Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Database analysis reveals counting methods and duration filtering shift cycle distributions across 275,000 seismic records, highlighting varied impacts on liquefaction and fatigue assessments.
This study presents a comprehensive set of earthquake ground motion cycle count datasets derived from the NGA‐West2 and NGA‐Sub databases. We applied peak counting, mean‐crossing, level‐crossing, and rainflow cycle counting methods to over 275,000 acceleration time series. Each method was applied to full and duration‐filtered time series, using thresholds based on accumulated Arias intensity (5%–95% and 5%–75%). We treated each component independently, which allows different component combination techniques to be applied. The datasets reveal that duration filtering significantly reduces the number of low‐amplitude cycles, while high‐amplitude cycles remain largely unaffected. Peak counting generally predicts the highest number of cycles, followed by level‐crossing, rainflow, and mean‐crossing the fewest, particularly in lower amplitude bins. The datasets are provided in both raw and binned formats, enabling flexible use in applications such as liquefaction triggering, structural fatigue assessment, and performance‐based earthquake engineering. The different datasets will allow researchers to select the one most appropriate for their application or site, or use multiple to account for epistemic uncertainty.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carlton et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: