Implications of Intensity Measure Selection for Seismic Loss Assessment of 3‐D Buildings

Present building‐specific loss assessment state‐of‐art involves the convolution of seismic hazard and building seismic demands. The latter is conditioned on spectral acceleration, Sa ( T 1 ), at the building's first mode as the ground motion intensity measure (IM) and is typically estimated by carrying out nonlinear dynamic analyses on a two‐dimensional (2‐D) model. By new proposals on the use of improved IMs that can introduce higher fidelity, the accuracy in loss estimation becomes an open question. In reply, we offer a uniform basis for comparing the loss estimates for a set of eight different scalar and vector IMs whose hazard can be predicted with existing GMPEs. Despite all eight being legitimate IMs, and despite the consistent use of conditional spectrum record selection, we find large differences in the estimated loss hazard. This points to the large uncertainty still lingering when connecting hazard to loss. Among the IMs considered here, the vector IMs and at least a scalar average of spectral accelerations showed a remarkable stability in their predictions for the three‐dimensional (3‐D) buildings, pointing to a potential for reliable applications.