ARTICLE IN PRESS

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 291–299

www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Using spectral matched records to explore the influence of

strong-motion duration on inelastic structural response
Jonathan Hancock, Julian J. Bommer
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK
Received 20 February 2006; received in revised form 2 September 2006; accepted 7 September 2006

Abstract

There is considerable debate in the technical literature regarding the influence of the duration of earthquake strong motion on
structural damage. If duration is an important consideration, care must be taken to use ground motions with appropriate duration in
engineering design and assessment. This study analyses an 8-storey RC wall-frame building under the action of 30 accelerograms with
different durations. The primary influence of the response spectral amplitude is homogenized by scaling and adjusting the accelerograms
using wavelets so that they have a good match to the same smooth response spectra. Comparison of the correlation between the duration
of the ground motion and different damage measures reveals that duration has no influence on damage measures using the peak
response, such as inter-storey drift, but is correlated to cumulative damage measures, such as absorbed hysteretic energy and fatigue
damage.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Earthquake ground motion; Strong-motion duration; Inelastic demand; Damage potential

1. Introduction The latter studies support the policy in current codes to

The specification of earthquake actions in current
seismic design codes is predominantly independent of
strong-motion duration. However, duration is explicitly
taken into account in the HAZUS methodology for
earthquake loss estimation [1–3]. In HAZUS, large-
magnitude earthquakes have an increased demand spec-
trum because the longer duration of these events is
expected to cause greater strength and stiffness degrada-
tion.
There are also many studies reporting correlations
between structural damage and parameters related either
directly or indirectly to strong ground-motion duration.
For example, Chai and co-workers (e.g., Refs. [4,5])
suggest that longer-duration ground motion should in-
crease inelastic design base shear, while Iervolino et al. [6]
and Shome et al. [7] find that the earthquake magnitude,
and hence ground-motion duration, does not have a
significant influence on maximum inelastic displacements.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 20 7594 5984; fax: +44 20 7594 5934.
E-mail address: j.bommer@imperial.ac.uk (J.J. Bommer).
neglect duration, whereas the conclusions of the former
studies would suggest that duration should be incorporated
into the specification of seismic design loads.
One thing that is clear is that duration is a secondary
predictive parameter and to explore direct correlations
between duration and damage would be futile: ground
motions with large spectral amplitudes will be more
damaging than those with low amplitudes, irrespective of
the duration of the shaking. An earlier study by the authors
using strength and stiffness degrading masonry structures
demonstrated that for a given level of spectral acceleration,
ground motions with longer duration caused greater
strength degradation than those with short duration [8].
This study investigates the influence of duration on
damage to an 8-storey reinforced concrete wall-frame
structure using 30 recorded accelerograms with a wide
range of durations. The primary influence of the spectral
acceleration has been homogenized by scaling and adjust-
ing the accelerograms with wavelets so that they all have a
good match to the same smooth response spectra. The
structure is modeled as a two-dimensional inelastic multi-
degree-of-freedom frame. The influence of duration on a

