{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010619469026548672, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.53757225433526, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Comparison of Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Arias Intensity and Cumulative Absolute Velocity Developed Using a Consistent Database and Functional Form

Arias intensity (AI) and cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) have been proposed as instrumental intensity measures that can incorporate the cumulative effects of ground motion duration and intensity on the response of structural and geotechnical systems. In this study, we have developed a ground motion prediction equation (GMPE) for the horizontal component of AI in order to compare its predictability to a similar GMPE for CAV. Both GMPEs were developed using the same strong motion database and functional form in order to eliminate any bias these factors might cause in the comparison. This comparison shows that AI exhibits significantly greater amplitude scaling and aleatory uncertainty than CAV. The smaller standard deviation and less sensitivity to amplitude suggests that CAV is more predictable than AI and should be considered as an alternative to AI in engineering and geotechnical applications where the latter intensity measure is traditionally used.