A Comparison of Ground Motion

Prediction Equations for Arias

Intensity and Cumulative Absolute
Velocity Developed Using a Consistent
Database and Functional Form
Kenneth W. Campbell,a)

M.EERI,

and Yousef Bozorgnia,b)

M.EERI

Arias intensity (AI) and cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) have been proposed as instrumental intensity measures that can incorporate the cumulative
effects of ground motion duration and intensity on the response of structural
and geotechnical systems. In this study, we have developed a ground motion
prediction equation (GMPE) for the horizontal component of AI in order to compare its predictability to a similar GMPE for CAV. Both GMPEs were developed
using the same strong motion database and functional form in order to eliminate
any bias these factors might cause in the comparison. This comparison shows that
AI exhibits significantly greater amplitude scaling and aleatory uncertainty than
CAV. The smaller standard deviation and less sensitivity to amplitude suggests
that CAV is more predictable than AI and should be considered as an alternative
to AI in engineering and geotechnical applications where the latter intensity measure is traditionally used. [DOI: 10.1193/1.4000067]

INTRODUCTION
Arias intensity (AI) is a duration-related ground motion parameter that represents the sum
of the total energy per unit weight in a set of undamped elastic single-degree-of-freedom
systems with frequencies uniformly distributed in the range from zero to infinity (Arias
1970; Bozorgnia and Campbell 2004). As a result, AI has been used or considered for
use in assessing the influence of the duration of shaking on slope stability (e.g., Jibson
2007), soil liquefaction (e.g., Kayen and Mitchell 1997), building damage (e.g., Cabaas
et al. 1997), and seismic response of bridges (e.g., Mackie and Stojadinovic 2001).
Many studies, including several of those listed above, have also evaluated the use of cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) or one of its variants as an alternative to AI for assessing the
influence of duration on building damage (e.g., EPRI 1988, 1991; Cabaas et al. 1997) and
soil liquefaction (e.g., Kramer and Mitchell 2006). Additional references can be found in
Campbell and Bozorgnia (2011b, 2012).

a)
b)

EQECAT, Inc., 1030 NW 161st Place., Beaverton, OR 97006-6337

Pacific Earthquake Eng. Research Center, 325 Davis Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1792
931

Earthquake Spectra, Volume 28, No. 3, pages 931941, August 2012; 2012, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

932

K. W. CAMPBELL AND Y. BOZORGNIA

In order to use AI in seismic hazard studies, it is necessary to estimate it using a ground

motion prediction equation (GMPE). Early attempts at developing a GMPE for AI were made
by Campbell and Duke (1974), using ground motion records from the 1971 (M 6.7) San
Fernando earthquake, and by Trifunac and Brady (1975), using a limited number of
California ground motion records. The increasing use of AI in the evaluation of structural
response, slope stability, and liquefaction resulted in the development of more robust GMPEs
based on worldwide databases of recorded ground motions from active tectonic regions (e.g.,
Travasarou et al. 2003, Foulser-Piggott and Stafford 2011). Other GMPEs have been developed for specific regions, such as Japan (Pousse et al. 2006); Greece (e.g., Danciu and
Tselentis 2007), Italy (e.g., Sabetta and Pugliese 1996), New Zealand (e.g., Stafford
et al. 2009), among others.
Because several investigators have proposed the use of CAV as an alternative to AI (e.g.,
see discussion in Campbell and Bozorgnia 2011b), we decided to directly compare the predictability of these two IMs by developing a GMPE for AI using the same database and
functional form that we used to develop our GMPE for CAV (Campbell and Bozorgnia
2010). We then compare these relationships to see which one might be preferred based
on its sensitivity to the independent variables included in the relationships and its predictability (i.e., smaller standard deviation). The use of a consistent database and functional form
removes the possibility of any bias that might be attributed to these two aspects of the
analysis.
AI is mathematically defined by the equation (Arias 1970):
AI

EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e1;41;370

2g

max

at dt

(1)

where at is the amplitude of the acceleration at time t and t max is the total duration of the
time series. AI can be thought of as being related to the spectrum of the energy demanded by
a strong motion record (Arias 1970, Trifunac and Brady 1975, Bozorgnia and Campbell
2004). CAV is mathematically defined by the equation (EPRI 1988):
CAV

max

EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e2;41;270

jatjdt

(2)

which differs from that of AI by its integral over the absolute value rather than the square of
the acceleration time series. It is evident from both of these equations that these two IMs
increase with time until they reach their maximum values at tmax . Therefore, they both
include the cumulative effects of ground motion duration. This is a key advantage over
the peak ground motion and response spectral parameters that are commonly used in engineering analysis and design and is one of the reasons that EPRI (1988) considered both AI
and CAV as IMs that should correlate with the damage potential of an earthquake ground
motion record. However, it should be noted that neither AI nor CAV explicitly account for
the timing of the arrival of the different phases of energy, such as a large velocity pulse,
which can be important in the response of a structure to near-source ground motion
(e.g., Baker and Cornell 2008).

COMPARISON OF GMPEs FOR AI AND CAV

933

EPRI (1988) eventually selected CAV over AI, finding that it was slightly more efficient
in not predicting damage when damage was not expected (i.e., resulting in a false positive).
This decision was based on recordings obtained at sites where the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) exceeded VI, which EPRI considered to be the threshold of damage to buildings
of good design and construction. The studies referenced in the Introduction and in Campbell
and Bozorgnia (2011b, 2012) either confirm EPRIs conclusions or indicate that the two IMs
are nearly equally as good at representing the damage potential of a ground motion record.
Therefore, there needs to be another criterion for deciding which IM might be preferred for
use as a duration- and damage-related IM. The results of this study provide additional insight
into this issue by showing that CAV has a significantly lower standard deviation (i.e., higher
predictability) and less sensitivity to physical earthquake parameters than AI.
ARIAS INTENSITY GROUND MOTION PREDICTION EQUATION
The database used in this study is the same subset of the PEER-NGA strong motion
database (Chiou et al. 2008) that we used to develop our GMPE for CAV (Campbell
and Bozorgnia 2010). We also used the same functional form. We did this to remove
the possibility of any differences in the GMPEs that might be caused by differences in
these two aspects of the analyses. Additionally, probabilistic seismic hazard analysis
(PSHA) computer codes that have already implemented this functional form can easily incorporate our AI GMPE. Details regarding the database and functional form can be found in
Campbell and Bozorgnia (2010) and will not be repeated herein. As shown later, the residuals
show that there are no trends or biases that result from the use of this functional form. This
database and functional form have also been successfully used to develop GMPEs for peak
ground motion and elastic response spectral parameters (Campbell and Bozorgnia 2008),
inelastic response spectral parameters (Bozorgnia et al. 2010), JMA instrumental seismic
intensity (Campbell and Bozorgnia 2011a), and a standardized version of CAV that incorporates the damage criteria proposed by EPRI (Campbell and Bozorgnia 2011b). The ground
motion component used to define AI is the geometric mean of the two as-recorded horizontal
components (AIGM), which is the same ground motion component (CAVGM) that we used to
define CAV.
MODEL

The empirical coefficients of the GMPE were determined using the random-effects
regression algorithms of Abrahamson and Youngs (1992), assuming constant variance, as
discussed and justified in Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008). Table 1 lists the model coefficients c1 to c12 , k 1 to k 3 , n, and c; the correlation coefficient ln AI GM ;ln PGA between the withinevent residuals of AIGM and PGA (peak ground acceleration); and the between-event
ln AI GM , within-event ln AI GM , component-to-component C , total T , and arbitrary
horizontal component Arb standard deviations obtained from the analysis. This table
also lists the model parameters for the geometric mean horizontal components of CAV
and PGA (Campbell and Bozorgnia 2008, 2010). The GMPE for PGA is required in
order to estimate the value of A1100 (the median predicted value of PGA on rock) used
in the evaluation of the nonlinear site terms in the GMPEs for AIGM and CAVGM. The
GMPE for CAVGM is included for purposes of comparison with the GMPE for AIGM.
Note that we are using the terms between-event in place of inter-event and within-event