0267-7261/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.09.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
292 J. Hancock, J.J. Bommer / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 291–299
range of damage measures including inter-storey drift and
member fatigue damage is examined.
2. Models and analysis
2.1. Structural model
An 8-storey regular frame-wall reinforced concrete
building designed to Eurocode 8 [9] is used in this work
(Fig. 1). The structure has been designed with a medium
ductility classification, with a behavior factor of 2.625 and
design PGA of 0.15 g [10].
The structural model has been developed by previous
researchers at Imperial College London [11,12]. All
analyses conducted in this work use the finite-element
program SeismoStruct [13]. The time-domain analysis
takes into account both geometric non-linearities and
material inelasticity. Structural members are modeled using
distributed-plasticity fiber elements, which use member
cross-section properties and material constitutive behavior
to explicitly define element hysteretic behavior (Fig. 2). The
interaction of the axial force and transverse deformation is
modeled using a cubic formulation suggested by Izzuddin
[14], where the strain states within the element are defined
by the generalized axial strain and curvature along the
element. A cubic shape function is used to calculate the
transverse displacement as a function of the end rotations
Fig. 1. Adopted modeling approach for frame-wall building [11].
of the element. Two integration Gauss points per element
are used for the numerical integration of the governing
equations of the cubic formulation (Fig. 3). Each structural
element is modeled with typically three–four finite elements
to ensure that there is sufficient refinement in the plastic
hinge region to accurately estimate material inelasticity.
Shear strains and warping of the cross-section are not
explicitly modeled; however, a spring is used at the end of
the beams to model the shear deformations.
Mean values of material strengths are utilized in the
analysis rather than the characteristic values used in
the design; this enables a more realistic estimation of the
structural response to be obtained. The influence of the
rapid strain rates experienced during seismic loading has
also been accounted for by applying dynamic adjustment
factors proposed by Scott et al. [15] and Jones [16], which
increases the concrete compressive strength and modulus of
elasticity by 10–15%, reduces the concrete crushing strain
by 10% and increases the steel yield strength by 18%.
These enhancements result in a structure that is consider-
ably stronger than anticipated in the design, so particularly
strong ground motions are used to generate inelastic
response in order to ensure that appreciable damage will
result.
The concrete constitutive behavior is modeled using the
non-linear constant confinement concrete model proposed
by Mander et al. [17], modified by Martinez-Rueda and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Hancock, J.J. Bommer / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 291–299
Fig. 2. Fiber plasticity discretization in a reinforced concrete section.
Fig. 3. Location of Gauss points along the member length.
Elnashai [18] to improve numerical stability under large
displacements. The steel constitutive behavior is modeled
using the Menegotto–Pinto steel model [19], which was
modified by Filippou et al. [20] and Fragiadakis [21].
2.2. Damage measures
There are a wide range of damage measures proposed in
the literature. These can be divided into four main
categories:
1. measures of maximum response (force or displacement),
2. cyclic fatigue measures,
3. energy measures,
4. measures using a combination of the above.
Whilst it is not possible to use all of the proposed
damage measures, at least one from each generic category
is used. The damage measures employed are:
 peak roof drift (peak response),
 peak inter-storey drift, for all storeys (peak response),
 peak member end rotation, local member damage
measure (peak response),
 member rotational fatigue, local member damage
measure (fatigue measure),
 absorbed hysteretic energy, local member damage
measure (energy measure),
 Park and Ang damage index, local member damage
measure (combination measure).
The peak roof drift and peak inter-storey drift are
determined directly from the analysis. Peak member end
rotation (member chord rotation) is defined as the peak
293
rotational displacement over the end of the member (ymax)
induced by the earthquake ground motion; this is measured
in local element co-ordinates, so it is the rotational
displacement over the end of the member relative to the
rotation of the joint at the end of the member.
Member rotational fatigue damage is calculated by
counting the member end-rotations using rainflow cycle
counting (see ASTM [22]). The total damage is calculated
by summing each cycle using Miner’s linear damage
accumulation [23]:
X
i¼n
1
Damage ¼ yki , (1)
i¼1
a
where a and k are the fatigue constant and exponent,
respectively, yi is the amplitude of the ith rotation cycle and
n is the total number of cycles. A fatigue exponent k of 3.86
is used, which is derived from the experimental test results
of Yamada [24] for reinforced concrete columns with an
axial load of 1/3 the ultimate axial strength. The fatigue
constant a is set so that the damage parameter is equal to
unity at the ultimate monotonic rotation, which is
calculated from section analysis as described by Park and
Paulay [25] and Paulay and Priestley [26]. This is calculated
assuming linear elastic curvature distribution along the
member length plus a region of constant ultimate curvature
in the plastic hinge at each end of the member [26]. The
plastic hinge length is taken as half the section depth, as
suggested by Paulay and Priestley [26]. The effects of static
gravity loads are considered in the member section
analysis; however, axial load fluctuations during the
analysis are not considered as this would lead to different
element capacities at different times in the analysis.
The absorbed hysteretic energy is calculated for the
end of each member by integrating the area enclosed by
the moment-rotation hysteresis envelope. The Park
and Ang damage index [27] is calculated for the member
end rotation (Dpay). This is calculated from a combi-
nation of the absorbed hysteretic energy and the peak
rotation:
Z
yM b
Dpay ¼ þ M dy, (2)
yu M y yy
where yM is the peak rotation of the member recorded in
the response time-series, yu is the ultimate monotonic
rotation capacity of the member, b is an empirical factor
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
294 J. Hancock, J.J. Bommer / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 291–299

that changes the balance between

R the extreme displacement respectively. The ultimate rotation, yield rotation and yield
and hysteretic energy M dy; b is set to 0.15 as moment are calculated from first principles using section
recommended as a median value by Cosenza and Manfredi analysis as described by Park and Paulay [25] and Paulay
[28]. My and yy are the yield moment and rotation, and Priestley [26].

