters (EDPs) and a vec-
tor of intensity measures (IMs) accounting for ground-motion spectral shape and
duration.
It is known that ground-motion duration increases with the distance from the source
due to the scattering and dispersion of seismic waves and the difference in the arrival times
of waves propagating at different velocities and crossing different paths (e.g. Boore and
Thompson, 2014; Stein and Wysession, 2003; Trifunac and Brady, 1978). However, dura-
tion also depends on local site conditions, with long-duration ground motions typically
observed at sites with soft soils due to repeated seismic wave reflections within the softer
layers (e.g. Dobry et al., 1978). Hence, ground-motion record selection for seismic
performance-based assessment should adequately consider the site-specific seismic hazard,
accounting for the various sources of uncertainty associated with such hazard estimates.
An inaccurate record selection might lead to biased results in terms of structural response
and resulting damage/loss estimates (e.g. Sousa et al., 2017). This selection typically
involves searching within a ground-motion database to find records related to specific seis-
mological and site features (e.g. rupture mechanism, earthquake magnitude, source-to-site
distance, soil type) and ground-motion amplitude, frequency content, and—more rarely—
duration consistent with the seismic hazard at the considered site.
The definition of target distributions of ground-motion IMs for a given site and a
rational approach to match these targets are fundamental for a rigorous site-specific,
hazard-consistent ground-motion record selection (Bradley, 2010). The conditional spec-
trum (CS) approach developed by Baker and Cornell (2006) and improved by Jayaram
et al. (2011) offers a direct link between ground-motion characteristics and probabilistic
seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), providing the mean and variance of pseudo-spectral
acceleration (SA) ordinates conditioned on the occurrence of a specific value of SA at the
Otárola et al. 3

fundamental structural period (SA(T1 ); commonly known as conditioning intensity level)

for a given scenario or intensity level (i.e. mean return period), eventually determined
through PSHA. With the GCIM approach, Bradley (2010) extended the CS concept to
any vector of ground-motion IMs, establishing that for a given earthquake rupture within
the source model used in PSHA, this conditional vector-valued IM also has a multivariate
lognormal distribution. This concept enables ground-motion record selection conditioning
on a variety of IMs, allowing simultaneously considering ground-motion amplitude, fre-
quency content, and duration characteristics.
Chandramohan et al. (2016a) used the GCIM approach to computing site-specific tar-
get distribution of ground-motion IMs (including and excluding a duration-related IM) to
assemble ground-motion record sets for three sites located in different tectonic settings
(characterized by shallow-crustal and subduction earthquake events). Thereby, the effects
of considering duration when estimating the structural collapse risk of a ductile RC build-
ing frame were quantified by performing multiple-stripe analyses for the different record
sets, representing the structural response in terms of maximum (i.e. peak) inter-story drift
ratio (MIDR). Neglecting duration led to underestimating the mean annual frequency of
collapse for every considered study case, in particular, up to 59.00% for a site where sub-
duction earthquake events dominate the seismic hazard. Previously, Chandramohan et al.
(2016b) observed that it is unlikely to detect any influence of ground-motion duration on
the structural response at low conditioning intensity levels because duration effects are
apparent after the structural components reach their peak strength and start to strain-
soften. Thus, duration impact on structural response can be more evident at sites present-
ing high-intensity, long-duration ground motions.
Du et al. (2020) investigated duration effects on structural collapse risk using hazard-
consistent ground-motion record sets selected based on the GCIM approach, similarly to
Chandramohan et al. (2016a). However, this study quantitatively investigated duration
effects using several scenarios with varying earthquake magnitude, source-to-site distance,
and conditioning fundamental structural periods. For each scenario, four hazard-
consistent ground-motion record sets with a different distribution of ground-motion IMs
were selected (in particular, one base-duration set and three longer-duration sets).
Fragility relationships associated with structural collapse were derived by conducting
incremental dynamic analyses on four different steel building frames, representing the
structural response in terms of MIDR. Comparative results demonstrated that an impact
due to duration could be observed depending on the ratio between the mean significant
duration of two (longer/base) sets, having statistically significant effects for ratios over
1.40. In addition, reductions in fragility median values up to 20.00% were obtained using
the longer-duration sets compared to the base-duration one. Such reductions are smaller
than those obtained in other studies because records from shallow-crustal (rather than
subduction) earthquake events were employed (e.g. Bravo-Haro and Elghazouli, 2018;
Chandramohan et al., 2016a).
The problems encountered when selecting hazard-consistent ground-motion records for
assessing the impact of ground-motion duration on a building (or group of buildings) non-
linear structural performance at a specific site are complicated by the observed correlations
between duration and other ground-motion characteristics (e.g. spectral shape) influencing
structural response (e.g. Bradley, 2011; Huang and Galasso, 2019; Huang et al., 2020). In
Part I of this study and specific literature (e.g. Chandramohan et al., 2016b), spectrally
equivalent long- and short-duration ground motions were used, assuming a low correlation
between spectral shape and duration. Nevertheless, this assumption is not always valid,
4 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

especially at sites where multiple sources influence the site-specific seismic hazard. Hence,
this study presents an approach to evaluate the specific impact of duration by decoupling it
from the effect of other relevant ground-motion characteristics. To this aim, an analysis of
variance (ANOVA) approach is employed to analyze the statistical significance of duration
effects on structural response. In addition, vector-valued fragility and vulnerability models
depending on spectral shape and duration are derived to account for duration influence in
more realistic/practical engineering applications like those related to seismic performance-
based assessment.
Several nonlinear dynamic analysis procedures that use a vector of IMs to estimate the
probabilistic relationship between ground-motion intensity and structural response have
been developed (e.g. Baker, 2007). Options include cloud-based analysis, incremental
dynamic analysis, and multiple-stripe analysis. Cloud-based analysis, which uses multiple
linear regression (commonly through the least-squares approach) on the vector of IMs,
requires the fewest number of nonlinear dynamic analyses and can effectively avoid the
‘‘curse of dimensionality’’ issue (Page and Bellman, 1962) (noting that collinearity between
IMs can be a problem). In this study, this analysis procedure is implemented to develop
vector-valued fragility and vulnerability models using: (a) nonlinear modeling strategies
accounting for cyclic and in-cycle strength and stiffness deterioration in structural compo-
nents and destabilizing P  D effects; (b) EDPs that allow accounting for duration either
implicitly (e.g. using advanced hysteretic deterioration models together with peak-based
EDPs) or explicitly (e.g. using advanced hysteretic deterioration models together with
cumulative-based EDPs); and (c) highly efficient and sufficient (Luco and Cornell, 2007)
IMs able of capturing both the effects of ground-motion spectral shape and duration.
Indeed, Part I of this study (among others) demonstrated that peak-based EDPs did not
show a clear correlation with ground-motion duration unless advanced nonlinear modeling
strategies (accounting for cyclic and in-cycle strength and stiffness deterioration) were
used. However, duration effects on several structural systems were generally observed at
conditioning intensity levels producing significant inelastic deformations (especially when
approaching their peak strength and beginning to strain-soften as in Chandramohan et al.,
2016b), which in turn causes a reduction in the strength, particularly evident in highly dete-
riorating systems. Conversely, cumulative-based EDPs (e.g. dissipated hysteretic energy,
Eh ) showed a much stronger correlation since, by definition, they increase monotonically
with the duration of the seismic excitation. Therefore, both MIDR and Eh are used in this
study to represent the structural response and investigate duration influence on nonlinear
structural performance of case-study structures. In such manner, based on the main find-
ings/methods presented in Part I and the results herein introduced, the novelties of this
study can be summarized as follows:

 Accounting for ground-motion duration and spectral shape: the GCIM approach is
used to select ground-motion records accounting for their duration and spectral
shape (accounting for several SA ordinates), differently from other studies that only
account for ground-motion duration and SA at the fundamental structural period
(SA(T1 ); e.g. Chandramohan et al., 2016a). This approach is deemed more appropri-
ate for site-specific, hazard-consistent analysis. It is worth noting that the selected
target site is influenced by multiple sources that, in turn, affect the seismic hazard
(e.g. Iervolino et al., 2010). Notably, this study adopts structural systems with low
fundamental structural periods, investigating their response at intensity levels asso-
ciated with a wide variety of seismic hazard return periods. Therefore, a correlation
Otárola et al. 5