934

K. W. CAMPBELL AND Y. BOZORGNIA

in place of intra-event in order to avoid confusion that has resulted in the use of the original
terms. All of the empirical regression coefficients in the AI model were found to be significant at the 90% confidence level according to their asymptotic standard errors. A coefficient
of determination (R2 value) of 0.93 indicates that a relatively large proportion of the variability in the data is accounted for by the model. This compares to a nearly equal R2 value of
0.94 for CAVGM (Table 1). Like our other GMPEs, we consider this model to be valid for
shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions with magnitudes ranging from 5.0 up to
7.58.5, depending on fault mechanism, and distances ranging from 0 to 100200 km,
depending on magnitude (e.g., Campbell and Bozorgnia 2010).
The within-event standard deviation includes nonlinear soil effects as represented by the
equations for the standard deviations of CAVGM given in Campbell and Bozorgnia (2010).
The linear values for these standard deviations are listed in Table 1. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov
test indicated that the hypothesis that the between-event, within-event, and total residuals are
normally distributed could not be rejected at the 10% significance level. The results indicate
that, although the between-event and within-event standard deviations for CAVGM were
found to be smaller than those for peak ground motion and response spectral parameters,
the between-event standard deviation for AIGM was found to be about 50% higher and
the within-event and component-to-component standard deviations were found to be over
100% higher than those for CAVGM.

Table 1.

Coefficients of the median and aleatory uncertainty models of AI, CAV, and PGA

Coefficient

AIGM
(cm/sec)

CAVGM
(g-sec)

PGA
(g)

Coefficient

AIGM
(cm/sec)

CAVGM
(g-sec)

PGA
(g)

c0
c1
c2
c3
c4
c5
c6
c7
c8
c9
c10
c11
c12

1.056
1.215
0.403
1.003
3.566
0.295
5.87
0.486
0.219
0.837
5.404
0.068
2.311

4.354
0.942
0.178
0.346
1.309
0.087
7.24
0.111
0.108
0.362
2.549
0.090
1.277

1.715
0.500
0.530
0.262
2.118
0.170
5.60
0.280
0.120
0.490
1.058
0.040
0.610

k1
k2
k3
c
n
ln AF
ln Y
ln Y
C
T
Arb
ln Y; ln PGA
R2

349
5.312
1.0c
1.88b
1.18b
0.623d
0.771
0.309
0.214
0.831
0.858
0.891
0.925

400a
2.690
1.0c
1.88b
1.18b
0.300b
0.371
0.196
0.089
0.420
0.429
0.735
0.938

865b
1.186b
1.839b
1.88b
1.18b
0.300b
0.478
0.219
0.166
0.526
0.551
1.000
0.970

k 1 was constrained to 400 because its statistically derived value of 397 was statistically indistinguishable from the smallest
theoretical value adopted by Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008).
b
These coefficients were theoretically constrained in the regression (Campbell and Bozorgnia 2008, 2010).
c
k 3 was arbitrarily set to 1.0 as no theoretical constraint was available. It was included as a coefficient to be consistent with
the original GMPE of Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008).
d
The value of ln AF for AI was increased from that of CAV by the ratio of the within-event standard deviations of AI and
CAV, assuming that all components of the within-event variability are impacted in a similar manner.

COMPARISON OF GMPEs FOR AI AND CAV

935

RESIDUALS

2.0

4.0

1.5

3.0

Within-event Residual

Between-event Residual

Figure 1 shows the distributions of the between-event and within-event residuals of

AIGM with respect to moment magnitude (M), closest distance to fault rupture RRUP ,
time-averaged shear-wave velocity in the top 30 m of the site V S30 binned by
NEHRP Site Class, median estimate of PGA on rock with V S30 1100 m sec A1100 ,

1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5

2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0

-2.0
4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

-4.0
4.0

8.0

4.5

5.0

4.0

3.0

3.0

Within-event Residual

Within-event Residual

4.0

2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0

-4.0 -1
10

100

101

102

7.0

7.5

8.0

1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0

-4.0 -3
10

103

4.0

4.0

3.0

3.0

2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
E

B
103

30-m Shear-Wave Velocity (m/sec)