Table 1
Accelerograms selected to have different durations

Year Month Day Mw Earthquake Distance, Station Soil PEER NGA Significant Dur. (s)
Rjb (km) class sequence ID
5–75% 5–95%

1979 8 6 5.7 Coyote Lake 8.5 Gilroy Array #2 Soft 00147T 2.64 6.35
1994 1 17 6.7 Northridge 0 Sylmar-Converter Sta East Stiff 01085L 5.07 9.43
1995 1 16 6.9 Kobe, Japan 0.9 Kobe University Rock 01108T 5.64 9.55
1994 1 17 6.7 Northridge 20.1 Castaic-Old Ridge Route Stiff 00963L 4.64 9.84
1989 10 18 6.9 Loma Prieta 72.9 Piedmont Jr High Rock 00788L 6.87 12.97
1989 10 18 6.9 Loma Prieta 19.9 Anderson Dam (L Abut) Stiff 00740T 7.5 13.07
1979 8 6 5.7 Coyote Lake 4.8 Gilroy Array #4 Soft 00149T 6.09 13.08
1987 11 24 6.5 Superstition Hills-02 18.2 El Centro Imp. Co. Cent Soft 00721L 8.39 14.79
1994 1 17 6.7 Northridge 27.8 LA-Pico & Sentous Soft 01000L 9.65 20.43
1994 1 17 6.7 Northridge 25.6 LA-W 15th St Stiff 01008T 11.22 21.82
1999 10 16 7.1 Hector Mine 172.1 Leona Valley-Fire Station #1 Soft 01806T 16.41 23.7
1940 5 19 7.0 Imperial Valley-02 6.1 El Centro Array #9 Soft 00006T 16.77 24.14
1952 7 21 7.4 Kern County 35.1 Taft Lincoln School Stiff 00015T 12.38 30.63
1987 11 24 6.5 Superstition Hills-02 23.9 Wildlife Liquef. Array Soft 00729L 19.97 35.28
1992 6 28 7.3 Landers 26.8 North Palm Springs Soft 00882L 23.9 36.57
1999 8 17 7.5 Kocaeli, Turkey 52 Zeytinburnu Soft 01177L 23.62 43.24
1995 1 16 6.9 Kobe, Japan 24.9 Abeno Soft 01100L 17.79 63.73
1995 1 16 6.9 Kobe, Japan 28.1 Sakai Soft 01115L 12.64 65.68
2002 11 3 7.9 Denali, Alaska 164.7 TAPS Pump Station #12 Soft 02116T 50.1 66.04
1995 1 16 6.9 Kobe, Japan 24.9 Abeno Soft 01100T 18.29 66.07
1995 1 16 6.9 Kobe, Japan 31.7 Tadoka Soft 01118T 16.01 66.69
1995 1 16 6.9 Kobe, Japan 21.4 OSAJ Soft 01113T 21.52 71.96
2002 11 3 7.9 Denali, Alaska 140.7 Fairbanks-Geophysic. Obs, CIGO Stiff 02110L 22.67 84.14
2002 11 3 7.9 Denali, Alaska 126.4 TAPS Pump Station #11 Stiff 02115L 58.13 90.71
2002 11 3 7.9 Denali, Alaska 55.6 TAPS Pump Station #09 Stiff 02113T 49.5 100.02
2002 11 3 7.9 Denali, Alaska 55.6 TAPS Pump Station #09 Stiff 02113L 56.41 100.79
2002 11 3 7.9 Denali, Alaska 140.7 Fairbanks-Geophysic. Obs, CIGO Stiff 02110T 27.82 103.9
2002 11 3 7.9 Denali, Alaska 139.3 Fairbanks-Ester Fire Station Soft 02109T 35.79 106.43
2002 11 3 7.9 Denali, Alaska 275.9 Anchorage-New Fire Station #7 Soft 02104T 57.92 113.39
2002 11 3 7.9 Denali, Alaska 139.3 Fairbanks-Ester Fire Station Soft 02109L 48.85 115.2

