Table 3 Comparisons of various IM in terms of efficiency, practicality and proficiency
From: Seismic fragility analysis for tall pier bridges with rocking foundations
Scenarios | Prototype | Rocking piers | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Moderate excitation | Strong excitation | ||||||||
IMs | b | \({\beta }_{\text{D}|\text{I}\text{M}}\) | \(\xi\) | b | \({\beta }_{\text{D}|\text{I}\text{M}}\) | \(\xi\) | b | \({\beta }_{\text{D}|\text{I}\text{M}}\) | \(\xi\) |
PGA | 0.752 | 0.630 | 0.838 | 0.289 | 0.786 | 2.717 | 0.141 | 0.340 | 2.417 |
PGV | 1.095 | 0.302 | 0.276 | 0.877 | 0.310 | 0.353 | 0.164 | 0.070 | 0.424 |
PGD | 0.538 | 0.607 | 1.128 | 0.220 | 0.866 | 3.944 | 0.030 | 0.106 | 3.590 |