10-1

10-2

100

PGA on Rock (g)

Within-event Residual

Within-event Residual

6.5

2.0

Closest Distance to Rupture (km)

-4.0 2
10

6.0

-3.0

-3.0

-3.0

5.5

Moment Magnitude

Moment Magnitude

2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Sediment Depth (km)

Figure 1. Distributions of the between-event and within-event residuals (natural log units) of
AIGM with respect to moment magnitude (M) and the within-event residuals (natural log
units) of AIGM with respect to rupture distance RRUP , median PGA on rock A1100 , 30-m
shear-wave velocity V S30 binned by NEHRP Site Class, and sediment depth Z 2.5 .

936

K. W. CAMPBELL AND Y. BOZORGNIA

and depth to the 2.5 km/sec shear-wave velocity horizon Z 2.5 . NEHRP Site Classes B, C,
D, and E are evaluated for 30-m shear-wave velocities of V S30 1;070, 525, 255, and
150 m/sec, respectively, which correspond to the median estimates (logarithmic averages)
of V S30 that define the boundaries of each site class (BSSC 2009). These plots confirm that
there are no significant biases or trends between the residuals and those predictor variables
that were explicitly included in the GMPE. Similar results (not shown) were found for the
dip, rake, and depth to the top of the rupture plane and the hanging-wall term.
PREDICTED VALUES

Figure 2 compares the scaling of AIGM and CAVGM with magnitude and distance. These
plots clearly indicate that AIGM exhibits stronger attenuation and magnitude scaling effects
than CAV. Figure 3 compares the predicted site amplifications of AIGM and CAVGM with
respect to 30-m shear-wave velocity and sediment depth. These plots show that AI also exhibits generally stronger linear and nonlinear site effects than CAVGM. Notable exceptions are
for NEHRP Site Classes B and C (hard and soft rock) and for shallow sediment depths, where
the two IMs predict similar site amplification. A comparison of model coefficients in Table 1
shows that AIGM also exhibits stronger scaling in terms of buried reverse-faulting c7 ,
normal-faulting c8 , and hanging-wall effects c9 . Figure 4 shows that the stronger
nonlinear site effects translate directly into a greater dependence of the within-event and
total standard deviations on rock PGA according to the aleatory uncertainty model given
in Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008, 2010).
Figure 5 compares the AI relationship developed in this study [CB12] with the GMPEs
developed by Travarasou et al. (2003) [TBA03] and Foulser-Piggott and Stafford (2011)
[FPS11]. Each used a different version of the PEER strong motion database and different
functional forms. Travarasou et al. used a version of the PEER database that included earthquakes through 1999, prior to the completion of the NGA project. Foulser-Piggott and
Stafford used the same version of the PEER-NGA database that was used in this study
101

103

103

101

CAV
AI

10-1

101

M = 5.0

RRUP = 0 km
10

10-1

50

101

100

10-2
CAV
AI

10-2
100

101

Closest Distance to Rupture (km)

100
102

10-3
4.5

AI (cm/sec)

6.0

AI (cm/sec)

7.0

102

100

102

CAV (g-sec)

CAV (g-sec)

8.0

100

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

10-1
8.5

Moment Magnitude

Figure 2. Median predicted values of AIGM and CAVGM with respect to rupture distance RRUP
and moment magnitude (M) for vertical strike-slip faulting 90, surface rupture
Z TOP 0, NEHRP Site Class BC V S30 760 msec, and shallow sediment depth
Z 2.5 2 km. Note that the scales of the ordinate axes of AIGM (right axis) and CAVGM (left
axis) have been arbitrarily aligned to facilitate their comparison.