Fig. 4. Comparison of target spectra and median spectra from selected records with different durations, which have been matched to fit the target using
RspMatch2005.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Hancock, J.J. Bommer / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 291–299
Fig. 5. Comparison of 5% damped target spectrum and the spectra from selected records with different durations, which have been matched to fit the
target using RspMatch2005.
Fig. 6. Correlation between significant duration (between 5% and 95%
Arias intensity) and different definitions of duration and numbers of
effective cycles. Number of cycles measured using rainflow counting and
converted to an equivalent number of cycles using exponent 2.0 (see [35]).
2.3. Selected accelerograms
In order to identify the influence of ground-motion dura-
tion on structural response, 30 accelerograms with 5–95%
significant durations [29] ranging from 6 to 113 s are
selected from the NGA dataset [30] for further analysis
(Table 1). In order to obtain records covering a suitably
wide range of durations, no restriction has been placed on
the seismological characteristics of the accelerograms. As
would be expected, ground motions with short duration are
generally from small-magnitude earthquakes, whilst large-
295
Fig. 7. Influence of duration on peak roof drift for accelerograms
matched to the elastic spectral acceleration at multiple damping levels.
magnitude earthquakes generate longer-duration ground
motions.
2.4. Scaling and matching
To remove the influence of spectral amplitude from the
results, the accelerograms are scaled and matched to the
same target spectra at multiple damping levels using
RspMatch2005 (Fig. 4). RspMatch2005 uses wavelets to
adjust the accelerograms to match the response spectra,
while minimizing changes to the other ground-motion
characteristics [31]. The target response spectra are
obtained using predictive equations derived by Hancock
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
296 J. Hancock, J.J. Bommer / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 291–299

[32] for a median-plus-one-standard-deviation design 3. Influence of duration

scenario for an Mw 7 strike-slip earthquake at a soft soil
site 5 km from the surface projection of the fault rupture.
The adjusted accelerograms not only have a good match
on average to the target spectrum, but also have a close
individual match to the spectrum (Fig. 5); this ensures that
the main difference between the records is the ground-
motion duration. Although there is no exact correlation
between different definitions of duration and number of
cycles definitions [33], there is an approximate corre-
lation for the records used in this study (Fig. 6). This is
because the records have been selected to have a broad
distribution of durations and have been matched to similar
amplitudes; this reduces the significant differences usually
experienced between relative and absolute definitions (see
[34,35]).
Both relative (5–95% significant duration) and absolute
(0.1 g uniform duration) definitions are used to determine
the influence of ground-motion duration on different
damage measures (see [34] for a detailed description of
different duration definitions). This shows that damage
measures based on the peak response (peak roof drift,
inter-storey drift and peak member rotation) do not
depend significantly on the duration of the ground motion
(Fig. 7–9). However, damage measures such as the
absorbed hysteretic energy and fatigue damage are
consistently greater for ground motions with longer
duration (Fig. 9). The correlation between duration and
damage is far from exact, although this is to be expected as
these damage measures are also influenced by the

Fig. 8. Influence of duration on peak inter-storey drift for accelerograms matched to the elastic spectral acceleration at multiple damping levels.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Hancock, J.J. Bommer / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 291–299 297

Fig. 9. Influence of duration on different damage measures for the base of the outer ground floor column (left) and the outer end of the first floor beam
(right). Analysis using accelerograms matched to the elastic spectral acceleration at multiple damping levels.