between ground-motion duration and spectral amplitudes (at different structural

periods) is expected (e.g. Huang et al., 2020; Iervolino et al., 2011).
 Vector-valued IM composed of spectral shape and duration: a vector-valued IM
consisting of average pseudo-spectral acceleration (avgSA) and 5%–95% significant
duration (Ds595 ) (i.e. [avgSA, Ds595 ]) is used, given the inability to decouple
ground-motion duration from the spectral shape at a specific site. To the authors’
knowledge, this is the first application of vector-valued IMs to account for ground-
motion duration and spectral shape in nonlinear structural performance. This dif-
fers from other studies that exclusively used scalar IMs (e.g. Belejo et al., 2017; Pan
et al., 2020, among others). Using such a vector-valued IM allows one to ade-
quately capture and reduce the record-to-record and site-to-site variability in the
structural response and, consequently, in the damage and loss estimates. This also
removes the need to derive fragility and vulnerability models for long- and short-
duration ground motions separately, as in previous studies (e.g. Belejo et al., 2017;
Bravo-Haro and Elghazouli, 2018; Chandramohan et al., 2016b; Pan et al., 2020).
 Adoption of contributing masonry infills on RC building frames: two different
archetypical RC moment-resisting frames representing actual buildings are chosen
for analysis. Each building is associated with a different seismic design level, sharing
the same geometrical layout. Moreover, two planar building computational models
are built for each archetypical building frame (including stiffness and strength in-
cycle and cyclic deterioration, and P  D effects), one model in an infilled and the
other in a bare configuration (i.e. a total of four study cases). To the authors’ knowl-
edge, the impact of ground-motion duration on RC-infilled building frames’ non-
linear structural performance has not been studied in previous literature. This study
evaluates ground-motion duration effects on bare and infilled building frames under
the same settings (i.e. including or excluding masonry infills’ contribution to the glo-
bal strength and stiffness of a corresponding archetypical frame).
 Implementation of Eh as EDP to quantify structural response: a harmonized
approach to include Eh in seismic performance-based assessment practice is intro-
duced, including a model to estimate energy-based damage state (DS) thresholds for
the case-study structures. Previous studies relied exclusively on damage indices (e.g.
Barbosa et al., 2017) to implicitly account for Eh or used peak-based EDPs when
using deterioration models that depend on Eh (e.g. Bravo-Haro and Elghazouli,
2018). The approach proposed here differs significantly and includes the adverse
effects of directly having several inelastic cycles during long-duration seismic excita-
tions, capturing better the structural behavior from yielding to collapse. The impact
of ground-motion duration on structural response is evaluated via ANOVA. To the
authors’ knowledge, this is the first application of such an approach in this context,
differing from the typical hypothesis testing in many other studies (e.g. Iervolino
et al., 2006).

This article is organized as follows. Section ‘‘Methodology’’ describes the methodology

employed in this study, namely the ground-motion selection procedure and the approach
to assess the impact of ground-motion duration on the nonlinear structural performance.
Section ‘‘Results and discussion’’ presents the main findings from the analyses based on
thoroughly examining the results. These results are also compared against relevant litera-
ture findings mentioned before. Section ‘‘Conclusions’’ outlines the main conclusions from
the results of this study.
6 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

Figure 1. Adopted methodology to assess the impact of earthquake-induced ground-motion duration

on nonlinear structural performance.
PSHA: probabilistic seismic hazard analysis; GCIM: generalized conditional intensity measure; IM: intensity measure
(amplitude- and duration-related IMs); MDoF: multi-degree-of-freedom; ANOVA: analysis of variance; NLTHA:
nonlinear time-history analysis.

Methodology
The adopted methodology (Figure 1) relies on the GCIM approach to select site-specific,
hazard-consistent ground-motion records for a target site affected by multiple seismic
sources. Those records are used as input to perform cloud-based analyses on case-study
RC building frames representing the selected target site. The impact of ground-motion
duration on nonlinear structural performance is then investigated via ANOVA, and
vector-valued fragility and vulnerability models corresponding to each structure. Details
related to each aspect of this methodology are introduced in the specific subsections.

Case-study structural systems

Two distinct archetypical infilled RC moment-resisting frames representing buildings
located in Ponticelli—Napoli, Italy—are selected (latitude: 40.8516°, longitude: 14.3446°).
Each building is associated with a different seismic design level, constituting the mid-rise
RC building vulnerability class used in this study. Nevertheless, both frames share the
same geometry (Minas and Galasso, 2019), with a total height equal to 13.50 m, a first
story height equal to 4.50 m and upper stories of 3.00 m, and bay spans of 4.50 m
(Figure 2a). Furthermore, two planar building computational models are developed for
each archetypical building frame, one in an infilled and the other in a bare configuration
for relative comparison (i.e. to evaluate ground-motion duration effects on bare and
infilled building frames under the same settings); hence, a total of four study cases
(Figure 2b). These models are intended to capture the three-dimensional structural beha-
vior representing the geometry, boundary conditions, mass distribution, energy dissipa-
tion, and interaction among structural components based on the assumption that the
buildings are regular and symmetric. In other words, the models can simulate the struc-
tural response of the buildings in both horizontal directions equivalently under an earth-
quake event (i.e. ground motion) (e.g. Haselton and Deierlein, 2008).
Otárola et al. 7

Figure 2. (a) Elevation layout of the PI and PB frames; (b) nonlinear modeling strategy for the PI and PB
frames. Equivalent diagonal struts do not apply to the PB frame.

The first building frame, termed special-code frame, is designed and detailed according
to the Eurocode 8 Part 3 (EC8-3) seismic provisions for high ductility class (EN 1998-3,
2005). These provisions include capacity design, various requirements in terms of cross-
sectional dimensions, and seismic detailing to ensure ductile global performance and pre-
vent the formation of localized brittle failure mechanisms. It is characterized by
30 3 50 cm2 columns at the first level, 30 3 40 cm2 columns at the second and third lev-
els, 30 3 30 cm2 columns at the fourth level, and 30 3 50 cm2 beams. The other building
frame, termed pre-code frame, is designed only for gravity loads according to the Royal
Decree n. 2239 of 1939 (Consiglio dei Ministri, 1939) that regulated the structural design
in Italy until 1974. Thus, the frame does not conform to modern seismic requirements and
is characterized by a non-ductile behavior due to the lack of capacity design principles,
poor confinement, and susceptibility to developing brittle failure mechanisms. It is charac-
terized by 30 3 30 cm2 columns at all levels except for the internal 30 3 35 cm2 columns
at the first level, and 30 3 50 cm2 beams. According to the above denomination, the four
case-study frames are identified as special-code infilled (SI) frame, pre-code infilled (PI)
frame, special-code bare (SB) frame, and pre-code bare (PB) frame, based on their level of
seismic design and structural configuration.
The materials’ mean mechanical properties, such as the concrete’s compressive strength
and the steel rebar yield strength, represent those adopted in Italy (Table 1). Specifically,
the mean mechanical properties of the concrete are obtained from the Verderame et al.
(2011) investigations for the PI and PB frames while being based on current practice of
building construction for the SI and SB frames (Aljawhari et al., 2021). The mean mechan-
ical properties of the masonry infills are obtained from Liberatore and Mollaioli (2015)
for the PI frame, while they are obtained from Mohammad Noh et al. (2017) for the SI
frame (Table 2). It is worth mentioning that the masonry infills for bare frames function
as heavy partitions and do not contribute to the overall strength or stiffness of the struc-
tural systems but undoubtedly contribute to losses. In addition, some basic information
on the case-study frames’ dynamic structural behavior, such as the fundamental structural
periods and the corresponding mass participation ratios, is summarized in Table 3.

Numerical modeling strategy

The case-study frames’ structural response is simulated using two-dimensional computa-
tional models in OpenSees v3.2.2 (Mazzoni et al., 2009). The gravity loads are uniformly
8 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

Table 1. Properties of the RC

Parameter Symbol Units PI/PB frame SI/SB frame

Compressive strength fcm MPa 19.00 37.00

of the concrete
Modulus of elasticity Ec GPa 26.67 32.60
of the concrete
Yield strength of the fym MPa 360.00 490.00
steel rebars
Modulus of elasticity Es GPa 200.00 200.00
of the steel rebars
PI: pre-code infilled; PB: pre-code bare; SI: special-code infilled; SB: special-code bare.

Table 2. Properties of the masonry infills

Parameter Symbol Units PI frame SI frame

Compressive strength sm0 MPa 2.20 4.20

Shear strength t m0 MPa 0.44 0.33
Vertical gravity stress s0 MPa 0.00 0.00
Sliding resistance t0 MPa 0.39 0.23
Modulus of elasticity Em GPa 2.40 2.31
Thickness of infills tm cm 14.50 10.00
PI: pre-code infilled; SI: special-code infilled.

Table 3. Fundamental structural periods and mass participation ratios

Parameter PI frame PB frame SI frame SB frame

Fundamental T1 = 0.27 s T1 = 0.80 s T1 = 0.20 s T1 = 0.50 s

structural period T2 = 0.08 s T2 = 0.24 s T2 = 0.06 s T2 = 0.16 s
Mass participation ratio 98.06% 94.50% 97.53% 91.96%
PI: pre-code infilled; PB: pre-code bare; SI: special-code infilled; SB: special-code bare.

