Comparison of macroseismic-intensity scales by considering empirical observations of structural seismic damage

Abstract

In practice, seismic intensity is evaluated in accordance with a macroseismic-intensity scale recognized in the field of seismic engineering globally. The application of different seismic-intensity scales to evaluate the seismic damage of a specific structure due to an earthquake yields diverse results. On this basis, this study compared a few extensively used macroseismic-intensity scales. The results can be used as a reference to develop an international intensity scale. According to empirical structural-damage survey data from the Wenchuan earthquake (Mw = 8.0) that occurred on 12 May 2008 in China, the European Macroseismic Scale (EMS)-98, Medvedev, Sponheuer, and Karnik (MSK)-81, and Chinese Seismic Intensity Scale (CSIS)-08 intensity scales were utilized to evaluate the resulting damage. This study carried out a vulnerability analysis of typical structures, established vulnerability seismic-damage matrices, and mapped out vulnerability curves under different intensities. Our objective is to demonstrate that the use of multiple intensity scales can lead to very different intensity levels. The differences in the damage of typical structures under different intensity levels were obtained from an evaluation using the three aforementioned intensity scales. As a result, a calculation model of the mean damage index is proposed herein. Ultimately, this article conducted an analysis on the failure characteristics of typical structures in an earthquake and provided effective measures to improve seismic performance for future reference.

Precast Concrete Column Beam Connection Using Dowels Due to Cyclic Load

“…For cracks that occur more tightly in the beam area for monolithic connections (BN) when compared to 2-post precast connections (BG-1) and 4-post precast connections (BG-2). In the column, especially the lower column, the cracks that occur are more for the BG-1 and BG-2 precast joints when compared to the monolith (BN) connection [19][20][21][22].…”

NDSHA - The New Paradigm for RSHA - An Updated Review

“…So, when one performs the math in these conversions (or consults early comparative MMI -to -PGA tables as in Hays, 1980), one in fact does get an Intensity Value (integer) followed then by a decimal. When still further one does a literature search through time, one also finds: (a) a wide range of scales and indices describing natural hazards and their impacts (Blong 2003); (b) studies on "PGA-intensity relations with applications to damage estimation" (McCann et al, 1980;Li et al, 2020); and (c) an "instrumental intensity scale" format that is now reported on near-real time ShakeMaps (Wald et al, 1999a, b;Wald et al, 2019); and even now Ground Motion to Intensity Conversion Equations GMICEs. (Caprio et al, 2015, Cilia and Baker, 2015Cilia et al, 2017).…”

Risk Assessment of Population Loss Posed by Earthquake-Landslide-Debris Flow Disaster Chain: A Case Study in Wenchuan, China

“…In this study, the earthquake intensity used the classification result based on Chinese standards to analyze risks [11,51]. The measurements of earthquake intensity scales have great influences on earthquake prevention and disaster mitigation [76]. Many earthquake intensity scales have been used around the world, such as Environmental Seismic Intensity (ESI) [12,13,77], European Microseismic Scale (EMS) [14], the Chinese seismic intensity scale [11], shake map in America [78], Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) Instrumental Seismic Intensity [79], etc.…”