COMPARISON OF GMPEs FOR AI AND CAV

937

4.0

2.5
CAV
AI

3.0

Site Amplification

Site Amplification

3.5

2.5
D

2.0
1.5
C

1.0
0.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

Site Class B

0.0
10-2

10-1

0.5
0.0

100

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

Sediment Depth (km)

PGA on Rock (g)

Figure 3. Predicted site amplification for AIGM and CAVGM: (left) NEHRP Site Classes B, C, D,
and E (see text for associated values of V S30 ); (right) sediment depth Z 2.5 .
0.95

0.95
CAV
AI

Total Standard Deviation

Site Class B, C

Standard Deviation

Site Class B, C

0.75

0.55

E
Within-event

0.35
Between-event

0.15
10-2

10-1

PGA on Rock (g)

100

0.75
E

0.55

0.35

0.15
10-2

10-1

100

PGA on Rock (g)

Figure 4. Standard deviations (natural log units) for AIGM and CAVGM showing their dependence
on nonlinear site response for NEHRP Site Classes B, C, D, and E (see text for associated values
of V S30 ): (left) between-event and within-event standard deviations; (right) total standard deviations.

but without applying the selection criteria we used to enhance data reliability. FPS11 predicts
similar values of AI as CB12 for NEHRP Site Class D, with the exception of predicting
somewhat higher attenuation at small magnitudes. CB12 predicts lower values of AI
than FPS11 for NEHRP Site Class C at large magnitudes and near-source distances.
TBA03 exhibits different magnitude and distance scaling characteristics than the other
two relationships, particularly at small magnitudes, due primarily to its different functional
form. The total standard deviation from CB12 (this study) for linear site conditions is 0.83
independent of magnitude. For comparison, the total standard deviation from FPS11 for
linear site conditions is 1.05 for M 5.5 and 0.88 for M 7.5. The total standard deviation
from TBA03 ranges from 1.09 (high amplitude) to 1.30 (low amplitude) for M 5.5 and
from 1.05 (high amplitude) to 1.26 (low amplitude) for M 7.5 for site class C and from
0.93 (high amplitude) to 1.12 (low amplitude) for M 5.5 and from 0.87 (high amplitude)

938

K. W. CAMPBELL AND Y. BOZORGNIA

103

103

102

AI (cm/sec)

102

AI (cm/sec)

7.5

CB12
FPS11
TBA03

7.5

M = 5.5

101

100

M = 5.5

101

100
NEHRP C

10-1
100

NEHRP D
1

10

10

10-1
100

Closest Distance to Rupture (km)

101

102

Closest Distance to Rupture (km)

Figure 5. Comparison of the median AI relationship developed in this study [CB12] with those
developed by Travarasou et al. (2003) [TBA11] and Foulser-Piggott and Stafford (2011) [FPS11]
for strike-slip faulting: (left) NEHRP Site Class C V S30 525 msec; SC 1; (right) NEHRP
Site Class D V S30 255 msec; SD 1.

to 1.07 (low amplitude) for M 7.5 for site class D. In all cases, the standard deviation from our
AI GMPE is smaller than that of either FPS11 or TBA03.
CORRELATION

Table 2 lists the correlation coefficients between the within-event residuals of AIGM,
CAVGM, and PGA with respect to the within-event residuals of PGA, PGV, CAVGM, and
5%-damped response spectral acceleration (PSA). These correlation coefficients, in addition
to those calculated for PGV using residuals from the Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008) GMPE,
are plotted against period in Figure 6. These results show that AIGM is more weakly correlated
Table 2. Correlation coefficients of the within-event residuals of AI with respect to the
within-event residuals of CAV, PGA, PGV, and PSA
PSA
(T, sec)
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.050
0.075
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.40
0.50

AIGM
(cm/sec)

CAVGM
(g-sec)

PGA
(g)

PSA
(T, sec)

AIGM
(cm/sec)

CAVGM
(g-sec)

PGA
(g)

0.876
0.872
0.857
0.813
0.756
0.731
0.741
0.746
0.756
0.754
0.741
0.708

0.735
0.732
0.718
0.683
0.647
0.624
0.630
0.631
0.643
0.647
0.659
0.670

1.000
0.999
0.989
0.963
0.922
0.898
0.890
0.871
0.852
0.831
0.785
0.735

0.75
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
7.5
10.0

0.657
0.597
0.524
0.471
0.476
0.461
0.412
0.334
0.331

0.635
0.586
0.542
0.496
0.488
0.499
0.450
0.363
0.360

0.628
0.534
0.411
0.331
0.289
0.261
0.200
0.174
0.174

PGA
PGV
CAV

0.876
0.740
0.923

0.735
0.694
1.000

1.000
0.691
0.735

COMPARISON OF GMPEs FOR AI AND CAV

939

Correlation with PSA

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4
CAV
AI
PGA
PGV

0.2
0.0
10-2

10-1

100

101

Peirod (sec)