distributed on the beams, and the masses are concentrated at each floor master node
(associated with the assigned rigid diaphragms in each story). Elastic damping is modeled
through the Rayleigh model (Zareian and Medina, 2010) using a 5.00% viscous damping
ratio on the first two structural vibration modes. Geometric nonlinearities are incorpo-
rated to account for the destabilizing P  D effects due to the gravity loads. Beam-column
end-offsets and floor diaphragms are both modeled as rigid components.
A lumped plasticity approach is used for all the case-study frames to model both beams
and columns’ nonlinear behavior using zero-length rotational springs. The Ibarra–
Medina–Krawinkler (Ibarra et al., 2005; Lignos and Krawinkler, 2011) model with a
peak-oriented hysteretic response is implemented to define the moment–rotation relation-
ship of the rotational springs (including stiffness and strength cyclic and in-cycle deteriora-
tion). The yielding bending moment and yielding rotation are determined according to
Panagiotakos and Fardis (2001), while the other parameters (i.e. initial stiffness, hardening
stiffness, maximum bending moment, rotation at the onset of capping, softening stiffness,
and post-capping rotation) are defined according to Haselton et al. (2016) (including axial
Otárola et al. 9

effects in the constitutive models). The former study is based on the results of 1000 tests,
mainly cyclic, for different RC structural components, while the latter provides formula-
tions based on cyclic and monotonic tests of 255 RC columns failing in flexural or
flexural-shear modes. For PI and PB frames, nonlinear shear springs are added in series to
the rotational ones to account for potential shear failures that may occur in such frames.
This is attributed to the lack of transverse reinforcement and smooth bars with end-hooks,
especially in external joints (e.g. Calvi et al., 2002a, 2002b; Pampanin et al., 2002). In fact,
the shear failure mode is unlikely to develop in modern frames since those were designed
with actual seismic design provisions. The Setzler and Sezena (2008) model (including
axial gravity load effects in the constitutive models) is implemented to define the force–
deformation relationship of the shear springs following a peak-oriented hysteretic beha-
vior. It is characterized by the maximum shear strength (calculated according to Sezen
and Moehle, 2004), shear deformation at the onset of peak shear strength, the shear defor-
mation at the beginning of shear failure, and the shear deformation at the axial load fail-
ure. Masonry infill walls are modeled as equivalent diagonal struts connecting beam–
column intersections to account for their effect on the global response of the case-study
frames. The force–deformation relationship introduced by Liberatore and Decanini (2011)
is assigned to the equivalent struts characterizing the behavior of infills, which accounts
for four possible failure modes: diagonal tension, sliding shear, corner crushing, and diag-
onal compression, following a peak-oriented hysteretic behavior with pinching and suffer-
ing from cyclic stiffness and in-cycle strength deterioration. The parameters describing the
hysteretic response of infills are adopted from Mohammad Noh et al. (2017), who cali-
brated them based on experimental testing, characterized by the uncracked infill stiffness,
the strength at the first crack, the displacement at the first crack, the stiffness at complete
cracking, the maximum strength, the full crack displacement, the residual strength, and
the residual displacement. Diagonal struts which connect the nodes at the beam–column
intersections are used to model the masonry infills for the SI frame. In contrast, infills are
modeled using Burton and Deierleins’ (2014) double strut approach for the PI frame. In
such a case, one diagonal strut connecting the beam–column joints and another off-
diagonal strut connecting the column shear springs are modeled. According to Burton and
Deierlein (2014), 75% of total infill strength and stiffness is assigned to the diagonal strut,
while 25% is assigned to the off-diagonal one. Such a strategy does not simulate the entire
distribution of column shear due to the frame–infill interaction. Still, it captures the
increase in shear demands in columns, thus allowing possible changes in the overall plastic
mechanism of the frame. A complete description and additional details (e.g. structural
parameters descriptions) of the used models can be found in Aljawhari et al. (2021).

Ground-motion record selection

The Ds595 , as defined in Part I of this study, is considered an efficient and sufficient IM
(e.g. Chandramohan et al., 2016b). It describes the time interval within a ground-motion
record related to the strongest shaking, influenced by the earthquake-induced body and
surface waves (e.g. Kempton and Stewart, 2006). There are several advantages when using
Ds595 to represent ground-motion duration, such as (a) it is expressed in time units; (b) it
is unaffected by ground-motion amplitude scaling; (c) it is well correlated to cumulative-
based EDPs; and (d) it is hazard-computable as various ground-motion models (GMMs)
have been proposed in the literature for such IM (e.g. Douglas, 2021).
Since ground-motion records represent the critical link between PSHA results and seis-
mic structural response, the explicit consideration of the joint probability distribution of
10 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

spectral shape and duration is required to achieve an accurate result. The selection proce-
dure used in this study is based on the GCIM approach (Bradley, 2010). The conditional
distributions of amplitude- and duration-based IMs are computed using seismic hazard
disaggregation results, GMMs, and empirical correlation models between the total resi-
duals of the chosen IMs. The ground-motion records used herein are obtained from the
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center – Next Generation Attenuation
Relationships for Western United States database (NGA-West2; Ancheta et al., 2014),
dominated by shallow-crustal earthquake events as in Part I. It is worth noting again that
duration effects are found to be significant at ratios between the mean significant duration
of long- and short-duration ground-motion sets as low as 1.40 (e.g. Du et al., 2020); there-
fore, a noticeable impact due to duration on the nonlinear structural performance is
expected in such seismicity conditions. The GMMs and empirical correlation models cali-
brated from Italian strong-motion records for amplitude- and integral-based IMs are used
in this study (Huang and Galasso, 2019; Huang et al., 2020).
As mentioned before, a target site (i.e. Ponticelli) influenced by multiple sources, each
contributing to the site-specific seismic hazard, is selected (e.g. Barani et al., 2009). Such a
condition can reflect the existing correlation between spectral amplitudes (at different
structural periods) and duration. Notably, this study adopts structural systems with a low
fundamental structural period (i.e. the correlation between spectral shape and duration is
expected; e.g. Huang et al., 2020), investigating their structural response at intensity levels
associated with a wide variety of seismic hazard return periods. Hence, seismic hazard dis-
aggregation showing a bimodal distribution of earthquake magnitudes and source-to-site
distances contributing to ground-motion exceedance are not expected for the structural
periods of interest (e.g. Iervolino et al., 2010, 2011). The target site is located over class C
soil (Forte et al., 2019) according to EC8, with a mean shear wave velocity in the first
30 m (Vs30 ) of 331 m/s. The source model adopted for the analysis is the one depicted in
Barani et al. (2009), after modifying the maximum probable magnitude in ‘‘zone 927’’
from 7.30 to 7.00 since the adopted GMM and empirical correlation models are reliable
up to this value. This assumption does not represent a significant drawback since Italy’s
maximum registered earthquake had a moment magnitude equal to 6.90.
PSHA and seismic hazard disaggregation are computed using the OpenQuake engine
(Silva et al., 2014). Seismic hazard disaggregation is performed following a rupture-by-
rupture discretization (i.e. accounting for all the independent ruptures generated by the
earthquake rupture forecast), as proposed by Sousa et al. (2017). The vector of IMs con-
sidered in this work includes Ds595 , peak-ground acceleration, and 35 distinct SA ordi-
nates within a range of fundamental structural periods from 0.10 up to 4.00 s. Using the
GCIM approach, 17 sets of hazard-consistent ground-motion records are selected for vari-
ous conditioning SA(T1 ) levels within a range of values from 0.05 up to 2.00 g for all the
case-study frames. It is worth mentioning that a 2500-year return period SA(T1 ) level equal
to 1.14 g is attained for the target site (based on the PSHA results).
The algorithm used for ground-motion record selection is proposed by Bradley (2012),
where random realizations (i.e. simulations) of the selected IMs (consistent with the GCIM
target distributions) are generated. Therefore, for each realization of a vector of IMs, a
ground motion with an identical IM vector can be ideally selected. In this study, the algo-
rithm is slightly modified to admit a maximum amplitude scale factor of 5.00 (Luco and
Bazzurro, 2007) and avoid repeated utilization of the same seed ground-motion records
within each specific conditioning intensity level. As an example, Figure 3a shows the
response spectra of the selected ground-motion records and the Ds595 distributions for a
Otárola et al. 11

Figure 3. GCIM distributions and selected ground motions for the PI frame: (a) ground-motion
response spectra; (b) empirical cumulative distribution function (ECDF) of the selected ground motions
and Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) testing for Ds595.

conditioning SA(T1 ) = 0:50 g for the PI frame. Since higher-mode effects are not likely to
dominate the structural behavior (Table 3), mismatches between the GCIM realizations
and the selected ground-motion SA ordinates below the fundamental structural period are
not considered a major issue.
The selection is repeated for each case-study frame and each conditioning intensity level.
The 40 ground-motion records within the database with the minimum misfit compared to
the target GCIM distributions are selected for each conditioning intensity level. This is
done using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov goodness-of-fit testing for each of the 37 IM distri-
butions, as shown in Figure 3b. The main parameters used in the selection are as follows:
(a) weight’s vector, equal to 0.25 for Ds595 and 0.75/36 for other IMs; (b) significance
value (a) for the KS test bounds, equal to 0.10; and (c) the number of random realization
replicates, equal to 10. More related details on the considered record selection strategy can
be found in Bradley (2012).

Seismic response analysis

For each case-study frame, a nonlinear time-history analysis (NLTHA) is conducted for
each selected ground motion at each SA(T1 ) conditioning intensity level. Provided that the
analysis outcomes are represented using SA(T1 ), this would result in multiple stripes (typi-
cally in a multiple-stripe analysis). However, the geometric mean of the pseudo-spectral
accelerations in a range of periods (i.e., avgSA) is herein selected to represent the response,
thus resulting in a cloud of points in the EDP versus IM space. This IM selection allows
having a good proxy of both amplitude and spectral shape (Eads et al., 2015; Kohrangi
et al., 2017) while ensuring efficiency and sufficiency. avgSA is calculated using the follow-
ing SA ordinates: 0:2T1 ; min½1:5T2 , (T1 + T2 )=2; T1 ; 1:5T1 ; 2:0T1 (Kazantzi and
Vamvatsikos, 2015). Figure 4a to d illustrates the results of the seismic response analysis,
both expressed using a peak-based EDP (i.e. MIDR) and a cumulative-based one (i.e. Eh )
for the PI frame. As expected, nonlinear structural responses increase as avgSA and Ds595
increase. Moreover, as suggested in Part I, the response is better correlated to Eh than
MIDR, with a Pearson correlation coefficient (r) (in log–log space) equal to 0.31 and
0.14, respectively. It is worth noting that a CS-based ground-motion record selection using
avgSA has been proposed by Kohrangi et al. (2017). However, this approach is not used in
the present study as ground-motion duration is not explicitly considered in the record
12 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

Figure 4. Response analysis of the PI frame expressed in terms of (a) MIDR, conditioning on avgSA or
SA(T1 ); (b) Eh , conditioning on avgSA or SA(T1 ); (c) MIDR, conditioning on Ds595 ; (d) Eh , conditioning on
Ds595 . Structural responses at conditioning intensity levels providing (fully) elastic cases (near-zero Eh
values) and collapse cases are not included.

selection approach proposed by Kohrangi et al. (2017), as opposed to the GCIM-based

ground-motion record selection of Bradley (2012).