amplitude of the inelastic structural response, which has
not been completely normalized by matching the accel-
erograms to the elastic spectral acceleration.
The Park and Ang damage index also shows some
duration dependence for the base of the ground floor
column but little or no dependence for the end of the first
floor beams (Fig. 8). This is logical because the lower yield
rotation of the column results in a greater amount of
hysteretic energy dissipation for a given level of end
rotation. Stronger duration dependence might be found for
higher loading levels, which would cause greater deforma-
tion and hysteretic energy dissipation in both the beams
and columns.
4. Conclusions
Spectrally matching accelerogram is a useful tool that
enables the investigation of the influence of ground-motion
parameters, such as duration, that might be difficult to
determine from natural accelerograms, which have a
variable spectral response. This study confirms that for
reinforced concrete structures the influence of duration
(measured using different definitions) depends on the
damage measure employed. Damage measures based on
the peak response do not depend on the duration of the
ground motion, while damage measures such as the
absorbed hysteretic energy and fatigue damage are
consistently greater for ground motions with longer
duration.
The question that now remains is which damage measure
is the most useful indicator of structural performance?
Measures using peak response are predominantly used in
design and assessment applications because of their
conceptual simplicity. However, experimental studies of
structural members generally find that accumulated da-
mage measures are more appropriate as the displacement
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
298 J. Hancock, J.J. Bommer / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 291–299
amplitude required to cause failure depends on the number
of displacement cycles (e.g., Refs. [36–39]). While the
current state-of-the-practice is to use damage measures
based on the peak response, cumulative damage measures
are likely to become more widely used in future research as
they provide a better indication of the likely level of
damage. Design codes are likely to continue using peak
response measures to maintain simplicity; however, as the
resistance of most materials to damage is dependent on the
number of cycles, this implicitly requires an assumption to
be made on the expected number of deformation cycles and
hence the ground-motion duration.
The use of magnitude—and hence duration—adjustment
factors in the HAZUS methodology for assessing potential
earthquake losses is justified as older building stock is more
likely to have strength and stiffness degrading character-
istics and hence be more susceptible to the ground motion
duration. Duration-related parameters also have the
capacity to provide more accurate estimations of the
damage state of structures as they recognize that damage
depends on both the amplitude and the number of
deformation cycles.
The influence of duration depends on a number of
different factors including the damage metric and the
structural model, so unqualified statements on this subject
are neither useful nor justified. It is important that future
studies qualify their conclusions by stating the type of
structure, primary demand parameter and the definition of
duration or number of cycles employed.
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr. Rui Pinho and Dr. Stelios Antoniou for
assistance with the SeismoStruct program used in this
work. The insightful and critical assessment by an
anonymous reviewer significantly improved the final
manuscript. The work of the first author is supported by
a doctoral training grant from the EPSRC and a Marie
Curie Fellowship.
References
[1] FEMA HAZUS-MH Technical Manuals. Washington, DC: Federal
Emergency Management Agency; 2003.
[2] Kircher CA, Nassar AA, Kustu O, Holmes WT. Development of
building damage functions for earthquake loss estimation. Earth-
quake Spectra 1997;13(4):663–82.
[3] Whitman RV, Anagnos T, Kircher C, Lagorio HJ, Lawson RS,
Schneider P. Development of a national earthquake loss estimation
methodology. Earthquake Spectra 1997;13(4):643–61.
[4] Chai YH, Fajfar P. A procedure for estimating input spectra for
seismic design. J Earthquake Eng 2000;4(4):539–61.
[5] Kunnath SK, Chai YH. Cumulative damage-based inelastic cyclic
demand spectrum. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2004;33:499–520.
[6] Iervolino I, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Ground motion duration effects
on non-linear seismic response. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
2006;35(1):21–36.
[7] Shome N, Cornell AC, Bazzurro P, Carballo JE. Earthquakes,
records and non-linear responses. Earthquake Spectra 1998;14(3):
469–500.
[8] Bommer JJ, Magenes G, Hancock J, Penazzo P. The influence of
strong-motion duration on the seismic response of masonry
structures. Bull Earthquake Eng 2004;2(1):1–26.