Figure 6. Correlation of the within-event residuals of AI, CAV, PGA, and PGV with respect to
the within-event residuals of PSA.

with PSA than PGA but more strongly correlated with PSA than PGV at short periods
T < 0.75 sec . The opposite trend is found at longer periods. Similar results were found
for CAVGM. Although not shown, the same trends are found for the total residuals.
A direct comparison between AIGM and CAVGM indicates that AIGM has somewhat stronger
correlation with PGV and PSA at short-to-moderate periods T < 1.5 sec . This trend is
reversed at longer periods with CAVGM having somewhat stronger correlation. Although
these differences are not large, they indicate that CAV has a somewhat more even distribution
of correlation with period than AI. The correlation coefficients with respect to PSA indicate that
both AI and CAV have a medium 0.30 0.49 to large 0.50 effect size (a measure of the
strength between variables) according to criteria proposed by Cohen (1988) and a moderate
0.40 0.59 to strong 0.60 effect size according to criteria proposed by Evans (1996).
This suggests that both of these IMs can be used to represent the damage-potential of a ground
motion record over a relatively broad range of natural periods. It should be noted that the quantification of effect size is subjective and other interpretations found from an online search give
thresholds as high as 0.5 for a moderate effect size and 0.7 0.8 for a strong effect size.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis shows that Arias intensity (AI) exhibits stronger amplitude scaling than
cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) for practically every term in the GMPEs. It also has
significantly higher between-event, within-event, and component-to-component standard
deviations. We believe that these differences are due to its dependence on the square rather
than the absolute value of acceleration (see Equations 1 and 2). The square of acceleration
leads to factor of two differences in the values of the logarithmic acceleration and the residuals compared to the absolute value of acceleration. This results in an increase in those AI
scaling properties that are dependent on amplitude, including the standard deviations. In fact,
as expected, we found that the total standard deviation of AI is almost a factor of two higher
than that for CAV (see Table 1), which can lead to significantly higher hazard (Bommer and
Abrahamson 2006). The references cited in the Introduction have found similar results.

940

K. W. CAMPBELL AND Y. BOZORGNIA

Compared to AI, the lower standard deviation and weaker sensitivity to amplitude suggests that CAV has a higher level of predictability (i.e., lower aleatory uncertainty) and less
sensitivity to uncertainty in the independent variables included in the GMPE (i.e., the physical parameters of the earthquake). Furthermore, CAV has only a slightly weaker correlation
than AI with respect to response spectral acceleration at short-to-moderate periods and a
similar to slightly larger correlation at longer periods. The smaller standard deviation and
less sensitivity to amplitude suggests that CAV is more predictable than AI and should
be considered as an alternative to AI in engineering and geotechnical applications where
the latter intensity measure is traditionally used.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) for providing a comprehensive ground motion database. We would also like to thank Brendon Bradley and an anonymous reviewer for providing comments that improved the manuscript.