DS thresholds definition
Structure-specific DS thresholds in terms of MIDR are calibrated via pushover analyses
reviewing multiple measurable criteria according to Table 4. The pushover load pattern is
defined according to the first-mode shape, as indicated in EC8-3 (EN 1998-3, 2005).
Figure 5a and b shows the first story MIDR versus base-shear coefficient capacity curves
for the case-study frames. In every case, the definition of the DS thresholds is governed by
the MIDR response associated with this story (i.e. the first floor). The selected DS thresh-
olds are shown in Table 5; as expected, the SI and SB frames have significantly higher
thresholds concerning the PI and PB frames. Structural collapse (dynamic instability not
associated with a numerical value of the EDPs) is defined in this study as reaching an
MIDR of 4.00% for the PI and PB frames and 8.00% for SI and SB frames. Such collapse
DS thresholds are indifferently used (i.e. when using MIDR or Eh as EDP) to produce the
collapse fragility models.
Energy-based DS thresholds are defined using the stable relationship between MIDR and
Eh (e.g. Gentile and Galasso, 2021; Quinde et al., 2021), as also explained in this study’s Part
I. To do so, the structural response data (Figure 6a; distribution of Ds595 and obtained struc-
tural response) are used to fit the median MIDR versus Eh relationship in the exponential
Otárola et al. 13

Figure 5. (a) Capacity curve for the PI and PB frame and (b) capacity curve for the SI and SB frame.
The colored circles correspond to the DS threshold definition (Table 4).

Table 4. Criteria used to define the DS thresholds of the case-study frames (Aljawhari et al., 2021)
Damage level Slight damage Moderate damage Extensive damage Complete damage
(DS1) (DS2) (DS3) (DS4)

Section level N/A Reaching yield Reaching maximum Reaching shear

bending strength in bending strength in failure in any of the
a supporting any column. structural
column. components.
Component First masonry Reaching yield Reaching 75% Reaching ultimate
level infill panel starts rotation in a ultimate rotation in rotation in any
to develop supporting column. any component. component.
cracks.
Global level N/A Reaching global Reaching global Reaching 20% drop
yield strength of maximum strength in global maximum
the structure. of the structure. strength of the
structure.
DSs description Non-structural Moderate Severe structural Full exploitation of
damage only structural and non- and non-structural strength and
due to masonry structural damage damage. Some ductility. Very low
infill cracking. with no significant residual strength residual strength
yielding of and stiffness are and stiffness in the
structural retained. components.
components.
DS: damage state.

Table 5. Definition of DS thresholds in terms of MIDR (DS1 does not apply to PB and SB frame)
Case study DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4

PI/PB frame 0.16% 0.25% 1.40% 2.00%

SI/SB frame 0.15% 0.45% 2.80% 4.00%
DS: damage state; MIDR: maximum inter-story drift ratio; PB: pre-code bare; SB: special-code bare; PI: pre-code infilled;
SI: special-code infilled.
14 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

Figure 6. Definition of energy-based DS thresholds from the MIDR versus Eh relationship for the PI
frame: (a) Ds595 distribution for the structural response associated with each selected ground-motion
record; (b) energy-based DS thresholds definition. Structural responses at conditioning intensity levels
providing (fully) elastic cases (near-zero Eh values) and collapse cases are not included.

form in Equation 1 and shown in Figure 6b. Such a relationship is fitted by least-squares non-
linear regression in log–log space. In this equation, a0 , a1 , a2 , and a3 are the coefficients of
the regression. It is worth mentioning that structural responses at conditioning intensity levels
providing (fully) elastic cases (near-zero Eh values) and collapse cases (not associated with a
numerical value of the EDPs as stated above) are omitted:

Eh ðMIDRÞ = expða0 MIDRa1 + a2 MIDRa3 Þ ð1Þ

Such functional form allows, from a statistical (rather than physics-based) perspective,
capturing the change in the concavity of the MIDR versus Eh relationship, which tends to
be positive if—for a given value of the MIDR—the backbone tangent stiffness of the
structure is positive, and vice versa (Gentile and Galasso, 2021). Equation 1 is used to con-
vert the deformation-based DS thresholds into energy-based ones, thus allowing one to
retain the adopted DS thresholds’ reliability while obtaining cumulative-based thresholds
in median terms, which are deemed more appropriate for a study involving ground-motion
duration. Nevertheless, relevant experimental/field data may be used to provide a deeper
confirmation of such a hypothesis. A more extensive discussion about the peak deforma-
tion versus energy relationship can be found in Part I of this study. It is worth recalling
that consistently with the common practice of neglecting the variability of the MIDR-
based DS thresholds in deriving fragility relationships, the MIDR to Eh conversion herein
is carried out neglecting the Eh |MIDR variability; therefore, Eh -based DS thresholds are
obtained in median terms.

Decoupling duration from spectral shape

To visualize how duration changes with spectral shape and whether the spectral shape
effects can be effectively decoupled from duration effects at the selected site, 100 synthetic
spectral shapes (i.e. response spectra) and their corresponding Ds595 are simulated using
the GCIM approach. Conditioning periods of 0.50, 1.00, 1.50, and 2.00 s at SA(T1 ) levels
of 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80 g are considered (12 scenarios in total). The simulations are shown
in Figure 7a for SA(0.50 s) = 0.50 g and in Figure 7b for SA(2.00 s) = 0.50 g, as an
Otárola et al. 15

Figure 7. (a) Synthetic spectral shapes and Ds595 distribution for SA(0.50 s) = 0.50 g; (b) synthetic
spectral shapes for SA(2.00 s) = 0.50 g (Ds595 distribution not shown for brevity). The percentile blue
lines are associated with the 50 spectral shapes with the shortest Ds595 , while percentile yellow lines
are associated with the 50 spectral shapes with the longest Ds595 .

example. It is worth mentioning that those figures refer to SA(T1 ) = 0.50 g only, but the
trends are consistent across the considered conditioning intensity levels.
The 50 response spectra with the shortest and the longest Ds595 are sorted into two
groups (arbitrarily named as short and long, respectively). The corresponding median,
16th, and 84th response spectra are estimated for each group. If spectral shape can be effec-
tively decoupled from duration, the above short- and long-response spectra should match,
indicating that duration is not correlated to spectral shape (i.e. any duration value can be
attained for similar spectral shapes). Figure 7a shows that the percentile response spectra
do not match, while the percentile spectra in Figure 7b only match after the fundamental
conditioning structural period. If higher-mode effects do not dominate the structural
response of the (longer period) systems under consideration, the observed relationships
between spectral shape and duration below the fundamental structural period should not
affect the results. More in general, as noted herein and according to Huang et al. (2020)
(among others; e.g. Bradley, 2011), there is a clear correlation between spectral shape and
duration (in the range of 20.55 to 0.10) for conditioning periods up to 1.50–2.00 s (i.e.
long fundamental structural periods).
This exercise shows that decoupling duration and spectral shape for the given target site
and case-study frames is not possible since the periods of the selected study cases are
smaller than 0.83 s (Table 3). In other words, it may not be reasonable to expect two dis-
tinct ground motions showing similar spectral shapes yet distinct durations and vice versa.
Thus, the approach used in Part I of this study, involving pairs of spectrally equivalent
long- and short-duration records, may not be feasible for this site-specific, hazard-
consistent analysis.
To overcome the above difficulty, the ANOVA (Fisher, 1992) is adopted to measure
the impact of ground-motion duration on nonlinear structural performance. The ANOVA
allows measuring the proportion of the total variance in the response (dependent) variable
prediction, explained by each predictor (independent) variable. This analysis estimates the
contribution of all ground-motion characteristics of interest to the variability in the struc-
tural response. Therefore, a comparison between the impact of duration against that of
spectral shape is possible. The ANOVA is performed for each conditioning intensity level,
16 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

consistently with the GCIM results, using a multiple linear regression through the ordinary
least-squares approach, including (a) avgSA; (b) Ds595 and avgSA. Equation 2 describes
the linear model to estimate the EDPs at each conditioning SA(T1 ) level in log–log space.
In such equation, IMi is the ith IM out of n, b0 and bi are the respective regressor coeffi-
cients, and e is a normal random variable with zero mean and standard deviation s related
to the error of the residuals. The proportion of the variance explained measures the impact
of ground-motion duration on this linear model; the summation of these values is the so-
called coefficient of determination (R2 ). The response variables selected for ANOVA are
alternatively MIDR and Eh , as mentioned above. It is worth noting that, for this case, the
variance is equal to the mean squared error of the regression model; therefore, the stan-
dard deviation is equal to the associated root mean squared error:

X
n  
lnðEDPÞ = b0 + bi lnðIMi Þ + e;N 0, s2 ð2Þ
i=1

Vector-valued fragility and vulnerability models

Vector-valued IMs use two or more parameters to predict a structure’s response with
higher efficiency (Baker and Cornell, 2005) than scalar IMs and attain sufficiency when
scalar IMs do not guarantee it (Elefante et al., 2010). In this study, a vector
IM = ½avgSA, Ds595  is used to derive fragility and vulnerability models. First, the struc-
tural response data are partitioned into two parts: collapse and non-collapse data. It is
worth noting that structural responses at conditioning intensity levels providing (fully)
elastic cases (near-zero Eh values) are not included in the analysis. A multiple linear regres-
sion via the least-squares approach (in log–log space) is used to model the probabilistic
seismic demand model representing the EDP median (mEDPjIM ) trend of non-collapsing
data (Equation 3) (noting that ln(mEDPjIM ) equals the EDP mean in log–log space since the
EDP responses are assumed to follow a lognormal distribution). In such an equation, c0 ,
c1 , and c2 are the obtained constant regression coefficients. The logarithmic standard
deviation of the proposed model (slnðEDPÞjIM ) is calculated as the root mean squared error
of the residuals. In Figure 8a and b, an example of the models for the PI frame, alterna-
tively considering MIDR and Eh as an EDP is illustrated. As expected, the proportion of
the variability explained (i.e. R2 ) by the model is higher when using Eh . The collinearity
issue between IMs is dismissed through Belsley collinearity diagnostics (Belsley, 1991) for
each case-study frame.

mEDPjIM = c0 Ds595 c1 avgSAc2 ð3Þ

The probability of exceeding a DS conditioned on IM given no collapse (i.e. without

including collapse cases), P(EDP.edpDSi jIM, NC), can be estimated as shown in Equation
4. edpDSi stands for the ith DS threshold expressed as an EDP. NC stands for no collapse:

2  3
lnðedpDSi Þ  ln mEDPjIM
P(EDP.edpDSi jIM, NC) = 1  F4 5 ð4Þ
slnðEDPÞjIM

Using the DS thresholds (i.e. edpDSi ) and inverting Equation 3, the median
(mavgSAjDSi, Ds595 ) of a given fragility relationship conditioning on the ith DS and a specific
Otárola et al. 17

Figure 8. Probabilistic seismic demand model for the PI frame in terms of (a) MIDR; (b) Eh . Structural
responses at conditioning intensity levels providing (fully) elastic cases (near-zero Eh values) and collapse
cases are not included:

Ds595 value can be calculated (Equation 5) assuming the data lognormality. Equation 6
provides the associated dispersion (blnðavgSAÞ j DSi, Ds595 ) of the fragility relationship, starting
from the logarithmic standard deviation obtained from the developed probabilistic seismic
demand models:

 c1
edpDSi 2
mavgSA j DSi, Ds595 = ð5Þ
c0 Ds595 c1
slnðEDPÞjIM
blnðavgSAÞ j DSi, Ds595 = ð6Þ
c2

Multiple logistic regression (Bojórquez et al., 2012) is used to estimate the probability
of collapse, P(CjIM), conditioned on IM as shown in Equation 7. In this equation, d0 , d1 ,
and d2 are the coefficients to be estimated from this regression. If a single-record structural
response caused a collapse, a value equal to one is assigned, and zero otherwise in the con-
text of multiple logistic regression (classification based on a binary approach); C stands
for collapse:

1
PðCjIMÞ = ð7Þ
1 + e½d0 + d1 lnðDs595 Þ + d2 lnðavgSAÞ

The estimated collapse and non-collapse probabilities are then combined using the total
probability theorem. Equation 8 is used to compute the conditional probability of exceed-
ing a DS conditioned on IM (e.g. Baker and Cornell, 2005). It is worth repeating that EDP
in Equations 3–8 is interchangeable between MIDR and Eh , as appropriate:

P(EDP.edpDSi jIM) = PðCjIMÞ + ½1  PðCjIMÞP(EDP.edpDSi jIM, NC) ð8Þ

Damage-to-loss ratios (DLRs) are commonly estimated empirically through post-

earthquake reconnaissance or employing expert judgment. However, these ratios are
region-specific and building class-specific, and they must be carefully selected while devel-
oping vulnerability models for obtaining reliable outcomes (e.g. Rossetto and Elnashai,
2003). Since this study involves Italian buildings, a modified version of the DLRs
18 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

Table 6. DLRs for the case-study frames

Di Pasquale et al. (2005) DSs ND DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4 DS5
DLRs 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.35 0.75 1.00
This study DSs ND DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4
DLRs 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.55 1.00
DS: damage state; DLRs: damage-to-loss ratios; ND: no damage.

suggested by Di Pasquale et al. (2005) is used. The definition of the DLRs for the case-
study frames is presented in Table 6. It is worth mentioning that the selected DLRs are
representative of all the case studies considered here, according to Aljawhari et al. (2021).
Vector-valued vulnerability models are expressed in terms of mean loss ratio (LR); in
other words, the repair-to-replacement cost ratio of the building, conditional on the vector
IM = ½avgSA, Ds595  defined earlier. According to Equations 9 and 10, such models are
also derived using the total probability theorem. DLRi is the damage-to-loss ratio (defined
deterministically or probabilistically) for the ith DS (i.e. the level of damage), while
P(DS = dsi jIM) is the probability that the DS is equal to dsi (i.e. the probability of being in
a DS) given IM. It is worth noting that the P(DS = ds4 jIM) is equal to P(DS ø ds4 jIM);
hence, Equation 10 applies for the other DSs except DS4:

X
4
LRðIMÞ = DLRi P(DS = dsi jIM) ð9Þ
i=1

PðDS = dsi jIMÞ = PðDS ø dsi jIMÞ  P(DS ø dsi + 1 jIM) ð10Þ

Results and discussion

Impact of duration on structural response
An ANOVA is performed for each conditioning intensity level considered within the
GCIM approach and each case-study frame. In Figure 9a to d, the proportion of the var-
iance explained for regression models conditioned on avgSA and ½avgSA, Ds595  is illu-
strated for the PI and SI frames, respectively (the results are consistent among all the case-
study frames, other outcomes are not shown for brevity). It is worth mentioning that for
low levels of the conditioning SA(T1 ), implying elastic response, the structural response
shows a particularly low record-to-record variability (confirming that the case studies are
first-mode dominated). At such levels, the ANOVA test fails to effectively predict the
variability in the structural response, as confirmed via the hypothesis test on the statistical
significance of the regressor coefficients (e.g. Kass et al., 1974), with p-values above the
typical threshold of 0.05 (i.e. choosing an I-type risk, equal to 0.05) for a 95% of signifi-
cance, in both avgSA and Ds595 (i.e. the independent variables of the regression models).
Therefore, the ANOVA for the indicated intensity levels (i.e. below SA(T1 ) = 0.30 and
0.37 g for the PI and SI frames, respectively) is neglected in the subsequent discussion.
Overall, ground-motion duration impacts structural response based on the differences
observed between the estimated curves conditioning on avgSA or ½avgSA, Ds595 , and its
proportion of explained variance depends on the adopted EDP. It is shown that Ds595 is
better correlated with cumulative-based EDPs, as evidenced by the increased proportion
of variance explained by this IM when using Eh , as also observed in Barbosa et al. (2017)
Otárola et al. 19

Figure 9. ANOVA for the case-study frames per SA(T1 ) level for (a) PI frame in terms of MIDR; (b) PI
frame in terms of Eh ; (c) SI frame in terms of MIDR; and (d) SI frame in terms of Eh .

or Belejo et al. (2017), for example. As a result, it is expected that the response variability
is reduced when including duration-related IMs, and when including EDPs that are well
correlated to duration. It is noted that the proportions of variance explained are margin-
ally affected using one or another EDP for models conditioning on avgSA, with discrepan-
cies of about 1.00% or less in median terms. When duration (i.e. Ds595 ) is included in the
models, Eh outperformed MIDR by being an efficient proxy to capture duration cumula-
tive effects in the structural response. Notably, this agrees with the results introduced in
Part I (among other previous studies; e.g. Belejo et al., 2017; Pan et al., 2020), which exhib-
ited a high correlation between IM and structural response when cumulative-based EDPs
are used, as opposed to peak-based ones. This can be intuitively inferred from the defini-
tion of Eh since it depends on (and reflects) the response of every structural component on
a cumulative basis, whereas when using MIDR, the level of damage depends on a maxi-
mum/peak global response.
For the PI frame, the proportion of variance explained by avgSA is considerably lower
compared with the variance explained by ½avgSA, Ds595 ; in median terms, approximately
15.15% using MIDR and 32.58% using Eh . This confirms that a combination of ampli-
tude- and duration-related IMs can better estimate the structural response of the consid-
ered frames. Such behavior is particularly apparent when using Eh because the cumulative
damage process associated with long-duration ground motions is better represented by this
EDP. It is worth noting that the response, in terms of both the considered EDPs, can be
equally explained when conditioning on avgSA only, with a 1.04% difference in median
terms. For the SI frame, the proportion of variance explained by avgSA is similar to the
20 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

variance explained by ½avgSA, Ds595 ; in median terms, approximately 6.44% lower using
MIDR and 16.71% lower using Eh . Again, the response, in terms of both the considered
EDPs, can be equally explained when conditioning on avgSA only, with a 0.18% difference
in median terms. Hence, it is clear that ground-motion duration can effectively impact the
nonlinear structural performance of the considered case studies. The above results agree
well with those described in Part I, where duration effects are especially significant for
highly deteriorating structural systems (i.e. for the PI frame). Moreover, minor discrepan-
cies at low-intensity levels are found in terms of MIDR since duration effects are apparent
when a structure reaches its peak strength and starts to strain-soften using this EDP, as
observed in Part I and past investigations (e.g. Chandramohan et al., 2016b). Nevertheless,
significant discrepancies are found at low-intensity levels for Eh since duration effects are
apparent immediately after the yielding strength for this EDP, agreeing with the findings
made in Part I also. It is worth mentioning that for a special-code structure, the differences
in the response variability are much lower (but still significant) than those exhibited for a
pre-code structure when using peak- or cumulative-based EDPs. This is because several
inelastic cycles can occur in highly ductile structural systems (i.e. SI frame), causing the
steady ratcheting of drifts. Since the adopted hysteretic models present a twofold dete-
rioration behavior based on Eh (i.e. causing both strength and stiffness deterioration), it is
expected that MIDR approximates the Eh proportion of the variance explained under a
gradual structural hysteric deterioration.

Vector-valued fragility models

The general trend observed when deriving vector-valued fragility and vulnerability models
is their strong dependence on the selected EDP, confirming the ANOVA results. When
expressing the fragility models in terms of MIDR, the ground-motion duration effects are
apparent only at high avgSA levels. In contrast, for the fragility models in terms of Eh , the
impact of duration can be noticed at lower avgSA levels. For the PI frame, duration effects
are evident at a wide range of intensity levels, confirming that duration can be important
in highly deteriorating structures, also strengthening the results in Part I of this study.
Similar behavior is noticed for the SI frame, yet to a lesser degree (at high-intensity levels).
In Figure 10a and b, a comparison of the DS4 fragility model is derived by expressing
structural response in terms of MIDR and Eh is shown, specifically for the PI and SI
frames. It is worth noting that the observed differences in fragility and vulnerability esti-
mates are statistically significant. This is corroborated by hypothesis testing on the signifi-
cance of the probabilistic seismic demand models’ regression coefficients, assuming that
those are equal to zero as the null hypothesis while being different from zero as the alter-
native hypothesis, with a 95% significance level (i.e. choosing an I-type risk, equal to
0.05). Given that the obtained p-values are smaller than the conventional threshold of
0.05, the outcomes are considered statistically significant (e.g. Neter et al., 1996). Those
observations can be propagated to the vulnerability models since the total probability the-
orem is used.
When using the MIDR as an EDP, significant duration effects are expected only if the
structural components undergo cyclic deterioration or strain-softening since they are only
indirectly captured by the computational (i.e. numerical) model. For the PI frame, expres-
sing the response in terms of MIDR yields larger fragility median values for any combina-
tion of avgSA and Ds595 , concerning the results in Eh terms (Figure 10a). Considerable
probability of exceedance DS4 (and other DSs in general) is expected even for relatively
short-duration ground motions (i.e. durations up to approximately Ds595 = 25 s) at avgSA
Otárola et al. 21

Figure 10. Comparison of DS4 fragility models in MIDR and Eh terms for (a) PI frame; (b) SI frame. The
gridded opaque surfaces correspond to the models in terms of MIDR, and the non-gridded translucent
surfaces correspond to the models in terms of Eh .

levels above ;0.50 g. This is expected, given the low ductility and energy dissipation capac-
ity of this system, in turn, due to its poor structural detailing. Conversely, the SI frame’s
structural capacity is high enough not to cause structural collapse (unless reaching particu-
larly high-intensity levels). Therefore, duration effects are negligible even at very high
avgSA levels, up to ;1.00 g (Figure 10b). Nevertheless, a more apparent influence of dura-
tion is observed when using Eh at comparatively lower avgSA levels, although such effect is
relatively small. It is important to stress that, conceptually, structures with higher energy
dissipation capacity can be more affected by cumulative damage due to duration; however,
at least for the SI frame, this occurs at unrealistic or infrequent intensity levels (both in
terms of ground-motion amplitude and duration).
To better observe how the fragility varies with duration, fragility relationships condi-
tioned on a scalar (i.e. avgSA only) and a vector-valued IM (i.e. ½Ds595 , avgSA) are com-
pared for the PI frame for the two selected EDPs (Figure 11a and b). The scalar fragility
relationship is derived using a similar approach as the one described in this study, but condi-
tioning on avgSA only. The vector-valued fragility relationships are simply cuts of the fragi-
lity model shown in Figure 10a for arbitrarily selected Ds595 values. It is noted that
duration exerts a critical influence even for DSs as low as DS1, but the fragility median val-
ues can be larger or smaller depending on the conditioning value of Ds595 as observed
before. For instance, by expressing the structural response in MIDR terms, the DS4 vector-
valued fragility median value is 39.54% lower—when conditioning on avgSA and
Ds595 = 35 s—(38.02% larger—when conditioning on avgSA and Ds595 = 5 s) than the
scalar fragility median value—when conditioning on avgSA only. When the fragility model
is expressed in terms of Eh , the fragility grows faster with the avgSA and Ds595 levels, pro-
viding lower fragility median values in comparison with the MIDR-based models (Table 7),
even for short-duration ground motions (e.g. Ds595 = 20 s). This confirms the results in
Part I of this study; when using MIDR as EDP, the fragility relationships associated with
DS3 and DS4 are greatly affected by ground-motion duration, while a minor/modest impact
is registered for DS1 and DS2. However, when using Eh as an EDP, the fragility relation-
ships for all the DSs are significantly impacted by duration, mainly for higher DSs when the
structures approach their peak strength (or deformation).
Finally, Figure 12a and b shows a comparison between the Eh -based fragility models of
the building frames in the infilled and bare configurations. It is worth mentioning that the
22 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

Figure 11. Fragility relationships conditioned on Ds595 values for the PI frame in terms of (a) MIDR;
(b) Eh . The continuous fragility curves neglect duration.

Table 7. Fragility relationship parameters conditioning on avgSA and Ds595 values for the PI frame
(relative difference estimated using mavgSA j DS in terms of MIDR as benchmark case per each DS)
DSs EDPs mavgSA j DS mavgSA j DS, 35s mavgSA j DS, 20s mavgSA j DS, 5s

DS1 MIDR 0.28 0.23 0.25 0.32

Rel. diff. (%) 0.00 218.05 29.75 14.44
Eh 0.25 0.18 0.21 0.28
Rel. diff. (%) 28.30 236.10 223.83 2.17
DS2 MIDR 0.37 0.30 0.33 0.42
Rel. diff. (%) 0.00 218.50 210.19 13.94
Eh 0.36 0.26 0.31 0.47
Rel. diff. (%) 24.29 231.10 217.96 25.47
DS3 MIDR 1.39 0.92 1.16 1.77
Rel. diff. (%) 0.00 233.81 216.33 27.70
Eh 1.31 0.82 1.03 1.69
Rel. diff. (%) 25.90 240.86 225.97 21.65
DS4 MIDR 1.58 0.95 1.26 2.18
Rel. diff. (%) 0.00 239.54 220.41 38.02
Eh 1.44 0.88 1.13 1.94
Rel. diff. (%) 28.87 243.98 228.45 23.00
PI: pre-code infilled; MIDR: maximum inter-story drift ratio; DS: damage state; EDP: engineering demand parameter.

masonry infills positively affect the fragility (higher fragility median values) both for the
pre-code and the special-code frames. Although this is expected for the modern SI frame,
such a positive effect of the infills for the bare frame indicates the absence of local effects
(e.g. triggering of column shear failures) for the PI frame. In terms of duration, it is clear
that duration impact is more apparent in the bare frames than in the infilled counterparts
since their structural response is comparatively more influenced at low-to-moderate avgSA
levels. Specifically, for the PB frame, it is noticed that duration effects can be neglected for
an intensity level above ;0.50 g since a complete probability of exceedance DS4 (i.e. prob-
ability of exceedance DS4 equal to one) is achieved.
Otárola et al. 23

Figure 12. Comparison of DS4 fragility models in Eh terms for (a) PI frame versus PB frame; (b) SI
frame versus SB frame. The gridded opaque surfaces correspond to the models for infilled frames, and
the non-gridded translucent surfaces over the previous correspond to the models for bare frames.

Figure 13. Comparison of vulnerability models in MIDR and Eh terms for (a) PI frame; (b) SI frame. The
gridded opaque surfaces correspond to the models in terms of MIDR, and the non-gridded translucent
surfaces over the previous correspond to the models in terms of Eh .

