## 4 Recommendation on Improving the Efficiency of Intensity Measures
### Ground Motion Database, Intensity Measures and Building Response
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**S. No** & **Number of Stories** & **Number of Bays** & **Fundamental Period(s)** \\ \hline  
\hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Structural properties of selected frames. The material models of concrete and steel employed in this study are _concrete02_ model [93] with linear tension softening and reinforcing steel with strain hardening ratio of 0.005. A description of the material models adopted for concrete and steel as well as values for each parameter are shown in Figure 4 and Table 4. The corresponding equations of motion are solved based on the finite-element method implemented in OpenSees [94]. All 2D-RC frames are assumed to be fixed at the column base. We apply the same dead load (DL)/live load (LL) combination to all the frames as (100%DL + 25%LL) to ensure equal contribution of inertial effects in the modal analysis of the frames. Figure 4: Material models for concrete (**left**) and steel (**right**) adapted from Opensees manual [94]. In the concrete model, \(f_{\text{pc}}\) stands for concrete compressive strength at 28 days and \(f_{\text{pc}}\) for concrete crushing strength. \(E_{o}\) and \(E_{\text{ts}}\) stand for initial elastic tangent and tension softening stiffness, respectively. \(e_{\text{psco}}\) and \(e_{\text{pscu}}\) are concrete strain at maximum and ultimate strengths, respectively. \(\lambda\) represents the ratio between unloading slope at ultimate strain and initial slope. \(f_{t}\) is the tensile strength of concrete. In the steel model, \(f_{y}\) stands for yield stress in tension, \(E_{o}\) is modulus of elasticity and \(b\) is the strain hardening ratio. The values adopted for concrete and steel models are given in Table 4.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Frame No. **} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Section**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Section ID**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Width [mm]**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Depth [mm]**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Total Longitudinal**} \\  & & & & & **Reinforcement Area [mm\({}^{2}\)]** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Frame \#3} & Beam & B1 & 250 & 500 & 904 (top), 452 (bottom) \\  & & C1 & 300 & 250 & 904 \\  & Column & C2 & 400 & 250 & 1206 \\  & & C3 & 230 & 200 & 678 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Frame \#9} & Beam & B1 & 300 & 400 & 1005 (top), 565 (bottom) \\  & & B2 & 300 & 600 & 2512 (top), 1206 (bottom) \\  & & C1 & 600 & 300 & 3000 (exterior), 4800 (interior) \\  & Column & C2 & 600 & 230 & 2700 (exterior), 3850 (interior) \\  & & C3 & 500 & 230 & 1356 (exterior), 2100 (interior) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Frame \#14} & Beam & B1 & 250 & 500 & 678 (top), 339 (bottom) \\  & & C1 & 700 & 250 & 3000 \\  & & C2 & 1200 & 250 & 5652 \\  & & C3 & 650 & 250 & 2412 \\  & & C4 & 1000 & 250 & 3768 \\  & & C5 & 6  
To simulate the response of a frame subjected to earthquake ground motion, we perform a nonlinear direct-integration time history analysis using the Newmark Scheme [95] to estimate the energy demand parameter (EDP). For the EDP, we use \"maximum inter-story drift ratio\" (ISD), which is more suitable for multi-degree-of-freedom structures [96]. Damage states and the corresponding drift ratio thresholds are defined depending on the seismic design level, performance level, and building typology (height, material or construction type) [97]. The correlations between IM and EDP are discussed in the next section.