REFERENCES
Abrahamson, N. A., and Youngs, R. R., 1992. A stable algorithm for regression analyses using
the random effects model, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 82, 505510.
Arias, A., 1970. A measure of earthquake intensity, in Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants,
R. J. Hansen (ed.), The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 438483.
Baker, J. W., 2007. Correlation of ground motion intensity parameters used for predicting structural and geotechnical response, Proc. 10th International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, Tokyo, J. Kanda, T. Takada, and H. Furuta (eds.),
Taylor & Francis, London, 7 pp.
Baker, J. W., and Cornell, C. A., 2008. Vector-valued intensity measures for pulse-like near-fault
ground motions, Eng. Struct. 30, 10481057.
Bommer, J. J., and Abrahamson, N. A., 2006. Why do modern probabilistic seismic-hazard analyses often lead to increased hazard estimates?, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96, 19671977.
Bozorgnia, Y., and Campbell, K. W., 2004. Engineering characterization of ground motion, in
Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering,
Y. Bozorgnia and V. V. Bertero (eds.), CRC Press, Boca Rotan, FL, pp. 5-15-74.
Bozorgnia, Y., Hachem, M. M., and Campbell, K. W., 2010. Ground motion prediction equation
(attenuation relationship) for inelastic response spectra, Earthq. Spectra 26, 123.
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), 2009. NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for
New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA P-750), 2009 edition, National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C.
Cabaas, L., Benito, B., and Herriz, M., 1997. An approach to the measurement of the potential
structural damage of earthquake ground motions, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 26, 7992.
Campbell, K. W., and Bozorgnia, Y., 2008. NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean
horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for
periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s, Earthquake Spectra 24, 139171.
Campbell, K. W., and Bozorgnia, Y., 2010. A ground motion prediction equation for the horizontal component of cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) using the PEER-NGA database,
Earthq. Spectra 26, 635650.

COMPARISON OF GMPEs FOR AI AND CAV

941

Campbell, K. W., and Bozorgnia, Y., 2011a. A ground motion prediction equation for JMA
instrumental seismic intensity for shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regimes,
Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 40, 413427.
Campbell, K. W., and Bozorgnia, Y., 2011b. Predictive equations for the horizontal component of
standardized cumulative absolute velocity as adapted for use in the shutdown of U.S. nuclear
power plants, Nucl. Eng. Des. 241, 25582569.
Campbell, K. W., and Bozorgnia, Y., 2012. Empirical correlation of standardized cumulative
absolute velocity (CAV) and seismic intensity based on the PEER-NGA database, Earthq.
Spectra, in press.
Campbell, K. W., and Duke, M., 1974. Bedrock intensity attenuation and site factors from San
Fernando earthquake records, Bull Seismol. Soc. Am. 64, 173185.
Chiou, B., Darragh, R., Gregor, N., and Silva, W., 2008. NGA project strong-motion database,
Earthq. Spectra 24, 2344.
Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Lawrence
Erbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Danciu, L., and Tselentis, G., 2007. Engineering ground-motion parameters attenuation relationships for Greece, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97, 162183.
Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI), 1988. A Criterion for Determining Exceedance of the
Operating Basis Earthquake, Report No. EPRI NP-5930, Palo Alto, CA.
Evans, J. D., 1996. Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., Pacific Grove, CA, 624 pp.
Foulser-Piggott, R., and Stafford, P. J., 2011. A predictive model for Arias intensity at multiple
sites and consideration of spatial correlations, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., DOI: 10.1002/
eqe.1137.
Jibson, R. W., 2007. Regression models for estimating coseismic landslide displacement, Eng.
Geol. 91, 209218.
Kayen, R. E., and Mitchell, J. K., 1997. Assessment of liquefaction potential during earthquakes
by Arias intensity, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE 123, 11621174.
Kramer, S. L., and Mitchell, R. A., 2006. Ground motion intensity measures for liquefaction
hazard evaluation, Earthq. Spectra 22, 413438.
Mackie, K., and Stojadinovic, B., 2001. Probabilistic seismic demand model for California highway bridges, J. Bridge. Eng., ASCE 6, 468481.
Pousse, G., Bonilla, L. F., Cotton, F., and Margerin, L., 2006. Nonstationary stochastic simulation
of strong ground motion time histories including natural variability: application to the K-Net
Japanese Database, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96, 21032117.
Sabetta, F., and Pugliese, A., 1996. Estimation of response spectra and simulation of nonstationary earthquake ground motions, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 86, 337352.
Stafford, P. J., Berrill, J. B., and Pettinga, J. R., 2009. New predictive equations for Arias intensity
from crustal earthquakes in New Zealand, J Seismol. 13, 3152.
Travasarou, T., Bray, J. D., and Abrahamson, N. A., 2003. Empirical attenuation relationship for
Arias intensity, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 32, 11331155.
Trifunac, M. D., and Brady, A. G., 1975. A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground
motion, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 65, 581626.
(Received 23 April 2011; accepted 5 October 2011)