Vector-valued vulnerability models

As highlighted by the comparisons above in terms of fragility models, the LR is also
strongly influenced by duration. Observing the vulnerability models for the PI (Figure 13a)
and SI frame (Figure 13b), it is clear that accounting for duration explicitly (i.e. using Eh )
provides a more insightful representation of the structural vulnerability as direct propaga-
tion from fragility results. For both case studies, for long (short) ground motions, the LR
is generally higher (lower) than the results obtained neglecting duration effects (Table 8). If
MIDR is used to assess the impact of duration on modern buildings as the SI frame, the
differences in the LR can be considered negligible for an avgSA level below ;1.00 g, while
using Eh can yield substantial differences in the LR, noticing a significant impact for an
avgSA level from about ;0.80 g. It is worth mentioning again that the effect of ground-
motion duration is more apparent for the PI frame since its peak strength can be achieved
for moderate intensity levels, as opposed to the SI frame for the analyzed scenario.
To better understand the impact of ground-motion duration on vulnerability, a plot of
the vulnerability relationships is developed using a scalar (i.e. avgSA only), and a vector-
24 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

Table 8. Vulnerability relationship values conditioning on avgSA and Ds595 for the PI frame (relative
difference estimated using LRavgSA in terms of MIDR as benchmark case per each avgSA level)
avgSA level (g) EDPs LRavgSA LRavgSA, 35s LRavgSA, 20s LRavgSA, 5s

0.5 MIDR 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.07

Rel. diff. (%) 0.00 39.02 15.85 210.98
Eh 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.06
Rel. diff. (%) 2.44 50.00 21.95 223.17
1.0 MIDR 0.19 0.64 0.30 0.11
Rel. diff. (%) 0.00 230.77 56.41 242.56
Eh 0.25 0.78 0.44 0.12
Rel. diff. (%) 27.69 302.05 125.64 240.51
1.5 MIDR 0.57 0.97 0.84 0.26
Rel. diff. (%) 0.00 71.38 48.06 254.42
Eh 0.65 0.99 0.94 0.32
Rel. diff. (%) 14.31 75.62 65.37 243.46
PI: pre-code infilled; MIDR: maximum inter-story drift ratio; EDP: engineering demand parameter.

Figure 14. Vulnerability relationships conditioning on avgSA and Ds595 values for the PI frame in terms
of (a) MIDR; (b) Eh . The black vulnerability curve neglects duration.

valued IM (i.e. ½Ds595 , avgSA) is shown in Figure 14a and b for comparison purposes (see
LR values for different avgSA levels in Table 8). These vulnerability relationships are
obtained through the total probability theorem using the fragility relationships described
above (i.e. as outlined in the previous subsection) and a suitable damage-to-loss model.
The discrepancies between the scalar and vector-valued vulnerability relationships are
negligible—for engineering purposes—for low avgSA levels generally corresponding to an
elastic response (see Figure 5 for the definition of the yielding points). The LR increases
monotonically with Ds595 , leading to LR values that can be lower or higher than those
predicted by a scalar vulnerability relationship, both in terms of MIDR or Eh (e.g. an LR
230.77% higher is attained when conditioning on both avgSA and Ds595 = 35 s rather than
conditioning on avgSA only, by expressing structural response in MIDR terms).
Finally, masonry infills positively affect the structural vulnerability (reduce the LR for
a given avgSA level). In Figure 15a and b, a comparison between vulnerability models of
the building frames in infilled and bare configurations is shown. It is observed that the PB
frame can achieve an LR = 1.00 for an avgSA level as low as ;0.50 g even at Ds595
Otárola et al. 25

Figure 15. Comparison of vulnerability models in Eh terms for (a) PI frame versus PB frame and (b) SI
frame versus SB frame. The gridded opaque surfaces correspond to the models for the infilled frames,
and the non-gridded translucent surfaces over the previous correspond to the models for the bare
frames.

moderate values, while the SB frame can achieve an LR . 0.70 for an avgSA level of
;1.00 g at high Ds595 values. The previous is directly propagated from fragility results.
For the PB frame, duration impact can be neglected for avgSA levels above ;0.50 g since
ground-motion amplitude fully controls the state of damage of this structure. For the
other case-study frames, duration impact can be neglected for avgSA levels below ;0.50 g,
given the low ground-motion amplitude. This result agrees with previous literature where
duration effects are evident at high-intensity levels and vice versa, particularly for modern
building structures.

Conclusions
This article describes an end-to-end seismic performance-based assessment framework to
account for ground-motion duration effects in practical/realistic engineering applications,
relying on site- and building-specific analyses. Specifically, two archetype RC moment-
resisting building frames, representative of different seismic design levels, are selected and
used in an infilled and a bare configuration (four case-study frames in total) to perform
cloud-based NLTHAs. The analysis results are used (1) to assess ground-motion dura-
tion’s impact on the structural response variability via ANOVA and (2) to derive vector-
valued fragility and vulnerability models, accounting for spectral shape and duration.
The ANOVA allows estimating the contribution of ground-motion duration and spectral
shape to the variability in the structural response. However, it is observed that the proportion
of variance explained in the regression models conditioned on avgSA and Ds595 is higher
using Eh rather than MIDR. However, it is noted that the differences in the proportion of
variance explained in the regression models conditioned on avgSA (only) are negligible when
using Eh or MIDR. Thus, Eh is considered much more efficient than MIDR by explicitly
including duration as IM. Notably, duration effects on structural response are more apparent
for highly deteriorating pre-code frames at moderate- to high-intensity levels.
The vector-valued fragility and vulnerability model results agreed with the findings
made in Part I. In such regard, as duration increases, the probability of exceeding a DS
for a given avgSA level also increases (i.e. lower fragility median values are obtained) and
DSs less severe than collapse are impacted by ground-motion duration. Both the fragility
and vulnerability models exhibit a monotonic trend when avgSA and Ds595 levels increase,
26 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

indicating that duration can actually impact damage/loss estimates, especially using Eh .
Overall, it is confirmed that duration impact is more apparent at high avgSA levels than at
low levels, agreeing also with previous literature (e.g. Chandramohan et al., 2016b).
In general, Eh can be considered a better structural performance indicator when dealing
with structures prone to damage accumulation. It is worth mentioning that the derived
fragility and vulnerability models in energy terms are based on converting deformation-
based DS thresholds into energy-based ones; therefore, it retains the confidence of widely
accepted and calibrated deformation-based DS thresholds. Although the results of this
article show that Eh is a superior proxy for damage accumulation, relevant experimental
data confirming the energy-based DS thresholds are needed to validate the energy-based
fragility predictions.
Overall, ground-motion duration was found to provide a non-negligible impact on the
nonlinear structural performance of the analyzed case-study frames. Hence, it is concluded
that duration should be included in the current seismic performance-based and seismic risk
assessment practice. This is better done by considering a hazard-consistent ground-motion
record selection and defining the fragility (and thus vulnerability) modeling using vector-
valued IMs (e.g. ½Ds595 , avgSA) and cumulative-based EDPs (e.g. Eh ), explicitly captur-
ing the damage accumulation of a particular structural system.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article.

Funding
This research has been developed within the framework of the project ‘‘Dipartimenti di Eccellenza,’’
funded by the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research at IUSS Pavia. Verisk—
Extreme Event Solutions—London office is gratefully acknowledged. R.G. has received funding
from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant no. 843794).

ORCID iDs
Kenneth Otárola https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5425-4423
Roberto Gentile https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7682-4490

References
Aljawhari K, Gentile R, Freddi F and Galasso C (2021) Effects of ground-motion sequences on
fragility and vulnerability of case-study reinforced concrete frames. Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering 19: 6329–6359.
Ancheta TD, Darragh RB, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Silva WJ, Chiou BSJ, Wooddell KE, Graves RW,
Kottke AR, Boore DM, Kishida T and Donahue JL (2014) NGA-West2 database. Earthquake
Spectra 30(3): 989–1005.
Baker JW (2007) Probabilistic structural response assessment using vector-valued intensity measures.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 36(13): 1861–1883.
Baker JW and Cornell CA (2005) A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of
spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 34(10):
1193–1217.
Otárola et al. 27

Baker JW and Cornell CA (2006) Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 35(9): 1077–1095.
Barani S, Spallarossa D and Bazzurro P (2009) Disaggregation of probabilistic ground-motion
Hazard in Italy. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 99(5): 2638–2661.
Barbosa AR, Ribeiro FLA and Neves LAC (2017) Influence of earthquake ground-motion duration
on damage estimation: Application to steel moment resisting frames. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 46(1): 27–49.
Belejo A, Barbosa AR and Bento R (2017) Influence of ground motion duration on damage index-
based fragility assessment of a plan-asymmetric non-ductile reinforced concrete building.
Engineering Structures 151: 682–703.
Belsley DA (1991) A guide to using the collinearity diagnostics. Computer Science in Economics and
Management 4(1): 33–50.
Bojórquez E, Iervolino I, Reyes-Salazar A and Ruiz SE (2012) Comparing vector-valued intensity
measures for fragility analysis of steel frames in the case of narrow-band ground motions.
Engineering Structures 45: 472–480.
Boore DM and Thompson EM (2014) Path durations for use in the stochastic-method simulation of
ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 104(5): 2541–2552.
Bradley BA (2010) A generalized conditional intensity measure approach and holistic ground-motion
selection. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 39(12): 1321–1342.
Bradley BA (2011) Correlation of significant duration with amplitude and cumulative intensity
measures and its use in ground motion selection. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 15(6):
809–832.
Bradley BA (2012) A ground motion selection algorithm based on the generalized conditional
intensity measure approach. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 40: 48–61.
Bravo-Haro MA and Elghazouli AY (2018) Influence of earthquake duration on the response of
steel moment frames. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 115: 634–651.
Burton H and Deierlein G (2014) Simulation of seismic collapse in nonductile reinforced concrete
frame buildings with masonry infills. Journal of Structural Engineering 140(8): 1–10.
Calvi GM, Magenes G and Pampanin S (2002a) Experimental test on a three storey RC frame
designed for gravity only. In: Proceedings of the twelfth European conference on earthquake
engineering (Paper reference 727), London, UK; 9–13 September 2002.
Calvi GM, Magenes G and Pampanin S (2002b) Relevance of beam-column joint damage and
collapse in RC frame assessment. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 6(1): 75–100.
Chandramohan R, Baker JW and Deierlein GG (2016a) Impact of hazard-consistent ground motion
duration in structural collapse risk assessment. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
45(8): 1357–1379.
Chandramohan R, Baker JW and Deierlein GG (2016b) Quantifying the influence of ground motion
duration on structural collapse capacity using spectrally equivalent records. Earthquake Spectra
32(2): 927–950.
Consiglio dei Ministri (1939) Regio Decreto Legge n. 2229 del 16/11/1939 (G.U. n.92 del 18/04/1940).
Gazzetta Ufficiale Italiana.
Di Pasquale G, Orsini G and Romeo RW (2005) New developments in seismic risk assessment in
Italy. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 3(1): 101–128.
Dobry R, Idriss IM and Ng E (1978) Duration characteristics of horizontal components of strong-
motion earthquake records. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 68(5): 1487–1520.
Douglas J (2021) Ground Motion Prediction Equations 1964-2021. Glasgow: University of
Strathclyde. Available at: http://www.gmpe.org.uk/gmpereport2014.pdf (accessed 25 February
2022).
Du W, Yu X and Ning CL (2020) Influence of earthquake duration on structural collapse assessment
using hazard-consistent ground motions for shallow crustal earthquakes. Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering 18(7): 3005–3023.
Eads L, Miranda E and Lignos DG (2015) Average spectral acceleration as an intensity measure for
collapse risk assessment. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 44(12): 2057–2073.
28 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

Elefante L, Jalayer F, Iervolino I and Manfredi G (2010) Disaggregation-based response weighting

scheme for seismic risk assessment of structures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
30(12): 1513–1527.
Eurocode 8 (2005) European Standard EN 1998–3:2005: Design of Structures for Earthquake
Resistance—Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings. Brussels: Comite Europeen de
Normalisation.
Fisher RA (1992) Statistical Methods for Research Workers. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9_6.
Forte G, Chioccarelli E, De Falco M, Cito P, Santo A and Iervolino I (2019) Seismic soil
classification of Italy based on surface geology and shear-wave velocity measurements. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 122: 79–93.
Gentile R and Galasso C (2021) Hysteretic energy-based state-dependent fragility for ground-motion
sequences. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 50(4): 1187–1203.
Haselton CB and Deierlein GG (2008) Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced
concrete moment-frame buildings. Civil Engineering 137: 1–128.
Haselton CB, Liel AB, Taylor-Lange SC and Deierlein GG (2016) Calibration of model to simulate
response of reinforced concrete beam-columns to collapse. ACI Structural Journal 113(6):
1141–1152.
Huang C and Galasso C (2019) Ground-motion intensity measure correlations observed in Italian
strong-motion records. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 48(15): 1634–1660.
Huang C, Tarbali K and Galasso C (2020) Correlation properties of integral ground-motion
intensity measures from Italian strong-motion records. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 49(15): 1581–1598.
Ibarra LF, Medina RA and Krawinkler H (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and
stiffness deterioration. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 34(12): 1489–1511.
Iervolino I, Chioccarelli E and Convertito V (2011) Engineering design earthquakes from
multimodal hazard disaggregation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31(9): 1212–1231.
Iervolino I, Giorgio M, Galasso C and Manfredi G (2010) Conditional hazard maps for secondary
intensity measures. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 100(6): 3312–3319.
Iervolino I, Manfredi G and Cosenza E (2006) Ground motion duration effect on nonlinear seismic
response. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 35(1): 21–38.
Jalayer F and Cornell CA (2009) Alternative non-linear demand estimation methods for probability-
based seismic assessments. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 38(8): 951–972.
Jayaram N, Lin T and Baker JW (2011) A computationally efficient ground-motion selection
algorithm for matching a target response spectrum mean and variance. Earthquake Spectra 27(3):
797–815.
Kass GV, Mood AM, Graybill FA and Boes DC (1974) Introduction to the theory of statistics, 3rd
ed. Journal of the American Statistical Association 69(348): 1050–1051.
Kazantzi AK and Vamvatsikos D (2015) Intensity measure selection for vulnerability studies of
building classes. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 44(15): 2677–2694.
Kempton JJ and Stewart JP (2006) Prediction equations for significant duration of earthquake
ground motions considering site and near-source effects. Earthquake Spectra 22(4): 985–1013.
Kohrangi M, Bazzurro P, Vamvatsikos D and Spillatura A (2017) Conditional spectrum-based
ground motion record selection using average spectral acceleration. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 46(10): 1667–1685.
Liberatore L and Decanini LD (2011) Effect of infills on the seismic response of high-rise RC
buildings designed as bare according to Eurocode 8 [Infl uenza della tamponatura sulla risposta
sismica di edifi ci in c.a. alti progettati come nudi con l’Eurocodice 8]. Ingegneria Sismica 28(3):
7–23.
Liberatore L and Mollaioli F (2015) Influence of masonry infill modelling on the seismic response of
reinforced concrete frames. In: Civil-comp proceedings. DOI: 10.4203/ccp.108.87.
Lignos DG and Krawinkler H (2011) Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of
collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading. Journal of Structural
Engineering 137(11): 1291–1302.
Otárola et al. 29

Luco N and Bazzurro P (2007) Does amplitude scaling of ground motion records result in biased
nonlinear structural drift responses? Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 36(13):
1813–1835.
Luco N and Cornell CA (2007) Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and
ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Spectra 23(2): 357–392.
Martins L and Silva V (2021) Development of a fragility and vulnerability model for global seismic
risk analyses. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 19(15): 6719–6745.
Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL. (2009) Open system for earthquake engineering
simulation user command-language manual, OpenSees version 2.0. University of California,
Berkeley.
Minas S and Galasso C (2019) Accounting for spectral shape in simplified fragility analysis of case-
study reinforced concrete frames. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 119: 91–103.
Mohammad Noh N, Liberatore L, Mollaioli F and Tesfamariam S (2017) Modelling of masonry
infilled RC frames subjected to cyclic loads: state of the art review and modelling with OpenSees.
Engineering Structures 150: 599–621.
Neter J, Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ and Wasserman W (1996) Applied Linear Statistical Models.
Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Otárola K, Gentile R, Sousa L and Galasso C (2023) Impact of earthquake-induced ground-motion
duration on nonlinear structural performance. Part I: Spectrally equivalent records and inelastic
single-degree-of-freedom systems. Earthquake Spectra (in press).
Page ES and Bellman R (1962) Adaptive control processes: A guided tour. Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society. Series A (General) 125(1): 161–162.
Pampanin S, Calvi GM and Moratti M (2002) Seismic behaviour of RC beam-column joints
designed for gravity loads. In: 12th European conference on earthquake engineering. London, UK,
9–13 September 2002.
Pan Y, Ventura CE and Tannert T (2020) Damage index fragility assessment of low-rise light-frame
wood buildings under long duration subduction earthquakes. Structural Safety 84: 101940.
Panagiotakos TB and Fardis MN (2001) Deformations of reinforced concrete members at yielding
and ultimate. ACI Structural Journal 98(2): 135–148.
Quinde P, Terán-Gilmore A and Reinoso E (2021) Cumulative structural damage due to low cycle
fatigue: An energy-based approximation. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 25(12): 2474–2494.
Rossetto T and Elnashai A (2003) Derivation of vulnerability functions for European-type RC
structures based on observational data. Engineering Structures 25(10): 1241–1263.
Setzler EJ and Sezena H (2008) Model for the lateral behavior of reinforced concrete columns
including shear deformations. Earthquake Spectra 24(2): 493–511.
Sezen H and Moehle JP (2004) Shear strength model for lightly reinforced concrete columns. Journal
of Structural Engineering 130(11): 1696-1702.
Silva V, Crowley H, Pagani M, Monelli D and Pinho R (2014) Development of the OpenQuake
engine, the Global Earthquake Model’s open-source software for seismic risk assessment. Natural
Hazards 72(3): 1409–1427.
Sousa L, Marques M, Silva V and Varum H (2017) Hazard disaggregation and record selection for
fragility analysis and earthquake loss estimation. Earthquake Spectra 33(2): 529–549.
Stein S and Wysession M (2003) An Introduction to Seismology, Earthquakes, and Earth Structure.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Trifunac MD and Brady AG (1978) A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 65(3): 1–28.
Verderame GM, Ricci P, Esposito M, Sansiviero FC (2011) Le caratteristiche meccaniche degli acciai
impiegati nelle strutture in c.a. realizzate dal 1950 AL 1980 (in Italian). In: Associazione Italiana
Calcestruzzo Armato e Precompresso (AICAP).
Villar-Vega M, Silva V, Crowley H, Yepes C, Tarque N, Acevedo AB, Hube MA, Gustavo CD and
Marı́a HS (2017) Development of a fragility model for the residential building stock in South
America. Earthquake Spectra 33(2): 581–604.
Zareian F and Medina RA (2010) A practical method for proper modeling of structural damping in
inelastic plane structural systems. Computers and Structures 88(1–2): 45–53.