Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Introduced in this paper are several alternative ground‐motion intensity measures ( IM s) that are intended for use in assessing the seismic performance of a structure at a site susceptible to near‐source and/or ordinary ground motions. A comparison of such IM s is facilitated by defining the “efficiency” and “sufficiency” of an IM , both of which are criteria necessary for ensuring the accuracy of the structural performance assessment. The efficiency and sufficiency of each alternative IM , which are quantified via (i) nonlinear dynamic analyses of the structure under a suite of earthquake records and (ii) linear regression analysis, are demonstrated for the drift response of three different moderate‐ to long‐period buildings subjected to suites of ordinary and of near‐source earthquake records. One of the alternative IM s in particular is found to be relatively efficient and sufficient for the range of buildings considered and for both the near‐source and ordinary ground motions.
Luco et al. (Tue,) studied this question.