## 2 Ground Motion Parameters
Upon analyzing the relationships depicted in Figure 1, it is evident that PGA is inadequate in capturing the important attributes of the earthquake it originated from. On the other hand, SED accurately measures the kinetic energy generated throughout the duration of the earthquake. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Metric Type** & **Parameter** & **Equation** & **Description** & **Refs. ** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Duration Metrics** offer \\ insight into cumulative \\ seismic effects \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Duration Metrics** offer \\ seismic effects \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Duration Metrics** offer \\ insight into cumulative \\ seismic effects \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & The total time during & \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Duration** \\ which the acceleration is \\ larger than a given \\ threshold value (default \\ is 5\% of PGA). \\ \end{tabular}  } \\ \cline{3-4}  & & & The interval of time over & \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Duration Metrics** offer \\ which a proportion \\ (percentage) of the total \\ Arias Intensity is \\ accumulated (default is \\ the interval between the \\ 5\% and 95\% thresholds). \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{4}{*}{-} & The total & \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Duration Metrics** the total \\ energy released during \\ an earthquake with \\ Richter Magnitude Scale. \\ \end{tabular}  } \\ \cline{3-4}  & & & Quantities the total & \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Duration Metrics** are \\ energy released during \\ an earthquake with \\ Richter Magnitude Scale. \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{4}{*}{\ \begin{tabular}{c} **Duration Metrics** are \\ energy released during \\ an earthquake with \\ Richter Magnitude Scale. \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{4}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Duration Metrics** are \\ **DurationSpectrum-based metrics, like acceleration spectrum intensity (ASI) and Housner Intensity (HI), offer additional sophistication by focusing on the frequency content of seismic records and their correlation with structural periods. ASI is crucial for short-period structures, emphasizing their sensitivity to high-frequency ground motions, while HI evaluates the integrated effects over a broader range of periods, making it highly effective for assessing nonlinear structural responses and damage correlations. The Housner Intensity is the most effective parameter for correlating the strength of seismic events with structural vulnerability. This conclusion has been supported by a series of nonlinear dynamic analyses conducted on various types of RC buildings [18,29,30]. In [29], the authors propose a relationship between the European Macroseismic Scale (EMS) and the Housner Intensity, indicating that for intensity levels up to V-VI on the EMS scale, there is little change in the Housner Intensity, as shown in Figure 2. At these lower intensity levels, significant structural damage does not occur, and the selection of intensity levels is primarily based on the effects of the earthquake on people and objects. For intensity levels greater than VI on the EMS scale, the distribution and extent of structural damage become critical for determining the value of the Housner Intensity. Figure 1: Comparison of specific energy density for earthquakes (**a**) Denali, Alaska, 2002 and (**b**) Chi-Chi, Taiwan, 1999 [29]. Figure 2: Relationship between the European Macroseismic Scale (EMS) and the Housner Intensity [29]. Duration metrics, including Uniform Duration (UD) and Significant Duration (SD), provide insights into the prolonged effects of seismic activity. These metrics emphasize the importance of sustained shaking in contributing to cumulative damage, especially for structures with time-dependent vulnerabilities. By accounting for the duration of motion exceeding specific thresholds, they complement amplitude-based and energy-based parameters, delivering a more holistic view of seismic intensity.