[9] CEN Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance-
part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rule for buildings.
EN 1998-1: 2004, Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels,
2004.
[10] Fardis MN. Analysis and design of reinforced concrete buildings
according to Eurocodes 2 and 8, configurations 3, 5 and 6. Reports
on prenormative research in support of eurocode 8, 1994.
[11] Mwafy A-AM. Seismic performance of code-designed RC buildings.
PhD thesis, Imperial College, London, UK, 2001.
[12] Rovitahkis A. Verification of adaptive pushover analysis procedures.
MSc dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineer-
ing, Imperial College, London, UK, 2001.
[13] SeismoSoft. SeismoStruct—A computer program for static and
dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures. Online, Available
from URL /http://www.seismosoft.com.S, 2005.
[14] Izzuddin BA. Conceptual issues in geometrically nonlinear analysis of
3D framed structures. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng 2001;191(9):
1029–53.
[15] Scott BD, Park R, Priestley MJN. Stress–strain behavior of concrete
confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. ACI J
1982;79(1):13–27.
[16] Jones N. Structural impact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
1989.
[17] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress–strain model
for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 1989;114(8):1804–26.
[18] Martinez-Rueda JE, Elnashai AS. Confined concrete model under
cyclic load. Mater Struct 1997;30:139–47.
[19] Menegotto M, Pinto PE. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded
R.C. plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic
behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending.
Symposium on the resistance and ultimate deformability of structures
acted on by well defined repeated loads. Zurich, Switzerland:
International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering;
1973. p. 15–22.
[20] Filippou FC, Popov EP, Bertero VV. Modeling of R/C joints under
cyclic excitations. J Struct Eng 1983;109(11):2666–84.
[21] Fragiadakis M. Nonlinear material modeling of reinforcement steel
bars under transient loading. MSc Dissrtation, Department to Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, London, UK;
2001.
[22] ASTM. Cycle counting in fatigue analysis. Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, 03.01 issue E1049-85, 1985. p. 836–48.
[23] Miner MA. Cumulative damage in fatigue. Transactions of the
ASME, J Appl Mech 1945;12(3):159–64.
[24] Yamada M. Practical ductility assurance of struct for seismic design.
In: Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Madrid, Spain, vol. 6, 1992, pp. 3409–3414.
[25] Park R, Paulay T. Reinforced Concrete Struct. New York: Wiley;
1975.
[26] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and
masonry buildings. New York: Wiley; 1992.
[27] Park Y, Ang AH. Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced
concrete. J Struct Eng 1985;111(4):722–39.
[28] Cosenza E, Manfredi G. A seismic design method including damage
effect. In: 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Paris, 1998.
[29] Trifunac MD, Brady AG. A study on the duration of strong
earthquake ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 1975;65(3):
581–626.
[30] PEER. PEER NGA database, 2006; /http://peer.berkeley.edu/nga/
index.htmlS.
[31] Hancock J, Watson-Lamprey J, Abrahamson NA, Bommer JJ,
Markatis A, McCoy E, Mendis R. An improved method of matching
response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using
wavelets. J Earthquake Eng 2006;10(Special Issue 1):67–89.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Hancock, J.J. Bommer / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 291–299
[32] Hancock J. The influence of duration and the selection and scaling of
accelerograms in engineering design and assessment. PhD thesis,
Imperial College, London, UK, 2006.
[33] Bommer JJ, Hancock J, Alarcon J. Correlations between duration
and number of effective cycles of earthquake ground motion. Soil
Dyn Earthquake Eng 2006;26(1):1–13.
[34] Bommer JJ, Martı́nez-Pereira A. The effective duration of earth-
quake strong motion. J Earthquake Eng 1999;3(2):127–72.
[35] Hancock J, Bommer JJ. The effective number of cycles of earth-
quake ground motion. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2005;34:
637–64.
299
[36] Chai TH, Romstad KM, Bird SM. Energy-based linear damage
model for high-intensity seismic loading. J Struct Eng
1995;121(5):857–64.
[37] El-Bahy A, Kunnath SK, Stone WC, Taylor AW. Cumulative seismic
damage of circular bridge columns: benchmark and low-cycle fatigue
tests. ACI Struct J 1999;96(4):633–41.
[38] Krawinkler H, Zohrei M. Cumulative damage in steel structures
subjected to earthquake ground motions. ComputStruct 1983;
16(1–4):531–41.
[39] Mander JB, Panthaki FD, Kasalanati A. Low-cycle fatigue behavior
of reinforcing steel. J Mater Civil Eng, ASCE 1994;6(4):453–68.